Coffee Anyone?: How Sound Legal Conclusions Can Break With Science Under Prop 65
On June 15, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), which implements and administers California's Proposition 65 program, made an unexpected pivot and proposed a new regulation clarifying that cancer warnings are not required for coffee under Proposition 65.
July 17, 2018 at 02:54 PM
2 minute read
Cheryl S. Chang and Erika R. Schulz of Blank Rome.
Section 25704. Exposures to Listed Chemicals in Coffee Posing No Significant Risk
Exposures to listed chemicals in coffee created by and inherent in the processes of roasting coffee beans or brewing coffee do not pose a significant risk of cancer.
|Background
|The Litigation
Council for Education and Research on Toxics v. Starbucks
- The defendants' expert performed the wrong type of qualitative risk assessment, focusing on acrylamide instead of acrylamide in coffee, which was necessary to quantify the risk of cancer for this case.
- The method the defendants used to test for acrylamide was a novel scientific technique that had not been generally accepted in the scientific community, rendering it unreliable and inadmissible.
- A second expert provided rationales for an ASRL that the court deemed to be inadequate, lacking scientific support, and not based on sound considerations of public health.
- The defendants' evidence that coffee confers some benefit to human health was not persuasive and was refuted by the plaintiff's evidence.
Litigants' Response and Plaintiff's Challenge to Proposed Regulation
|Conclusion
CERT CERT Cheryl S. Chang is a partner in Blank Rome's Los Angeles office who focuses her multifaceted practice on consumer class action defense, consumer financial services, and corporate litigation.
Erika R. Schulz is an associate in the firm's Los Angeles office who concentrates her practice on complex commercial litigation, class action suits, and unfair business practices.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Hershey's 'Bubble Yum' Hit With Consumer Class Action for Allegedly Containing 'Forever Chemicals'
Los Angeles Secures $35M Settlement From Monsanto in Water Contamination Lawsuit
Bonta, Environmental Groups Sue Exxon Mobil Over Plastic Recycling Claims
4 minute read
Harvard College and Ward, Smith & Hill File Patent Infringement Suit Against Samsung
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
