IARC Monographs evaluate drinking coffee, maté, and very hot beverages
Drinking coffee was not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans (Group 3).
The large body of evidence currently available led to the re-evaluation of the carcinogenicity of coffee drinking, previously classified as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) by IARC in 1991.
After thoroughly reviewing more than 1000 studies in humans and animals, the Working Group found that there was inadequate evidence for the carcinogenicity of coffee drinking overall.
Many epidemiological studies showed that coffee drinking had no carcinogenic effects for cancers of the pancreas, female breast, and prostate, and reduced risks were seen for cancers of the liver and uterine endometrium.
For more than 20 other cancers, the evidence was inconclusive.
Coffee Causes Cancer. Coffee Prevents Cancer. Wait, What?
...yes, California has gone a bit nuts. Or, as the nonprofit American Council on Science and Health put it: "If coffee is deemed carcinogenic, then the State of California will be required to give up all pretense at common sense and sanity."
An afterthought: the lawsuit may be just about money. As Bloomberg News explained last October, in a story about the California coffee case: "Unfortunately, it is very easy for ‘bounty hunters’ to file Prop. 65 lawsuits against even small businesses and the cost of settlement and defense often exceeds other types of abusive litigation."
The American Council on Science and Health was even more blunt, calling it an attempt to grab "a giant bag of money."
FACT CHECK: Calif. Judge Rules Coffee Must Come With A Cancer Warning, But Should It?
The Associated Press reported that the judge has given coffee companies a few weeks to file their objections before the proposed ruling is finalized.
Some defendants in the coffee lawsuit have already settled, including 7-Eleven, which agreed to pay $900,000, reported the AP.
Toxic Java? California Law Carries Big Fines, Little Evidence
..among critics, the state’s uniquely stringent right-to-know law is ridiculed for the proliferation of warnings everywhere from gas stations to grocery stores -- and for lining the pockets of attorneys who sue and settle.
“Unfortunately, it is very easy for ‘bounty hunters’ to file Prop. 65 lawsuits against even small businesses and the cost of settlement and defense often exceeds other types of abusive litigation,” says Greg Sperla, a lawyer at Greenberg Traurig’s Sacramento office.
Last year, 760 Proposition 65 suits settled for a total of $30.2 million, according to data from the California attorney general. Of that total, $21.6 million, or 72 percent, went to lawyer’s fees and costs.
Peter Infante, an epidemiologist who testified for Metzger, said there were studies that showed a statistically significant correlation between coffee consumption and certain types of cancer. But he declined to assert there was a causal connection in the absence of further research.
“You would need a clinical trial to resolve the issue,” he said.
Edited by Sibiriak, 31 March 2018 - 04:18 AM.