Slashdot Mirror
Coffee Requires Cancer Warning, California Judge Rules (cnbc.com)
Scientists haven't rendered a verdict on whether coffee is good or bad for you but a California judge has. He says coffee sellers in the state should have to post cancer warnings. From a report: The culprit is a chemical produced in the bean roasting process that is a known carcinogen and has been at the heart of an eight-year legal struggle between a tiny nonprofit group and Big Coffee. The Council for Education and Research on Toxics wanted the coffee industry to remove acrylamide from its processing -- like potato chip makers did when it sued them years ago -- or disclose the danger in ominous warning signs or labels. The industry, led by Starbucks, said the level of the chemical in coffee isn't harmful and any risks are outweighed by benefits. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle said Wednesday that the coffee makers hadn't presented the proper grounds at trial to prevail.
the coffee makers hadn't presented the proper grounds
So what do they do with all their waste product?
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Proper grounds. I see what you did there.
"Berle said Wednesday that the coffee makers hadn't presented the proper grounds at trial to prevail"
"What types of coffee makers was the judge testing out?" - Mr Coffee
"mmm, nice Bunns!" - Elihu Berle
"First!" - me
When everything has to have a warning label the labels start being ignored. Maybe it's time to just start saying everything in California causes cancer and call it a day?
When are they putting a label on the Welcome to Los Angeles sign on the freeway. Plenty of nasties in that air.
>>Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle said Wednesday that the coffee makers hadn't presented the proper grounds at trial to prevail. ...maybe the judge should try a different grind...
Wait I'm confused.
Doesn't coffee already fall under the definition of "it exists within our universe?"
It should already require a warning label in California simply due to that requirement alone!
everything is a carcinogen in california...
Putting too many warning labels has the habit of making people numb to actual dangers and warning labels.
And why's that? Because the more coffee is roasted, the more carcinogen it has. And why Starbucks? Before heavily roasting coffee is a way to give ordinary cheap beans a stronger flavor.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
The National Toxicology Program’s Report on Carcinogens considers acrylamide to be reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen, based on studies in laboratory animals given acrylamide in drinking water. However, toxicology studies have shown that humans and rodents not only absorb acrylamide at different rates, they metabolize it differently as well.
Studies of workplace exposure have shown that high levels of occupational acrylamide exposure (which occurs through inhalation) cause neurological damage, for example, among workers using acrylamide polymers to clarify water in coal preparation plants. However, studies of occupational exposure have not suggested increased risks of cancer
The State of California is a recognized carcinogen. Also, Slashdot seems to dislike my idea of a two-paragraph link. Regardless, I was able to make it show as a referenced quote, which is neat, and here's a clickable link.
I really wish we could stop with foods being either "good" or "bad" for you. My guess is even if you actually get the science to say if something is good or bad, the chances are that it's really only very marginally good or bad for you at reasonable/non-OCD intake levels, not so good or bad that it will swing the health of a normal person.
Even foods/beverages that are demonstrably good or bad for you aren't either in very small amounts. Sugar isn't good for you, but if I ate a glazed donut once a year? It's not going to change anything.
I'm sure there's some marginal value in looking at high-volume consumption foods like coffee, but at this point people have been drinking it for a couple of centuries and tons of it over the last century and we don't have a plague of people dying from coffee poisoning.
Other than the obvious lack of utility for "good' and "bad" labels, all it does is encourage people to over-consume "good" foods, needlessly avoid "bad" foods, all magnified by a marketing tsunami of food companies touting their products as beneficial.
Indeed, this is idiotic.
There is ample evidence showing that coffee is surprisingly good for you. Saying it has to be labelled a "carcinogen" is doing nothing to help anybody's health, but is contributing to people ignoring warning labels, which is not a good thing. California's laws are stupid and counterproductive.
http://time.com/4116129/coffee-longer-life/
http://www.webmd.com/alzheimer...
https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/this-is-your-brain-on-coffee/
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/11/16/456191657/drink-to-your-health-study-links-daily-coffee-habit-to-longevity
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Oxygen is a known carcinogen. I have it on good authority that bottled water manufacturers knowingly include oxygen in their water with no care for the impact on the citizens of our state.
I agree! When I lived in the L.A. area, a newspaper article said that there were over 120 poisons in the air in the area where I lived.
Recently I was looking at an computer item on Newegg. There was a California notice that it was poisonous. How should I understand that???
Here is a example I just found: Combination Wrench, 5-7/8", 9mm,Chrome Vanadium Steel, Westward, 36A224 . How can a steel wrench be poisonous?
The California notice:
"WARNING: This product can expose you to chemicals including one or more listed chemicals which are known to the State of California to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm. For more information, go to www.P65Warnings.ca.gov"
Why isn't there some explanation of the poison???
It seems to me that California has been poorly managed since Grey Davis was governor. But, I moved away more than 30 years ago.
Don't we need really fat 'cancer' labels on cars then - and I mean every car, even the electric ones (tires)? :-(
No wait, they got an even fatter lobby.
There may be evidence that acrylamide is a carcinogen. Is there any evidence linking a person's cancer to the acrylamide in coffee? What is the actual evidence that the acrylamide in coffee causes cancer to the drinker?
This is ridiculous.
I have no idea why anybody would even litigate this. I have yet to see a single thing there that doesn't have this warning.
Just can't avoid: "hadn't presented the proper > grounds at trial"
Causes Cancer in California!
Funny thing, they've found a much higher correlation between obesity and cancer than between coffee and cancer. Heck, probably 95%+ of the things with warning labels. Kinda makes sense when you think about it; the more your body makes cells unnecessarily, the more potential for bad mutations that lead to cancer.
So what was the reaction when Trump wanted to move toward giving meal kits to the poor instead of letting buy whatever they want? Rawwwwwr!
Nope, can't have the government distributing government cheese, vegetables, etc. We gotta empower those poor folks to nobly pretend they're not eating on the state's dime as they buy cheap, obesity-enhancing processed foods that studies show may really up their chance of cancer.
Please?
After a while people just shrug and say "so what? *Everything* causes cancer."
Cigarettes cause cancer? So what? Everything causes cancer.
For those unfamiliar, CA passed a Proposition 65 a few years ago that required businesses to post when potentially cancer causing chemicals were present on site. The end result is that virtually every bushiness has a little "PROP 65 WARNING" sticker on the window stating that chemicals used or sold on this premises are known too the state of CA to cause cancer, since it is almost impossible to have a 100% carcinogen free store or restaurant. It is completely meaningless.
We need a law which bans warning labels.
If I were a coffee maker I would make a whole batch of coffee named "Cancer Coffee" with giant "Cancer!!!" warning labels making up the whole packaging. That would stand out and everyone would admire the absurdity of the whole thing.
Or better yet, a coffee with the judges scowling face on the label, called "JUDGEMENT DAY COFFEE".
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"the coffee makers hadn't presented the proper grounds at trial to prevail."
Maybe it was instant.
Hal Spacejock: Science Fiction with Nuts
... then so does toast.
Acrylamide isn't an additive. Trace quantities of acrylamide are a byproduct of the Maillard (browning) reaction in certain foods. If you think about it, toasted bread isn't that different from roasted coffee; it's dry heat applied to seed proteins and sugars. People have been consuming it pretty much as long as they've been cooking things other than meat.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Do not let them metastasize in your state
as potentially lowering some cancers risks? https://www.webmd.com/cancer/n... Thing is, apart from known classified poisons, nothing is either completely black or white. And in retrospective, it looks like almost any man-made food processing has potentially deleterious effects on human health, cooking/heating being the most common. Then again, cooking and otherwise transforming food is part of what made us evolve into humans.
Coffee, including decaffeinated types, among other cacao compounds is linked to cancer as they contain theobromine. Additionally, caffeine is metabolised in the liver into 12% theobromine, 4% theophylline, and 84% paraxanthine. "Theobromine is known to induce gene mutations in lower eukaryotes and bacteria. In 1991 and 1997, research by the International Agency for Research on Cancer had shown that genetic mutations occurred in higher eukaryotic cells, specifically cultured mammalian cells." So, even if the coffee, along with other cacao compounds, was cooked at a low enough temperature to not produce acrylamide it still has carcinogenic potential.
see subject. This shouldn't need to be said, but this is America where people bleach their assholes. Anyhow, like some of you, I've read about injecting botox into your nutsack to reduce wrinkles. And who wants wrinkles on their scrotum? Not me! You've probably injected cocaine and H into your nutsack or cock. If you haven't, you should. it's some of the best sex you will ever have. (and if you don't have a willing partner, it will be the jerkoff session to beat all jerk off sessions).
My friend Scooter injected botox into his nutsack. This was a medical procedure, by a reputable doctor. Two weeks later, they had to be amputed. So now he's got this wang with no balls. it's really funny. And he needs to take testosterone pills and viagra. For life.
Don't do it. Accept the wrinkles.
All coffee companies will put the warning on all their products. Fucking idiocy.
SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
I'm kind of curious, are doors in California required to have warnings along the lines of "Warning: outside contains sunlight, which is known to the state of California to cause cancer."?
Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
They should put warning labels on research as well. It has been proven that scientific research causes cancer in rats.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
...is that it sure looks like the judge expected the defendants to prove a negative. The plaintiff presented evidence claiming that coffee consumption is harmful to health; the defendant made no claims whatsoever about any causal links between coffee and health conditions; the judge ruled that the defendants somehow hadnâ(TM)t met their burden of proof to show that coffee is beneficial to health. So he forces coffee shops to display a label. It is ridiculous to expect someone to prove that consuming a food item absolutely does not ever cause cancer or contribute to a bad health outcome in any way. It canâ(TM)t be done. Even if you think youâ(TM)ve done it, particularly when it comes to cancer, some future piece of research will likely prove you wrong. This doesnâ(TM)t mean that we should all give up on eating.
Why should Starbucks have to prove that coffee is beneficial? That is different from proving that it doesnâ(TM)t contain enough of a possible carcinogen to be detrimental. Those are two different things. So, unless Starbucks could somehow disprove a negative, or prove their product is beneficial to health (an unreasonable standard), they never had any hope of winning. Is the assumption in California that unless you can prove something is beneficial to peopleâ(TM)s health, it should have a warning label on it?
I remember driving up to the Disneyland parking lot once and seeing a sign saying that Disneyland Resort contained substances known to the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive harm. Yeah, super useful, thanks. Oh well, guess I wonâ(TM)t go in! Iâ(TM)ll just drive back home in my carcinogenic car on the carcinogenic road, breathing air full of carcinogenic particles.
My guess is even if you actually get the science to say if something is good or bad, the chances are that it's really only very marginally good or bad for you at reasonable/non-OCD intake levels, not so good or bad that it will swing the health of a normal person.
Even foods/beverages that are demonstrably good or bad for you aren't either in very small amounts. Sugar isn't good for you, but if I ate a glazed donut once a year? It's not going to change anything.
It is safe to assume the majority of people who eat donuts won't just eat it once a year. Your scenario might be realistic, but it is irrelevant. People who like Sugar won't eat sweets and other sources of it once a year. That simply won't happen, only with a few exceptions.
I'm sure there's some marginal value in looking at high-volume consumption foods like coffee, but at this point people have been drinking it for a couple of centuries and tons of it over the last century and we don't have a plague of people dying from coffee poisoning.
Other than the obvious lack of utility for "good' and "bad" labels, all it does is encourage people to over-consume "good" foods, needlessly avoid "bad" foods, all magnified by a marketing tsunami of food companies touting their products as beneficial.
I see no real reason why we shouldn't avoid "bad" food, nor why is it needless to avoid them. If anything, it is actually needless to eat them. Food isn't a prize, it is an essential part of your health and should be treated as such.
In reality, confirmed bad food like sweets shouldn't even exist anymore in our society. "Liking" a food is not and never will be a good reason to eat it, you should strive to eat what is good for you.
Also, the "good" and "bad" labels are more than just a "marketing tsunami", they are an ongoing effort to help consumers select better food for their health. It is flawed and full of opportunists, but this alone doesn't nullify the true intention behind it.
If everything is critical, nothing is. If everything is important, nothing is. If everything is a carcinogen, nothing is.
Unless you put a qualifier next to it, it's meaningless because it voids any importance the label could originally have had. There is a difference in how likely it's gonna kill you, and this has to be stressed. Yes, working as a liquidator for Chernobyl, smoking cigarettes and drinking coffee are all likely going to cause cancer in you. But one is quite certainly going to kill you quite soon, one is likely to kill you somewhere in the future and one is ... well, we don't know but might kill you ... at some point in time.
And unless we establish some kind of way to differentiate between them, such labels will lose all meaning they might have had. If I can't avoid doing or eating something that is labeled as "causes cancer", why bother trying to avoid any of them?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Trouble is that the only good food is kale. And kale is inedible.
Does make an OK packing material if properly dried
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1884
A food facility where food may be consumed on the premises shall not provide single-use plastic straws to consumers unless requested by the consumer. Existing law requires, except as otherwise provided, a person who violates any provision of the code to be guilty of a misdemeanor with each offense punishable by a fine of not less than $25 or more than $1,000, or by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not exceeding 6 months, or by both.
to cause cancer in laboratory animals"
The industry, led by Starbucks, said the level of the chemical in coffee isn't harmful and any risks are outweighed by benefits.
The risk is taken by the consumer. The benefits are taken by the industry / Starbucks.
This sounds to be in line with previous court judgements. Yes your coffee is hot. Put a sign on it.
Perhaps they should put "Crush danger" on sacks of it. If a big enough bag is dropped on someone from a sufficient height it may injure. After all, how many such bagfulls of this need to be drunk in order to significantly increase the chance of cancer?
Which kills the most people prematurely per year in the USA - coffee cancer, obesity, air pollution or motor vehicle accidents? Which causes the most across the rest of the planet? Lets deal with all of the dangers buts lets set some priorities, Deal with the ones that cause the most damage first.
For comparison of importance, which has caused the most questionable election results - illegal immigrants, fraudulent voters, jerrymandering or termites?. We can probably deal with the termites later.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
It's a decomposition product of the roasting bean. They don't pour it in there like some kind of solvent. It's formed when cooking above 120C. Potato chips could probably avoid generating it by cooking at 119C and burn less chips in the process. I think potatoes are fried to remove the water and they lowered the temperature by vacuum frying. Coffee needs to decompose in order to be roasted where potato chips are considered burnt when this happens.
https://www.coffeecrossroads.c...
No, but they should have a warning: "This door will hit you on the way out".
because coffee contains water.
every food processing bears risks. If you cook, it can not be avoided that some unhealthy ingredients are produced. There are pros and cons to every food philosophy. As others have pointed out, the evidence prevails that coffee is beneficial for cancer prevention and has other benefits.
I really wish we could stop with foods being either "good" or "bad" for you. My guess is even if you actually get the science to say if something is good or bad, the chances are that it's really only very marginally good or bad for you at reasonable/non-OCD intake levels, not so good or bad that it will swing the health of a normal person.
It's actually more complicated than that since a food will have effects that are both good and bad. Coffee being a good example, as people mentioned coffee has a lot health benefits, but it also has health issues and risks, one of which may be a very slight increase in your probability of cancer.
The same thing happens with drugs, only moreso. Any useful drug is having an effect on your body, anytime you have an effect you're probably going to have a side effect as well. That's why drug warnings are so common, that's also why I'm so skeptical if natural health remedies. If the natural drug is effective enough to do something good then it's also effective enough to do something bad.
I stole this Sig
I have no idea why anybody would even litigate this.
Follow the money:
Proposition 65: allows private citizens, advocacy groups and attorneys to sue on behalf of the state and collect a portion of civil penalties for failure to provide warnings. (civil penalties up to $2,500 per person exposed each day over eight years)
Warning : This product is a carcinogen in the State of California (Nowhere else). .....
In other news, I've also heard that stupidity is a carcinogen.
It's about time we pull out of the ancient tradition of letting shyster politicians make our decisions for us.
On mice, fellow scientists!
You don't see them going to great lengths with their own line of coffeemakers now, do you?
"You can request the "Hazardous Material Data Sheet" from the manufacturer."
I think every online listing should be required to have a link to the Hazardous Material Data Sheet. Otherwise, it is too time-consuming to learn about the hazard.
Very funny parent comment, because very well written.
The are cancer.
There! Fixed that for you!
Just how much coffee do you have to drink before this becomes a significant threat? Because I'm guessing it's going to be right up there with the nonsense about sodium benzoate in sodas some years back, where you would have to drink 300 cokes in a day to exceed the FDA's guidelines on sodium benzoate.
At which point, you'd have far worse problems than the sodium benzoate in the sodas.
I mean, okay, if _one_ cup of coffee a day significantly increased your chances of certain cancers, I think we'd have noticed that by now. So, I'm betting for acrylamide to be a major factor in you getting cancer from drinking coffee, you'd have to drink at least a few dozen cups a day.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Life will cause death. Duh.
Oxygen can cause cancer too. ... that is in chrome.
Condoms can cause cancer.
Chromium can cause cancer
There are many things to love about California and there are many things that are stupid.
Only 18% of Californians have earthquake insurance. Talk about denial.
The whole point of a free market is that the best decision point for risks vs. benefits is the individual, with specific knowledge of his or her own situation.
I'm sure there are plenty of people out there where the benefits look dubious, not having any of the risk factors in the first place that those "benefits" are mooted to reduce, while having a family history of cancer in precisely those organs most closely associated with acrylamide animal models.
The only free market I believe in is the one where decision makers—including the ever-more beleaguered individual—are empowered with specific information and associated choice gradients they can realistically exploit. A free market for me is a giant network of autonomous choice gradients populated by informed, self-interested choosers. Half of capitalism talks a big story about free markets, while doing everything in the power of their Dr Strangelovesque second arm to squelch choice gradients, to dominate choice gradients with macroscopic binary decision points, to suppress the flow of pertinent information, or to cloud the flow of pertinent information if it can't killed at source.
I watched The Kite Runner last night. Great in the small stuff, weak in the large stuff (central-casting bullet spray that gets sleepy-footed and near-sighted in the third act, helping the audience ignore the small detail that the protagonist has gone batshit INSANE in his peril management skills), but a worthy film for all that.
MINOR spoiler alert. At a key point, there's a line "Where's your shame?"
Okay, free-market fat cats, my turn: Where's your shame?
The benefits (in the large) outweigh the risks (in the large).
"In the large" is hammer and sickle territory. WTF has that got to do with decentralized, individual, free-market choice?
Nice. No expedient socialism here. Just business as usual, with the crisp, wind-blown flag of capitalist ideology self-interest concealing your missing pants.
It's not a problem with warnings themselves, but of weighing the level of risk. The labels don't give one any sense of risk degree. Perhaps we need a rating system, similar to movie ratings or Dept. of Homeland Security's "Homeland Security Advisory System" rating colors (which have since been altered in confusing ways).
By the way, the warnings are required by Proposition 65, which was voted into CA law. It's not meddling gov't, but meddling voters.
Let's make it better instead of throwing it out.
Table-ized A.I.
CA Prop 65 warning on coffee. On the coffee thing, 67% of the settlement money went to the lawyers. The company/person that sued has the same address as the lawyers. It is a shakedown. Repeal CA Prop 65.
I could find a hundred other sources saying the same thing. Those just happened to be the ones at the top of my list.
Sorry somebody downmodded you as troll: I think they saw that you were gratuitously slamming news sources, and didn't realize you were in fact actually on topic, since you were commenting on the sources I linked.
With that said, however, your comment on the sources was edging toward troll, or possibly simply prejudice. It doesn't make a whit of difference that the New York Times is "part of the big-4 media monopoly"; their Tuesday Science Section continues to be one of the best sources for science and health information. Sorry you don't like them because they don't fit your personal bias, but you very much need to understand that it is you, and not them, who has the bias.
And, by the way, if there are four of them, it's not a monopoly.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
When everything is a carcinogen, then nothing is a carcinogen. Kooks like this cause message overload which obfuscates the things we really should be putting warning labels on.
Existence in the State of California, maybe hazardous to your health. There maybe a link between existence in California being a cancer causing carcinogen and cancer.
;)
Just my 2 cents
There is a stronger correlation between getting old and getting cancer that there is between drinking coffee and getting cancer. This is a scientific fact, backed up by Scientific ndata. It is also true that if you are born you are going to get older. Therefore, we need to start arresting these moms and dads that are getting together and having children. These poor helpless children will through no fault of their own get old and die of cancer. Moms and dads are causing children to get cancer. We need to round up and arrest all these terrible parents. We can send the children to CPS to be cared for by the state of California and we can end this injustice.
If you don't agree with me you hate children and don't believe in Science.
may cause harm to your health and possibly even life. Use with appropriate does of caution. You have been warned.
We should get warning labels for this.
Coffee drinkers rule.
The things you learn every day.
Or open a coffee shop named "Tropic of Cancer" with the warning sign prominently in the window.
Trouble is that the only good food is kale. And kale is inedible.
You know if you add a flavoured grease like coconut oil or some salted butter to the pan when you cook kale it makes it easier to scrape into the trash.
That link does not seem valid.
If they don't want the label, either remove the chemical or prove through science that it doesn't cause cancer.
It's not about weighing benefits vs negatives. Use a chemical that can cause cancer in a food stuff, then definitely; you should have the label.
I'm kind of curious, are doors in California required to have warnings along the lines of "Warning: outside contains sunlight, which is known to the state of California to cause cancer."?
Prop 65 is only about chemicals, but you never know where a new California proposition will take you...
Of course some sun-block lotions have been required to slap on this warning...
WARNING: This product contains benzophenone, a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer.
https://oag.ca.gov/system/file...
A smarter judge would simply require everything to have a cancer warning and be done with it. Life is a cancer risk, and we should nanny state proper. This half assed shit needs to be stopped.
Stress is known to cause disease, ailments, and possibly even cancer.
Therefore I demand that the people responsible for this wear a badge on their forehead, telling us they cause cancer.
And, by the way, if there are four of them, it's not a monopoly.
They collectively are
Nope. That's not what a monopoly is. The word "mono" means one; "monopoly" means "one seller."
If there are four, it's not one.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Time to put it on all the "Welcome to California" signs.
You know if you add a flavoured grease like coconut oil or some salted butter to the pan
Frying in Crisco and adding a bit of sodium saccharine make it quite tasty. Also, adding a bit of bacon (or just bacon fat) does wonders.
I am reminded of the tale of "stone soup".
I have no idea why anybody would even litigate this.
From the CNBC story, referring to Prop 65: "It allows private citizens, advocacy groups and attorneys to sue on behalf of the state and collect a portion of civil penalties for failure to provide warnings."
That's why.
Thanks for the explanation. I was mystified. Is that really the reason for the California state poison notice?
There is chromium and vanadium in the earth, also. Should there be big signs in California like this:
EARTH is a planet known to the state of California to cause cancer.
Or: Since sunlight can cause skin cancer, should California have big signs that say:
The UNIVERSE is known to the state of California to cause cancer.
This is what we get when we who are engineers provide better and better tools to morons and scientists who work for the government.
We've made it easier and easier to detect millionths and even billionths of things, many of which are scary to soccer moms.
There's ARSENIC naturally in apple seeds. Apple seeds get crushed along with the rest of an Apple in the presses used to make apple juice. Traces of arsenic therefore end up in apple juice. Nobody in history has ever been documented to have been harmed by the arsenic naturally occuriing in apple juice. None of this stopped the freak-out over arsenic in apple juice a few years ago (at levels now detectable, but not detectable in the centuries before).
There's a town in Colorado called Leadville. Lead mining occurred there because lead is a natural substance that was found there in abundance. Lead was used for centuries to make peoples' lives better. It's not a great idea to EAT lead, and poor children EATING chips of leaded paint in their rundown apartments were found to be somewhat damaged by it. There is NO documented case of a person being harmed by touching an electronic gadget built with leaded solder. None of this mattered however; electronics manufacturers have been driven to go "lead-free" and have been forced to use more-expensive silver solder, which requires higher temperatures and over time develops "wiskers" that will eventually short-out a circuit.
Not long ago, a HAZMAT team was dispatched to a southern California school because a small mercury thermometer was broken! [facepalm]
The list of insanity just grows and grows.
the coffee makers hadn't presented the proper grounds... ..badum tshhhhh....
Bullshit. The answer isn't GMO. The answer is in lowering the roasting or frying temperature.
It costs more because throughput for a given amount of hardware is less, if it stays in longer because of a lower temperature to not be produced.
Exactly the same as potatoes.
To anyone who worked in a restaurant in the last 80 years, they will understand when I say:
KALE IS A FUCKING GARNISH! It is what you put on the salad bar to HIGHLIGHT the actual food you are supposed to eat!
Yet another incompetent twat, utterly devoid of common sense, is sitting on the bench and ruling on cases in California.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
If this EVER hits Washington state, the Starbucks revenue will bankrupt lol
https://www.healwithfood.org/a...
https://www.fda.gov/Food/Foodb...
PPB of acrylamide
Brewed coffee: 5-10
Gerber Tender Harvest Organic Sweet Potatoes: 121
Arby's french fries: 252
Lamb Weston Inland Valley Fajita Fries (baked): 1325
Pepperidge Farm Dark Pump Pumpernickel (not toasted): 34
Pepperidge Farm Dark Pump Pumpernickel (toasted): 364 <-- better not use your toaster
General Mills Cheerios: 266
Blue Diamond Roasted Salted Almonds: 236
Hershey's Cocoa: 909
Nabisco Chocolate Teddy Grahams: 199
Starbucks Coffee Colombia (brewed): 7
Starbucks Coffee Lite Note (brewed): 11
Keebler Rumbly Grahams Cinnamon: 334
Holy crap, see how much toasting your bread adds?! California should place warning on toasters. Turns your food into a cancer causing poison. But really, Gerber baby food has 12-24x more.
Is known to the state of California to cause cancer.
It was the idiocy of requiring labelling warning that something is dangerous without REQUIRING AN MSDS OR OTHER COMPREHENSIVE LABELLING THAT EXPLAINS WHAT IS DANGEROUS, so you can make an informed decision for yourself (which after all is/was the 'sane' reason California has all these 'dumb' laws.) But without sufficient documentation laws like this become pointless because as stated if all you have to go by is every product having a hazardous chemical warning, then eventually you start ignoring them because you cannot function without ignoring at least one of the labels. And if you can't find sufficient information on the item in question without more than 5 minutes of research to discover it, most people won't bother.
This was one nice part with the OSHA requirements for many(all?) businesses: You're required to keep the MSDS for all hazardous chemicals on-site, and the company is required to provide them to you (sometimes included free of charge in the package of chemicals you purchased, othertimes faxed or available as a pdf.) With comprehensive MSDS you can decide for yourself what level of safety equipment is sufficient for your own convenient usage vs health risk factors, as it should be with food and household goods.
Sadly America's political system has been broken since the beginning as mouth breathers and lackeys on both sides of the aisle prove time and again.
... label the air? Something that thick, dark, and nasty has to be carcinogenic.
#LabelTheAirCA
California causes cancer. The state itself. They thought it was all this other stuff the whole time but they didnt take the state itself out of the equation
Actually we do have 'plagues' of people dying from cancers that we only speculate the cause of. That is what this is about. Or rather, that and the inadequacy of the california system that makes no attempt to acknowledge 'spectrum' effects. It's like the 'war on drugs'. One milligram of heroine on it's own never ruined a life. If laws were logical, people would legally be allowed to recreationally consume one milligram of heroine per year. To those who are skeptical that such a change would be good for society, I answer them with - RESPECT SCIENCE. Science respects the consideration of proportion, wheras this california law and the wider 'war on drugs' do not.
If the judge paid attention in science class, they'd know that they aren't qualified to be making that kind of ruling. Leave it to real scientists to get to the research and lobby the government.
Acrylamide and Cancer Risk
I meant I have no idea why the coffee makers would try to avoid putting the warning! They should have just folded immediately.
So eventually the label will be meaningless.
alright this is utter ridiculous CA. You need to just state that life is carcinogenic and get it over with. Thanks.
You're thinking of cyanide, not arsenic.
And it doesn't matter.