Brian Joondeph June 18, 2019
Every week there is another health pronouncement saying what is now good for you and what is going to kill you. Unfortunately, the “what” is often interchangeable -- what was supposed to kill you last week is now suddenly good for you or vice versa.
Foods, supplements, and activities, all studied extensively and determined to be either good or bad, then subject to a new study, with the opposite conclusion. How can this be? Is the science that fickle? Or is this lousy research?
Some studies note an association which they spin as causation, like determining that older ladies who play bingo often have blue hair, an association that has nothing to do with cause and effect. Other studies are based on computer models which like most climate models, fail miserably at predicting future events.
Let’s take a look at some of the settled medical science that quickly became fake news............ To Read More
Showing posts with label Coffee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Coffee. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 18, 2019
Saturday, June 9, 2018
California's java joke is a wakeup call on cancer warnings
International Agency for Research on Cancer is known to cherry-pick data to reach politically motivated findings
by Dr. Henry I. Miller and Jeff Stier @ The Mercury News June 8, 2018
It's often said that California is a bellwether, a place where nationwide trends begin. For the sake of farmers, particularly those in poor countries where coffee is an economically important crop, let's hope not.
Last month a California judge ruled that because of the state's decades-old notorious Proposition 65, which has given rise to warnings about non-dangerous chemicals everywhere from supermarkets to libraries, coffee sellers must now post warnings about the possible cancer risk posed by a compound in coffee.
The Council for Education and Research on Toxics brought the lawsuit against Starbucks and 46 others coffee retailers, claiming the presence of high levels of acrylamide, a chemical created when coffee beans are roasted, is carcinogenic and requires a "clear and reasonable" warning. (Acrylamide is converted in the body to a compound called glycidamide, which damages DNA.)
But acrylamide is also commonly found in other foods, such as French fries, bread, and olives. Its presence in fries previously resulted in litigation from the same activists.
How could warnings of hidden "carcinogens" be without merit? Well, many compounds, both natural and synthetic, in food test positive for carcinogenicity. UC Berkeley biochemist Bruce Ames and his colleagues observed that the cooking of food is a major dietary source of potential rodent carcinogens: "Cooking produces about 2 g (per person per day) of mostly untested burnt material that contains many rodent carcinogens." Should there be a Prop 65 warning in every kitchen in California?
Coffee will join more than 800 chemicals on California's Proposition 65 list, which is intended to alert the public about "substances identified as human or animal carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer" (IARC). But therein lies another problem: That agency, which is part of the World Health Organization, has long been criticized for using a flawed approach - basing its decisions on hazard (the possibility of harm at any dose) instead of risk (the probability of harm, taking exposure into consideration).
IARC is known to cherry-pick data to reach politically motivated findings. The agency has reviewed nearly 1,000 substances and activities, and only one has been deemed non-carcinogenic. IARC looks for any shred of evidence to prove that something might cause cancer, even under extreme circumstances. It is confirmation bias at its worst: Reach a conclusion first, find the evidence later.
Moreover, inexplicably, IARC itself issued a press release on June 15, 2016, about the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity of coffee:
After thoroughly reviewing more than 1000 studies in humans and animals, the Working Group found that there was inadequate evidence for the carcinogenicity of coffee drinking overall. Many epidemiological studies showed that coffee drinking had no carcinogenic effects for cancers of the pancreas, female breast, and prostate, and reduced risks were seen for cancers of the liver and uterine endometrium. For more than 20 other cancers, the evidence was inconclusive.
This is the folly at the heart of proposition 65: If there's a scientifically insignificant amount of a chemical that causes cancer in high-dose animal experiments, a warning is required, even if consumption of the product doesn't actually cause cancer. Indeed, in the case of coffee, where evidence suggests a protective effect against certain cancers, a warning is necessary nonetheless. How can that be? In the California court's contorted opinion, "Defendants failed to satisfy their burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that consumption of coffee confers a benefit to human health."
If California is truly a bellwether, be forewarned: Common sense and justice are under attack.
Dr. Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. Jeff Stier is a senior fellow at the Consumer Choice Center.
by Dr. Henry I. Miller and Jeff Stier @ The Mercury News June 8, 2018
It's often said that California is a bellwether, a place where nationwide trends begin. For the sake of farmers, particularly those in poor countries where coffee is an economically important crop, let's hope not.
Last month a California judge ruled that because of the state's decades-old notorious Proposition 65, which has given rise to warnings about non-dangerous chemicals everywhere from supermarkets to libraries, coffee sellers must now post warnings about the possible cancer risk posed by a compound in coffee.
The Council for Education and Research on Toxics brought the lawsuit against Starbucks and 46 others coffee retailers, claiming the presence of high levels of acrylamide, a chemical created when coffee beans are roasted, is carcinogenic and requires a "clear and reasonable" warning. (Acrylamide is converted in the body to a compound called glycidamide, which damages DNA.)
But acrylamide is also commonly found in other foods, such as French fries, bread, and olives. Its presence in fries previously resulted in litigation from the same activists.
How could warnings of hidden "carcinogens" be without merit? Well, many compounds, both natural and synthetic, in food test positive for carcinogenicity. UC Berkeley biochemist Bruce Ames and his colleagues observed that the cooking of food is a major dietary source of potential rodent carcinogens: "Cooking produces about 2 g (per person per day) of mostly untested burnt material that contains many rodent carcinogens." Should there be a Prop 65 warning in every kitchen in California?
Coffee will join more than 800 chemicals on California's Proposition 65 list, which is intended to alert the public about "substances identified as human or animal carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer" (IARC). But therein lies another problem: That agency, which is part of the World Health Organization, has long been criticized for using a flawed approach - basing its decisions on hazard (the possibility of harm at any dose) instead of risk (the probability of harm, taking exposure into consideration).
IARC is known to cherry-pick data to reach politically motivated findings. The agency has reviewed nearly 1,000 substances and activities, and only one has been deemed non-carcinogenic. IARC looks for any shred of evidence to prove that something might cause cancer, even under extreme circumstances. It is confirmation bias at its worst: Reach a conclusion first, find the evidence later.
Moreover, inexplicably, IARC itself issued a press release on June 15, 2016, about the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity of coffee:
After thoroughly reviewing more than 1000 studies in humans and animals, the Working Group found that there was inadequate evidence for the carcinogenicity of coffee drinking overall. Many epidemiological studies showed that coffee drinking had no carcinogenic effects for cancers of the pancreas, female breast, and prostate, and reduced risks were seen for cancers of the liver and uterine endometrium. For more than 20 other cancers, the evidence was inconclusive.
This is the folly at the heart of proposition 65: If there's a scientifically insignificant amount of a chemical that causes cancer in high-dose animal experiments, a warning is required, even if consumption of the product doesn't actually cause cancer. Indeed, in the case of coffee, where evidence suggests a protective effect against certain cancers, a warning is necessary nonetheless. How can that be? In the California court's contorted opinion, "Defendants failed to satisfy their burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that consumption of coffee confers a benefit to human health."
If California is truly a bellwether, be forewarned: Common sense and justice are under attack.
Dr. Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. Jeff Stier is a senior fellow at the Consumer Choice Center.
Saturday, March 31, 2018
Junk science: California calls coffee 'cancerous'
March 30, 2018 By Monica Showalter
People have been enjoying and drinking coffee for thousands of years and recent health studies suggest it's rather good for you, but now, all of a sudden, the State of California claims it has "science" to support the notion that coffee causes cancer. That's why some numbskull judge ruled that now all coffee must carry warning labels, same as dreaded, dangerous, cigarettes, warning everyone of cancer and attempting to get at least some people to stop. Can you say: 'judiciary out of control?'
Associated Press reports:
My Take - We need to understand that a huge number of foods test carcinogenic. But testing carcinogenic and causing cancer are two different things. Testing carcinogenic under the current standard isn't necessarily even carcinogenic. They feed massive amounts of a compound to rodents that are genetically prone to grow tumors and then declare something carcinogenic when the grow tumors. And when the EPA was challenged this wasn’t good science the EPA claim these determinations aren’t a matter of science but of EPA policy.
Well if their policy isn't based on science, what is it based on?
People have been enjoying and drinking coffee for thousands of years and recent health studies suggest it's rather good for you, but now, all of a sudden, the State of California claims it has "science" to support the notion that coffee causes cancer. That's why some numbskull judge ruled that now all coffee must carry warning labels, same as dreaded, dangerous, cigarettes, warning everyone of cancer and attempting to get at least some people to stop. Can you say: 'judiciary out of control?'
Associated Press reports:
A Los Angeles judge has determined that coffee companies must carry an ominous cancer warning label because of a chemical produced in the roasting process. Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle said Wednesday that Starbucks and other companies failed to show that benefits from drinking coffee outweighed any risks. He ruled in an earlier phase of trial that companies hadn’t shown the threat from the chemical was insignificant. The Council for Education and Research on Toxics, a nonprofit group, sued Starbucks and 90 other companies under a state law that requires warnings on a wide range of chemicals that can cause cancer. One is acrylamide, a carcinogen present in coffee.
What this activist suit and consequent judicial overreach represent is a sort of medicalization of food, nanny-state-style, as if food itself were some sort of toxic medicine, full of side effects, instead of a combination of risks and rewards, all ameliorated by moderation of use.........More so than the medicalization of food, this amounts to the politicization of food.
.............Read more
My Take - We need to understand that a huge number of foods test carcinogenic. But testing carcinogenic and causing cancer are two different things. Testing carcinogenic under the current standard isn't necessarily even carcinogenic. They feed massive amounts of a compound to rodents that are genetically prone to grow tumors and then declare something carcinogenic when the grow tumors. And when the EPA was challenged this wasn’t good science the EPA claim these determinations aren’t a matter of science but of EPA policy.
Well if their policy isn't based on science, what is it based on?
Tuesday, September 12, 2017
Trial to decide whether coffee must be labeled as a carcinogen in California
Starbucks and a host of other coffee sellers are fighting a lawsuit that alleges roasted coffee beans contain low levels of a carcinogen — and therefore coffee products sold in California, from lattes to packaged beans, should carry Surgeon General-like warnings. A little-known public interest group, the Council for Education and Research on Toxics, or CERT, sued roughly 70 companies, claiming the state’s Proposition 65, which requires warning labels on anything that contains materials that cause cancer, should apply to coffee.
Roasted coffee beans contain low levels of acrylamide, a carcinogen, CERT claims in court papers.
The coffee industry argues that the trace amounts of acrylamide found in coffee are too insignificant to cause a health risk — and foods such as toast, cereals, roasted asparagus and baby food all contain the chemical.
In July, the results of a study published by the American College of Physicians showed that coffee drinkers had a lower risk of death from a number of deadly diseases. ........ To Read More....
My Take - Actually, coffee can have between 11 and 17 carcinogens and most of them test more carcinogenic than synthetic chemicals. But there are a host of foods that test carcinogenic, including mushrooms, all the cabbage products.
Let's take a look at a "Holiday Dinner Menu".
Having said that. No matter what the 1958 Delaney Clause of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic act of 1938 says, it's still the dose that makes the poison.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)