Posted on by Californiacontrarian

Ransom by Another Name

“WARNING: This product (area) contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.”

This ubiquitous warning sign is a consequence of Prop 65 and the lawsuits that have been brought about by “see what good people we are – looking out for you and the environment” groups, and their lawyers that make millions from these suits that shakedown businesses in California to pay a ransom.
Proposition 65 (“Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act”) was passed in 1986. Who doesn’t want safe drinking water? Who would object to preventing toxins from seeping into our water supply? (As an aside, this is another example of how important it is to call your proposed proposition or law by a moniker that any “normal” person would be for. If it’s name is misleading . . . Oh well; let the buyer beware!)

The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, administers the Proposition 65 program, and that tells you more than you need to know about Proposition 65 in 2018. Proposition 65 may have started out as a well meaning effort, but has morphed into a way for “do-gooders” to feel better about themselves and their attorneys to make lots of money, as more than two-thirds of the millions paid by businesses to settle Proposition 65 lawsuits has gone to the lawyers. The last big settlement ransom was paid by potato chip makers, and the present ransom is going to be paid by coffee makers, like Starbucks, 7-11, etc., because on 3/28/18 Superior Court Judge Elihu M. Berle ruled that the coffee makers failed to show that the threat from a chemical compound produced in the roasting process was insignificant. (Keep in mind how difficult it is to prove a negative.) Apparently the judge ignored the fact that WHO removed coffee off its “ possible carcinogen” list two years ago. Also the “all-knowing” judge ignored that nutrition expert, Edward Giovannucci of Harvard School of Public Health said, “At the minimum coffee is neutral. If anything there is fairly good evidence of the benefit of coffee on cancer.”

  • Now I personally do not like Starbucks coffee as I find it too bitter, but who do you think will end up paying the multi, multi-million dollars that Starbucks will have to pay, in essence, to the plaintiff attorneys? Duh! . . . Those who drink Starbuck’s coffee will pay the ransom!
    When is a judge going to have enough courage to call a spade a spade, and tell the plaintiff attorneys that enough is enough, and find for the defendants – in this case the coffee companies. A judge with fortitude would tell the “do-gooders” and their attorneys that they are also responsible for all of the court costs . . . but I do not think that either Courage or Fortitude are taught in Judge School – at least not in the Judge School that Elihu Berle attended!

119 Replies to “Ransom by Another Name”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.