And fittingly, both of those categories are pretty much a perfectly overlapping venn diagram because they are so overarchingly vague.
Drinking water can kill you, and if it's too hot, it causes cancer.

Therefore "drinking water" is something that can be found it both lists. And so is "not drinking water".

I never said they weren't in the same category. To act like implying the risks of nitrates are identical to asbestos is insane and just makes people ignore these warnings.

There is a need to differentiate the level of risk because if you don't people are going to think the 10,000kg bomb is the same danger as a Glock when in reality they abso-fucking-lutely not.

It's disingenuous, you're right that context matters because displaying the two as if they're the same strips the risk assessment of its context.

Everyone knows bacon isn't good for you, nitrates aside the un*saturated fats are horrendous for you.

If you're eating bacon you're already doing it knowing it's bad for you.

We should save the prop65 warnings for things that actually need it. They're already way oversaturated and have lost all meaning to the vast, vast majority of consumers.

That's what I'm saying, putting nitrates next to hardcore carcinogens like asbestos makes the hardcore carcinogens look less harmful than they actually are.

They need to differentiate the levels of harm or else it's just another warning that people will ignore because it's on literally everything.