Coffee, Acrylamide, and Proposition 65 - Part 1

"California Judge Rules Coffee Must Carry Cancer Warning"

That was the headline in the Wall Street Journal on March 29, 2018.

LOS ANGELES—Coffee in the state of California must carry a cancer warning, a judge here ruled, in a blow to Starbucks and other retailers which had argued that a state law meant to protect consumers shouldn’t apply to them. [Source]

And with that decision, we get this:

Why? Because coffee contains a chemical called acrylamide and that chemical appears of the Proposition 65 list of chemicals "known to the state to cause cancer..."

California, way back in the mid-80s, passed a "peoples proposition...:

Proposition 65 became law in November 1986, when California voters approved it by a 63-37 percent margin.  The official name of Proposition 65 is the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986.

...requiring business to:

...provide warnings to Californians about significant exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.  These chemicals can be in the products that Californians purchase, in their homes or workplaces, or that are released into the environment. By requiring that this information be provided, Proposition 65 enables Californians to make informed decisions about their exposures to these chemicals.

The idea behind this proposition was that Californian's were being exposed to chemicals because they lived in proximity to, or worked at, businesses that released these carcinogenic chemicals.

Knowing this, a Californian could make the decision to move away, work elsewhere, or not consume/use a product in order to avoid exposure.

Sounds reasonable in principle, but in practice its a pain in the butt and, in my opinion, does little to zip to protect public health. It's a feel good regulation whereby knowing is considered powerful. However in reality, everywhere you go in California you see the warning so avoiding a carcinogen is dang near impossible, unless you want to live in a bubble, but then your own testosterone or estrogen will do you in - they are on the list too!

What we (I was there when this passed) ended up with soon became an OMG! There's a carcinogen in my purse, notify the people, alert!, alert!

We environmental people like to joke that everything in California causes cancer. We are not far off when you look at the list:

This list, which must be updated at least once a year, has grown to include approximately 900 chemicals since it was first published in 1987.

The reason there are 900 chemicals on this list is that there are a bunch of groups that look at chemicals and make a determination of carcinogenicity. There is a lot of differences of opinion when looking at chemicals. Some groups agree and others say not enough evidence.  California looks at this data, errs on the side of caution, and if they agree, put the chemical on the list.

Now the chemical in question here, acrylamide, has been on the list for ever.

It was not until 2002 that we quantified the amount of acrylamide that a person theoretically can consume in a cup of coffee.

With that information, the environmental groups that work tirelessly to save us for chemical harm, went after Starbucks and told them, "y'all need to put a Proposition 65 warning sign up."

The highest profile acrylamide cases have been filed against Starbucks and nearly 100 other coffee manufacturer and retailer defendants. After eight years of litigation, a ruling is expected within days to months. [and Starbucks lost...]

 Starbucks et. al. contends:

Defendants argue there is no increased risk of any chronic diseases, including cancer, associated with coffee consumption.  In fact, defendants contend there is strong evidence that drinking coffee is associated with a decreased risk of several major chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes, liver disease, liver cancer and endometrial cancer. [Source]

The judge in the case did not agree:

On March 28, 2018, Judge Elihu Berle issued a preliminary decision in favor of the plaintiffs in Council for Education and Research on Toxics v. Starbucks Corp. et al., BC435759 (California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles). In that case, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, sellers of ready-to-drink coffee, failed to warn consumers that the coffee exposed them to a known carcinogen – acrylamide – in violation of California's Proposition 65. [Source]

 dlapiper.com has a pretty good write up on the back and forth that went on. You can read it here.

What it comes down to is this:

• Acrylamide is found in coffee. 
• Acrylamide appears on the Proposition 65 list
• Acrylamide in a cup of coffee is greater than the No Significant Risk Level (NSRL) of 0.2 mg per day

So...should a coffee drinker be concerned?
.

Next post: Coffee, Acrylamide, and Proposition 65 - Part 2

.