View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 Posts: 9118 Location: at a computer
|
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What you should have said, is that you dont usually get involved in polls, unless you like the results. That would have been a more honest assessment. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001 Posts: 4161
|
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2018 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Big Brother will look out for you...……….
Quote: | Judge rules coffee sold in California requires cancer labels (Associated Press)
By Victoria Kim
Mar 29, 2018 | 6:55 PM
Starbucks and other coffee purveyors probably will have to use warning labels on coffee after a Los Angeles judge ruled that they failed to prove they should be exempt from a California law on carcinogens and toxic chemicals.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Elihu M. Berle wrote in a tentative decision this week that the coffee companies did not meet their burden to prove that there was a safe level of consumer exposure to a chemical compound created in roasting coffee.
The long-running lawsuit, first filed in 2010, concerns whether coffee drinkers should be warned about acrylamide, which is among the more than 850 confirmed or suspected carcinogens listed under California's Proposition 65.
The law, enacted as part of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, requires businesses with 10 or more employees to warn people of exposure to the listed substances.
Acrylamide is created when coffee is roasted and also is found in fried potatoes and burnt toast. It has been found to increase cancer risk in rodents. Its effect on humans remains inconclusive.
More than 90 coffee roasters, retailers and distributors, including Whole Foods, Kraft and Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, stand to be affected by the decision.
Berle said scientists who testified on behalf of the coffee companies failed to prove that there was an acceptable level of acrylamide. Earlier in the trial, he also ruled that the coffee companies failed to show the chemical was not a significant risk or that requiring them to include the warnings would violate the 1st Amendment.
"While Plaintiff offered evidence that consumption of coffee increases the risk of harm to the fetus, to infants, to children and to adults, Defendants' medical and epidemiology experts testified that they had no opinion on causation," he wrote.
The coffee industry has contended that it is impossible to eliminate acrylamide without affecting flavor, and that the exposure is harmless to consumers.
Raphael Metzger, the attorney for the nonprofit Council for Education and Research on Toxics, the plaintiff in the case, said he hoped the judge's decision would push the companies to agree to reduce acrylamide levels in coffee.
"I would very much prefer that, when my addiction compels me to drink coffee, I can drink acrylamide-free coffee," he said. "They just don't want to change. They want to keep doing business the way they have been doing."
Berle will issue a final decision after giving each side an opportunity to object. The next phase of the trial will determine the civil penalties to be levied on the defendants. The law allows for as little as a cent and up to $2,500 for each time a consumer was exposed to the chemical without being warned, Metzger said.
victoria.kim@latimes.com
|
Learn more about California's Proposition 65 and the 850 chemicals that the public must be warned about if a product contains one or more of them.
https://www.knowablemagazine.org/article/health-disease/2018/curious-case-acrylamide-californias-prop-65-explained |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17744 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2018 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Techno would rather be exposed to carcinogens without his knowledge?
I guess that's how they do it in the south. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008 Posts: 6485 Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2018 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Once again classy mac shows his bigotry, southern bigotry again this time.
Just can't help himself. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17744 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just checking. Nutty California is not bigotry--but that's how they do it in the south is? According to a nutty Central Californian who makes shit up all the time. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008 Posts: 6485 Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mac wrote: | Just checking. Nutty California is not bigotry--but that's how they do it in the south is? According to a nutty Central Californian who makes shit up all the time. |
mac wrote: | I guess that's how they do it in the south. |
High school
"If he does it, I can too".
I shouldn't expect you to grow up anytime soon. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17744 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2018 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
nw30 wrote: | mac wrote: | Just checking. Nutty California is not bigotry--but that's how they do it in the south is? According to a nutty Central Californian who makes shit up all the time. |
mac wrote: | I guess that's how they do it in the south. |
High school
"If he does it, I can too".
I shouldn't expect you to grow up anytime soon. |
NW keeps thinking he has a gotcha, and keeps failing. For proper use of the English language, what Techno and I were engaged in--when you butted in--was regional chauvinism. You can look it up yourself.
But I have been to the south enough times to know I don't want to live there. In addition to the history of slavery--carefully preserved with monuments and confederate flags and museums-- there is the oppressive pseudo-religious culture, massive pig farms that don't take care of their shit, humidity and hurricanes. But in the relevant question of carcinogens, there is the decades long litany of lies about tobacco-supported by subsidies.
But if you want to move to the South, let me know and I'll help you pack. As the saying goes, if you choose Alabama, you'll increase the average IQ of both states. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001 Posts: 4161
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001 Posts: 4161
|
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2018 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
California also has a history of slavery:
Quote: | Slavery under U.S. rule[edit]
With the 1847 defeat of Mexico, California and other Mexican territories were ceded to U.S. rule (the Mexican Cession) under the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the war.
However, at the time, the 26-state nation was divided equally between 13 free states and 13 slave states. With the addition of vast new, agriculturally-rich territories, including California, the debate over slavery intensified dramatically. California itself was divided over the issue, as a large number of slave-owning Southerners had travelled to California to seek their fortunes in the 1849 Gold Rush, and many brought their slaves. Many miners expressed concern that slaveholders accompanied by slaves had an unfair advantage in the mining camps and that slavery's inherent inequality violated "the independent entrepreneurial sprit of the mines."[4]
In October 1849, the first California Constitution Convention was held. One of the most heated debates of the Convention was on the status of slavery in the new state.[5] While some Southerners who had come to California were staunchly in favor of giving official sanction to slavery in California, Northern abolitionists and White-American miners (who did not want competition from the slave-holders in the gold fields) were well represented within the ranks of the convention. The chairman of the convention, William Gwin, was himself a slaveholder from Tennessee. Gwin, however, was much more interested in gaining control of the California Democratic Party than he was in favoring either side of the debate.[citation needed] To the later chagrin of his fellow Southern members of Congress, he did not write the institution of slavery into the 1849 Constitution. The Compromise of 1850 later permitted California to be admitted to the Union as a free state. Gwin and war hero/abolitionist John C. Frémont became California's first Senators.
Although California entered the Union as a free state, the framers of the state constitution wrote into law the systematic denial of suffrage and other civil rights to non-white citizens. Some authorities went so far as to attempt to deny entry of all African-Americans, free and slave, to California. The Legislature passed a bill that would ban the immigration of free blacks to California. State Senator David C. Broderick, a fierce opponent of slavery and former firefighter from San Francisco, managed to kill the bill through parliamentary maneuver.
Slavery did persist in California even without legal authority. Some slaveowners simply refused to notify their slaves of the prohibition, and continued to trade slaves within the state. Numerous state trials ruled in the favor of emancipation. |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_California |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17744 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2018 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Johnny did it too. And saved the monuments? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|