Proposition 65, which mandates warning labels on just about every product in every store in the state, insures that Californians have no clue what actually can be harmful or not. What doesn't 'cause cancer' if an epidemiologist can torture data long enough that it confesses?
Prop 65 was successful, so when anti-science activists wanted to get similar warning labels on genetically modified foods, they paid him to create something similar and that became Prop 37. It was voted down, thanks to our experience with Prop 65 (though Vermont copied it verbatim, exemptions for booze and baked goods and organic milk included, and it passed) and the somewhat silly claim that if you pump enough of a chemical into an animal - a tube in the stomach and surfactants to increase uptake - and there is a blip in cancer, it has to be listed as a human carcinogen.
If Prop 65 activists have their way, bread, french fries and most baked good will carry a warning label, because they carry scary-sounding acrylamide. So does coffee.
Prop 65 has been a real boon for nuisance lawsuits, the lawyer who wrote it became quite wealthy suing under its 'bounty hunter' provision, so it is unlikely that the attorneys behind this want to protect anyone or take away their coffee, they likely just want to sue Starbucks,
The American Council on Science and Health has been following this and take down this latest bit of craziness.
Oh well, if they are trying to ban coffee, at least California is letting Happy Meals, golf and goldfish alone for a while.
A re-heated coffee scare brought to you by Prop 65 activists - ACSH
