Category Archive: Proposition 65
No cancer warning for coffee…but what about the law that requiring one in the first place?
California recently decided not to require cancer warnings on coffee after all. For some background, California's Proposition 65 requires warnings labels on products or places of business that may expose consumers to any one of roughly 900 carcinogens and reproductive toxins. But as the American Cancer Society notes, "not every compound labeled as a possible cancer-causing substance has been proven to the worldwide scientific community to actually cause cancer." When it comes to coffee, researchers (and the public) almost universally agree that the beverage is safe. But since coffee contains acrylamide, a chemical on California's list, a judge decided earlier this year that the...Read More
How Much Money Did Your State Lose to California’s Cancer Labeling Law? Read the Report.
The Center for Accountability in Science is proud to announce the release of the 2018 Proposition 65 State Impact Report, a first of its kind overview ranking states by how much money local businesses lost settling Proposition 65 lawsuits. Although we’ve been writing about the harms of Proposition 65 for some time, the California law recently caught national attention for requiring cancer warnings on coffee despite firm scientific consensus that coffee does not cause cancer in humans. Apparently, unjustifiable cancer warnings on one of the world’s most heavily consumed beverages was the catalyst consumers needed to understand exactly how flawed Proposition...Read More
Sorry LA Times, Proposition 65 is Definitely Overkill
Earlier this week, the Los Angeles Times ran an opinion article called "Cancer warnings for coffee may be overkill, but Proposition 65 is not." We beg to differ. The authors argue that in spite of Proposition 65 extracting hundreds of millions of dollars from businesses and requiring warnings on products that definitely won't cause cancer (which lead the public to ignore warnings when they do matter), the law is totally worth it because it convinces companies to reformulate their products without toxic chemicals. The authors attribute Kaiser Permanente’s decision to stop using IV equipment containing the chemical DEHP to Proposition 65. However, the healthcare provider’s decision came more than twenty years after...Read More
CAS Statement: California’s Cancer Warning on Coffee
Washington, D.C. - Yesterday, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled that coffee sold in the state of California must now come with a Proposition 65 cancer warning. The nonprofit Center for Accountability in Science is calling the preliminary ruling “a bad move for public health.” Dr. Joseph Perrone, Chief Science Officer at the Center for Accountability in Science, issued the following statement: “Once again, California’s Proposition 65 has put a target on the back of an unquestionably safe product. Although acrylamide is reasonably anticipated to cause cancer in humans, a vast number of observational studies show that consuming coffee --...Read More
Does Coffee Cause Cancer?
Yesterday, a California court decided that coffee served in the state must come with a cancer warning. As it turns out, the venti-sized scare doesn’t have much grounds in science. A law called Proposition 65 is responsible for requiring the cancer warnings. Prop 65 requires any business with 10 or more employees that sells products in California to warn their customers about the presence of close to 900 chemicals “known to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.” For coffee, that chemical is acrylamide. Brewed coffee contains anywhere from 3 to 13 parts per billion of acrylamide, a...Read More
Major Papers Start to Agree: California’s Environmental Law Is A Disaster
This week, a Bloomberg news story opened with this curious note: “If you happen to buy a cup of coffee in California and it comes with a cancer warning, don’t panic -- it’s just the law.” That law, Proposition 65, has been the bane of California businesses for over 30 years. It requires warnings on products and places which may expose consumers to chemicals “known to the state of California” to cause cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm. Trouble is, California apparently “knows” more than the EPA, FDA, NIH, and the litany of toxicologists who study harmful substances for a living. The state labels items as...Read More
Beat Unnecessary Warnings with…More Warnings?
Last week, a Los Angeles Times article posed the question: “Adding Roundup to Prop. 65 list is a victory, but will Californians heed the warning?” Adding Roundup, the popular weed killer powered by glyphosate, may have been a win for internet activists, but it was by no means a win for science. Government studies evaluating the entire body of well-performed research into glyphosate’s safety have unanimously concluded that the substance is not harmful to human health, and especially not at the levels which people are actually exposed to. After “an exhaustive process,” the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) found glyphosate was unlikely to...Read More
A Wolf in Puppy’s Clothing
Three economists out of Harvard and Vanderbilt recently published a paper on risk management which reflects much of what we believe about warning labels. Current warning systems, such as California’s Proposition 65, fail to differentiate between large and small risks – or, as the authors put it, wolves and puppies. Puppies are common, and although their nip may hurt, a pup doesn’t pose much of a threat. Wolves, on the other hand, are rarely seen, but can introduce real risk to your (or your puppy’s) well-being. When people are told to fear both wolves and puppies equally, the warning quickly becomes ineffective. People become habituated to puppies and don’t perceive...Read More
Should You Stay Away from Aspartame?
Despite decades of research and hundreds of studies demonstrating the safety of the artificial sweetener, aspartame, rumors persist that it’s dangerous. Some flow from the back-country pages of the web, but there’s at least one government agency (in the world) stoking fears: California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). OEHHA might add aspartame to its Proposition 65 list of chemicals “known to the state of California to cause cancer.” But consumers shouldn’t fear. If California does list aspartame as carcinogenic, it will become the only regulatory agency in the world to do so. And as we’ve shown before, going against...Read More
Nitrite and Amines and Amides, Oh My!
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) seems to do more speculating than assessing these days. In 2014, OEHHA proposed to add “nitrite in combination with amines or amides” to Proposition 65’s ever-growing list of carcinogens. Nitrite is part of the nitrogen cycle, the process by which nitrogen is reused in the natural environment. The cycle would occur whether humans were present or not, and that’s a good thing! Otherwise, all molecular nitrogen would be stuck in our bodies when we die, and plants would be deprived of an essential resource to produce chlorophyll. Consider it all part of the great...Read More