April 2018 Newsletter

Topics for the newsletter can sometimes be hard to come by, but this month's was a no brainer. A California judge has decided that all coffee sold in the state should come with a "May cause cancer" warning on the packaging. The basis for the decision was a civil lawsuit brought by a local non-profit foundation, alleging that since roasted coffee contains a chemical called acrylamide, and acrylamides are known carcinogens, roasted and brewed coffee may be a cancer risk.

The judge decided that since the defendants (several large coffee companies, including Starbucks, and a lot of smaller ones) could not prove that coffee wasn't harmful, such a warning was justified, and damages were to be awarded to the non-profit foundation. It all sounds pretty logical and straightforward.

Except, starting with the "non-profit foundation", it's actually a front for the lawyer who instigated the lawsuit. The "other concerned parties" to the suit are paid expert witnesses used by the lawyer in a variety of other cases, including suing McDonalds for the acrylamide content of their chips (alright, fries!) Then there's the judgement itself.

"While plaintiff offered evidence that consumption of coffee increases the risk of harm to the fetus, to infants, to children and to adults, defendants' medical and epidemiology experts testified that they had no opinion on causation." "Defendants failed to satisfy their burden of proving ... that consumption of coffee confers a benefit to human health."

This isn't the sort of stuff that can be decided in a court of law, it requires heaps of hard evidence. To the best of my knowledge there is NO reliable medical or scientific research proving that coffee causes either great harm or great health. Nor is their any proof that acrylamides cause cancer in humans, particularly at the miniscule dosage levels in both coffee and chips. And it's literally impossible to prove that coffee does no harm, as anyone who remained awake in their first year Philosophy lecture on "Proving the Negative" should know. (If you were asleep, the answer is "you can't prove the negative.")

The only "proven fact" in the whole lawsuit is that massive doses of pure acrylamide can cause cancer in rats and mice. Which is another problem with letting lawyers decide this sort of stuff, the judgement takes no account of species and dosage amounts. There are many substances which are benign or beneficial in small amounts but toxic in large quantities, and which are also species specific. Think chocolate and dogs.

Sunlight, the iron in our blood, most of the fat soluble vitamins, lithium ... all necessary for life but fatal in excess. A bit like too many lawyers. Evolution seems to have gifted humans with the ability to ignore low acrylamide concentrations, common in starchy food which is baked, roasted or fried. Such as bread, chips, tempura, schnitzel, coffee, and even Chiko Rolls. Which may kill you, but not from an acrylamide cancer.

That these lawsuits, which are at heart the attempted and actual legalised extortion of money from large companies, can go ahead and even succeed says a lot about the state of the USA these days.

This month's special is

Organic Uganda Bugisu
$48.00/kg

This is a milder coffee, with a fruity strawberry front palate and a creamy milk chocolate finish, perfect for a leisurely breakfast.

Until next month
Alan.