Slashdot Mirror
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."
[...]
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."
The story will be completely different if they discover that marijuana is a carcinogen. No big company to blame for that one.
acrylamide, a substance created naturally during the brewing process
Since when did coffee beans naturally brew themselves?
Just sayin'
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
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...
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.
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.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
But once everything is labeled as cancer causing, what does the label even mean?
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
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.
Beware of the Leopard.
That's not correct. I am a Daily Mail reader, so I know that everything both causes and cures cancer.
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.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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?
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?"
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
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.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock