The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.
. . . [B]y IARC’s own account, this body of evidence [for coffee] shows no indication of a positive association with any cancer. So, the obvious question is, Why wasn’t coffee reassigned to Group 4: “unlikely to cause cancer in humans”? . . . .
. . . . A number of the agency’s assessments have been criticized for placing too much weight on isolated findings that appear to suggest a risk, while ignoring more solid studies that do not support the existence of risk. The agency’s assessments of cell phones and the weed-killer glyphosate are cases in point.
IARC’s reassessment of coffee can be viewed as a test case to see whether the agency can weigh the accumulated evidence on a question and come to a scientific, . . . logical and common sense, conclusion.
. . . .
. . .[T]he agency stated that “coffee may protect against cancer.” But then it went on to justify its designation of “unclassifiable as to its carcinogenicity in humans.” . . . this flagrant contradiction highlights the problems with IARC’s process, its classification scheme, and the messages it puts out to the public.
Read full, original post: IARC Lets Coffee Off The Hook But Only Deepens The Confusion