Page 1 of 1

California to Require Cancer Warning for Coffee

Unread postPosted: Fri 30 Mar 2018, 15:31:40
by KaiserJeep
The same carcinogen that was found and removed from potato chips years back has been found in coffee beans, and a judge has ruled that a warning must be posted where coffee is sold.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/starbucks-cancer-warning-judge-rules-on-coffee-carcinogen-acrylamide/

The substance (acrylamide) forms during the coffee roasting process, and is concentrated in the coffee oils. The roasting technique can make a difference, as the highest acrylamide levels were found in the classic drum roasters, and the lowest levels in the "hot air" roasters that minimize the transfer of oils to the roaster walls.

I am officially disturbed. I order coffee online but I have no idea what sort of roaster they use. I'm going to ask them via the online comment field when I place my next order.

Re: California to Require Cancer Warning for Coffee

Unread postPosted: Fri 30 Mar 2018, 17:32:28
by Plantagenet
California already requires cancer warnings on gas stations,[16] hardware suppliers,[17] grocery stores, drug stores, medical facilities, and many other businesses.[18][19] Government agencies,[20] parking garages, hotels,[19] apartment complexes,[21] retail stores,[22] banks, and restaurants[23].


Image
California even requires a warning label on Disneyland.

Image
There are so many warning labels that it seems like everything gives you cancer. And that makes the warning labels themselves seem like kind of a joke.

Re: California to Require Cancer Warning for Coffee

Unread postPosted: Fri 30 Mar 2018, 18:32:13
by vtsnowedin
It just shows you how stupid and ineffectual a government can be. How many less cups of coffee will Californians consume next month? Might even be an increase.
They are now training people to ignore the stupid government. Heaven help them if they actually need the population to heed and obey something much more important then the remote chance of getting cancer from a daily cup of coffee.

Re: California to Require Cancer Warning for Coffee

Unread postPosted: Fri 30 Mar 2018, 18:43:47
by Outcast_Searcher
And then, there are all the claims and studies of how coffee is good for you.

http://time.com/5033881/health-benefits ... ng-coffee/

Without meaningful statistics, such claims (good or bad), it's, IMO, almost impossible to draw meaningful conclusions.

Re: California to Require Cancer Warning for Coffee

Unread postPosted: Sat 31 Mar 2018, 00:09:16
by dissident
This is legislative onanism. Like the clowns who ban smoked meat products because wood smoke is pure cancer. That must be what killed off all the new world aboriginals....

None of these do-gooders have a single study showing the direct onset of cancer from coffee drinking. There are no such studies. A major problem is that academics love to study silver bullet mechanisms that make for sexy papers. They avoid, due to funding pressure associated with publish or perish, pursuing the multivariate chemical mechanisms that actually matter. Fruit have formaldehyde which gives carcinogenic formic acid after ingestion. Yet we do not actually have to worry about this and it is all the pesticides, fungicides and other human chemicals that contaminate the fruit that are the real issue. The coffee is a complex soup of chemicals that act like a system and one can't cherry pick a single species and claim it acts alone.

I bet the cups used to serve the coffee are more of a cancer threat than the coffee itself (assuming that other contaminants are not introduced into it during preparation).

Re: California to Require Cancer Warning for Coffee

Unread postPosted: Sat 31 Mar 2018, 11:37:35
by ROCKMAN
The more disturbing aspect IMO is a judge writing law from the bench. Perhaps not technically since CA does have such a GENERAL law. But by his PERSONAL interpretation he's is adding to the law. The bigger problem is that virtually everything folks in CA consume contain some amount of a POTENTIAL carcinogen. Including organic produce. Yes, organic produce. Look it up: it might be a totally insignificant amount be a totally insignificant amount but it's there.

Re: California to Require Cancer Warning for Coffee

Unread postPosted: Tue 10 Apr 2018, 19:26:03
by Subjectivist
The real problem is if everything causes cancer then nothing causes cancer, you can not live your life in constant fear and be a rational human being. Blaming everything for cancer makes all prior warning less and less significant as ach new one is added to the list.

Re: California to Require Cancer Warning for Coffee

Unread postPosted: Tue 17 Apr 2018, 00:28:17
by dissident
Subjectivist wrote:The real problem is if everything causes cancer then nothing causes cancer, you can not live your life in constant fear and be a rational human being. Blaming everything for cancer makes all prior warning less and less significant as ach new one is added to the list.


The problem is the spew of chemicals into the environment (including your indoor spaces and food) that were never there before. The world is not big enough that such spew gets infinitely diluted. We are now drinking pharmaceuticals in our tap water. Why are they not at the bottom of the oceans or oxidized into CO2? Life ain't so simple.

Health advice history from the US government has been a sad joke. Eggs are bad for you since they have cholesterol. Well, dietary cholesterol is a non issue. Those fat free cookies result in glucose, which results in triglycerides, which result in VLDL and then LDL. And HDL is consumed too. The fetish for polyunsaturated vegetable oils is predicated on the fact that LDL is used to compensate for the inferior fatty acid properties of such oils. This is part of the same "bleed the badness out" school as disrupting coenzyme Q10 production with statins to disrupt LDL production and increase its uptake. Bayer's failed Baycol product and its victims should be a lesson for what idiocy this is. But faith in government-corporate witchdoctor BS is unwavering.