You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Mmmm.. Carcinogenic Corporate Coffee.. Sounds... Delightful!
It isn't anything that Starbucks and all are adding or doing differently, though: it's a reaction between sugars and amino acids that occur in potatoes, grains, and coffee naturally, when you cook them. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/acrylamide.html
So, you could grow your own organic potatoes, and cook them at home, and you'd still have it.
I'm not saying that there aren't approximately 9,000 other things wrong with the thirtysomething ingredient American McDonald's calls "french fries," (whilst in other countries, they serve actual three ingredient fries: potatoes, oil, and salt), but in this instance, it's not some additive.
Yes, I appreciate that this is not an additive - I don''t know though, why these businesses would be forced to place such a warning, but retailers of coffee products in stores would not, for example.. Do you know?
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2017/10/cancer_warning_on_your_coffee.html
7-11 and BP already settled and agreed to post warnings. "In his initial complaint in 2010, Metzger alleged that a 12-ounce cup of coffee contains about 10 times more acrylamide than the state's "no significant risk level." The case grew to include about 90 coffee producers, distributors and retailers, from mom-and-pop roasters to multinationals such as Nestle. Most of the companies are working together in their defense."
When it's a matter of grocery stores, I think it's up to the maker, not the store. So 7-11 sells 7-11 coffee, but at the grocery, the bags would have to be labeled by each company.
I see, ok - I just wondered why there wasn't more awareness of the issue in society in general.. but then again, people, en mass, ignore most health warnings it seems.
I think it was the BP rep in one of the articles I saw that said they just agreed to post warnings because by now most people in California tune it out.
wow, that's a great quote for future reference!
"The retailers have refused to settle because they firmly believe there's no cancer risk from the acrylamide in coffee, said Joe DeRupo, a spokesman for the National Coffee Association. A representative of Starbucks referred to the association for comment on the case.
"We don't want to have to put a label that would be false speech and that isn't scientifically accurate," DeRupo says.
The few coffee sellers that have settled rather than keep fighting, including BP Plc, the franchisor of "ampm" convenience stores in the state, were weary of the case and figured that people in California are so accustomed to seeing the signage that they will tune it out, according to DeRupo"
Ok, so it's a guy from the national coffee associstion, saying that's what they thought. It's in the oregon live article i linked.
So like, they sue Starbucks, Kicking Horse, Equal Exchange, Jim's Organic Coffee, Peet's, etc., not Target, Kroger, etc. Unless there are house brands, but house brands are usually just re-labeled national brands, so they're probably still going after the original producer.