
Judge rules California coffee shops must display cancer warnings - ayanai
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/380925-judge-rules-coffee-sellers-must-include-cancer-warnings-in-california
======
malcolmgreaves
What an absolute waste of everyone's time.

Prop 65 has such a high false positive rate that it's worthless; it does
nothing to inform nor protect citizens. When there's a sign on everything, the
"warning" doesn't matter anymore. Moreover, just because something has a
carcinogen doesn't automatically mean it's unhealthy nor that it will harm
you.

[1]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3575799](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3575799)
[2] [http://www.businessinsider.com/almost-everything-causes-
canc...](http://www.businessinsider.com/almost-everything-causes-
cancer-2016-5) [3] [https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/general-
info/kno...](https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/general-info/known-
and-probable-human-carcinogens.html) [4]
[https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/08/15/17-carcinogenic...](https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/08/15/17-carcinogenic-
foods-you-probably-eat-every-day_a_21452232/)

~~~
dmm
> doesn't automatically mean it's unhealthy nor that it will harm you.

Examples: sunshine, candles, birth control

~~~
another-one-off
Realistically, sunshine has caused more cancers than every nuclear disaster
added together.

If we could, we would absolutely ban it. It is grossly unsafe.

~~~
njarboe
Probably causes more cancers each day than every nuclear disaster added
together. On the other hand, without sunshine, the Earth would be frozen world
covered with ice, void of life.

------
chomp
When people say "overregulation hurts small business in California," here's an
example. Imagine just wanting to sell people coffee and not knowing you need
to warn people about cancer risks of all things! Imagine getting fined by this
regulation, or the myriad of others of which you could possibly run afowl.
Just yikes.

~~~
fapjacks
Don't forget about the $800 Alternative Minimum Tax faced by _every_ company
registered in the state (or doing business in the state, or having workers in
the state, or...). That's $800 even if you make zero dollars, or if you're a
nonprofit, or if you lose money. California literally says "for the
_privilege_ of doing business" in the state. The ole small business
assassination program.

~~~
techsupporter
> California literally says "for the _privilege_ of doing business" in the
> state.

I'll start out by saying that I think that an $800 minimum is waaaay too high.

But I continue by pointing out that it's not for "doing business," it's a tax
for having the legal fiction of limited liability[0] enforced by the state.
You only pay the minimum tax if you are a corporate entity (Inc or LLC).
That's a subtle, but in my opinion important, difference.

If you're willing to transact business in your own name as your own personal
liability, the state--at least for this tax; I'm not conversant with the full
roster of non-corporate business taxes in California--doesn't charge you for
the privilege. If you want the shield of your personal assets separate from
your corporate persona then, yes, the state charges you for that privilege.
Every state has some sort of fee or tax. Some are very small (Wyoming is only
$30 or $40, I believe) while some, like California's, are quite large on the
minimum end.

0 -
[https://www.ftb.ca.gov/businesses/faq/712.shtml](https://www.ftb.ca.gov/businesses/faq/712.shtml)

~~~
fapjacks
So the state tax code literally says, "For the privilege of doing business in
the state". [0] Their words, not mine. Whatever way you describe or justify
it, the state defines it in this way specifically. Also, sole proprietorships
can only be for-profit ventures in California. So if you wanted to start a
non-profit, you're paying the AMT.

[0]: [http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/revenue-and-taxation-code/rtc-
se...](http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/revenue-and-taxation-code/rtc-
sect-23455.html)

------
peterwwillis
Other foods with acrymalide: black olives, prunes, dried pears, coffee,
roasted tea, rice crackers, anything fried, anything baked, breads, cookies,
nuts, chocolate, baby food, and of course, cigarettes.
[https://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodborneIllnessContaminants/Chemic...](https://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodborneIllnessContaminants/ChemicalContaminants/ucm053549.htm)

~~~
vmarsy
Interesting table! Some have much more than coffee, in the 1000s ppb

Coffees show a huge difference between not-brewed and brewed. Here some
examples from that link:

    
    
        not-brewed   --> brewed (ppb)
          458              6   
          377              6
          411              6
          539              7
          3747             93
    
    

Compared to the French fries values, those 6s and 7s looks very negligible.

However, the article says: "At issue is a chemical, acrylamide, which is
produced while roasting coffee beans."

So is the danger when coffee is being roasted? brewed too? Is that a concern
for people (employees especially) spending a lot of time in coffee shops
because of airborne acrylamide? or acrylamide left on surfaces or something?

------
joshavant
When I worked at Apple, it was fun to walk in some buildings and notice the
California 'cancer warning' sign posted in the lobby. From that, you knew
there was probably a hardware engineering lab somewhere in that building,
because I believe they had to post those due to carcinogens released from
soldering. (And, inside of Apple, that kind of knowledge would only be shared
on a need-to-know basis, otherwise.)

~~~
zaroth
No, they put the signs on every building everywhere because it’s cheaper than
not putting them up and possibly getting fined $2,500 for everyone who ever
walked inside.

It’s impossible to construct a building which would not contain some element
which would trigger the legal requirement of posting the sign.

The sign conveys you absolutely no information. Look closer and you will see
they are posted on every commercial building run by someone smart enough to
know to post them. The more entertaining places I’ve seen them is grocery
stores and preschools.

------
mc32
Of all the things people make fun of California for, this is one we deserve.

The cure: Have a fast limit on the list and in order to introduce new items on
the list of items needing the warning, you have to remove one from the list.

Barring that, require some threshold of known effect, before something can be
added to the list.

~~~
OrganicMSG
I've seen a magnetic tack hammer with a varnished wooden handle that had one
of those stickers on it here in the UK. Was wondering if it was in case you
chewed the varnish.

Perhaps someone should just put a label on the roadsigns as you enter the
State of California saying, "May contain nuts".

------
nnq
Side question: why don't we actually _encourage and fund research into
developing solid, reliable, and standardized tests for carcinogenicity?_
Everybody with at least some above basic knowledge of molec bio realizes that
things like the Ames test are like complete jokes... so we don't even f know
which of the substances around us actually cause cancer in humans :|

Yeah, this is the kind of research that would _never_ advance anyone career,
bring anyone glory, or bring science closer to a "cure" for cancer. And yeah,
once you'd want to start actually employing a reliable test in the wild, you'd
probably severely reduce your changes of a successful career (and maybe even
of continued personal survival), because you'll soon step on some pretty huge
toes.

But really, _improving tests and sensors_ should be a top priority of bio-
medical research... It might slow down some industries, but hopefully not that
much. "Moonshot" projects like "curing" cancer or diabetes are "fun", but
we're building a world where we're surrounded by stuff of which we have no
idea what's safe or what not.

My _personal_ current worry is actually with the cornucopia of chemicals with
neurodegenerative effect that could be all around us, but this reminded me of
the fact that we're also basically in the "dark ages" when it comes to
determining carcinogenicity in a practical way (hint: it's not about what you
can do as part of a funded research project in a few years, it's about having
a portable test kit that any average Joe could use to test the hundreds of
thousands of chemical compounds and mixtures of them that are all around us,
and then in the tones of likely mostly wrong data resulting from it "fish" for
maybe actually relevantly dangerous stuff, and then do real research to
confirm those ...but then again modern medical research is allergic to
"fishing data for patterns" too, so maybe this would need some reframing).

------
JoshMnem
It would make more sense to warn customers about the health dangers of the
sugars and calories.

~~~
qplex
Or about drinking very hot beverages. Let your coffee or whatever cool down a
bit and you're at much lower risk.

[0] [http://time.com/4369809/very-hot-drinks-are-probable-
cancer-...](http://time.com/4369809/very-hot-drinks-are-probable-cancer-
trigger-says-who/)

------
b6
I rarely visit California, but when I do, sometimes the cancer warnings make
it look like I'm on the set of a movie trying to warn me about some absurd
future. OK, the parking lot could give me cancer. OK, the elevator could give
me cancer.

------
anigbrowl
The Chamber of Commerce could easily sue on the grounds that these regulations
are overbroad and even the incumbent governor is on the record as saying so,
but the cost of compliance (displaying a sign) is low and it's handy to have
something to kvetch about.

Also, note that it was a nonprofit, the American Cancer Society, that sued to
enforce this, not the state of California.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The Chamber of Commerce could easily sue on the grounds that these
> regulations are overbroad

There are no regulations at issue, there is an initiative statute; and, while,
yes it is easy to sue and claim a statute is overbroad, it is much harder to
win such a suit: “overbroad” isn't just “covers more conduct than good policy
judgement would permit”, but “exceeds any constitutionally permitted purpose
to impose a chilling effect or outright prohibition on constitutionally
protected conduct.”

In fact, as that claim would be a defense in any lawsuit under the act, if it
was such an easy win, it would have been made in one of the cases—like the
present one—under the act.

~~~
anigbrowl
Hmm, you make a good point. I assumed they wouldn't have standing to bring it
up if they weren't litigating against the state itself, and that they were
limited to arguing on the facts about the acrylamide.

------
mirimir
Other baked and fried foods also contain acrylamide. So what about muffins and
donuts? Or french fries? And then there are all the carcinogens in heated
unsaturated oils.

~~~
Finnucane
Also things you probably shouldn’t eat all the time either.

~~~
mirimir
True enough.

But I suspect that heating _any_ food much over 100 °C will create
carcinogens. Even cooking rice, if it browns at all by accident. And indeed,
some folks cook at 50-70 °C to avoid that. Sprouted grain "bread" baked at ~50
°C is especially strange.

~~~
mywittyname
I was actually told this by a physics professor in college (in a class about
science and public policy). He claimed that basically anything that is browned
via heat becomes a carcinogen, so policy makers and scientific researchers
have a moral obligation to ensure that "is known to cause cancer" remains a
meaningful statement, because taken literally, it applies to almost anything.

~~~
mirimir
Right. You have acrylamide. Plus polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). But
PAH, at least, get degraded quickly, and don't accumulate in fat, unlike
similar halogenated compounds, which do. Arctic peoples are loaded with them,
because they're transported north and condense out. Distillation, basically.

------
alexandercrohde
From wikipedia:

Acrylamide was discovered in foods in April 2002 by Eritrean scientist Eden
Tareke in Sweden when she found the chemical in starchy foods, such as potato
chips (potato crisps), French fries (chips), and bread that had been heated
higher than 120 °C (248 °F) (production of acrylamide in the heating process
was shown to be temperature-dependent).[17] It was not found in food that had
been boiled[17][18] or in foods that were not heated.[17]

------
userbinator
I had to look again at the date of the article, since I remember Starbucks
already had these warnings a long time ago:

[https://www.flickr.com/photos/shakataganai/6039225908](https://www.flickr.com/photos/shakataganai/6039225908)

That doesn't make the situation any less absurd, however.

------
quickthrower2
Warning: Lack of coffee (or similar stimulant to get you through the long day)
may put your tech job at risk!

------
cowpig
Judge rules hospitals must display cancer warnings; longer life linked to
increase cancer risk

~~~
quickthrower2
Every business that doesn't suffocate it's customers should display cancer
warnings. Oxygen is carcinogenic.

------
freedomben
My buddy has a sticker on his laptop that says, "not legal in California."

Note: He placed the sticker there himself as a joke. His laptop isn't _really_
illegal in California.

~~~
Groxx
Yet.

------
onetimemanytime
sheer stupidity. Eating causes cancer via weight gain. Breathing air causes
cancer. Eventually they'll have to list only those few things that will _not_
cause cancer.

~~~
daveFNbuck
That's the law in California. Everywhere you go there are warnings that the
area has chemicals that cause cancer. I'm surprised Starbucks didn't have
these warnings already.

~~~
coding123
I actually remember seeing a sign like that in a Starbucks like 8 years ago in
like Vacaville CA of all places.

------
exabrial
California continues to drive the cost of doing business up.

~~~
Pilfer
Coffeeshops only need to print a piece of paper and tape it to the wall.

The cost of compliance is less than $0.20

I think there are better arguments for your PoV than this one.

~~~
philipodonnell
Do not fall into the trap of assuming that because cost of complying with the
letter of an incremental regulation seems like it would low to you, that means
that it does not impose a burden on business owners.

Regulations are cumulative. This is yet another thing to add to the list of
notices that have to be up and yet another thing that an unaccountable city
inspector in a bad mood might decide it not quite displayed prominently for
their liking and fine you.

That is what businesses complain about, not the cost of each regulation, the
cost of complying with all the regulations, all the time, with no way to
defend yourself and no one to tell you if its enough (and defend you if
someone disagrees later).

~~~
exabrial
What's the cost of non compliance for not putting up a $0.20 sign

------
mmagin
Interesting: [http://schachtmanlaw.com/the-council-for-education-and-
resea...](http://schachtmanlaw.com/the-council-for-education-and-research-on-
toxics/)

------
dacox
I always thought it was funny seeing this in California. Coffee? Getting a bit
surreal.

I was visiting once and saw a plaque on a (condo?) building with the warning.

~~~
Skunkleton
My apartment build has such a plaque because it was built on the site of an
old factory or something. I am a recent import to California. I was not
prepared for the amount of state sponsored signage.

------
BooneJS
I’ll take the risk that a cup of Philharmonic will be my end.

------
mindfulplay
California seems like a state of contradictions. Antivaccine yet some of the
best universities. Too much regulation yet opiod overdose is prevalent.

~~~
dragonwriter
> California seems like a state of contradictions. Antivaccine yet some of the
> best universities

The antivaccine movement is a very small proportion of the population, and one
which (unlike the universities) is opposed by the people setting policy
(California has a reasonably strong vaccine mandate, and is in the process of
further narrowing the allowable exemptions.)

> Too much regulation yet opiod overdose is prevalent.

California has the third lowest opioid overdose death rate in the nation [0];
insofar as California actually has “too much regulation” and that is a thing
that could reasonably be expected to be contradictory to a relatively high
opioid impact (both of which premises are less than clearly established), no
such contradiction is evident.

But, aside from the relevance of that claimed contradiction, sure, California
is a large and diverse state, not a uniform hive mind. It has plenty of
contradictions. It would be weird if it didn't.

[0] [https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/opioid-overdose-
de...](https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/opioid-overdose-death-
rates/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B"colId":"Opioid%20Overdose%20Death%20Rate%20\(Age-
Adjusted\)","sort":"asc"%7D)

~~~
fipple
> The antivaccine movement is a very small proportion of the population

Not really. Less than 50% of Pixar employees' children at their day care are
vaccinated. And these are people with much more money, and thus more political
clout, than average.

[https://www.wired.com/2015/02/tech-companies-and-
vaccines/](https://www.wired.com/2015/02/tech-companies-and-vaccines/)

------
kazinator
> _A nonprofit research group_

After salaries, bonuses and all sorts of frivolous expenses, no doubt.

No such things as "non-profit group" in this world; just a group with an
accounting ledger in which a column labeled "profit" works out to zero.

Natural, traditional foods and drinks don't need any warnings. The ingredient
is roasted coffee and water; go bleepin' google if you want to know how either
might be bad for you.

