Has California Decided That Coffee Doesn't Cause Cancer After All? - Granite Grok

Has California Decided That Coffee Doesn’t Cause Cancer After All?

broken-coffee-mug Coffee party is just a Democrat parrotBack on April 1st, we reported on a ruling by a Judge in Los Angeles. A non-profit had sued 90 coffee companies claiming they had violated Prop 65 which required them to warn customers about a chemical in brewed coffee (acrylamide) that could lead to cancer.

Two months along and something has changed.

Fortune Magazine reports that,

The state’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, which assesses environmental health risks, now says that there is “no significant cancer risk” associated with chemicals that occur naturally in brewed coffee, citing research from the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The revised rules would overturn a March 2018 court finding that warning labels were required under California’s Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act.

Several companies have already settled the suit (for failing to label their products), according to Fortune’s reporting but as I pointed out in April, the labeling scam/lawsuit ignored that there are plenty of ‘studies’ that contradict the cancer risk with some of them suggesting coffee prevents it.

And while California is requiring warnings because the chemical in question might increase the risk of colon cancer, we’ve got another study that says some other compound in coffee reduces that risk.

It wouldn’t be a complete month without a study (or two) on coffee. The latest study, just published in the American Journal of Clincical Nutritionsuggests that regular coffee drinkers may have a reduced risk of colon cancer.

It might do both but more likely neither as this is probably just more evidence of some number of monkey-scientists fishing for what amounts to a limited number of grants for research – but not limited enough to prevent dozens of studies that contradict each other in exchange for the day’s headlines.

To borrow a line from the old Battlestar Galactica TV series, ‘There are those who believe…”

“…that the case was brought primarily to reap financial rewards for the plaintiff’s lawyers, which has brought other similar lawsuits and has ties to the group that brought the suit.

You think?

The community organizer in chief funded a small army of political allies with millions in tax dollars by refusing to defend itself against lawsuits brought by political allies and special interests.  Settle and write a check.

Easy-peasy payoff sleazy.

And with several companies already having settled, why would the so-called non-profit care if some bureaucratic functionary changed course after the fact?

The California rule is now under review until August.