
California moves to declare coffee safe from cancer risk - pmoriarty
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/06/16/world/science-health-world/california-moves-declare-coffee-safe-cancer-risk/
======
XalvinX
Seems simple enough. Just feed mice roasted coffee beans as their only food
(which should keep them alive, shouldn't it?) and see what happens.

I'm pretty sure if you could find molecules in _anything_ that, if extracted
and injected in large quantities into a living organism's body would cause
cancer.

But here's the thing: living organisms have evolved to process whole foods.
Although coffee could be seen as a sort of extract, it still is a natural
product containing very complex and intricate combinations of compounds, not
just one single, isolated chemical.

This is why, for example, cocaine is so much worse than natives in the Andes
chewing coca leaves, why whiskey is so much worse than alcohol-containing
rotten fruit that even bears have been observed to enjoy, etc. etc. etc.

~~~
Fnoord
> This is why, for example, cocaine is so much worse than natives in the Andes
> chewing coca leaves

Its a little bit more complex than just that. Cocaine on the streets is
mixed/grounded with other (heavier) elements such as glass or washing powder
which yields the middleman (dealer) more profit. Since it is lucrative,
competition does this as well, and the result is that finding quality cocaine
is difficult.

~~~
XalvinX
Glass and washing powder? Is anyone out there that evil? I mean, there are
countless cheap and benign white powders that can be used.. I've heard some
stories, but none as brutal as yours... just...wow.

~~~
pmoriarty
_" Is anyone out there that evil?"_

Well, not with cocaine, but the US Government has intentionally poisoned
alcohol:

 _" Frustrated that people continued to consume so much alcohol even after it
was banned, federal officials had decided to try a different kind of
enforcement. They ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols manufactured in
the United States, products regularly stolen by bootleggers and resold as
drinkable spirits. The idea was to scare people into giving up illicit
drinking. Instead, by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal
poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people."_[1]

[1] -
[http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_exa...](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2010/02/the_chemists_war.html)

~~~
tgb
Okay but it's extremely different to poison something and announce that you've
poisoned it because you don't want anyone drinking it and work hard to keep
anyone from drinking it versus poisoning something and then selling it off as
high quality, ready to be drunk. The latter is pure evil but the former is at
least debatable: alcohol leads to 88000 deaths per year in the US so you could
say it might be immoral to _not_ poison it. [https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-
sheets/alcohol-use.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-
use.htm)

~~~
hedora
The feds got pyrex brand glassware to reformulate so that it explosively
shatters if used to cook meth.

I heard this led to the maiming of graduate students that were using pyrex to
conserve grant money.

Last I checked, you could still buy the “good stuff” on amazon.

Anyway, that’s one example of US drug enforcement acting with complete
disregard to public safety.

~~~
function_seven
This sounds like an urban legend to me. Searching for it doesn't lead me to
any credible sources? Especially if you can still get it on Amazon of all
places.

~~~
DanBC
In the US pyrex is tempered soda-lime glass.

In Europe PYREX is borosilicate glass.

Tempered soda-lime is better if you drop the object. Borosilicate handles
thermal stress better.

I don't think this has anything to do with "The Feds".

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrex)

~~~
JumpCrisscross
Out of curiosity, why the difference? Do Europeans put hot things in their
Pyrex more? Or is it a question of differing precursor costs?

------
em3rgent0rdr
great, but California needs to stop saying everything causes cancer:
[https://www.popsci.com/california-coffee-cancer-
warning](https://www.popsci.com/california-coffee-cancer-warning)

~~~
lostcolony
Agreed. Not even in a curmudgeonly or political "quit trying to ruin things
for me, California", sort of way.

Some things are legitimate threats to people's health. Others aren't.
Conflating the two as being equally dangerous is no better than conflating the
two as being equally innocuous. In both cases we learn to ignore the warnings.

Heck, my wife and I stayed in the historic Westin St. Francis in SF last year.
Beautiful hotel, with some amazing history behind it. And, of course, a small
plaque at the entrance saying the state of California had determined that the
hotel contained some sort of material that was known to cause cancer. Yes,
well, thank you state of California, for giving me useless information, that
in no way quantified my risk, but just ensured that I continued my practice of
ignoring your warnings.

~~~
caf
If the plaque concerned asbestos (which is alone responsible for the majority
of cases of mesothelioma), it is likely there as a warning to tradespeople
called in to perform work on the building. This means the correct precautions
can be taken if bonded asbestos might be damaged by the maintenance or
construction work carried out.

~~~
function_seven
Unfortunately, the prop 65 warning is _everywhere_ and never lists specific
carcinogens. That plaque doesn’t help anyone determine if asbestos is present.

~~~
caf
Oh, I see. That does seem quite pointless.

------
dghughes
Maple syrup has lead, rice has arsenic, apple seeds have cyanide and bananas
contain radioactive potassium-40, soy phytoestrogens can mimic estrogen.

Fava beans are actually dangerous for some males but none of the other foods I
mentioned are. Except for anyone like me soy is bad since I have
hypothyroidism.

California is going to flip out going from food to food declaring they're
dangerous

~~~
hesdeadjim
Last I looked the modern research around soy has shown the estrogen concern to
be a myth - along with it reducing testosterone in men. I was initially
concerned about this when adding Soylent to my diet since I too had
encountered these myths a decade ago and stopped eating soy.

~~~
Pete_D
I believe the concern here is most likely goitrogens rather than
phytoestrogens.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goitrogen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goitrogen)

~~~
petecox
Some years ago there was a product recall and class action here in Australia
concerning one of the soy milk brands, with unusually high concentration of
iodine.

------
wwweston
This is confusing. Acrylamide _is_ known to cause cancer, but there's
insufficient evidence coffee does?

Also: “The takeaway is that the state is proposing a rule contrary to its own
scientific conclusion. That’s unprecedented and bad,” Metzger said. “The whole
thing stinks to high hell.”

~~~
nawgszy
So, I'm uneducated in this matter. Let me do a bit of googling, because your
comment implies two things

>Acrylamide is known to cause cancer

>Coffee apparently contains (significant) amounts of acrylamide

The first thing I come across, as usual, is Wikipedia [1]. The summary says:

>As of 2018 it is still not clear whether acrylamide consumption affects
people's risk of developing cancer.

It provides two sources [2][3], from the Cancer Research UK and the US
National Cancer Institute. The abstract of [2] implies that animal studies
show some interaction with DNA, but fairly conclusively says:

>[E]vidence from human studies has shown that, for most cancer types, there is
no link between acrylamide and cancer risk. Some studies have suggested a
higher risk of womb cancer, but the evidence is weak and inconsistent, so we
can’t be sure if this link is real.

The other source [3] is a bit of a more informal FAQ style, and poses the
question "Is there an association between acrylamide and cancer?" Again, I see
the implication of animal studies possibly showing real links between cancer
and the substance, yet

>a large number of epidemiologic studies (both case-control and cohort
studies) in humans have found no consistent evidence that dietary acrylamide
exposure is associated with the risk of any type of cancer

Can you explain your comment, and especially the last sentence you provide? My
search was extremely cursory, but I would be fairly confident that if it's too
strong a claim to say this substance doesn't cause cancer, I could at least
conclude that saying

>[T]he state is proposing a rule contrary to its own scientific conclusion

is patently false.

Sources:

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylamide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylamide)

[2]: [http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-
cance...](http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/diet-
and-cancer/food-controversies#food_controversies0)

[3]: [https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-
prevention/risk/d...](https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-
prevention/risk/diet/acrylamide-fact-sheet)

~~~
KirinDave
This is one of those things where people tend to be willfully ignorant of
dose-response curves and exposure thresholds. It's curious that we don't see
more folks stress out about eating bananas or green onions given their
noticable sums of formaldehyde.

In large quantities, acrylamide probably will cause cancer. It's pretty trace
in coffee. Any problems caused by does of caffeine will rapidly overshadow the
effect of acrylamide.

------
exabrial
The fact it even _had_ to be declared in the first place says a lot about the
effectiveness of the local government.

------
partycoder
I would still be careful because of lead contamination from expresso machines.

------
tinus_hn
Sounds about as stupid as declaring that pi is 3

~~~
vinchuco
but it's fine to let pi be 3.5
[https://math.stackexchange.com/a/518830](https://math.stackexchange.com/a/518830)
:)

------
dzhiurgis
Burning organic matter and then consuming it to get a little bit of high.
Doesn’t that remind you cigarettes?

Sure, you drink it so a bit less harm, but it is sort of obvious it just can’t
be good for you.

~~~
true_religion
Actually it reminds me of cooking, not cigaretttes.

~~~
dzhiurgis
It's the process that matters.

WHO says fried, grilled or processed (cured, salted, smoked) _red meat_
probably cause cancer.

