IARC’s reassessment of coffee illustrates problems with its process, messaging

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.

Related on the SLP

Partisan divide erupts on glyphosate-cancer science as IARC supporters push ‘Monsanto Papers’ narrative Will US cut off support for WHO’s IARC over pilloried glyphosate cancer report?

RFK Jr.’s plan to curb America’s appetite for ultra-processed foods and artificial dyes blocked by the White House

Anti-vax Texas Senate candidate Ken Paxton alleges conspiracy by doctors, drugmakers, and insurers to push childhood vaccination for profit

Hooked on kratom: The unregulated, natural, alcohol-free “social tonic” that is destroying lives 

. . . .

. . .[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