Proposed Warning Label For Coffee

For the most part coffee is good, for most people. A recent study has suggested that coffee drinkers may even live longer regardless if it was caffeinated or not, with the authors concluding that health benefits of coffee go beyond caffeine. During 2016 W.H.O removed coffee off of its possible carcinogen listing.

There has been several articles describing Proposition 65 which was passed in California during 1986 requiring notification to consumers of possible links to cancers; businesses must provide a warning label when exposing any consumer to any item on a list of potentially harmful chemicals, of which acrylamide is listed which is found within coffee produced during the roasting process.

There are both sides to coffee with some being for and some against. There has not been a study to convincingly link acrylamide found in coffee to risk of cancer, many studies have explored the potential of links between cancer and coffee with the most damning suggesting hot beverages may increase risk of esophageal cancer. Amounts of acrylamide in coffee varies and is small compared to foods that cause cancer in animals, in addition there are other sources of acrylamide such as bread, breakfast cereals, and cigarettes that don’t get any attention.

L.A judge ruling new labeling requirements for coffee states that coffee companies did not prove that acrylamide was safe, meaning the judge asked coffee makers to prove a negative in absence of risk, as well as discounting research on links to coffee consumption and benefits. Proving a negative is not an easy task and part of the reason many theories persist. If a particular food is safe, for example, studies which find no connection to harm that can be criticized, or more study subjects can led to different findings, and dangerous exposure such as cigarettes are far easier to establish links. While the plaintiff offered evidence of harm, it is suggested that since the coffee companies could not show it was safe and acrylamide is listed on the long list of potentially harmful chemicals the judge ruled in favor of the warning label with the defendants failing to satisfy their burden of proof.

Additional legal jargons are expected, it may be some time before California’s plans in regards to warning labels are settled. There are things which can be done to limit acrylamide exposure such as eating less fried food, avoiding burnt or charred foods, not smoking, and avoiding instant coffee. Maybe coffee makers will come up with a new process to roast coffee, if so new studies will need to be conducted as it is not known if changing how coffee is roasted will change its effect on health, and is with the case of potentially carcinogenic toxins additional research will be needed to determine if the amounts of acrylamide change to matter a little, a lot, or not at all.

If the potato chip companies were able to remove acrylamide, the coffee companies should be able to do it as well says coffee drinker and attorney Raphael Metzger who brought the lawsuit.

Really, in all actuality, it’s just a warning label, to many this is much to do about nothing, look at cigarettes for example they are well known killers, yet that’s a multi-billion dollar industry; and that’s not even touching the subject of globesity and the fast food industry effects on health.