6 ms·
Coffee sold in California must carry cancer warning, judge rules
- thotpoizn 9y agoAt 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>
- mikeash 9y agoWhen does it become easier to label the things not known to the state of California to cause cancer?
- JustSomeNobody 9y agoGotta find a product first.
- CureLiberalism 9y agoNot even kidding ... EVERYTHING carries with it the potential for leading to cancer. Air with silica dust particles in it from natural sources, water that carries radioactive particles or parasites and pathogens of any number of types ... literally everything. NO exception. Just alone being alive has an inherent risk of leading to cancer due to natural processes of mutation. This is just more evidence of Liberal insanity that is bizarrely out of touch with reality, the very basis of the foundation of reason and science itself. No, not the proto-religion of Science, the method and set of techniques that are the scientific method that are all but not applied as so many research studies have found. what was it, 89% irreproducibility in the social "Sciences"?
- CureLiberalism 9y agoI demand a sticker that warns of the cancer risk of the materials in the sticker that warns of the cancer risk.
- hello_asdf 9y agoI 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.
- cydonian_monk 9y agoThe “warning” is already as diluted as the coffee in question, and has been seen by many as a joke for years now.
- tzahola 9y agoAnything can be a carcinogen if ground finely enough and inhaled.
- brockers 9y agoIf 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.
- monochromatic 9y agoShould just start including it with bar code stickers in general.
- TazeTSchnitzel 9y agoThe 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.
- taneq 9y agoHave you ever seen human-cancer or birth defects come from anything but a human? Hmm? HMMM?
- mtgx 9y agoFeces 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.
- sli 9y agoConsider that you had to go to the other extreme end of the scale to make your point.
- itakedrugs 9y ago"The production of cancer warning labels for California produces as much pollution as one large charcoal power plant."
- dghughes 9y agoThe 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.
- colejohnson66 9y agoThanks to the FUD from water filtration companies, the public seems to think that any lead is dangerous.
- colejohnson66 9y agoComment section on The Hill’s article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16712820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16712820
- zaroth 9y agoThe 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.
- chapill 9y agoTobacco requires these labels, why not other deadly addictive products like coffee? This is long overdue.
- DennisP 9y agoI think they've set the bar so low that the warning is meaningless to consumers.
- maccard 9y ago> Acrylamide is created when starchy foods are roasted Does this mean that potatoes should come with a warning? And bread?
- awinder 9y agoSpecifically thought to be caused by the Maillard reaction, which includes grilled / seared foods
- harshreality 9y agoSteaming or even pressure-cooking potatoes (or any other food) at <121C/250F doesn't produce substantial amounts of acrylamide. It's only higher-temp cooking (frying, baking) that's bad. If you like bread, sucks to be you. Bread is a filler for when better foods are scarce or too expensive. The kinds of bread that are affordable on a tight budget are awful; good bread (still not that good for you, but at least whole grain, low sugar, maybe some added seeds and nuts) is expensive. The added cost for "good" bread comes from the expensive healthy additions, so the healthier the bread is, the more it approximates the cost of the seeds/nuts/fruits/etc with only a token amount of bread dough to hold everything together, and you're not saving any money compared to eating those nutritional foods raw or lightly cooked. Baking also reduces the amounts of most nutrients, so even the good additions to good bread aren't as healthy as eating them separately. ETA: I'm not talking about how bread tastes. I don't dispute that bread tastes good. That's why people eat it. Like most carbs, if all you have is bread you will keep eating it until you get sick or you force yourself to quit still feeling hungry... that's the curse of carbs. Tasting good and being temporarily addictive is not the same as being good for you. Adding bread to other stuff as part of a sandwich does not make the bread magically better for you.
- cup-of-tea 9y ago> If you like bread, sucks to be you. Bread is a filler for when better foods are scarce or too expensive; I would say it's not part of a good diet. If you think that then it sucks to be you. Good bread is a joy.
- mi100hael 9y ago
- CompelTechnic 9y agoThere is a certain point where safety warnings become meaningless. Californian carcinogens are far past this point.
- liveoneggs 9y agowhat about potatoes and toast?
- dilap 9y agoAs a resident of California, these warnings are a joke. You learn to pay absolutely no attention to them, because they are everywhere. They are like the real-life equivalent of the "this site uses cookies" warnings the EU imposes. 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?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- dekhn 9y agoI think it's a way to shift liability to the consumer.
- chefandy 9y ago*these warnings brought to you by the National Tea Council (not really)
- ghfbjdhhv 9y agoProp 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.
- KIFulgore 9y agoAs 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.
- craigsmansion 9y agoThe 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.
- macspoofing 9y agoWait till California finds out about the radioactivity of bananas.
- mey 9y agoDon't tell them rice contains arsenic.
- LinuxBender 9y agoAs does wine.
- anonu 9y agoI'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 This is one of those debates that will never end. The solution is "everything in moderation". I enjoy a cup of coffee per day - and I limit it at that...
- rdruxn 9y agoA daily habit does not strike me as moderation
- kerng 9y agoI 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?
- redial 9y agoModeration is entirely related to how much your body can handle. Is a glass of water a day excessive?
- fyfy18 9y agoWell 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.
- nanny 9y ago>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).
- gormz 9y agoI wonder how many people were drinking coffee in the court room during this trial.
- cup-of-tea 9y agoSoon companies will be trying to get these labels as a sign that their product is delicious. A bit like "Parental Advisory" stickers on CDs.
- kerng 9y agoReading 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.
- dmschulman 9y agoMany 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.
- forgot-account 9y agoThis 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.
- lern_too_spel 9y agoAnother consequence of legislation by ballot initiative.
- dmode 9y agoOne 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
- teilo 9y agoI get the impression that trial lawyers must have spent a lot of money on Prop 65 advertising during that election cycle.
- nonbel 9y agoInteresting 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/ 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.
- combatentropy 9y agoIf 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.