Starbucks Corps and other coffee vendors must issue cancer warning by selling California coffee, governing Los Angeles judges, perhaps fines companies to release millions of dollars in dollars.
Not a little known note to some coffee retailers, including Starbucks, they are violating law enforcement agencies in California, which warns chemical consumers in their products that can be cancerous.
One of these chemicals is the acrylamide, a herb of raw beans roasting which is present in high levels of brewed coffee.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elihu Barley decided on Wednesday that Starbucks and other companies have failed to show that there was no significant risk to a carcinogen produced in the coffee roasting process, court documents showed.
Starbucks and other protesters decide to appeal till April 10th.
The National Coffee Association (NCA) said in a statement that Starbucks has declined to comment because the industry is considering an appeal and more legal steps.
"The cancer warning labels in coffee will be confusing," said the US State Department's own dietary guidelines. Coffee can be part of a healthy lifestyle, "the statement said in a statement.
In his conclusion, Barley said: "Protesters prove that by consuming coffee, people have failed to satisfy their burden with a useful ingredient for health."
Dunkin 'Donut, McDonald's Corps, Pete and other big coffee vendor officials have not reacted promptly to the request for comment
In 2010 the case was filed by the Council for Education and Research on Topic (CERT). Exhibit for chemicals since 2002 in the protesters' shops in California requires a penalty of more than $ 2500 per person. Any civil fine, which will decide in the third phase of the trial, can be large enough in California, which has a population of 40 million
CERT lawyer Rafael Metzer did not respond immediately to the request for comment.
Starbucks lost the first stage of the trial, which failed to show acetylmoid levels in the coffee, which would lead to an important risk of cancer. In the second phase of the trial, the court documents showed that the accused failed to prove an acceptable "alternative" risk level for carcinogen.
Prior to Wednesday's decision, a number of self-defense, published reports, have been fined millions of taka after posting signals and penalties for cancer-linked chemicals.