California may soon label coffee as a cancer risk—more than 100 studies suggest the opposite

coffee research

In what’s got to be the dumbest idea yet from the nanny state of California (sorry, guys, but it’s true), coffee sold in the state may need to be labeled as a carcinogen. The science is beyond feeble. You’d need to drink 2,000 cups of coffee a day to get to the level that caused cancer in mice.

A recent article in the Annual Review of Nutrition described a meta-analysis of 127 studies of the effects of coffee on human health.

[T]he meta-analysis found probable evidence that drinking coffee is associated with:

A decreased risk of many common cancers–including breast, colorectal, colon, endometrial and prostate–with a 2 to 20 percent reduction in risk, depending on the cancer type.

It turns out that coffee contains natural antioxidants, which are molecules that reduce the free radicals that damage your cells and cause you to age. Coffee also repairs your DNA, thus making your cells less likely to become cancerous.

Coffee is also a natural anti-inflammatory drug which calms your body so that you don’t overreact to stress. Finally, coffee improves the efficiency of enzymes that regulate insulin and glucose metabolism, thereby fending off Parkinson’s and Type 2 diabetes.

Far from the carcinogen that some California crazies seem to believe it to be, coffee is about as close as we have to a wonder drug.

Read full, original post: After Analyzing 127 Studies, Scientists Prove Coffee Is Good for Everyone but 1 Select Group

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.noReviewsLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
ChatGPT-Image-Jul-22-2026-09_13_07-AM
Viewpoint—The Strategic Litigation boom: Understanding the tightening coalition among NGOs, foundations, journalists, and tort lawyers
organic scaled
Facts & Fallacies podcast: Organic food cuts pesticide exposure? A response to Dr. Rhonda Patrick
Screenshot-2026-07-07-at-12.55.44-PM
Viewpoint: Yes, we can adapt to a changing climate without devastating the environment and the economy
ChatGPT-Image-Jul-6-2026-02_25_26-PM
40 million Americans take glucosamine. If you have memory loss, it could accelerate cognitive decline.
Screenshot-2026-06-26-at-10.14.50-AM
Viewpoint: The facts behind the grifter-promoting wellness and anti-aging peptide craze: Don’t waste your money
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-25-2026-12_23_17-PM
No, Bill Gates did not secretly engineer ticks to promote veganism
ChatGPT-Image-Jul-8-2026-12_32_48-PM
Viewpoint: SCOTUS strikes a blow against junk science in Bayer glyphosate case. Will it deter mass tort litigators?

Sorry. No data so far.

glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.