The incident was due to a non-profit organization, the Toxicology Education and Research Committee, which sue Starbucks in connection with California laws and about 90 other companies, and called for warnings about various chemicals that may cause cancer. One of them is acrylamide, which exists in Carcinogenic substances for coffee.
The judgement of Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle on the 28th pointed out that this was because Starbucks and other companies failed to prove that the chemicals contained in their coffee products did not cause serious harm. The Toxicology Education and Research Committee since 2010 Year began to sue the coffee retailer, claiming that acrylamide (Acrylamide) is a chemical substance produced during roasting. It is carcinogenic and must be cautioned in accordance with the "Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Substances Act 1986".
Before this complaint was not accepted by the court, but in the trial last year, the organization argued that these companies should propose a coffee acrylamide risk measurement. Obviously, the latest verdict indicates that companies such as Starbucks could not target the right propylene in coffee. The amide content provides sufficient quantitative evidence that acrylamide is helpful for the quality of the coffee. It has even been found that many coffee claims are not convincing about the benefits to the human body.
Overkill?
Of course, some supporters have stated that this prosecution has no benefit at all. The law is obsolete because if it is carried out in full compliance with its standards, it will be a warning sign everywhere in life. Acrylic acid is identified by the California Act as causing more than 900 cancers. One of the chemicals, but in practice it is widely used in the manufacture of industrial products such as paper and dyes, and the use of baked and fried foods in the cooking process, including potato chips and fries, are common. In fact, other products are also Face similar complaints.
Oncologist Warren Fong stated that it would be ridiculous to force enforcement of the law, because it is probably no danger if only steamed food is left, and there is no need to change consumer behavior in low-risk situations. In 2016, the World Health Organization had cancer. The agency has removed coffee from the list of carcinogens. David Kessler, former head of the US Food and Drug Administration, said that coffee is a very important food culture. If cancer labels are really added, consumers may turn to other carbon sources. Compound beverages, on the contrary, will have disadvantages.
Therefore, the defendant's coffee retailer pointed out that the trace amount of acrylamide in coffee is harmless, at least far less than the health benefits of the beverage. Ironically, from the current results, the court does not think that drinking coffee can produce anything for the human body. The benefits, these retailers may face huge fines, Starbucks and other defendants can raise objections. However, some retailers like 7-11 have agreed to pay fines and posted warning signs.