Many might be surprised to learn that there has been a long-running dispute in California over whether or not morning cups of coffee should come with cancer warnings. From packaged coffee beans to coffee-house lattes and mochas, one non-profit, the Council for Education and Research on Toxics (CERT), believes the public should be made aware of “the cancer-causing chemical acrylamide” floating around in their cups of joe. In its quest to warn the public, CERT filed a lawsuit against more than 90 companies, including Starbucks, retail shops, and grocery stores.
Many might be surprised to learn that there has been a long-running dispute in California over whether or not morning cups of coffee should come with cancer warning labels. From packaged coffee beans to coffee-house lattes and mochas, one non-profit, the Council for Education and Research on Toxics (CERT), believes the public should be made aware of “the cancer-causing chemical acrylamide” floating around in their cups of joe. In its quest to warn the public, CERT filed a lawsuit against more than 90 companies, including Starbucks, retail shops, and grocery stores.
Why exactly did they file the lawsuit, though? Why not just raise awareness about the cancer-causing chemical? Well, according to CERT, the companies they listed in the suit “failed to follow a state law requiring warning signs about hazardous chemicals.”
According to court documents, CERT claims “roasted coffee beans contain low levels of acrylamide which is also found in cooked foods such as french fries.” In filing the lawsuit, CERT hopes that one day the chemical will be completely removed from coffee, according to Raphael Metzger, a lawyer for CERT. He said:
“I’m addicted — like two-thirds of the population. I would like the industry to get acrylamide out of the coffee, so my addiction doesn’t force me to ingest it.”
CERT also pointed to the “Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, passed by voters as Proposition 65 in 1986” as cause to file the lawsuit. Under the Act, “private citizens, advocacy groups, and attorneys can sue on behalf of the state and collect a portion of the civil penalties.” But not everyone agrees that Proposition 65 applies to CERT’s case. In a recent statement, Defense attorney James Schurz said:
“It is hard to imagine a product that could satisfy this exemption if coffee does not. The answer to the question of whether Proposition 65 requires coffee to carry a cancer warning must be an emphatic ‘No.’”
So how has the California coffee industry responded to the lawsuit so far? Well, as previously mentioned, this has been a long-running dispute. However, the industry has at least “acknowledged the presence of the chemical, but argued the trace amounts of acrylamide found in coffee are too insignificant to cause a health risk and are outweighed by benefits from drinking coffee.” The industry also pointed to other examples of food that has trace amounts of the chemical in question, including “toast, cereals, roasted asparagus and baby food.”
Additionally, the industry also pointed to a “study published in July by the American College of Physicians” that revealed “coffee drinkers had a lower risk of death from a number of deadly diseases.”
The industry’s claims and arguments didn’t stop it from losing the “first round in the case, which kicked off in 2010,” though. Since losing the first round two years ago, two companies agreed to a settlement and began posting warnings on their coffee products. “BP West Coast Products, agreed to pay $675,000, while Yum Yum Donuts agreed to pay nearly $250,000.”
If nothing else, this will certainly be an interesting case to watch unfold.
Sources:
Coffee sold in California could soon carry cancer warnings
Coffee sold in California could soon carry cancer warning labels
Join the conversation!