Angela Logomasini

Surprising Junk Science on Fox News

by Angela Logomasini on May 16, 2013 · 0 comments

in Environment, Features, Precaution & Risk, Regulation

Post image for Surprising Junk Science on Fox News

News stories trumping junk science are common, but I expect better from Fox News, which claims to be “fair and balanced” and hosts great shows like STOSSEL. And they’ve run some of my commentaries, which I appreciate. That’s why I am perplexed by some Fox reports on environmental issues, many of which seem to peddle junk science pushed by activists at the Environmental Working Group (EWG).

For example, the other day Fox published a silly story from Prevention magazine on how chemicals found in popcorn cooked in nonstick pans might give you heart disease based on a single study that found a statistical association, which can occur by mere chance. How many other studies failed to find an association?  The article doesn’t bother to go there—rather, it says: “Scary? You bet.” The article does offer a weak qualifier, stating that “more research needs to be done to determine the specific relationship between PFOA [the chemical used in non-stick the pans] and cardiovascular disease.”

Another recent Fox-published article highlights EWG’s latest Shoppers’ Guide to Pesticides in Produce. Fox offers no  critical analysis of the activist groups’ crazy claims.

Yet EWG’s Shoppers’ Guide is a perversion of data that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) collects annually to measure traces of pesticides found on produce. Residue levels are always extremely low, and USDA and the Environmental Protection Agency both explain that the data demonstrates that levels are too low to pose significant health risks. Yet EWG lists healthy foods—such as apples—as “dirty” because they have a few extra parts per billion of trace pesticide residues. The response should be: Who cares?  The levels are too low to have an impact, and eating these foods is certainly good for your health.

[click to continue…]

“Shocking” Truth about Government and Soap

by Angela Logomasini on May 13, 2013 · 0 comments

in Environment, Features, Precaution & Risk, Regulation

shock

Is your hand wash slowly killing you as government regulators sit idly by? Sounds silly, but that’s what environmentalists seem to think about an antibacterial agent called triclosan, which is used in soap and other consumer products.

According to the NRDC: “In laboratory studies, they [antibacterial chemicals] have been shown to disrupt hormones and can encourage the growth of drug-resistant bacteria or ‘superbugs.’” The group wants consumers to urge the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) “to pull products containing triclosan and triclocarban from store shelves.” The NRDC is also suing FDA for not completing its scientific review of triclosan, which has dragged on for more than 40 years.

The Globe and Mail reports: “Some Americans are shocked that the FDA has taken so long. Mallory Smith is troubled to learn that the government has never confirmed the safety of antibacterial soap’s key ingredient.”

Yet the fact that bureaucrats rarely move quickly isn’t shocking at all. In fact, the NRDC lawsuit proves why government isn’t well suited to take swift action or promote public safety. And there are many reasons why chemical reviews in particular take a long time, none of which have to do with safety.

First, chemical exposures from consumer products are generally too low to have any significant impacts. Measuring such negligible risks is akin to looking for needle in a field of haystacks. Government researchers can dig and dig, yet never find anything, nor can they prove a chemical is 100 percent safe since nothing is. So they continue with no end in sight.

For example, while triclosan has been used pretty widely for more than 60 years, there’s no hard evidence of triclosan-caused cancers or “superbugs.” The best greens can offer are allegations based on studies that suggest links between the chemical and health effects in rodents dosed large amounts. The same is true for naturally occurring chemicals in broccoli, coffee, pickles, and more. We don’t need an FDA review of these foods to know they are safe to eat and that these rodent studies are not particularly relevant to human health risks from trace chemicals.

[click to continue…]

Why BPA (And Other Chemicals) Don’t Belong On Proposition 65

by Angela Logomasini on April 25, 2013 · 0 comments

in Environment, Features, Precaution & Risk, Regulation

Post image for Why BPA (And Other Chemicals) Don’t Belong On Proposition 65

If you want to have fun in California’s Disneyland, avoid reading the warning signs saying that products used in the park may give you cancer and reproductive problems! They’re not just a buzz kill, they are plain dumb and misinformed. But it’s state law that they be there. You can find them in Starbucks and many other places throughout the state too.

California’s nonsensical Proposition 65 law directs regulators to place chemicals on a “toxic” substances list, and then forces companies to issue warning labels when they use these substances to make consumer products and food. But regulators list chemicals for myriad stupid reasons. For example, they may list a chemical simply because high doses give cancer to rats, which is also true of broccoli. It’s the dose that makes the poison, which is one reason that such rodent tests have little relevance to health impacts in humans.

If the logic behind is law were correct, you might worry about keeping a nickle in your pocket since California lists nickel as a toxic substance. It’s not clear why the federal government does not have to post warning labels on nickles. I guess the feds are exempt from state-level idiocy?

As I noted on the Independent Women’s Forum Inkwell blog yesterday, one chemical, bisphenol A (BPA), has recently gained a temporary — hopefully soon-to-be-permanent — stay from listing on the Proposition 65 list. This case raises questions about the thousands of other chemicals found on this list. Had industry fought as hard as the American Chemistry Council is currently doing for BPA, would fewer chemicals be on this list? Maybe so. After all, at existing exposures, none of these chemicals pose much of any risks.

[click to continue…]

Conference Speaker Demonizes Alcohol Industry

by Angela Logomasini on April 12, 2013

in Features, Nanny State, Personal Liberty

Robert Denniston Presenting at AP16

Robert Denniston Presenting at AP16

There’s a certain romance associated with being in the wine industry, which is why many people aspire to own a vineyard despite all the back-breaking work associated with farming. That’s why I was pretty shocked by the excessive disdain for the alcohol industry that many participants expressed at the Alcohol Policy 16 (AP16) Conference last week. Although the event is marketed as a public health forum, its participants seemed more interested in demonizing industry and not just the alcohol industry. “Junk food,” guns, and even cars took some hits.

According to one speaker, the “alcohol industry” could be likened to a mosquito carrying a dangerous virus, and we—the consumers are its victims. Well, that’s how former U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) employee Robert Denniston suggested that others “frame” alcohol issues when lobbying in favor of taxes and laws to restrict access.

During the last day of the event a the plenary session, Denniston made the following suggestion:

A concept that is worthy of consideration about how to frame this issue is authored by Jaheil and Babor, who have proposed referring to the alcohol problem as the “industrial epidemic” because alcohol beverages are industrial products. The difference between natural and industrial epidemics is that the former are caused by natural agents that are driven by natural forces acting upon those agents, such as plasmodium falciparum and anopheles mosquitoes in the case of malaria … by contrast industrial disease epidemics are driven at least in part by corporations and their allies who promote a dangerous product such as tobacco or cars or guns. This understanding shifts the policy focus from the agent, alcohol, to the host, the problem drinker, to the disease vector, the alcohol industry and associates.

What an astoundingly unbalanced view of industry!

[click to continue…]

Who Profits From Alcohol Taxes?

by Angela Logomasini on April 10, 2013 · 1 comment

in Nanny State, Regulation

money in the handsWhile there appears to be no acceptable level of alcohol consumption to participants at the Alcohol Policy 16 Conference, which met last week in Arlington, Virginia, they certainly don’t mind profiting from people who do drink. During a discussion on alcohol tax policy, these “public health advocates” discussed ways to hike the rates as much as possible and earmark the funds to their own organizations.

I thought we’d hear about research related to the impact of taxes on alcohol abuse. For example: Do higher taxes really reduce alcohol abuse or do they simply punish all alcohol consumers? The answer to that question appeared not to matter. The entire discussion revolved around how to lobby for taxes and profit in the process.

Rebecca Ramirez of the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University presented her qualitative research on the framing of pro-tax messaging for use in lobbying campaigns. It included interviews with policy makers and activists involved in these campaigns. Ramirez’s discussion eventually turned to earmarking, which is apparently the key reason many groups are involved. One disability advocacy group, she noted, told her flat out that they simply didn’t care about the public health impacts of taxes. They were in the game solely to get some of the tax revenue earmarked to their organization.

But what happens when too many groups want a piece of the pie? There simply isn’t enough to go around. Accordingly, Ramirez suggested that groups might want to keep their coalitions just large enough to win, so that each could get a bigger piece.

How does this serve public health? It doesn’t, according to Bruce Lee Livingston of Alcohol Justice. He commented during the question and answer portion that activists are unable to get taxes high enough to actually produce positive public health benefits. Rather, he called for a “charge-for-harm” approach, which is based on the assumption that anyone who drinks deserves to be punished.

So there you have it. “Public health advocates” have two main reasons for taxing alcohol: profit and punishment. Somehow that simply doesn’t seem fair.

Health “Advocates”: Tax And Regulate Responsible Drinkers

by Angela Logomasini on April 8, 2013

in Features, Nanny State, Personal Liberty

no_alcohol “Don’t just lean in, barge in,” said Rebecca Ramirez of Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health at the opening of the Alcohol Policy 16 conference in Arlington,Virginia (April 3-5, 2013). In one short sentence, Ramirez summed up the entire purpose of this 16th annual event: mobilize nanny-state activists to push taxes and regulations that limit access to alcohol, targeting those of us who just might take one too many sips of Merlot.

A collaboration of numerous health-related groups, the theme of this partially taxpayer-funded event was “Building Blocks for Sound Alcohol Policy.” Surely, there is a role for public health advocacy when it comes to addressing issues related to serious alcohol abuse. But rather than focus on real problems, there was way too much focus on how to control the behavior of people like me.

My crime stems from the fact that I like to share a bottle of wine with my husband at dinner. My consumption of 2.5 standard-drinks-a-day exceeds the two-drinks a day maximum for women — placing me in the “excessive” drinker category.

Mind you, a standard drink really isn’t that much alcohol, especially when consumed with food over many hours. According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, a standard drink is one that contains 14 grams of alcohol — one small, 5-ounce glass of wine, a 12-ounce beer, or a 1.5 shot of spirits (40 percent alcohol). Many people can handle several of such drinks over a 24 hour period without getting “drunk” or abusing these products.

[click to continue…]

The Cancer Clusters That Weren’t

by Angela Logomasini on March 25, 2013 · 4 comments

in Environment, Features, Precaution & Risk

e_brockovichA recent post in ACSH Dispatch examines an interesting question: How likely is it that some U.S. communities have elevated cancer rates, a.k.a, “cancer clusters,” because of chemical pollution? The answer: not very.

ACSH points to an enlightening article published in Slate by George Johnson, who notes:

Time after time, the clusters have turned out to be statistical illusions—artifacts of chance. … The Erin Brockovich incident, one of the most famous, is among the many that have been debunked. Hexavalent chromium in the water supply of a small California town was blamed for causing cancer, resulting in a $333 million legal settlement and a movie starring Julia Roberts. But an epidemiological study ultimately showed that the cancer rate was no greater than that of the general population. The rate was actually slightly less.

Johnson also discusses the alleged cancer cluster in Toms River, N.J., which is the subject of a new book: Toms River: A Story of Science and Salvation, by Dan Fagin. But contrary to Fagin’s book, Johnson concludes: “… no matter how hard I squinted at the numbers, I found it hard to be convinced that there had been a cancer problem in Toms River.”

It is true that chemicals cause cancers where people are exposed for long periods of time to very high levels. For example, populations in Taiwan whose drinking water was contaminated with extremely high levels of arsenic for many decades experienced elevated rates of skin cancer. Is that a cluster? Surely it is. Does it convey information about the risks to populations exposed to much lower concentrations? Not particularly.

[click to continue…]

Response To Drescher On Cancer And Chemicals

by Angela Logomasini on March 21, 2013 · 2 comments

in Environment, Features, Regulation

fran_drescherLast week, Fran Drescher responded to my Huffington Post article on cancer trends, and today I posted a reply on the Independent Women’s Forum Inkwell blog. In a nutshell, I praise Drescher for her work promoting early detection and a healthy lifestyle that includes both a good diet and exercise, but her focus on chemicals as a significant cancer cause is problematic.

Her basic argument on the Huffington Post was as follows: Most cancers are caused by “environmental factors” and since trace chemicals are present in the human body we should take action to eliminate or reduce them if for no other reason than to simply err on the safe side.

It’s true that “environmental factors” are the cause of most cancers, but researchers define these factors as anything but genetics. As I noted in my article and elsewhere, environmental factors include tobacco, dietary choices, infections, natural radiation, and reproductive behavior among other things. Trace chemicals in consumer products are not a demonstrated cancer source.

What about the fact that chemicals are found in the human body? In its Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) explains: “The presence of an environmental chemical in people’s blood or urine does not mean that it will cause effects or disease.” The real question is: Is exposure from consumer products ever really high enough to raise concerns about cancer?

“These everyday exposures are usually too small to cause health problems,” says the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in its booklet titled “Chemicals, Cancer and You.” In fact, as humans increased our use of manmade chemicals, cancer rates have declined—the reverse of what you’d expect if they posed significant risks.

Finally, the idea that we should eliminate certain products “to be on the safe side” ignores the fact that these chemicals have benefits. When we arbitrarily eliminate them — either by regulation or simply bad publicity — we lose those benefits and potentially create more risks. For example, bans on the pesticide DDT — rather than policies to manage risks — have contributed to millions of deaths every year. Similar policies to ban chemicals used to make plastics and resins — including medical devices, blood bags, water bottles, and sanitary food packaging – may create additional risks for society, including some that are deadly.

So to erring on the “safe” side, I’d rather we focused on science, risk assessment, and ultimately consumer choice. Read my full response on the Inkwell.

The Dangers Of Crying Wolf On BPA

by Angela Logomasini on February 28, 2013

in Environment, Precaution & Risk

Anyone with an interest in the science of bisphenol A (BPA)–a chemical used to make hard, clear plastics and resins that line food containers — should read Trevor Butterworth’s recent Q&A with researcher Richard M. Sharpe, who specializes in male reproductive health issues at the University of Edinburgh.

I’ve commented many times on significant problems surrounding many of the recent studies on BPA and how hype about its risks can harm human health. Sharpe has been critical as well, and in December 2009, he lamented:

“research on Bisphenol A has … become literally bogged down in the mire of controversy, much of which stems from the earliest findings and seems to have little to do with the current state of the science … Fundamental, repetitive work on bisphenol A has sucked in tens, probably hundreds, of millions of dollars from government bodies and industry which, at a time when research money is thin on the ground, looks increasingly like an investment with a nil return.”

Judging from the Butterworth’s interview things have not changed much. Sharpe notes some additional dangers that arise from alarmist journalism and bad science:

My concern is that by feeding the public a continual stream of alarm stories that are poorly based, as with many of the stories about bisphenol A, people will become desensitized; the public is not stupid, people know it cannot all be true, especially when they see that everyone is living longer. But what happens if we discover an environmental chemical (or mixture) that we really do think poses a threat to human health, how are we going to get them to take serious notice of it, rather than filing it away with all the other alarmist stuff?

Read the full interview on Forbes.com.

Breast Cancer Victims Suffer From Foolish Priorities

by Angela Logomasini on February 12, 2013 · 2 comments

in Environment, Features, Precaution & Risk

In government, political priorities often supersede science and good health policy. In fact, a recent government report may shift funding away from useful research to study the most unlikely causes of breast cancer. More women will suffer in the future than necessary as money for useful research shrinks.

Released by the Interagency Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Coordinating Committee, which an act of Congress created in 2008, this report says more funding should go to “breast cancer prevention.” But rather than identify known causes women can address (such as poor diets), it suggests government agencies “intensify the study of chemical and physical factors.”

This approach flies in the face of the best research on  cancer, such as  the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer.

At the end of the 20th century, breast cancer among women had risen, particularly in developed nations, and activists like to say chemicals play a big role. Yet NCI pointed out breast cancer rates appeared higher in part because better screening and increased detection found more cancers. The percentage of women age 40 to 49 who obtained mammograms doubled between 1987 and 1998 from 32 percent to 63 percent. The percentage of women age 50 to 64 who received a mammogram increased from 31 percent to 73 percent in the same period. In addition, hormone replacement therapy appears to have increased breast cancer risks, an unfortunate situation that was unknown at the time.

In its most recent report, the NCI said breast cancer has stabilized after “sharply decreasing” following the reduction of hormone replacement therapy. NCI does not identify chemicals as a significant cause of breast cancer.  Likewise, the American Cancer Society notes on its website: “At this time research does not show a clear link between breast cancer risk and exposure to things like plastics, certain cosmetics and personal care products, and pesticides.”

In addition, the most scientifically robust studies on the topic have failed to find a convincing link between breast cancer and chemicals. For example, U.S. researchers produced one of the largest such studies, which was conducted among women in Long Island, N.Y.  It was unable to establish a link between the chemicals most often cited as a potential cause of breast cancer—DDT (dichlorodiphenyl-trichloroethane) and other pesticides as well as PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls)—and an elevated level of cancers in that area.

Risk factors associated with breast cancer are related to lifestyle choices available to women in industrial societies—which explains why breast cancer is more common in Western nations. These include dietary choices such as consumption of too much fat, alcohol, or both; obesity among children (which increases risks as it can affect hormone levels and produce early menstruation); weight gain after menopause; and weight gain after 18 years of age. Delaying or refraining from childbearing also can affect hormone levels, thereby increasing breast cancer risks.

Not emphasized by anti-chemical activists or this recent government report is the fact modern medicine—and its many chemicals—are saving women from breast cancer. A woman with breast cancer in the late 1970s had a 75 percent chance of surviving five or more years, while today she has a 90 percent chance, according to data on NCI’s website.

For more details about cancer and chemicals, see SafeChemicalPolicy.org.

← Previous Entries