Junk science: California calls coffee 'cancerous'; Judge Demands Starbucks carry warning labels.

American Thinker ^ | 03/30/2018 | Monica Showalter

[SeekAndFind]

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. And this judicial order to label coffee as cancerous is hideously disproportionate - the same sorts of carcinogens criticized in the coffee roasting process found in minute quantities can also be found in roasted peppers and bacon, too.

[miss marmelstein]

They should carry warning labels that their coffee sucks.

[353FMG]

Will coffee go the same route that tobacco did?

[granite]

This will make the silly law impotent.

[bmwcyle]

From my dead cold fingers.

[mfish13]

You got that right!

[mfish13]

You got that right!

[rey]

Everything gives you cancer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsQyru5ACmA

[WayneS]

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 burden of proof is on those claiming that the chemical is a significant threat, not the other way around you ignorant nitwit.

[Quality_Not_Quantity]

What I find interesting is that the judge ruled on the lack of proof of a negative. “He ruled in an earlier phase of trial that companies hadn’t shown the threat from the chemical was insignificant.”

So, once again, we have the difference between ‘what is not explicitly forbidden is permitted’ and ‘what is not explicitly permitted is forbidden.’

[WayneS]

True. But that is a separate issue...

;-)

[windsorknot]

Warning: California could be hazardous to your wealth, freedoms and Constitutional rights.

[SkyDancer]

There should be a notice on their “Welcome To California” signs that state: “Caution, Entering California Can Be Hazardous To Your Mental Well Being”

[rivercat]

They should just put up a big sign that says...

Proposition 65 Warning!

Nearly everything in your life, including the hot beverage you're about to drink has cause a lab rat to die of cancer at some point. Beware of everything!

[fwdude]

Liberalism should carry a warning label.

[Gasshog]

Cancer gives you Cancer.

[avenir]

And to think we had just been told that coffee is really good for you..but .only if you drink ENOUGH! (Liking coffee, I fell for that. Never occurred to me the coffee cabal might have paid for the “study”, lol.)

[SandRat]

who said that??? FRY THE science guy?

[SeekAndFind]

[DIRTYSECRET]

Starbucks should have stuck with racism.