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

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.

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: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?

[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.