Illegal snacking.

I was getting to the bottom of a bag of healthy snacks. You can tell they're healthy because they feature the words "good" and "health" and "veggie" right on the front. 

These potato-based snacks also claim to have 30% less fat than regular potato chips, and yet they are still tasty. But are they actually healthy? I wonder. Well, they're tasty.

Here's the thing that shocked me most, seen on the back of the back as I crumpled it up:

"Not for Sale in California"? What the hell?

The Good Health brand is owned by Utz, purveyors of fine snacks, and the fine slogan "Make Utz Yours." Utz potato chips are my wife's fallback to Lay's; they also own Bachman pretzels and a number of other solid brands. Nothing wrong with them. Why the hate from California?

California has some weird rules and wants to dictate policy to the rest of the country by virtue of its size. If CA says no toluene in nail polish, the cosmetics companies must go along or lose access to the 39.5 million men and women in the state. And I do mean men, because there are probably more men in California wearing nail polish than there are women in Ohio. Other states may look to the federal government for that kind of action, but Cali likes to throw its weight around. 

But why would CA make Veggie Stix illegal?

It turns out that California is having a little hissy fit over acrylamide. "Consuming this product can expose you to chemicals including acrylamide, which are known to the state of California to cause cancer. Acrylamide is a chemical that can form in some foods during high-temperature cooking processes, such as frying, roasting, and baking," according to the warning of its Proposition 65. Either the state is preventing the sale of Veggie Stix, or the Utz people don't want to have to put the word CANCER on its food (which would be on bags sold nationwide), or Utz is just sick of hearing lots of YAK YAK YAK from California. And since the whole state is run by Karens, who would? But as JD Supra noted last year, regarding a suit by the state's Chamber of Commerce: 

Although acrylamide has been shown to cause cancer in mice and rats, there is debate on whether studies actually show that greater consumption of acrylamide in food increases the risk of cancer in humans.  The Chamber’s lawsuit therefore argues that compelling businesses to provide a warning that acrylamide is “known” to the State of California to cause cancer violates their First Amendment rights, because consuming food with acrylamide is not “known” to cause cancer in people.

As usual, California has gone it alone, hoping to be a beacon to light the way to the rest of the nation. And indeed, if the rest of the nation wants to have revolving-door DAs, thousands of drug addicts camped on the streets, crumbling roads and bridges, bullet trains no one wants, a dying or fleeing middle class, unrestricted illegal immigration, and a new feudal class, then yes, let's all follow California's example in all things. Meanwhile, Utz can sell its potato chips in California with all that extra fat, but God forbid you should have more than 140 micrograms per day of acrylamide. You'd be spitting cancerous cells if you ate 141 micrograms. 

(BTW: 140 micrograms = 0.14 milligram. There are 28,400,000 micrograms in one ounce. Obviously acrylamide is the most toxic substance in the history of chemistry.)

Not to pile on, but California is the same state that's famous for being unable to supply its own electricity and yet is banning the sale of portable gas-powered generators. It really must enjoy the feudal past, because it is planning to condemn its citizens to the Dark Ages. Or at least its poorer citizens; the wealthy will have large non-portable generators on their estates. 

I'm glad that California has nothing better to do with its time, but I think it ought to consider taking a long nap and perhaps rethinking its priorities. I don't know, it may be too far gone. Maybe we should just wall it off.