Cancer in your coffee cup?

[tmx3]

I just had mine, black, with no regrets—and I plan on having at least four more by the end of the night. 

Any thoughts on this? 

Is there any molecular biologist, geneticist, chemist, or whoever, who wants to chime in on that news article and explain why or why not the California judge’s ruling is harsher than it should be? Was it reasonable, or does it seem that there’s a motive behind passing the law that was passed (Proposition 65)?

The dr in the article says odds aren’t likely that someone would develop cancer from drinking coffee (I guess because of this negative feedback effect—is it?—that coffee has on the liver as it detoxifies the liver after it’s worked long and hard to clean up the body’s toxins, protecting the liver from cancer despite potentially being carcinogenic itself)...but do the consequences of consuming large amounts of coffee depend on a specific diet—aka the “average american diet” that goes something like 3-5 meals a day, mostly meat, bad cholesterol, carbs, hardly ever much fiber, etc., or is it worse when following a vegetarian lifestyle? Is that possibly why the law was passed? 

If the law was passed for coffee, why not for other foods, as the article mentions (example: french fries)? 

Specifically, isn’t it the case that not only heated foods but also some nonheated foods have cancerous effects on the body? 

Your thoughts? 

[StringJunky]

Click image to enlarge. Short version: 

Safe daily intake level of acrylamide before carcinogenic levels was estimated to be 2.6μg/kg per day (42).

To put this into perspective, this would be equivalent of 182μg safe daily intake of acrylamide for a 70kg person.

This person would need to drink 404 cups or 64 liters of roasted coffee brew in a day to reach carcinogenic levels. We can’t even drink that much water in a day.

You need to drink 64 liters of roasted coffee brew a day to reach carcinogenic levels.

 

https://www.authoritydiet.com/acrylamide-coffee-cancer-heart-disease-risk/

Edited March 31, 2018 by StringJunky

[tmx3]

40 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Click image to enlarge. Short version: 

Safe daily intake level of acrylamide before carcinogenic levels was estimated to be 2.6μg/kg per day (42).

To put this into perspective, this would be equivalent of 182μg safe daily intake of acrylamide for a 70kg person.

This person would need to drink 404 cups or 64 liters of roasted coffee brew in a day to reach carcinogenic levels. We can’t even drink that much water in a day.

You need to drink 64 liters of roasted coffee brew a day to reach carcinogenic levels.

 

https://www.authoritydiet.com/acrylamide-coffee-cancer-heart-disease-risk/

Thank you! Thank you!! Thank you!!! This made my day! 

[StringJunky]

7 minutes ago, tmx3 said:

Thank you! Thank you!! Thank you!!! This made my day! 

Get it down yer!.  

[geordief]

Why would darker roasts have less acrylamide than lighter roasts?

It seems counter intuitive.

[StringJunky]

3 minutes ago, geordief said:

Why would darker roasts have less acrylamide than lighter roasts?

It seems counter intuitive.

That struck me too.

Edit: Contrary to commonsense, coffee beans lighten with longer roasting times. A 'light' roast has been roasted longer: it pertains to the final colour.

Quote

Lighter coffee beans, which are roasted for longer periods of time, contain more acrylamide.

"Today I learned...."   

Edited March 31, 2018 by StringJunky

[CharonY]

Most of the acrylamide is produced during the early steps of the roast (couple of minutes actually). Longer exposure to heat leads to some degree of breakdown.

Edited March 31, 2018 by CharonY

[tmx3]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

Most of the acrylamide is produced during the early steps of the roast (couple of minutes actually). Longer exposure to heat leads to some degree of breakdown.

If longer exposure of heat leads to breakdown, does it lead to breakdown of that chemical to make it safer to drink or no?

[StringJunky]

5 minutes ago, tmx3 said:

If longer exposure of heat leads to breakdown, does it lead to breakdown of that chemical to make it safer to drink or no?

I would say yes but when you consider there is only 1/400th of a carcinogenic dose in a cup, having it how you like it anyway, the potential benefit is negligible to the point of stupid. This coffee thing is just the latest in a long line of unfounded scare stories. I would say nearly everything we eat has some dangerous substances in it but they need to be at the right dose. You also need to dig into the research to see what dosages were applied to the test subjects to observe the effect and are they realistic in how much a person would be exposed in real terms.  You can do a quick checkup on a substance by looking up its Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) or SDS. That will give you the hazards associated with a substance. Here's its MSDS:

http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927422

The other thing you can look up is the Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) - the dose that will kill 50% of test subjects. For acrylamide: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp203-c3.pdf . Note this for the pure substance. Looking up these two areas you can get a ballpark idea of the relative toxicity of a substance.

 

[tmx3]

24 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I would say yes but when you consider there is only 1/400th of a carcinogenic dose in a cup, having it how you like it anyway, the potential benefit is negligible to the point of stupid. This coffee thing is just the latest in a long line of unfounded scare stories. I would say nearly everything we eat has some dangerous substances in it but they need to be at the right dose. You also need to dig into the research to see what dosages were applied to the test subjects to observe the effect and are they realistic in how much a person would be exposed in real terms.  You can do a quick checkup on a substance by looking up its Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) or SDS. That will give you the hazards associated with a substance. Here's its MSDS:

http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927422

The other thing you can look up is the Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) - the dose that will kill 50% of test subjects. For acrylamide: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp203-c3.pdf . Note this for the pure substance. Looking up these two areas you can get a ballpark idea of the relative toxicity of a substance.

 

Definitely agree with you and thanks so much for the additional post!!! Really appreciate you taking the time you do to answer all of it!

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, tmx3 said:

If longer exposure of heat leads to breakdown, does it lead to breakdown of that chemical to make it safer to drink or no?

Under most conditions the difference is negligible. Note that the measurements are directly from beans. Once brewed, only a fraction is released and consumed. Weight by weight, potato chips and cookies  will give you an order of magnitude more, for example. In effect, every cooked meal will at least have the amount of brewed coffee (or higher).

 

[StringJunky]

19 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Under most conditions the difference is negligible. Note that the measurements are directly from beans. Once brewed, only a fraction is released and consumed. Weight by weight, potato chips and cookies  will give you an order of magnitude more, for example. In effect, every cooked meal will at least have the amount of brewed coffee (or higher).

 

With the amount of chip shop chips (fries) fried in animal fat (lard) I've consumed in my life, I should be riddled with cancer....if you are what you eat, acrylamide is me.