قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Business / The California judge decides that coffee requires cancer warnings

The California judge decides that coffee requires cancer warnings



The lawsuit was filed against Starbucks and against 90 companies under a controversial bill passed by California voters in 1986 that kills cancer-causing chemicals from countless products and has also been criticized for causing fast payback shakedowns [19659002] The Drinking Water and Toxic Effects Act, better known as Proposition 65, requires warnings for about 900 chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects. It allows individuals, advocacy groups and lawyers to sue on behalf of the state and to collect part of the civil penalties for not issuing the warning.

"This lawsuit has mocked Prophet 65, confused consumers, and does nothing to improve public health," said William Murray, president and CEO of the National Coffee Association, adding that coffee was a healthy drink.

Scientific evidence of coffee has been paced for a long time Recently concerns over the possible dangers of coffee have eased, with some studies having positive health benefits.

In 201

6, the World Cancer Organization's cancer agency ruled out coffee from its "possible carcinogens" list.

Studies indicate that coffee is unlikely to cause breast cancer, prostate or pancreatic cancer, and it appears to lower the risks of liver and uterine cancer, the agency said. Evidence is not enough to determine its effect on dozens of other cancers.

Coffee companies have said that it is not possible to remove acrylamide from their product without ruining the taste.

But lawyer Raphael Metzger, who brought the lawsuit and drank few cups of coffee a day, said the industry could remove the chemical without compromising the taste.

"I firmly believe that if the potato chip industry can do it, the coffee industry may," Metzger said. "A warning will not be so effective because it is an addictive product."

Many coffee shops have already issued warnings stating that acrylamide is a carcinogenic chemical in coffee. But signs to be placed at the point of sale are often found in places that are not easily visible, such as under the counter, where cream and sugar are available.

Customers in stores that publish warnings are often unaware [http://www.starbucks.com/] In the afternoon, coffee drinkers in a Los Angeles Starbucks said they would look into the warning or give coffee, which drinks a second thought after the verdict, but the Joe's mug would probably win.

"I just do not do it I 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."

Darlington Ibekwe, a lawyer in Los Angeles, said a cancer warning would be annoying I would not stop him from indulging in three bars a week.

"It's like cigarettes, how, damn, now I have to see that?" he said. "Dude, I enjoy my coffee."

The defendants have a few weeks to challenge the verdict before it is final and may appeal to an appellate court.

If the verdict stands, it could be a tough phase of fines that could sweep consumers across the state's borders.

The judge may set another phase of the lawsuit to consider possible civil penalties of up to $ 2,500 per person suspended every day in eight years. That could be an astronomical sum in a state with nearly 40 million inhabitants, though such a massive fine is unlikely.

California's oversized marketplace could make it difficult to customize warp-labeled packaging specifically for stores in the state.

This means that even coffee drinkers with a cancer warning could drink their coffee. Cream and sugar would still be optional.


Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *