Coffee is one of the simple pleasures of life for many of us. And it is a booming business in North America, with the proliferation of cafes and coffee franchises over the last 20 years, attesting to its popularity. So when headlines proclaim benefits or dangers, people pay attention.
The World Health Organization recently reversed a warning it had issued on coffee as possibly carcinogenic, with a link to bladder cancer, and clarified the caution to refer to the temperature of the beverage instead.
Joe Schwarcz is the director of McGill University’s Office for Science and Society. He says the warning about the temperature of coffee, or indeed any beverage, has been around for some time.
ListenSchwarcz says the warning may have been motivated by the South American habit of sipping mate, their morning brew of choice, at very high temperatures. But it is a warning to be heeded for those who take their coffee black, as it is often brewed and served at temperatures well above the recommended 65 degrees celsius.
“I think it’s a problem when single foods or beverages are singled out both in terms of the positive and negative effects.”
CBC reporter Christine Burak reported that a study in Winnipeg revealed many baristas serve coffee at around 80 degrees celsius. The link between steaming hot drinks and esophageal or mouth cancer is clear and understood according to Joe Schwarcz.
“It is the physical irritation of the tissue that can result in the irregular multiplication of cells and that of course is by definition what cancer is.” He says alcohol is also a well-known risk factor with stronger links to esophageal and oral cancers.
Coffee, on the other hand, has been linked to many health benefits, including one of the latest findings in relation to a reduction in symptoms of Parkinson’s disease. Schwarcz, as a director of the office that separates “sense from nonsense” as its subtitle states, is wary of all these findings and pronouncements.
“I think it’s a problem when single foods or beverages are singled out both in terms of the positive and negative effects; what we have to look at is the overall context of the diet not indivudual segments of the diet,” says Schwarcz.
He clarifies, however, the misunderstanding may lie more in the role of the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
Schwarcz says IARC analyzes hazard, which is not the same as risk. “Hazard is the potential of any intervention or any substance to cause harm. Risk is analysis of whether it does cause harm in terms of exposure. and these two are certainly not equivalent.”
He uses the common analogy of the grizzly bear: no one argues the danger of a grizzly bear, and everyone agrees that meeting one in the wild is a hazard. But seeing one caged in a zoo is a different experience. The hazard is still there as the potential to be swiped into oblivion exixts, but the situation poses little risk.
He says that when the IARC looks into something it is investigating in terms of hazard, but the public responds in terms of risk. So rest assured there is no risk involved in enjoying a warm cup of coffee. Schwarcz says the United States recently issued new dietary guidelines and made a point of clarifying there is no issue with as many as 3 to 4 cups of coffee a day.
But as the CBC’s long-time health reporter, Kelly Crowe noted in an October 2012 blog post, “Experience tells me that if a study is about chocolate, coffee or red wine, it has an excellent chance of getting in the news no matter what the finding.”
To your health!
For reasons beyond our control, and for an undetermined period of time, our comment section is now closed. However, our social networks remain open to your contributions.