“California Proposition 65” (hereinafter referred to as California 65, Prop. 65) stands for “Drinking Water Safety and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986”, which is part of the “Health and Safety Code (HSC)” implemented in California. This proposal aims to protect water resources and human health by controlling toxic and hazardous substances in products.
California Proposition 65 has more than a dozen clauses, the core of which are: (1) It is prohibited to pollute drinking water resources because the product contains substances that are known to cause cancer, teratogens and reproductive system damage (hereinafter referred to as “three-hazard” substances) as clearly specified by the state government. (2) People must receive clear and unambiguous warnings before they come into contact with the product. (3) The state government must provide a list of “three-hazard” substances. This list will be updated from time to time and has covered more than 900 substances so far.
As long as the product contains substances on the list and no clear and unambiguous warning is given, if the number of employees of the company exceeds 10, it is illegal. Once discovered, they will be sued. If the company cannot prove that it is not related to carcinogenesis, it will usually lose the lawsuit.
In fact, even if the product contains substances in Proposition 65, it does not mean that the product is unqualified or has safety issues.
In the Q&A of the official website of California Proposition 65, it clearly answers: The substances indicated by Proposition 65 do not mean that the product does not meet safety standards or requirements. What it means is that it only reminds you that it contains this substance, but it does not mean that the product is harmful.
In fact, the essence of California Proposition 65 is to protect consumers' right to know. It requires products to indicate whether their products contain substances in the list of controlled chemicals in California Proposition 65; clearly indicate the properties of the substances that are exposed, the possible hazards, and how to deal with them once exposed.
Acrylamide is produced by "reducing sugars" (such as glucose, fructose, etc.) and certain amino acids (mainly aspartic acid) through the "Maillard reaction" during frying, baking and roasting.
You may feel unfamiliar with the Maillard reaction, but in fact it can be seen everywhere in our lives, such as barbecue, toast, etc. The fragrance and attractive color are all the result of the Maillard reaction.
You should know that basically there are carbohydrates and proteins in food, and acrylamide will inevitably be produced during the heating process. Therefore, acrylamide is present in many foods we usually eat, such as potato chips, French fries, fried dough sticks, and fried cakes.
Coffee is made from roasted coffee beans, so it is naturally difficult to avoid acrylamide; even the brown sugar we add to coffee has acrylamide, because it is made by heating white sugar.
Acrylamide is indeed a potential carcinogen. A large number of animal experiments have shown that acrylamide has certain carcinogenicity; and it can cause damage to the nervous system, affect early infant development, and endanger male reproductive health.
However, there is currently insufficient evidence to show that it can cause human cancer. For this reason, the World Health Organization (WHO) has classified it as a Class 2A carcinogen after evaluation, which means it may cause cancer in humans.
What everyone is most concerned about is how much acrylamide we eat.
Data obtained from 24 countries show that (2002~2004), the average values of the three types of food with high acrylamide content are as follows: coffee and similar products, with an average content of 0.509 mg/kg and a maximum content of 7.3 mg/kg; high-temperature processed potato products (including potato chips, French fries, etc.), with an average content of 0.477 mg/kg and a maximum content of 5.312 mg/kg; breakfast cereals, with an average content of 0.313 mg/kg and a maximum content of 7.834 mg/kg.
In addition, due to different eating habits, the data of each country are also different. For example, data from Hong Kong, my country shows that the acrylamide content in potato chips is the highest, at 1500~1700ug/kg.
Although the data shows that the acrylamide content in some foods is not low, in fact, we do not eat much acrylamide overall.
The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that the average level is 20~30μg per person per day, and the average intake in my country is about 18μg (based on 60kg body weight). This intake is generally safe, so don't worry too much.
The acrylamide content in coffee is indeed very high, reaching 700mg/kg. However, this amount is the content of coffee powder.
When we drink coffee, we usually use a small spoonful of coffee for a cup of coffee, and the coffee beans or coffee powder used are only 3~4g of coffee, and the acrylamide contained is usually no more than 5 micrograms, which is very low. Drinking one or two cups of coffee is not a concern at all.
In fact, many scientists have studied whether coffee is carcinogenic, but there is no high-quality evidence to show that it is carcinogenic. For this reason, in 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO)'s latest assessment removed coffee from Class 2B carcinogens (possibly carcinogenic to humans) due to insufficient evidence of carcinogenicity and moved it to Class 3 (Not classifable asto its carcinogenicity to humans), which means that coffee does not cause cancer.
Coffee has become more and more popular. Putting a cancer warning label on coffee products would be a misleading act for consumers. The nutrition guidelines issued by the US government point out that coffee is part of a healthy lifestyle. The World Health Organization (WHO) also clearly states that coffee does not cause cancer. Countless academic studies have proven the health benefits of drinking coffee, and coffee drinkers usually live longer.
William Murray, president and CEO of the National Coffee Association, said: "Coffee has long been proven to be a healthy drink. This lawsuit has produced a ridiculous result. This No. 65 ruling confuses consumers and does not contribute to the public's understanding of health."
