New Suit over warnings of cancer

[Guest guest]

Last night as I was falling asleep I heard this on the news. The

next story was about silicone gel breast implants coming back to the

market. I thought how stupid. They are worried about cancer from

eating french fries and potato chips and are going to sue these

companies, and yet, in the next breath say that breast implants are

okay to put in women's bodies. Talk about straining at a gnat and

swallowing a camel.

California Sues to Require Cancer Warnings on Potato Chips and

French Fries

Action Against Nine Firms Says Warnings Required by Proposition 65

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/ca_fries.html

August 27, 2005

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer has filed suit against nine

manufacturers of potato chips and french fries, seeking a court

order that will require the firms to warn consumers that some of

their food products contain acrylamide, a chemical known by the

state to cause cancer.

" In taking this action, I am not telling people to stop eating

potato chips or french fries, " said Lockyer. " I know from personal

experience that, while these snacks may not be a necessary part of a

healthy diet, they sure taste good. "

But Lockyer said California's Proposition 65 requires companies to

notify consumers of potentially dangerous toxins in their food.

Earlier this month, a large long-term study found that women who

consumed large amounts of french fries when they were teen-agers had

a higher risk of breast cancer during their adult years.

Filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Lockyer's complaint

alleges the companies have violated the landmark proposition enacted

by voters in 1986. The law requires businesses to provide " clear and

reasonable " warnings before exposing people to known carcinogens or

reproductive toxins. The defendants in the lawsuit are:

• Burger King Corporation, french fries

• Cape Cod Potato Chips, Inc./Lance, Inc. (parent company), Cape Cod

potato chips

• Frito-Lay, Inc./PepsiCo, Inc., Lay's potato chips/Lay's baked

potato chips

• H.J. Heinz, Inc., Ore-Ida frozen potato products

• Kettle Foods, Inc., Kettle Chips

• KFC Corporation, KFC Potato Wedges

• Mc's Corporation, french fries

• Procter & Gamble Distributing Co./Procter & Gamble Manufacturing

Co., Pringles

• 's International, Inc., french fries

A by-product created by the reaction of chemicals in food and high

heat, acrylamide has been found at low levels in a wide variety of

foods. The lawsuit asks the court to require warnings on potato

chips and french fries because they have higher levels of acrylamide

than other foods.

Acrylamide has long been known to exist in industrial products, and

since 1990 has been on the Proposition 65 list of carcinogens. Prior

to 2002, however, acrylamide was not known to be present in food.

But in early 2002, scientists in Sweden made the startling finding

that certain starchy foods cooked in high heat contain acrylamide.

Since the 2002 discovery, the World Health Organization, the U.S.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and California's Office of

Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) have studied the

issue.

OEHHA has gathered data and published a report which includes

estimates of acrylamide levels for 40 foods. Given that assessment,

it is estimated that consumers of french fries receive up to 125

times the amount of acrylamide that requires a warning under current

regulations, while consumers of potato chips receive as much as 75

times the level requiring a warning. The report is available online

at www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/acrylamideqa.html.

Additionally, OEHHA has initiated formal rulemaking proceedings to

determine the extent to which OEHHA believes warnings should be

required on food products containing acrylamide. Lockyer said legal

action is necessary to ensure appropriate warnings are provided on

products containing particularly high levels of acrylamide.

Lockyer said he intends to work with the defendants in the case to

find a way to effectively give consumers information about the

acrylamide in their products, while at the same time preventing

undue public alarm and unnecessary warning signs concerning foods

that contain insignificant amounts of the chemical.

The Attorney General's action is not the first to seek consumer

warnings for these foods.

A private suit filed in 2002 by the Committee for Education and

Research on Toxics (CERT) named Mc's and Burger King as

defendants, and is pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Another set of two private suits filed on August 3, 2005 by

Environmental World Watch, Inc. (EWW) identified a number of the

same defendants as the Attorney General's suit. Additional actions

were filed on August 25, 2005 by the Environmental Law Foundation.

The Attorney General will ask that all pending suits be assigned to

the same judge so they may proceed in the most efficient way.

Since the initial findings of acrylamide in 2002, numerous tests

have been conducted on the products in this case and confirm that

they are subject to Proposition 65 warning requirements. Lockyer

noted that the potato chips and french fries made by the defendants

in his lawsuit have not been shown to contain more acrylamide than

their competitors' products. The firms were named as defendants, he

explained, because they were the companies targeted in the actions

filed by EWW, ELF and CERT.

Under Proposition 65, a private party intending to file a lawsuit

must first notify the Attorney General's Office. The Attorney

General may sue the same defendants. If the Attorney General's

Office decides to file a lawsuit, the office typically takes over

prosecution of the case against those defendants.