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?'
Search
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.
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).
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.
This report represents a work in progress. ACSH realizes that research in the areas of health impacts of alcoholic beverages is continuing, and we will update this paper as new research and insights are received. We welcome input from readers.
Executive Summary
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.
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.
At least two United States senators have concluded that American children are at risk because parents are not warned about pesticides sprayed at schools. Some scientists disagree and claim that the senators are unnecessarily alarming parents based on an unfounded health scare and are consequently misdirecting priorities for children's health.
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:
To the Editor:
It is distressing that the USDA, by attempting to legally define "organic", has granted legitimacy to the concept that so-called "organic" food is any safer or better than conventionally produced foods (Regulators Nearing Tougher Standard for Organic Food, pg. B13, 3/6/00).
To the Editor:
As a public-health scientist, I applaud Andrew Revkin for his perspicacity in pointing out that malathion poses "no health threat to people" (news story, May 12). In its new report, the Environmental Protection Agency, generally no friend to pesticides, agrees with the overwhelming body of scientific evidence. While possibly a "health threat" to mice at very high doses, the trace levels to which New Yorkers would be exposed via spraying should cause no alarm.
Continuing an almost five-century old British tradition of mixing Church and State, the Prince of Wales has again tried to reverse the tide of scientific inquiry and exploration a move many will equate with King Canute's futile attempt to hold back the ocean tides 1,000 or so years ago.
Many Americans engage in bicycling principally to improve their health and/or physical fitness for example, to control body weight, blood pressure, and/or plasma cholesterol concentrations, and/or to increase agility. Bicycling is useful not only toward these ends but also as a mode of physical therapy (e.g., to promote recovery from knee surgery) and as a means of stress reduction.
On the other hand, bicycling entails many health risks, even for experienced bicyclists. National statistics suggest that in the United States:
Predicting the future is always in fashion but particularly so as we enter a new millennium.
Two of the most difficult issues we as consumers of health information confront are who to trust and how much to trust them. There is a lot of misinformation on the Web and even reporters in the mainstream media sometimes get the story wrong.
In regard to "Spending on Prescription Drugs Rose 19%" (Economy, May 8): I fear that many readers will view this significant increase on drug spending in 2000 as more bad news about health care in the U.S. Yet if we consider how many patients have been helped by the very drugs that are responsible for this rise in spending, we might instead see this as a step forward.
As a public health professional, I was appalled by the intensity of the antagonism over the damages in a Californian's lawsuit against Philip Morris U.S.A., decided last June. Sure, the damages $3.5 billion may seem immense. But this record award will barely dent the tobacco giant's profits.
Pagination
ACSH relies on donors like you. If you enjoy our work, please contribute.
Make your tax-deductible gift today!