AUGH.
AUGH. Either all the coffee company lawyers are terrible at their jobs, or this is a signal example of why lawyers and judges need to be educated on how science and health research works. For example, I can kill you with either water or oxygen (and I don't mean by drowning), but no one would say that bottled water and air need warning labels because they contain either water or oxygen. Honestly, people.
"While plaintiff offered evidence that consumption of coffee increases the risk of harm to the fetus, to infants, to children and to adults, defendants' medical and epidemiology experts testified that they had no opinion on causation ," Berle wrote. "Defendants failed to satisfy their burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that consumption of coffee confers a benefit to human health."
It's almost never possible to prove causation. So why does this judge believe the unprovable causation claimed by the plaintiff and not the factual statement that you can't prove causation pro or con by the defendants? I do not understand this reasoning.
Fwiw, we know inhaling acrylamide is generally a bad idea; we have some science on this. We don't know, in spite of all the science on it, what eating acrylamide does to us. It occurs naturally in a lot of foods, esp with cooking, so we eat a lot of it in that sense. For all that, we don't know what eating it does or if it's important or anything. And we don't really know what "a lot" or "too much" would be.
This whole case is ridiculous and I can't believe it is in the courts. We do not presently have science to justify this.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/30/598348764/fact-check-calif-judge-rules-coffee-must-come-with-a-cancer-warning-but-should-i
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/30/598348764/fact-check-calif-judge-rules-coffee-must-come-with-a-cancer-warning-but-should-i
"While plaintiff offered evidence that consumption of coffee increases the risk of harm to the fetus, to infants, to children and to adults, defendants' medical and epidemiology experts testified that they had no opinion on causation ," Berle wrote. "Defendants failed to satisfy their burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that consumption of coffee confers a benefit to human health."
It's almost never possible to prove causation. So why does this judge believe the unprovable causation claimed by the plaintiff and not the factual statement that you can't prove causation pro or con by the defendants? I do not understand this reasoning.
Fwiw, we know inhaling acrylamide is generally a bad idea; we have some science on this. We don't know, in spite of all the science on it, what eating acrylamide does to us. It occurs naturally in a lot of foods, esp with cooking, so we eat a lot of it in that sense. For all that, we don't know what eating it does or if it's important or anything. And we don't really know what "a lot" or "too much" would be.
This whole case is ridiculous and I can't believe it is in the courts. We do not presently have science to justify this.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/30/598348764/fact-check-calif-judge-rules-coffee-must-come-with-a-cancer-warning-but-should-i
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/30/598348764/fact-check-calif-judge-rules-coffee-must-come-with-a-cancer-warning-but-should-i
No one understands anything. ðŸ˜
ReplyDeleteThe biggest culprit is parking garages, for obvious reasons those signs are in every parking garage. But they're totally useless.
ReplyDelete