Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
right, it's merely annoying to the customer, but it does a further disservice to the customer by giving them such 'warning fatigue' that they are less likely to take any warnings seriously, knowing how many are based on nothing more than stupid lawsuits or threats of same, rather than science.
it is indeed farcical considering the bulk of evidence is that coffee has more health benefits than dangers.
highly unlikely. how do you propose that someone who developed cancer could draw a direct line between that cancer and their coffee consumption?
How is a warning sign in a store, or on a coffee cup an any way annoying to the customer?
A civil lawsuit would not need to draw a direct line. All it would need to show it that the coffee contained Acrylamide, that Acrylamideis classified as a group 2A Carcinogen which requires a warning label, and that the companies did not place such label.
In the Sacramento thread we have tons of posts talking about how if you break the law it's ok (and often you deserve) to be shot by the police. I'm surprised that this thread isn't full of people demanding that we don't line up the executives of these companies and execute them. Well, I'm not really surprised as I doubt there are many black executives at these companies.
“I’ll take a Venti Cancer , low fat latte please “
—-
Reuters) - Starbucks Corp (SBUX.O) and other coffee sellers must put a cancer warning on coffee sold in California, a Los Angeles judge has ruled, possibly exposing the companies to millions of dollars in fines.
A little-known not-for-profit group sued some 90 coffee retailers, including Starbucks, on grounds they were violating a California law requiring companies to warn consumers of chemicals in their products that could cause cancer.
One of those chemicals is acrylamide, a byproduct of roasting coffee beans that is present in high levels in brewed coffee.
I'd say cancer is the slimmest chance you're taking at SBux. You got a better chance with other health issues from the high fructose corn syrups and fatty milk that they use. Seriously I'm surprised that's not been discussed more than the chance with cancer.
I've been to many Sbux that already had that Prop 65 warning sign sitting out. I wasn't really sure what the cancer was from, coffee or something else that either they are putting in their beverages, food or from the materials that their cups, straws and/or napkins may have. Now I know it's about just the coffee.
Maybe they should put a Cancer Tax on it as well. In addition to all the other taxes.
Once everyone stops buying alcohol and cigarettes because of the out of control extremely high taxing on those items, the government will be at a total loss so they will start taxing coffee, tea and hot chocolates, I guarantee it.
Back in the day when I first entered the serious workforce, I used to joke around that the government would tax us for the air we breath if they could find a way to do it. They now have.....Obamacare.
How is a warning sign in a store, or on a coffee cup an any way annoying to the customer?
A civil lawsuit would not need to draw a direct line. All it would need to show it that the coffee contained Acrylamide, that Acrylamideis classified as a group 2A Carcinogen which requires a warning label, and that the companies did not place such label.
In the Sacramento thread we have tons of posts talking about how if you break the law it's ok (and often you deserve) to be shot by the police. I'm surprised that this thread isn't full of people demanding that we don't line up the executives of these companies and execute them. Well, I'm not really surprised as I doubt there are many black executives at these companies.
a successful lawsuit would. simply showing that minute quantities of a possible carcinogen exists in a food or drink product would hopefully be laughed out of court.
very interesting that you managed to pull the race card in a thread about coffee labels
have a look at these FDA acrylamide estimates, and let us know if you think Californians should start demanding warning labels on all of these too.
right, it's merely annoying to the customer, but it does a further disservice to the customer by giving them such 'warning fatigue' that they are less likely to take any warnings seriously, knowing how many are based on nothing more than stupid lawsuits or threats of same, rather than science.
it is indeed farcical considering the bulk of evidence is that coffee has more health benefits than dangers.
highly unlikely. how do you propose that someone who developed cancer could draw a direct line between that cancer and their coffee consumption?
Well, also Steve McQueen went to Mexico and participated in coffee enema's for the treatment and prospective cure for his colon cancer. Unfortunately that didn't work out so well though for him.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
