LOGO_FDA-HUD
Labeling coffee as potentially carcinogenic could confuse the public about the proven benefits it brings, according to the US Federal Drug Administration (FDA).
The FDA released a statement Aug. 29 that questioned a California court ruling requiring that coffee retailers display Prop 65 warning labels. California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), a regulatory body responsible for enforcing labeling, subsequently proposed regulations that would exempt coffee.
“The FDA strongly supports this proposal,” reads the federal agency’s statement siding with OEHHA.
Part of FDA’s mission is “ensuring that food product labeling doesn’t contain false or misleading statements about safety or nutrition. This includes statements that food manufacturers make on their own initiative. But it also includes statements that may be compelled under state law. Simply put, if a state law purports to require food labeling to include a false or misleading statement, the FDA may decide to step in,” reads the statement signed by FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb.
Gottlieb writes that “current science indicates that consuming coffee poses no significant risk of cancer. This finding was reflected in a comprehensive report by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer.”
“Strong and consistent evidence shows that in healthy adults, moderate coffee consumption is not associated with an increased risk of major chronic diseases, such as cancer, or premature death, and some evidence suggests that coffee consumption may decrease the risk of certain cancers. To this end, current dietary guidelines published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the US Department of Agriculture state that moderate coffee consumption (three to five cups a day or up to 400 mg/day of caffeine) can be incorporated into healthy eating patterns,” according to Gottlieb.
Bill Murray, c.e.o. and president of the National Coffee Association was jubilant on word of FDA’s support. “Science has so comprehensively established the facts on coffee, we believe it is incumbent on regulators to give citizens confidence in what they are consuming.”
Last March a Los Angeles Superior Court ruled in favor of an eight-year-old lawsuit to require Prop 65 labels on coffee and in coffee establishments. The reasoning is that acrylamide, a by-product of coffee roasting, presented a health hazard even in trace amounts.
The amounts produced are below levels that pose a significant cancer risk, said FDA.
Earlier this month in a related ruling, a California appeals court reversed a trial court decision requiring businesses to post Prop 65 cancer warnings on 59 breakfast cereals that contain trace amounts of acrylamide.
Gottlieb mentioned that “FDA previously wrote California stating our concerns about acrylamide warnings” on whole grains. “Labeling whole grain foods with a cancer warning may cause American consumers to avoid foods that would have a benefit to their health,” he wrote.
The federal government, not California, is the nation’s expert on food safety and labeling. “Consumers deserve accurate information about the food they eat and how it can affect their health and nutrition. That’s why Congress entrusted the FDA to serve as and to craft predictable, uniform federal requirements on matters within our jurisdiction,” according to FDA.