• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge rules coffee sold in California requires cancer labels

H

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,746
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Starbucks and other coffee purveyors probably will have to use warning labels on coffee after a Los Angeles judge ruled that they failed to prove they should be exempt from a California law on carcinogens and toxic chemicals.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Elihu M. Berle wrote in a tentative decision this week that the coffee companies did not meet their burden to prove that there was a safe level of consumer exposure to a chemical compound created in roasting coffee.
.
.
.
The coffee industry has contended that it is impossible to eliminate acrylamide without affecting flavor, and that the exposure is harmless to consumers.

Raphael Metzger, the attorney for the nonprofit Council for Education and Research on Toxics, the plaintiff in the case, said he hoped the judge's decision would push the companies to agree to reduce acrylamide levels in coffee.

"I would very much prefer that, when my addiction compels me to drink coffee, I can drink acrylamide-free coffee," he said. "They just don't want to change. They want to keep doing business the way they have been doing."
Click to expand...
Judge rules coffee sold in California requires cancer labels

This is what gives government a bad name.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Judge rules coffee sold in California requires cancer labels

This is what gives government a bad name.
Click to expand...

They passed proposition 65 some years ago. Now every building, every gas pump, every store and restaurant has a sign warning you that certain chemicals on the premises may cause cancer. Its like a crack in the sidewalk - you don’t even see it unless you look for it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_65_(1986)

Same old ****. Only the flies are different.
 
chuckiechan said:
They passed proposition 65 some years ago. Now every building, every gas pump, every store and restaurant has a sign warning you that certain chemicals on the premises may cause cancer. Its like a crack in the sidewalk - you don’t even see it unless you look for it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_65_(1986)

Same old ****. Only the flies are different.
Click to expand...

Sure......more warning pollution......THAT'S THE TICKET!

Now if only the State of California could do something useful, like perhaps keep the dams in a state of good repair.

WHAT AN IDEA!
 
Seems harmless to me unless your goal is to be uninformed.
 
And they should keep this coffee from being sold to minors. They can't understand the gravity of purchasing such a product.
 
We already have a crisis of confidence in our governments, institutions, and scientists. Maybe this is my second soy latte talking, but why risk incurring the wrath of the nation to prove a nanoscale point? Why cast the country into even more confusion by overreacting about a beverage consumed by Americans on the order of 2.1 cups per day per person? We need to be restoring the public's trust, building confidence, taking measured steps to real science-based threats, not causing hysteria over an extreme unlikelihood.
Click to expand...
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/30/opinions/california-cancer-coffee-label-wheeler/index.html

File Under: WE HAVE GOT TO RELEARN HOW TO PRIORITIZE!
 
AliHajiSheik said:
And they should keep this coffee from being sold to minors. They can't understand the gravity of purchasing such a product.
Click to expand...

That is the logical extension.

Which means most cola and energy drinks fall under this category.
 
zimmer said:
I’d rephrase it saying... activist judges... that’s what gives the Judiciary a bad name.
Click to expand...
The judge was interpreting legislation that requires companies using any chemicals on a specific list (including the chemical used in coffee) to disclose it. They were arguing they should be exempt, even though the statute apparently has limited exemptions. Do you disagree with his/her legal analysis?

I haven't read the decision, but as summarized it would seem more "activist" to just start creating exemptions from a statute that don't exist on the face of it. If the legislature wants to change the statute, they can and should do so.
 
Last edited:
They didn't invent a new law here, so there was no activism. They were just enforcing an old law that required food and drink companies to list certain chemicals in their products. Acrylamide does indeed cause cancer but the other food industries have been able to remove some of it through different manufacturing processes over the years. Since the coffee companies failed to do that, I don't see why they should be exempt from disclosure laws.

One of the first things they tell you when you get chemotherapy is to stop drinking coffee, as it's a well known source of carcinogens. Maybe in 50 years this will be common knowledge, just like how cigarettes are now.
 
Cameron said:
The judge was interpreting legislation that requires companies using any chemicals on a specific list (including the chemical used in coffee) to disclose it. They were arguing they should be exempt, even though the statute apparently has limited exemptions. Do you disagree with his/her legal analysis?

I haven't read the decision, but as summarized it would seem more "activist" to just start creating exemptions from a statute that don't exist on the face of it. If the legislature wants to change the statute, they can and should do so.
Click to expand...

Seems fair... but how long has that list been in existence?

If it’s been for a substantial amount of time, then one has a wee bit of a problem, and it smacks as political activism.

I wonder... as noted above... will they have to do like kind with Cola’s and energy drinks?

Excuse me while I go make a coffee.
 
zimmer said:
I’d rephrase it saying... activist judges... that’s what gives the Judiciary a bad name.
Click to expand...

Not really, he just wants consumers to be aware. No big deal. I think there are warning labels on every bottle of booze too. Reading the title, I had a gut reaction too, but it is all good. As long as I have a choice whether to drink coffee or not, let them label it. I'll take my chances.
May be the ruling will encourage the roasters to come up with a safer alternative.
 
Cameron said:
The judge was interpreting legislation that requires companies using any chemicals on a specific list (including the chemical used in coffee) to disclose it. They were arguing they should be exempt, even though the statute apparently has limited exemptions. Do you disagree with his/her legal analysis?

I haven't read the decision, but as summarized it would seem more "activist" to just start creating exemptions from a statute that don't exist on the face of it. If the legislature wants to change the statute, they can and should do so.
Click to expand...

I agree -- this is a case where a California judge is actually enforcing the law as written. It's a badly written law -- but the recourse is to ask the legislature to fix it.

A couple of notes: 1) The chemical is produced in trace amounts in the roasting of coffee, roasting of potatoes, and burnt toast. It's been shown to produce cancer in some rodents, but no evidence that it causes cancer at those levels, or in humans at all. 2) the motivation is probably buried in the last paragraph, which will make the penalty phase of this trial very interesting:

The law allows for as little as a cent and up to $2,500 for each time a consumer was exposed to the chemical without being warned...
Click to expand...
 
zimmer said:
Seems fair... but how long has that list been in existence?

If it’s been for a substantial amount of time, then one has a wee bit of a problem, and it smacks as political activism.

I wonder... as noted above... will they have to do like kind with Cola’s and energy drinks?

Excuse me while I go make a coffee.
Click to expand...

It's a specific chemical produced in roasting coffee, frying potatoes, and burnt toast. So this specific issue shouldn't apply to cola products, but could pose a problem for restaurants that serve french fries or breakfast.

The law was passed in 1986, and included 850 known or suspected carcinogens. So, this has been around for a while. The people pressing the issue are without question, political activists. However, it sounds like the judge is enforcing a law that had good intentions, but wasn't thought out. (Pretty common for California).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom