The most hilarious thing to me in this story is the PR guy who replied "most of the things sold in the US these days require warnings about causing cancer". And everybody seems fine with that. LOL
The study has a lot of limitations, and NHANES is not really designed for this kind of analysis, but it sounds like the warnings do well as a cudgel to beat manufacturers with even if regular individuals ignore them. Even more interesting is the knock-on effects Prop 65 has on people outside of California. Overall it seems like an argument to keep them around, sort of.
This isn't California being California, but it is well-meaning legislation getting out-of-hand because of enforcement mechanisms. It's like website cookie warnings. It was a nice idea, but it lead to a silly place.
https://www.p65warnings.ca.gov/fact-sheets/coffee-and-propos...