American Council on Science and Health American Council on Science and Health
About
ACSH
¥ Contact
ACSH
¥ Support
ACSH
¥ My
ACSH
¥ Advanced
Search
 
ACSH.org   Home   . .   Health Issues   . .   News Center   . .   Publications   . .   Events   . .   FactsAndFears   .  
Celebrities Vs. Science
Publications
Issues
Browse by:
- Author
- Title
- Date
woc_conference

The Top Ten Unfounded Health Scares of 2006
By Jaclyn Eisenberg, Ruth Kava, Ph.D., R.D., Molly Lee
Posted: Friday, December 15, 2006
Printer Format icon Printer Format
Email Information icon E-mail Information

Introduction

Since its founding in 1978, the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) has been dedicated to providing scientifically sound health information to American consumers. As part of that mission, ACSH has frequently countered misleading and alarmist health news in print, broadcast, and online media. In a classic ACSH publication, Facts Versus Fears: A Review of the Greatest Unfounded Health Scares of Recent Times,(1) ACSH evaluated 27 of the greatest health scares of modern times, reviewing the basis of each, describing their presentation in media, and presenting scientifically accurate information on each topic. The current publication, The Top Ten Unfounded Health Scares of 2006, is organized along similar lines. Unfortunately, old scares seem neither to die nor to fade away—some of these that garnered media attention in 2006 are replays of earlier scares, sometimes with a new twist.

Unfounded stories, or those based mainly on hyperbole, focus attention on hypothetical risks and divert attention from real problems. While we acknowledge that media coverage of health stories is, of necessity, brief and cannot take all nuances of scientific and medical research into account, there is considerable room for improvement in health reporting—particularly when it comes to sorting out health facts from health hype.

We are not alone in this position. A poll by the Canadian Medical Association in 1999 found that 66% of Canadian physicians believed that news media coverage of medical health information was inaccurate.(2) Since that poll was taken, coverage has apparently not improved, according to a recent editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine.(3) Specifically, Dr. Edward Campion, author of the editorial, noted that because most health reports are based on research findings from expert scientists, the public tends to place a lot of trust in what they read in health stories in the press and other media. He cautions, however, “There is a tendency for health reports to describe events as exciting, major advances or as immediate, threatening dangers.” This characteristic, especially combined with anecdotal reports of amazing cures or newly discovered “risks,” can mislead consumers about the relevance of a particular story to their lives or health. And the reach of the stories can be vast. For example, Campion notes that one research report led to over 340 news stories.(4)

In reviewing 2006 health stories for this report, we found several characteristics that made many much less than reliable:

  • Ignoring the basic toxicological principle that ”the dose makes the poison.” Some stories suggest that the tiniest dose of a chemical or toxin is a significant threat to human health. The incorrect implication is that the only way to deal with the supposed risk is to completely eliminate the targeted substance from food, air, water, and toys or other consumer products.
  • Misunderstanding or misinterpreting a statistical correlation to mean that a causal connection is present between an observed condition and a risk to health. A good example is the flurry of concern about the possibility that the increased prevalence of obesity is due to increased consumption of the sweetener high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). As we explain in this document, the fact that both HFCS consumption and increased obesity rates are correlated does not have to imply that one causes the other. Further, the possibility was stated as a hypothesis, but to read some of the headlines one could easily believe it had been proven in numerous studies—which is not true.
  • Assuming that if large doses of a substance given to animals cause cancer or reproductive harm, then even trace amounts of that substance will cause the same result in humans. ACSH has repeatedly pointed out the fallacy of predicting human cancer risk based on animal studies. For example, our classic Holiday Dinner Menu details the many animal carcinogens that are naturally present in our foods but are present in such tiny amounts that they do us no harm. Further, a substance that is carcinogenic in one species is not necessarily carcinogenic in another. Even relatively closely related rodent species like rats and mice can differ in their reactions to a particular chemical. A more extensive examination of this issue is available in the ACSH book America's War on "Carcinogens": Reassessing The Use of Animal Tests to Predict Human Cancer Risk.
  • Presenting only one side of a health-related issue. Reiterations of incorrect information in the popular press can lead consumers to assume that some health advice is accepted by mainstream scientists when it is not. Thus, information should be presented in context, and if contentious, both sides of the argument should be given. An example of this type of imbalanced reporting is presented in our section dealing with chemicals in cosmetics. A number of websites discuss the ingredients in cosmetics as though everyone agrees that they are human carcinogens, when in fact this is not the case.
  • Failing to acknowledge that there can be risks associated with not using a product because of exaggerated fears. For example, avoiding fish consumption because of fears of mercury diminishes the intake of valuable nutrients that have actually been linked to improved health.
  • Failing to assess the long-term consequences of actions that supposedly reduce health risks. Thus, banning trans fats from New York City’s restaurant foods could backfire if the trans fats are replaced with saturated fats, which we know also raise blood levels of LDL (“bad”) cholesterol.
Having noted these shortcomings in many health reports, ACSH must also emphasize that at least some of the time, the media do make an effort to be balanced and to advise readers when information is preliminary. We applaud these efforts and would like to see them applied more widely.

It is our hope that this 2006 roundup of unfounded health scares will encourage consumers—not to mention journalists and editors—to be skeptical the next time a report trumpets the discovery of either a new chemical threat or miracle cure.

Table of Contents

Introduction
1. Trans Fatty Acids Cause Obesity and Heart Disease
2. Benzene in Soft Drinks Cause Cancer
3. High Fructose Corn Syrup Causes Obesity
4. Tuna Has Unsafe Mercury Levels
5. Nitrosamines in Bacon Cause Bladder Cancer
6. Teflon Contains a Cancer-Causing Chemical (PFOA)
7. Grilled Chicken: Another Cancer Risk?
8. Meat Packaging Threatens Consumers’ Health
9. Consumers Should Fear Chemicals in Cosmetics
10. Hormone Replacement Therapy Fears and Hype About “Natural” Alternatives
References

Related Publications
"Top 10 Unfounded Health Scares of 2007" Sticky-Backed, Postable List!
The Top 10 Public Health Travesties of 2005 (from National Review Online and the Washington Times)
The Ten Greatest American Public Health Achievemments of the 20th Century--Or Are They?
The Top Ten Unfounded Health Scares of 2004
 

Quick Search


Search Advanced Search

 
 
 
 
Published: December 2006
Paperback
ISBN: N/A

About ACSH ¥ Contact ACSH ¥ Support ACSH ¥ My ACSH ¥ Advanced Search

AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH
1995 BROADWAY, 2ND FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10023-5860
TELEPHONE: (212) 362-7044 ¥ TOLL FREE: (866) 905-2694 ¥ FAX: (212) 362-4919 ¥ E-MAIL: General organization mailbox: acsh@acsh.org ; Individual staffer: [last name or last name followed by first initial]@acsh.org

Copyright © 1997-2003 American Council on Science and Health ¥ PRIVACY POLICY ¥ All Rights Reserved

Powered by eResources