
In California, Where Cancer Warnings Abound, Coffee Is Next in Line - sndean
https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-you-drink-coffee-in-california-be-warned-it-may-cause-cancer-1516795200
======
chimeracoder
These warnings are worse than useless. Since they usually don't actually name
the substance, let alone quantify or contextualize the risks, I have no say of
using the information.

If I see a warning, it could mean that there are harmful, odorless chemicals
being emitted by some manufacturing process. Or it could mean I'm near a
parking facility. Or it could mean they're serving alcohol somewhere in the
venue. There's a huge difference between those three, but the warning posted
is identical.

They're worse than useless because they actively desensitize people to
actionable information by overloading them with unactionable information.

~~~
askafriend
This is a very important point to make because it starts to devalue the
warning and desensitize people to it to the point of meaninglessness.

~~~
jdnier
Yep, bought a set of non-toxic chalk pastels for my son and found the generic
"know to cause cancer" warning. I had to go to the manufacturer web site and
look up the MSDS report. Turns out the white chalk (presumably) contains
Titanium Dioxide—you know, what makes some sunscreens white. It wasn't clear
if nanoparticles are the concern or just that TiO2 is just on the list.

~~~
phillc73
Many cosmetically coated pharmaceuticals also use TiO2 in the coating
formulation, to make the coating nice and shiny white. Iron Oxide is another
common pigment used for coating tablets and pellets.

~~~
analog31
In addition, I once noticed that some gourmet "natural" bottled juice drinks
had silica on the ingredients list, to give the appearance of having some
sediment in the bottle.

~~~
gruez
link/pics? is that's actually a thing?

~~~
analog31
It's been years.

------
tyjen
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28288025](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28288025)

Coffee and cancer risk: a summary overview.

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 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.

~~~
IBM
How many milliliters of coffee is a cup?

~~~
stochastic_monk
According to [0], "per additional cup of tea or coffee daily, adjusted to 200
mL or 2 g of dry tea each cup as appropriate" suggests that they consider
200mL, or closer to 6 than 8 oz.

[0]:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4340062/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4340062/)

------
yongjik
Let's just erect a giant billboard at SFO/LAX/etc. reading "WARNING: This
state contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and
birth defects or other reproductive harm" and be done with it. It will be
about as useful as now and will be much less of a hassle.

~~~
craftyguy
I once saw a sign on a door at a hotel in California that said something
similar to this: "This door leads to an area with chemicals known to the State
of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm"

The door led to outside. I'm pretty sure the sign was serious.

~~~
robbrown451
Sounds to me like the sign was put there by someone making fun of the signs
they had to put elsewhere in the hotel

~~~
trav4225
Nah, I think this was legit. I lived in a place that had the same thing. I
think it's because some doors lead to a place that is near a location where
cars might be.

------
rwc
This is all you need to know about Prop 65, from the article:

"The statute allows any private citizen to sue over an alleged violation. Last
year, 681 settlements worth $25.6 million were reported to the California
attorney general’s office. Attorneys’ fees and costs made up more than 75% of
the total."

~~~
yakitori
> Attorneys’ fees and costs made up more than 75% of the total."

This is all you need to know about Prop 65.

~~~
classichasclass
And this is why there's no appetite to change it. The trial attorneys' lobby
would eat any such initiative alive, casting even a reasonable reform as "bad
for the environment" and "bad for public health."

------
product50
This is seriously pathetic. I literally see these signs everywhere - when I
enter my car, when I enter a restaurant, when I enter a grocery store, in my
office etc. At this point, I am completely desensitized. I don't even read
them anymore since I have just assumed they are there because of some useless
law passed few years back by people who didn't foresee how worthless this
could become. At this point, even if the barista draws Cancer on top of my
coffee instead of a smily face, I will gladly drink it since I know she did it
because of some stupid law which doesn't make any sense. That is how sad the
situation is.

~~~
robbrown451
Or she did it because she's into astrology

------
maxxxxx
These warning stickers seem to be the passive aggressive way of undermining
regulation. Just put them on everything and people soon will stop reading
them.

~~~
schoen
I think the original intention of Proposition 65 was to provide a disincentive
for businesses to use toxic chemicals and a disincentive for people to
frequent spaces where they were used. However, it doesn't seem to have been
calibrated effectively: the authors of the proposition may have thought that
businesses would have a clear and easy choice between "using dangerous
chemicals" and "not using dangerous chemicals", but so many things have ended
up getting included that the value of that signal has been severely diluted.

It would probably be more useful if they had some kind of scale of danger,
kind of like in the NFPA fire diamond where hazards are rated from 0 to 4.
Another alternative could be to label only substances that a typical citizen
would not expect to be present in a certain kind of facility (which maybe
could be established by having the state perform surveys). For instance, a
typical citizen would probably expect jet fuel to be present at an airport.

~~~
mindways
Yeah, those thresholds got set way too low. But worse, they don't really
provide much in the way of actual _information_, as several people above have
noted.

An article I read about this whole coffee thing mentioned that

"The state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment adopted new
regulations last year that will require more specific warnings that list the
chemical consumers may be exposed to and list a website with more information.
Parking garages, for example, will have to post that breathing air there
exposes drivers to carbon monoxide and gas and diesel exhaust and warns people
not to linger longer than necessary."

(From: [https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/26/coffee-sold-in-california-
co...](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/26/coffee-sold-in-california-could-carry-
cancer-warning-labels.html))

...which should hopefully make the warnings more useful - though I've no idea
whether their overall usefulness will outweigh their overall cost.

~~~
smsm42
How would it make them any more useful? It's not like hanging out parking
garages and breathing in exhaust are a favorite pastimes for Californians now
(though this impression can easily be made if one considers the results of
California lawmaking, I admit). People know exhaust gases are not a healthy
thing, and there's no reason to hang out in parking garage anyway. However,
since being in parking garages, when parking, is unavoidable, putting useless
warnings there desensitizes people to all sort of such warnings, and makes
them ignore any kind - including those kinds that might have been useful (such
as in a facility where actual dangerous chemicals are present) - but now,
nobody would even notice those warnings anymore, just as nobody reads what's
on Windows warnings, people just click 'OK', whatever it is.

------
Bjorkbat
Well this was certainly enlightening. I've never lived in California before
and I've only visited it infrequently, so for a moment there I was shocked to
find out that coffee might actually give me cancer despite all the buzz
proclaiming that it might lower your risk of various forms of cancer, lower
your risk of diabetes, lower your risk of erectile dysfunction, lower your
overall risk of all-cause mortality, etc.

No, turns out I'm fine. Well, very likely fine. I just happened to learn
something new about California law. The road to hell truly is paved with good
intentions.

~~~
trav4225
> The road to hell truly is paved with good intentions.

If only the statists of this world would come to the same conclusion...

------
baxtr
I think everything we eat and breathe is somewhat carcinogenic. The question
is where to draw the line. As far as I’m concerned I’m happy to give 1 month
of my life (assuming that’s the time span associated with coffee and cancer
_on average_ ) for the joy of drinking coffee everyday.

Life should not only be longlasting, but also joyful

~~~
nonbel
Yes, it has been known for quite awhile that mitogenesis (cell division)
"causes" cancer:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC54830/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC54830/)

Literally anything that leads to the need for cells to divide is a cause of
cancer (eg smoking -> replace lung cells more often; UV light -> replace skin
cells more often; obesity -> more cells overall needing replacement, etc).

It makes zero sense to frame the issue in terms of X causes vs doesn't cause
cancer. Instead it is a matter of how much.

~~~
agumonkey
IIUC it's not really the cell growth rate, but the harm from toxic molecules
or radiation.

~~~
nonbel
Each division there is some probability _p_ the cell gets an error that can
contribute to cancer. Anything that increases the number of divisions or _p_
will increase the chances of cancer.

~~~
jiggunjer
Unless it's the division of cancer destroying immune cells :). Then the (net)
chance should decrease due to division.

------
majormajor
If everyone agrees these are basically useless as-implemented, I wonder what
we could do to change the process so that useless laws actually get removed,
instead of hanging around forever.

An expiration-type system just seems like an invitation to play stupid
political bargaining games instead of letting reasonable stuff continue
unargued, a la the spending bills in the US Congress.

~~~
akira2501
> I wonder what we could do to change the process so that useless laws
> actually get removed

This was a California Proposition, which means it was citizen driven
legislation. As a result, legislators aren't keen to interfere with them. To
get rid of it, we're basically going to need another proposition which
nullifies the reporting requirement and changes the way legal settlements
around Prop 65 are handled.

------
antoncohen
Prop 65 is ridiculous, though well intentioned I'm sure. There are so many
things on the list, at such low levels, that raw vegetables would need the
warning label if not for being exempt.

Companies just slap on the label so they don't get sued by a lawyer who makes
a living suing over Prop 65.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_65_(198...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_65_\(1986\)#Abuse)

[https://redmond.life/prop65/](https://redmond.life/prop65/)

[https://www.sunfood.com/sunfood-prop-65/](https://www.sunfood.com/sunfood-
prop-65/)

~~~
dsfyu404ed
You know your consumer protection laws are a little over the top when "not for
sale in California" is a marketable feature for pretty much any product you
wouldn't want to ingest.

------
neonate
[http://archive.is/saZrP](http://archive.is/saZrP)

------
trav4225
This brings to mind the wireless warning controversy in SF a few years back:

[https://ehtrust.org/policy/san-francisco-cell-phone-
ordinanc...](https://ehtrust.org/policy/san-francisco-cell-phone-ordinance/)

------
tbabb
Has anyone proposed to repeal Prop 65 yet?

Seems like a pretty obvious thing to do. How easy would that be to get on the
next election ballot?

~~~
colejohnson66
The lawyers who make a killing off suing for violations would fire back and
claim that those who want a repeal obviously don’t care about public health

------
seattle_spring
Among other reasons, this is a great reason many are against GMO labels.

~~~
classichasclass
I think the GMO labeling problem is related, but separate. To date, no one has
ever proven that GMO foods are somehow unsafe, much like the flap over rBST in
milk, for which products proclaiming they are rBST free have in small print
that no difference between rBST cow milk and non-rBST cow milk has ever been
demonstrated. With both GMO and rBST, there's possibly a food _quality_ issue,
but not a food _safety_ issue.

Proposition 65, however, actually claims that there's a _safety_ issue. And,
to be sure, the chemicals on the list are indeed legitimately unsafe; it's
just that the context and the probable dosage or actual level of exposure in
many cases makes them largely irrelevant.

------
misterbowfinger
Non-paywall:

[https://outline.com/H992nD](https://outline.com/H992nD)

I'm like, 90% close to making a bot that just does this for HN submissions.

