Coffee retailers were granted a last-minute stay Oct. 15 prior to a California court imposing penalties for failing to post Prop 65 warnings in stores and on packaging.
In March a Los Angeles California Superior Court found coffee roasters and retailers in violation of cancer-warning requirements due to the presence of acrylamide in roasted beans. Starbucks is among 50 companies facing stiff penalties.
The court ordered a written status update to be delivered by Jan. 15, 2019.
National Coffee Association president William (Bill) Murray called the stay “an important step forward, towards common-sense and resolving this outrageous lawsuit that has dragged through the courts since 2011."
It was then the Council for Education and Research on Toxics filed suit alleging failure to warn consumers of the presence of acrylamide, a known carcinogen. NCA points out that there is no scientific link proving the trace amounts of acrylamide in coffee lead to cancer.
In June the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), which enforces Prop 65, announced it would seek to amend legislation to exempt coffee from bearing a warning label due to coffee's overall health benefits. Two months later the Food and Drug Administration formally intervened, supporting the exemption and citing World Health Organization research.
FDA Commissioner Stuart Gottlieb wrote that “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.”
“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.
The federal government, not California, is the nation’s expert on food safety and labeling, wrote Gottlieb.
The delay enables OEHHA time to complete the amendment. An exemption would render the assessment of penalties moot.