4 • Coffee World • C&CI May 2012


Proposition 65 poses threat to commerce


in coffee The National Coffee Association (NCA) in the US deserves to be congratulated for the way that it keeps on top of issues that could affect the industry in any way. As anyone attending the NCA’s annual conference in


March will have gleaned, one of the biggest issues currently is something called ‘Proposition 65,’ legislation that was passed several years ago in California that gives consumers "the right to know" what is in the products they are buying. Nothing wrong in that, you might agree? The problem is that


Proposition 65, as originally drafted, applied to drinking water, not coffee, or the many thousands of products to which it is now being over-zealously applied. Administered by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA),


the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 was meant to alert con- sumers to the presence of anything that could be detrimental to health. There were a number of listing mechanisms included in the legislation, but, crucially, no requirement for scientific review. Since it was introduced, the number of products to which it has been applied has grown hugely and, unfortunately, coffee is now one of them. As most readers of this magazine will already know, and as an ever increasing


number of consumers have been made aware (many of them by campaigns also led by the NCA), coffee has numerous health benefits. How ironic then that like other products affected by Proposition 65, labelling on coffee should have to bear the fol- lowing words: "WARNING: This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer," and "WARNING: This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm." Where, one might ask, is the scientific evidence that this is the case with coffee?


The answer is: there isn’t any. Knowing how litigious the US has become, it will come as no surprise to anyone


that there is no state agency charged with enforcing the legislation. Rather, enforce- ment is through litigation. Who can sue, you ask? Well, the California Attorney General can, but so too can


any district attorney or city attorney. However, by far the biggest problem comes from "any party acting in the public interest." "Any party" can bring a private lawsuit, with penalties of up to US$2,500 per day for each violation. In December 2001, an estimat- ed 4,400 notices of intent to sue were sent to businesses. To-date there have been many settlements in Proposition 65 cases, 1,200 between


2005-2010, with 187 in 2010 alone. The financial impact has been significant. The settlements arrived at between 2005 and 2010 costs businesses in the US more than US$88 million. In excess of US$13 million was paid out in 2010, not including attor- neys’ fees and costs. Bear in mind also that Proposition 65 is not a ‘California only’ statute – it applies to all businesses regardless of location. As highlighted above, Proposition 65’s effect has been to force companies to intro-


duce warnings on their labels or reformulate. The problem with coffee is, as anyone will tell you, that tinkering with coffee’s complex chemistry quickly affects flavour, and so to some extent reformulation has been regarded as non-starter (although this may be changing). The particular problem for coffee is a chemical called acrylamide, although other


substances could come into the picture. Acrylamide is found in all sorts of food, from cooked meat to bakery products to beverages. Some companies claim to have devel- oped ways to reduce acrylamide in coffee, but for the time being the jury is out and techniques such as these have only been used on a small scale. This being the case, the defence against litigation under Proposition 65 has been that no warning is required if you can show that the acrylamide doesn’t actually pose a significant threat to health. Unfortunately, however, there is no clear definition of "significant risk" with which to work. Failure to warn consumers about these – scientifically unproven – threats to their


health leads to expensive and burdensome litigation, and stigmatizes products that are otherwise safe to consume. And, as the NCA recently announced, following a long- awaited court hearing, Proposition 65 lawsuits against coffee – one against ready-to- serve companies and another focussing on retailers – are now moving forward. Both cases were brought by the Metzger Law Group on behalf of the Council for


Education and Research on Toxics (CERT). The allegation is that, under Proposition 65, the companies in question should have warned consumers about acrylamide for- mation during coffee roasting. CERT filed the first case in April 2010, against 15 retailers who serve coffee in the cup, and the second against 30 roasters and retail- ers who sell roast and ground coffee through stores. Where California leads, so the rest of the US – and Canada – tend to follow, so this is very much an issue for everybody in the coffee industry.


Roasters including Nestlé, Kraft, Tchibo and Sara Lee are working to enhance sustainable coffee’s market share


US Sara Lee unveils new name for coffee business


As Sara Lee Corporation becomes two publicly-held ‘pure- play’ companies, it has announced that its international coffee and tea company will be named DE Master Blenders 1753. DE Master Blenders 1753 will operate across Europe,


Brazil, Australia and Thailand under leading brands such as Douwe Egberts, Senseo, L’Or Espresso, Marcilla, Pilão, Moccona, Pickwick and Hornimans. Since 1753, Douwe Egberts has been a name synony-


mous with coffee. This has made Douwe Egberts one of the best-selling brands in Europe. "DE Master Blenders 1753 places great respect on the company’s heritage while placing a strong emphasis on the future," said Sara Lee.


Switzerland


Roasters aim to increase sustainable coffee sales


Working closely with the Dutch Sustainable Trade Initiative (IDH), several large, international coffee roasters – Nestlé, Kraft, Tchibo, and Sara Lee (which together account for 30 per cent of world sales) – have started an ambitious programme to drive the devel- opment of sustainable coffee sales from their current level, around 8 per cent, to 25 per cent by 2015. "By working through existing local structures and accelerating


what is already in place, we think that we can reach this ambitious goal," said Ted van der Put, Programme Director at IDH. The programme will work in a number of producing countries


including Brazil, Vietnam, and East Africa. It will address productivi- ty, climate change, and access to finance, in addition to encourag- ing alignment among existing standards. "This will increase sustain- able coffee production in a pre-competitive manner and make cof- fee farmers more resilient," said IDH. The details of the international plan are currently being worked


out for each producing country. IDH says the programme is due to get underway later this year.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52