Search results

On Wed. January 20, The NY Times ran the following story buried in the metro section:
No Rise in Cancer Rate Found
at Superfund Sites
TRENTON Cancer cases among residents in six communities around three radioactive Superfund sites in Essex and Camden Counties are no greater than the average number of cases reported elsewhere in the state, the State Department of Health and Senior Services said yesterday.

New York, NY, November 18, 1998. Consumers should use caution when interpreting a new study on the possible hazards of eating well cooked meats, say scientists from the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH).

To the Editor:
Thomas J. Moore of George Washington University and Larry D. Sasich of Public Citizen's Health Research Group blame the fast track drug approval process for premature approvals and subsequent adverse drug reactions (front page, June 23). In fact the painkiller Duract, now withdrawn, would have been approved even under the old guidelines.

New York, NY, December 23, 1998¬America's high school health textbooks fail to convey sound, accurate, and balanced information about environmental health issues. So says a study published in the November/December issue of the Journal of Health Education. The study was conducted by the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), a New York-based public health advocacy group.

If, as a libertarian, Walter Olson ("The Florida Tobacco Jurors: Anything But Typical," Rule of Law, July 12) is truly against government intervention in tobacco regulation, he should favor the arena of litigation. There must be some distinction between liberty and anarchy. While there are justifiable objections to excessive legal fees in frivolous lawsuits, why Mr. Olson would choose to attack a verdict against the tobacco behemoth is a mystery. His quibbling with the plaintiff attorney's jury selection tactic--that Mr.

The plastic softener found in vinyl toys and medical devices are not harmful to children or adults, according to a distinguished panel of leading physicians and scientists chaired by former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop.
The panel, convened by the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), issued its much-anticipated report after a comprehensive review of the scientific literature concerning the phthalates DEHP and DINP. DEHP and DINP are added to vinyl medical devices and toys, respectively, to provide desirable qualities such as flexibility.

New York, June 15, 1998 The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), a public health, consumer advocacy organization, will be holding a news conference to expose the deceptive practices of the food police group, Center for Science in the Public Interest.
ACSH will release information obtained while monitoring CSPI's propaganda campaign against the fat free oil, Olestra. CSPI's vendetta to have the FDA approved additive removed as a choice consumers now enjoy in their diet has led the food police group to knowingly engage in deceptive practices.

New York, NY June 1998. In response to unprecedented demand, the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) has updated and expanded its special report Facts Versus Fears, a concise and compelling rundown of the greatest unfounded health scares of the last 40 years.

New York, NY, May 11, 1998 The scientists and physicians at the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) know that basking in the sun is a time-honored summer activity. But it shouldn't be unless sunworshippers take adequate precautions.

New York, NY March 11, 1998.Scientists at the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) today urged United States Senators to support legislation pending before the Senate (S. 981) that would require cost-benefit and risk-analysis techniques to be applied to major federal regulations.
"To ask the federal government to make use of better, modern decision-making tools such as cost-benefit and risk-analysis safeguards is plain common sense, good public policy, and good science," says Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, President of ACSH.

To the Editor:
The warning issued by Consumers Union concerning the dangers of pesticide residues on American-grown produce confuses real risks with hypothetical ones (news article, Feb. 19). The report will inspire needless fear, despite the group's protestations to the contrary.

"I am now convinced that one of the major problems is that scientists are unwilling to use the four-letter word 'safe.'"
Elizabeth M. Whelan,
president of the American Council on Science and Health.
(The New York Times, August 4, 1999,
"Study Inconclusive on Chemicals' Effects" by Gina Kolata)

In his Oct. 30 radio address, President Clinton announced efforts to protect Americans from "some of the most dangerous chemicals ever known." He incorrectly encouraged us to believe that very low exposures to certain chemicals are increasing our risk of cancer and other diseases.
He pointed his finger squarely at industry for releasing chemicals like dioxin, PCBs and mercury into the air we breathe and the water we drink. He then promised to protect families from these chemicals by requiring industry to tell us when they release even a tiny amount of certain chemicals.

The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) recently completed two studies in which experts evaluated environmental health sections of textbooks. Below are summaries of each study's findings.
The First Study

ACSH Phthalate Panel:
C. Everett Koop, MD, ScD, Chair;Daland R. Juberg, PhD;Elissa P. Benedek, MD;Ronald W. Brecher, PhD, CChem, DABT;Robert L. Brent, MD, PhD;Morton Corn, PhD;Vincent Covello, PhD;Theron W. Downes, PhD; Shayne C. Gad, PhD, DABT;Lois Swirsky Gold, PhD;F. Peter Guengerich, PhD;John Higginson, MD, FRCP;W. Hans K °nemann, PhD, RIVM;James C. Lamb IV, PhD, DABT;Paul J. Lioy, PhD;Kimberly M. Thompson, ScD
To the Editor, Medscape*

While Americans blithely go about their business, an insidious and irrational flee from technology is taking place all in the name of "public health." Over the past two months alone, two safe and useful products have been taken away from consumers despite the conclusions that the approved use of those products are safe.
To make matters worse, some manufacturers of these rejected technologies are joining forces with some extreme environmentalist groups and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to protect us from hazards that do not exist.

A study published in a respected scientific journal initiated a flurry of anti-soda rhetoric. The main message was that adolescent girls' consumption of sodas, especially colas, increases their risk of bone fractures.

If movie stars and supermodels are our gauge of beauty, teeth should be straight, big, and ultra-white. Community water fluoridation and advances in oral hygiene have led to a major decrease in the incidence of tooth decay and, therefore, in the need for fillings¬historically the mainstay of the dental profession. Dentists have responded to the economic impact of this decrease with an explosion of new procedures and marketing plans. An increase in the profitability of dental practice has resulted.

To the Editor:
Contrary to Bennett S. LeBow's statement regarding his new Vector cigarette, there is no reason to imagine that using a zero-nicotine cigarette will help smokers quit (Economics, Jan. 16). Would inhaling fine sugar promote abstinence in someone addicted to cocaine? The "double-whammy", to use his own term, will more likely double smokers' travails than reduce them.

Scientists and physicians associated with the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) report that California's Proposition 65 (Prop65), a law whose purported intent was to improve the public's health, is misdirected and highly unlikely to effect such improvement. Other states and the U.S. Congress should consider these findings as they deliberate similar prospective "right to know" legislation.

Science is under attack in affluent nations, where antibiotech activists claim consumers are being poisoned by inorganic fertilizers and synthetic pesticides. They also claim that newer genetic engineering technologies decrease biodiversity and degrade the environment. Neither claim is true, but fear-mongering could be disastrous for less-developed nations.

In recent months, many papers have carried articles and letters critical of meat (particularly beef), milk, and milk products. We are told to reduce or eliminate them from our diet to prevent or cure various diseases and environmental problems. But these prescriptions are scientifically invalid and won't achieve their touted goals. They are urged upon us despite the fact that nutritionists have recognized the exceptional dietary merits of meat and milk for over a century.

Officials at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and its subdivision, the National Toxicology Program, announced this week that the artificial sweetener saccharin would no longer appear on their list of "cancer threats."

To the Editor
The New England Journal of Medicine's apology for violating its own strict conflict-of-interest rules for reviews and editorials (news article, Feb. 24) prompts me to challenge the conventional wisdom of "the stricter the better."
Strict conflict-of-interest policies are themselves biased, since they suggest that researchers who work for drug companies are susceptible to introducing bias into a study, while government- and foundation-financed scientists never have an ax to grind.