Recent Blog Articles
Postpartum anxiety is invisible, but common and treatable
Right-sizing opioid prescriptions after surgery
Ready for your routine medical checkup?
Nicotine addiction explained — and how medications can help
Is your vision impaired? Tips to cope
Misgendering: What it is and why it matters
Healthy brain, healthier heart?
Stories connect us
Wondering about a headline-grabbing drug? Read on
Respiratory virus cases tick upward: What parents should know
Harvard Health Blog
Health benefits of coffee and a proposed warning label
Robert H. Shmerling, MD,
Senior Faculty Editor, Harvard Health Publishing
As a service to our readers, Harvard Health Publishing provides access to our library of archived content. Please note the date of last review or update on all articles. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct medical advice from your doctor or other qualified clinician.
Coffee Drinking has no doubt more benefits than disadvantages. I get it you have posted this article in favor of coffee drinking, but don’t you think the article would have been much better if you had mentioned the potential side affects as well?
Thanks for the article, very interesting and also clear on the coffee benefits. Just one question: Why do you state consumers should avoid instant coffee?
coffee drinkers tend to be white collar professionals, they have better health care and other health habit, thus lives longer, need have better control groups for these studies.
Nice article on a salient topic.
The tone of this article seems a little skewed: it appears to undermine the studies on the potential harmful effects of coffee as not convincing because such links have not been proven, but then it seems eager to tout the health benefits of coffee using studies that likely have the same difficulty proving causality. Hence, it is important to highlight that in spite of the rhetoric that there is mostly good news about drinking coffee and that there is no reason to expect any links to cancer, the author can only speak of the “potential” health benefits of coffee and that the risks of coffee “might” be outweighed by the benefits. There are likely both benefits and hazards to be found in coffee, and it is still too early to be more dismissive of one side for the other.
Dr. Schmerling –
Thank you for this excellent, succinct, and very clear summary of the situation regarding coffee, health, and California’s Proposition 65.
I would only add that – perhaps in part due to clear-eyed assessments such as yours – the California regulator, OEHHA, is considering adopting a new rule which would eliminate the need for “coffee and cancer” warnings pertaining to acrylamide and other substances. The rationale for this change, according to the regulator, very closely tracks your own assessment.
California authorities are currently in a public-input-phase of the process, which will end on August 30th of this year. With “science” on the side of this proposed change, there is an opportunity for the State’s decision-making process to be guided by the substantial body of independent research into coffee and health, and not by a legalistic interpretation of the statute.
N.B. I am President of the National Coffee Association.
Commenting has been closed for this post.