Terrifying New Study Links Coffee to Glaucoma

[disgruntledgamer]

If it's not associated with other caffeine products than perhaps it's linked to something else in the coffee. Should of had a decaff control.

 

[The Artificially Prolonged]

Oh dear what a shame for the coffee drinkers. *sips on tea*

 

[Yopaz]

Decaffeinated coffee isn't coffee all of a sudden?

Well, not real coffee anyway.

Why is that so if I may ask? It still tastes roughly like coffee, it still contains most of the same chemicals as coffee (even caffeine).

 

[GAunderrated]

While your instinct (and mine) might be to panic, this is only the first study to link coffee and glaucoma, so there's more science to be done before we fully understand the relationship between them.

No, my first instinct is to go 'So what?' Everything I consume is apparently harmful to me in some way or other whether it causes cancer, glaucoma or some other damn thing. How about studies to show what things WON'T harm and/or kill me? It'd probably result in a much shorter list.

Pretty soon that will be nearly impossible to have food that wont cause cancer. Companies such as monsanto are trying to pass a bill so that they do not have to even label something as genetically modified food. Also if you are a documentary lover and like learning about what you eat you should watch:

1. Food inc (documentary its on netflix)

2. Men who make us fat (documentary on youtube)

Speaking of "genetically modified" *sarcastic air quotes* food...
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/2541-Feeding-Edge

Well no offense to Bob because I like his shows but that video was pure heresay. There is no data or sources that suggest his statement was nothing more than an opinion of an individual. Again if you would like to learn something about the food you eat you should check out those documentaries.

This is probably going to be a low blow so forgive me but if you prefer going by someone sounding right rather than the stats that prove him right, Mit Romney will be a great president for you.

 

[Canadish]

While your instinct (and mine) might be to panic, this is only the first study to link coffee and glaucoma, so there's more science to be done before we fully understand the relationship between them.

No, my first instinct is to go 'So what?' Everything I consume is apparently harmful to me in some way or other whether it causes cancer, glaucoma or some other damn thing. How about studies to show what things WON'T harm and/or kill me? It'd probably result in a much shorter list.

Pretty soon that will be nearly impossible to have food that wont cause cancer. Companies such as monsanto are trying to pass a bill so that they do not have to even label something as genetically modified food. Also if you are a documentary lover and like learning about what you eat you should watch:

1. Food inc (documentary its on netflix)

2. Men who make us fat (documentary on youtube)

Speaking of "genetically modified" *sarcastic air quotes* food...
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/2541-Feeding-Edge

You're seriously trying to suggest selective breeding is the same as genetic modification?

Think about it for a minute. Please.

 

[Genocidicles]

Why is that so if I may ask? It still tastes roughly like coffee, it still contains most of the same chemicals as coffee (even caffeine).

Doesn't wake you up in the morning though, which may as well be the purpose for coffee.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

While your instinct (and mine) might be to panic, this is only the first study to link coffee and glaucoma, so there's more science to be done before we fully understand the relationship between them.

No, my first instinct is to go 'So what?' Everything I consume is apparently harmful to me in some way or other whether it causes cancer, glaucoma or some other damn thing. How about studies to show what things WON'T harm and/or kill me? It'd probably result in a much shorter list.

Pretty soon that will be nearly impossible to have food that wont cause cancer. Companies such as monsanto are trying to pass a bill so that they do not have to even label something as genetically modified food. Also if you are a documentary lover and like learning about what you eat you should watch:

1. Food inc (documentary its on netflix)

2. Men who make us fat (documentary on youtube)

Speaking of "genetically modified" *sarcastic air quotes* food...
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/2541-Feeding-Edge

Well no offense to Bob because I like his shows but that video was pure heresay. There is no data or sources that suggest his statement was nothing more than an opinion of an individual. Again if you would like to learn something about the food you eat you should check out those documentaries.

This is probably going to be a low blow so forgive me but if you prefer going by someone sounding right rather than the stats that prove him right, Mit Romney will be a great president for you.

How exactly is selective breeding any different from genetic modification? The results are essentially the same and the latter doesn't take as long. As Bob says the only difference is that the former is done by friendly looking farmers in straw hats and overalls and the latter is done by scary looking dudes (or dudettes) in lab coats.

While your instinct (and mine) might be to panic, this is only the first study to link coffee and glaucoma, so there's more science to be done before we fully understand the relationship between them.

No, my first instinct is to go 'So what?' Everything I consume is apparently harmful to me in some way or other whether it causes cancer, glaucoma or some other damn thing. How about studies to show what things WON'T harm and/or kill me? It'd probably result in a much shorter list.

Pretty soon that will be nearly impossible to have food that wont cause cancer. Companies such as monsanto are trying to pass a bill so that they do not have to even label something as genetically modified food. Also if you are a documentary lover and like learning about what you eat you should watch:

1. Food inc (documentary its on netflix)

2. Men who make us fat (documentary on youtube)

Speaking of "genetically modified" *sarcastic air quotes* food...
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/2541-Feeding-Edge

You're seriously trying to suggest selective breeding is the same as genetic modification?

Think about it for a minute. Please.

Care to explain the difference to me then, besides what I already stated above?

 

[Yopaz]

If it's not associated with other caffeine products than perhaps it's linked to something else in the coffee. Should of had a decaff control.

The article states there's no link with decaf.

Why is that so if I may ask? It still tastes roughly like coffee, it still contains most of the same chemicals as coffee (even caffeine).

Doesn't wake you up in the morning though, which may as well be the purpose for coffee.

Oh, so that's what defines coffee? I thought it was defined by the fact that it's being brewed from coffee beans, or its chemical composition. I was wrong it seems, anything you don't consider coffee isn't coffee. Seriously though, do you have a real reason why it's not coffee?

 

[Baresark]

While this is interesting, and there certainly is enough data points to satisfy the law of large numbers.... there isn't enough information about this study available to be conclusive. They only tracked coffee drinking and no other habits. People with a family history of a disease do not represent a genetic link like many people think (ie. a genetic weakness to some chemical found within coffee). The greater link tends to be learned habits. This learned habit could be coffee consumption, surely enough though. The study is interesting, but it's not conclusive. Also, they say the link is NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT. I'm counting the days till this shows up on the local news. They do love to spread inflammatory stories because there isn't enough bad news in the world.

 

[Yopaz]

Care to explain the difference to me then, besides what I already stated above?

The difference is that you strengthen genetic expression that was already present in the organism you are modifying rather than introducing a foreign gene that never required the existence of any natural occurrence of the gene. It's possible to introduce a gene in a tomato plant that will make it resist cold weather. Genetic modification gives us the possibility to make things nature never would. Selective breeding uses what nature is already using. Is there really no difference?

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Care to explain the difference to me then, besides what I already stated above?

The difference is that you strengthen genetic expression that was already present in the organism you are modifying rather than introducing a foreign gene that never required the existence of any natural occurrence of the gene. It's possible to introduce a gene in a tomato plant that will make it resist cold weather. Genetic modification gives us the possibility to make things nature never would. Selective breeding uses what nature is already using. Is there really no difference?

We're still talking about producing plants and animals with traits we desire, so no.

 

[Canadish]

Care to explain the difference to me then, besides what I already stated above?

The difference is that you strengthen genetic expression that was already present in the organism you are modifying rather than introducing a foreign gene that never required the existence of any natural occurrence of the gene. It's possible to introduce a gene in a tomato plant that will make it resist cold weather. Genetic modification gives us the possibility to make things nature never would. Selective breeding uses what nature is already using. Is there really no difference?

We're still talking about producing plants and animals with traits we desire, so no.

Whatever so you say buddy.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Care to explain the difference to me then, besides what I already stated above?

The difference is that you strengthen genetic expression that was already present in the organism you are modifying rather than introducing a foreign gene that never required the existence of any natural occurrence of the gene. It's possible to introduce a gene in a tomato plant that will make it resist cold weather. Genetic modification gives us the possibility to make things nature never would. Selective breeding uses what nature is already using. Is there really no difference?

We're still talking about producing plants and animals with traits we desire, so no.

Whatever so you say buddy.

I could say the same to you since you seem to enjoy buying into fearmongering*. But whatever, I'm done derailing this thread.

EDIT: *Not meaning to be rude or disrespectful.

 

[tautologico]

No one should worry about the results of a single observational study, ever.

 

[Yopaz]

Care to explain the difference to me then, besides what I already stated above?

The difference is that you strengthen genetic expression that was already present in the organism you are modifying rather than introducing a foreign gene that never required the existence of any natural occurrence of the gene. It's possible to introduce a gene in a tomato plant that will make it resist cold weather. Genetic modification gives us the possibility to make things nature never would. Selective breeding uses what nature is already using. Is there really no difference?

We're still talking about producing plants and animals with traits we desire, so no.

So there's no difference in introducing genes that would never ever occur in in an organism and using genes already present in the organism?

Can you please explain the reasoning behind that?

E. Coli could never have started producing human insulin without a genetic modification. A tomato could and have naturally evolved to have 3 carpels. With selective breeding we just used that mutation because it gave us bigger fruits.

What you're saying here is that there's no difference between possible and impossible.

 

[BlackStar42]

Wait, it's only coffee that causes the issue? Guess I can keep feeding my tea addiction then

Search your feelings, you know it to be the superior drink.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Care to explain the difference to me then, besides what I already stated above?

The difference is that you strengthen genetic expression that was already present in the organism you are modifying rather than introducing a foreign gene that never required the existence of any natural occurrence of the gene. It's possible to introduce a gene in a tomato plant that will make it resist cold weather. Genetic modification gives us the possibility to make things nature never would. Selective breeding uses what nature is already using. Is there really no difference?

We're still talking about producing plants and animals with traits we desire, so no.

So there's no difference in introducing genes that would never ever occur in in an organism and using genes already present in the organism?

Can you please explain the reasoning behind that?

E. Coli could never have started producing human insulin without a genetic modification. A tomato could and have naturally evolved to have 3 carpels. With selective breeding we just used that mutation because it gave us bigger fruits.

What you're saying here is that there's no difference between possible and impossible.

No I am not, but I've already said I'm done derailing this thread and as such done with this discussion!

 

[dharmaBum0]

What's this thread about? I'm having trouble reading it. I probably just need more coffee...

 

[Yopaz]

Care to explain the difference to me then, besides what I already stated above?

The difference is that you strengthen genetic expression that was already present in the organism you are modifying rather than introducing a foreign gene that never required the existence of any natural occurrence of the gene. It's possible to introduce a gene in a tomato plant that will make it resist cold weather. Genetic modification gives us the possibility to make things nature never would. Selective breeding uses what nature is already using. Is there really no difference?

We're still talking about producing plants and animals with traits we desire, so no.

So there's no difference in introducing genes that would never ever occur in in an organism and using genes already present in the organism?

Can you please explain the reasoning behind that?

E. Coli could never have started producing human insulin without a genetic modification. A tomato could and have naturally evolved to have 3 carpels. With selective breeding we just used that mutation because it gave us bigger fruits.

What you're saying here is that there's no difference between possible and impossible.

No I am not, but I've already said I'm done derailing this thread and as such done with this discussion!

Are you done because you're unable to explain your reasoning when you face someone who knows the difference or are you done because you actually believe you don't want to derail the thread further?

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Care to explain the difference to me then, besides what I already stated above?

The difference is that you strengthen genetic expression that was already present in the organism you are modifying rather than introducing a foreign gene that never required the existence of any natural occurrence of the gene. It's possible to introduce a gene in a tomato plant that will make it resist cold weather. Genetic modification gives us the possibility to make things nature never would. Selective breeding uses what nature is already using. Is there really no difference?

We're still talking about producing plants and animals with traits we desire, so no.

So there's no difference in introducing genes that would never ever occur in in an organism and using genes already present in the organism?

Can you please explain the reasoning behind that?

E. Coli could never have started producing human insulin without a genetic modification. A tomato could and have naturally evolved to have 3 carpels. With selective breeding we just used that mutation because it gave us bigger fruits.

What you're saying here is that there's no difference between possible and impossible.

No I am not, but I've already said I'm done derailing this thread and as such done with this discussion!

Are you done because you're unable to explain your reasoning when you face someone who knows the difference or are you done because you actually believe you don't want to derail the thread further?

I'm done because a) I actually don't want to derail this thread any further. And b) Because arguing on the Internet is a futile waste of time. I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine so there is no bloody point.