A non-profit group had sued coffee roasters, retailers and retailers for a state law requiring warnings about a variety of chemicals that can cause cancer.
LOS ANGELES (AP) – A Los Angeles judge has ruled Californian law demands that coffee companies have to carry an ominous cancer warning sign for a chemical produced in the roast process
Supreme Judge Elihu Berle wrote in a proposal Wednesday that Starbucks and Other Coffee Companies Fail to Demonstrate Threat to Chemical Compound During the roasting process, insignificant production was made.
A non-profit group had sued coffee roasters, retailers and retailers under a state law requiring warnings about a variety of chemicals that can cause cancer. One of these chemicals is acrylamide, a carcinogen found in coffee.
"While the plaintiff provided evidence that the consumption of coffee increases the risk of harm to the fetus, infants, children and adults, the medical and epidemiological experts testified that the defendants had no opinion on causality," wrote Berle. "The defendants failed to substantiate their evidence by providing overwhelming evidence that the consumption of coffee is an asset to human health."
Written Most Read
The Coffee Industry He claimed that the chemical is present in harmless amounts and should be exempted from the law as it naturally results from the cooking process. which is necessary to make the beans spicy.
The case has been developing for eight years and is not over yet. A third phase of the process will later determine all the civil penalties coffee companies must pay.
With potential fines of up to $ 2,500 per person over eight years each day, this figure could be astronomical in a state of nearly 40 million people. although such a massive number is very unlikely.
In the first phase of the trial, Berle said that the defense has not provided enough credible evidence to show that acrylamide in coffee poses no significant risk.
The law put the burden on the defense to show that the level of the chemical will not lead to an excess of cancer for every 100,000 exposed individuals. Berle said the epidemiological studies presented were not suitable to assess this risk
Having shown that there was no significant risk of coffee drinking, the industry had to show during the second phase of the study that coffee was less stringent (19659003) Berle said the coffee companies had not shown this.
The judge can reverse his preliminary decision, but that rarely happens.