Coffee sold in California must carry cancer warning, judge rules(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Coffee sold in California must carry cancer warning, judge rules
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43594645
83 comments
The EU's cookie-law is often made light of here, but there's a difference between essential and non-essential cookies.
The non-essential cookie warnings for most intents and purposes can be read as "This site will track you".
Sites using essential cookies don't have to put up a warning.
Following third party links, I now often decide that particular content is not that important when the warning pops up. It also serves as a rudimentary filter for lower quality content.
So cookie warnings being everywhere tell me a tale about the sorry state of the Web, and not a joke about bureaucracy gone haywire.
The non-essential cookie warnings for most intents and purposes can be read as "This site will track you".
Sites using essential cookies don't have to put up a warning.
Following third party links, I now often decide that particular content is not that important when the warning pops up. It also serves as a rudimentary filter for lower quality content.
So cookie warnings being everywhere tell me a tale about the sorry state of the Web, and not a joke about bureaucracy gone haywire.
It probably does more harm than good since it detracts from the severity of actual warnings on products we know can be dangerous.
I have the same issue with the EU cookie law which while well intentioned it essentially trained a whole generation to accept an annoying pop up without reading or understanding it.
I have the same issue with the EU cookie law which while well intentioned it essentially trained a whole generation to accept an annoying pop up without reading or understanding it.
As non-residents of California, we're happy to hear that residents view these warnings the same way the rest of us do. It seems that _everything_ causes cancer in California.
I've read before that businesses take it much more seriously than people do. They will consider modify their products to remove the the need for warning labels. So the law can introduce changes. Here's an example of Coca-Cola modifying the formula for the caramel color in their soda: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/03/07/148075310/co...
Prop 65 lawsuits are a money-making venture. There are law firms that specialize in bringing these cases and they collect tens of millions of dollars in settlements each year.
I used to work for an eyeglass lens manufacturer. I remember having to set up a new label printing system to print labels that said "this product contains blah blah known to cause cancer blah blah". This was on eyeglass lenses. What's the exposure risk here? Eating them? Who eats their eyeglass lenses?
Maybe the exposure risk was from dust inhalation if the lenses were cut or ground to fit a pair frames. Though point taken - prop 65 warnings are on everything. I still choose to enter parking garages.
I bought an iPhoneX case from Amazon (UK) for my partner and it came with the same warning.
As a resident of Oregon, I notice a curious pattern wherein shitty knockoff or generic products are more likely to carry the warnings, and the warnings don't say which ingredients caused the warnings to be issued. Doing reading on various product ingredients is interesting; in many cases, the manufacture of the product is hazardous to the workers, and so I have begun to see Prop 65 stickers as telling me that the laborers who produced the product worked in unsafe conditions.
In the specific case of coffee, it seems that this ruling was quite reasonable on the facts, up to the still-open question of whether acrylamide really should be considered carcinogenic.
In the specific case of coffee, it seems that this ruling was quite reasonable on the facts, up to the still-open question of whether acrylamide really should be considered carcinogenic.
There must be another nefarious goal behind the lawsuit. When there is need to fight the government on so many more critical issues, why would a non profit choose to waste time and money on something so pointless ? Need to dig deeper
As a consumer, I want to know the risks posed by what I buy and consume. Part of the (predictable) response to this is because its coffee. If it were, say, water bottles, cooking pots, or drinking straws; or if it were keyboards, cell phones, or socks-- the response would likely be different.
The problem is that the labels do not give us any idea of the absolute risks involved, and so, yeah, they are all ignored. A 3-4 level color coded warning would be much more useful, perhaps with a link to something more informative.
The problem is that the labels do not give us any idea of the absolute risks involved, and so, yeah, they are all ignored. A 3-4 level color coded warning would be much more useful, perhaps with a link to something more informative.
But what else is the Council for Education and Research on Toxics going to do with their time?
I once saw:
"This sign was printed with materials known by the state of California to cause ..."
"This sign was printed with materials known by the state of California to cause ..."
*these warnings brought to you by the National Tea Council (not really)
I think it's a way to shift liability to the consumer.
[deleted]
The lawsuit was filed in 2010 and says coffee sellers should pay fines of up to $2,500 (£1,800) for every person exposed to acrylamide in California since 2002.
The next phase of the trial will determine the exact penalties, but some companies have reportedly agreed to settle and post warnings about the chemical.
A great example of how much bad regulations can cost businesses, or even good regulations applied badly.
A great example of how much bad regulations can cost businesses, or even good regulations applied badly.
At this point, there should probably just be a generic "THIS PRODUCT IS KNOWN TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO CAUSE CANCER" sticker that companies can stick on pretty much anything they sell there. <eyeroll>
The list of warned substances includes hormones naturally produced by the body.
WARNING: This human being contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.
WARNING: This human being contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.
Have you ever seen human-cancer or birth defects come from anything but a human? Hmm? HMMM?
Feces are produced by the human body, too. Should you be eating them?
Just because something is also produced by the human body or is "natural" doesn't mean it is good for humans to ingest, especially in significant quantities over long periods of time.
Just because something is also produced by the human body or is "natural" doesn't mean it is good for humans to ingest, especially in significant quantities over long periods of time.
Consider that you had to go to the other extreme end of the scale to make your point.
I get the sarcasm, but would this be legal? It's satire if it's not actually known as a carcinogen, and a legal requirement if it is. It would dilute the warning in the public's perception, but companies might find it cheapest and easiest to just stick it on everything.
The “warning” is already as diluted as the coffee in question, and has been seen by many as a joke for years now.
If something is carcinogenic is always a matter of volume. Most things are carcinogenic if consumed in quantities large enough. Most things carcinogenic if aerosolized and inhaled. Most things are carcinogenic if left on your skin long enough.
Anything can be a carcinogen if ground finely enough and inhaled.
The latest is maple syrup it now has to have a warning it "may contain lead".
Which is I think is an inflammatory way to phrase it. There should be a level shown: "This product has lead levels of 11ppb, California drinking water has lead levels of 11ppb".
edit: Oh and apple seeds naturally contain cyanide, bananas have radioactive potassium-40, fish has mercury and on and on.
Which is I think is an inflammatory way to phrase it. There should be a level shown: "This product has lead levels of 11ppb, California drinking water has lead levels of 11ppb".
edit: Oh and apple seeds naturally contain cyanide, bananas have radioactive potassium-40, fish has mercury and on and on.
Thanks to the FUD from water filtration companies, the public seems to think that any lead is dangerous.
When does it become easier to label the things not known to the state of California to cause cancer?
Gotta find a product first.
"The production of cancer warning labels for California produces as much pollution as one large charcoal power plant."
Should just start including it with bar code stickers in general.
Interesting that no one thinks to blame the researchers for this predicament. The truth is that the way carcinogenesis is tested nearly everything will lead to cancer in some dose (the same way that drinking water will kill you if you drink enough at once). This isn't even news, eg 1990: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC54830/
These goofy california signs are just a symptom of the underlying crappy research. It is what happens if you actually take these "discoveries" seriously.
These goofy california signs are just a symptom of the underlying crappy research. It is what happens if you actually take these "discoveries" seriously.
I'll never forget scrolling through google news a few years back. There were two articles that were grouped together but with slightly different headlines:
Recent study shows that coffee extends life
Recent study shows that coffee causes cancer
The situation is ironic, but there's an even higher level of irony in relation to cancer. In some contexts, NOT detecting cancer gives statistically better life quality and/or expectancy.
According to current statistics, testing methods (X-ray) are slightly harmful by minutely increasing risk of cancer, and the resulting overdiagnosis of benign tumors unleashes harsh medication on some people who'd otherwise have had happily lived their lives to natural lifespan without any significant symptoms or discomfort.
Plenty of literature on the internet, first few hits from Google: https://www.city-journal.org/html/stop-overscreening-cancer-... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4415291/
and a recent discussion on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16500924, in particular https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16502246
According to current statistics, testing methods (X-ray) are slightly harmful by minutely increasing risk of cancer, and the resulting overdiagnosis of benign tumors unleashes harsh medication on some people who'd otherwise have had happily lived their lives to natural lifespan without any significant symptoms or discomfort.
Plenty of literature on the internet, first few hits from Google: https://www.city-journal.org/html/stop-overscreening-cancer-... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4415291/
and a recent discussion on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16500924, in particular https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16502246
This type of research is just BS to begin with. The way they collect and analyze the data is only capable of generating conflicting evidence while never leading to cumulative knowledge. The method is called NHST (null hypothesis significance testing).
The main issue is that a null hypothesis is tested rather than any real hypothesis, then they try to draw conclusions about the real hypothesis (yes it is a simple strawman argument). These problems are well known, yet it continues. I was trained to do it not too long ago.
The main issue is that a null hypothesis is tested rather than any real hypothesis, then they try to draw conclusions about the real hypothesis (yes it is a simple strawman argument). These problems are well known, yet it continues. I was trained to do it not too long ago.
A daily habit does not strike me as moderation
Fair point. I'm comparing myself to the people who say they have 4 or 5 cups a day... My coffee drinking habit is fairly tame in comparison. But I can't disagree with your point of view either.
Exactly what I was going to say.
Moderation doesn't just mean you should have 100-200g of something every day.
The effects on your body from a daily dose of 200g of broccoli vs 200g of fish vs 200g/ml of Coke vs 200g of sugar vs 200g/ml of whisky are going to be very different.
Doctors used to (still do) say that 1 glass of wine a day is fine, and that is considered "moderation" but others now say that you should probably drink alcohol at most once a week to give your liver time to recover and heal completely, because alcohol is toxic. So basically no amounts are really "fine" or should be considered as "moderation". But at least if you give it time to heal that may just work - but still not ideal for your body.
A video expanding on this:
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/everything-in-moderation-ev...
And another article giving some examples for why "everything in moderation" is a bad idea:
http://www.trishamandes.com/blog/2014/5/5/3-reasons-why-ever...
Moderation doesn't just mean you should have 100-200g of something every day.
The effects on your body from a daily dose of 200g of broccoli vs 200g of fish vs 200g/ml of Coke vs 200g of sugar vs 200g/ml of whisky are going to be very different.
Doctors used to (still do) say that 1 glass of wine a day is fine, and that is considered "moderation" but others now say that you should probably drink alcohol at most once a week to give your liver time to recover and heal completely, because alcohol is toxic. So basically no amounts are really "fine" or should be considered as "moderation". But at least if you give it time to heal that may just work - but still not ideal for your body.
A video expanding on this:
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/everything-in-moderation-ev...
And another article giving some examples for why "everything in moderation" is a bad idea:
http://www.trishamandes.com/blog/2014/5/5/3-reasons-why-ever...
I have been wondering about this for a while about coffee and energy drinks as well. Is one a day already addiction? I have a co-worker who has a Red Bull every day and he pointed to an article that said, one per day is fine. To me it seemed way too much. Maybe moderation is once a week?
>Is one a day already addiction?
Absolutely yes. I have only a cup of coffee (or the equivalent caffeine via tea) per day and get killer headaches if I skip a day. Whether this is okay or not, I'm not sure. I usually see articles saying three or four hundred milligrams is okay, but that seems like a lot to me (that's a few cups a day depending on how you measure your cups).
Absolutely yes. I have only a cup of coffee (or the equivalent caffeine via tea) per day and get killer headaches if I skip a day. Whether this is okay or not, I'm not sure. I usually see articles saying three or four hundred milligrams is okay, but that seems like a lot to me (that's a few cups a day depending on how you measure your cups).
I have several cups of coffee per weekday morning and I don't even notice when I skip a day (I don't drink it on weekends since it's more of a work ritual.)
Am I addicted?
Am I addicted?
Same here. I also drink on week-ends but forgot once to bring coffee to the office for for days and did not care.
Well an addiction is when you are physically or mentally dependant on something. It doesn’t matter how much you have a day or week, it matters what happens if you don’t have it.
Moderation is entirely related to how much your body can handle.
Is a glass of water a day excessive?
Is a glass of water a day excessive?
> Acrylamide is created when starchy foods are roasted
Does this mean that potatoes should come with a warning? And bread?
Does this mean that potatoes should come with a warning? And bread?
Yep, recently there was a small uproar here in Belgium when the EU wanted restrictions on the baking of fries because of this exact reason.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/20/chips-are-down...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/20/chips-are-down...
Specifically thought to be caused by the Maillard reaction, which includes grilled / seared foods
harshreality(5)
Anecdote Alert!
A very knowledgeable Chinese doctor (acupuncturist, trained on the mainland)warned me of this decades ago.
She said that for my body type, coffee was extremely bad. She explained (in her broken English)that the coffee contained "fire" due to the way the beans were processed and that this could make me more susceptible to cancer. Grilled food was also a no-no (for me). Baked & fried foods? For most people, fuggedaboudit!
I can't help but notice the latest research is beginning to show exactly what she told me all those years ago.
She said that for my body type, coffee was extremely bad. She explained (in her broken English)that the coffee contained "fire" due to the way the beans were processed and that this could make me more susceptible to cancer. Grilled food was also a no-no (for me). Baked & fried foods? For most people, fuggedaboudit!
I can't help but notice the latest research is beginning to show exactly what she told me all those years ago.
My very knowledgeable statistics professor (my professor beats your doctor) told me that extraordinary claims ("fire" content from grilling causing cancer) require extraordinary evidence (say, some science behind)
There is a certain point where safety warnings become meaningless.
Californian carcinogens are far past this point.
Californian carcinogens are far past this point.
I think they've set the bar so low that the warning is meaningless to consumers.
Reading the comments here it strikes me that apparently noone agrees with this decision as apparently in California a lot of products seem to carry such cancer warnings. I'm not living in California, but is this true, do you have examples? Just curious.
Many building in California, including apartments, will carry the warning label if they were built before a certain year and if lead paint may have been used inside in the past. Even if the lead paint has been removed.
Many fast food drive thrus will have the sticker on the drive thru window due to the preservatives used in some of the food and the components used in the cooking process.
Disneyland has signs bearing the warning through out the park.
Many fast food drive thrus will have the sticker on the drive thru window due to the preservatives used in some of the food and the components used in the cooking process.
Disneyland has signs bearing the warning through out the park.
This was a voter passed proposition, which changed our constitution to require this signage.
The proposition wasn’t super well written, and it quickly became apparent that basically everything has to be labeled as possibly causing cancer. Unfortunately, since it’s in our constitution, it’s nearly impossible to change now.
The only winner here is the lawyers.
The proposition wasn’t super well written, and it quickly became apparent that basically everything has to be labeled as possibly causing cancer. Unfortunately, since it’s in our constitution, it’s nearly impossible to change now.
The only winner here is the lawyers.
Wait till California finds out about the radioactivity of bananas.
I wonder how many people were drinking coffee in the court room during this trial.
Comment section on The Hill’s article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16712820
If I'm reading this right, 425 cups of coffee a day might cause cancer. But I've also read that 70 cups will immediately kill you.
I get the impression that trial lawyers must have spent a lot of money on Prop 65 advertising during that election cycle.
what about potatoes and toast?
Another consequence of legislation by ballot initiative.
One of the downsides of ballot initiatives is not only you can pass silly laws via fear mongering, but it is also impossible to repeal them
Soon companies will be trying to get these labels as a sign that their product is delicious. A bit like "Parental Advisory" stickers on CDs.
Do the people behind this lawsuit truly in good-faith believe such warnings for coffee will make the world better? (It seems hard to imagine.) Or are there other motivation at play here?