The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) recently released a set of guidelines calling for stricter control of marketing of foods and beverages to children, in an effort to address increased obesity rates in kids. The guidelines call for all companies, advertising agencies, schools, and other organizations to eliminate any sort of marketing to children that directly or indirectly endorses foods CSPI deems unhealthy.
Search
Seeing a previously healthy baby begin to withdraw, lose language skills, and become averse to physical or social attention is a nightmare for any parent. A diagnosis of autism can then lead parents down a long road of feeling guilty, trying frustratingly unsuccessful treatments, and searching for an answer to their questions about the cause of their child's disorder. But when parents turn their quest for answers into a blind-faith crusade against public health initiatives, they may actually end up hurting more than they help.
Superstitions -- closely held beliefs lacking any scientific support -- have been around for ages. They promise empowerment: if you take some pre-emptive action (avoid broken mirrors, black cats, or ladders) you can dodge dire consequences. True, there is no evidence that such actions protect you, but just in case, you take a few extra steps to avoid the ladder. After all, you never know.
Superstitions prevail in our high-tech era. Take for example the common practice of using the results of high-dose rodent cancer tests to predict which substances might cause human cancer.
For immediate release
New York, New York -- February 2, 2005. The American Council on Science and Health today warned of the serious and negative health implications of our nation's current fixation with removing "carcinogens" -- trace levels of chemicals that at high dose cause cancer in laboratory rodents -- from the food, water and general environment.
New York, NY -- February 2005. The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) is pleased to announce the release of an updated version of its publication The Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis.
Osteoporosis is a progressive bone disorder that weakens bones and can result in multiple debilitating fractures. It is a major health threat in the United States; ten million Americans, most of them women, already have the disease, and millions more are at risk.
This piece appeared in National Review Online.
The FDA has its heavy regulatory hand on almost one quarter of the nation's economy, so its leadership is of deep concern to all Americans, not merely those involved in public health. Recently, President Bush nominated Lester Crawford as permanent FDA commissioner. Although Crawford has been acting chief of the agency for much of the past four years, everyone is wondering what his approach will be now that he's the boss.
An article by Colette Bouchez on WebMD.com February 16, 2005 describes fear of artificial sweeteners, with some calming and cautious words from ACSH's Dr. Ruth Kava, noting the list of artificial sweeteners tested and approved as safe:
A March 4, 2005 article by Kirsten Boyd Goldberg on CancerLetter.com -- about the Legacy Foundation dubbing Time Inc. an anti-tobacco "hero" despite their magazines running many tobacco ads -- quotes an article on the topic by ACSH's Rivka Weiser:
Assessing the Safety of the Chemical PFOA
Project Coordinator: Rivka Weiser
Editor: Gilbert L. Ross, M.D.
The American Council on Science and Health gratefully acknowledges the comments and contributions of the following individuals, who reviewed all or part of the longer position paper on which this booklet is based:
Larry Beeson, Dr.P.H., Loma Linda University
Hinrich L. Bohn, Ph.D., University of Arizona
Joseph F. Borzelleca, Ph.D., Virginia Commonwealth University
John Doull, M.D., Ph.D., University of Kansas
In addition to your nuanced counsel on dealing with the crescendo of dire warnings about various drugs ("The Painkiller Panic", Dec. 23), another factor that should be considered in the precipitous withdrawal of Vioxx and the untoward panic about various pain-relievers is the vast potential of the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) in the chemoprevention of cancer.
Rheumatologists (such as myself) had been aware for many years of preliminary reports of reduced rates of various cancers (notably colorectal cancer) among arthritis patients on long-term NSAIDs.
A January 3, 2005 column called "Group Lists Top Unfounded Health Scares of 2004" by Andi Atwater on www.News-Press.com recounts ACSH's report The Top Ten Unfounded Health Scares of 2004:
A recent article in London's Evening Standard claimed that research completed by the Irish Doctors Environmental Association (IDEA) found the first proof that cell phones cause health problems, but is this research we can rely on? The doctors ignore the lessons learned from previous research along these lines. In September of 2004, researchers in Sweden found links between cell phone usage and acoustic neuroma. The studies were flawed but created a scare nonetheless.
A March 24, 2005 report on MSNBC's show Countdown, as part of MSNBC's "Faith in America" week, discussed faith healers and included ACSH's Dr. Gilbert Ross on a skeptical note:
[REPORTER MONICA] NOVOTNY (voice-over): But not everyone believes. Dr. Gilbert Ross says while some may be healed, their cures can be explained.
Recently The Lancet posted a correspondence titled, "Lupin flour anaphylaxis (http://www.thelancet.com/journal/vol365/iss9467/abs/llan.365.9467.revie…)." It was followed the next day with a BBC posting titled, "Lupin flour 'poses allergy risk'" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4419709.stm). Since then, there has been a deathly media silence.
Editors Note:
Associate Director Jeff Stier presented the following message as a guest on Dayside with Linda Vester on the Fox News Channel.
Later in the day, Medical Director Dr. Gilbert Ross communicated this message in a separate appearance on Fox News.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What if there was growing evidence that an already-existing drug, taken daily, might dramatically reduce the risk of breast cancer?
Shouldn't that be more newsworthy than fund-raising walkathons done in the quixotic pursuit of a simple cure? More noteworthy than the latest lab test which classifies an environmental chemical as a rodent carcinogen?
U.S. and Canadian scientists, led by Harvard's Dr. Peter Goss, this week began recruiting thousands of women at high risk of breast cancer to participate in a study of what may well be just such a drug.
This article originally appeared on http://www.techcentralstation.com.
Although the media coverage here in the United States has been non-existent, much of the world has been experiencing one of the great food scares -- and food recalls -- of modern times.
Given today's federal judge's ruling striking down the FDA's ban of the dangerous natural weight-loss supplement, ephedra, we would like to remind you what we said about the matter when the FDA first made the decision. This commentary is only more relevant today...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FDA vs. Congress on Ephedra Ban
Jeff Stier, Esq.
published on January 9, 2004
This article appeared on MedicalProgressToday.com.
This article appeared in the May 1, 2005 New York Daily News, paired with an opposing argument from Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest:
In an effort to cope with rising health care costs, areas of Washington state created a plan that will reward employees for good health by charging them less for healthcare if they meet certain standards of health.
A May 2005 list of environmentalism's critics in Outside magazine includes Emily Sohn's profile of Elizabeth Whelan: President, American Council on Science and Health:
An April 20, 2005 article by Kristen Greencher notes reactions to the federal government's new food pyramid nutrition guidelines, including the reaction of ACSH's Director of Nutrition, Dr. Ruth Kava:
A prominently placed advertisement by the Lung Cancer Alliance in yesterday's New York Times conveys the important message that lung cancer, which kills more people than many other forms of cancer combined, is worthy of more attention and research than it currently receives. Unfortunately, however, the well-intentioned advertisement is also misleading and has disturbing implications.
The alternative fringe has embraced a trendy catchphrase: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." It's cute, it sounds impressively philosophical, and, technically, it actually is true. But it can be deceptive, misinterpreted, and misused.
Pagination
ACSH relies on donors like you. If you enjoy our work, please contribute.
Make your tax-deductible gift today!