Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

California's Proposition 65 and Coffee


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Timwoodbag

Timwoodbag

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 74 posts
  • 28 thanks
5
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted 16 April 2018 - 05:43 PM

So Coffee has recently been identified as a Prop 65 food, how has this affected your food safety plans?  Is it something that should be mentioned explicitly? 



#2 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 14,058 posts
  • 3882 thanks
472
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 16 April 2018 - 09:47 PM

So Coffee has recently been identified as a Prop 65 food, how has this affected your food safety plans?  Is it something that should be mentioned explicitly? 

 

JFI afaik - California proposition 65

 

http://www.latimes.c...0925-story.html

 

Proposition 65. Proposition 65, officially known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, was enacted as a ballot initiative in November 1986.

Proposition 65 requires the state to maintain and update a list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 1 Member:

#3 FurFarmandFork

FurFarmandFork

    QA Manager/FS Blogger

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,091 posts
  • 490 thanks
92
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 16 April 2018 - 09:55 PM

If we decide we're going to ship to CA, I'll add the prop 65 warning to my label. Not going to mess with trying to quantify acrylamide or any of the other thousand contaminants in a statistically valid way. CA consumers are used to seeing the warning literally everywhere from pumping gas to starbucks so in general it doesn't seem affect purchase intent unless you're specifically going after a "whole foods" market.

 

In general it comes down to your compeition. If you have a product that can be produced without the warning, you have an incentive to try and get rid of it. However, if all products carry the warning (such as insecticides, gasoline, etc.) then consumers will likely tune out the warning.

 

As much as I want to bash on CA food safety, it's worth noting that despite the negative consequences on risk perception and company liability vs. public health, Prop 65 has encouraged a number of successes in pushing for innovation and elimination of certain formulations containing heavy metals etc. in various industries that benefit the public in general. While not my tool of choice, prop 65 has been successful at overall reducing the amounts of these substances consumers are exposed to, whether they were significant or not.

 

 

 

Some resources on consumer perception:

 

https://hbr.org/2016...s-arent-working

 

https://research.hks...=11338&type=WPN

 

https://digitalcommo...90&context=pubs


QA Manager and food safety blogger in Oregon, USA.

 

Interested in more information on food safety and science? Check out Furfarmandfork.com for more insights!

Subscribe to have one post per week delivered straight to your inbox.

 


Thanked by 1 Member:

#4 Timwoodbag

Timwoodbag

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 74 posts
  • 28 thanks
5
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted 17 April 2018 - 12:49 PM

Excellent response, and right along what I was thinking too.  And thank you Charles for the link, I always forget how international this board is!






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

EV SSL Certificate