"Under Proposition 65, cancer warnings appear on wide range of places and products"
If you have ever wondered whether your coffee addiction can actually cause you health problems down the line, a California judge certainly thinks the issue is important enough to warn consumers:
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.
While the amount of carcinogens in a cup of coffee might not actually pose a real threat to consumers, Starbucks and other similar companies were unable to prove their case in court. This means that California's Proposition 65, a law that requires businesses to warn consumers about carcinogens in their products, still applies to them. Apparently, other products affected by the law include "potato chips, bread and french fries".
Some people are obviously not very happy about this decision. The National Coffee Association, an interest group that deals with the coffee industry, has expressed its concern:
“This lawsuit has made a mockery of Prop 65, has confused consumers, and does nothing to improve public health.”
So...
Do you think having cancer labels on coffee would be misleading? Is it even a big deal?
Is this making you question your coffee addiction? Or are you brewing some coffee right after reading this?
California, solving the hard-hitting issues since 1900.
When are they going to figure out it's all the smog giving them cancer, not every single other object in the state.
While I hate Starbucks (it's a tax evasion scheme, not a coffee shop), I have to defend them here. My chemistry-major friend literally said it's laughable.
Someone with a HUGE $SBUX short position must've secretly spend a shitload of money lobbying the California agency who imposed the labeling. It's obvious.
What companies aren't a apart of a tax evasion scheme?
my Corporate Taxation professor spend THREE FULL WEEKS covering Starbucks. that (should) say(s) it all.
I 100% agree.
You clearly missed the entire point of the class if you 1) think legally mitigating taxes through the utilization of tax shields is "tax evasion" and 2) specifically hate SBUX for this but are ok with other large cap corporates from the US which all deploy similar strategies in order to maximize shareholder value, to not do so would infringe on their fiduciary responsibilites
I like classic black coffee with sugar
Finally, someone answers the question
Lol at listen to anything that comes out of California.
tax dollars at work
The only thing this accomplishes is conclusively demonstrating that cancer labels in California shouldn't be taken seriously. It's like an Onion article that has somehow turned into real life
Next time I go grab a brew I'm going to ask for my coffee with extra acrylamide... gives the flavor an extra kick, exactly what I need in the morning
Geez, everything allegedly causes cancer...
Coke doesn't I heard
I read some studies that there are carcinogens in tap water. The obvious solution is to make your own using hydrogen and oxygen, or just wait until it rains
AHHHHH!!!@ WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!
Who cares, is this really a topic worth discussing
I take coffee as is. No sugar, no artificial sweeteners, and no creamers. Also California should come with a warning of their own.
I think they need to label CA politicians with a cancer label...
I'm unsure where this objective came from to drive all businesses out of California.
Probably not worth getting into, but basically if you roast anything carcinogens are produced as a byproduct. As someone with a healthcare background I'm interested to see the actual dosage threshold of Acrylamide (how many cups/days per week/years).
Not to be reductive or dismissive but basically everything overtime can cause cancer mutations, as we (humans) live longer the cells in our bodies become more and more prone to breakdown, cancer is just the breakdown of cell production regulators (super high level analysis - aka don't shit on me premeds).
Must be a lot, because acrylamide isn’t regulated by the FDA. Furthermore, claims of acrylamide’s potential danger have been proposed from studies done on lab rats that were pumped with acrylamide levels that are 1,000 to 10,000 times higher than that normally found in foods. Pretty sure that if you pump a lab rat with anything that is 10,000x more than normal, they’re going to have some issues
You actually hit at the heart of what I was getting at. Basically the same sort of experiment is how they arrived at the second hand smoke causes cancer argument as well, they basically built what I can only describe is a Rube Goldberg style machine to effectively blow smoke into lab rats. Secondhand smoke is pretty nasty for a myriad of non-health reasons, no need subject animals to poorly designed experiments.
Although depending on how/where the chemical accumulates in your body, it is possible that at a normal dose one cup a day/200 work days a year/5 years the bioaccumulation is enough to warrant concern (more akin to mercury in fish accumulating and causing problems rather than standing in an Xray machine for a whole day scenario).
Honest question to the group:
I always see a bunch of things that have that disclaimer saying something along the lines of "..,BELIEVED TO BE CAUSE OF CANCER IN STATE OF CALIFORNIA."
Why does California have what seems to be pretty hot takes on all these products, and not the other 49 states?
Please, explain it to @2trickpony"
Because no other state has ridiculous laws.
I've always found the "xxx is known to the State of California to cause XXX" statements to be synonymous with "The loud dude on the short bus told me XXX".
black like my soul
I actually like my coffee with cancer. Here for a good time not a long time so I don't have to save for retirement.
Black. Anything more and you're fucking it up.
Nemo omnis aut voluptatem aut. Nemo facilis temporibus a laudantium aperiam. Necessitatibus aut quasi qui eos.
Commodi id ducimus eos eos consequatur consequatur. Et id autem ullam qui error dicta harum eos. Libero voluptas sint accusamus fugit. Et harum laudantium incidunt fugiat perferendis voluptatem. Iste expedita veritatis quaerat dolorem corporis in. Ratione ad iste iure nihil est ea. Cupiditate a est laudantium voluptatem.
Qui rerum et occaecati neque. Suscipit ducimus asperiores nihil ex dignissimos. Et minima consectetur molestiae possimus aliquam suscipit. Omnis iusto nemo sed facere vel iusto culpa.
Magni voluptate est debitis. Aliquam debitis similique harum qui. Qui quo voluptatum dignissimos eligendi dolores fugit nihil. Rerum itaque cumque fugiat et a dolor.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Illo enim itaque dolores rerum repellat voluptas. Animi optio excepturi voluptatem ducimus quibusdam sit exercitationem asperiores. Quod dolor et consequatur officia dolore.
Nostrum et voluptates est error reprehenderit qui sunt cupiditate. Mollitia est id veritatis nemo excepturi aut. Sed quae deserunt labore soluta adipisci voluptates excepturi. Id ut veritatis ut ipsam deserunt optio et. Eos vel optio ipsum tempora sed sapiente et aut.
Nesciunt id et qui aut. Nihil sit hic id. Corrupti dolorum sint fugit nihil corporis. Omnis blanditiis totam quo aspernatur nesciunt et. Et doloremque est soluta nihil vero perferendis.
Voluptatem vero odio modi magni qui. Veniam laboriosam fugit error nostrum consequatur. Et quis ullam distinctio culpa. Eveniet veritatis hic dolor exercitationem. Expedita incidunt exercitationem commodi quod dolores maxime. Voluptatem est et perspiciatis harum velit doloribus neque.