The latest surprising application of California’s toxic-warnings law [Ken Odza]
Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
Schools for Misrule
Get your copy today! My new book tackles the question of why so many bad ideas come from the law schools. "Cutting-edge commentary, hard-hitting, witty, astute." -- Publisher's Weekly. "Excellent... A fine dissection of these strangely powerful institutions" -- Wall Street Journal.
Cato Institute
Individual liberty, free markets, and peace: the world's premier libertarian think tank. Publishes Cato at Liberty, where I blog on contemporary policy issues.
{ 7 comments }
The health effects of coffee consumption has been widely studied. Overall, coffee consumption has a beneficial effect, and with respect to cancer, has recently been shown to slightly reduce the probability of developing aggressive forms of prostate and breast cancer.
@VMS: I agree. But wait a month and there will be a new study, warped beyond intelligibility by the media, identifying a new danger from coffee or caffeine. I think the trick is to drink coffee only when it’s deemed good, but to shun it elsewhile.
Omega-3, fish oil, is also showing some unfavorable relationship with aggressive prostate cancer. I guess guys are supposed to choose which they love more, their hearts or their…
Johan and VMS: If you read the linked-to article, you’ll see that this isn’t about coffee per-se, but an additive called acrylamide that the complainant claims is in “ready to brew” coffee at levels higher than some government specification. I have no opinion either way, but I thought I’d clarify before this thread gets too off track.
Acrylamide is not an additive to food; it occurs naturally in certain types of carbohydrate-rich foods as a side effect of heating them. If it’s in coffee, it’s probably there from the roasting of the beans, not because it got added during production of the coffee.
Prop 65 makes no distinction as to how the offending substance got into the product, only that its present. We should all carry Prop 65 warnings, because so many of our natural bodily processes create chemicals which require the prop 65 warning, for instance:
Estrogen, Progesterone, Testosterone and Carbon Monoxide, to name a few.
http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/prop65_list/files/P65single052011.pdf
Essentially, the State of California’s citizens ares known to the state of California to be a carcinogen.
CarLitGuy:
Yeah, but that only applies to Humans that might be prepared for consumption…
Oh, wait – are we also listed as a skin-contact carcinogen?
Another reason to break out the whole-body condoms…
My understanding, and please don’t quote me, is that Prop 65 is not limited to potential food items. “To serve man” notwithstanding.
Comments on this entry are closed.