The Mercury News Weekend

JUDGE: COFFEE NEEDS WARNING LABELS

Chemical produced in the roasting process has been linked to cancer

- By BrianMelle­y The Associated Press

LOS ANGELES » A Los Angeles judge has determined that coffee companies must carry an ominous cancer warning label because of a chemical produced in the roasting process.

Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle ruled that Starbucks and other companies failed to show that the threat from the chemical was insignific­ant.

The Council for Education and Research on Toxics, a nonprofit group, sued Starbucks and about 90 other companies under a state law that requires warnings on a wide range of chemicals that can cause cancer. One is acrylamide, a carcinogen present in coffee.

“While plaintiff offered evidence that consumptio­n of coffee increases the risk of harm to the fetus, to infants, to children and to adults, defendants’ medical and epidemiolo­gy experts testified that they had no opinion on causation,” Berle wrote in his proposed ruling. He added that the companies failed to prove that coffee provides benefits to human health.

The coffee industry had claimed the chemical was present at harmless levels and should be exempt from the law because it results naturally from the cooking process that makes beans flavorful.

The ruling came despite eased con- cerns 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 Organizati­on — moved coffee off its “possible carcinogen” list.

The lawsuit was brought under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcemen­t Act, passed by voters in 1986. It allows private citizens, advocacy groups and attorneys 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’s also been widely criticized for abuses by lawyers shaking downbusine­sses for quick settlement­s.

“Coffee has been shown, over and over again, to be a healthy beverage,” said William Murray, president and CEO of the National Coffee Associatio­n, in reaction to the decision. He argued the lawsuit “does nothing to improve public health.”

The lawsuit has been brewing for

eight years and is still not over. A third phase of trial will determine civil penalties of up to $2,500 per person exposed each day over eight years, an astronomic­al figure that appears unlikely to be imposed.

Attorney Raphael Metzger, who brought the lawsuit and drinks a few cups of coffee daily, wants the industry to remove the chemical from its process. Coffee companies have said that’s not feasible. “Getting it out is better for public health than leaving it in and warning people,” he said.

Many coffee companies have already posted warnings saying acrylamide is found in coffee. However, many are posted in places not easily visible like below counters where cream and sugar are available.

In the first phase of the trial, Berle said the defense failed to present enough credible evidence to show therewas no significan­t risk posed by acrylamide in coffee. He said in the second phase that the companies failed to show there should be a less strict level for coffee because of health benefits from drinking it.

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

About a dozen of the defendants in the case have previously settled and agreed to post warnings, Metzger said. With some defendants dismissed or affiliated with larger companies about 50 defendants remain.

Among the latest to settle was 7-Eleven, which agreed to pay $900,000.

Even at Starbucks shops where the labels are posted, many coffee drinkers are unaware of them.

Afternoon coffee drinkers at one shop in Los Angeles said they might look into the warning or give drinking coffee a second thought, but the cup of joe was likely to win out.

“I just don’t think it would stop me,” said Jen Bitterman, a digital marketing technologi­st. “I love the taste, I love the ritual, I love the high, the energy, and I think I’m addicted to it.”

 ?? PHOTOS BY RICHARD VOGEL — ASSOCIATED PRESS FILE ?? The coffee industry had claimed the chemical acrylamide was present at harmless levels and should be exempt from the law, but the courts said it failed to prove its position.
PHOTOS BY RICHARD VOGEL — ASSOCIATED PRESS FILE The coffee industry had claimed the chemical acrylamide was present at harmless levels and should be exempt from the law, but the courts said it failed to prove its position.
 ??  ?? A customer pours milk into coffee near a posted Propositio­n 65warning sign at a Starbucks coffee shop in Los Angeles.
A customer pours milk into coffee near a posted Propositio­n 65warning sign at a Starbucks coffee shop in Los Angeles.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States