Coffee's not as scary as . . . -- April 5, 2018 column

By MARSHA MERCER

President Donald Trump provokes a trade war with China and shakes the stock market and our retirement accounts like snowglobes.

He asks governors to send the National Guard to a purported “crisis” on the Mexican border while he rolls back the environmental rules that protect our air and water.

Scary times, indeed.

Sit back, relax, watch cute kitten videos on Facebook and savor a hot mug of coffee. Uh-oh.

Facebook isn’t a safe place, if it ever was. With the personal data of 87 million of us shared, we’re ripe for the picking on the dark web, if we weren’t already.

And that comforting cup of joe soon will come with a cancer warning label in California. What starts on the Left Coast often wafts east.

Wait a minute. Deep breaths. Should we be scared of our coffee, too?

Decades of medical research say no. A review in the British Medical Journal last November examined more than 200 studies and found that coffee consumption was more often associated with benefit than harm.

Drinking three cups of coffee a day was associated with the greatest benefit in terms of cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease and stroke, compared with not drinking coffee, researchers found.

Two studies reported in the Annals of Internal Medicine last year followed people of various ethnicities around the world for years and found “people who reported drinking more coffee tended to live longer than those who reported drinking less.”

The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer removed coffee from its list of substances “possibly carcinogenic to humans” in 2016, after it reviewed 1,000 studies and found “inadequate evidence” of a link to cancer.

So why the warning label? A chemical called acrylamide, produced during coffee roasting, may cause cancer. Emphasis on “may.”

A California judge wrote a preliminary ruling March 30 requiring Starbucks and dozens of other coffee purveyors in the state to warn customers about acrylamide. The chemical occurs naturally when some foods are cooked at high heat. It’s in french fries, potato chips, crackers, bread, cereal, prune juice and canned black olives.

Acrylamide is on California’s list of about 800 natural and man-made substances that are linked to cancer, birth defects or reproductive harm. Under the state’s Prop. 65, which aims to alert consumers to health hazards so they can make smart decisions, businesses must notify customers if their products contain the chemicals. It’s why you see warnings on flashlights, Christmas tree lights and pesticides, among other items.

Lab studies have found acrylamide in high doses in drinking water increases the risk of cancer in rats and mice. But the doses have been “as much as 1,000 to 10,000 times higher than the levels people might be exposed to in foods,” says the American Cancer Society, adding, “Based on the studies done so far, it is not clear if acrylamide affects cancer risk in people.”

A public interest law firm sued the coffee shops in a California court in 2010, saying they have a duty to warn consumers. A similar lawsuit led potato chip makers to reduce the amount of acrylamide in their products to avoid warning labels.  

But the National Coffee Association says acrylamide is in coffee at “miniscule” levels, occurs naturally and is not an additive. It’s weighing its legal actions.

“Coffee has been shown, over and over again, to be a healthy beverage,” said William “Bill” Murray, president and CEO of the coffee association. “This lawsuit has made a mockery of Prop. 65, has confused consumers and does nothing to improve public health.”

But the lawsuit and the warning labels do serve a purpose. They help us gain perspective. We don’t have to give up coffee.

As with most things, health officials advise moderation and they suggest watching what you put in your coffee. Sugar has replaced fat as a nutritional pariah.

The WHO’s cancer panel did advise caution on a related topic. 

“Drinking very hot beverages probably causes cancer of the esophagus in humans,” it said.

There you go. It wouldn’t hurt to let your coffee cool.

Sometimes we can control what scares us.   

©2018 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.

30

Fighting sham charities -- May 28, 2015 column

By MARSHA MERCER

Outside the supermarket, a woman sitting at a card table says she is collecting food for needy families with children.

I don’t recognize the name of her group and she’s vague about where the food is going. But she’s friendly and seems sincere, so I buy an extra can of baked beans. More generous shoppers than I stuff dollars in her jar. I hope she’s on the level and go about my day.

How many times do we have such conflicting thoughts and emotions? At every turn, we’re asked to give. We know people are hurting, we want to help -- but we don’t want to be stupid. In my case, the financial risk was minuscule, but too many kind-hearted souls contribute real money to bogus charities.  

There must be a special circle of Hell for charity scammers who dupe unsuspecting donors. In this world, though, we rely on government to punish the wicked.  

In an unprecedented sign of nationwide resolve, all 50 states and the District of Columbia joined the Federal Trade Commission May 18 and accused four charities of fleecing more than $187 million from unsuspecting donors from 2008 to 2012. The charities, all with cancer in their names and run by family members, allegedly used almost none of the money they raised for cancer patients for patients.

The charities claimed donors’ contributions would “provide pain medication to children suffering from cancer, transport cancer patients to chemotherapy appointments, or pay for hospice care for cancer patients,” according to the complaint filed in federal court. “These were lies.”

None of the groups even had programs to provide pain medicine to patients. None transported patients to chemotherapy and none paid for hospice care.

Calling the groups “sham charities,” the complaint says almost every penny collected actually paid for-profit fundraisers and enriched the small group that ran the charities.

The funds donors intended for cancer patients instead bought cars, dainties from Victoria’s Secret, meals at Hooters, and “training trips” for employees and their families in Disney World and cruises of the Caribbean. Donations went for personal loans and paid for college tuition, gym memberships, Jet Ski outings, dating Website subscriptions and tickets to concerts and sporting events.

Less than 3 cents of every dollar collected went to cancer patients in cash and goods, the complaint states. “Comfort boxes” for patients included mostly overstock items, Carnation Instant Breakfast, Little Debbie Snack Cakes and later Moon Pies.

Under terms of a proposed settlement agreement, Children’s Cancer Fund of America and the Breast Cancer Society agreed to shut down, and three principals will be banned from fundraising and other charitable management activities. Litigation will continue against Cancer Fund of America, Cancer Support Services and founder and president, James Reynolds Sr., the FTC said.

It’s no easy task keeping track of charities. In 2012, there were about 1.6 million nonprofits registered with the Internal Revenue Service. Individuals gave roughly $240.6 billion to charities in 2013, according to Giving USA.

Almost every major disaster and tragedy generates a new wave of scam artists. State and federal regulators simply can’t keep up. 

In case you’re thinking that sham charities are a modern phenomenon, think again. Former President Grover Cleveland warned in 1906 that people might be discouraged from giving to responsible charities because of fraudulent schemes. He suggested the creation of an agency to test charities and provide “reliable guidance” to donors. 

Fortunately, today several organizations do just that, including the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance, Charity Navigator, Charity Watch and GuideStar. The FTC has good advice on its Charity Scams page.

Consumers should know that many sham charities have names strikingly similar to reputable ones. Beware of appeals that tug at heartstrings with diseases like cancer and the suffering of children, police, firefighters and veterans. Ask questions; legitimate groups should provide information on how they spend donations.

And I learned this: “Wise donors don’t drop money into canisters at the checkout counter or hand over cash to solicitors outside the supermarket,” Charity Navigator advises in Top 10 Best Practices of Savvy Donors.

We all have a role to play in stopping sham charities. Now more than ever, it’s important to be generous -- and smart.

©2015 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.

30