Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Heat-Processed Carcinogens: What Can
We Learn from the Coffee-Cancer Paradox

James R. Coughlin, PhD CFS
President, Coughl...
Outline of “Concepts” Paper
 My Historical Perspective on Coffee & Health
 Animal Carcinogens in Coffee
 Epidemiologic ...
A 32-Year Coffee/Caffeine Health Perspective
…on Rats, Mice & Humans
…on Almost Every Disease
…on “Good” & “Bad” Science a...
Coffee & Caffeine Health Conclusions:
1981 - 2013
… First 20 Years:
Mostly Bad News! Coffee and Caffeine were linked to al...
So with all this good news, why
are we still concerned?
~
We Just Can’t Escape the
Animal Carcinogens in Coffee

5
General Scheme of Maillard Browning Reaction

Amine

Ammonia
Alkyl amines
Amino acids
Proteins
Phospholipids

Melanoidins
...
“FOR MOST CANCER SITES, THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF
EVIDENCE SHOWING NO DETRIMENTAL EFFECT OF CONSUMPTION
OF UP TO 6 ...
9
The “Coffee-Cancer Paradox”
 Coffee contains over 2,000 identified compounds (mostly
flavors & aromas), including trace l...
11
12
Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol. (2012) 3:15–35
13
“Proposition 65”
California Law
“Safe Drinking Water and Toxic
Enforcement Act of 1986”

- Right-to-Know Warnings
- Prohib...
15
Acrylamide Battleground under Prop 65
 Listed as carcinogen 1990; “Safe Harbor” level = 0.2 μg/day; but if it’s
just dete...
California Coffee Shops’
Proposition 65 Warning
17
Furan
 Rat and mouse liver carcinogen (NTP, 1993)
 “Possibly carcinogenic to humans” (IARC, 1995)
 Brewed coffee is abo...
Human Relevance of Rodent Cancer Bioassays is
Being Questioned
 Some eminent toxicologists have questioned the human rele...
Using a Benefit-Risk Approach for
Coffee…
“Holistic Approach”
&
“Coffee - Cancer Paradox”

20
Key “Risk-Benefit” Controversies


Interpretation of rodent cancer bioassays of extreme
chemical doses has been shown to ...
Potential Mechanisms for the
“Coffee-Cancer Paradox”


Naturally occurring PP antioxidants (chlorogenic acids)



Heat-f...
What Can We Learn from the Coffee-Cancer
Paradox?


The beneficial health effects of certain whole foods may outweigh the...
24
Thank You!
Questions?
Heat-Processed Carcinogens: What Can We Learn from the Coffee-Cancer Paradox?_Coughlin_ASIC Naples_October 2013
Heat-Processed Carcinogens: What Can We Learn from the Coffee-Cancer Paradox?_Coughlin_ASIC Naples_October 2013
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Heat-Processed Carcinogens: What Can We Learn from the Coffee-Cancer Paradox?_Coughlin_ASIC Naples_October 2013

568 views

Published on

Published in: Health & Medicine, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Heat-Processed Carcinogens: What Can We Learn from the Coffee-Cancer Paradox?_Coughlin_ASIC Naples_October 2013

  1. 1. Heat-Processed Carcinogens: What Can We Learn from the Coffee-Cancer Paradox James R. Coughlin, PhD CFS President, Coughlin & Associates: Food/Nutritional/Chemical Toxicology & Safety Aliso Viejo, California jrcoughlin@cox.net www.linkedin.com/in/jamescoughlin
  2. 2. Outline of “Concepts” Paper  My Historical Perspective on Coffee & Health  Animal Carcinogens in Coffee  Epidemiologic Evidence on Coffee and Cancer  California Proposition 65 Battleground  Benefit-Risk Evaluation – The “Holistic Approach” – The “Coffee-Cancer Paradox” 2
  3. 3. A 32-Year Coffee/Caffeine Health Perspective …on Rats, Mice & Humans …on Almost Every Disease …on “Good” & “Bad” Science and Policy …on “Good” & “Bad” Media Coverage …on Coffee/Caffeine’s Beneficial Health Effects …on “Holistic” Benefit-Risk Evaluation 3
  4. 4. Coffee & Caffeine Health Conclusions: 1981 - 2013 … First 20 Years: Mostly Bad News! Coffee and Caffeine were linked to almost every known animal and human disease! … Last 15 or so years…Big Turn Around: The “Good News” is that almost all of the Bad News was WRONG…and coffee may actually be good for us! [My collaborations with NCA/SAG, ASIC and ILSI Caffeine Committee since 1981; IFIC Caffeine Committee since 1987; PEC Committee & ISIC in Europe since late 1980’s] 4
  5. 5. So with all this good news, why are we still concerned? ~ We Just Can’t Escape the Animal Carcinogens in Coffee 5
  6. 6. General Scheme of Maillard Browning Reaction Amine Ammonia Alkyl amines Amino acids Proteins Phospholipids Melanoidins (pigments) HEAT Amino-Carbonyl Interaction (Amadori Products) Carbonyl Aldehydes Ketones Sugars Carbohydrates Lipids Furans Pyrroles Thiophenes Thiazoles Oxazoles Imidazoles Pyridines Pyrazines Volatile Compounds (aroma chemicals) Carbonyls Esters Amides (Acrylamide) Heterocyclic Compounds
  7. 7. “FOR MOST CANCER SITES, THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE SHOWING NO DETRIMENTAL EFFECT OF CONSUMPTION OF UP TO 6 CUPS OF COFFEE/DAY IN RELATION TO CANCER OCCURRENCE. IN FACT, SOME OF THE EVIDENCE…SUGGESTS THAT COFFEE MIGHT PREVENT SOME CANCERS.” [REVIEW BASED ON OVER 500 PUBLICATIONS] 8
  8. 8. 9
  9. 9. The “Coffee-Cancer Paradox”  Coffee contains over 2,000 identified compounds (mostly flavors & aromas), including trace levels of dozens of animal carcinogens [acrylamide, furan, 4-MEI, caffeic acid, PAHs, aldehydes & dicarbonyls, Ochratoxin A, metals, etc.]  Caffeic acid in coffee, just by itself, is both a carcinogen and a protective antioxidant, as is furan  But human studies show significant risk reductions for numerous cancer sites, in spite of the presence of these animal carcinogens The Paradox then – Coffee is loaded with animal carcinogens but most likely reduces human cancer risk! 10
  10. 10. 11
  11. 11. 12
  12. 12. Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol. (2012) 3:15–35 13
  13. 13. “Proposition 65” California Law “Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986” - Right-to-Know Warnings - Prohibition of Discharge 14
  14. 14. 15
  15. 15. Acrylamide Battleground under Prop 65  Listed as carcinogen 1990; “Safe Harbor” level = 0.2 μg/day; but if it’s just detectable, even a 1-ounce serving of any food exceeds this level  French Fries & Potato Chips: Attorney General’s cases settled in 2008; warnings up on fries, none on chips  Cereals: 2009 “Bounty hunter” suit still pending  “Brewed” Coffee suit: April 2010, ~ 10 ppb, cancer warning signs went up in coffee shops a year later  “Roasted” Coffee suit: May 2011, a huge court battle is still ongoing. 16
  16. 16. California Coffee Shops’ Proposition 65 Warning 17
  17. 17. Furan  Rat and mouse liver carcinogen (NTP, 1993)  “Possibly carcinogenic to humans” (IARC, 1995)  Brewed coffee is about 70% of total furan exposure, the highest dietary contributor of all foods and beverages  But coffee PROTECTS against human liver cancer, the strongest inverse association we have for coffee and cancer  Best example of the paradox. 18
  18. 18. Human Relevance of Rodent Cancer Bioassays is Being Questioned  Some eminent toxicologists have questioned the human relevance of tumors seen in lifetime rodent cancer bioassays  They believe it’s time to STOP doing chronic rodent bioassays at the “Maximum Tolerated Dose” (MTD)  We toxicologists make two possibly flawed assumptions about chronic cancer bioassay results…  Dose Extrapolation – effects seen at high rodent doses will also occur at much lower human doses  Species Extrapolation – if cancer is seen in rodents, then cancer probably occurs in humans  BUT…we need to better understand Mechanisms and Modes of Action for a chemical, before we can reliably use bioassay tumor results for regulatory or warning purposes. 19
  19. 19. Using a Benefit-Risk Approach for Coffee… “Holistic Approach” & “Coffee - Cancer Paradox” 20
  20. 20. Key “Risk-Benefit” Controversies  Interpretation of rodent cancer bioassays of extreme chemical doses has been shown to be overly conservative  In the past, we have assessed individual food chemicals one by one, but we need to consider risks & benefits of whole foods using a “Holistic Approach”  Failure to give proper weight to human epidemiology studies showing little or no increased risk of foods containing the chemical  Failure to consider the POSITIVE health benefits of foods containing only trace levels of carcinogens & toxicants. 21
  21. 21. Potential Mechanisms for the “Coffee-Cancer Paradox”  Naturally occurring PP antioxidants (chlorogenic acids)  Heat-formed PP compounds (the melanoidin polymers) – chemopreventive, antioxidant, antimicrobial, dietary fiber, metal chelation  N-methylpyridinium ion induces detoxification enzymes like GST (e.g., for acrylamide detoxification) and UDP-GT  To determine coffee’s overall cancer risk to humans, we must:  Continue to study the health effects of coffee’s naturally occurring and heat-produced compounds, both “bad” and “good”  Recognize that some of these compounds may be healthprotective and outweigh the effects of trace levels of carcinogens. 22
  22. 22. What Can We Learn from the Coffee-Cancer Paradox?  The beneficial health effects of certain whole foods may outweigh the effects of trace levels of animal carcinogens and other toxicants – COFFEE is one of these foods!  The animal cancer bioassays of individual MTD-tested carcinogens (like acrylamide and furan) have probably been giving us false signals of risk  We must press global health and regulatory authorities to:  Use improved toxicology and risk assessment methods on individual chemicals tested at high animal doses  Do more research & evaluation on qualitative and quantitative assessment of the benefits of whole foods  Consider the health benefits of protective compounds both naturally occurring and produced by heating  Assess the safety and benefits of the whole food, not just individual food carcinogens / toxicants one by one. 23
  23. 23. 24
  24. 24. Thank You! Questions?

×