Coffee Requires Cancer Warning, California Judge Rules (cnbc.com) 330
Scientists haven't rendered a verdict on whether coffee is good or bad for you but a California judge has. He says coffee sellers in the state should have to post cancer warnings. From a report: The culprit is a chemical produced in the bean roasting process that is a known carcinogen and has been at the heart of an eight-year legal struggle between a tiny nonprofit group and Big Coffee. The Council for Education and Research on Toxics wanted the coffee industry to remove acrylamide from its processing -- like potato chip makers did when it sued them years ago -- or disclose the danger in ominous warning signs or labels. The industry, led by Starbucks, said the level of the chemical in coffee isn't harmful and any risks are outweighed by benefits. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle said Wednesday that the coffee makers hadn't presented the proper grounds at trial to prevail.
Send your garbage to court (Score:5, Funny)
the coffee makers hadn't presented the proper grounds
So what do they do with all their waste product?
Re:Send your garbage to court (Score:4, Funny)
It is much like how Alcoa took waste from the aluminum refining process 70-80 years ago and managed to sell it to cities to put in their water supplies.
Re: Send your garbage to court (Score:3, Funny)
Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) can be extremely lethal when improperly dosed, especially as an inhalant. US officials often use it to torture victims at Guantanamo Bay, it's that insidious. Anyone distributing DHMO in a negligent fashion needs to be aware of their implications upon humanity. I must admit, I too sometimes abuse DHMO, but I do so with knowledge of my own risk without putting others at danger.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are people downvoting the truth?
I agree, DHMO can be scary. (Score:2)
Pun alert (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Pun alert (Score:5, Funny)
Guide to opening a coffee shop:
1) Make a list of all the puns you can think of using the words "grind," "grounds," and "bean," e.g. "Stomping Grounds," "The Daily Grind" etc. 2) Cross off every item on the list that is a pun 3) Name your business "Joe's Coffee Shop"
So.. Your motto is... "Get your cup o' Joe at Joe's?" then?
Re:Pun alert (Score:4, Funny)
Argh! Curses, a stealthy pun slipped in there anyway! Damn you all to hell!!
No can do, McDonalds might sue us for their trademarked "Coffee, hot as hell"...
Re: (Score:2)
I thought their motto was: Either drink the coffee or eat the cup, they taste the same.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought their motto was: Either drink the coffee or eat the cup, they taste the same.
I think you're underestimating how nice their cup tastes. Their cup tastes of paper.
Re:Pun alert (Score:5, Funny)
No can do, McDonalds might sue us for their trademarked "Coffee, hot as hell"...
My hipster friends used to go to McD for their coffee. They wanted to drink it before it was cool.
Re: (Score:2)
Given coffee came via Ethiopia, Sufis, and Italians, why do Americans call it “Joe”
?
Re: (Score:3)
Given coffee came via Ethiopia, Sufis, and Italians, why do Americans call it “Joe”
?
Because if they called it Jill it would sound too effeminate for most male-drinkers.
Re: Pun alert (Score:2, Informative)
Itâ(TM)s a historical pejorative, the man behind banning alcohol sales at US military commissaries was named Joseph. When coffee was used as a âoesubstituteâ the soldiers referred to it as Joseph Daniels as opposed to Jack Daniels, a bottle of Jack instead because a cup of Joe. The name stuck...
Pointless labels (Score:5, Insightful)
When everything has to have a warning label the labels start being ignored. Maybe it's time to just start saying everything in California causes cancer and call it a day?
Idiotic (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, this is idiotic.
There is ample evidence showing that coffee is surprisingly good for you. Saying it has to be labelled a "carcinogen" is doing nothing to help anybody's health, but is contributing to people ignoring warning labels, which is not a good thing. California's laws are stupid and counterproductive.
http://time.com/4116129/coffee-longer-life/ [time.com]
http://www.webmd.com/alzheimer... [webmd.com]
https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/this-is-your-brain-on-coffee/
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/11/16/456191657/drink-to-your-health-study-links-daily-coffee-habit-to-longevity
Re:Idiotic (Score:5, Informative)
It's contributing to the bank account of the lawyer who brought the lawsuit.
Apparently in California an individual can bring a lawsuit "on behalf of the state" and then keep at least some of the damages.
Re:Idiotic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Idiotic (Score:4, Interesting)
Reminds me of the Great Society v.2.0 where government rewarded law firms that "discovered" idiotic violations of diabilities laws.
Find a business with a stair railing 2 inches too high or low? $8725 to your firm!
Re:Idiotic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Living under California law is hazardous to your intelligence.
Oh wait. That might be one of those "correlation does not imply" things....
Re: (Score:3)
Sadly, this is why nobody pays attention to labels that read "this product is considered a carcinogen in the state of California". If they didn't take it to the lunatic extreme, those labels would be *really* useful. But when coffee's on the list, most of us know well enough to ignore the rest of the list by default.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed, this is idiotic
That seems to be the status quo for California. One idiotic decision after another. Constant irresponsible policies by Governor Moonbeam, boarder line treasonous statements by the attorney general, and obstruction of justice by Oakland city mayor. The worse homeless problem in America and almost 1 trillion dollars in public debit. I could go on.
If the proposed Constitutional convention called by the states ever gets off the ground, maybe one of the things that should be put on the table is the disso
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let California go bankrupt!
I actually thought of that. As appealing as the prospect is of sitting back and letting California self immolate, the consequences of such action is unthinkable. For one thing the actual process of waiting for California to go bankrupt could take years. During that time the debit would continue to rise. By the time the bankruptcy process was started it could be double what it is now, or higher. Plus the process of fixing the actual issues that caused the bankruptcy in the process would all on the same
Re:Idiotic (Score:5, Informative)
It can be reduced but AFAIK not be eliminated. Acrylamide is created in the roasting process.
And the blurb is wrong - acrylamide have been reduced in chips but not eliminated. This by improving the processing, controlling temperatures better etc.
Re:Idiotic (Score:5, Informative)
It's a property of the bean (actually a seed) itself, and it occurs from simply heating it. The same is also true of potatoes (exact same carcinogen as well) and an existing solution is genetic modification. Thanks to the organic lobby and Greenpeace's FUD campaign, you'll never see it on store shelves, however.
I imagine the same would be needed for coffee, unless you add another chemical process to remove it after it is already ground, much like you would for decaffeinated coffee.
Re:Idiotic (Score:5, Informative)
From TFA: "The culprit is a chemical produced in the bean roasting process that is a known carcinogen". Acrylamide in foods, including coffee, appears to be a byproduct of the Maillard reaction [nih.gov] (the darker you make your toast, the more acrylamide you consume, for example, and bread crust itself contains acrylamide); it's also found in cigarette smoke, and is the primary source of exposure by smokers. An article about acrylamide [healthline.com] points out that it has been part of humanity's diet for as long as we've been cooking our food.
Re: (Score:2)
So around a million years. It’s not going to be high on the list. If paleo man survived childhood, and accidents, they probably lived to 70 plus. And older people tend to enjoy bitter tastes more, so burnt meat would likely get consumed.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Idiotic (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed!!
And yet...we STILL allow CA to dictate so much about what happens and what is allowed across the US.
They have waaaaay too much power over what the rest of us have to deal with in our lives...from gas mileage, to restrictions on what you can/can't buy or manufacture, etc.
Hell we give Californial Special Waivers [epa.gov] all the time it seems from Federal laws.
If you wanna live in the land of flakes and nuts, ok, but we shouldn't allow it all to spread across the nation of states that have very different populations, geographic needs and environments.
Re:Idiotic (Score:4, Informative)
Sometimes, things turn out to be worthwhile - emission regs among them...
Sometimes, things turn out to be like MTBE, the gasoline additive mandated by the California Air Resource Board (aka CARB which creates the emission regs for California). The CARB basically ignored information provided by the EPA about the carcinogenic nature of MTBE and mandated it in all gasoline sold in the state because of heavy lobbying by ARCO and a big political push by environmental groups blinded by reducing smog. Because of the California MTBE laws, other states (including New York), also got on the MTBE wagon...
Fortunately, MTBE was eventually banned, but not until a decade later and after basically polluting many water supplies all over the country...
“At the time that the regulation was passed, I think that we were aware that it might be carcinogenic and that it could have some other health effects,” -- Dr. Andrew Wortman, scientist @CARB
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point of requiring the label is to encourage the coffee industry to instead remove the chemical in question from their processing.
Which can certainly be done by more processing, possibly with an arsenic filter, or perhaps by treatment with dioxin. Better living through chemistry. Dow Chemical might offer some suggestions. And maybe Monsanto can GMO Californians that are resistant to cancer.
California consumer protection laws: A classic example of the witche's caution: "Be very careful about what you ask for, for you may just get that."
Re: (Score:3)
You don't seriously think it's because of all the warning labels, do you? The link you gave indicated it's likely the lower rates of obesity and smoking in California, which is kind of known for being a more health-conscious state in general. And I'm pretty sure we know about the risks of those two factors nation-wide.
Re: Idiotic (Score:3)
California has some of the lowest cancer rates in the country, so maybe not so stupid and counterproductive.
Texas has about the same cancer rates, and the only warning labels they have are the ones that say "hippies will be shot on sight".
Re: Idiotic (Score:3)
No, Texas has higher cancer rates than California.
That's not what the CDC says.
https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcp... [cdc.gov]
That is extremely inaccurate and shows ignorance of Texas history. Did you know that Texas was the US hotbed for psychedelic music?
Wtf does psychedelic music have to do with warning labels? You're making even less sense than usual.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You said this:
And I'm telling you that Texas loves hippies. There are tons of hippies in all parts of Texas, from the Piney woods in the East to the panhandle.
Good source [Re:Idiotic] (Score:3, Insightful)
I could find a hundred other sources saying the same thing. Those just happened to be the ones at the top of my list.
Sorry somebody downmodded you as troll: I think they saw that you were gratuitously slamming news sources, and didn't realize you were in fact actually on topic, since you were commenting on the sources I linked.
With that said, however, your comment on the sources was edging toward troll, or possibly simply prejudice. It doesn't make a whit of difference that the New York Times is "part of t
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It all stems from one law that allowed people to directly vote for whatever they want. Whenever you hear about California proposition something or other it let all the idiots vote to say that handling xmas lights will give you cancer.
As opposed to letting elected idiots do the same? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just etch "Everything causes cancer--stop using everything' into the lenses of permanent resident's eyes. Visitors will be required to wear ECCSUV glasses at all times. The discussion will then move on to how to warn pets, livestock and wildlife of the grave dangers that surround them.
Re: (Score:2)
When everything has to have a warning label the labels start being ignored. Maybe it's time to just start saying everything in California causes cancer and call it a day?
My new camera had a sticker on it saying that this product contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer. How many Californians are eating cameras these days that such a sticker needs to be on them???
Re: (Score:3)
I bought a 5' chunk of maple 1x2 and it had the same label.
Trees cause cancer in California... well now I've seen everything.
Re:Pointless labels (Score:5, Funny)
I bought a 5' chunk of maple 1x2 and it had the same label.
Trees cause cancer in California... well now I've seen everything.
Some tree based products CAN cause cancer. No idea if any in Maple can, but the wood was probably something that "causes cancer in California". As long as you use the product somewhere other than California though you're probably safe.
That's why I haven't moved to California, I don't want cancer.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Pointless labels (Score:4)
Maybe it's time to just start saying everything in California causes cancer and call it a day?
So, are you saying we should just put a warning label on California? Say, signs at the border. "Warning: Entering may cause loss of mental faculties and common sense. Common symptoms can include, excessive whining, delusions, and denial of reality."
California and carcinogen labels (Score:4, Insightful)
When are they putting a label on the Welcome to Los Angeles sign on the freeway. Plenty of nasties in that air.
L.A.: 120 poisons in the air (Score:3)
Recently I was looking at an computer item on Newegg. There was a California notice that it was poisonous. How should I understand that???
Here is a example I just found: Combination Wrench, 5-7/8", 9mm,Chrome Vanadium Steel, Westward, 36A224 [newegg.com]. How can a steel wrench be poisonous?
The California notice:
"WARNING: This product can expose you to chemicals including o
Require a link: Hazardous Material Data Sheet (Score:2)
I think every online listing should be required to have a link to the Hazardous Material Data Sheet. Otherwise, it is too time-consuming to learn about the hazard.
yada yada (Score:4, Insightful)
everything is a carcinogen in california...
Re: (Score:2)
everything is a carcinogen in california...
Makes you wonder if it's not California? Perhaps they should just put [May Cause Cancer] warnings on all the "Welcome to California" signs.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but what about the folks born there and never got a chance to see the sign? Until having a child in California is illegal we need a way to let them know everything there cancerous. Postings on every door, 24/7 emergency broadcast messages and emergency SMS messages, and 24/7 loudspeaker announcements all over the state?
Most of them will be dying of cancer shortly anyway. Why worry them about it?
Re: (Score:2)
everything is a carcinogen in california...
It's kind of true. Good look finding a building that does NOT have a sign telling you it contains materials known to cause cancer.
Re: (Score:3)
Democracy in action: Proposition 65.
If you are pregnant, it is best to avoid hanging out in parking structures for long periods of time. Cars and their lubricants produce a lot of potentially harmful fumes. The signs have use.
numb to actual danagers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Government has the problem that they feel (or are pressured) to make everything be treated equally. When everything is a carcinogen, who cares then?
Risks, issues, problems are not all equal. It's important to have a sense of proportion.
This plagues our discourse these days. Small symbolic issues advocated by some enthusiast dominate the headlines and attention, at the cost of everyday problems that all of us face (but are not sexy) don't get any proper handling.
Focus on the imp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or be driven to other drinks that might be worse, if still highly safe, like soft drinks or diet pop.
Draining your wallet of $5 for coffee might be more dangerous by making you fractionally poorer.
A government with its regulatory finger in everything may slow economic progress by making society fractionally closer to a corrupt dictatorship in net effect on investment, thus delaying improvements to length of life a tiny bit.
Best not to look too deeply into that, though.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly this.
Walk into ANY hotel in California, and there's the required "this facility contains chemicals that cause cancer blah blah blah" notice because somewhere in a cleaning closet there's a bottle of something toxic.
Walk into a plant that manufactures such chemicals and you see pretty much the same sign.
Which means nobody reads EITHER of them. Is public health really improved by such signage?
Re:numb to actual danagers (Score:5, Informative)
The warning is pretty much useless now - every store and nearly every product has it so it carries zero information value. The only function it now serves is to enrich a small group of lawyers who go around filing lawsuits against small businesses (mostly owned by new immigrants who have no idea such a silly law could exist) who failed to buy a $5 warning placard to post somewhere in their business. They usually manage to wrestle $2k to $10k from the small business to settle the lawsuit.
Rating System? [Re:numb to actual danagers] (Score:5, Informative)
It's not a problem with warnings themselves, but of weighing the level of risk. The labels don't give one any sense of risk degree. Perhaps we need a rating system, similar to movie ratings or Dept. of Homeland Security's "Homeland Security Advisory System" rating colors (which have since been altered in confusing ways).
By the way, the warnings are required by Proposition 65, which was voted into CA law. It's not meddling gov't, but meddling voters.
Let's make it better instead of throwing it out.
Re: (Score:2)
This reminds me of the software development process that triaged bugs for fixing the most important ones first. Anything the customer could potentially see, which was almost everything, was ranked infinite.
Starbucks targeted (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Wish we could stop with "good/bad for you" labels (Score:4, Insightful)
I really wish we could stop with foods being either "good" or "bad" for you. My guess is even if you actually get the science to say if something is good or bad, the chances are that it's really only very marginally good or bad for you at reasonable/non-OCD intake levels, not so good or bad that it will swing the health of a normal person.
Even foods/beverages that are demonstrably good or bad for you aren't either in very small amounts. Sugar isn't good for you, but if I ate a glazed donut once a year? It's not going to change anything.
I'm sure there's some marginal value in looking at high-volume consumption foods like coffee, but at this point people have been drinking it for a couple of centuries and tons of it over the last century and we don't have a plague of people dying from coffee poisoning.
Other than the obvious lack of utility for "good' and "bad" labels, all it does is encourage people to over-consume "good" foods, needlessly avoid "bad" foods, all magnified by a marketing tsunami of food companies touting their products as beneficial.
Re:Wish we could stop with "good/bad for you" labe (Score:4, Funny)
Trouble is that the only good food is kale. And kale is inedible.
Does make an OK packing material if properly dried
Re: (Score:2)
I really wish we could stop with foods being either "good" or "bad" for you. My guess is even if you actually get the science to say if something is good or bad, the chances are that it's really only very marginally good or bad for you at reasonable/non-OCD intake levels, not so good or bad that it will swing the health of a normal person.
It's actually more complicated than that since a food will have effects that are both good and bad. Coffee being a good example, as people mentioned coffee has a lot health benefits, but it also has health issues and risks, one of which may be a very slight increase in your probability of cancer.
The same thing happens with drugs, only moreso. Any useful drug is having an effect on your body, anytime you have an effect you're probably going to have a side effect as well. That's why drug warnings are so commo
Bottled water needs the same label (Score:2)
Everything in California requires a cancer warning (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Everything in California requires a cancer warn (Score:4, Funny)
I'm kind of curious, are doors in California required to have warnings along the lines of "Warning: outside contains sunlight, which is known to the state of California to cause cancer."?
EVERYTHING! (Score:2)
Causes Cancer in California!
Re: (Score:2)
Such laws could defeat their own purpose (Score:2)
After a while people just shrug and say "so what? *Everything* causes cancer."
Cigarettes cause cancer? So what? Everything causes cancer.
Might be cancerous? Own it. (Score:3)
If I were a coffee maker I would make a whole batch of coffee named "Cancer Coffee" with giant "Cancer!!!" warning labels making up the whole packaging. That would stand out and everyone would admire the absurdity of the whole thing.
Or better yet, a coffee with the judges scowling face on the label, called "JUDGEMENT DAY COFFEE".
Proper what? (Score:2)
Maybe it was instant.
Well, if coffee needs a cancer warning... (Score:5, Informative)
... then so does toast.
Acrylamide isn't an additive. Trace quantities of acrylamide are a byproduct of the Maillard (browning) reaction in certain foods. If you think about it, toasted bread isn't that different from roasted coffee; it's dry heat applied to seed proteins and sugars. People have been consuming it pretty much as long as they've been cooking things other than meat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well, if coffee needs a cancer warning... (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a word for bread toasted as lightly as possible... it's "bread".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The decision to live in a sunny state like California many times over increases your chance of (skin) cancer vs. this.
"Come to California, and increase your risk in spite of all the regations protecting you!"
Re: (Score:3)
and they've been riddled with cancer
... ever since they started surviving to old age.
Re: (Score:2)
You can avoid acrylamide in cooked food by (1) eating meat or (2) eating boiled food. So... meat and potatoes! Specifically roasted meat and boiled potatoes.
Was coffee not considered (Score:2)
Prop 65 (Score:2)
All coffee companies will put the warning on all their products. Fucking idiocy.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
They should put warning labels on research as well. It has been proven that scientific research causes cancer in rats.
Well, the causation is still unclear on that one. It may also be that cancer causes rats, or rats cause research. Who can tell?
If everything is $property, nothing is (Score:5, Insightful)
If everything is critical, nothing is. If everything is important, nothing is. If everything is a carcinogen, nothing is.
Unless you put a qualifier next to it, it's meaningless because it voids any importance the label could originally have had. There is a difference in how likely it's gonna kill you, and this has to be stressed. Yes, working as a liquidator for Chernobyl, smoking cigarettes and drinking coffee are all likely going to cause cancer in you. But one is quite certainly going to kill you quite soon, one is likely to kill you somewhere in the future and one is ... well, we don't know but might kill you ... at some point in time.
And unless we establish some kind of way to differentiate between them, such labels will lose all meaning they might have had. If I can't avoid doing or eating something that is labeled as "causes cancer", why bother trying to avoid any of them?
"Research is known to the State of California (Score:2)
to cause cancer in laboratory animals"
Risk = death, benefits = profits (Score:2)
The industry, led by Starbucks, said the level of the chemical in coffee isn't harmful and any risks are outweighed by benefits.
The risk is taken by the consumer. The benefits are taken by the industry / Starbucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Except for the studies showing health benefits from drinking coffee.
It turns out like everything else, it's complicated.
In keeping with other precedents (Score:4, Insightful)
This sounds to be in line with previous court judgements. Yes your coffee is hot. Put a sign on it.
Perhaps they should put "Crush danger" on sacks of it. If a big enough bag is dropped on someone from a sufficient height it may injure. After all, how many such bagfulls of this need to be drunk in order to significantly increase the chance of cancer?
Which kills the most people prematurely per year in the USA - coffee cancer, obesity, air pollution or motor vehicle accidents? Which causes the most across the rest of the planet? Lets deal with all of the dangers buts lets set some priorities, Deal with the ones that cause the most damage first.
For comparison of importance, which has caused the most questionable election results - illegal immigrants, fraudulent voters, jerrymandering or termites?. We can probably deal with the termites later.
Re:In keeping with other precedents (Score:5, Informative)
This sounds to be in line with previous court judgements. Yes your coffee is hot. Put a sign on it.
You're alluding to the infamous McDonalds case. On the surface it seems nuts and it may still be a case of a stupid jury reaching a stupid verdict, but there are things about the case that are not known by the general public. I have a good friend who is a lawyer and we talked about this.
1) McDonalds kept serving coffee at a temperature very close to boiling and about 20 to 30 degrees higher than their competitors. The problem wasn't that some dumb person didn't know that hot coffee is hot but that McDonalds was deliberately serving it at an undrinkably high temperature.
2)McDonalds received a lot of complaints about the too high temperature of their coffee and refused to do anything about it. They received many hundreds of complaints.
3)The old lady who got burned did basically accidentally pour it on herself, but the case argument was that had the coffee been at a normal temperature of 20-30 degrees lower like McDonalds competitors served, she would not have suffered devastating burns that required hospitalization.
4)The lady's attorneys tried to settle the case out of court and McDonalds refused.
5)The original verdict was reduced by a judge as being excessive and she didn't end up with a million dollars, although she was awarded over $600,000.
Remove from it's processing (Score:2)
It's a decomposition product of the roasting bean. They don't pour it in there like some kind of solvent. It's formed when cooking above 120C. Potato chips could probably avoid generating it by cooking at 119C and burn less chips in the process. I think potatoes are fried to remove the water and they lowered the temperature by vacuum frying. Coffee needs to decompose in order to be roasted where potato chips are considered burnt when this happens.
https://www.coffeecrossroads.c... [coffeecrossroads.com]
The label will also warn of drowning risk (Score:2)
because coffee contains water.
how come a judge can judge science? (Score:2)
Re:how come a judge can judge science? (Score:4, Informative)
Because the people behind Prop 65 (which created this system) came from two distinct camps.
One camp wanted to eliminate some pretty toxic things that were commonly found in household products and drinking water.
Another camp believes in eliminating all "chemicals" because they must be harmful. Otherwise they'd be "natural".
The former group had a good point. The latter group is the left-wing equivalent of chemtrails believers. But the latter group was necessary to get the proposition passed.
Re: (Score:3)
So what was the reaction when Trump wanted to move toward giving meal kits to the poor instead of letting buy whatever they want? Rawwwwwr!
The issue is the "meal kits" were not nutritionally sufficient. They also proposed that the meal kits should contain cheap, obesity-enhancing processed foods. After all, it's the obesity-enhancing formulations that make them cheap.
Also, farmers and other agribusiness were the primary objectors. They'd like to sell their product. Frequently without having to bribe government officials.
Finally, I gotta love the hypocrisy of screaming "nannyism" while supporting a program that explicitly tells people "eat
Re: (Score:3)
To investigate "coffee", go to sciencedaily.com, do a search on term "coffee":
Benefits of drinking coffee outweigh risks, review suggests [sciencedaily.com]:
Re: (Score:2)
You don't see them going to great lengths with their own line of coffeemakers now, do you?
That's because they all died from cancer.