People have been enjoying and drinking coffee for thousands of years and recent health studies suggest it's rather good for you, but now, all of a sudden, the State of California claims it has "science" to support the notion that coffee causes cancer. That's why some numbskull judge ruled that now all coffee must carry warning labels, same as dreaded, dangerous, cigarettes, warning everyone of cancer and attempting to get at least some people to stop. Can you say: 'judiciary out of control?'
Associated Press reports:
A Los Angeles judge has determined that coffee companies must carry an ominous cancer warning label because of a chemical produced in the roasting process. Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle said Wednesday that Starbucks and other companies failed to show that benefits from drinking coffee outweighed any risks. He ruled in an earlier phase of trial that companies hadn’t shown the threat from the chemical was insignificant. The Council for Education and Research on Toxics, a nonprofit group, sued Starbucks and 90 other companies under a state law that requires warnings on a wide range of chemicals that can cause cancer. One is acrylamide, a carcinogen present in coffee.
What this activist suit and consequent judicial overreach represent is a sort of medicalization of food, nanny-state-style, as if food itself were some sort of toxic medicine, full of side effects, instead of a combination of risks and rewards, all ameliorated by moderation of use.........More so than the medicalization of food, this amounts to the politicization of food. .............Read more
My Take - We need to understand that a huge number of foods test carcinogenic. But testing carcinogenic and causing cancer are two different things. Testing carcinogenic under the current standard isn't necessarily even carcinogenic. They feed massive amounts of a compound to rodents that are genetically prone to grow tumors and then declare something carcinogenic when the grow tumors. And when the EPA was challenged this wasn’t good science the EPA claim these determinations aren’t a matter of science but of EPA policy.
Well if their policy isn't based on science, what is it based on?