STiR coffee and tea magazine

26 STiR coffee and tea / Issue 3, 2018 (June / July) population of 100,000. Lorenz Rhomberg also testified; he was responsible at the Environmental Protection Agency for work- ing out formulas to extrapolate from results of laboratory tests on mice and rats in order to determine risk levels for humans. Various problems plague such extrapolations; the literature is filled with statements like "humans might show similar responses to equivalent [determined by body weight] chemical exposures." Berle refused to consider that, as Prop 65 allows, an ASRL does not apply when "chemicals in food are produced by cook- ing" to make the food palatable. Although some ideas about steaming, not roasting, green coffee are floating around, we all know that so far coffee beans must be roasted to be usable. The judge found that Kessler's testimony was not based on scientific evidence. Berle also declared that Rhomberg "did not calculate an ASRL for acrylamide in coffee by means of any quantitative cancer risk assessment." Yet that is exactly Rhom- berg's specialty, and in fact he did calculate the quantitative risk. Material from Covance Laboratories, which specializes in chemical analysis of chemicals like acrylamide, was also not al- lowed. Thus Berle rejected the defendants' ASRL argument. In fact, none of the testimony for the defense by highly regarded scientists was admitted in Phase I or II. So the rats and mice won, or died trying, in a certain sense. Since plaintiffs could point to lab studies that show those animals develop tumors when stuffed with huge amounts of lifetime acrylamide, those results trumped all else. True, cof- fee might cause some types of cancer in humans; yet, as many studies show, coffee helps prevent other types and overall does much more good than harm regarding cancer. Berle's decisions leave several questions unanswered: 1) what about the problems in extrapolating from rodent studies to humans? 2) Who could establish that one "excess" case of cancer among 100,000 people resulted from drinking coffee? 3) Why didn't the well-documented finding that coffee reduces the risk of some cancers, as well as conferring other health benefits, outweigh the possible risk from coffee? Bill Murray, president of the National Coffee Association, is worried that people are subject to a "barrage of information" every day that makes it likely some consumers will not look be- yond warning labels. "We are in a post-factual world" where people rely on headlines, he noted to me. Nevertheless, Murray outlined three ways that the coffee industry can try to counter the California decision. At the state level, efforts are under way to persuade the legislature to amend Prop 65. Work within the state's petition system might help; yet a successful drive would need to collect 500,000 signatures. Finally, there is the possibil- ity that federal law, relying on the interstate commerce clause, could override California law. After all, packaging and even green and roasted coffee may come into the state from other states. Meanwhile, specific studies are looking into what exactly coffee's effects are on human organs. But after all this, Judge Berle's decisions appear to indicate that the public's fears about harmful food, evident as well in the Non-GMO Project and gluten-free labels, are growing. The coffee industry must hope that the steady stream of positive announcements about our drink and health will make an even stronger impression on consumers. Robert W. Thurston, who holds a PhD in history, is author of Coffee: From Bean to Barista, to be published later this year. C Bagged Again: California Doubles Down on Prop 65 Warnings By Joseph F. DeRupo alifornia has repealed Proposition 65 warnings. But, squelch the impulse to cheer. It's a repeal with a mon- strous replace. For 30 years, it's been noisome business as usual for manufacturers, packagers and retailers. But, starting August 30, entirely new Prop 65 warning rules will send us all back to regulatory kindergarten. The new regulations upend what today qualifies as the prior "clear and reasonable warning" proscribed by Prop 65 for prod- ucts holding a listed substance. In short, the new rules change the requisite wording and format, as well as methods of trans- mittal. Notably, they build out the basic warning into a playlist of circumstance-specific templates, and also extend the warning mandate to online and catalogue listings. And, perhaps most nettling to packagers, they shift re- sponsibility up the supply chain, away from retailers, to those responsible for the chemical's presence. That approach could turn up the heat for manufacturers and stoke new concerns for packagers. Manufacturers For manufacturers, the new rules mean chemical-specific warn- ings on labels, signs, and shelf tags. Warnings must identify at least one carcinogen and one reproductive toxicant present and refer consumers to a state website for additional informa- tion. The regulations also call for specific warnings for differ- ent routes of exposure. There's also a newly minted symbol to make Prop 65 warnings more evident – a bold black exclama- tion point in a bright yellow triangle. While food items can omit the symbol, they must still specify the Prop 65 chemical(s) in the product. Another notable change concerns notification requirements from manufacturers who ship products in bulk to retailers. The manufacturer must provide specific written notice directly to the authorized agent of a retail seller, must obtain the retail seller's confirmation of the notice's receipt electronically or in writing, and must issue a renewal notice and, subsequently, obtain the retailer's confirmation of receipt of the renewal notice within six months during the first year of the regulations' effective date. Packagers For packagers, the new regulations could mean potential liabil- ity to a new degree. Why? Two regulatory vectors may con- verge to put them more squarely under Prop 65's thumb: 1) the new regulations' push of responsibility up the supply chain; and 2) the increased likelihood of packaging as the chemical's source with the recent listing of vinylidene chloride (1,1 – dichlo- roethylene), which has been used in coffee packaging. Legacy substances on the list, such as Bisphenol-a, lead, acrylamide, styrene polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and vinyl chloride, also used in packaging materials, cans, and bottles, could also impact packagers.

• Cover