It seems like the leftist activists don’t want anyone to enjoy life. They’d rather we be fraught with worry. During the weeks and days leading up to Thanksgiving Day, they’ve issued bogus reports on why Americans should fear their holiday feast.
“Study finds chemical BPA in popular Thanksgiving canned foods,” says the Los Angeles Times. The story cites a study released by anti-chemical activists at the Breast Cancer Fund. “The organization tested four cans of each of the following: Campbell’s Cream of Mushroom Soup, Campbell’s Turkey Gravy, Carnation Evaporated Milk, Green Giant Cut Green Beans, Libby’s Pumpkin and Del Monte Fresh Cut Sweet Corn, Cream Style,” reports the Los Angeles Times.
You might expect such sensationalism from the Los Angeles Times, but what about the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)? JAMA also appears all too willing to take advantage of the holiday news hook to promote its publication of a study on BPA in canned goods. The new study appears in JAMA’s print magazine dated November 23/30, 2011 — Thanksgiving Day! the Thanksgiving issue. An abstract of the story is already posted on their website, which has garnered media attention for the publication by linking the study to turkey day.
[click to continue…]
Today, CEI releases the first of a series of studies on chemicals and the precautionary principle. Activist groups around the nation have been calling for greater regulation of chemicals, which they say would protect the public from the scourge of such things as cancer. In reality, their claims are based on junk science and their prescriptions threaten to undermine public health.
CEI’s first paper addresses activist hype related to cosmetics. Author Dana Joel Gattuso explains why consumers should not fall for the activist hype attacking cosmetics and other personal care products. In particular, she points out that if lawmakers followed consumer advice and removed certain chemicals from cosmetics, public health would suffer: “Present in quantities so small—typically, less than 1 percent of a product’s total weight—they are added to prevent contamination and to protect consumers from the buildup of dangerous bacteria that can cause eye infections, skin rashes, and even deadly infections such as E. coli and Salmonella,” Gattuso notes. She explains further:
In spite of the lack of scientific evidence of health risks from these ingredients, the anti-chemical groups have been successful in creating a climate of fear among many consumers—and lawmakers. The legislation they are promoting, the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011, would ban any cosmetic and skin care ingredients that exceed a one in a million risk of an adverse health impact—which is to say it would ban most ingredients since almost everything carries risk greater than one in a million. While the risks from products not containing these additives would be much higher, those risks would not be considered. In effect, the bill would ban the very chemicals that protect consumers.
The global-warming industry would probably still be solely owned by assoted cranks and romantics (and the odd vice president) if it weren’t for a bunch of CEOs taking a leaf from Enron’s playbook and attempting to monetize the issue. Playing the bootleggers in a classic bootleggers and baptists alliance, these businessmen have realized that they can get the government to increase their profits by means of “cap and trade” and similar regulatory interventions, at the expense of other businesses and the paying public. Ordinarily, such shenanigans would have the corporate watchdog groups in arms, but by getting the “baptists” of the green movement on their side, they have shielded themselves from public disgust.
This has to stop, and the good folks at Junkscience.com are at the forefront of calling foul. They are releasing a series of “Wanted” posters for six corporate fat cats who want to grow fatter by means of the Waxman-Markey Bill. Junkscience describes the six and their crimes as:
* Exelon CEO John Roe, the “carbon bandit,” who stands to make billions of dollars at taxpayer expense from Waxman-Markey’s free carbon allowances;
* General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt, the “carbon schemer,” who would rather profit from lobbying for Waxman-Markey than innovating products that consumers actually want;
* Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers, the “carbon betrayer,” who is lobbying for higher energy prices and against his own customers and shareholders;
* Dow Chemical CEO Andrew Liveris, the “carbon extortionist,” who threatens to send American jobs overseas unless Congress pays him off with free carbon allowances;
* Caterpillar CEO James Owens, who can only be considered as “carbon clueless” since he is lobbying against the coal industry, one of his biggest customers; and
* John Deer & Co. Chairman Robert Lane, the “carbon crapshooter,” who seems to be betting that he can wreck the economy and profit simultaneously.
Form that posse and go get ‘em, guys.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
Twitter 
Facebook 
CEI.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
GlobalWarming.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast 