I am aware. I looked up green tea and found 87 different articles claiming miraculous benefits, then I found one that indicated an adverse reaction. That’s the one I posted.
I am fairly certain you didn’t even bother to check the study I linked. If you had, you would have understood my point very clearly.
1 Like
I deserve that. 
Anyway, here’s an actually balanced report on the issue.
2 Likes
Happy April Fool’s Day! 
3 Likes
Here again, the warning label in this case specifically related to the compounds created by the Maillard reaction, which is pretty much universal in any food exposed to dry heat, roasting, grilling, baking, frying. In situations like that, there has to be a threshold or the warning becomes meaningless. Literally anything “golden brown and delicious” should carry such a warning. What is that threshold is a ripe area for discussion, 1 excess cancer per 1000, 100000, 10 exp 42, fine, let’s discuss. But to set that “threshold” at zero is to render it meaningless.
2 Likes
Heat destroys the beneficial acrylamides in it.
2 Likes
Moderation.
I think the labels are really just there for people who don’t have a grandma around to tell them “If you keep on eating so much of that stuff, it’ll send you to an early grave, mark my words!” 
1 Like
Well, a very common bit of time tested wisdom is “You can’t fix stupid.” Also, Darwin awards are a thing.
1 Like
“Since defendants failed to prove that coffee confers any human health benefits”
I’m surprised that the coffee side didn’t mention its important population wide effect of promoting regularity and its public health benefits of lowering violent outbursts.
2 Likes
That link is written in broken English.
So eat cereal there is a negative impact because it is a source of acrylamide.
Alternative: For those who want to take a diet low in acrylamide should consume foods that apparently not contain acrylamide such as porridge of wheat.
1 Like
Obs, too much acrylamide consumed in the name of research.
When Windows Vista first came out, people hated it, in part, because of all the security alerts. It seemed as if every little thing a user did, Windows would pop up a security alert. Just using your PC was like playing whack-a-mole.
This did not train users to be more security conscious, it trained them to ignore and dismiss security alerts as quickly as possible so that they could get on with whatever they were trying to do. Now, sometimes, those alerts were dumb. But sometimes they were very important. But, Vista’s mind-numbing alert spam insured that the important alerts got ignored and dismissed right along with the silly ones.
Now, we have a similar situation with “cancer-causing chemicals” or whatever. The warning on a cup of coffee? The warning on a pack of cigarettes? The warning on your new mattress, claiming that it was manufactured using a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer? All the same, right? EVERYTHING CAUSES CANCER. Who cares? You gotta live in the world, after all, unless you want to live in a hermetically sealed bubble (good luck find one manufactured without some sort of “cancer-causing chemical”).
Of course, the actual danger posed by that pack of cigarettes compared to the danger posed by sleeping on your new mattress is orders of magnitude higher, but the labels don’t make that clear and the human brain isn’t really wired to think that way.
These labels are just alert spam. They won’t raise awareness about things that cause cancer, they’ll teach people to ignore real dangers because if everything “causes cancer” then what’s even the point of trying?
1 Like
The judge might as well asked for proof that vaccines don’t cause autism. You can’t prove a negative, but there are a lot of studies that could not find harm, and in some cases found a benefit in drinking coffee. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly1NjibK79U
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
