Cancer Warning On Coffee In California

[Ideonaut]

Coffee sold in California could carry cancer warning labels

am looking for someone out there to tell me it ain't so.

 

[PowertothePeatple]

I believe this is just because it is roasted. Virtually any cooked food would fall into this category unless it is steamed. I personally think the benefits of cooked food far outweighs any negatives i.e. increased nutrient absorption and getting rid of anti nutrients.

 

[BemusedObserver]

Oh goodness me, no...I suppose they could be referring to the acrylamide compounds that are generated from the roasting process as already mentioned? I was buying the light roasted organic variety thinking to myself "maybe less roast= less acrylamide compounds", but then I read somewhere that it doesn't work that way and you are actually safer just getting the darkest roast?

I think the idea was that the longer the beans are roasted or higher the temps, the acrylamide is reduced because it "tops" out at a certain point and that light roasts actually have more based on that...I don't know, I just know that coffee is part of my spirituality and I can't imagine life without it...

 

[fradon]

because it has amines...just like bread has to have a warning label in California because the browning of bread creates amines and they are known to cause cancer. Black olives do too and any hamburger sold at any restaurant.

 

[Ideonaut]

I just know that coffee is part of my spirituality and I can't imagine life without it...[/QUOTE]

Yep. I assume that the benefits of coffee outweigh the risks. I doubt their decision to put a warning label on it was based on data showing coffee drinkers to die from cancer more often. I see it as California making an **** of itself, again, as expected.

 

[DaveFoster]

The Californian government has no credibility. Maybe an absence of tobacco or coffee with SSRI's in the tap water would be preferable.

Coffee and cancer risk: a summary overview. - PubMed - NCBI

"We reviewed available evidence on coffee drinking and the risk of all cancers and selected cancers updated to May 2016. Coffee consumption is not associated with overall cancer risk. A meta-analysis reported a pooled relative risk (RR) for an increment of 1 cup of coffee/day of 1.00 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.99-1.01] for all cancers. Coffee drinking is associated with a reduced risk of liver cancer. A meta-analysis of cohort studies found an RR for an increment of consumption of 1 cup/day of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.81-0.90) for liver cancer and a favorable effect on liver enzymes and cirrhosis. Another meta-analysis showed an inverse relation for endometrial cancer risk, with an RR of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.88-0.96) for an increment of 1 cup/day. A possible decreased risk was found in some studies for oral/pharyngeal cancer and for advanced prostate cancer. Although data are mixed, overall, there seems to be some favorable effect of coffee drinking on colorectal cancer in case-control studies, in the absence of a consistent relation in cohort studies. For bladder cancer, the results are not consistent; however, any possible direct association is not dose and duration related, and might depend on a residual confounding effect of smoking. A few studies suggest an increased risk of childhood leukemia after maternal coffee drinking during pregnancy, but data are limited and inconsistent. Although the results of studies are mixed, the overall evidence suggests no association of coffee intake with cancers of the stomach, pancreas, lung, breast, ovary, and prostate overall. Data are limited, with RR close to unity for other neoplasms, including those of the esophagus, small intestine, gallbladder and biliary tract, skin, kidney, brain, thyroid, as well as for soft tissue sarcoma and lymphohematopoietic cancer."

Coffee consumption and risk of gastric cancer: an updated meta-analysis. - PubMed - NCBI

"Our meta-analysis suggested that coffee consumption might be associated with a decreased risk of gastric cancer."

 

[Sucrates]

If you step back and assess all the data from a birds eye view it becomes clear that California itself is the sole cause of cancer.

 

[Lurker]

Only lawyers could dream this stuff up!

 

[stevrd]

Anytime I read a headline that says California, I know it's going to be BS. The state workers have nothing better to do than come up with ludicrous and draconian laws that make everybody's lives harder. California is also required to state that progesterone/pregnenolone/dhea may cause cancer.

 

[schultz]

Is this a prop 65 thing? Doesn't California put a cancer warning on progesterone as well? lol, what a joke.