Coffee may lower the risk of several types of cancer, according to recent studies reviewed by researchers at the American Cancer Society.
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.
A proposed rule may except coffee from “cancer warning labels” in California, on the basis of the scientific evidence in support of coffee and health.
From the Newsroom
via Law Fuel
Today, California’s Second Appellate District Court stayed the trial that was set to begin on Monday, October 15, 2018, in Los Angeles Superior Court, regarding whether cancer warnings are required for sales of coffee in California.
Compelled speech, like censored speech, can violate the Constitution, according to legal experts.
By William “Bill” Murray, CAE, NCA President & CEO via LinkedIn
“Forcing [coffee companies] to include a cancer warning on a product that does not cause cancer plainly violates the 1st Amendment.”
So states legendary First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams (Pentagon Papers, Citizen United), in today’s Los Angeles Times Op-Ed.
“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.
“Coffee is both delicious and healthy.”
California’s Misguided Labeling Decision Impacts Coffee Growers & Drinkers
This post was originally published on the Global Farmer Network
By Luiz Roberto Saldanha Rodrigues
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?
Last week, a Los Angeles judge ruled that coffee roasters and retailers must serve up a cancer warning with coffee sold in California under Prop. 65 regulations, based on the naturally-occurring presence of acrylamide from the roasting process.
The decision goes against what the science shows us – including the conclusions of the World Health Organization. Study after study, conducted independently and published in peer-reviewed journals, has shown the potential health benefits of drinking coffee — from liver health to living longer.
Read the official NCA statement on the latest Prop. 65 & Coffee Decision
The following article was originally published on Daily Coffee News
By Nick Brown
In the 12 days since a California court ruled that coffee sellers in the state must post cancer warnings in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, commonly known as “Proposition 65”, mainstream media has been abuzz.
While the vast majority of reports have noted the lack of scientific evidence linking coffee to cancer, that kind of widespread publicity naturally creates more questions than answers. Such is the nature of the 24-hour news cycle, in which many people can’t afford the time to read beyond the headlines.
So as the two big Cs of coffee and cancer have shared the public stage, a third big C has swept over the audience: confusion.
There is no evidence that coffee causes cancer.
Recently, there’s been a flurry of media activity around a long-pending legal case in California, which could potentially result in mandatory “cancer warning” labels on all coffee cups and packaging. The headlines have been confusing, and sometimes even alarming.