Search results

* The Top Diets How Do They Rate?
* Nutritional Supplements Help or Hype?
* The Food Pyramid Why It's The Healthiest and Easiest Way to Eat

To the Editor:
Greenpeace, having succeeded in terrorizing Europeans about genetically modified (GM) food ingredients, is now flexing its muscles in the United States.(Gerber Baby Food, Grilled by Greenpeace, Plans Swift Overhaul; July 30,1999) Its target is not really food manufacturers, but American parents of infants and young children.

WASHINGTON, March 20 /PRNewswire/ The American Council on Science and Health, Center for Global Food Issues, Citizens for the Integrity of Science, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Consumer Alert, and National Center for Public Policy Research sent the following letter to Mr. Orin Smith, President and CEO of Starbucks Corporation today, signed by Steven J. Milloy, Citizens for the Integrity of Science; Elizabeth M.

Health news can be confusing especially when it comes to nutrition. It often seems as though what's touted as good to eat on Tuesday is out of favor by Friday. And it seems to be happening again with the most favored food groups fruits and vegetables. Although numerous epidemiological studies support the concept that consumption of ample amounts of these foods can help protect against various types of cancer, a study in the February 14 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) finds no such benefit, at least with respect to breast cancer.

A recent issue of the journal "Science" focused on the dilemma posed by the so-called "precautionary principle," which has become enshrined in many international environmental treaties and regulations. The greatest source of controversy about the precautionary principle is its definition.
Our first introduction to the precautionary principle may have come from our mothers who told us it was better to be "safe rather than sorry", meaning we should buckle our seatbelts and throw out the left over food we forgot to refrigerate the night before.

"Flip Little Article"?
Dear Dr. [sic] Raso,

Walter Olson's July 18 editorial-page commentary "The Runaway Jury Is No Myth" describes many lines of attack that tobacco lawyers will pursue as they appeal the landmark Engle tobacco verdict. Mr. Olson's uncompromising support of each of the tobacco industry's positions, one more erroneous than the next, leads one to question whether any verdict that would hold the companies responsible for their misconduct would sit well with him.

The topic of today's quiz is "Ethical Quandaries of Two New York Journalists in the Supermarket Produce Aisle." The first is John Stossel of ABC's "20/20," who did a report earlier this year comparing organic produce with regular produce. Most of it reflected conventional wisdom among scientists: organic food has no nutritional advantages and poses a greater risk of bacterial contamination because it is grown in manure.

Earlier this week, Vice President and Presidential hopeful Al Gore declared a "war" on cancer. He promised to double federal spending on cancer research and make "a flood" of new cancer treatments and tests available to all Americans who need them. He promised that, "if I am entrusted with the presidency, I will work with you to put the same energy and priority into fighting cancer that we would put into preventing a war that could take 500,000 American lives every year." Raising not only the stakes but our expectations, the Vice President claimed that, "we can win this war."

Overview: Questions and Answers on AIDS in New York City
By Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan
President, ACSH
Question 1

To the Editor:
As Dr. Harold S. Koplewicz points out (Op-Ed, March 1), many children and adults are treated with medications that do not have Food and Drug Administration approval. The doctor is responsible for using clinical judgment to insure that a drug is safe and effective for each patient. However, an equally important issue is the risk to children from potentially dangerous substances, like androstenedione, that can be purchased from a health food store or supermarket without a prescription. Unlike pharmaceuticals, these supplements have not been tested on adults.

To the Editor:
The Personal Health column on Dec.5 correctly notes the potential of genetically-improved food to help feed the world while reducing the need for pesticides ("Gene-Altered Foods: A Case Against Panic"). Genetic engineering is thoroughly regulated by at least three separate federal agencies. Scientific data reveal no cases of any human illness from GM foods, despite over four years of common use.

Philip Morris's opposition to the use of genetically modified tobacco in cigarettes ("Tobacco Fracas in Argentina," page B1, March 7) raises an interesting issue. It appears that Philip Morris's primary concern is that consumers' irrational fear of genetically modified products will supersede most smokers' irrational tolerance of the proven health risks of smoking.

Most of the recent press coverage of the Jenna and Barbara Bush under-age drinking incident has missed the main point: Making it a crime for a 19 year old to buy an alcoholic beverage is not only unrealistic and absurd but it may be an underlying cause of today's serious problem of alcohol abuse on college campuses.
Prohibiting the sale of liquor to responsible young adults creates an atmosphere where binge drinking and alcohol abuse have become a problem. American teens, unlike their European peers, don't learn how to drink gradually, safely and in moderation.

Humankind has been consuming cows' milk as nourishment for thousands of years. Such use has contributed significantly to the development of civilization. Yet outcries to the effect that cows' milk as food is unhealthful, even poisonous, to humans have occasionally been getting play in the American media. The roots of this incongruity are complex. They lie in the culture of abundance that characterizes the present-day United States. Much of the negativism toward milk relates far less to health concerns than to antagonism toward animal agriculture.

The following letter from ACSH's medical director appeared in today's Wall Street Journal
To the Editor:

Only half of Americans and few scientists believe in alternative medicine, but we're all paying to study it.

From a relatively small $2 million per year operation in 1992, called the Office of Alternative Medicine, a behemoth has grown now known as NCCAM, the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Its funding has grown even more rapidly than the popularity of alternative medicine has and is now soaring over $100 million a year.

Steve Milloy in his weekly Foxnews.com column, commenting on conflicting NCI mammography advice:
"What's a woman even her physician to make of this? Is this the National Cancer Institute or the National Confusion Institute?"

The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) urges the U.S. Postal Service to consider using irradiation technology to sanitize mail and thus protect workers and the public from bioterrorism. ACSH is a public health consortium of over 350 leading physicians and scientists.

Although popular women's magazines state that they have a commitment to general health coverage, they fail to cover the number one cause of cancer death in women lung cancer according to a new study by the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH). Further, women's magazines publish a significant number of cigarette advertisements, while neglecting to include basic information on the negative health-related consequences of cigarette smoking.

You can't blame parents for erring "on the safe side" when it comes to their children's health. Unfortunately, parents aren't always good judges of what the "safe side" is.
A recent increase in fear of vaccinations is a case in point. The journal Pediatrics reports that parents' philosophical and religious objections to vaccinations have been a factor in most of the tetanus cases encountered in a Stanford study. A growing number of parents have also become concerned about extremely rare side effects from vaccinations and are choosing not to vaccinate their children.

We don't necessarily agree with everything on these sites, but they're generally pro-science, and we like having them around (and for more links, see: http://www.acsh.org/about/pageID.14/default.asp ):
AgBioWorld: Dedicated to bringing agricultural biotech to the developing world.
http://agbioworld.org/

Blogborygmi.com: Nick Genes and company.

We learned last weekend in a front-page New York Times story that the United States poultry industry has quietly begun to "bow to the demands of public health and consumer groups" by significantly reducing the use of antibiotics that are fed to healthy chickens. Antibiotics have been used for decades as a means of preventing infection in chickens and promoting an accelerated pattern of growth.
Is this move in the interest of promoting public health? And will consumers pay a price for the elimination of these chemicals?

What in the world are the folks at the World Health Organization thinking these days? They're supposed to be devoting their energies, expertise, and considerable budget to...world health, I believe. You remember: poverty, famine, disease? Yet only a week ago their director general, Gro Harlem Brundtland, announced that the world's most important health challenges now include "junk food," cholesterol, and alcohol. What happened to malnutrition, malaria, and AIDS? (On the bright side, she also mentioned a previously under-appreciated but looming global threat, tobacco.)