Judge rules Starbucks must put cancer warning on Coffee in California
53 replies, posted
Starbucks and other coffee companies must put cancer warning on ..
A Los Angeles judge has ruled that Starbucks Corporation and other coffee companies must put a cancer warning label on coffee products sold in California because of a chemical produced in the roasting process.
Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle said in a proposed decision on Wednesday that Starbucks and other companies had failed to show that the threat from a chemical compound produced when roasting coffee was insignificant, court documents showed.
Starbucks declined to comment, referring to a statement by the National Coffee Association (NCA) saying the industry was considering an appeal and further legal actions.
Prop 65 strikes again.
i get suspicious of items that don't have a "this product contains chemicals known in the state of California to cause cancer" label on them.
Almost everything has a cancer warning on it here. From things like potato chips to fumes that may be present in/around certain buildings.
This ruling gave me brain cancer. I demand we add warnings to all court rooms.
Is this even effective? I saw it for the first time after I ordered some foam headphone covers and the cancer warning led me on a google trail only to find "lol it's on everything"
Put it over your fucking state already you absolute knob goblins
https://i.imgur.com/XDh9z7J.png
Makes sense, it's such a common thing to see anymore that when you finally DON'T notice it, you get suspicious. I know the feeling.
California gives the US cancer with this shit.
Everyone here in NJ always pokes fun at these labels, "Oh good thing I'm not drinking this coffee out west, I'd die!"
The worse part is, one of these days California is going to label something that actually gives cancer, and no one will pay attention to it.
Since when has the burden of proof worked like this? Why should they have to prove that the chemical doesn't cause cancer?
that's how prop 65 works in california
literally everything in the state has a prop 65 warning now
Its not really effective. Pretty much everything in the world can give you cancer in some form. Everything from tap water to the foam inside a couch cushion can give you cancer. Is it guaranteed or even a real chance to get cancer from your favorite potato chip? Probably not. But Prop 65 says everything needs to be labeled.
Did you know that drinking water can kill you? shocking.
Why do our legal codes need to account for moronic shit like this I have no idea.
100% of people who drink water will eventually die.
Ban water, California.
The Boy Who Cried Cancer
A story by the state of California
Does the judge give you cancer
When I was a kid my parents bought me a Spongebob fishing rod. The fishing rod had a label that said "This product may cause cancer in the state of California" lol
judge should rule cancer should be put across starbucks logo
This is about the chemical acrylamide, which is classified as a group 2A carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which means that animal testing has shown significant cancer risks while its impact on humans isn't well studied yet. It was discovered in hot food around 2002 and we still are not sure exactly how it gets there (though most suspect its part of the Maillard reaction), but it's extremely dangerous when found in concentrated quantities. In recent years health organizations have been growing more concerned about it, though as I said nobody really knows how bad limited ingestion of it really is yet. However, we do know its one of the carcinogens in cigarettes.
It takes about ~75 micrograms of the stuff (a day; also depending on weight) to cause neuropathy, and the amount in a single cup of coffee ranges from ~0.5 micrograms to ~4 micrograms.
So this article is about companies serving coffee not following the laws requiring the labeling of acrylamide, not some tyrannical government randomly trying to ban coffee. Some countries, like Canada in 2010, have already started requiring companies to reduce the concentration of it in foods.
Specifically:
In 2018, a judge in California ruled that the coffee industry had not provided sufficient evidence that acrylamide contents in coffee were at safe enough levels to not require a Proposition 65 disclaimer.
I don't see how this is unreasonable. The judge is requiring them to label everything that could possibly cause cancer - including something on a literal carcinogen list.
Thr caffeine in coffee will kill you before any carcinogens do.
Like you said, its not well studied in humans but the vast majority of people in the US drink coffee and dont succumb to cancer. To day its any sort of major cause os foolish. Its just one of the million things you interact with on a daily basis that may give you cancer when youre 80.
It's known to cause cancer in humans and people have been poisoned by the stuff in the past. The issue is that we don't know how it reacts while ingested in small quantities for humans - also animal testing was done with quantities far greater than what you'd normally consume daily.
Acrylamide in Coffee
However, the doses given to animals have been 1000–100,000 times larger than the amounts humans are exposed to through diet.
No shit you get cancer.
No it's not safe to say that. As more studies come out, more health organizations are growing concerned about it, first of all.
The problem we have is people like you reading terrible headlines about how bananas will kill you in e^4.1894 years or something similar when the study was never about that or claimed that would be the case.
He's choosing to ignore the facts and use feelings to argue instead. It's very similar how they did the monkey tests by just suffocating them and then claiming it's the marijuana doing it when it was just smoke inhalation.
I think California is slowly discovering that everything causes cancer, like getting cancer is inevitable for some people in life.
if you're going to claim that I'm ignoring facts when I was literally linking stuff then I'm not sure I'm the one living in a fantasy world here bud
Not sure what I'd be gaining from arguing with a deranged brick wall
This monster fart I am currently ripping in your name may transfer across the oceans and give you pinkeye. Should I put a label on my arse?
Cancer development doesn't require large amounts of carcinogens in one sitting though? We see that with cigarette smoke and many others. The point of the law is to label possible carcinogens, and this definitely meets that requirement.
Vitamins are potentially fatal in high doses when used over a period of time
the effect of high doses VS small doses are different, don't you agree?
There's not even the possibility of that though, the molecules that make up your fart would dissipate much like how homeopathy is literally just water. At this point you people are just making random shit up lol
He was... joking?
Should there be a warning on cast iron cookware "Warning, using this as intended can cause cancer"? Because a strong sear is a maillaird reaction which also causes those compounds as you said.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.