Coffee Must Carry a Cancer Warning in California, Judge Rules
In a controversial and potentially confusing decision, a California Superior Court judge has ruled that coffee sold in the state should carry a warning that the drink comes with a cancer risk. Despite the warning, however, the extent to which coffee actually poses such a risk, if at all, is still unknown.
At the heart of this debate is a naturally occurring chemical known as acrylamide. While it’s generally accepted that acrylamide is a carcinogen, especially in animals, the extent to which it poses a significant risk to humans is up for debate. Meanwhile, if acrylamide was simply an ingredient or additive, this issue would be more straightforward: Companies could just take it out of their products. But acrylamide is a natural byproduct of common cooking practices that have been used for all of human history. The chemical forms when starchy foods are cooked at high temperatures; “browning” is a typical sign that acrylamide is present. Like your toast dark? The darker, the more acrylamide you’re likely to ingest. Like your potatoes extra crispy? Those tasty blackened edges likely have extra acrylamide. Prefer your coffee beans roasted, as they always are? That roasting process also unleashes acrylamide.
Meanwhile, in 1986, California adopted Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act. The law requires businesses to include warnings on labels if their products contain chemicals that are known by the state of California to cause cancer. Since acrylamide is considered carcinogenic, the chemical is on that list. But the larger question remains: Is the amount of acrylamide people ingest drinking coffee really a significant threat to their health?
One of the criticisms of Proposition 65 is that the burden of proof falls on the companies that produce these products. Seeing as the scientific community at large has yet to come to a consensus on acrylamide, that’s a heck of a burden for coffee companies.
As a result, the judge in this case isn’t in an enviable position. According to Reuters, a “little-known not-for-profit group” called the Council for Education and Research on Toxics sued 90 coffee retailers, including Starbucks, calling for massive fines against those who failed to heed Proposition 65’s warning requirement. By the letter of the law, if these companies couldn’t prove that the acrylamide in their coffee doesn’t pose a risk, the judge would seemingly have to side with the plaintiff. In the end, that’s the route Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle took.
However, warnings don’t change the health impact of coffee. They simply raise awareness of a potential problem. Furthermore, a larger philosophical question exists as to whether posting cancer warnings on products that haven’t been shown to definitively cause cancer actually undermines these warnings in general. “Cancer warning labels on coffee would be misleading,” the National Coffee Association said in a statement. “The US government’s own Dietary Guidelines state that coffee can be part of a healthy lifestyle.”
The defendants have until April 10 to file objections to the decision, though the Associated Press stated that these kinds of decision are “reversed rarely.”
