How do you like your coffee? With cream, sugar, or... CANCER?

DawgStreet's picture
Rank: Orangutan | 327

"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?

image source

Comments (36)

Best Response
Mar 30, 2018

California, solving the hard-hitting issues since 1900.

    • 17
Mar 30, 2018

When are they going to figure out it's all the smog giving them cancer, not every single other object in the state.

    • 2
Mar 30, 2018

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.

    • 2
    • 3
Mar 30, 2018

What companies aren't a apart of a tax evasion scheme?

    • 1
Mar 30, 2018

my Corporate Taxation professor spend THREE FULL WEEKS covering Starbucks. that (should) say(s) it all.

Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Mar 30, 2018

I 100% agree.

Apr 5, 2018

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

Mar 30, 2018

It makes cancer warnings seem like a joke. If there's a cancer warning on your bread, your coffee and your potato chips - you're not going to take it seriously when it appears on your carton of cigarettes.

    • 3
Apr 2, 2018

I like classic black coffee with sugar

    • 3
Apr 2, 2018

Finally, someone answers the question

Apr 2, 2018

Lol at listen to anything that comes out of California.

Apr 2, 2018

tax dollars at work

Apr 3, 2018

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

    • 1
Apr 4, 2018

Geez, everything allegedly causes cancer...

Metal. Music. Life. www.headofmetal.com

    • 1
Apr 4, 2018

Coke doesn't I heard

    • 1
Apr 4, 2018
In The Flesh:

Geez, everything allegedly causes cancer...

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

    • 2
Apr 4, 2018

[email protected] WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!

Metal. Music. Life. www.headofmetal.com

    • 1
Apr 4, 2018

Who cares, is this really a topic worth discussing

    • 1
Apr 4, 2018

I take coffee as is. No sugar, no artificial sweeteners, and no creamers. Also California should come with a warning of their own.

Apr 4, 2018

I prefer a pure black cold brew.

If warm, usually add a packet of pure cane sugar and one little mini cup of creamer

Apr 4, 2018

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.

    • 3
Apr 4, 2018

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).

    • 1
Apr 4, 2018
dr_mantistoboggan_MD:

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).

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

    • 1
Apr 4, 2018

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.

    • 1
Apr 4, 2018

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).

Apr 4, 2018

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

Apr 4, 2018

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".

    • 1
Apr 4, 2018

black like my soul

Apr 4, 2018

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.

Apr 4, 2018

Black. Anything more and you're fucking it up.

    • 2
Apr 12, 2018
Comment
    • 2
Apr 12, 2018
Comment

heister:

Look at all these wannabe richies hating on an expensive salad.

https://arthuxtable.com/