Comment Submissions - Proposed Adoption of Exposures to Listed Chemicals in Coffee Posing No Significant Risk

Comment by: 
Carl Miller
Received on: 
08/14/2018 - 3:15pm
Comment: 
I'm a college educated professional living in Los Angeles, and I fit the stereotype--I am normally in favor of fuller disclosure to consumers when it comes to health and the environment. As that proud, Californian stereotype, I will say that the court ruling requiring a Prop 65 warning on coffee was insanity and made California a global laughingstock. For the sake of Prop 65's integrity, I am very grateful that OEHHA has proposed new language exempting coffee. All the reasonable science that I have read points away from coffee being a cancer risk. If warnings were placed on coffee, I and most Californians would question the veracity of other Prop 65 postings. The warnings could no longer be taken seriously, which would rob the program of its meaning and authority. Not only does the science challenge the very idea that coffee is a cancer risk, common sense tells most Californians the same. If this ruling is upheld and warnings must be applied to coffee, Prop 65 will lose all meaning and authority, and consumers will be far, far more likely to ignore it from here on out. This can not happen.