June 22, 1998
The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) has been monitoring the activities of The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). After a lengthy investigation of CSPI's activities, we have come to some very grave conclusions about this group, which is regularly trusted by Americans as a source of information about food safety. Our findings reveal that CSPI is knowingly engaging in deceptive practices as they attempt to persuade the public and the media that their food safety scares are legitimate.
Search
New York, NY March 1998. A study published in Cancer, the journal of the American Cancer Society, reports findings that confirm what the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) has long held: that cancer rates are falling in the United States and that death rates from the disease are declining. ACSH's position on U.S. cancer rates was set forth in detail in a 1995 booklet, Update: Is There a Cancer Epidemic in the United States?
The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) today released the names of the physicians and scientists who will serve on an independent, blue-ribbon panel to be chaired by former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. C Everett Koop. The panel will review the scientific research data relevant to the safety of vinyl plastic consumer products and medical devices containing the chemical components known as phthalate esters.
The onset of menopause presents a complex set of questions to many women. One of those questions may be whether or not to begin hormone replacement therapy (HRT).
For years researchers have been investigating the hypothesis that trace levels of such industrial chemicals as pesticides, chlorinated compounds, and heavy metals are hazardous to human health.
Although studies have failed to establish a causal relationship, some scientists and activist groups continue to emphasize the role of trace levels of synthetic chemicals in human illness.
To the Editor:
When Dr. Samuel Epstein (letter, March 15) refers to "the cancer epidemic," he apparently believes that if he and his activist cohorts repeat a falsehood often enough, the American public will come to believe it. The facts, however, prove that the opposite is true: according to statistics published by the National Cancer Institute, and endorsed by the American Cancer Society, cancer incidence and mortality rates have been declining over the past five years.
What topic can embroil one of Britain's leading scientific journals, various newspaper, TV and radio commentators, as well as the Royal Society British counterpart to our National Academy of Sciences in heated controversy? The culprit, at least at first glance, is genetically engineered potatoes. But the real question underlying this latest skirmish in the bioengineering wars is 'what constitutes good science?'
The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) is disappointed, but not surprised, by activists continued attempts to discredit a panel of well-respected, nationally and internationally recognized scientific and medical professionals, headed by the former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop. Once again, there has been an attempt to shift attention from sound science to misrepresentations and half-truths.
Robert Bork's arguments ("Tobacco Suit Is Latest Abuse of the Rule of Law," editorial page, Sept. 23) concerning the impending Federal lawsuit against the tobacco industry are unscientific and specious. His assertion that smoking is "not addictive as medical science has long defined addiction" is presumptuous, if for no other reason than the tobacco magnates and their subservient "scientists" acknowledged the addictive nature of tobacco in their own internal memos.
To the Editor:
I applaud Holman Jenkins' attempt to shed some light on the so-called "Biotech. controversy" ("Fun Facts to Know...", Nov.17). He seems to clearly understand that those who propagate this scare care nothing for scientific facts, and will brook no interference with their Luddite goals.
To the Editor:
American consumers should be appalled at the thought of the consortium of anti-biotech activists declaring war on socalled "genetically modified organisms." These "activists" assume they know what is best for all of us, and would limit our choices, as well as those of plant breeders and farmers world-wide with no rational, scientific basis for their actions.
To the Editor:
Daniel Machalaba alludes to a most dangerous trend, almost as an afterthought ("Local Ties," front page, Feb. 3). He refers to perchloroethylene as a "suspected carcinogen," and then goes on to point out that no one knows "yet" what it's adverse health effects might be. As Mr. Machalaba then points out, this lack of scientific data has not stopped the plaintiff's bar from declaring that "victims" of this contamination should be compensated for "toxic damage."
New York, NY October 21,1998.
The American Council on Science and Health rejects the Center for Science in the Public Interest s claims that soda necessarily contributes to poor dietary status and/or ill health in children. ACSH President Dr. Elizabeth Whelan and ACSH Director of Nutrition Dr. Ruth Kava offer this perspective:
To the Editor:
Jane Brody was correct to advise us to continue to consume fiber, despite a recent Harvard study that found fiber not to be protective against colon cancer ("Keep the Fiber Bandwagon Rolling, for Heart and Health," July 20).
The fact that this article was even necessary points out the perils of making unwarranted health claims.
To the Editor:
Holcomb B. Noble's article discussing the heavy burden of asthma faced by poor, largely minority children in New York City (News article, July 27, 1999) neglects to mention a prime trigger of children's asthma: cigarette smoke. Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is known to increase severity of asthma symptoms, and to impair recovery following hospitalization of asthmatic children.
To the Editor:
No one can dispute the inclusion of Rachel Carson on your list of "25 Shapers of the Modern Era"(Dec. 27), However, I was stunned to see the name of Leo Burnett on the list. But after some reflection, I now understand your rationale:
To the Editor:
An Aug. 29 Week in Review article reports that the efforts by some environmentalists to clean up ''brownfield'' industrial sites have worsened the economic woes of the mostly poor areas where they are located. Similarly, an Aug. 29 front-page article describes the resurgence of malaria because of the ban on the use of the insecticide DDT (front page, Aug. 29).
Your article "Monsanto and Pharmacia to Join, Creating a Pharmaceutical Giant" (front page, Dec. 20) states that Monsanto has been under attack in Europe and in the United States for developing genetically modified crops that are substantially superior to regular varieties.
While opponents of genetically modified products fan the flames of public fear of use of such crops, the truth is that they do not threaten food safety, and in fact hold much promise for present and future generations.
By William M. London
Credit: William M. London
Every day a 135-year-old woman smokes two packs of cigarettes, plus at least a pipeful of tobacco.
Colored glasses permit dyslectics to read normally.
In a quiet little Pennsylvania town where radioactive waste is buried, mounds of dirt glow at night as bubbling pools change color.
This report represents a work in progress. ACSH realizes that research in the areas of health impacts of alcoholic beverages and of tobacco products is continuing, and we will update this paper as new research and insights are received. We welcome input from readers.
Last week's withdrawal of Warner-Lambert's diabetes drug Rezulin has provoked a predictable outcry from "consumer groups" who charge that the Food and Drug Administration's laxity and haste permits unsafe drugs into the marketplace. Actually, Rezulin's withdrawal shows that the FDA works exactly as intended. Just because a drug is withdrawn does not mean it should not have been approved in the first place.
To the Editor:
Holman Jenkins has certainly captured the irony involved in the states' de facto partnership with the tobacco industry, ostensibly to protect the continuing influx of settlement dollars into state coffers ("Look Who's Falling in Love...", April 26). However, he is wrong about a few points:
Pagination
ACSH relies on donors like you. If you enjoy our work, please contribute.
Make your tax-deductible gift today!