Judge rules California coffee shops must display cancer warnings

[Judi Lynn]

Source: The Hill/Associated Press


BY JOSH DELK - 03/29/18 06:08 PM EDT

A California judge ruled that Starbucks and other coffee sellers in the state will be required to warn customers that their coffees carry a cancer risk, according to the Associated Press.

In his decision, Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle said the companies failed to comply with a state law that requires businesses to warn customers about chemicals that could have negative health effects.

At issue is a chemical, acrylamide, which is produced while roasting coffee beans. It is classified as a weak carcinogen.

Berle said the companies had failed to prove those chemicals are harmless, according to the AP.

Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/380925-judge-rules-coffee-sellers-must-include-cancer-warnings-in-california

[bucolic_frolic]

1. Been going with light roast, cold brewed

Less acidic, milder taste, more even and lengthier caffeine effect

Probably less acrylamide too since not heated

[TheBlackAdder]

6. The lighter the coffee, the more acidic. Dark Roast blends are less acidic.

[3Hotdogs]

22. I believe South American is more acidic than African coffee.

I roast my own. Real dark 50% Kona and 50% Burundi ---SWEET.

[TheBlackAdder]

32. Nice. My brother-in-law roasts all kinds of special blends. I prefer Hawaiian and So. African beans.

[bucolic_frolic]

31. Wow

I picked up a brand of cold brewed coffee, I'm sure it said it was less acidic ... but that probably referred to the cold-brew rather than the roast. thanks

[lagomorph777]

29. I roast my own, very light - can't stand Charbucks

They incinerate the beans, and besides making them toxic, it makes the coffee taste horrible.

[procon]

2. Almost anything can be labeled as carcinogenic, but the question is

how much coffee would I have to consume before I was truly at risk? I'm more worried about what's in my drinking water than the two cups of coffee I drink in the morning.

[lagomorph777]

30. Right - at this point, everything is a carcinogen so screw it!

Coffee is essential for life (well, my life anyway). Just don't burn the shit out of it like Charbuck$ does. A lighter roast is safer and tastes better.

And coffee has a ton of benefits, such as helping to delay onset of Alzheimer's.

[PatrickforO]

3. Hmm. I have mixed feelings about this.

This is the problem with regulations like this. Starbucks will easily be able to print these required warnings - yes it will cost them, but they have so many stores in so many places that they will be able to absorb this regulatory cost with not even a blip to shareholder earnings.

Small, individually owned coffee shops, however - may be a different story. Because now that huge inventory of cups in the storage closet is useless unless you can get some label to affix to it. Plus, the small owner may not have that much money to be able to have his signage be redone. Generally, small businesses dislike regulations like this because they believe it costs them too much money and too much time. In fact, this is why most small business people consistently vote against their best interests (Republican).

I'm not saying regulation isn't good, and I'm not saying I know all the answers. It is just that stories like this are a bit troubling. I'm not going to stop drinking coffee, and certainly the fear of a weak carcinogen won't keep people from drinking the coffee they already drink.

[petronius]

17. It wouldn't have to be on the cup or package though; it could be a posted warning

at the cafe entrance, checkout, or shelf. As far as I can understand, it could be an 8.5 x 11" sign, with a specified wording and type size, posted at each door. Probably not too pricey at Kinkos or wherever. A waste of time and money to convey nearly-useless and certain-to-be-ignored info, but probably not a bank-buster. If they all get hit with damages for a past lack of warning, however, that could be punishing...

[former9thward]

4. This is the problem with judges with no science background ruling on science cases.

Soon almost everything in CA will have a cancer warning on it. Which will mean no one will pay attention to them and things people should really worry about will be ignored.

"Berle said the companies had failed to prove those chemicals are harmless, according to the AP." It is impossible to prove a negative. No one can prove that anything is harmless.

[Retrograde]

5. Thats already the case

Prop 65 - passed decades ago - was so vague that the signs became meaningless decades ago

[BuddhaGirl]

14. Yep - there were predatory lawsuits

as I recall, about Prop 65. I thought it was ridiculous when I first saw Prop 65 warning signs in the fine china section of Macy's.

[Crash2Parties]

18. " It is impossible to prove a negative."

Actually, it is often trivial to do so; it's basic critical thinking.

1. Posit something that is mutually exclusive to it.
2. Prove that second thing true.

But in the case of things like carcinogens, there are specific procedures & even legal thresholds that are used to determine at what level something causes cancer. They are problematic but constantly refined to become more and more accurate. If a particular coffee shows levels of a chemical over that threshold, then it is indeed carcinogenic.

[former9thward]

20. Ok, What is the threshold?

I won't hold my breath waiting.

[Crash2Parties]

34. For acrylamide, or coffee?

Who knows? The science on it ("it" being the Judge's decision) is cr*p. As in, "this would not pass peer review".

My only point was that it is possible to prove a negative, even in the case of acrylamide in coffee being proven a carcinogen.

However, I don't feel that science has (yet) done so.

In my opinion the judge erred greatly. Acrylamide is a slight carcinogen, based on rodent testing at 100-1000x greater levels than normally ingested.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4164905/

This is based on it being a slight oxidizer.

Coffee however, as a blend of hundreds of substances, is a rich source of antioxidants and antiradicals (less so with more roasting).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4665516/

Which, barring some very unexpected new finding, would counteract the very mild degree to which acrylamide is an oxidant.

Again, I feel the judge erred greatly. He stated the warning was needed b/c it has not been proven that coffee was not proven to not be a carcinogen.

But indeed, it has also not been proven to *be* a carcinogen, either.

[former9thward]

35. Good post.

[Spouting1horn]

23. Better safe than sorry.

.

[former9thward]

25. Never leave your home.

Better safe than sorry. If you want to bow to quack "science" go ahead.

[TheBlackAdder]

7. Over the years, there is a list of carcinogenic foods and beverages. Mushrooms, Red & White wine.

.

Perhaps, California wineries would like shoppers to know that their wines are the most carcinogenic things to drink.

.

[Honeycombe8]

9. I love The Black Adder series. I bought the DVD set. Excellent.

I esp loved the Christmas special.

[TheBlackAdder]

10. That Christmas Special is great!

.

I bought the Black Adder DVD collection on eBay, to replace my VHS tapes, and there were two Black Adder I's packaged inside and and no Black Adder II. I didn't open the thing until a couple months later, and realized I got burned by assuming it was a complete product. I couldn't return it, since it was over 30 days old. Lord Flasheart always makes me laugh. If you watch closely, you'll see several of The Young Ones star (Rick & Vyvyan).


Hey, check these two out:

.

[Honeycombe8]

11. LOL! nt

[petronius]

13. Not sure if they like it, but CA alcohol producers are required to provide the Prop 65

warning - in the case of alcohol, the producers provide signage to the retailers displaying the approved message. It should be present at every point of sale, but most people probably don't notice it because there's a Prop 65 warning on basically everything here in CA...

[Crash2Parties]

19. Makes you wonder what the cancer rate was before all those products...

We as consumers simply learn to accept the risk. Besides, it probably won't happen to *me*. And if it does it will be decades from now.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. Hundreds listed here - and hundreds that are claimed to prevent cancer. The overlap is high.

http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/

So, for instance, coffee has these articles:

coffee both causes and prevents cancer #
Coffee may raise child cancer risk: New evidence that caffeine could damage babies' DNA
How healthy is your cup of coffee?
Three cups of coffee a day 'can cut the risk of ovarian cancer'
Coffee, mobiles and breast implants 'WON'T give you cancer'...doctors debunk cancer myths
How coffee can help prevent liver cancer
How suncream made from coffee could prevent skin cancer
Could Chinese herbs and coffee cure cancer?
How healthy is your cup of coffee?
Coffee could stir your thirst for love
Drinking coffee 'can be good for you'

[Honeycombe8]

8. Ridiculous. Where are the warning labels on BEEF, a known cause of cancer.

Well, fatty beef. How about beef jerky?

[Igel]

12. When you brown carbohydrates, you get acrylamide.

It means crusts on bread.

It means browned pie crusts.

That means donuts and cinnamon rolls.

That means fried rice and chicken-fried anything.

Let's not even think about caramel. And creme brule.

And toast ... Order hash-browns with toast and the State of California will erect yellow warning signs around your plate and post armed guards.

[olddad56]

15. great idea. Lets post this in the sky for the air we breath...

on all of the water bottles for the water we drink,
at all of the grocery stores we shop at for the food we eat,
on all liquor containers,
at all gas stations,
etc, etc,etc.

[onetexan]

16. Don't think this is going to stop anybody from consuming coffee

i typically have 2 cups a day, sometimes more. I like it best via french press, though i have a Toddy (cold brew), 2 coffee traditional makers, and a Keurig my son gave me for Xmas. I donated my Tassimo, and have learned to make healthy homemade frappes that tastes better than McD's or Starbucks, with alot less calories.

[Drahthaardogs]

21. For Fucks Sake, asphalt had PAH's in it that are classified

As weak carcinogens. Shall we label that too?

[ProfessorGAC]

24. Or The Other Things In Asphalt

Like the sulfur or phosphorous substituted anthracenes. Of course, those are about as volatile as rock, so the vapor concentration is so low they couldn't create an exposure, even to the people putting it down as paving when it's hot.

But, it's there. Like you said, should we label every mile of asphalt all around the country?

[samnsara]

26. do we have surgeon generals anymore?

[paleotn]

27. LIFE is a cancer causing agent....

Geez, CA. I'm all for labeling major causes of cancer, but what's next? Signs at the beach warning of UV radiation? This is a prime case of an important and useful policy weakened by taking it to silly and ridiculous ends. Use your freaking heads, people.

[Nitram]

33. OK, I usually applaud California for being ahead of the curve, but this is a bridge too far.

Coffee shops should post a lengthy list of the well-documented benefits of coffee right next to the cancer warning.