Photo by Larry Kozimor
Propisition 65
A Prop 65 warning label on display in a Starbuckscoffee shop in Oakland, Calif.
The reason coffee sold in California must carry a warning label is to inform consumers of the potential hazard from drinking potential carcinogens.
But what if the proven overall benefit in reducing cancers outweighs the potential harm?
The National Coffee Association (NCA) cites as evidence “more than 500 published, high quality peer-reviewed human studies, covering several million people, concluded that no connection exists between coffee and cancer.”
Last week the California Office of Environmental Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), agreed with that assessment. Acknowledging that the good in coffee outweighs the bad, OEHHA recommended that coffee be exempt from rules requiring a Proposition 65 label.
The proposal is unprecedented for OEHHA, a state regulatory body responsible for implementing Prop 65. In March a California Superior Court ruled that coffee and coffee shops must warn consumers that coffee contains significant amounts of acrylamide, a known carcinogenic compound that is a byproduct of roasting.
The ruling led to a fierce industry response, based on scientific evidence that coffee likely prevents some cancers. The USDA considers coffee “healthy” and the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2016, removed coffee from a list of “possibly carcinogenic” products.
The amended regulation exempting coffee would counteract the court ruling, which found in favor of a lawsuit by the non-profit Council for Education and Research on Topics (CERT). CERT identified 90 coffee companies, including Starbucks, Folgers, Caribou, Keurig, that it said were in violation of Prop 65 requirements.
The proposed OEHHA regulations state that the chemicals in coffee “pose no significant risk of cancer.” The conclusion is based on findings by the World Health Organization, which removed acrylamide from its list of known carcinogens in 2016.
The agency said in a tweet: “We are proposing a new regulation that would clarify that cancer warnings are not required for coffee under Proposition 65, California’s toxics right-to-know law.”
“This regulation will, therefore, benefit the health and welfare of California residents by helping to avoid cancer warnings for chemicals in coffee that do not pose a significant cancer risk,” they said. A public hearing is scheduled for Aug. 16. The comment period ends Aug. 30.
The Associated Press reported CERT will oppose the amendment. Attorney Raphael Metzger, who represented CERT in the original court case, said: “... the state is proposing a rule contrary to its own scientific conclusion.”
The amendment is “unprecedented and bad,” said Metzger.
The National Coffee Association has a joined a separate lawsuit brought by coffee producers that claim that “coffee consumption does not increase the risk of any chronic disease and is independently associated with the decreased risk of several major chronic diseases.”
Source: OEHHA
- Dan Bolton
oehha.ca.gov/
bit.ly/2HSgDaZ