Coffee shops lawsuits

[Mr. Questionman]

CALIFORNIA -- Under the state’s Proposition 65, businesses are required to notify customers if their products contain any of the 65 chemicals, including acrylamide (a possibly cancer-causing chemical that’s produced when coffee beans are roasted), that are linked with cancer, birth defects or other reproductive issues. Because cafes do not post carcinogen warnings, the lawsuit maintains, they are in violation of this policy.

Under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, passed by voters as Proposition 65 in 1986, private citizens, advocacy groups and attorneys can sue on behalf of the state and collect a portion of civil penalties.

Public interest group, the Council for Education and Research on Toxics, or CERT, sued 70 companies, claiming the state’s Proposition 65, which requires warning labels on anything that contains materials that cause cancer, should apply to coffee.

CERT lawyer Raphael Metzger argued in court this week that the benefits of coffee are “just a bunch of hypotheses” and that Californians have been exposed to “really high levels of a carcinogen” by drinking coffee, according to Law360.

Others say that this suit and similar ones are being pushed by increasingly aggressive lawyers.


The Metzger Law Group
The Metzger Law Group is a boutique firm whose practice is concentrated on the litigation of toxic tort and environmental exposure cases in the State of California. It is the only law firm in California that is devoted exclusively to the litigation of toxic injuries other than asbestos-related diseases.

Contact Information
401 E Ocean Blvd, Ste 800
Long Beach, California
Call +1 562-437-4499
https://www.facebook.com/pg/Metzger-...4325648/about/

California Proposition 65 (1986)
Proposition 65 (formally titled "The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986") is a California law passed by direct voter initiative in 1986 by a 63%-37% vote. Its goals are to protect drinking water sources from toxic substances that may cause cancer and birth defects and to reduce or eliminate exposures to those chemicals generally, for example in consumer products, by requiring warnings in advance of those exposures.

Acrylamide Litigation
Council for Education and Research on Toxics (CERT) v. McDonald’s and Burger King. In 2002, the Metzger Law Group filed the first Proposition 65 case regarding acrylamide on behalf of the Council for Education and Research on Toxics to require fast food companies such as McDonald’s and Burger King to warn consumers of the acrylamide hazard in french fries. Eventually the California Attorney General joined the suit and the Metzger Law Group co-litigated the case with the Attorney General. More: http://www.toxictorts.com/index.php/...itigation.html


Discussion on YouTube
Coffee in California may come with a warning


Acrylamide - Are Coffee Businesses Going To Get Sued?


Only in California? Lawsuit seeks cancer warnings on coffee


Will California label coffee a cancer risk

[dana 386]

OMG
If they start closing those shops I will never get through the day.

Isn't that going a little too far?

What next will these lawyers dream up so they can sue.

[adjusterjack]

Blatant spam - advertising an attorney. Post has been reported.

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by adjusterjack

Blatant spam - advertising an attorney. Post has been reported.

I agree and I reported it too. My guess is nothing will be done about it. This place is like the wild west, anything goes.

[newman5]

Yikes!

Now we can't drink our Starbucks either!

At least we can sue 'em.

Nobody is gonna give up their coffee.
This too will pass!

hmm


MARCH 30, 2018

!LOS ANGELES — A Los Angeles judge has determined that coffee companies in CA 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.