Bioterrorism: How Great Are the Risks?
Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan
Remarks Delivered at Debate with Richard Preston, Author of The Demon in the Freezer.
Sponsored by the Donald and Paula Smith Family Foundation
Thursday, November l4, 2002, at the City University of New York
Search
I recently gave a speech about cigarettes to a libertarian discussion group called the Junto here in New York City. I had expected the conversation to pivot on the question of free will not only do libertarians defend the legal right to smoke, many scoff at the idea of addiction, since each individual must ultimately be held accountable for his own decisions, healthy or unhealthy.
There are a growing number of reasons to drink alcohol.
No, no, I don't mean because my girlfriend left me or because it's so terribly cold in the big city (the Kyoto Accord against global warming must be working perfectly). I mean that drinking appears to be associated with health benefits:
Our recent report on the role of beef in the American diet noted some beef benefits, but that didn't please everyone. Below is a prime example of how some of beef's detractors react to such news but we will not be cowed.
Responses:
February 11, 2003
A new journal is needed. It should be titled The Journal of Obvious Results and Unwarranted and Spectacular Conclusions. The readers of ACSH's webpages have by now seen headlines that read "Organically grown foods higher in cancer-fighting chemicals than conventionally grown foods." Like souls in a Hollywood hell, forced to sit through a bad movie for eternity, we will undoubtedly be having this "finding" thrust at us ad infinitum, as we are in the case of this latest article meant to prove the superiority of "organic" food.
If the Environmental Protection Agency bans something, it must be dangerous, right? Well...
Two recent articles in my hometown newspaper show how hard a time the media have understanding and explaining science.
The "Organic Foods" Story
Scientists associated with the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) find no compelling evidence that acrylamide, when consumed in foods such as French fries and bread, poses a risk of human cancer. Their conclusions are presented today in a report on acrylamide in food and its relation to human health: "Acrylamide in Food: Is It a Real Threat to Public Health?"
A recently-published study (New England Journal of Medicine, Nov. 21) describes a new vaccine that can prevent persistent infection from a virus HPV, the human papillomavirus known to be a causative factor in about one-half of all cases of cervical cancer. This is a major breakthrough, for the fight against cervical cancer and, more broadly, for the burgeoning field of pharmaceutical products that may be useful in preventing human cancer.
Cervical Cancer
Bullies would call people sissies for being afraid of swing sets, but some of those same bullies probably grow up to complain about chemicals in their environment, which are far less dangerous than swing sets. Take the case of pressure-treated wood.
One of the nice side effects of last month's elections was the defeat of a proposal in Berkeley that would have sentenced people to jail for selling non-organic coffee beans.
Today brought another reminder that people writing for the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal and the reporters responsible for the rest of the paper aren't necessarily on the same wavelength:
We're pleased to see the esteemed British journal The Lancet noting the American Council on Science and Health in the conclusion of its February 1 article on the tumultuous debate over acrylamide in food. The Lancet emphasizes the unknown but at least recognizes that there's no evidence of harm:
As one might have expected, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is taking a wrong-headed approach to solving the problem of the increasing obesity of American youth. According to their latest press release, CSPI thinks that "Replacing soda and junk foods with healthful drinks and snacks...can help combat the skyrocketing rates of obesity in children and teens." Would that it were true.
Suppose your gracious new neighbor took you aside one day and quietly warned that serving non-organic fruits and vegetables to your family was endangering your kids' health. Suppose she offered a professional-looking "index of danger" showing your supermarket's peaches, apples, spinach, celery, and potatoes were all too dangerous to eat. You'd probably be devastated.
Editor's note: We just received this letter, a reminder that weighing long-term risks and benefits is often hardest for the young, which is what makes them such an important market for cigarette manufacturers. To help kids get a better handle on the risks, we'll soon publish a teen version of our book Cigarettes: What the Warning Label Doesn't Tell You, and for smokers of all ages interested in knowing some of the quit-assist options, there's our book Kicking Butts in the Twenty-First Century.
The specter of contagious disease often engenders a primal reaction based on fear, with resultant irrational behavior. SARS is no exception. Only a few weeks ago, New York's bustling Chinatown became a ghost town as a result.
Over 50 years of scientific research have established that the irradiation of foods to minimize food-borne illness and decrease waste is both safe and effective. Physicians and scientists associated with the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) endorse the use of irradiation to enhance safety and supplement other food protection methods.
[Editor's note: We admire Sandy Szwarc for pointing out some of the excesses in America's war on obesity, such as lawsuits now brewing against fast food chains. But our nutrition director, Dr. Ruth Kava, objects to Szwarc's promotion of an odd, revisionist theory about obesity: that we are neither consuming more nor exercising less but are getting fat precisely because dieting causes metabolic changes that induce obesity. TS]
During scenes from the movie The Secret Lives of Dentists, Dana and David Hurst are seen undergoing an unholy combination of adultery and viral gastroenteritis. While Dana (Hope Davis) and their three kids are all feverish and vomiting, David (Campbell Scott) responds to the illness and betrayal in his family by . . . pulling out a pack of smokes.
In a newly updated report, Traces of Environmental Chemicals in the Human Body: Are They a Risk to Health?, the physicians and scientists of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) conclude that the mere ability to measure small amounts of environmental chemicals in human blood and other tissue is not an indication of the presence of a health hazard.
One of the most hotly contested issues in the popular nutrition press of late has been cutting carbs: that is, whether or not the much-touted low-carbohydrate, high protein, high fat diet espoused by such diet gurus as Dr. Atkins is better at helping people lose weight than a balanced, moderately high carbohydrate diet. Most mainstream nutrition experts have been leery of the rather extreme Atkins diet, partly out of concern that its high complement of total and saturated fats might cause or exacerbate heart-damaging blood lipid levels.
The refiling of the lawsuit for two obese teen-agers against McDonald's Pelman v. McDonald's brings to mind an old Bill Cosby joke.
Cosby is awakened one morning by his tired wife, who tells him to go down and feed the children breakfast. He eventually does, grumpily, and spies a chocolate cake. His mind goes to the recipe for chocolate cake. There are eggs in chocolate cake. And flour. And milk. There's nutrition in chocolate cake!
The July 1 Health Journal article "Getting Screened for Colon Cancer Isn't Just for the 50-and-Over Set" by Tara Parker-Pope was important. Colorectal cancer is both a major cancer killer and largely preventable with appropriate screening. Deciding who should and should not be screened is crucial, as it would be prohibitively expensive to screen everyone over age 40, instead of the currently recommended age cut-off of 50.
Re: "Health groups' donor ties questioned":
In light of the distortions promoted by the anti-consumer-choice, left-wing funded, advocacy group, Center For The Science in the Public Interest, below are some facts about the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH). We are disappointed that your reporter did not contact us before publishing misleading information about our work.
Pagination
ACSH relies on donors like you. If you enjoy our work, please contribute.
Make your tax-deductible gift today!