CMR is the leading provider of funding and management support for small to medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs 

Authored by Kimberly Drake via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Coffee is beloved for its caffeine kick and flavor, but it also helps reduce risks from chronic diseases like Type 2 diabetes, cancer, and heart disease thanks to high levels of antioxidants and other bioactive compounds.

However, along with its nutty flavor and comforting aroma, researchers have found traces of potentially cancer-causing roasting byproducts, mycotoxins from mold, cholesterol-raising compounds, and even pesticide residues that can linger from farm to mug.

The good news is that the choices you make, from the type of coffee you buy to how you store, prepare, and drink it, can reduce these and other unwanted compounds swirling around in your favorite morning brew.

Before you pour out your cup, though, here’s what you need to know.

What Scientists Have Found in Coffee

Coffee contains high levels of antioxidants and bioactive compounds, such as phenolic acids, which studies suggest may be responsible for its health-boosting effects. However, other lesser-known compounds lurking in coffee aren’t as beneficial, and some may actually be harmful to your health.

While scientists have identified trace amounts of various compounds in coffee, the levels detected in research are generally low and do not pose significant health risks to most people. That said, the choices you make about the type of coffee you buy and how you store, prepare, and drink it can further reduce these trace substances.

Mycotoxins From Mold

Improper storage of coffee can lead to mold growth and the formation of mycotoxins, which, in high amounts, may affect kidney function and increase cancer risk, Julia Kopczynska, microbiologist and doctoral candidate at the Polish Academy of Sciences, told The Epoch Times.

In one study, researchers found 29 different mycotoxins in 48 coffee and chicory samples they tested.

Overall, most research has shown that coffee contains low levels of mycotoxins, and scientists have found that roasting can further reduce these levels, so the overall risk for most coffee drinkers is low.

However, among potential contaminants, Brian Clark, a nurse anesthetist and founder and CEO of United Medical Education, a platform for educating medical professionals, is most concerned about mold-related toxic compounds in coffee.

He noted that people with compromised immune systems may be more sensitive to environmental toxins, such as mycotoxins, making this the compound category that warrants the most attention for vulnerable populations.

Roasting Byproducts

While roasting coffee can reduce mycotoxins, it can also lead to the formation of acrylamide, a compound that has potentially cancer-causing and nerve-damaging properties and may harm a person’s genes, one research review suggests. Acrylamide forms when processing temperatures rise above 120 degrees Celsius (248 degrees Fahrenheit).

However, most healthy adults can process small amounts of acrylamide without adverse health effects. So, it would be difficult for a person who regularly drinks coffee to exceed laboratory exposure limits and experience any neurologic and carcinogenic issues, said Clark.

How people store and brew their coffee can also impact acrylamide levels. Storing beans or ground coffee for at least a year at an average room temperature, then brewing it longer and at a lower temperature, can further reduce acrylamide levels.

The type of bean also makes a difference, as Arabica beans generate less acrylamide than other types.

Natural Coffee Oils (Diterpenes)

Natural oils in coffee, such as the diterpenes cafestol and kahweol, can raise cholesterol levels, particularly in people who drink unfiltered coffee, Kopczynska noted.

A September review of 11 studies with more than one million participants found that moderate coffee intake (three to five cups per day) may be associated with higher high-density lipoprotein or HDL (good cholesterol) levels, while excessive intake may be associated with elevated low-density lipoprotein or LDL (bad cholesterol) and total cholesterol. Research suggests that diterpenes may influence lipid metabolism and how the body synthesizes and transports cholesterol.

However, diterpenes also have several health-promoting effects, including anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antidiabetic, and anticancer properties, Kopczynska said.

“Reducing diterpenes is therefore most [important] for people who need to manage their LDL cholesterol levels,” she noted.

Pesticide Residues

In a September study, scientists analyzed nearly 900 coffee samples sold in Egypt for 126 pesticides and found that 21 percent of the roasted samples contained pesticide residues.

Espresso and traditional Turkish coffee brewing methods reduced pesticide residues, the scientists noted, with espresso methods generally being more effective. Despite the findings, the researchers’ risk assessments revealed that the health risks from pesticide exposure through coffee consumption are low.

The Clean Label Project, a nonprofit organization that tests products for contaminants, tested 57 coffee brands for chemicals, including pesticides and glyphosate, a widely used herbicide classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans” by the World Health Organization in 2015. Its report found that only two of 57 coffee samples tested had traces of glyphosate.

However, 41 of the samples, including 100 percent of the organic samples, contained aminomethylphosphonic acid, a byproduct of glyphosate that breaks down more slowly and stays in the coffee beans for longer.

Children exposed to this byproduct may have an increased risk of liver and cardiometabolic disorders by the time they reach adulthood, a 2023 study suggests.

Pesticides and herbicides used on coffee plantations may have harmful effects on the endocrine and nervous systems, but residues in coffee are generally within safe limits, Kopczynska said. However, she added that they can contribute to a person’s overall exposure from other food or environmental sources.

Your Choice of Coffee Matters

Everything from the type of coffee purchased to the package it comes in, and even what’s stirred into it, can change what ends up in a cup of joe.

Skip the Pods

While convenient, pod-type coffee, or K-cups, which come in plastic containers, can leach chemicals like phthalates (synthetic industrial chemicals) and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS or “forever chemicals,” into a person’s coffee.

PFAS are linked to a host of health concerns. For example, people exposed to high levels of PFAS in their drinking water may be at higher risk for several types of cancer, a January study found.

Research published in February found that machine-brewed pod coffee had about 2.5 times more fluorotelomer sulfonates, a type of PFAS, than the same coffee brewed through a paper filter without the pod. When the scientists brewed plastic pods made from polypropylene, perfluorooctanoic acid, a type of PFAS, increased by 39 percent to 623 percent when machine-brewed compared to manual brewing.

Heat, combined with the pressure created during the brewing process, is how PFAS leaches from plastic pods into a person’s cup, the researchers noted.

Rethink Flavored Coffee

While they may be a delicious change from plain java, artificially flavored brews like French vanilla, hazelnut, or caramel can reduce coffee’s health benefits.

These flavorings can decrease beneficial chlorogenic acids—a group of polyphenolic compounds with antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties—and increase the levels of harmful compounds like acrylamide, compared to coffee flavored naturally, according to one study.

Reconsider Decaffeinated Coffee

Pregnant women, people with chronic health conditions, or those who are sensitive to caffeine’s effects might choose decaffeinated coffee as an alternative. However, concerns have emerged over the health effects of methylene chloride, an industrial chemical used in the decaffeination process to extract caffeine.

In July, researchers found that decaffeinated coffee may increase the risk of bladder cancer. In the study, the scientists followed more than 121,000 men and women for 36 years and found that drinking decaffeinated coffee was not associated with total cancer risk. However, men who drank the beverage had a significantly higher risk of bladder cancer than those who did not.

Think Twice About Instant Coffee

That cup of ready-to-drink coffee, which is brewed coffee that’s been dehydrated into powder or granules, is convenient on a busy morning. However, drinking instant coffee may increase the risk of age-related macular degeneration in people genetically prone to the disease, a June study found.

While many factors may play a role, the scientists noted that instant coffee’s impact on the macula may be due to inflammation and oxidative stress induced by the harmful chemicals produced during its production. They suggest that people at high risk for age-related macular degeneration should avoid instant coffee.

Be Mindful of What You Add

Although cream and sugar may make a tasty cup of coffee, adding these could undermine coffee’s health benefits.

In one study, researchers found that drinking black coffee lowered the risk of death from all causes and heart disease. However, these health benefits diminished significantly when coffee contained added sugar and cream, as these additions can contribute to a higher calorie and saturated fat intake.

Nondairy coffee creamers might not be the best choice for people who want to replace traditional cream and sugar in their coffee, either. Typically, nondairy creamers contain partially hydrogenated oils, which are high in trans fatty acids. Trans fat can raise LDL cholesterol and increase the risk of heart disease.

Nondairy creamers can also contain emulsifiers such as carrageenan and mono- and diglycerides, which may alter the gut microbiome, potentially leading to intestinal inflammation and immune system dysfunction.

Artificial sweeteners such as aspartame and erythritol may be more problematic. Aspartame has been linked to gut biome disruption and increased cancer risks, and erythritol may increase the risk of blood clots, a March study suggests.

Steps to Optimize Your Coffee

If a person is concerned about what’s in their coffee, Clark suggests purchasing whole beans from suppliers who control drying and storage, and storing them in airtight containers in a cool, dry location to slow the breakdown of the beans and inhibit mold growth.

“Although the acrylamide levels in coffee have not been shown to increase cancer risk, it is best to avoid instant coffee and coffee substitutes, which contain up to 300 percent more acrylamide,” Kopczynska said. “Darker roasts also contain less acrylamide than lighter ones.”

To reduce diterpene intake, Kopczynska suggests switching to filtered coffee, which contains roughly 30 times less diterpenes than French press or other unfiltered methods.

She also advises people to buy organic coffee, if possible, to minimize cumulative pesticide exposure.

Though organic coffee is grown without synthetic pesticides or herbicides, which can significantly reduce exposure to these chemicals, even organic beans may have traces of pesticide residues due to environmental contamination.

By carefully choosing the type of coffee and being mindful of storage and brewing practices, a person can significantly reduce the presence of unwanted chemicals in their coffee, long before it reaches their morning cup.

Authored by Jacob Burg via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Trump administration said on Dec. 10 that it would transfer roughly 760 acres of public land along the U.S.-Mexico border in California to the Navy for three years to support border security operations.

While announcing the decision Wednesday, the Interior Department said the land would become part of a “National Defense Area,” or militarized zone, to bolster immigration enforcement.

The land stretches from roughly a mile west of the California-Arizona state line to the western edge of the Otay Mountain Wilderness Area in San Diego and Imperial counties, according to the Interior Department.

“This corridor is one of the highest-traffic regions for unlawful crossings along the southern border, creating significant national security challenges and contributing to environmental degradation,” the department said.

The Interior Department said the land was originally set aside in 1907 by President Theodore Roosevelt for “border protection purposes,” and the Navy will use it to “strengthen operational capabilities while reducing ecological harm associated with sustained illegal activity.”

Since April, the federal government has transferred large portions of land along the southern border to the military, allowing troops to detain migrants attempting to cross the border or arrest people accused of trespassing on military bases.

The process began with a 170-mile swath of land along the border in New Mexico before the government expanded into Texas and Arizona.

While the Interior Department referred to the Southern California lands as a high-traffic area for illegal border crossings, arrests along the U.S.-Mexico border have dropped to the lowest level since the 1960s as the Trump administration continues its crackdown on illegal immigration.

“President Trump has made it clear that securing our border and restoring American sovereignty are top national priorities,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement.

“This action delivers on that commitment. By working with the Navy to close longstanding security gaps, we are strengthening national defense, protecting our public lands from unlawful use, and advancing the president’s agenda to put the safety and security of the American people first.”

The department said it coordinated closely with the Navy to make sure that the transfer is targeted and legal and that it reinforces the “historic role public lands have played in safeguarding national sovereignty.”

The announcement came shortly after a federal judge ordered the federal government to cease deploying California’s National Guard in Los Angeles and restore control of the troops to Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Authored by Jeff Morris via RealClearDefense,

According to the Association of the U.S. Army, the crisis of doctor shortages has been increasing for years, which negatively affects military readiness. Their own report cited the inability of the Army, Navy, and Air Force to recruit and retain enough doctors. As the number of military physicians has consistently decreased, the armed services have been forced to close some hospitals, to lower other hospitals to clinic status, and to use nurses and technicians as "physician extenders.”

More recently, leading U.S. physicians have spoken out about the largest healthcare monopoly in the country that we have ever seen, which also involves our medical residency programs. This too affects military readiness.

A renowned doctor recently wrote an OpEd in the Wall Street Journal scratching the surface on this crisis. He described how the private American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) acts like a regulator, hamstringing physicians with endless fees, paperwork, and testing.

Not only doctors are sounding the alarm. Adam Candeub, leading antitrust attorney and current General Counsel to the FCC, stated in his white paper titled The American Board of Medical Specialties: Certification and The Need for Antitrust Enforcement, that “board certification serves as medicine’s gatekeeper.” He went on to say that “competition among organizations providing these certification services drives innovation and lowers healthcare costs. The domination of the American Board of Medical Specialists (ABMS) over certification is dramatically raising certification costs and indirectly accreditation costs throughout medicine, decreasing access to physicians, increasing already exploding medical budgets, and reducing healthcare innovation.”

The urgent issue is this self proclaimed “Gold Standard and Gatekeeper” has created the largest monopoly in physician care that we’ve ever seen. All the while contributing to our current and growing physician shortages. It is important to note that testing is a key component that ensures physicians meet the very standards needed for higher quality care for all Americans. 

The ABMS has long been working with the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) to corner the market on physician board certification. Their collusive relationship, which began when ABMS co-founded the ACGME, can be considered one of the root causes of physician shortages throughout the country, the military, and within key specialties. The impact can be seen in every aspect of our health care system, greatly contributing to shortages in specialties within primary care, especially access to much-needed specialties for 21st-century medicine throughout rural America. These include emergency and integrative medicine as well as family medicine obstetrics.

In March, the Republican leadership of the House Judiciary Committee’s antitrust panel launched a probe into the nation’s medical residency system. The ACGME was one of the organizations asked to provide documents to the Committee along with the AMA and major universities. U.S. Representative Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI), said “for years, resident wages have remained stagnant while doctor shortages have increased, which harms medical students and hospital patients, and forces us to rely on foreign talent to fill the gap.”

With the Trump Administration’s mandate to end bureaucracies and monopolies within our healthcare system, Congress and HHS need to act now. The collusive activities of the ABMS and the ACGME have suppressed innovation and restricted access across the country. In addition, their bureaucratic control has gone beyond that of federal agencies such as HHS, as they now hold the Defense Health Agency under regulatory capture. This resulted in limiting our military’s ability to access much needed physician care. This drastically impacts not just military personnel, but global readiness. 

Many have spoken on the impact on maternal care, as pregnant servicewomen and military spouses often have to travel hours away or even back to mainland U.S. for months at a time to have their baby alone.

Now more than ever we need Congress and HHS to investigate the root causes of doctor shortages which in turn helps strengthen our military. 

Jeff Morris, JD is CEO of American Board of Physician Specialties.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

This week, the lingering allegations over the marital history of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) took an ominous step when Border Tsar Tom Homan publicly acknowledged that the government is looking into the matter.

Rep. Omar has long denied that she married her brother to gain his entry into the United States, but the allegation has continued to rage on the Internet and among her critics.

The question is whether this is a substantive case of fraud or defamation.

Homan stated that he was investigating whether Omar committed immigration fraud, but also noted that the statute of limitations has been an issue.

In his comment to Newsmax, Homan stated:

“I just got advised by a fraud investigator the other day on that. I asked the question, can we review the files? You know, there was immigration fraud involved. The statute of limitation became an issue in the last four years when this was first brought up…Pulling the records now, pulling the files, and we’re looking at it. But this fraud investigator, who I know personally, one of the best fraud investigators in HSI, Homeland Security Investigations, said there’s no doubt he’d review the file. So, I’m running that down this week as a matter of fact, and we’ll see.”

According to her congressional biography, Omar came to the United States with her family in the 1990s. As I have previously noted, the election of a young immigrant to Congress is genuinely remarkable and commendable.

The questions arose regarding her marriage to Ahmed Elmi in 2009. Elmi was back in the news this week with postings highlighting his lifestyle as a “dirty dandy.” Critics charged that he is actually her brother. The couple divorced in 2017, and no DNA evidence has been offered to support the claim that they are siblings.

President Donald Trump and others have been ratcheting up the rhetoric against Omar and the Somali population in Minnesota. Many of us have objected to some of the attacks on Omar as offensive.  As I have previously written, the call for foreign-born U.S. citizens to “go back to their own country” has been made for decades against foreign-born U.S. citizens. However, such attacks are generally protected speech.

The allegation against Rep. Omar is not opinion, but a statement of fact.

Many news organizations have referred to the allegation as “debunked” and “unsupported.”

In defamation, truth is a defense. The truth of the matter, however, has never been easy to establish. In fairness to Rep. Omar, a person should not be in a position of having to “prove a negative.” It is not her obligation to prove that she is not a fraud or that she did not marry her brother. Her critics have never produced compelling evidence to support the claim.

Despite years of such statements by various people, Omar has never sued for defamation. It is a curious omission, since a successful lawsuit would dramatically reduce such claims, and even as a public official she could likely show actual malice in many of her critics.

Conversely, such litigation would also expose Omar to a lengthy discovery process regarding her family’s immigration history and related family issues.

I have taught defamation for over three decades, and it is rare for such an allegation to linger without some legal action by the subject. On its face, this would be a strong defamation case if the allegation is false.

The allegation would fall into one of the “per se” categories of defamation. Under the common law, these per se categories of defamation allow for presumed damages and include: (1) disparaging a person’s professional character or standing; (2) alleging a person is unchaste; (3) alleging that a person has committed a criminal act or act of moral turpitude; (4) alleging a person has a sexual or loathsome disease; and (5) attacking a person’s business or professional reputation. The language differs among the states, but the Omar allegation would constitute a criminal act as well as an attack on her character and reputation.

As a threshold matter, Omar would face a higher standard of proof due to her status as a public official. In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court established the actual malice standard, requiring public officials to shoulder the higher burden of proving defamation. Under that standard, an official would have to show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth. That standard was later extended to public figures.

Many critics are calling the “allegations” worthy of investigation. That is certainly protected. However, it is common to see people on television claim that she married her brother as a factual statement.

The publication of DNA results would disprove these allegations. (There are no allegations of an adopted status for the brother).

If such evidence exists, it would not just be conclusive but compelling for a jury. The question is why Omar has not elected to bring such a case, given the vast array of choices of potential defendants within the statute of limitations. It is a target-rich environment for a defamation lawyer.

As for the president, he has continued to raise the allegation: “If I married my sister to get my citizenship, do you think I’d last for about two hours or something less than that? She married her brother to get in. Therefore, she’s here illegally. She should get the hell out.”

However, he would not be a good target for such an action. The Federal Tort Claims Act,  28 U.S.C. § 2680(h), expressly bars libel, slander, or defamation claims against the United States or a federal employee acting within the scope of their employment.  It is possible to sue a government employee acting outside of the scope of their employment. However, the Westfall Act protects federal employees from personal lawsuits for torts committed within the scope of their employment and substitutes the U.S. government as the defendant under the FTCA. Since the FTCA bars liability, it works to force dismissal in cases.

Moreover, this is not just another federal employee. The President also has immunity under Article II and prevailing Supreme Court caselaw. In 1982, the Supreme Court handed down Nixon v. Fitzgerald, holding that former President Richard Nixon was immune from civil suits concerning actions within the “outer perimeter” of his official duties. In 1997, the Court ruled in Clinton v. Jones that President Bill Clinton was not immune from a civil suit filed by Paula Jones — who had accused Clinton of sexual harassment — because the case involved unofficial conduct on the part of the president.

This issue is still being litigated in the case of E. Jean Carroll, who won a significant civil award against the President in New York. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected the applicability of the 2024 Supreme Court ruling recognizing broad criminal immunity for former presidents as inapplicable to the civil case.

These are statements being made during a presidency and can be claimed as privileged and immune by President Trump.

The same cannot be said for a myriad of pundits and commentators who have stated this allegation as fact.

In the end, such litigation would come down to truth as a defense. These critics are saying that Omar did marry her brother. Even if they did not have a good-faith basis for the assertion, proof that it was indeed true would still be a complete defense.

On the other hand, a defamation lawsuit could offer a dispositive judgment of a court on this lingering question. The question is now whether Rep. Omar will sue.