In California, Where Cancer Warnings Abound, Coffee Is Next in Line(wsj.com)
wsj.com
In California, Where Cancer Warnings Abound, Coffee Is Next in Line
https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-you-drink-coffee-in-california-be-warned-it-may-cause-cancer-1516795200
78 comments
This is a very important point to make because it starts to devalue the warning and desensitize people to it to the point of meaninglessness.
Yep, bought a set of non-toxic chalk pastels for my son and found the generic "know to cause cancer" warning. I had to go to the manufacturer web site and look up the MSDS report. Turns out the white chalk (presumably) contains Titanium Dioxide—you know, what makes some sunscreens white. It wasn't clear if nanoparticles are the concern or just that TiO2 is just on the list.
Many cosmetically coated pharmaceuticals also use TiO2 in the coating formulation, to make the coating nice and shiny white. Iron Oxide is another common pigment used for coating tablets and pellets.
In addition, I once noticed that some gourmet "natural" bottled juice drinks had silica on the ingredients list, to give the appearance of having some sediment in the bottle.
bottled juice drinks had silica on the ingredients list, to give the appearance of having some sediment
Are you sure it isn't used for the opposite reason? Silicon Dioxide (silica) can be used as a suspending agent, so seems like it may have been added to prevent the natural sediment from collecting at the bottom.
Are you sure it isn't used for the opposite reason? Silicon Dioxide (silica) can be used as a suspending agent, so seems like it may have been added to prevent the natural sediment from collecting at the bottom.
I can only find references on google to cucumber having silica on a bunch of health food/fad blogs. Presumably the gourmet brands are adding extra to capitalize on this.
If they wanted sediment, it would be cheaper to just add some of the actual fruit sediment they already have from earlier in the juicing process, rather than purchasing another ingredient.
If they wanted sediment, it would be cheaper to just add some of the actual fruit sediment they already have from earlier in the juicing process, rather than purchasing another ingredient.
Just because the FDA says it's OK doesn't mean you should be putting it on your face...
It doesn't "start", that has already happened with California prop 65 warnings. They are literally everywhere, just saw one today is a coffeeshop. Maybe they are super-villains trying to kill California population one cup of coffee at the time, but I haven't seen anybody to pay any attention to that sign. In fact, see here: https://www.barefootcoffee.com/pages/prop-65
Nobody I know was ever paying any attention to this. Of course, this one is actually a better warning - most of them do not have any details. The devaluing has already run its course, and it's 100% worthless now.
As someone that lives outside of the state, it's almost a hobby of mine to collect prop 65 warnings.
I've seen it on everything from food to juices and hammers to cars.
The running joke about my friends is "I'm sure glad I don't live in California or all this stuff would give me cancer"
I've seen it on everything from food to juices and hammers to cars.
The running joke about my friends is "I'm sure glad I don't live in California or all this stuff would give me cancer"
I once bought a spool of string that had a prop65 warning on it. It's true the warnings are useless, because they don't list the harmful ingredient (lead contamination? outgassing of plastic additives?) and they don't say what activities are risky (can this spool of string cause problems if I don't touch it?)
I want a sign that has a Prop 65 warning just because of the sign itself.
Yup. This is a huge flaw in the CA proposition system.
"Should we warn people if cancer-causing chemicals are used in the construction of a building?"
Sure. I mean, that makes sense, right? However, the net aggregate of these (often conflicting) propositions is extremely counterproductive.
I usually refer people to https://spurvoterguide.org/ (even if you don't agree point-by-point, it's a sensible baseline across everything) - often things that look sensible on the face of it are really impractical.
"Should we warn people if cancer-causing chemicals are used in the construction of a building?"
Sure. I mean, that makes sense, right? However, the net aggregate of these (often conflicting) propositions is extremely counterproductive.
I usually refer people to https://spurvoterguide.org/ (even if you don't agree point-by-point, it's a sensible baseline across everything) - often things that look sensible on the face of it are really impractical.
Strong agree. My desk chair contains chemicals known to cause cancer in the state of California. Does that mean it outgassed some fumes in the factory, will release fumes when burned, will give me skin cancer just to sit on, or is only dangerous if I eat it? Beats me; A, B, and D all seem plausible, and C seems unlikely given consumer protection laws, but it doesn't give me enough information to know.
This facility uses cookies ...
I've seen the warnings on little plaques on buildings. What does it tell me? Not a thing! It could be anything at all in a 20-some-odd story apartment building.
Ya I see the warning that elements known to California to cause cancer are present posted all over. OK so what now?
Absolutely agree. Been a while since I visited California, but if course noticed the random cancer signs.
Asked people what they were about/referring to, and no one could actually tell me!
Asked people what they were about/referring to, and no one could actually tell me!
agreed
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28288025
Coffee and cancer risk: a summary overview.
Abstract We reviewed available evidence on coffee drinking and the risk of all cancers and selected cancers updated to May 2016. Coffee consumption is not associated with overall cancer risk. A meta-analysis reported a pooled relative risk (RR) for an increment of 1 cup of coffee/day of 1.00 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.99-1.01] for all cancers. Coffee drinking is associated with a reduced risk of liver cancer. A meta-analysis of cohort studies found an RR for an increment of consumption of 1 cup/day of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.81-0.90) for liver cancer and a favorable effect on liver enzymes and cirrhosis. Another meta-analysis showed an inverse relation for endometrial cancer risk, with an RR of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.88-0.96) for an increment of 1 cup/day. A possible decreased risk was found in some studies for oral/pharyngeal cancer and for advanced prostate cancer. Although data are mixed, overall, there seems to be some favorable effect of coffee drinking on colorectal cancer in case-control studies, in the absence of a consistent relation in cohort studies. For bladder cancer, the results are not consistent; however, any possible direct association is not dose and duration related, and might depend on a residual confounding effect of smoking. A few studies suggest an increased risk of childhood leukemia after maternal coffee drinking during pregnancy, but data are limited and inconsistent. Although the results of studies are mixed, the overall evidence suggests no association of coffee intake with cancers of the stomach, pancreas, lung, breast, ovary, and prostate overall. Data are limited, with RR close to unity for other neoplasms, including those of the esophagus, small intestine, gallbladder and biliary tract, skin, kidney, brain, thyroid, as well as for soft tissue sarcoma and lymphohematopoietic cancer.
Coffee and cancer risk: a summary overview.
Abstract We reviewed available evidence on coffee drinking and the risk of all cancers and selected cancers updated to May 2016. Coffee consumption is not associated with overall cancer risk. A meta-analysis reported a pooled relative risk (RR) for an increment of 1 cup of coffee/day of 1.00 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.99-1.01] for all cancers. Coffee drinking is associated with a reduced risk of liver cancer. A meta-analysis of cohort studies found an RR for an increment of consumption of 1 cup/day of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.81-0.90) for liver cancer and a favorable effect on liver enzymes and cirrhosis. Another meta-analysis showed an inverse relation for endometrial cancer risk, with an RR of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.88-0.96) for an increment of 1 cup/day. A possible decreased risk was found in some studies for oral/pharyngeal cancer and for advanced prostate cancer. Although data are mixed, overall, there seems to be some favorable effect of coffee drinking on colorectal cancer in case-control studies, in the absence of a consistent relation in cohort studies. For bladder cancer, the results are not consistent; however, any possible direct association is not dose and duration related, and might depend on a residual confounding effect of smoking. A few studies suggest an increased risk of childhood leukemia after maternal coffee drinking during pregnancy, but data are limited and inconsistent. Although the results of studies are mixed, the overall evidence suggests no association of coffee intake with cancers of the stomach, pancreas, lung, breast, ovary, and prostate overall. Data are limited, with RR close to unity for other neoplasms, including those of the esophagus, small intestine, gallbladder and biliary tract, skin, kidney, brain, thyroid, as well as for soft tissue sarcoma and lymphohematopoietic cancer.
In addition, there's been some other recent meta-analyses (0,1) that suggest the same thing, where coffee may actually be a net positive on the cancer front (at least if you're consuming a normal amount). I'd be skeptical and lean more towards there being no effect either way.
(0) http://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j5024
(1) https://www.nature.com/articles/srep33711
(0) http://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j5024
(1) https://www.nature.com/articles/srep33711
So there's reproducible protection against coffee for adults themselves and difficult to reproduce, potential harm caused by maternal consumption during pregnancy.
Personally, I've enjoyed my coffee for years being aware of its prophylactic effects toward cancer.
Personally, I've enjoyed my coffee for years being aware of its prophylactic effects toward cancer.
How many milliliters of coffee is a cup?
According to [0], "per additional cup of tea or coffee daily, adjusted to 200 mL or 2 g of dry tea each cup as appropriate" suggests that they consider 200mL, or closer to 6 than 8 oz.
[0]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4340062/
[0]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4340062/
[deleted]
Let's just erect a giant billboard at SFO/LAX/etc. reading "WARNING: This state contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm" and be done with it. It will be about as useful as now and will be much less of a hassle.
I once saw a sign on a door at a hotel in California that said something similar to this: "This door leads to an area with chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm"
The door led to outside. I'm pretty sure the sign was serious.
The door led to outside. I'm pretty sure the sign was serious.
Probably for exhaust from cars idling at the entrance. You'll see a similar warning in the walkways to your plane in the airport.
I've lived in California for the past 9 years. I grew up here and left before returning, but that was before the crazy signs.
I sat here and tried to remember the last time I saw this 'causes cancer' sign, and failed. They are actively invisible to me.
So dumb.
I sat here and tried to remember the last time I saw this 'causes cancer' sign, and failed. They are actively invisible to me.
So dumb.
Sounds to me like the sign was put there by someone making fun of the signs they had to put elsewhere in the hotel
Nah, I think this was legit. I lived in a place that had the same thing. I think it's because some doors lead to a place that is near a location where cars might be.
This is all you need to know about Prop 65, from the article:
"The statute allows any private citizen to sue over an alleged violation. Last year, 681 settlements worth $25.6 million were reported to the California attorney general’s office. Attorneys’ fees and costs made up more than 75% of the total."
"The statute allows any private citizen to sue over an alleged violation. Last year, 681 settlements worth $25.6 million were reported to the California attorney general’s office. Attorneys’ fees and costs made up more than 75% of the total."
> Attorneys’ fees and costs made up more than 75% of the total."
This is all you need to know about Prop 65.
This is all you need to know about Prop 65.
And this is why there's no appetite to change it. The trial attorneys' lobby would eat any such initiative alive, casting even a reasonable reform as "bad for the environment" and "bad for public health."
This is seriously pathetic. I literally see these signs everywhere - when I enter my car, when I enter a restaurant, when I enter a grocery store, in my office etc. At this point, I am completely desensitized. I don't even read them anymore since I have just assumed they are there because of some useless law passed few years back by people who didn't foresee how worthless this could become. At this point, even if the barista draws Cancer on top of my coffee instead of a smily face, I will gladly drink it since I know she did it because of some stupid law which doesn't make any sense. That is how sad the situation is.
Or she did it because she's into astrology
Prop 65 (1986), in case you are curious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_65_(198...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_65_(198...
These warning stickers seem to be the passive aggressive way of undermining regulation. Just put them on everything and people soon will stop reading them.
I think the original intention of Proposition 65 was to provide a disincentive for businesses to use toxic chemicals and a disincentive for people to frequent spaces where they were used. However, it doesn't seem to have been calibrated effectively: the authors of the proposition may have thought that businesses would have a clear and easy choice between "using dangerous chemicals" and "not using dangerous chemicals", but so many things have ended up getting included that the value of that signal has been severely diluted.
It would probably be more useful if they had some kind of scale of danger, kind of like in the NFPA fire diamond where hazards are rated from 0 to 4. Another alternative could be to label only substances that a typical citizen would not expect to be present in a certain kind of facility (which maybe could be established by having the state perform surveys). For instance, a typical citizen would probably expect jet fuel to be present at an airport.
It would probably be more useful if they had some kind of scale of danger, kind of like in the NFPA fire diamond where hazards are rated from 0 to 4. Another alternative could be to label only substances that a typical citizen would not expect to be present in a certain kind of facility (which maybe could be established by having the state perform surveys). For instance, a typical citizen would probably expect jet fuel to be present at an airport.
The problem is that Prop 65 excessively concentrates on the agent, whereas any time spent looking at toxicology will tell you that the agent is only a small part of what constitutes a medically meaningful exposure (route of exposure, cumulative dose, concentration, etc. -- the law addresses none of these except that some cancer-causing compound is present, whether or not it means anything in practice).
And since the law essentially absolves you if you issue such warnings and the warning is so ubiquitous as not to alarm people anymore, well, you might as well slap it on everything.
And since the law essentially absolves you if you issue such warnings and the warning is so ubiquitous as not to alarm people anymore, well, you might as well slap it on everything.
Yeah, those thresholds got set way too low. But worse, they don't really provide much in the way of actual _information_, as several people above have noted.
An article I read about this whole coffee thing mentioned that
"The state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment adopted new regulations last year that will require more specific warnings that list the chemical consumers may be exposed to and list a website with more information. Parking garages, for example, will have to post that breathing air there exposes drivers to carbon monoxide and gas and diesel exhaust and warns people not to linger longer than necessary."
(From: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/26/coffee-sold-in-california-co...)
...which should hopefully make the warnings more useful - though I've no idea whether their overall usefulness will outweigh their overall cost.
An article I read about this whole coffee thing mentioned that
"The state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment adopted new regulations last year that will require more specific warnings that list the chemical consumers may be exposed to and list a website with more information. Parking garages, for example, will have to post that breathing air there exposes drivers to carbon monoxide and gas and diesel exhaust and warns people not to linger longer than necessary."
(From: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/26/coffee-sold-in-california-co...)
...which should hopefully make the warnings more useful - though I've no idea whether their overall usefulness will outweigh their overall cost.
How would it make them any more useful? It's not like hanging out parking garages and breathing in exhaust are a favorite pastimes for Californians now (though this impression can easily be made if one considers the results of California lawmaking, I admit). People know exhaust gases are not a healthy thing, and there's no reason to hang out in parking garage anyway.
However, since being in parking garages, when parking, is unavoidable, putting useless warnings there desensitizes people to all sort of such warnings, and makes them ignore any kind - including those kinds that might have been useful (such as in a facility where actual dangerous chemicals are present) - but now, nobody would even notice those warnings anymore, just as nobody reads what's on Windows warnings, people just click 'OK', whatever it is.
Yes we saw this in the UK when they applied the regs for chemical hazards in factories to offices.
Makes me laugh when I compare my first work place we had our own irradiation sources plus the required safety officer oh and that experiment we did where the working fluid was moten metal:-)
Not to mention the full service buildings (ie those with compressed air) where the compressed air reservoir was a risk - not to mention the lab where we had a separate fluron release alarm plus staff trained to use breathing apparatus to attempt a rescue with.
Makes me laugh when I compare my first work place we had our own irradiation sources plus the required safety officer oh and that experiment we did where the working fluid was moten metal:-)
Not to mention the full service buildings (ie those with compressed air) where the compressed air reservoir was a risk - not to mention the lab where we had a separate fluron release alarm plus staff trained to use breathing apparatus to attempt a rescue with.
I believe it's more the innate tendency of legislators to escalate the extent of the law so they can justify their existence and boast of their legislative accomplishments in the next election cycle.
The rest is just the law of unintended consequences. If everything causes cancer, then all the warnings will just be ignored.
Legislators in general have a horrible track record when it comes to understanding relative risk.
The rest is just the law of unintended consequences. If everything causes cancer, then all the warnings will just be ignored.
Legislators in general have a horrible track record when it comes to understanding relative risk.
the innate tendency of legislators
Like with the Lottery disaster, the Legislature was out of the loop altogether.
I mean, there is a way to do this stuff right. Look at RoHS; in comparison it's a straight up success story.
Well this was certainly enlightening. I've never lived in California before and I've only visited it infrequently, so for a moment there I was shocked to find out that coffee might actually give me cancer despite all the buzz proclaiming that it might lower your risk of various forms of cancer, lower your risk of diabetes, lower your risk of erectile dysfunction, lower your overall risk of all-cause mortality, etc.
No, turns out I'm fine. Well, very likely fine. I just happened to learn something new about California law. The road to hell truly is paved with good intentions.
No, turns out I'm fine. Well, very likely fine. I just happened to learn something new about California law. The road to hell truly is paved with good intentions.
> The road to hell truly is paved with good intentions.
If only the statists of this world would come to the same conclusion...
If only the statists of this world would come to the same conclusion...
I think everything we eat and breathe is somewhat carcinogenic. The question is where to draw the line. As far as I’m concerned I’m happy to give 1 month of my life (assuming that’s the time span associated with coffee and cancer on average) for the joy of drinking coffee everyday.
Life should not only be longlasting, but also joyful
Life should not only be longlasting, but also joyful
Yes, it has been known for quite awhile that mitogenesis (cell division) "causes" cancer:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC54830/
Literally anything that leads to the need for cells to divide is a cause of cancer (eg smoking -> replace lung cells more often; UV light -> replace skin cells more often; obesity -> more cells overall needing replacement, etc).
It makes zero sense to frame the issue in terms of X causes vs doesn't cause cancer. Instead it is a matter of how much.
Literally anything that leads to the need for cells to divide is a cause of cancer (eg smoking -> replace lung cells more often; UV light -> replace skin cells more often; obesity -> more cells overall needing replacement, etc).
It makes zero sense to frame the issue in terms of X causes vs doesn't cause cancer. Instead it is a matter of how much.
IIUC it's not really the cell growth rate, but the harm from toxic molecules or radiation.
Each division there is some probability p the cell gets an error that can contribute to cancer. Anything that increases the number of divisions or p will increase the chances of cancer.
Unless it's the division of cancer destroying immune cells :). Then the (net) chance should decrease due to division.
Toxicologists often say "the toxicity is in the dose".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison
If everyone agrees these are basically useless as-implemented, I wonder what we could do to change the process so that useless laws actually get removed, instead of hanging around forever.
An expiration-type system just seems like an invitation to play stupid political bargaining games instead of letting reasonable stuff continue unargued, a la the spending bills in the US Congress.
An expiration-type system just seems like an invitation to play stupid political bargaining games instead of letting reasonable stuff continue unargued, a la the spending bills in the US Congress.
> I wonder what we could do to change the process so that useless laws actually get removed
This was a California Proposition, which means it was citizen driven legislation. As a result, legislators aren't keen to interfere with them. To get rid of it, we're basically going to need another proposition which nullifies the reporting requirement and changes the way legal settlements around Prop 65 are handled.
This was a California Proposition, which means it was citizen driven legislation. As a result, legislators aren't keen to interfere with them. To get rid of it, we're basically going to need another proposition which nullifies the reporting requirement and changes the way legal settlements around Prop 65 are handled.
All it takes is an ordinary statute law which then goes to the ballot for confirmation.
But then there's the cancer-warning-sign-manufacturing lobby...
Prop 65 is ridiculous, though well intentioned I'm sure. There are so many things on the list, at such low levels, that raw vegetables would need the warning label if not for being exempt.
Companies just slap on the label so they don't get sued by a lawyer who makes a living suing over Prop 65.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_65_(198...
https://redmond.life/prop65/
https://www.sunfood.com/sunfood-prop-65/
Companies just slap on the label so they don't get sued by a lawyer who makes a living suing over Prop 65.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_65_(198...
https://redmond.life/prop65/
https://www.sunfood.com/sunfood-prop-65/
You know your consumer protection laws are a little over the top when "not for sale in California" is a marketable feature for pretty much any product you wouldn't want to ingest.
This brings to mind the wireless warning controversy in SF a few years back:
https://ehtrust.org/policy/san-francisco-cell-phone-ordinanc...
https://ehtrust.org/policy/san-francisco-cell-phone-ordinanc...
Has anyone proposed to repeal Prop 65 yet?
Seems like a pretty obvious thing to do. How easy would that be to get on the next election ballot?
Seems like a pretty obvious thing to do. How easy would that be to get on the next election ballot?
The lawyers who make a killing off suing for violations would fire back and claim that those who want a repeal obviously don’t care about public health
Among other reasons, this is a great reason many are against GMO labels.
I think the GMO labeling problem is related, but separate. To date, no one has ever proven that GMO foods are somehow unsafe, much like the flap over rBST in milk, for which products proclaiming they are rBST free have in small print that no difference between rBST cow milk and non-rBST cow milk has ever been demonstrated. With both GMO and rBST, there's possibly a food quality issue, but not a food safety issue.
Proposition 65, however, actually claims that there's a safety issue. And, to be sure, the chemicals on the list are indeed legitimately unsafe; it's just that the context and the probable dosage or actual level of exposure in many cases makes them largely irrelevant.
Proposition 65, however, actually claims that there's a safety issue. And, to be sure, the chemicals on the list are indeed legitimately unsafe; it's just that the context and the probable dosage or actual level of exposure in many cases makes them largely irrelevant.
Non-paywall:
https://outline.com/H992nD
I'm like, 90% close to making a bot that just does this for HN submissions.
https://outline.com/H992nD
I'm like, 90% close to making a bot that just does this for HN submissions.
nsainside(1)
If I see a warning, it could mean that there are harmful, odorless chemicals being emitted by some manufacturing process. Or it could mean I'm near a parking facility. Or it could mean they're serving alcohol somewhere in the venue. There's a huge difference between those three, but the warning posted is identical.
They're worse than useless because they actively desensitize people to actionable information by overloading them with unactionable information.