Responding to a lawsuit from a non-profit toxic chemicals watchdog group, a superior court judge in California has issued a preliminary judgment that may ultimately require coffee roasters and sellers to post warnings that coffee may pose a cancer risk. How did it come to this?
Well, it turns out that during the coffee roasting process, a miniscule amount of a chemical called acrylamide is created. Acrylamide is on California's list of cancer-causing or toxic chemicals. And back in 1986, California voters passed Proposition 65, a law requiring businesses and sellers to inform consumers about any possible exposure to toxic or cancer-causing agents in their products. An exception to this requirement can be granted only if the seller can prove that the exposure (in this case, to coffee) poses "no significant risk". But how would Starbucks, for example, ever be able to prove a negative (a complete lack of risk, over a lifetime)? Do you think Starbucks is up to that task?
It's true that there's acrylamide in coffee, but the levels are orders of magnitude below levels that have ever been shown to be a risk factor for cancer. So is the judge's ruling an example of regulatory overreach? Is Proposition 65 functioning as intended? Where do we draw the line between protecting the public and scaring them needlessly? For more on this controversy, read an article by NPR here.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment