In California, Where Cancer Warnings Abound, Coffee Is Next in Line!!! A California Court Case Could Turn Every Cup of Coffee Here Into a Jolt of Reality on The Risks of Cancer.

LOS ANGELES—Under a state law, cancer warnings already follow Californians when they enter the lobby of apartment buildings, drive into parking garages and sit down at restaurants. They also pop up on products including kitty litter, ceramic plates and black licorice.

Now, a state judge in Los Angeles is expected to rule in the coming months whether coffee should be labeled as carcinogenic under the three-decade old law, which is meant to warn Californians of potential harms.

Coffee is on the hot seat because of the presence of acrylamide, a flavorless chemical produced during the roasting process. Acrylamide is one of more than 900 chemicals on a list of those known to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. Businesses must warn about the presence of any of the chemicals under the law, known as Proposition 65.

The chemical, used for industrial processes like making paper and dyes, is also created during the cooking process for many baked and fried foods, including potato chips, bread and french fries.

Proponents say the law has kept consumers better informed and led to the reduction of chemicals in many products such as cadmium in jewelry and lead in baby powders.

The coffee case has been brewing since 2010, when Southern California-based nonprofit Council for Education and Research on Toxics, backed by attorney Raphael Metzger, sued dozens of coffee sellers and manufacturers. The coffee defendants, including Starbucks and Keurig Green Mountain, argue the trace amounts of acrylamide in coffee are harmless and outweighed by the health benefits of the drink.

A Starbucks spokeswoman declined to comment. Keurig didn’t respond to requests for comment.
After losing a first phase of the case a few years ago, the coffee companies made their final defense in a bench trial in the fall, arguing the level of acrylamide in coffee should qualify as safe under a limited exception to Proposition 65 for chemicals produced by cooking necessary to make food palatable.

David Kessler, the former head of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, testified for the defense that coffee is a “staple of the American diet” with known health benefits that should be regulated carefully.
Putting a cancer label on coffee, Mr. Kessler testified, could drive people to get caffeine from arguably less safe sources like soda or caffeine shots.

An expert for the plaintiffs argued that technology can reduce acrylamide levels in coffee while still keeping an acceptable flavor.

A few defendants have bowed out, including 7-Eleven, which agreed late last year to pay $900,000 and put up the warning in its stores. Others, including Starbucks, have hung up Proposition 65 signs near the cream and sugar station as a response to the litigation but could be forced to display the signs more prominently or directly on coffee products—and pay hefty fines.

Story From: https://californiahealthline.org/morning-breakout/three-decades-old-law-could-require-coffee-to-come-with-a-warning-label/ AND: https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-you-drink-coffee-in-california-be-warned-it-may-cause-cancer-1516795200