A proposed rule may except coffee from “cancer warning labels” in California, on the basis of the scientific evidence in support of coffee and health.
From the Newsroom
via Law Fuel
Today, California’s Second Appellate District Court stayed the trial that was set to begin on Monday, October 15, 2018, in Los Angeles Superior Court, regarding whether cancer warnings are required for sales of coffee in California.
Compelled speech, like censored speech, can violate the Constitution, according to legal experts.
By William “Bill” Murray, CAE, NCA President & CEO via LinkedIn
“Forcing [coffee companies] to include a cancer warning on a product that does not cause cancer plainly violates the 1st Amendment.”
So states legendary First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams (Pentagon Papers, Citizen United), in today’s Los Angeles Times Op-Ed.
“Call it a victory for science — or maybe just for common sense.” – The Seattle Times
It was a good news week for coffee science in California.
Earlier this month, OEHHA (the state’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment agency) proposed a plan that would exempt coffee from Prop 65 required “cancer warning labels” in California after the most recent ruling in the ongoing legislation.
The statement was met with resounding support from scientists and coffee lovers alike.
“OEHHA’s Rulemaking is supported by both the full weight of scientific evidence and law,” wrote William “Bill” Murray, NCA President and CEO, in comments filed Aug. 30. The letter commended the decision and laid out the strong case for coffee in a scientific summary signed by Dr. Mark Corey, NCA’s Director of Scientific & Government Affairs, and Dr. Alan Leviton, Consultant to the NCA Scientific Advisory Group.
Simply put, the research speaks for itself: coffee does not cause cancer.
Then this week, in a groundbreaking announcement, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration sent a letter to Sacramento which emphatically set forth their support for this rule.
“Coffee is both delicious and healthy.”
California’s Misguided Labeling Decision Impacts Coffee Growers & Drinkers
This post was originally published on the Global Farmer Network
By Luiz Roberto Saldanha Rodrigues
When a Los Angeles judge earlier this month finalized a ruling that coffee sold in California must carry cancer warning labels, many California residents may not have paid much attention to yet another labeling requirement.
Ever since voters passed Proposition 65 more than 30 years ago, after all, Californians have watched the steady proliferation of vague statements about chemicals, cancer, and birth defects. They appear almost everywhere, from the windows of hardware stores to signs at Disneyland. They’re so abundant that Amazon even sells them as stickers in rolls of 500.
Many people have begun to ignore these labels because they’re so common and because the information they convey is almost useless.
So why am I concerned if they now also show up on coffee?
Last week, a Los Angeles judge ruled that coffee roasters and retailers must serve up a cancer warning with coffee sold in California under Prop. 65 regulations, based on the naturally-occurring presence of acrylamide from the roasting process.
The decision goes against what the science shows us – including the conclusions of the World Health Organization. Study after study, conducted independently and published in peer-reviewed journals, has shown the potential health benefits of drinking coffee — from liver health to living longer.
The NCA Cold Brew Toolkit draft will be open for coffee industry comment through the end of May
An edited version of the following article was originally published in the May 2018 issue of Tea & Coffee Trade Journal
Cold brew has taken off – and it’s changing the way we drink coffee.
Total retail sales of refrigerated cold brew grew by about 460 percent from 2015 to 2017, reaching an estimated $38.1 million in sales this year, according to research from Mintel.
And, unlike avocado lattes, cold brew is more than a passing trend. About 10% of coffee drinkers reported having cold brew daily in 2017, according to the NCA National Coffee Drinking Trends report – up from only 1% in 2015. Experts predict that this category will continue to drive coffee market growth.
But despite of – or perhaps due to – this sudden popularity, there are still a lot of questions and misconceptions around cold brew. This is especially true for coffee companies that are considering making, serving, or selling cold brew.
Dietary supplements containing pure caffeine are unlawful when sold in bulk quantities directly to consumers, due to the high risk that they will be erroneously consumed at excessive doses, according to the FDA.
The following is an excerpt from the latest NCA Member Alert
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently issued a new guidance to clarify that selling dietary supplements containing pure or highly concentrated caffeine in bulk quantities directly to consumers is “considered unlawful,” because of the high risk that they will be accidentally consumed at excessive, potentially dangerous doses.
Read the FDA press announcement.
With respect to pure or highly concentrated powdered or liquid caffeine, the National Coffee Association (NCA) supports the FDA’s common-sense measure to protect consumers. But it is important to remember that these products have very little relation to coffee: a single teaspoon of powdered caffeine has as much caffeine as 20 to 28 cups (3,200 mg).
In fact, drinking coffee – and the natural caffeine it contains – is perfectly safe for most people. It may even be good for you.
There is no evidence that coffee causes cancer.
Recently, there’s been a flurry of media activity around a long-pending legal case in California, which could potentially result in mandatory “cancer warning” labels on all coffee cups and packaging. The headlines have been confusing, and sometimes even alarming.
via The Daily Intake
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) introduced a new web page and graphic timeline that consolidates the compliance dates for the latest Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) regulations.
By William (Bill) Murray, CEO, NCA
The 2016 U.S. presidential election provoked deep passions across the U.S. that continue to be felt today, as the policy implications continue to unfold.
Last December, we took a first look at how coffee-related policies might be impacted by the election, while conceding that there was much yet to be discovered about the new administration.
Among the various initiatives under discussion by the new administration, a “border adjustment tax” potentially has huge implications not only for the coffee sector, but for every coffee drinker in the U.S. – more than 180 million Americans.
Most ironically, in the case of coffee a “border adjustment tax” could raise the price of everyone’s daily coffee, while not having the intended effect of “bringing jobs to America.”