On Tuesday we learned that coffee contains the came cancer-fighting
polyphenols as green tea but that 70% of them are destroyed by the roasting
process. See <http://www.suntimes.com/output/health/coff22.html>.Today I received this month's newsletter for Dr. Julian Whitaker in which
he mentions different benefits. Coffee has shown an ability to improve such
conditions as migraine headaches, Parkinson's Disease, colon cancer, kidney
stones, gallstones and asthma. Coffee also boosts athletic performance by
improving the body's ability to release fat from storage and burn fat
rather than carbohydrates during heavy exercise. Coffee's reputation for
increasing blood pressure is not deserved because the increase is barely
measurable in most people and is almost always temporary - it does not
contribute to chronic high blood pressure. Also, coffee has the ability to
increase cholesterol but only if you prepare it without a filter. Coffee
filters effectively remove the oils that contribute to the raising of LDL
cholesterol. I have heard about other benefits over the years as well. The
New York Times had an article about this two years ago.
Coffee is not a miracle cure but concerns about its safety are overblown
and it may just be beneficial on balance.
Don

The "as much as 70%" destruction of the polyphenols is misleading 
advertising. If Slaga had stated "on average, 30%", I would more likely
believe it, but then people would just ignore his claims of a healthier
coffee. No doubt Slaga is trying to make money by *licensing* his "process".
The more I learn about health and nutrition, the more I realize that nearly
every food has health benefits. It is not the food that causes problems but
the abuse of it, by eating too much of some and not enough of others, and by
improper preparation and spoilage.
IMHO it is not the oils in coffee that raise cholesterol levels (if in fact
that proves to be true), but the *rancid oils* in coffee allowed to go stale
for months or even years on a supermarket shelf. What if there is an actual
health benefit to coffee oils, and those who filter their fresh roasted
coffee are missing out?
--
Ken Mary - Aromaroast - whirlyblade - decanter
----------
<Snip>
<Snip>

Hmmm, I guess I'll have to drink 70% more coffee then. Back to
SweetMaria's for more green... :)
Mike
<Snip>

Ken,
Hard to say what Slaga is up to. My only point was that coffee has for
decades been looked upon with suspicion if not outright hostility by many
who fancy themselves enlightened with regard to nutrition. It is refreshing
to hear that there may be some benefits and that the benefits may, in fact,
outweigh the hazards.
Nutrition is a very complex subject about which we really know very little.
People didn't start thinking about the foods we eat until the end of the
19th Century when guys like Kellogg and Graham began asserting that grains
(whole grains in particular) are good for us. Prior to that time the
problem was getting enough calories to stay alive. In many parts of the
world that is still a big problem. The Health Food Movement didn't get
rolling until the 1930s and didn't hit its stride until the 70s when the
whole world suddenly discovered Natural Foods. The medical establishment
initially scorned much of this information but if you compare the
recommendations of mainstream nutritional science today with those of the
Health Food wackos in the 1950s you will discover that many of those weird
ideas have been adopted as gospel. In the mean time, those on the cutting
edge of nutritional wackiness have moved on and rejected most of these
recommendations as groundless platitudes. And who's to say that the
opinions of today's nutritional extremists won't become gospel 20 years
down the road? Nutritional science is still at the stage of development
where it looks more like a religion than a science. Dogmas come and go.
Heretics are pilloried in the media. Nutritional sects flourish on the
fringes. Just look at how many varieties of vegetarianism there are. People
embrace diets the way they embrace religious cults. For some people, diet
is their only religion.
I am not criticizing any of this. I enjoy it immensely. But I do assert
that our knowledge of nutrition is still very primitive. Dietary
recommendations are particularly dangerous in a country like the US where
so many gene pools have blended. Is the proper diet for an Eskimo the same
as that for a Mexican of Mayan descent or a Tibetan or a Cambodian or an
Australian aborigine? Over millennia, evolution has weeded out the Eskimos
who can not thrive on a diet of foods available above the Arctic Circle.
Meanwhile, similar processes were at work on the inhabitants of Peru. What
happens when a native Peruvian marries a native Alaskan? What diet is
appropriate for their children? Who knows? But the whole issue is so much
more complicated than even this that these questions are almost irrelevant. 
Those of us in the West have become sufficiently affluent and secure to
have the luxury of choosing the foods we eat. We know what sort of
nutrients are necessary to keep people alive. The game today is to figure
out what sort of diet is optimum. Here, opinions proliferate but hard data
is difficult to come by.
I have been tracking this stuff ever since childhood. I have close
relatives who were among the earliest Health Food nuts back in the 30s.
That doesn't make me an expert but it does give me a perspective. I have
seen a lot of fads come and go. I have also seen the medical establishment
make radical changes in official policy regarding nutrition. The son of an
acquaintance just graduated from medical school. He grew up accepting
natural foods and dietary supplements as completely normal. He will take
that mind set with him into the medical profession but he will marry it
with a respect for hard science (I hope).
Regarding coffee, we have not even isolated most of the compounds it
contains much less figured out what they are for. But it has been used long
enough for us to be fairly certain that it is safe for most people when
taken in moderation. The fact that it may even be beneficial is a fairly
recent discovery. Sounds interesting to me.
Don
At 08:53 AM 8/25/00 -0400, you wrote:
<Snip>

Don,
Not to open up a can of worms, but one of the people whose health
pronouncements were followed in the 60's and 70's was Edgar Cayce (the
Sleeping Prophet). One of the things he said was that coffee is a food and
it only became harmful when mixed with milk, where it then formed, according
to him, a "leathery substance"  in the digestive system. I've heard others
say this same thing....
Just some info....
Angelo
<Snip>
refreshing
<Snip>
fact,
<Snip>
little.
<Snip>
People
<Snip>
irrelevant.
<Snip>
long
<Snip>
"process".
<Snip>
nearly
<Snip>
but
<Snip>
by
<Snip>
fact
<Snip>
stale
<Snip>
actual
<Snip>
roasting
<Snip>
which
<Snip>
such
<Snip>
kidney
<Snip>
by
<Snip>
for
<Snip>
barely
<Snip>
to
<Snip>
Coffee
<Snip>
LDL
<Snip>
The
<Snip>
overblown
<Snip>

this is as silly as they get.   Coffee was pronounced evil because it was
popular.  You can't be a guru unless you tell people to do things
differently.  When someone makes a lifestyle change based on your
recommendations, they have an increased need to believe you're important and
authoritative.  People who induce fear get their followers to huddle closer
and rsist outsiders with greater fervency.  Truth is irrelevant.  The real
reason people figured coffee had to be bad is because it produced bad
breath.   :)
Bob C.
rcantor

The real reason that all independent, scientific, nutritionally sound studies
have pronounced coffee "bad"  is that it has been objectively found to be so.
I'm talking here about studies uninfluenced by major moneyed interests and done
in as thoroughly scientifically objective and controlled ways as possible
Caffeine aside, the roasted hydrocarbons in any but minute quantities in the
diet, are thoroughly harmful to overall health.  Caffeine, like all strong
stimulants, is a "super catalyst" to metabolism.  It forces the body to draw on
reserves of fuels and nutrients to the extent that, with regular use, the body
is depleted.  As far as being a carcinogen goes, I'm unsure but would gladly do
some research..
Wishing the group a happy, healthy morning; but not a hyperactive one.
Steven Schreck
Mike Gastin wrote:
<Snip>

Right on, Bob!
Just look at the history of the product Postum. (sp?) It was touted as a
healthy alternative to the 'evil' coffee and the creator, same guy who
brought us Post cereal, was thought to be a guru of health. Looking at his
life, I would say he was a bit wacco - and he drank coffee on the sly, too!
Mike Gastin

In a message dated 8/26/00 8:49:59 AM, mlgastin writes:
<< Just look at the history of the product Postum. (sp?) It was touted as a
healthy alternative to the 'evil' coffee and the creator, same guy who
brought us Post cereal, was thought to be a guru of health. Looking at his
life, I would say he was a bit wacco - and he drank coffee on the sly, too!
 >>
A friend of mine- Had me try Postum! He's a Mormon (not allowed to drink 
coffee-poor soul!) It tasted like folgers crystals (somewhat).  Interesting 
what "man" will do in able to enjoy something which they are not allowed for 
what ever reasons.  The power of mind and determination is amazing.

On 8/26/2000Steven Schreck wrote:
<Snip>
studies
<Snip>
so.
<Snip>
done
<Snip>
Name a few.
<Snip>
the
<Snip>
Sources? There are LOTS of roasted hydrocarbons in almost everyone's diet.

<Snip>
and
<Snip>
Bruce Ames at UC Berkeley was quite in vogue quite some time ago.  His
theory, loosely, is that charring or roasting anything produces harmful
substances.  I don't recall if he was proven right or wrong.
Seehttp://mcb.berkeley.edu/faculty/BMB/amesb.htmlHere's a provocative quote from an interview
http://www.reason.com/amesint.html)"Of course, almost all the world is natural chemicals, so it really makes
you rethink everything. A cup of coffee is filled with chemicals. They've
identified a thousand chemicals in a cup of coffee. But we only found 22
that have been tested in animal cancer tests out of this thousand. And of
those, 17 are carcinogens. There are 10 milligrams of known carcinogens in a
cup of coffee and that's more carcinogens than you're likely to get from
pesticide residues for a year!
Reason: Why not conclude that you shouldn't drink coffee'
Ames: But half of all the things tested are coming out positive. The point
isn't to worry so much about cups of coffee, but to rethink what we're doing
with animal cancer testing We're eating natural pesticides, which are
natural chemicals that plants use to try to kill off insects that try to eat
them. And we eat roughly 1,500 milligrams of them per day. We eat 0.09
milligrams of synthetic pesticide residues. So we're talking about
incredibly tiny amounts of synthetic pesticides, and yet the same percentage
of natural chemicals come out positive.

Steven,
These are strong words, broadly inclusive, and objectively stated as fact,
that is the impression you give. I realize that may not be your intent, so
think about this:
What "coffee" was used, months old preground?
What brew, perc, drip, boiled?
What was the consumption level, and how many years duration?
Were the studies placebo controlled double blind, or were they just surveys
of the subjects' remembered use of nondescript "coffee"?
Who or what organization sponsored the studies and what did they have to
gain by pronouncing "coffee" bad?
What sample population was used in the study, prisoners, patients, Eskimos,
certain European Ethnics who prefer boiled coffee?
Since you are willing to do some research, keep the above in mind, question
everything, and believe nothing is gospel. There is a world of difference
between rendering an opinion and stating a fact.
In any event *I believe* that a broad spectrum of food intake including
coffee will diminish the negative effects of any one food. I also *believe*
in taking conservative amounts of vitamins and minerals since I *believe*
that many foods are depleted in those substances.
Please keep us informed of your findings.
--
Ken Mary - Aromaroast - whirlyblade - decanter
----------
<Snip>
<Snip>
done
<Snip>
on
<Snip>
do
<Snip>

Don Staricka wrote:
<Snip>
Corporate equates with government and hence "federal" and visa versa.  Where
the money rides and where it comes from for the "studies" will dictate the
outcome.  What corporate or medical establishment benefits could come of a
significant reduction of coffee consumption in corporate America?  Billions are
collected through the sale of the paraphernalia of coffee preparation and
distribution; where would the corporate lost bucks be replaced from if coffee
fell off in popularity.  Not that I imagine that there is any great likelihood
that it will in the near future.
<Snip>
We're in agreement so far on this point: "Absence of proof is not proof or
absence."
<Snip>
An issue of Consumers Reports that was dedicated solely to the various coffees,
brewing equipment, etc. discovered that of all the methods of coffee brewing,
most produced no significant cholesterol in the resultant brew.  The exceptions
were: 1) Percolation, which produced a "significant amount" and 2) The
cherished french press, which produced a brew quite high in cholesterol.
Numbers I've not got at my disposal ("Absence of proof,.......etc.") but they
are available.  C.R. is unbiased in it's studies and reports (sure, nothing is,
100%; personally I can't see where they would benefit by the villianization of
the press) and well respected in general.  If anyone is interested I'm sure
that the little special issue they did on coffee can be found and scrutinized.
<Snip>
Or that we might all, alternatively, benefit more by going through the motions
of drinking coffee rather that actually doing so.
<Snip>
 LOL
<Snip>
Steven Schreck
sshreck

<Snip>
Interesting
<Snip>
for
<Snip>
My grandparents used to drink it all the time (they are Mormon as well).
When we were kids, my brother used to love the stuff. I don't remember what
it tasted like, but I do remember that I couldn't stand it. Then again, I
didn't develop a taste for coffee either, until I was about 18.
Mark

On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 07:03:55 +0000, Steven Schreck wrote:
<Snip>
	The limitations of nutritional studies are often far more
pertinent than their "findings".  For instance, for years nutritional
scientists looked for a link between tomato consumption and certain
health advantages that the Italian people enjoy over people in other
Western countries.  Numerous objective, controlled and well intentioned
studies were conducted but no such such link could be found.  Did these
studies prove conclusively that tomato consumption is not an important
contributor to the health of Italians?
	No.  What they did, was to point out how difficult it is to set
up meaningful contextual nutritional studies.  A few years ago, someone
got the bright idea that instead of examining the consumption of
tomatoes by themselves, they would examine them in the same context in
which they're consumed in Italy, i.e. with oil or cheese - a.k.a. fat. 
What was discovered, much to everyone's surprise, is that when tomatoes
are consumed with some fat, it produces a strong surge of antioxidants
in the bloodstream which are believed to be beneficial for fighting
everything from heart disease to cancer.  Consumed without fat, there
is no significant antioxidant production from tomatoes.
	Various studies with coffee have also called into question the
pertinence of the studies you cite as having "pronounced coffee 'bad'".
 Three years ago, I read about a study looking at a connection between
heart disease and coffee that evaluated the participants in a way that
hadn't been done before.  In addition to looking at how much coffee
each person consumed, the scientists also kept track of the way the
coffee was brewed.  Their findings showed that while there was a slight
correllation between heart disease and heavy coffee drinkers who's
coffee was brewed in contact with metal, there was no such correllation
with the heavy coffee drinkers who's coffee wasn't brewed in contact
with metal.  A finding like this can immediately call into question the
conclusions of all earlier studies that may have "pronounced coffee
'bad'" with regard to heart disease, without accounting for variations
and effects of the brewing method used as well as other yet
undiscovered factors.
	One of my favorite coffee studies that was reported upon just
last year, involved coffee aromatics by themselves.  This study found
that simply smelling brewed coffee can cause you body to produce a rush
of beneficial antioxidents.  That means that there are potentially
advantages to certain aspects of coffee consumption that may partially
or fully offset some of the negative findings you allude to.
	So, before we go writing off coffee as being "bad", it's
important to recognize how limited our understanding of human
nutritional needs and interactions really is.  Besides, life is a
terminal disease, so you may as well enjoy it while you got it. 
Ralph Cohen
rpcohen

If timely ingestion of morning coffee keeps me from stabbing just
one person, the health benefits to innocent secondary and tertiary
parties overide the importance of any damage to my own system, and
I will continue drink it in their interest, regardless of possible
cost to my own health.
dork

Bob,
I'm not sure if you intended this comment seriously or not but there is
considerable truth in what you say. Coffee contains compounds that
encourage the growth of bacteria in the throat and on the tongue. We all
have this bacteria but in some individuals it fourishes better than in
others and for these people bad breath can be the result. The solution is
not to stop drinking coffee but to start using the toothpaste and mouthwash
available at . These guys have figured out the
true source of chronic halitosis and how to correct it. Most theories about
the source of bad breath are rooted in ignorance and superstition. Very few
medical practitioners have a clue. Therabreath has the answer. Don't take
my word for it. Go to the web site and read what they have to say. I have
no affiliation with them and nothing to gain from making this recommendation.
Don
At 11:01 PM 8/25/00 -0500, you wrote:
<Snip>

Ralph,
Glad to hear from you. You make some very good points and I totally agree
with you. It is important that we continue doing such studies but it is
even more important that we place the results in context.  The mass media
is probably the biggest source of misinformation in this regard. If some
study discovers that Vitamin E or Vitamin C is harmful under some
circumstances the media will trumpet the news without sufficient background
information for people to make an informed decision about their own needs
for supplementation. The consequence is that most people eventually just
tune this information out as cognitive dissonance. 
We recently learned from a study that a high-fiber diet does not influence
one's susceptibility to colon cancer. Although that factoid may turn out to
be true it does contradict other studies as well as common sense. The
question is what type of fiber was ingested and how much. You can't just
take some bran pills and expect to get any benefits but I think that is
what the participants did.
There is a war going on right now in the media between Dr. Dean Ornish
(low-fat, high-carb) and Dr. Robert Atkins (high-fat, low-carb). They can
both demonstrate good results from clinical trials and they can both
bolster their claims with peer-reviewed research. The federal government
(Department of Agriculture) is going to conduct it's own study to resolve
this dispute. But so many pieces of the puzzle will be left out that I
doubt the federal study will resolve anything.
It sounds like you are very well-informed about these issues. I appreciate
your input.
Don
At 04:46 PM 8/26/00 -0400, you wrote:
<Snip>
studies
<Snip>
so.
<Snip>
and done
<Snip>

dork,
Your rock! Thanks for putting the proper perspective on this thread!
Mike Gastin

dork wrote:
<Snip>
SS

Caffine and caffine induced illusions and halucinations do not produce a
sum anything like "the proper perspective.
I'm serious! :-)
Mike Gastin wrote:
<Snip>
Steve Schreck
sshreck

What benefits have come from attempting to drive the tobacco industry out of
business?  Has crime anywhere been reduced by blaming and suing gun
manufacturers for the actions of criminals who are allowed to roam freely?
Just because some "study" or other says something is suddenly "bad" doesn't
make it so.  There are many pseudo-scientifically based assertions thrown
about these days that are based more on politics than on valid research.
There may be some small, hidden danger in coffee, or some previously unknown
benefit.  But over the last thousand years of coffee history, any major
problems would have become apparent.   To claim that one never knew that
tobacco use is harmful is ludicrous, since that has been well known and
documented for many years.  It's a choice that people make.
Personally, I plan to keep enjoying the things I like, including coffee, for
a long time to come.
As for guv'ment going after coffee, I don't think that would happen.  Coffee
is the largest legal source of income for many of the poorest people in the
world, so it's a near impossibility, politically speaking, to go after them.
Fatty foods and beer are next on the hit list.
- Anthony O.

on 8/26/00 4:30 PM, Steven Schreck at sshreck wrote:
<Snip>
Any facts to back up such an assertion? I have found that, if anything, most
such studies tend to be anti-corporate.
<Snip>
Consumer Reports. Hah. Major source of misinformation.
<Snip>
Coffee (as a non-animal product) does not contain cholesterol: it contains
compounds which allegedly elevate blood cholesterol levels.
<Snip>
Do you know how many times CR has been sued based upon bias, the plaintiff
only to lose because they had to show that CR acted with actual malice (the
standard for libeling a public figure)?

---- Begin Original Message ----
From: "Anthony Ottman" 
What benefits have come from attempting to drive the tobacco industry 
out of
business?  Has crime anywhere been reduced by blaming and suing gun
manufacturers for the actions of criminals who are allowed to roam 
freely?
---- End Original Message ----
Anthony, Anthony........I see your sensitivity training hasn't taken 
effect yet.  Don't you know the government is here to help you?  I 
personally feel much safer now..........

Steven,
Your seriousness does not change the fact that dork's comment was funny and
I enjoyed it. Sometimes it is good to laugh at this world full of things
that are trying to kill us. Our water, air and food are all bad for us. What
is left besides a good laugh?
Drink your coffee, smile and lighten up.
I am not too serious.
Mike Gastin

I think that speculation about the federal government going after coffee is
based upon a misinterpretation of something that I said. I mentioned in an
earlier post that there was a war raging in the media about the pros and
cons to two competing diets. The one devised by Dr. Dean Ornish recommends
a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet. The one recommended by Dr. Robert Atkins
recommends a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet. I also said that the federal
Department of Agriculture has funded a study to investigate the claims of
each since it didn't make sense that they could both be right. This study
has nothing to do with coffee. I mentioned it only as evidence of the
fallibility of studies in general. Both Ornish and Atkins have lots of
studies to back them up as well as lots of clinical evidence to support
their claims. Yet the claims are 180 degrees different. Nutrition is an
extremely complex subject with lots of unexpected and counter-intuitive
facts to deal with. But I mentioned this only as an analogy.
I know of no federally funded studies on coffee. As far as I know the
federal government has no interest in the subject whatsoever although it
surely loves the foreign exchange generated by Starbucks and other such
American coffee companies abroad.
Regarding the assertion of some that the government is controlled by
corporate interests there could certainly be a case made in specific
instances but, in general, the government is anti-business in my opinion.
You have to distinguish between the legislative, judicial, executive and
regulatory functions of government. The regulatory agencies are decidedly
anti-business. The judicial courts are generally pro-consumer and
anti-business. The legislative branch is of two minds on this subject and
emphasis shifts from election to election. The executive branch is probably
pro-business more often than not although Democratic administrations tend
to be more hostile to business than Republican administrations. I know that
the tobacco lobby had enormous influence for decades and that much of that
money came from corporate interests. But that is old news. Today, the most
influential lobbyists are consumer-activists of one sort or another. 
Be that as it may, coffee is not under attack from the government to my
knowledge. You will find coffee served at all government functions, on
military bases, at campaign benefits, in federally-operated cafeterias. The
FDA has no agenda regarding coffee. 
Let's get back to reality.
Don
At 08:05 AM 8/27/00 -0700, you wrote:
<Snip>

Robert Cantor wrote:
<Snip>
This time I just have to smile; and I thought you took your coffee
cupping seriously Bob.
Re.  My ending comment about seriousness; what made my respondent miss
the smiley face at the end of the sentence?
<Snip>

The best post on the subject!
Bob C.
rcantor

<Snip>
That's no fun    ;)
Bob C.
rcantor

<Snip>
You'll have to drink 233% more coffee ([[10/3]-1]*100) -- could be a
problem if you're using an HWP.
--PR, never missing an opportunity to be pedantic about mathematics

a-hem.....
if 70% are destroyed, that means 30% are left and you have to dring three
and one third times more coffee than before to get the same amount of pp's.
That's
333.333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
times as much.   Of course you'll pp at least 350 times as much if you do
:)
Bob C.
rcantor

Two ways of saying the same thing... Use a one cup reference, and you will
see:
You need to drink 3.333 cups TOTAL to get the amount of pp's that would be
in one cup, if they weren't destroyed. Or, as Prabhakar put it, you will
need to drink 2.33 cups MORE (after the first one).
Same difference.
Regards,
Rafael

So if I only drink one cup, optimistically I can say I'm getting a whole
3rd cup of pp's (glass is half full rather than half empty). Woohoo!
Actually, I drink a huge mug every morning which amounts to half a pot
of coffee, so I'm getting the equivelent of over a cup of coffee with
100% pp's. God, these numbers, percentages and nit-picking are frying my
brain - I'll have another mug and be happy...
Mike
cationic wrote:
<Snip>

<Snip>
As if I needed an excuse to drink 2.33 cups more.
Long as I'm posting: did a lot of travelling in Europe this summer,
and it was mostly restaurant and hotel coffee. Bleah. Did find a nice
roastery in Amsterdam -- Probat roaster in front, good display of
espresso machines and paraphernalia. Coffee was only so-so,
though. Just south of Vondelpark and north of the Stedelijk. Can get
the exact name and address if anyone wants.
I can't decide if the 50/50 preblend of Sulawesi Toraja Boengie "Fat
Bean" and Yemen Mocha Ismaili I made on return was superb or if I was
just glad to be home and roasting again.
Oh, and for the first time in a decade, I didn't bring any Peet's
coffee back from Berkeley. Free at last! --PR

Steve,
King Charles was right, of course. Both the French and American revolutions
could be traced back to ideas discussed in coffee houses. There is a
fascinating book titled "The Penny Universities" by Aytoun Ellis. It is
long out of print but you can still find it at the used book sites. This
book chronicles the importance of coffee houses as a cultural institution.
Back in the 18th Century people paid a cover charge of one penny to gain
entrance to a coffee house. There they could sit all day participating in
debates or simply soaking up the ambiance. They could also drink coffee but
that was purely secondary. One could get a very well-rounded education just
by hanging around. The network of coffee houses back then was an early
predecessor of the Internet.
Don
At 06:22 PM 8/28/00 -0500, you wrote:
<Snip>

Yep, kind of reminds me of the 1960s and the Vietnam war days. Snap, snap. 
Snap. We all knew it was the wrong place to be and the wrong thing to be 
doing, but it took the government years to wake up and quit while we were way 
behind. Snap, snap, snap.
<Snip>

Hanging around the internet talking about coffee and getting an education at
the same time.  
   Love this list.
     Jim Gundlach
        just roasted some more monkey blend over a pecan fire.
<Snip>

<Snip>
...and as many know, coffeehouses evolved into some of the largest british
institutions. Lloyds of london was originally a coffeehouse...
T
                  "Great coffee comes from tiny roasters"
           Sweet Maria's Home Coffee Roasting  -  Tom & Maria
                     http://www.sweetmarias.com

From: "Tom & Maria" 
<Snip>
revolutions
<Snip>
Of some relevance is the fact that the owner/founder of Worthington
Industries and owner of the Columbus Blue Jackets hockey team refused to
allow his employees to take coffee breaks precisely because of his feeling
that that would be where discontent would be fomented.  Meanwhile, he
offered free coffee that could be brought back to work places, free on site
hair cuts during work hours, and other amenities, so he wasn't a draconian
boss despite what the ban on coffee breaks might suggest.
Mike Geis