I'm not the only one to gripe about warning labels. Debra Saunders points out that people are so overwhelmed by warnings, they no longer know when to take them seriously.

Lockyer is pushing the acrylamide issue, Weil said, because it is the government's job to dispense information and let consumers decide if they care about a possible carcinogen...

Problem is, there are too many in-betweens -- some 750 other chemicals, according to Weil -- on the Prop. 65 list, and some of those chemicals are ubiquitous or naturally occurring.

As a result, consumers see so many warning signs they can't take them seriously. Even Lockyer isn't that alarmed. In a press release announcing the suit, Lockyer said, "I am not telling people to stop eating potato chips or French fries."

Now I ask you: If people shouldn't stop eating these foods, why post a warning? Michele Corash, a San Francisco attorney who represents five companies being sued by Lockyer, noted that there are so many warnings "we are immunizing the public to signs."

No lie. I've come down with a strong case of warning fatigue. I see the Prop. 65 signs not as valuable warnings, but as nagging. What else would you call a warning against doing something you do every day, like eating, or parking, or shopping?

And whatever I do, it must be wrong, because there's always a sign telling me that what I'm eating, drinking or buying is bad for me. If all of these things are so hazardous, why am I alive?

It's like the boy who cried wolf. And of course when you really do need to warn people, they aren't going to listen.