 Hello, thank you for being here. My name is, as I like to introduce myself, Ben, like Ben Franklin. I'd like to first thank the ancestral health society for giving me this opportunity to speak here at the symposium. Yeah, so nobody really wants to hear a lawyer talk that much or that long. So I'm gonna try to make this short and sweet and no pun intended. All right, so warning labels on sugar. Let me, oh, let's see if this is advancing. Ah, here we go. Lawyers are all about the fine print, so we're gonna start with that. The disclaimers that I don't claim copyright to for some photos, it's very important that I say that because I'm an IP attorney. The no client attorney relationship is formed by this presentation and then use this information at your own risk. The attorney cannot predict or guarantee results. If anybody is going to take photos, by the way, that I would love it if you could share with me through social media or just tag me or something, I would be very appreciative. And then some disclosures that I have is that I have clients in this nutrition field and then I have an opportunity to work on Prop 65 defensive litigation on behalf of actually a furniture manufacturer whose product contained a flame retardant as a listed chemical. So then that's kind of part of the qualification of me being able to speak with you on this subject. Okay, the title of this talk is called Warning Labels on Sugar. Before we slap a single warning label on anything that's sweet, we need to understand what a warning looks like. So here's a couple of examples. This is a warning from the happiest place on earth, which apparently contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm. Sounds very, very happy to me. Here's a photo that I snapped at Starbucks. You can see this at every single Starbucks for apparently the coffee there might give you cancer. And then here's another one, trees in California will also give you cancer. So they're really kind of all over. Did anybody hear nah from California? Oh, quite a few. Welcome to California. So it's a little nutty. All right, so what is the law behind all these warnings, right? It's a law called Proposition 65. The official title is the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. But since it was a voter initiative statute, which is something that made it into, it was a proposition that voters voted on and became a state law. We call it Prop 65 by the number that it was proposed onto the ballot. It requires businesses to provide warnings to Californians about significant exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm. There's these underlying terms because they're particularly important. They're legal terms of art. And in one of the most important terms here is cause, and then we'll go over that in just a little bit. Other provisions of the law, it prohibits businesses in California from knowingly discharging lists of chemicals into drinking water. And it requires the state government to publish a list of chemicals, okay? That's also gonna be important. What chemicals make it onto the list to cause all these issues? Okay, so regarding these legal terms of art, you have cause, or as we know in tort law, it is called causation, okay? And this is really important because it establishes responsibility. In order to be liable in a tort, you have to actually cause the tort. And so this is not unique to this law. It's kind of unique to all the common law that's ever been in tort. So the best example that I like to give, everybody likes to give is like car accidents. If you were speeding, you cause that accident. You hit somebody, you cause that accident. If you smoke and there's tobacco smoke and it caused cancer, then there's causation. Now causation itself does not have to be A to B. It could actually be chained. So then if, for example, car A hits car B and car B loses control, it hits pedestrian C, then A would have caused the injuries to pedestrian C as from A to B to C. It's like a chain of causation. Another legal term of art that we should pay attention to is the list of chemicals that I mentioned. They generally need to be chemical compounds with cast numbers and things like that. We see that a lot of organic chemicals and contaminants, things like pesticides, additives, they tend to make the list, they populate most of the list in California, but also more general stuff like tobacco smoke. Tobacco smoke is listed as a chemical. I mean, we could kind of say that, okay, it sort of isn't, you know, it's kind of a quirk in the grand regulatory scheme. So before I go too deep into this slide, I just have this big caveat. I think everybody in here, almost everybody here will know more about the actual research for all of this stuff, more than I do because my day job as a lawyer is not a researcher. I mean, I'm not a scientist. So this is based on my understanding of kind of like being a layperson, looking at the research for somebody who's involved in this field for a number of years. So here we go, that's my big caveat. I believe sugar is carcinogenic because sugar causes insulin resistance, which then contributes to obesity, which then is a risk factor for cancer. In terms of reproductive harm, there's also a case for that because insulin resistance we know is linked with PCOS, polycystic ovarian syndrome, and then also insulin resistance to obesity, which is a big risk factor for autism. One of the most significant risk factors for autism is the obesity of the mother. So you can, you probably already have a question here, we have a chain of causation, right? All these things are in a chain. And what happens when you link causation in a chain? Every single link in the chain of causation is subject or vulnerable to attack by somebody who is defending, right? Like you say you're suing some person in a potential lawsuit and they're like, okay, well then maybe we can't establish this particular link between insulin, between IR and obesity, or obesity to here, and then so therefore we could say that the entire chain is faulty and that we're not liable. And you can expect very, very vigorous legal defenses based on that. So wouldn't it be nice if we just had sugar that went straight to all this stuff, all the cancer birth defects and all that? Wouldn't it be nice, right? And honestly, when I was putting this together, I was thinking to myself that there's no such paper, I couldn't find anything, and then so I'm gonna be up here blowing smoke. But hey, guess what, I got really lucky. Not that lucky actually, this was all over the news. It was a study in the BMJ, published in the BMJ actually, just very recently, it was May 7th of this year, is the sugary drinks cancer study. This was headline on CNN.com for something like 12 hours before it disappeared because it was probably in line with the profit motives of exactly zero people that make anybody any money. The facts here are that a 100 milliliter per day consumption of sugary drinks contributed to an 18% increased risk in relative risk in overall cancer, 22% increase in relative risk of breast cancer, and if that form of sugar was fruit juice, then there was a 12% increase in relative risk. I thought something that was really impressive was that they really tried to get rid of a lot of the confounding factors, which was they looked at consumption of artificially sweetened beverages and they found no link between, if you drink fake sugar and cancer. And also they controlled for a bunch of other stuff. One of the most significant things was BMI. So you could actually say that from this study, not only this study proved that link, that sugar contributed to cancer. You could also say that obesity itself was not independently relevant or that no link was found. They were able to control for that as a risk factor, independent of the sugar. Another way to say that is just simply that you had an increased chance of getting cancer regardless of how fat you are. That's colloquial. And when you think about this, by 18%, you might already be asking the question, 18%, isn't that just like the red meat study with the colorectal cancer? Wasn't that almost also 18% and it's like enough to give me PTSD? Just thinking about 18% all day. But I think it's significant for a number of reasons, especially because it was only 100 milliliters of sugary drinks per day. Okay, this is really only 11 grams of sugar. It's said in the paper, sorry it wasn't in the results. And it's only a third of a can of coke. Now you guys all met people who eat or drink a lot of junk food. Nobody drinks a third of a can of coke. They're probably knocking down two or three a day. So they're probably easily doubling their risk or tripling their risk. It's probably way more than 80% if this ends up being linearly extrapolatable. So I got really lucky, I found this particular paper and I'm sure that as more research is done, there's probably gonna be more. So adding chemicals to the list, there are four ways to do this. It's basically that you need to be identified by another credible institution. One of them is the International Agency for Research on Cancer. It's a sub-organization of the World Health Organization and then it could get in that way. It could get in through being recognized by all these other federal agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration, OSHA, so on and so forth. And then also another way that prescription drugs get to be added because prescription drugs can have a lot of side effects which may include cancer. But the thing that we're gonna talk about and is the most relevant to citizen input and just public action in general is the state qualified experts comprising of two committees, okay? I'm gonna go on to this next slide. This is administered by an office in California called the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment is OE double HA. They administered two committees. One of them is the Carcinogen Identification Committee and the other one is the Developmental Reproductive Toxicant Identification. This is DARTIC and as you can see the Prop 65, you remember it was causing cancer and causing reproductive harm, right? There were two different things. So one committee does the cancer thing and the other one does the reproductive harm thing. But you can see that there were a group of expert scientists appointed by the governor to identify chemicals that are clearly shown through scientific valid testing according to generally accepted principles to cause cancer. So you really needed to be legit in the way that they determined this. My next question was when doing all this research or who are all these committee members, right? And I found out that they're actually generally people who are fairly credible. They're doctors, they're professors, they're researchers. Surprisingly, not that many political appointees. I thought it was gonna be all political appointees or partisan hacks and I didn't find any people who were in that category. So it was pretty impressive the way that this was being run. Couple of more notable citations in the law is that they're really, really required to get public input. Science scientists from the OEWHA prepare a hazard identification document contains the scientific evidence. The public has an opportunity to submit relevant information to the office that may be included in the document, right? It's also that even the public is very strongly recommended to do so, to encourage the prepare written comments if they wished to have a scientific issue considered by the committees. So this is a great opportunity for people to comment and we'll talk about that in a little bit. The legal standard here is that it needs to be, as we mentioned, clearly shown through scientific valid testing according to generally accepted principles that cause cancer or other harm. And they also consider all these other things. In addition to scientific valid testing, they consider fact finding in court decisions. So there has been a lawsuit on that chemical in the past where the court has made certain findings. It'll usually make it into the report. Scientific peer review, they look at a lot of different articles. And also importantly, public comments by individuals, the organizations and businesses that have a stake. So some of the more famous chemicals that have made it onto the list in California, this is the most recent one. This one was actually a bit of a headache for one client of mine. They were wondering about whether they needed a label on their coffee. And it was a question bugging people who sold coffee in California. They were trying to decide whether to label cancer causing chemicals in coffee. They decided against this. And this decision is very, very recent. June 7th of this year, 166 page fact finding reports stating reasons against warning labels. There was a ton of public comment saying that coffee shouldn't be labeled. And then a lot of findings that coffee contained beneficial chemicals that actually prevented cancer was part of the finding. The reason for this was because of the chemical acrylamide. You might all be familiar with this, but acrylamide is a chemical that is formed by burning food, essentially, like starches that if you subject it into high heat and they were charred that acrylamide was formed. And acrylamide itself was found to have caused cancer. It wasn't even controversial. In 1990, it just made it straight onto the list. And in fact, there's been a lot of enforcement action against actual acrylamide. There is a court case by the attorney general's office against a Frito-Lay, other potato chip makers to either get their act together, cut acrylamide levels, or get a warning label. Either you cut your levels and pay to find or you got a warning label. Well, guess what? They decided to consent degree cut their levels. This was an actual really significant success of the law. It resulted in an actual reduction of exposure to toxic chemicals to the public. Yeah, it's because of this court case and this law that we're all eating less acrylamide in general. And then there's also many other lawsuits that resulted in a similar reduction that manufacturers when faced with a lawsuit, faced with the fact that they had to put warning labels on everything, decided that they were gonna clean up their act. Other famous chemicals, alcoholic beverages, no-brainer, tobacco smoke. They're all listed fairly early in the regulatory screen. Glyphosate, fairly recent, 2017. This was very contentious. It generated an astounding 1310 public comments during the hearing process. So many people commented on glyphosate and it was finally listed 2017. But in very high concentrations, that kind of permissible, recognized safe level was something like 1500 micrograms per person per day, which is really why you don't see more glyphosate labels on all the stuff that contain wheat or soy. It's because those products don't contain it in that particular concentration that would make it significant under Prop 65. So why is all this important? What has Prop 65 done or what has it not done? Policy ramifications. You may have heard the saying as California goes, so goes the nation. One of the things that we see is that you may have seen cars that have 50 state emissions on there, like you can buy a car that has an emission level that's acceptable to all 50 states in the country. Well, it doesn't mean that the car automatically knows how much it pollutes when you drive it across a state line. It doesn't know where it is. It's just that it simply meets the most stringent standard, which is California. And the reason for this is because it's really expensive for manufacturers to make different versions of their products to comply with each state's requirement. So they just make it comply with the most stringent one. There's a lot of container traffic that passed through West Coast ports. 73% of it passed just to the north of us in the ports of LA and Long Beach, which are right next to each other. It accounts for 32% of the U.S. shipping total for container traffic. So basically as soon as these containers land in California, they're subject to Prop 65. And there's really even no debate. It's like, why even bother? Just make a complaint. Here is a warning sticker for Prop 65. You can buy these 500 on these, 500 in a roll. Sticking on our product is for the low, low price of $13.79, free shipping. This is a, it kind of comes out to like 2.3 cents or 2.7 cents per label. Very, very cheap. And part of this is because it's frivolous litigation. And then I put frivolous in quotes because depending on your perspective, litigation may or may not be frivolous. If you're a manufacturer, anybody who sues you and says that they've been hurt by your product is automatically frivolous. They're a pain in the butt to get into your way of your profits. If you're somebody who's been hurt by that product, then well, maybe not, right? Maybe your litigation's very meritorious. Their private litigants, people in the public can sue under Prop 65. So it doesn't have to be the attorney general that enforces. It could be private litigants. And so there's been a few law firms, and this is, people kind of trot this out as examples. They base their entire business model under Prop 65. There's like five law firms in California that only do Prop 65 litigation. They're on Berkeley figures. And a lot of businesses are just so scared of being sued that they just slap warning labels everywhere. A lot of times it's impossible for them to exhaustively test the cut products come from overseas. Who knows what that factory was making before the factory retooled to make their product. There might be residues and stuff like that. It's just way cheaper to warrant than to test for a lot of manufacturers. So which is why you see these warnings everywhere, including on possibly trees, right? And then also a warning label issues. You just, this is a Christmas tree light set and one, two, three, four, five, six. Does anybody actually read all that when you buy a Christmas light? You go home, you plug it in. Anybody actually read all that? No. I've always wished there's one person to raise their hand and I can make fun of them. But yeah, so this is just the situation where there's just too many warnings. They're non-specific, our primal brains are not adapted for these, oh, some chemical, some product, something dangerous, you know what? Like what do I do with this, right? Why are you selling this to me? And so they're just, most people end up ignoring them is what's going on. It's kind of the boy that cries wolf and that's definitely a problem. So why should we care, right? Why is this important? If the warnings are just non-specific and we can't act on them, why should we care? I hate to be the proverbial canary in the carnivore meetup, but the vegans are coming. The vegans are coming. This is a resolution that was proposed in the California legislature. This was right after the 18% colorectal cancer red meat study came out that this was sponsored to try to add processed meat to Prop 65 as a chemical. And you would imagine that the office of the OEWHA would be very, very persuaded if the California legislature instructed them to look at red meat to look at red meat as a potential carcinogen, right? Who did this? Back by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. Anybody know those guys? Yes, absolutely. Yeah, Dana Rogers here Thursday morning. I was a recession chair. Yeah, we went off on that. And then apparently they added their name. It's called the like, and they added them social compassion in legislation. Yeah, this is too long. I just call them the Physician Committee for Fluffy Animals. Fluffy Animals is essentially what it is. It is actually a PETA front group. They share funding and they share some board members. And these guys were notorious for leaking Dr. Atkins medical records to the Wall Street Journal saying that he died of a heart attack. So they were really at war with the whole Atkins. They don't like low carvers. They were at war with this long before. Probably any of us were really into this. This photo right here kind of just sends shivers up my spine. Anybody remember that Time Magazine cover where there was like a doctor, certain doctor who wasn't a doctor wore white coat and told Americans to eat less cholesterol? Yeah, that guy. It's as of Ansel Keyes, asexually reproduced and made 300 copies of himself. This is the photo right here. Yeah, so yeah, all these white coats, right? Like you're supposed to be persuasive. They're really on the war path. They're really everywhere. I was able to find this. This was again in the California Assembly incentivizing plant-based meals in public schools. There was a city council resolution that failed in LA. They were going to mandate that every restaurant that did business with the city of LA offer at least one vegetarian option. This kind of screws small people. It doesn't affect the big chains. The big chains can make the changes fairly easily. They have the resources, they have the marketing. A lot of them are doing it right now because it's like good press. But this is gonna really be very, very tough on the smaller players, the people who don't have a choice, the mom and pop, maybe we're thinking like the ramen store, that restaurant that only has one type of bone broth and they have to make something that's completely vegetarian or vegan based on these regulations, which would really, really clearly be very onerous to them. They really are, they're making changes. Whether we do anything or not, they're already pushing for this to happen. So what can we do, right? There are a few organizations that are pushing back. The one that comes to mind is the Nutrition Coalition is run by Nina Ticholtz. She's conducting some, a lot of lobbying, like at the USDA front with the Dietary Guidelines. She's trying to go ahead and get some common sense back into the guidelines. Another thing that is really, really relevant to the whole office of this OEWHA committee is that we should assemble a library of helpful research, starting with that sugar study, right? I'm sure there's other ones. There are things that we've heard really, really exciting at this conference. Rob Abbott with his crowd-funded research on hypothyroidism, and then the thing that he's doing with Lucy Mayling next year. A few other people, this kind of like ground-up research that we are doing, we have to do it because nobody else is gonna do it. It's not in line with anybody else's profit motives, right? Except for the people who are actually suffering from it. Is the dietary and lifestyle changes actually gonna be helpful? If we have research, then oops, then we can go ahead and try to effect some changes through letters and petitions, organizations to send up to the committees. They have to, by law, consider our comments. They have to respond to each and every single one. You can imagine that glyphosate report, 1,310 public comments in the response that the record of facts and stuff, that was a labor of love for these government bureaucrats. So they really do have to pay attention to us, is the idea. And also, encourage and support litigation, I was not able to find a better way of saying this, but what I kind of had in mind was with the McDonald's hot coffee case. The one where the coffee was too hot and it spilled on somebody and then they got sued, right? That kind of went around the internet and then was made the butt of jokes for probably like years and went around. But when you think about it, court cases are vetted very stringently by judges. Judges don't want bad press in opposing counsel, right? So they have to constantly survive these motions, these motions of dismiss, failure to say to claim, so motions for summary judgment, all these different motions in order for the lawsuit to proceed, in order for that lawsuit to actually gotten to the jury and then for the plaintiff to actually receive damages, the case must have been fairly credible, is what I'm trying to say. So next time you see some, the article that says, hey look, there's this crazy court case before you hit share and they have a good laugh with your friends, maybe the coffee was really too hot, maybe it was poured in a container that couldn't withstand that temperature of coffee and then maybe that coffee went straight down and then somebody got skin grafts and really had damages, right? Which was the truth with that particular lawsuit. And so in conclusion, I wanted to mention a few things that I've observed now that I'm six years in with this community, I feel like everything in the last few years have been framed in this kind of like right or left, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, and one of the things that had fallen victim to that is food choice. I understand that because politics are as old as human civilization, but you know what's older is actually basic facts about the human body and biology, right? A million years old. The body is going to do what it's evolutionarily programmed to do regardless of how we try to frame it. And biology is really nonpartisan. There are facts here that are gonna help us win the argument and I believe that it is our job to leverage those facts so that we can win this fight. And I am done, right on time. Thank you very much. So if anybody's got questions, Ben charges by the minute or the question, I'm not sure how this works, billable hours will apply. I've got a question here. That's free for 10 minutes. I got a question and since I have a microphone and y'all haven't cut me off yet, I'm gonna ask it. Is there any consideration of multiple causalities? So something that may be duplicitously causal. So this plus this plus this, where there is an implication that multiple factors are involved. Right, confounding factors, absolutely that would factor into court law. That's a common defense, is to say that your cancer was caused by something else you did. It requires a careful vetting at the court case stage. As I said, the cases are all fairly carefully vetted. They're dismissed really early if it's something doesn't make sense. It is kind of like the job of the attorney to really prep their client, the plaintiff to make sure that they really have eliminated all the other factors. Right, thank you. Very interesting talk. Thanks for laying it all out there for us. Thanks for coming. Yeah, so I've got two, maybe three questions. One is on that study that you found connecting sugary drinks to cancer where you got the 18% uptick. Over what period of time was that study? Was that a short-term study? Because sometimes cancer takes a while to develop, right? Or was that an epidemic? I mean, what was the methodology there? The epidemiology was epidemiological, but it was from a large French nutritional study. They didn't just study this particular outcome. It was a nutritional survey that was sent out to over 100,000 people and followed for an average of five years. So then it was... Survey-based. Yeah, it was survey-based. But then what they did was they sent out a survey for over a two-week period. They sent out three surveys to a random participant for a random two-week period. And they did this repeatedly throughout the year. So they got a relatively good sampling of the particular population at any given time. But it's still then observational, not causal, right? It's observational, yes. But it was over a two-week period. I have reasons to think it's reliable because it was very recent in memory. It's what did you eat on this day, like two days ago or three days ago or something like that? Yeah, so. And then they back it out, they make an estimate. Right, I believe the question took the form of what did you eat on this day? And then they collected everything. And then it was very recent. Like that questionnaire went out three days after or four days after or something. And then they got sent three questionnaires over a span of two weeks. Like you just knew that when you agreed to participate in the study that you had to do this like for every two weeks of forward. So I guess that leads to my next question, which is, all right, observational. You're not looking at something that is a carcinogen in a really low dose where you can really see strong effect, something that's just a real carcinogen. But sugar is something that, yeah, on average it might cause this effect in the whole population. But then for subsets that use sugar responsibly or whatever, it's no big deal, right? It's fine. I have sugar and too much sugar. Right, yeah, like so what if we get a warning label, right? On sugar is the question. So that's so on the flip, I mean, if you kind of go with that, then it opens you up on the meat thing. And I guess I'm concerned with going away from very, very strict dose dependent kind of studies to more essentially milking the data to get a trend on a whole population and not looking at the fact that a single compound, sugar, meat can be beneficial or not when put in context with everything else, unlike carcinogens. So what's your thought on that? My thought on that is that, as I've said, if we don't do it, the vegans are doing it. So this is independently happening to me regardless of whether we do anything here or not. And it's been shown in litigation that this has actually caused food, not food, but manufacturers of all stripes to actively reduce that particular content or ingredient. So it's one of those things where, I mean, it's kind of happening everywhere. There may be one day in which Prop 65 will have to be reworded, but this is the law right now. If we don't do it, other people are doing it. That's essentially my response. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you for doing this. I'm very passionate myself about this topic. Can't come soon enough. And sorry that I came in late. Oh, no reason. So same, my question is about the same study and I might have missed this. Are we talking specifically about sugar or HFCS, high fructose, do we know? And will that confound the research in? So this was actually encompassed the broad range of sweetened beverages. And then they got a lot. They got soda, they got fruit juice, they got energy drinks and sports drinks. They got sweetened dairy products, which is like chocolate milk. They got all sorts of stuff. It was actually really, really comprehensive, like sweetened artificial, not artificial, like sugar added sugar beverages. So was it broken down for specifically each of those would cause cancer or just as a group because? Just as a group. It just seems like that's gonna create more time and objections from all of the different makers of the different products. Yeah, I believe that it was just a group. But then they did say that the average sugar content was 11 grams per 100 milliliters. Yeah, that was the average sugar content. Yep, thank you. Okay, well it seems that this study is the hot topic for everyone's question. So yes, mine is about that too. Cause it says that the consumption of artificially sweetened beverages is not associated. So I wanna know, and I don't know if this has been looked into yet, or if there's a plan to, since obviously it's saying the difference between artificial sugar or regular, I mean, is it also like looking at applying also this warning label to things like natural sweeteners like honey and Stevia, maple syrup, coconut sugar? You know, I don't recall seeing that particular a question that was in the actual study. Cause the way the study was designed was that it was a food questionnaire asking you on a fairly recent day what exactly did you eat and then how much quantity? I'm not sure if there were checkboxes for all the things that you mentioned, but there were checkboxes for like, there was something like 5,000 different types of foods that you could choose from. So conceivably, you know, honey, Stevia could be in there, but it wasn't, as far as I know, it wasn't in this particular paper. But the data bank is still there. This is part of a large scale nutritional study and everything is like kept in computers. I would imagine if some other researcher wanted to go back and look at it in another aspect. So I mean, do you think there's been any look at that? Like as far as like, like honey and cancer, is that? Not that I'm aware of. But as I've said, I'm not, this is not my day job. So like, I think a lot of people here would understand that a lot more and know how to go about that. One of the things I love about these conferences is watching the microphone get adjusted as different people of different heights come up to the microphone and just say it. Hey Ben, enjoyed your talk. Thank you. My question is, well, it has to do with kind of current trends in the marketplace and this could be confirmation bias on my part, but it seems like low calorie drinks like LaCroix and like sparkling waters are becoming more and more popular. And like people are kind of shifting away from sugary drinks. My question is, I guess it's an invitation to play futurist, like where do you see things being in like two to three years? Do you think there'll be a warning label on sugary drinks? Will they be as prevalent? What do you think's gonna happen? I think this is going to be a significant multi-year effort. It is one of those things where I can see significant pushback from all people of all sorts of stripes. I mean, sugar is everywhere, right? Anybody who's got added sugar in products is going to fight tooth and nail against this proposed regulation. So then there are people like us who might conceivably push for it and there's gonna be a lot of pushback. I don't think this is going to be maybe not five or even 10 years. It's going to take a while, but then depending on the quality of the research and how much research we can get out and then if the case becomes more convincing then certainly this could become a reality sooner. Or Proposition 65 might have changed, or it might have already changed because of the multiple criticisms about this law from a lot of people whose profits are at stake, right? We don't even know whether Prop 65 will stay like this forever. So I guess I wouldn't, the short answer is I wouldn't hold my breath to see sugar warning labels in everywhere. I think a lot of times the regulations, even if they do come out, a lot of people will avoid that label. For example, for the last product, what was the one that I mentioned, the one with the Attorney General suing that particular product is that they decided acrylamide. So they decided to reduce acrylamide levels to avoid a warning label. So that could conceivably happen to a lot of products. A lot of manufacturers say, okay, we're just gonna use less sugar. We're gonna use a substitute or something like that. And it's already happening, right? People are using Stevia mixed with cane sugar to reduce the amount of sugar that they're using. So that could entirely be true. Thank you. Thanks.