According to an organization called the Environmental Law Foundation (ELF), Dr Soda Co., a refreshment services provider in California, is in violation of the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, otherwise known as Proposition 65. In a recent letter sent to Dr Soda, lawyers representing ELF are demanding a payment of $60,000 as the price of not suing since they claim that tests dating from 2005 show that a single serving of the company’s potato chips have acrylamide levels hundreds of times higher than what Proposition 65 allows.
The legal notice also calls attention to the fact that Dr Soda has failed to properly provide clear and reasonable warnings that consumption of their products will expose consumers to acrylamide, which, as Dr. Ross points out, is actually a natural byproduct produced when food is heated above the boiling temperature or when products containing both carbohydrates and proteins are roasted. “There is no evidence — zero — that acrylamide in our diets contributes to the toll of cancer or any other illness in humans,” he adds.
“Proposition 65 in and of itself is a farce,” says Dr. Whelan. “Warning labels on anything thought to be a ‘carcinogen’ or developmental toxin based on animal studies must be labeled as such — except, apparently, if it’s put into commerce or the environment by any state or local government.”
While it provides no benefit to public health, Dr. Ross does admit that at least one group has benefited from the implementation of Proposition 65: “bounty-hunter tort lawyers who sue alleged ‘polluters’ as agents of the state.”
