Drink coffee, live longer?
New, independent research found that drinking 3 or more cups of coffee a day may reduce mortality by as much as 13%.
The following excerpt was originally posted at the American Cancer Society.
AICR has named February Cancer Month. Learn more.
To learn more about science, coffee, and why the research matters, join the experts from the NCA Scientific Leadership Council for “The Coffee Science Fair: A Fun Look at a Serious Topic,” a special educational session at the NCA 2019 Convention in Atlanta, GA on March 8.
Scientists have been investigating the links between coffee and cancer for decades. And while our understanding of coffee’s potential health benefits has improved with advances in research, there’s still more to learn.
In 2016, an expert panel convened by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) — the arm of the World Health Organization that is responsible for assessing whether certain substances cause cancer — could not conclude that drinking coffee is carcinogenic based on the current evidence available.
Yet the coffee-cancer connection has recently reappeared in the news, due to the ongoing Prop 65 legislation in California to put misleading “cancer warning labels” on coffee.
So, what do coffee drinkers need to know?
In following interview written by Elizabeth Mendes, American Cancer Society researchers Susan Gapstur, PhD, and Marjorie McCullough, ScD, explain what the studies really show when it comes to coffee and cancer, and discuss what other research is still needed.
By Kyra Auffermann, NCA Digital Content & Communications Manager
Coffee plays an important role in the lives (or at least mornings) of most people — in the United States, nearly 80% of all adults drink coffee, typically at the start of their day.
Yet most coffee drinkers don’t have a good understanding of coffee: the plant, the way it is processed, or the precision of a “perfect” roast.
In fact, more coffee drinkers may have a good misunderstanding of coffee. And despite overwhelming evidence, myths persist — particularly when it comes to coffee and health.
Drinking coffee has previously been linked to a reduced risk of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases. Now, scientists may be closer to understanding why.
New research from the Krembil Research Institute examines how coffee helps protect against long-term cognitive decline — and it turns out that the roast might matter.
“Call it a victory for science — or maybe just for common sense.” – The Seattle Times
It was a good news week for coffee science in California.
Earlier this month, OEHHA (the state’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment agency) proposed a plan that would exempt coffee from Prop 65 required “cancer warning labels” in California after the most recent ruling in the ongoing legislation.
The statement was met with resounding support from scientists and coffee lovers alike.
“OEHHA’s Rulemaking is supported by both the full weight of scientific evidence and law,” wrote William “Bill” Murray, NCA President and CEO, in comments filed Aug. 30. The letter commended the decision and laid out the strong case for coffee in a scientific summary signed by Dr. Mark Corey, NCA’s Director of Scientific & Government Affairs, and Dr. Alan Leviton, Consultant to the NCA Scientific Advisory Group.
Simply put, the research speaks for itself: coffee does not cause cancer.
Then this week, in a groundbreaking announcement, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration sent a letter to Sacramento which emphatically set forth their support for this rule.
The following article is based on this LinkedIn post by William (Bill) Murray, NCA President & CEO
When it comes to coffee coverage in the media, a healthy dose of context (and common sense) is critical.
Take this week’s Daily Mail article, “How Six Cups of Coffee a Day Can Help You to Live Longer,” on new research from the National Cancer Institute (NCI), published in JAMA Internal Medicine.
Let’s take a look of the story, in light of the science:
By Karly Nevils, Dig Insights (email@example.com)
This July, it’s going to be a brew-tiful month!
The NCA has released eight new breakout market research reports based on the 2018 National Coffee Drinking Trends (NCDT) study data.
The reports look at the following topics:
Genetic differences help explain why everyone experiences coffee’s effects differently.
Coffee drinkers fall into one of three major groups based on their caffeine sensitivity, according to physician and author Dr J.W. Langer, in a new report authored for the Institute for Scientific Information on Coffee (ISIC).
The report, “Genetics, Metabolism and Individual Responses to Caffeine,” draws on existing research to explain how the body metabolizes caffeine, why some people are more affected by caffeine than others, and how healthcare professionals can take this into account when advising patients.
This post was originally published on the Global Farmer Network
When a Los Angeles judge earlier this month finalized a ruling that coffee sold in California must carry cancer warning labels, many California residents may not have paid much attention to yet another labeling requirement.
Ever since voters passed Proposition 65 more than 30 years ago, after all, Californians have watched the steady proliferation of vague statements about chemicals, cancer, and birth defects. They appear almost everywhere, from the windows of hardware stores to signs at Disneyland. They’re so abundant that Amazon even sells them as stickers in rolls of 500.
Many people have begun to ignore these labels because they’re so common and because the information they convey is almost useless.
So why am I concerned if they now also show up on coffee?
By Brad Hooker and Julia Ann Easley
Planning a meeting? Serving coffee can focus group discussion, boost involvement and leave members feeling better about their own and others’ participation.
Those are the findings of new research on the effects of caffeine on group performance from the Graduate School of Management at the University of California, Davis.
Decades of coffee research have explored its effects on the individual, but this study is the first on the effects on performance in group tasks.