November 23, 2007: Giving Thanks, Donations, and Dispatches
-- ACSH staffers (from their respective hometowns) hope everyone had a delicious Thanksgiving yesterday. (We also hope you shared your ACSH Holiday Dinner Menu with your family! If you did not request a copy, you can download one here.)
-- ACSH Trustee -- and past president of the New York Academy of Sciences -- Rodney Nichols suggested we invite ACSH donors to have an "honorary seat" at our morning table, weighing in on the day's news topics, and asking questions. We loved the idea!
So, we are inviting you to sponsor a morning meeting. With a donation of $250 or more, you receive a seat at our table, as you join us for a healthy breakfast and interesting conversation. Your sponsorship will be acknowledged in that day's e-mailed Morning Dispatch. We understand not all sound-science supporters call New York City their home, so we also have a (toll-free!) phone number that will provide a virtual seat, allowing us to include your comments in that day's Dispatch (you can see past examples of these popular e-mails in our latest Dispatches Round-Up).
-- One holiday note in closing: that Thanksgiving dinner included plenty of chemicals -- made by nature -- which doesn't seem to alarm anyone, nor should it, nor should comparable manmade chemicals, a point made by ACSH's Dr. Elizabeth Whelan in a Thanksgiving column for the New York Post.
November 26, 2007: Less AIDS, More Recalls, Bad Doctor
"Nonetheless, the new estimates mean the vision Mr. Sullivan had of the American epidemic is now possible for the global one: a day when AIDS is viewed as a chronic problem, another viral predator taking down the careless or weak members of the herd, as pneumonia takes down the old ones." --Donald G. McNeil, Jr., New York Times reporter, on the revised UN estimates of AIDS sufferers worldwide.
--Yesterday, at the tail end of the eating holiday that is Thanksgiving weekend, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service warned Midwestern states about almost 100,000 pounds of ground beef that may be contaminated with E. coli bacteria. Yet another recall, and here at ACSH we're left wondering, yet again, when will the food manufacturers learn? At this point, we are beginning to think these companies would rather risk going out of business or go bankrupt, like Topps, than irradiate their burgers.
When we spotted today's editorial in the New York Times on food safety and loss of consumer confidence, we figured we were on the same page as the Times. But alas, the article focused on regulation, never mentioning safe and effective food irradiation technology.
ACSH's Dr. Ruth Kava explained that the opponents of irradiation say the process ruins the nutritional value of the food (which is not true). Also, opponents use an argument similar to those used against pasteurizing milk -- that if the final step in processing kills the dangerous bacteria, the processing plants won't have any reason to be careful about sanitation. "It wasn't true with dairies, and I don't believe it's true now," Dr. Kava said.
--Dr. Mark Nesselson admitted in this weekend's New York Post that he falsified documents for families who didn't want their children to get state-mandated vaccinations. The falsified records allowed the children into schools.
ACSH's main complaint about this story is how it was covered by the Post: Dr. Nesselson was made to sound like a hero. The caption to his photo refers to "documented health risks of vaccinations" -- a completely inaccurate statement. (Finally, toward the bottom of this story, these "documented health risks" are negated -- the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is quoted as saying "the great preponderance of evidence is that there's no link between vaccines and autism.")
The article sends a "mixed message," ACSH's Dr. Gil Ross said. While Dr. Nesselson may be proud of his actions (he admits to falsifying more records than those for which he was charged), but what if more doctors "cooperated" with fearful parents? How many unvaccinated children would be in our schools? Such behavior would inevitably lead to a resurgence in childhood infections we thought relegated to the dustbin of history.
--Last week the United Nations' AIDS-fighting agency admitted to overestimating the number of AIDS infections by six million people. Here at ACSH, we weren't too surprised. As Dr Ross said, epidemiology is not an exact science -- it's impossible to count every single AIDS sufferer in the world! When reading the New York Times Week in Review's analysis of the news, we agreed with its assertion: that AIDS has peaked.
ACSH's Dr. Elizabeth Whelan says this news reminds her of the 1980s and 1990s -- the age of doom and gloom regarding AIDS. No one thought New York City would be able to cope with the impending wave of AIDS cases and deaths. And yet, the worst never happened. This is not to downplay the deaths caused by AIDS, but the anticipated huge numbers never did occur.
Dr. Whelan said she attributes this mostly to the fact that the initial estimates of AIDS sufferers were dramatically overstated in New York City. Initial estimates also were inflated -- putting the number at 500,000 New Yorkers suffering from AIDS (later it was reduced to 250,000). The city that had the most accurate estimate was San Francisco, Dr. Whelan remembers. There, health officials did a lot of telephone surveys -- in San Francisco, AIDS was a topic people were comfortable talking about. In addition to the initial overestimate, by the mid-1990s pharmaceuticals were introduced that have made HIV into a chronic disease, allowing people to live much, much longer. Nowadays, we hardly ever hear about Americans getting full-blown AIDS. While it's good news that the number of AIDS infections seems to have peaked, the number of AIDS sufferers in the world is still too high.
--As we mentioned last week, we are inviting you to sponsor an ACSH morning meeting. With a donation of $250 or more, you receive a seat at our table, as you join us for a healthy breakfast and interesting conversation. Your sponsorship will be acknowledged in that day's e-mailed Morning Dispatch. We understand not all sound science supporters call New York City their home, so we also have a (toll-free!) phone number that will provide a virtual seat, allowing us to include your comments in that day's Dispatch.
November 27, 2007: Denser Breasts, Sugar Beets, and More
--Quote to Note: "We really think that consumer attitudes have come to accept food from biotechnology." --David Berg, president of American Crystal Sugar, the nation's largest sugar beet processor.
--In the current era of rapid scientific progress, new biotech products are always on the horizon. Unfortunately, small groups protesting to keep them away from consumers also always seem to be forming.
Today, we learned that Roundup-resistant sugar beets are finally hitting the market, even though they've been ready for more than seven years. (Roundup is a herbicide that kills weeds; these beets are genetically modified to withstand the Roundup.)
What irks ACSH staffers is the seven-year delay. There are two major hurdles for science and food technology, ACSH's Dr. Gil Ross noted. First is consumer fear. Second is corporate fear of consumer fear. We discussed this same topic yesterday -- more than consumers actually worrying about food irradiation, the food producers are fearful of a backlash, so they'd rather risk E. coli infections than use the best preventive technology available to them. Similarly, the fear of a consumer backlash drove Target to take toys containing phthalates off its shelves.
But worrying about genetically engineered foods is pure nonsense, ACSH's Dr. Ruth Kava explained. "We've been using gene-spliced maize (corn) for years -- and no one has documented any health or environmental harm." The problem is, here at ACSH we don't know how to change the protest trend. Only a very, very small number of people are driving the protests, but they are a large enough group to get their point across. What these protesters don't realize, Dr. Ross said, is that these biotech crops will save lives. They won't save lives in the United States where larger crop yields aren't necessary for basic survival. But in places like Africa, more food is needed to feed the starving population.
Although it took seven years, we're pleased that David Berg, the president of Amercan Crystal Sugar, the nation's largest sugar beet processor, listened not to the 681 identical e-mail messages of protest he received but rather to sound science, and he is now going through with the use of genetically engineered beets.
--In the realm of the absurd is a report suggesting a reason that women who live in cities might have a higher risk of breast cancer (we thought all the breast cancer risk hype would die after October, breast cancer awareness month, but we clearly thought wrong). According to the research, women who lived in London had much denser breasts, and as prior research has shown, those with the densest breasts are four times more likely to develop cancer.
The absurdity? The study claims air pollution is the cause of denser breasts, because it contains "tiny particles that mimic female sex hormones."
Here at ACSH, we have some other ideas as to why women in London may have denser breasts. We agree with the warning of Prof. Stephen Duffy, Cancer Research UK's professor of screening, who suggested the findings might be related to weight. Women in cities tend to be thinner -- indeed, women living in London were the thinnest in the country. "Breast density is known to be inversely related to body weight," Duffy said. This makes far more sense to us than air pollution. Also, ACSH's Dr. Whelan suggested, there are other confounding factors -- such as women who live in cities putting off childbirth longer than those who live in more rural areas, another indicator of breast cancer risk.
November 28, 2007: Science from NYC Mayor, CDC Victim, and UK Science Advisor
-- Quote to Note: "It would be historically misleading (and morally wrong) to overstate the number of true 9/11 victims, even if it makes the public feel good about doing something "nice" for recovery workers. It matters whether these folks were injured on 9/11, got sick later, or suffered from unrelated maladies." --New York Post editorial.
--Looks like our friend Andrew, of our "Free Andrew" campaign, finally got a break. Months since he illegally flew from Europe back into the United States and set off an international health scare, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found that no one on Speaker's flight got infected with TB.
This certainly does not help the CDC justify its aggressive actions -- including arguing that Speaker was highly infectious and ordering him not to fly back to the United States from Italy (all after allowing him to fly to Europe in the first place instead of forbidding him to go). As ACSH's Dr. Elizabeth Whelan said when the controversy was unfolding, it seemed overcautious -- President Bush even signed an executive order to mandate Speaker's quarantine, a power that hadn't been invoked since 1963 in the case of a person suspected of having smallpox.
While, as ACSH's Dr. Gil Ross points out, we understand a rule's a rule, it's bothersome that the CDC backtracked in Speaker's case and tried to blame him, when it was the CDC's fault Speaker was in Europe and trying to get home in the first place (it is also interesting that we now know Speaker never had the extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis but rather a less dangerous strain).
--When reading today's New York Post editorial on 9/11 emergency workers, ACSH staffers had to rub their eyes -- the article conveyed the same sentiments as an op-ed written by ACSH's Jeff Stier earlier this year. The editorial applauds Mayor Michael Bloomberg for putting science over emotion in determining cause of death for Ground Zero workers. We applaud Mayor Bloomberg and New York City's Chief Medical Examiner Charles Hirsch for standing tall, choosing sound science even in the face of political interests.
--Yesterday we had a long discussion yesterday about genetically-engineered crops. It turns out a similar debate was going on across the pond. Sir David King, Britain's top scientific advisor, encouraged his country to move ahead with the development of genetically-modified crops. Sir David is stepping down from his position as advisor at the end of 2007, a fact that saddens us here at ACSH. It's so rare to hear a scientific advisor brave enough to come out and support something that runs counter to popular opinion right now, especially in Britain. It's also amazing to compare scientific advances and acceptance of scientific technology across the world -- China is perhaps the best about embracing science in all areas. In the United States, currently, there's a moralistic debate about stem cell research. And in England, while stem cell research is being pursued, there's resistance to genetically-modified crops.
And not even Sir David can single-handedly turn the opposition around -- as Prime Minister Gordon Brown said, Britain is "not in [the] position at the moment" to develop GM plant foods, and there is only one approved GM crop in Europe. We suggest Britain follow Sir David's suggestion and approve more.
--Finally, the National Cancer Institute's online risk calculator for assessing a woman's risk of breast cancer is getting updated to better reflect the risks for black women.
Dr. Ross said he believes this is a good thing -- there are many chemoprevention medications on the market now, and some women should be taking them to lower their risk. When making a decision about whether or not to take chemoprevention medication, one must weigh the risks of the drugs against the benefits of reducing one's cancer risk. Having a handle on one's actual cancer risk is an essential element of that equation. While not entirely accurate, in general a risk calculator such as the NCI's can help make that decision.
Make sure to read our updated publication, Reducing Breast Cancer Risks with Drugs to learn more.
November 29, 2007: Bulging, Branding, and Bacteria
-- Quote to Note: "Women started smoking in what I call the Virginia Slims era, when they started sponsoring sporting events. It’s now just catching up to them." --Dr. Barry J. Make, a lung specialist at National Jewish Medical and Research Center in Denver.
-- As ACSH has been saying for years, the legacy of smoking is long-lasting. Today's New York Times front-page story on lung disease, specifically chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), illustrated just that. The number of women who have died from COPD has nearly quadrupled since 1980, the Times reports. ACSH's Dr. Gil Ross said this does not surprise him -- the curve of the number of women smokers went up after that of men, and only now are many women reaching the age when the irreversible effects of smoking are taking their toll. These are women who started smoking in the 60s and 70s when cigarette companies began targeting young women through their ads.
What's a particular shame, ACSH staffers agreed, is that most of the women profiled in the New York Times article quit smoking, but to no avail -- at least with respect to avoiding COPD. The only thing we can hope is that articles like this one can be another reason for young women -- and young men -- to never start smoking.
-- Yesterday, RJ Reynolds announced it is withdrawing its print ads for cigarettes -- a move applauded by ACSH staffers. Some of its ads, such as ones for a "Stiletto" cigarette, were unabashedly aimed at young women, printed in hot pink and black and featured in fashion magazines (and, worse, women's magazines that claim to be worried about women's health issues). Previously, California Representative Lois Capps wrote both a letter to top magazines asking them to stop accepting RJ Reynolds ads and a column in the Washington Post on the subject. We're happy to hear that even if the magazines didn't take responsibility and refuse the ads, the ads are now nonetheless off their pages and out of sight of impressionable teens.
ACSH's Dr. Elizabeth Whelan has long followed cigarette advertising in women's magazines, tracking for years how smoking is covered on editorial pages, as well as looking at content of advertisements. Dr. Whelan said one of her "favorite" cigarette ads is one from decades ago by Lucky brand cigarettes. The ad said "First the shadow, then the sorrow" and showed a woman's head with a shadow behind it of a large double chin. While doctors may read this ad and think the shadow refers to a shadow in an x-ray indicative of lung disease, it was meant to refer to a woman gaining weight. The "moral," according to the ad? "When tempted, reach for a Lucky instead."
Looking at old advertisements that market cigarettes as a weight loss aid, we're not quite so surprised about the above article on the increase in women with COPD.
-- Good news for the battle of the bulge, though -- obesity rates seem to have reached a plateau. The bad news? ACSH's Dr. Ruth Kava pointed out that the study only looks at adults, so we have no clue about how children are faring.
-- The article in today's Wall Street Journal about possible overuse of diagnostic CT scans by doctors attracted the attention of ACSH staffers -- the real issue, Dr. Ross contended, is a proper risk/benefit analysis. While the benefits of CT scans are not well documented, the risks are: too much radiation from the scans can actually cause cancer. The trick, Dr. Ross said, is to get a CT scan only if you expect to find useful information -- otherwise, pass on it.
-- Finally, ACSH staffers encourage you to check out our trustee Dr. Betsy McCaughey's op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal on unsanitary hospitals.
November 30, 2007: Salt Scares and Graveyard Shifts
-- Today's Morning Dispatch was sponsored by ACSH Trustee Thomas Campbell Jackson, with a generous donation of $250. Mr. Jackson was able to actually be in attendance with us.
-- Quote to Note: "Scientifically, it makes no sense to abandon any promising avenue just because another has opened up." --Michael Kinsley, in his Time magazine column about the newest development in stem-cell research.
-- Did your breakfast include a shake of salt this morning? If you're anything like ACSH staffers, it did. Of course, if CSPI has anything to do with it, soon your breakfast will contain much less -- if any -- sodium. CSPI's Michael Jacobson argued that by cutting down on the "overuse" of salt, thousands of American lives could be saved annually. ACSH's initial thought after reading this announcement was, wow, this sounds an awful lot like the trans fat controversy.
ACSH's Dr. Gil Ross pointed out that unlike with trans fats, there's clear scientific evidence linking excessive salt consumption and hypertension in salt-sensitive people, which is the health-related underpinning of the push for salt reduction. Hypertension is a devastating disease, one that causes strokes, heart disease and kidney disease. It's estimated that 50 million Americans have hypertension and only a quarter are being properly treated. The question, Dr. Ross explained, is to what degree are people with hypertension susceptible to salt consumption? Not all Americans are salt sensitive -- even some people who have hypertension aren't salt sensitive.
Many processed foods have a lot of salt in them. We don't know about you, but most of us have tried sodium-free foods, and our reactions to them ranged from "ugh" to "disgusting" (ever tried sodium-free V8 Juice?).
While the Grocery Manufacturers Association is currently against a sweeping reduction in sodium, ACSH Trustee and today's Morning Dispatch sponsor Thomas Campbell Jackson predicted that it will cave, come out with new products labeled "salt free," which, of course, will be much more expensive. In the end, consumers will have less-tasty products that they’re paying more for -- all in the name of public health.
We agree on one thing -- salt in high doses can be detrimental to health. But we adamantly disagree with Michael Jacobson's scare claims, saying salt should be "generally recognized as dangerous, not safe." (As ACSH's Dr. Ruth Kava pointed out, sodium and chloride are both essential nutrients!) For the average American, all this sodium talk should be taken with a grain of salt.
-- Giving a whole new meaning to the term "graveyard shift,” the International Agency for Research on Cancer announced yesterday that it is going to list working on the night shift as a "probable carcinogen." Here at ACSH, we have a great amount of respect for IARC – its founding director, Dr. John Higginson, was on our board of advisors. But we are horrified that IARC is already placing working on the night shift on its distinguished list of probable cancer causes.
The research found higher rates of prostate and breast cancer among overnight workers, partially attributing it to circadian rhythm disruptions. But as about 20% of the working population works night shifts, ACSH staffers cannot imagine people’s reactions. We wish IARC would wait until the link is more firmly established before frightening such a large portion of our population.
--Finally, today we compared columns both in Time magazine and the Washington Post on the latest development in stem cell research -- deriving stem cells from skin cells. The column in the Washington Post by Charles Krauthammer we felt really missed the mark; he called the discovery "vindication" for President Bush and said there is no longer a need for embryonic stem cell research. That is a logical fallacy.
As Michael Kinsley wrote in Time, embryonic stem cell research should continue.
"We should not cut off scientific research based on some people's 'moralistic' or religious beliefs," Dr. Ross said. As ACSH's Dr. Elizabeth Whelan pointed out, medical literature published basically agrees with ACSH -- multiple lines of research are always a good thing, because we never know where breakthroughs are going to happen. Mr. Jackson added that while it's great to see more efforts, we cannot close off one fruitful area because we've found another one.
You too can join us for a breakfast meeting by donating $250 to ACSH.
Corrie Driebusch is an ACSH research intern. Receive these dispatches each workday in your e-mail by becoming an ACSH donor -- donate here, send a tax-deductible donation to the Broadway address at the bottom of this site, or call (212-362-7044 x225) or e-mail DriebuschC[at]acsh.org.
