Coffee in California could soon come with a cancer warning
A law requiring warnings about hazardous chemicals has already forced KFC to warn about french fries
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Starbucks and other major retailers could be forced to warn Californians that a cup of coffee is hazardous to their health.
The reason is a long running lawsuit that invokes a voter-passed law, Proposition 65, that identifies harmful chemicals and compels businesses to post warnings when those substances are present.
One chemical on the state’s list is acrylamide, which occurs naturally in some foods and is produced when coffee is roasted. California associates it with both cancer and developmental issues. Fast food titan KFC was ordered by the state a decade ago to warn customers about the chemical appearing in fried and baked potatoes.
A lawsuit filed by the Council for Education and Research on Toxics alleges that prominent coffee sellers like Starbucks, Peet’s and BP — which oversees a massive gas station chain — have failed to notify customers about the risks of acrylamide.
Yum Yum Donut Shops, 7-Eleven and Gloria Jean’s Gourmet Coffees have already agreed to post warnings and pay fines in accepting settlements. The remaining parties have been engaged in a protracted court fight, and a ruling is expected some time in the coming months.
Starbucks won an early victory when a judge denied the Council for Education and Research’s push to find the company violated the law. The same judge ruled against Starbucks in a subsequent phase of the proceedings, rejecting its argument that the amount of acrylamide in coffee is slight enough to cancel out cancer risks.
“Coffee does not cause cancer,” Kyra Auffermann of the National Coffee Association, a trade group that has been the public face of major coffee sellers' response to the suit, said in an email.
While it has drawn praise for safeguarding clean water and protecting Californians from toxic substances, Proposition 65 has also been a target for critics who warn unscrupulous lawyers are using it to shake down businesses. The owner of Santa Cruz Coffee Roasting told customers in 2013 he was reluctantly posting warning labels, assailing “ this particular interpretation of a well-intended bill” as “a great waste of our money and resources”.
The labelling requirement regularly spurs fights over the right way to warn customers. After California added bisphenol A, or BPA, to its list, public health groups accused the state of lax warning rules that they said wouldn’t do enough to inform consumers.
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments