Coffee can kill you! And, other food dangers

Well, as to the normal coffee products, we really have to contend on the processing process and the chemicals being used along the way. I am sure an open mind will see the possiblity that carcinogenic and potentially harmful chemicals are being utilized.

It is quite funny that in the other forum also dealing with health topics, I shared a post on Seven Healthy Benefits of Coffee. If I were a coffee drinker and have the money to spare, I will go for organically processed and grown coffee.

Coffee is on the major news shows this morning being touted once again, good for you, especially for woman in keeping you from becoming depressed. I agree with everyone, moderation is the key. Same goes with exercise, don't go overboard with it, especially if you are adding weight training (to strengthen bone mass) to your routine.

How to make coffee less acidic? I am also having problems with acidity. I have never tried Green tea, as I don't like the taste that much. I am having a hard time right now trying to drink my daily coffee without sugar and milk!

I want to limit my caffeine consumption because it could affect my fertility and ability to have a baby later. For now, I drink tea or other low caffeine drinks.

Not to sound rude but they are always saying something else that can harm you. Then a year later it has benefits which out weigh the risks. This seems like such new information and is there really even enough evidence that can prove this? I don't know... I suppose it is better to be safe then sorry.

Agreed. Lobbyists bribe researchers in order to increase the popularity of their own products. For me, drinking coffee carries very insignificant risks. I enjoy drinking coffee and I will continue to do it, no matter what these scientists say.

LOL!!! Really?!?

Don't EVER trust a media outlet to be true. Don't EVER trust what an organization such as the WHO says. Think about the term "vested interests".

Ever notice how these "shocking revelations" come out in waves? First something is bad for you ... then a few years later they decide it's good ... then it's bad ... it all depends upon some person's results in their lab or from their latest statistical analysis. On a slow news day these make excellent filler material, but that's it.

Associations between two things can be achieved between ANY two actions and consequences if you extend them far enough, and the WHO is a past master at this. Come now - how can you trust an organization that exaggerated the H1N1 threat in order to enrich Big Pharm, dropped the ball on HIV treatment protocols and makes a habit of creating pandemics out of thin strands of unconfirmed data?