California coffee must come with cancer warning

A Los Angeles judge has ruled that California law requires coffee companies to carry an ominous cancer warning label, because of a chemical produced in the roasting process.

Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle wrote in a proposed ruling on Thursday that Starbucks and other coffee companies failed to show that the threat from the chemical was insignificant.

The Council for Education and Research on Toxics, a non-profit group, sued Starbucks and about

90 other companies, including grocery stores and retail shops, under a state law that requires warnings on a wide range of chemicals that can cause cancer. One of those chemicals is acrylamide, a carcinogen present in coffee.

‘‘While plaintiff offered evidence that consumption of coffee increases the risk of harm to the foetus, to infants, to children and to adults, defendants’ medical and epidemiology experts testified that they had no opinion on causation,’’ Berle wrote. ‘‘Defendants failed to satisfy their burden of proving ... that consumption of coffee confers a benefit to human health.’’

The coffee industry had argued that the chemical was present at harmless levels and should be exempt from the law, because it results naturally from the cooking process necessary to make the beans flavourful.

The ruling came despite eased concerns in recent years about the possible dangers of coffee, with some studies finding health benefits. In 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer – the cancer agency of the World Health Organisation – moved coffee off its ‘‘possible carcinogen’’ list.

The California legal case has been brewing for eight years and is still not over. A third phase of trial will determine any civil penalties that coffee companies must pay.

With potential penalties of up to

US$2500 per person exposed each day over eight years, that figure could be astronomical in a state

UNITED STATES:

with close to 40 million residents, though a massive figure is unlikely.

The lawsuit was brought under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, passed by California voters as Proposition 65 in

1986. It allows private citizens, advocacy groups and lawyers to sue on behalf of the state and collect a portion of civil penalties.

The law has been credited with reducing chemicals that cause cancer and birth defects, such as lead in hair dyes, mercury in nasal sprays, and arsenic in bottled water. But it has also been widely criticised for abuses by lawyers shaking down businesses for quick settlements.

Attorney Raphael Metzger, who brought the lawsuit, said he wanted the industry to remove the chemical from its process. Coffee companies have said that this is not feasible and would make their product taste bad.

In the first phase of the trial, Berle said the defence failed to present enough credible evidence to show there was no significant risk posed by acrylamide in coffee.

The law put the burden on the defence to show that the level of the chemical won’t result in one excess case of cancer for every

100,000 people exposed. Berle said the epidemiology studies presented were inadequate to evaluate that risk.

Having failed to show that there was no significant risk from drinking coffee, the second phase of trial let the industry put on a backup defence. It had to show that there should be a less strict level set for coffee because of health benefits from drinking it. Berle said the coffee companies failed to show this.

The judge has given the defence several weeks to file objections to the proposed ruling before he makes it final. California judges can reverse their tentative rulings, but rarely do.

Nearly half of the defendants in the coffee case had settled, Metzger said. About 50 defendants remain.

–AP