Proposition 65, which began its miserable life as The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, now has little to do with safe water or safe anything else. It's a bad joke to scientists, a plague on California businesses, and a goldmine to attorneys. Coffee went onto the list and now it's off. Why? Good question.
A group of researchers studying drinks seeks a genetic source of our taste. And one important questions emerges: Are some people genetically wired to drink bitter or sweet beverages more often?
Coffee is touted as a prevention remedy or for countless (and unrelated) diseases and conditions. One that isn't on that list is asthma. So, is coffee useful for asthmatics? Scientifically it should be. But you would need to drink a ghastly amount of it. (And at no extra charge we include the always-popular "Chemistry Lesson From Hell.")
Contrary to wide-eyed speculation and fearmongering, coffee is not going extinct. Coffee bean production is up, and prices are down.
Like a broken clock that accidentally gets the time right, California has finally stumbled upon the correct approach to coffee. Sort of. After widespread mockery and condemnation, the Golden State has had an epiphany: Maybe coffee doesn't cause cancer. The FDA agrees.
Coffee is alternately championed and derided for its health effects. A new study introduces the genetics of caffeine metabolism into the conversation.
A coffee lawsuit has turned science upside-down by requiring coffee companies to prove that their product isn’t unsafe. That is absurd, not only because it violates 400 years of common sense about coffee, but because it is impossible to prove a negative. Science also cannot prove that ghosts aren’t real. Perhaps all California residences should carry a poltergeist warning, just in case.
Lack of genetic diversity can have dire consequences: illness, early death, even extinction for some species. A couple of cases in point — dogs and coffee — seem otherwise unrelated. But both can suffer deleterious effects because of uniform gene pools. But in both cases, genetic engineering could help.
A California judge is going to determine whether or not coffee causes cancer. Think about that. We live in a society where judges and lawyers – not medical doctors or scientists – get to determine the credibility of biomedical research. And guess who paid in the process?
America's love affair with coffee bubbled to the surface in 2013 when nitrogen-infused coffee made its appearance in Oregon. Nitro-coffee? Is this a silly fad, or is there some science behind it? Let this article percolate for a while and you'll see.
The national media is alive with the report; coffee intake is good for you! And evidently, the more the better. The data, of course, is a bit more – shall we say – nuanced.