“Coffee Brewers and Servers Sued Under Prop 65″

by Walter Olson on May 22, 2011

The latest surprising application of California’s toxic-warnings law [Ken Odza]

{ 7 comments }

1 VMS 05.22.11 at 12:32 pm

The health effects of coffee consumption has been widely studied. Overall, coffee consumption has a beneficial effect, and with respect to cancer, has recently been shown to slightly reduce the probability of developing aggressive forms of prostate and breast cancer.

2 John Burgess 05.22.11 at 2:42 pm

@VMS: I agree. But wait a month and there will be a new study, warped beyond intelligibility by the media, identifying a new danger from coffee or caffeine. I think the trick is to drink coffee only when it’s deemed good, but to shun it elsewhile.

Omega-3, fish oil, is also showing some unfavorable relationship with aggressive prostate cancer. I guess guys are supposed to choose which they love more, their hearts or their…

3 robert 05.23.11 at 4:54 pm

Johan and VMS: If you read the linked-to article, you’ll see that this isn’t about coffee per-se, but an additive called acrylamide that the complainant claims is in “ready to brew” coffee at levels higher than some government specification. I have no opinion either way, but I thought I’d clarify before this thread gets too off track.

4 GregS 05.24.11 at 9:12 am

Acrylamide is not an additive to food; it occurs naturally in certain types of carbohydrate-rich foods as a side effect of heating them. If it’s in coffee, it’s probably there from the roasting of the beans, not because it got added during production of the coffee.

5 CarLitGuy 05.24.11 at 10:46 am

Prop 65 makes no distinction as to how the offending substance got into the product, only that its present. We should all carry Prop 65 warnings, because so many of our natural bodily processes create chemicals which require the prop 65 warning, for instance:

Estrogen, Progesterone, Testosterone and Carbon Monoxide, to name a few.

http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/prop65_list/files/P65single052011.pdf

Essentially, the State of California’s citizens ares known to the state of California to be a carcinogen.

6 E Garland 05.24.11 at 12:47 pm

CarLitGuy:

Yeah, but that only applies to Humans that might be prepared for consumption…

Oh, wait – are we also listed as a skin-contact carcinogen?

Another reason to break out the whole-body condoms…

7 CarLitGuy 05.24.11 at 1:53 pm

My understanding, and please don’t quote me, is that Prop 65 is not limited to potential food items. “To serve man” notwithstanding.

Comments on this entry are closed.