California Bypasses Science To Label Coffee a Carcinogen (undark.org)

travers_r writes: Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle affirmed last week that all coffee sold in California must come with a warning label stating that chemicals in coffee (acrylamide, a substance created naturally during the brewing process) are known to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. But judges, journalists, and environmental advocates fail to recognize the critical difference between probably and certainly, which fuels the inaccurate belief that cancer is mostly caused by things in the environment. From a report at Undark: "IARC is one of the leading scientific bodies in the world, and it is also one of several expert panels on which California relies for scientific opinions in such cases. The IARC has concluded that while there is sufficient evidence to consider acrylamide carcinogenic in experimental animals, there is insufficient evidence for carcinogenicity in humans. Therefore, its overall evaluation is that 'acrylamide is probably carcinogenic to humans.'
[...]
Leading experts, in fact, believe that roughly two-thirds of all cancers are the result of mutations to DNA that are caused by natural bodily processes, not exposure to environmental chemicals. This is quite the opposite of the prevailing belief among the public that most cancers are caused by exogenous substances imposed on us by the products and technologies of the modern world. It's this belief -- this fear -- that prompted voters to pass Proposition 65 in 1986. It was a time when fear of hazardous waste and industrial chemicals was high, when chemophobia -- a blanket fear of anything having to do with the word 'chemicals' -- was being seared into the public's mind."

Comments

Say what now?

[Narcocide]

I thought we'd already settled that the largest statistically significant link to throat cancer turned out to be more about the temperature of the drinks than what was in them?

Re:Say what now?

[Anonymous Coward]

So the big thing to point out to people who try to scare you with: "COFFEE HAS ACRYLAMIDE!!!" is:

1) A single cookie or other baked good has far more acrylamide than a whole cup of coffee. (From: Scientific studies on acrylamide content in foods.)

2) Acrylamide is not harmful unless it's in amounts equal to a river of coffee. Thousands of gallons in a week. Enough that you'd be dead from many other things before acrylamide. (From: Scientific studies on effects of acrylamide.)

The acrylamide scare mongering is a funny thing and make sure to laugh at anyone who hasn't done the proper research before jumping to conclusions.

Re:Say what now?

[msauve]

Joe Jackson was right: "Everything gives you cancer, there's no cure, there's no answer."

Re:Say what now?

[phantomfive]

Generally I roll my eyes at the California cancer labeling law, which is known to be overly protective to say the least.

However, it does make me smile to think of hipsters in San Francisco with their man-bun and beard freaking out when they see cancer warning labels at their favorite boutique coffee shop.

Re:Say what now?

[pots]

Acrylamide is not harmful unless it's in amounts equal to a river of coffee.

The problem is that this is not established. This assumes the threshold model, while California has decided to play it safe and go with the no-threshold model. We don't know which is correct.

I applaud California for sticking to their guns on their labeling law, in the face of all the guff they get. The no-threshold model makes things easier, and a whole lot more profitable, but disguising a potential health hazard for those reasons is not well justified. Californians can still drink all of the possibly-carcinogenic coffee they want, the coffee-pushers just can't pretend that it's all perfectly safe.

Re:Say what now?

[Chibi Merrow]

But once everything is labeled as cancer causing, what does the label even mean?

Re:Say what now?

[Pfhorrest]

Those warning labels are all there already, and have been for years, decades possibly. They are widely ignored because everyone knows it doesn't really mean anything. I haven't RTFA but the "affirmed" in the summary suggests to me the court simply ruled that they are not to be taken down.

Re:Say what now?

[pots]

Everything isn't labeled as cancer causing. It's just that certain carcinogens, like sodium benzoate, are effective and really cheap. So manufacturers put them in (almost) everything. This fact is what creates a market for small, health-focused brands.

Re:Say what now?

[Known Nutter]

What has essentially happened here is that acrylamide has been added to the list of chemicals covered by Prop 65.

The Prop 65 signs that were already in place... they stay. Places that represent a significant exposure to acrylamide (coffee shops) will be adding Prop 65 warning signs.

I'm not clear whether or not labels will need to be added to individual containers, but I seriously doubt that.

Re: Say what now?

[phantomfive]

People who live in California know about the warnings, by San Francisco is full of newcomer hipsters who don't know about typical things like Indian summer or cancer warnings or how to pronounce Daly.

Re:Say what now?

[Octorian]

I'm pretty sure that coffee shop already has a prop 65 sign due to some other substance on the premises. The law is enough of a catch-all, and everyone is so numb to it, that I think the only hipsters who freak out are ones visiting from out-of-state.

Re:Say what now?

[youngone]

That's not correct. I am a Daily Mail reader, so I know that everything both causes and cures cancer.

Re:Say what now?

[HornWumpus]

Every place of business already just posts a Prop 65 warning. As a shyster repellant.

They routinely stick them on used car windows.

Just sticking them everywhere is cheap, complies with law. Are you sure you don't have a chem on the list, somewhere? How sure are you? Sign is $2, lawyer condom.

Re:Say what now?

[HornWumpus]

Do you live in CA?

I doubt it. The signs are EVERYWHERE. Post office, restaurants, bars, stores, businesses, offices, fire stations, city halls etc etc etc. Have been for years. I suppose it's possible you live in CA and have just been ignoring the signs for so long you no longer 'see them'.

Signs are cheap. How sure are you that you don't have something containing something on the ever growing list? Sure enough to bet your business against a $2 sign? That's one shitty pot ratio.

Re:Say what now?

[Pfhorrest]

I don't know what is or isn't happening with these latest turns of event, but every coffee shop I've been to in the past decade or two (here in California) has already had Prop 65 warnings, and I'm pretty sure they specifically mention acrylamide, and go out of their way to explain that it's just a normal byproduct of the roasting process and not some scary chemical they add to their coffee.

I think I've seen at least numerous burger chains and possibly some bakeries with similar warnings (because browned bread and grilled meat are also sources of acrylamide -- basically anything that gets remotely darkened or charred in the process of cooking).

Re:Say what now?

[WaffleMonster]

The problem is that this is not established. This assumes the threshold model, while California has decided to play it safe and go with the no-threshold model. We don't know which is correct.

I applaud California for sticking to their guns on their labeling law, in the face of all the guff they get. The no-threshold model makes things easier, and a whole lot more profitable, but disguising a potential health hazard for those reasons is not well justified.

Playing it safe is not the same thing as being safe. What happens when something really causes cancer and everyone ignores it? False alarms are not harmless.

Re:Say what now?

[rtb61]

The answer is clearly, you are glambling make your choice but not based upon lies. Some things have a much higher risk than others of generating cancer, cancer being a specific kind of genetic damage that allows sufficient change in your cells DNA to reproduce uncontrollably, not trigger self destruction for excessive change and not be detected by you immune system for eradication.

You can be a PR dickbag and pretend all sorts of bullshit but the simply fact is, those cancer causing substances cause all sorts of genetic harm and it is just time and random chance, till that harm fucking kills you. All sorts of DNA breakdown can occur during cellular reproduction and most of it wont matter a crap, DNA that controls eye colour when it is damaged in another part of the body, will not affect that part of the body but will reproduce in future. So DNA damage accumulates over time and right up until you get specific style of damage, you are fine and then, wham you are dying.

So ignore the PR dickbags, the real scum sucking cunts, their lies will kill you. You can accumulate all sorts of DNA damage over time and be fine or straight out of the gate, you get the kind of DNA damage that kills you. The more DNA damage you accumulate over the time, the more likely you are to get that critical kind of damage that kills.

So play your gambling game with substances that cause DNA damage, but remember this, you could be trading a fucking cup of covfefe for a enduring miserable and extremely painful death, so do you smell the covfefe or is that the smell of your carcass rotting away around you. Playing the cancer game is exactly the same as playing Russian roulette, you can die on the first pull of the trigger or not but keep pulling that trigger and you most certainly will die eventually, still a better way to die than cancer.

There are real answers and real choices, you want to gamble with cancer, go right ahead, you wont to lie to others about that risk, well you should go to prison.

Re:Say what now?

[pots]

Those are two unrelated sentences. The threshold model has nothing to do with LD50, it's specifically about cancer.

Re:Say what now?

[dgatwood]

The threshold model is not a great model. After all, low-dose exposure to some carcinogens actually decreases cancer risk. For example, areas with higher background radiation have lower cancer risks than average.

But of course, the bigger problem is that, as currently interpreted, Prop 65 is an absolutely stupid law, because literally everything contains some substance that can cause cancer or reproductive harm. The idea behind Prop 65 — discouraging the use of materials that are known to significantly increase your risk of cancer (e.g. asbestos) and warning people when they might potentially be exposed to it is not entirely without merit. The problem is that the list of substances needs to be much shorter, and the minimum quantity needs to be much higher. Otherwise, it loses all meaning, just as it has.

And let you say, "No, not everything causes cancer or reproductive harm," I'll point out why you're wrong.

First, most foods contain iron. Iron is a required nutrient. If you don't take in enough iron, you will die. However, it also encourages the production of cancer-causing free radicals, so in large quantities, it causes cancer. Whoops.

Many other foods (e.g. bananas) contain potassium, again a required nutrient. A certain percentage of potassium is radioactive. If isolated, you could give someone a fatal dose of radiation poisoning with the potassium extracted from a sufficiently large number of bananas Again, in small quantities, it is beneficial, and in large quantities, it causes cancer. Not good at all.

But it gets better. Every food in existence, by definition, contains carbon, a certain percentage of which is radioactive. You literally cannot eat without consuming something that is at least slightly radioactive. Radiation is known to cause both cancer AND reproductive harm. So every restaurant, whether they serve coffee or not, technically must carry a Prop 65 warning, because they contain organic matter (not to mention any building with a hardwood floor, a wooden door, wooden tables or chairs, etc.)

But the best part of this story is that air contains oxygen, which catalyzes reactions. Oxidative stress is causally linked to cancer. So the freaking air we breathe causes cancer, and if it didn't we couldn't breathe it. So any environment with a breathable atmosphere is known to cause cancer, and any environment without one will kill you before you can reproduce, and thus causes reproductive harm.

In other words, Prop 65, as currently interpreted by the court system, is a complete and utter joke, and we just need to put up a big-ass sign at every highway entrance to the State of California that says "Warning: The entire State of California contains substances known to the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive harm" and be done with this silly little worthless hack job of a law once and for all.

Re:Say what now?

[Dog-Cow]

Water is also poisonous in sufficient quantity, and you don't even contract a cancer that can probably be cured. Why are there not signs everywhere potable water is available to warn people?

Re:Say what now?

[Dog-Cow]

Literally every ingestible is fatal in large doses, and the vast majority of the time, you won't get cancer as a warning that something bad is happening. You just die. The only thing that changes is what a "large dose" is for the substance.

Re:Say what now?

[WaffleMonster]

Everyone would ignore it regardless, that's why we have the FDA regulating this crap instead of making it voluntary.

Ag lobby + Trump administration vs. FDA regulation. Wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

However, this is not a false alarm: these substances, like acrylamide, are

It's a FUD alarm.

known carcinogens in large doses.

So are basically all fruits and virtually everything else you eat or drink. Tap water is allowed to contain 10 ppb arsenic a known carcinogen. Lead is also allowed up to 15 ppb again a known carcinogen. In large doses any water available for anyone to drink is a known carcinogen.

I can go on and on all day long with this BS. Unless you can provide substantive information quantifying meaningful risk of doing x, y and z in terms that warrant public attention please speak up. Simply stating x is a known carcinogen in large doses means nothing substantive to me or anyone else.

It's entirely reasonable to think that small doses might also have this effect.

There are millions of Coffee drinkers. People have been studying the issue for decades. When you are able to cite substantive research linking coffee to increased cancers let me know. There *IS* substantive research showing negative influence on some types of cancers among coffee drinkers.

Re: Say what now?

[c6gunner]

Now what does Texas law regarding concealed carry of weapons have to do with California's requiring stupid, B.S. warnings for chemicals found in COFFEE? The fact that the state government is in BOTH cases requiring the posting of warning signs that people will largely ignore

Oh boy, you're really reaching. There's no law in Texas requiring you to post such signs. That's just bullshit. People are free to post them or not post them, depending on their own desires. The only thing which the laws stipulate is that IF you decide to post then, THEN the signs must meet certain criteria; otherwise you don't get to have someone arrested/fined just because they didn't see your shitty sign which you stuck in a back room somewhere.

You're not even comparing apples and oranges here; you're comparing an apple to a gerbil which you're calling an orange.

Re: Say what now?

[orlanz]

Oh dude, don't even get started on the Southern or NorthEastern states... these forms will become a full blown competition on who makes the worst laws with categories and subcategories; JD Edwards style.

Re:Say what now?

[Daralantan]

My favorite part of this is occasionally stuff on amazon ships with a bag and the label on the bag states "chemicals in this product have been identified by the state of California to cause cancer" and so you find reviews where they have a picture of that or just mention it and basically the review is "1/5 WTF AMAZON!!!!! YOU GAVE ME CANCER!!!!"

Re: Say what now?

[WinstonWolfIT]

Which state banned the wife rearranging the furniture without the permission of the husband. Was it Tennessee? I've always pictured 4am bruised shin followed by 2pm "Brothers, we have a domestic crisis at hand".

Re:Say what now?

[houghi]

When I as a European was the first time in the US was all the writing I saw. Not just warning labels, but so much writing. So much that traffic became less safe, because you had to read so much. "No right turn" "No left turn for truck" "Only left turns between 8 and 10 if you are green vehicle."Keep right to turn left on the middle lane on Wednesday afternoon if it rains during summer season"

And then the message in the car mirrors "Images are inverted" or whatever is says.

People are treated as if they are a child and therefore react as if they are one. "But mom, you told me not to hit him. I'm not. He is hitting himself, See?"

Re:Say what now?

[Applehu Akbar]

Those are two unrelated sentences. The threshold model has nothing to do with LD50, it's specifically about cancer.

LD50 is just a standard for comparing toxicities of different substances: the amount that is fatal to half the test population.

Re:Say what now?

[Applehu Akbar]

The threshold model is not a great model. After all, low-dose exposure to some carcinogens actually decreases cancer risk. For example, areas with higher background radiation have lower cancer risks than average.

Yes it is, precisely BECAUSE even vitally necessary substances, like the salt I cited, have a fatal larger dosage. The dosage curve for many things, including radiation, looks like a checkmark: beneficial or neutral in small amounts, then a threshold above which it becomes increasingly toxic.

Prop 65 uses a no-threshold model for everything. Because there is some amount of caffeine that will kill, you have to post a sign in every Starbucks. Actually, the high prices will kill you first.

Re: Say what now?

[c6gunner]

IOW, just like in California, if you don't want to be sued for knowingly having a Carcinogen that you didn't warn about, in Texas, you have to post a sign if you don't want to be sued for telling people they can't have a hand-gun on your property.

That's what the law stipulates. It imposes a liability for those who do something without posting about it.

Which are strictly dictated according to arcane technical parameters of no merit in Texas.

And if you're off by one quarter inch, some gun-toting fag will come into your place of business, wave their .357 magnum in your face, and threaten you with it just because they can.

The rest of your rant makes it clear that you're an idiot, but I will address this section just so that anyone reading it doesn't get the wrong impression.

You've basically just made all that shit up. The law says nothing like that; in fact it quite clearly states the opposite. Section 30.07:

"TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH AN OPENLY CARRIED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:

(1) openly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and

(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder openly carrying a handgun was forbidden.

(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication."

In other words, I don't even need a sign; if I verbally tell you not to bring a gun onto my property and you do, that's a $200 fine. If I tell you to take your gun and leave, and you refuse, it becomes a Class A misdemeanour.

The sign law has nothing to do with anyone suing you and everything to do with regulating what constitutes a reasonable warning, so that you don't end up with situations where gun owners are being charged for disobeying a sign which they couldn't see.

Re:Say what now?

[thegreatbob]

On the convex mirror, the label usually reads something like "Objects in mirror are closer than they appear". Not sure they do this in other places, but I'm with you on the excess of writing. Sadly, folks around here don't seem to pay attention to even the most basic of symbology, e.g. red octagons (usually emblazoned with STOP) and the inverted red-bordered triangle (usually emblazoned with YIELD). I feel that a lot of it exists to provide authorities with excuses to get at people, but more importantly to me, they do provide you with some level of legal protection when somebody causes trouble by ignoring them (note that this must be combined with a dashcam, as this is the land of the free... wait, i mean pro bono personal injury attorney, and an honest witness's word is worth about the air that was set into motion by in saying it.

Re:Say what now?

[thegreatbob]

I've seen them on signs in public car parks in Texas. Don't eat the pavement, I guess.

Re:Say what now?

[bluefoxlucid]

You mean this text in the car mirror?

Re:Say what now?

[bluefoxlucid]

Sodium benzoate isn't a carcinogen; it's harmless. It can react with ascorbic acid to form benzine, which is a carcinogen. Soft drinks with both frequently do contain benzine, but well below interesting levels. Note that "interesting levels" in consumable products are something like 0.005ppm. Sodas usually don't contain ascorbic acid, so no benzine.

Re:Say what now?

[rgbatduke]

Or, we could look at what the data say -- there's rather a lot of it. General conclusion: Coffee is more likely to be very slightly, almost invisibly good for you in terms of overall cancer risk, known to reduce the risk for several major cancers and without any solid evidence of increased risk in any (although there are some mixed results). Bearing in mind that coffee can also be decaffeinated with organic solvents and that the studies involved in this large review probably have confounding factors that are variably controlled between studies, this isn't surprising.

I could also post sundry papers that more or less universally suggest that coffee is good for people with metabolic syndrome or T2D, positively affecting their metabolism. My wife is a physician, and every time I've suggested that lots of coffee (she drinks a bit over half a pot a day) might be risky she deluges me with objective evidence that not only is it not overall risky, it is overall beneficial.

But who cares about objective evidence? The current warning is WORSE than hearsay, anecdotal evidence. It is as damning as saying that if you masturbate you MIGHT go blind as a result. Who can even argue with that?

Coffee and cancer risk: a summary overview.
Alicandro G1, Tavani A, La Vecchia C.
Author information
Abstract

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 1cup 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 1cup/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 1cup/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.

Re:Say what now?

[datavirtue]

They jumped the shark on this one. Any hope of cancer label relevancy has been lost.

Re:Say what now?

[datavirtue]

So half the internet acclaims the virtues of Acrylamide, teaching us how to roast meat to browned perfection for the ultimate taste while the other half decries this wonderful gift of nature. Sounds like SJW madness. I think Trump slam-dunking the election has really set off a scare among the pussy hats of the world.

Re:Say what now?

[TechyImmigrant]

Well coffee shops use sugar, which genuinely is a cancer causing chemical.

Re: Say what now?

[c6gunner]

Someone didn't take their meds today.

Re:Say what now?

[Tjp($)pjT]

Just put a very big prop 65 warning at the borders.” California contains substances known to cause cancer, birth defects and other reproductive harm.” Done, don’t need any more labels.

Re:Say what now?

[dgatwood]

I see what you're saying. My point was that there are multiple thresholds in some cases, and that for things with two thresholds (good-neutral and neutral-bad), you can't know whether the amount you're exposing people to is good or bad, because it depends on how much of that a given person has been exposed to previously.

So a threshold model makes sense medically, but you can't build a law on it. So the only real option is to limit the law to things that A. are readily avoidable, and B. create a significant increase in cancer risk, rather than worrying about things that are barely above the noise threshold and are unavoidable, like acrylamide, which appears naturally in cooked foods.

Re:Say what now?

[ComputerGeek01]

At this point I'm convinced that it's the state of California that causes Cancer.

Re:Say what now?

[orgelspieler]

Let's not forget that the only people actually filing Prop 65 suits are shitty lawyers extorting small businesses. Quite possibly the worst proposition California has passed in recent memory

Re:Say what now?

[Scroatzilla]

I heard the best alternate name for man-bun the other day: Twat knot.

Re:Say what now?

[pnutjam]

Personally, in the case of Texas, I think they shouldn't permit anyone (i.e., businesses) to 'ban' guns on their property or premises unless they provide armed security personnel on-site to protect you since they're obliging you to be defenseless to be there legally, and that they be required moreover to search each and every single person upon entry to ensure no one sneaks a handgun in, and if they're not willing or able to do BOTH of those things, that they should not be ALLOWED to prohibit a LICENSED individual from carrying concealed, but hey... there are a LOT of things that would be different if I ran the show. Here's another: no city, county, municipality, or any other authority would be allowed to START road construction in more than one area at a time, unless damaged by i.e., a natural disaster, otherwise they'd be required to FINISH working in one area, BEFORE starting work on another, AND I would prohibit the construction of new homes OR businesses, until ALL the roads and sidewalks needed to accommodate the traffic new construction would bring, are FINISHED. (Traffic being snarled for months because they do this shit backwards IS a pet-peeve of mine.)

You sure do like regulations. Federal or state level?

You gun suggestion might make sense when a "license" meant something besides breathing.

Re:Say what now?

[dgatwood]

However, this is not a false alarm: these substances, like acrylamide, are known carcinogens in large doses.

This is a blatantly false alarm, because A. no study has ever shown coffee to increase risk of cancer in humans with any real confidence, and B. multiple studies have shown that coffee reduces the risk of multiple varieties of cancer, including liver cancer, endometrial cancer, oral cancer, prostate cancer, and colon cancer. And for all other types of cancer, results are neutral. The sole evidence in favor of coffee increasing cancer risk came from one study that suggested a weak correlation with increased childhood leukemia in children of mothers who drank coffee while pregnant, and even the evidence there is not very strong.

In other words, it's worse than a false alarm. It's exactly the opposite of what science is saying.

It's entirely reasonable to think that small doses might also have this effect.

No, it flies in the face of mounting evidence to think that, so it is entirely unreasonable.

Re:Say what now?

[arglebargle_xiv]

Also the Prop65corollary warning: "California contains stupid propositions known to cause legal problems for anyone not sticking up a Prop.65 warning sign".

Re:Say what now?

[rpstrong]

One of my favorite Pacific rim e-tailers includes a printed warning warning with every single thing that they sell that ships to CA.

They explain why (Prop 65) on one of their web pages.

As you say, cheap insurance.

Re:Say what now?

[HornWumpus]

America and specifically California has the WORST lawyer to human ratio on the planet.

At least America will let you starve like an adult (at least if your a white male), Europe is much more infantilizing.

Wait until they find out that marijuana is too

[jfdavis668]

The story will be completely different if they discover that marijuana is a carcinogen. No big company to blame for that one.

Re:Wait until they find out that marijuana is too

[Anonymous Coward]

Marijuana does not cause cancer, smoking causes cancer nearly regardless of what is smoked.

So, the conclusion is that marijuana smoke nearly causes cancer? Since cancer is estimated to be about 75% random and 25% environmental, I don't know if I like those odds...

Re:Wait until they find out that marijuana is too

[squiggleslash]

I suspect there are a lot of coffee companies in CA that are smaller than most pot farms. Just saying. It's coffee FFS. It's been the Hipster's drink before hipsters were cool.

California itself should come with a warning label

[nehumanuscrede]

According to California, EVERYTHING causes cancer. We should just stick a label on everything to make sure we cover all our bases.

Warning: Most of California's leadership / residents are complete idiots and, when they move to other States, have a tendency to bring their own special brand of stupidity with them. Which, they then demand that their new home city adopt the same stupid rules, regulations and ideals that caused them to move away from California in the first place.

Personally, I think California causes cancer :|

I can only hope they eventually follow through on their secession threat so we can wall off that side of the country and keep them there.

Naturally?

[Gravis Zero]

acrylamide, a substance created naturally during the brewing process

Since when did coffee beans naturally brew themselves?

Just sayin'

Re:Naturally?

[ma1wrbu5tr]

At least it doesn't make you go blind?

Re: Naturally?

[slazzy]

Personally I eat coffee beans covered in chocolate. No brewing required!

Re:Naturally?

[allcoolnameswheretak]

Are you daft? It's the same natural process that evaporates the tobacco and the chemicals in a cigarette, when the tip of the cigarette is lighted.

Re:Naturally?

[Wrath0fb0b]

It's a poor choice of words, but at the same time I think the reasonable reader should be able to identify that the intent was "endogenously to the brewing process".

In other words, it's not added to the product. Contrast with the laundry list of shit they put in cigarettes, as opposed to nicotine that is already in the tobacco.

Moreover, there's some rationale to believing in stricter standards and warning labels for a substance that's added to a product. Certainly a company bears a higher moral responsibility to ensure the safety (or communicate the danger) when they actively add a substance.

For another goofy example, grapefruits contain enzymes that interfere with medication. No one is suggesting that California require a warning label on grapefruits or grapefruit juice as a result, but surely it would not be OK for a company to add those very same enzymes to apple juice without a warning label.

Re:Naturally?

[omnichad]

Like coffee beans, the natural state of tobacco is not on fire (though wildfires do happen).

Re:Naturally?

[Tjp($)pjT]

Naturally “roast” not “brew” themselves. But you know, global warming and all...

Prop 65 warning

[Kohath]

These warnings are meaningless. Their purpose was to setup a mechanism for attorneys to sue any company for failing to warn you. So every company puts them everywhere.

Re:Prop 65 warning

[ma1wrbu5tr]

In some places, the warnings are law solely for that purpose. Why don't Doritos come with an explosive diarrhea warning? Hmm?

Re:Prop 65 warning

[omnichad]

Why don't Doritos come with an explosive diarrhea warning?

Where did you find Doritos WOW chips in this century? I thought olean was gone? If you're still having these symptoms, maybe you have IBS or something.

Re:Prop 65 warning

[HornWumpus]

You don't label the thing. You label the place that does (or might) contain a carcinogen.

Why stop there

[Trogre]

I assume that California will now mandate signs on all egress doors warning that solar radiation is an IARC Group 1 carcinogen, the highest rating there is.

Reading it backwards

[holophrastic]

This won't say that coffee causes cancer. It doesn't say that the ingredients in your coffee are causing cancer if you drink it.

This is simply the knowledge that there exist ingredients in your coffee that do, in some scenarios, cause cancer in some beings.

It has nothing to do with you drinking it.

It's like advertising on a bottle of ketchup: "ketchup can also be used to remove rust from cutlery". It has nothing to do with your hot dog.

It's just interesting knowledge. If you choose to believe that rust-removal systems shouldn't be ingested, then you can avoid ketchup. If you don't want to support the manufacture of ingredients that can researchers can use to kill rats, maybe because you support the rat population, then you can avoid supporting such fabrication by not buying coffee.

It's nothing more than this-is-the-knowledge-we-have, so do-with-it-what-you-will.

Re:Reading it backwards

[Zobeid]

The medium is the message. Warning labels on products are viewed by consumers as warnings.

It's the same problem with GMO labeling. If you write on the label that "this product was produced with genetic engineering", people will easily take away the implication that they're being warned away from something harmful—even though it doesn't say that at all.

Re:Reading it backwards

[raind]

Good point! Now if only we can apply that to FB and Google use.

Re:Reading it backwards

[Dog-Cow]

How do you fix people?

Re:Reading it backwards

[thegarbz]

It's just interesting knowledge. If you choose to believe that rust-removal systems shouldn't be ingested, then you can avoid ketchup.

That's what I keep telling people when I have my morning cup of Benzine. It's only a risk if you chose to believe that cancer causing substances cause cancer when ingested.

Re:Reading it backwards

[Pfhorrest]

I've noticed that basically every dairy product has a message on it to the effect of "Made with milk from cows not treated with growth hormones, not that there's anything wrong with that." I assume that is to offset the effect that you describe. If it just said "Made with milk from cows not treated with growth hormones" people would assume that growth hormones are a bad thing, so they follow it up with a disclaimer that it hasn't actually been shown to be a bad thing, just, y'know, if you care about it for some reason anyway, buy our product because we avoided that harmless thing you're afraid of anyways.

It's so prevalent and such identical language that it makes me wonder if they're required by law to write exactly that.

Re:California itself should come with a warning la

[imidan]

They do put those labels on an incredible amount of stuff. I guess I understand the original intent of the warnings, and it seems like they had good intentions. But there comes a point when they need to re-evaluate the utility. When warning labels are on almost everything you see, they reach a point of semantic satiation, where they lose all meaning.

As a product liability issue, if I were selling physical products in California, I'd be tempted to put a warning label on everything I sold, regardless of whether they said I had to. That way, I can't get caught when it turns out that some chemical that was used in the preparation of some part turns out to be on the bad list...

Re:Oroville, crime, unsustainable public debt....

[HarrySquatter]

What unsustainable debt? California is projected to have multi-billion dollar budget surplus and has been socking away billions in its rainy day fund. All improvements since Arnold ran the state into the ground.

Raise your hand...

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Raise your hand if you were the least bit surprised this "legislation" came out of California?

Exactly. More pointless government intrusiveness and overreach. The end effects of this will be higher costs on businesses, higher costs to consumers, no measurable benefits anywhere to anyone except lawyers and politicians.

Re:Raise your hand...

[HornWumpus]

Good news. Your local coffee shop already displayed the sign. Everyplace does. Everybody ignores them.

IIRC decaf got the coffee shops, early in the process. But by now, it's just: Put up the sign as a routine part of setting up any place of business.

Re:California itself should come with a warning la

[greenwow]

You're not exaggerating by much when you say everything. Even parking garages and hotels are required to have cancer warnings.

Chemphobia

[phantomfive]

It was a time when fear of hazardous waste and industrial chemicals was high, when chemophobia -- a blanket fear of anything having to do with the word 'chemicals'

If anything, that is worse today. Point out to someone that broccoli is mostly carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, and they get confused. They can't explain what it is exactly that they don't like, but "chemicals" is not the answer.

Re:Chemphobia

[phantomfive]

bothers me a little. Are we now ready to say that Starbucks is responsible, in addition to McDonald's, on the recent low sperm count epidemic in many countries?

It's impossible to feel manly walking into a Starbucks?

Re:Chemphobia

[LynnwoodRooster]

I can't believe the number of people who willingly - even GLEEFULLY! - guzzle liter after liter of hyroxyl acid...

Re:Chemphobia

[CaffeinatedBacon]

As long as they do what you did first and remove enough of the 'd's. As they tend to get stuck in the throat and cause discomfort in such large quantities as multiple litres.

Re:Just jump off the edge

[NicknameUnavailable]

Commifornia is what you get when hardcore liberalism is allowed to flourish.

Of course, but that's not all

[Misagon]

Acrylamide has been known as a carcinogen for quite a long time, at least for high concentrations in contact with the skin. When you have swallowed it however, it gets submerged in stomach acid which should destroy it.
All carbs that have been roasted contain acrylamide, the darker the roasting the higher the concentration. Another known source is bread crust that has been baked a dark brown.

But there is a lot more to cancer risk than ingesting one type of carcinogen.
Coffee is also known to contain a high amount of antioxidants that are known to neutralise free radicals -- another group of carcinogens.
So the net effect of drinking coffee may in fact be beneficial.

We ingest and inhale all sorts of other carcinogens all the time and cancer cells do form in the body quite often -- but are almost always quickly killed by the immune system! I believe that the best way to avoid getting cancer is to keep a strong immune system by keeping both the body and mind strong and healthy -- and that means most of all to avoid a stressful lifestyle.

BTW. Dark-roasted coffee is overrated anyway. I see no point in drinking something with a taste of tar and with most of the good coffee flavour having been destroyed in the roasting.

Re:Of course, but that's not all

[bankman]

Life, a condition that will ultimately lead to death. ;-)

Re:Of course, but that's not all

[UperPoti]

And what about esophageal cancer or oral cancer? Eating a known carcinogen deserves a Darwin award. In a terms of risk, it would be more appropriate to be more concerned with any caffeine and theobromine, which is what caffeine is metabolized into, in cocoa products. Caffeine and theobromine would seem to be easier targets for being labeled as carcinogenic than acrylamide if the actual purpose was to label just coffee as a carcinogen, but acrylamide is found in more products. So, seeming as how it would allow for more lawsuits, it seems to have had a higher desirability to be labeled as a carcinogen.

Re: California itself should come with a warning l

[brunes69]

The last time I was in California, the hotel I was staying at (which was a $400+/night hotel) had a small sign in the lobby that said that the hotel itself was known to the state of California to possibly cause cancer. This, combined with the Disneyland sign (Disneyland also has a sign that says it causes Cancer) should be all the evidence needed to.prove that this law does absolutely nothing and is simply a mocking example of the end result of the direct democracy system in place in California.

The question I ask

[bferrell]

Is who pushed this to court/into a law the court had to rule on?

I think that will tell us MUCH MUCH more.

Re:The question I ask

[sysrammer]

Big Tea.

Re:The question I ask

[jittles]

Big Tea.

I pity the fool who doesn't wake up to a nice cup of Earl Grey Tea.

Re:The question I ask

[bferrell]

PG Tips all the way!

Excellent!

[Hartree]

They can stop selling coffee in California since they think it's a carcinogen.

That means that all of the coffee drinkers in Silicon Valley will either have to stop or move to some place sane.

This is a double win for those of us in the "flyover" states. Coffee will be cheaper due to decreased demand and companies will be forced to pay higher wages to programmers to lure them to the lands of soybeans and corn where coffee can be had!

Re:Excellent!

[GerryGilmore]

THIS is the kind of hyper-over-reaction we've sadly come to accept as "normal". A LABEL somehow means "stop selling coffee in California since they think it's a carcinogen."
That's as dumbass as can be. Sean Hannity is just dying to interview you.

Re:Excellent!

[NoKaOi]

Just so ya know, this stupid law was passed in 1986, when a Republican was governor (George Deukmejian). But hey, I don't know why I'm bothering responding to a troll who does care about facts or reality.

Re:Excellent!

[thegarbz]

stop or move to some place sane.

Please don't. We don't want their kind here.

Re:Just jump off the edge

[drnb]

Hardcore Liberal here, California may as well jump off the edge of the world and leave the rest of us alone. This is the most ridiculous decisions I have read about in the last, um, well, last week (Trump trumps them all) ...but this one is pretty bad.

Only very small portions of California need to make that jump to restore a balanced system. They crazy end of the spectrum is quite localized.

Re:Just jump off the edge

[drnb]

... the #1 economy in America ...

In spite of California legislation, not because of it. Largely a legacy of the largess of defense and aerospace spending and the pure luck of the draw of major natural harbors that are gateways to the entire country. In other words California's financial success is largely due to the rest of the country, not so much its own doing, and especially not the California legislature's doing.

Re:Oroville, crime, unsustainable public debt....

[LynnwoodRooster]

Well, debt other than $1 trillion in unfunded pension liability, you mean...

I'm of 2 minds here

[GerryGilmore]

1) As a proud, card-carrying, tree-hugging Liberal(TM) I'm dismayed by this as it feeds into that whole "Gummint Bad" mentality that can be fed by such bizarre rulings.

2) As long as there is no outright ban or special tax, ala the "soda tax", which is just stupid, on coffee, then labelling is, IMO, just spreading knowledge. Look at the labels on every gas pump warning that gas fumes are bad. Well, D'uh! As a gas-jockey back in the day, I might have liked to know, but still would likely have made the same - but fully informed - decision to keep running out to to fill up each car that pulled to the pumps.
YMMV. :-)

Re:I'm of 2 minds here

[Ol Olsoc]

1) As a proud, card-carrying, tree-hugging Liberal(TM) I'm dismayed by this as it feeds into that whole "Gummint Bad" mentality that can be fed by such bizarre rulings.

Especially in this case - where the honorable Judge is almost certainly wrong.

Re:I'm of 2 minds here

[aardvarkjoe]

2) As long as there is no outright ban or special tax, ala the "soda tax", which is just stupid, on coffee, then labelling is, IMO, just spreading knowledge.

To which I would respond that:

1 - When you're slapping the label on absolutely everything, you're conditioning people to ignore the label. Which means that no actual knowledge is being spread.

2 - Forcing producers to stick a "scary" label on their products, when there isn't evidence to support that labeling, isn't right.

Re:I'm of 2 minds here

[Mal-2]

Manufacturers love the fact that everything is labeled with the warning, and don't mind displaying it themselves, because they know when it's everywhere, people won't be able to avoid buying products with that warning. Therefore it becomes meaningless from the standpoint of consumer choice. The manufacturers whose shit is actually hazardous love it even more because they can hide in the crowd.

Re:I'm of 2 minds here

[HornWumpus]

Keep paying attention. 'Gummint bad' is the right attitude. You'll learn so long as you don't pinch your eyes closed kid.

Bullshit merchants

[Ol Olsoc]

Acrylamide - my, what a nasty sounding word. Do we know that Acrylamide exists in French Fries or Potato Chips? Black Olives? Prunes? Deep frying starchy foods? Yes we do!

Acrylamide scare reminds me a little of the great devil Nitrates/Nitrites. Many people demand only healthy "uncured bacon" to avoid nitrates while happily munching on healthe veggies that contain a lot of Nitrate. Meanwhile it appears that coffee drinkers live longer and healthier lives.

Re:Bullshit merchants

[omnichad]

"uncured bacon" cured with nitrates from celery or cherry powder - but which is now legally required by law to be labelled as uncured.

Re:Bullshit merchants

[Ol Olsoc]

"uncured bacon" cured with nitrates from celery or cherry powder - but which is now legally required by law to be labelled as uncured.

Weird enough. This is going to be all a lot of Hipster/health food nut fun until someone gets hit with botulism.

Re:California itself should come with a warning la

[aevan]

*awaits the dramatic twist: Labels in California Cause Cancer. Class-action suit launched against Everyone.

Re:California itself should come with a warning la

[HornWumpus]

What everybody (except maybe a few mom and pops) have been doing for a good decade now.

Why wouldn't you?

I think the forest service should put the signs on the national forests. At least on every logging road...That will be a good use of money.

Also the state and national parks...just full of known carcinogens. Every fire pit, no matter how temporary, needs a warning. Best just put one on every rock.

Good to the last drop

[ccahua4]

Science is not static and California did not bypass it. Science is a constant process of discovery and the results are seldom binary.

A better opinion piece with citations: https://www.healthline.com/nut...

Has anyone ever heard of Acrylamide before reading the original article?

I'm still going to enjoy coffee regardless of the warning label informing me of exposure.

Why stay ignorant?

When new science comes out, I'll adjust accordingly.*

People are still going to do whatever they want https://youtu.be/wGI3rL7smN8

We left a generation dead from "No Smoking DOES NOT cause cancer".

And who kept singing that chorus?

* DRINK UP the science:
Acrylamide is NOT known to occur as a natural product. pg 392 https://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG...
but wait?! it does roast naturally .. roasting process had the most significant effect on acrylamide levels in natural coffee https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Cancer is just ...bad luck... these results suggest ... 0.81 correlation http://science.sciencemag.org/...
It's really safe to drink no warnings needed https://youtu.be/ovKw6YjqSfM

Re:California itself should come with a warning la

[Tablizer]

A labeling law was passed by CA voters, and then the technology got better at detecting potential problems. The law probably needs tuning, like everything else subject to scientific and technological progress. Adjust and move on instead of make it into a red-vs-blue troll-war.

Re:California itself should come with a warning la

[phantomfive]

The real problem is that it was passed by voters, which means fixing it will either take a long petition/proposition/vote process, or require a large majority in the legislature. Making adjustments in this case is not easy.

Re:California itself should come with a warning la

[joe_frisch]

Yes, brought to you by the people who don't realize that sticking "DANGER" signs on everything doesn't actually make people safer.

Of course its rarely about actual risk and more about lawsuit avoidance (we warned you that this site contains substances known to cause cancer), or simply scoring political points with stupid voters.

I'm assuming that we will soon have radiation trifoils everywhere because there is detectable radiation everywhere.

Re: Mocking Proposition 65

[Jesus H Rolle]

[...] Paul Harvey's news segments. A regulator tells an established small diner that given the number of customers the establishment seats an additional toilet must be installed. To resize the bathroom or build a second would eat up a large chunk of the seating in the diner. Of course the owner's appeals were denied. The Regulatory State must be appeased. His solution was to install a fully functioning toilet in the front display window of the diner. And now you know the rest of the story.

Ftfy.

California's bureaucracy

[OrangeTide]

Makes me want to start smoking again.

Re:California itself should come with a warning la

[Tablizer]

That's fine; let democracy do what it will.

I'd personally like to see a risk ranking/scoring system, similar to the restaurant health & safety inspection grades that CA also has. If coffee is a low risk, it will be graded as such. (Heavy cooking does introduce carcinogens into food in general. The real question whether it's significant or not.)

Re:California itself should come with a warning la

[slew]

The real problem is that it was passed by voters, which means fixing it will either take a long petition/proposition/vote process, or require a large majority in the legislature. Making adjustments in this case is not easy.

The Dems have a supermajority in California legislature which matches the voter demographics. The problem is a majority of people (voters and/or legislators) are still pro-label and anti-change, not that this is difficult to fix, but labelling still appears to represent the majority view...

That's the probably a symptom of democracy. We are collectively subject to the will of the majority..

Re:California itself should come with a warning la

[Scarletdown]

They also need to send a mission to the Sun to put a warning label there as well. Thy will have to go at night though, so they don't burn up.

California = Cancer

[AndyKron]

Everything in California causes cancer. I'm staying the fuck out of that death trap.

Judge's hands are tied

[Solandri]

The warnings are due to Proposition 65 - a citizen's ballot initiative which passed in 1986. It mandates a ridiculously low non-scientific threshold for requiring a cancer warning - a 1 in 100,000 chance of getting cancer due to exposure. By comparison, your lifetime odds of being killed by car is 1 in 114. By a pool is 1 in 5772. By falling from a ladder is 1 in 7707. By dog attack is 1 in 112,400. By lightning is 1 in 161,856. So we're talking about cancer risk levels which are minuscule compared to other risks you face during your lifetime.

But that's the threshold Prop 65 requires. So practically everything ends up requiring a Prop 65 warning label, including silly things like coffee. The judge can disagree with it, but has to comply with it because the text of the law is very specific. I've often joked that every door leading outside should have a Prop 65 warning above it because sunlight is known to cause cancer (about 1 in 43 people will get skin cancer in their lifetime).

About the only purpose Prop 65 serves is to enrich lawyers who go around finding businesses without the warning sing, and suing them for non-compliance, then settling the lawsuit for a few thousand dollars. The usual victim is an immigrant small business owner who never would've dreamed that such a silly law exists.

Re:California itself should come with a warning la

[Dog-Cow]

NJ.

Label Bananas too!

[urdak]

Bananas contain potassium. Some of the natural potassium is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-40 which is radioactive and radiates your body. Isaac Asimov once conjectured that the radiation from potassium in animal's bodies is what accelerated evolution - but of course causes cancers too.
So let's label bananas!

Can't even get the simple things right...

[bankman]

....acrylamide, a substance created naturally during the brewing process...

Acrylamide is created during the roasting process and not during brewing. The temperatures during brewing are way too low and the time far too short for the Maillard reaction to happen.

Re:Can't even get the simple things right...

[omnichad]

Also, neither roasting or brewing are a particularly "natural" process.

Life?

[aberglas]

Life, a condition that will ultimately lead to death. ;-)

But is a life without coffee really a life at all, or is it merely an existence?

Re:California itself should come with a warning la

[thegarbz]

As a product liability issue, if I were selling physical products in California, I'd be tempted to put a warning label on everything I sold, regardless of whether they said I had to.

Reading this post gave me cancer. Expect a lawsuit.

So you're the one.

[Type44Q]

it does make me smile to think of hipsters in San Francisco with their man-bun

I figured somebody must get off on that look; now we know who.

Re: So you're the one.

[phantomfive]

Absolutely. It's hot on a girl.

Re: So you're the one.

[Oswald McWeany]

Absolutely. It's hot on a girl.

Not really... I mean, it looks better on a girl, but even for women there are many much better hairstyles. Buns look "meh" on girls and "ridiculous" on men.

I'm pretty sure having your hair in a bun is known by the State of California to cause cancer.

Re: So you're the one.

[Oswald McWeany]

It's not even a hairstyle really, as my girlfriend explained to me those messy buns just mean that the girl couldn't be bothered to shower today and if she didn't put it up it'd be obvious how dirty her hair currently is.

That would explain why so many men want in on the bun trend.

This state is known to the Beverage of Coffee

[jenningsthecat]

to cause stupid

not ignoring science

[Cederic]

The science shows that the substance causes cancer in animals.
The signs state that the substance causes cancer.

It's stupid and pointless, but it's not going against the science. If you want to attack prop 65 then do so because it's stupid and pointless, don't resort to lying about the science.

Will not change coffee consumption

[cgimark]

Coffee addicts without coffee would result in the worst crisis the world has ever seen and coffee drinkers know this ! Programmers would sit at the keyboard repeatedly pressing delete, and getting annoyed by the guy cursing out loud next to them who also has no coffee. IT would keep trying to plug in the same ethernet cable in the same jack upside down resorting to cursing it and how it never listens. Call center workers would be heard scolding callers for talking so loud and being informed how rude it is for them to call so early in the morning. Workers in factories on the assembly line repeatedly putting the same screw in the same hole only to learn the part wasn't supposed to have a hole there. Teachers calling students by the wrong names and wondering if I locked the door at home and why aren't those kids responding ? A chain reaction of traffic accidents would occur caused by the sleepy drivers crashing into the panicked drivers who are late because without the coffee they can't get going.

IARC is a joke

[TRRosen]

IARC is not highly respected for the very point made here. There designations ignore dosage. If you drown a lab rat in something and it gets cancer to IARC Its a carcinogen. That pretty much makes everything a carcinogen. Alcohol, campfires, woodworking, they all hold IARCs highest warning. They also do not really take into account the credibility of studies just quantity.

Re: Interestingly enough...

[Chris Mattern]

"For inhaling burning smoke, it's not as destructive to the lungs as you might think." Yeah, that makes it all better.

Ha Ha Ha

[kelemvor4]

Californians get to suffer a little more because of their legal stupidity. I hope manufacturers will be good enough to use stickers or make California specific packaging (or just stop selling in California) rather than subjecting the rest of us to this lunacy. Personally, I think if it's such a problem then California should just ban Coffee outright. ;)

Overreacting? Certainly, but...

[atrex]

This certainly seems like an overreaction given how many other foods contain acrylamide. On the other hand they could just be trying to force the industry to find a way to remove the chemical from food stuffs. Without regulation a profit maximizing corporation will almost never go out of its way to reduce negative environmental or health impacts of a product.

IIRC they were also originally focused on dark roasted coffee, which contains more acrylamide than other variants. Not sure if this ruling applies to all coffee or just dark roast.

Side note: I'm still waiting for them to go after sugar and it's link to heart disease. Get the popcorn ready for that one.
Also, the first link in the summary is paywalled and lacks the usual /. indicator of such.

going to courts leads to smoking

[WindBourne]

So, should CA start posting signs that Lawyers can cause cancer?

Follow the money

[nightfire-unique]

As much as we like to assume legislators are simply braindead .. this is not always the case.

The most likely explanation here: they tried to shake various coffee chains, distributors, and resellers down for "campaign contributions" and were denied. Hence, added to the cancer list.

Re:Mocking Proposition 65

[omnichad]

That amount of plumbing work would be more expensive than complying anyway. I'm sure this story is intended as a joke and not fact, right?

Re:Just jump off the edge

[Anonymous Coward]

California's GDP per capita is only #8 in the US.

Fake news

[Shotgun]

If this were real news, how would we blame cancer on our corporate overlords? Obviously, this is fake news pushed by the big coffee conglomerates.

Existence in California is

[oldgraybeard]

a carcinogen and known to cause cancer and be harmful to life as we know it.

Just my 2 cents ;)

Everything

[Miser]

Everything in California's mind causes cancer, so I can't say I'm shocked by this.

Re:Caveman grunting

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

black olives, braised asparagus and burnt food

That reminds me, I hafts clean out my cooking bag in World of Warcraft.

Re:Just jump off the edge

[avandesande]

So tired of this dumb stat. It is also the most populated state... duh. BTW if California secedes the USA will still be number 1 economy in the world.

Cold, dead hands etc

[TJHook3r]

Meat and coffee will kill me but better that than be a 100 year old vegan.

a marginal-thinking catastrophe

[epine]

Leading experts, in fact, believe that roughly two-thirds of all cancers are the result of mutations to DNA that are caused by natural bodily processes, not exposure to environmental chemicals.

That anyone escapes high school without a solid foundation in economic marginalism is a national catastrophe, but there it is (from economics, also comparative advantage; from psychology a few select cognitive biases; finally, from statistics a fair list of sanity principles—these collectively essential to achieving 100% military power Iron Manchild / Iron Maiden batshit escape velocity).

Obviously (at least to anyone with a passing grade), the background rate is not on the margin (refer to definition of economic margin).

Preventable cancer is on the economic margin.

We talk about the margin (where change is possible) rather than the base rate (where change is still a twinkle of a some sketchy garret innovator that no-one is yet willing to believe) because that's where today's action resides (Willie Sutton: "I rob banks because that's where the money is"—which is surprisingly uncommon wisdom, once the zen origami is fully unfolded).

People struggling to assimilate this reality (how important something is at base rate / what gets the most air time) need to review their earliest childhood encounter concerning how a large nickel is worth less than a small dime. Oh, cruel world, very difficult! My heart goes out to you. Truly, I feel your pain.

But then these same people dial into the margin real quick when it's introduced to the talk-radio leprosy mosh pit as a "death panel" (modern leprosy is an incurable attitude, on a short, repeating, call-in loop).

Quality-adjusted life year

With an entire wonky literature, all to itself:
Is the value of a life or life-year saved context specific? Further evidence from a discrete choice experiment

"Death panel" batshit escape velocity: impulse power hip wader.

What about ladders?

[Agripa]

Warning: do not place ladder on frozen manure pile; it may cause cancer.

It gets worse

[ChrisMaple]

Coffee is actually good for you; drinking it is correlated with longer lifespan. http://www.bbc.com/news/health-40567047

Re:Just jump off the edge

[NicknameUnavailable]

They are #1 at consolidating jobs outside their state to inside their state and spewing liberal propaganda, nothing real. They have a net drain on the economy, so being pro-Commifornia is being anti-America.

Re:Just jump off the edge

[NicknameUnavailable]

Try being a libertarian. We get beat up by both sides; social conservatives and socialists alike.

That's because Libertarianism is just as bad as Communism - both are idealistic extremes that can't function in reality, useful only as examples of a philosophy. It takes a mixture of philosophies to build a functional society.

Re:Just jump off the edge

[NicknameUnavailable]

So tired of this dumb stat. It is also the most populated state... duh. BTW if California secedes the USA will still be number 1 economy in the world.

And as an added bonus we could invade to free the patriots while eradicating the commie scum, it's win-win.

Re:Just jump off the edge

[NicknameUnavailable]

America is currently more economically prosperous under Trump than any other time since I've been alive. If the commies had their way we'd have Hillary or Bernie in office right now instead of Trump. To suggest Commifornia policies are good economically is flat out absurd - they are good at consolidating labor away from the other states, not at producing anything. Commifornia is the definition of a parasite, producing nothing but taking much from their host nation - even to the point of pushing cancerous policies.

Re: California itself should come with a warning l

[HornWumpus]

Prop 65 is a stupid law. But it's easily routed around. Just put warning signs everywhere (and shoot all the lawyers).

But prop 215 has started a nationwide change for the better. It would have happened anyhow, just demographics, but 215 moved it forward, fast.

Re:Bread?

[HornWumpus]

Toasters will burn the warning onto the bread.