Round-Up: Pesticide...Food...McDonald's

Related articles

Three April 1, 2006 pieces on the Heartland Institute site mention ACSH, one on pesticides...

The proposal [to mandate that farmers warn surrounding towns when using pesticides] and its demise raised the issue of "junk science." Gilbert Ross, medical director of the American Council on Science and Health, criticized the Washington proposal prior to the decision as having "absolutely no basis in scientific fact."

one on federal reform of food labeling laws...

"The Proposition 65 warnings [in California] are absolutely, scientifically absurd," said Elizabeth Whelan, president of the American Council on Science and Health. "Proposition 65 requires that [a firm selling] any product that contains any animal carcinogen [a substance found to cause cancer in animals] must label it or stop selling it even when there is no evidence of human cancer causation."

Added Whelan, "Illogically, Proposition 65 applies only to chemicals released by human [activities] but exempts natural carcinogens, which in many cases pose a much greater threat to human health."

and one on McDonald's new nutrition information labels:

"Provision of this information at the point of purchase will give consumers the opportunity to learn about the nutritional composition of their food selections," said Dr. Ruth Kava, nutrition director at ACSH. Kava also noted the information has long been available on the McDonald's Web site and in informational brochures, but said putting it on the packaging "will increase the likelihood that people will actually read it"...

The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a liberal advocacy group that supports lawsuits against McDonald's and other food manufacturers and restaurants, said in a news release responding to the McDonald's initiative, "a far better step would be to provide calorie counts right on the menu board."

Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, president of ACSH, doesn't believe that is a practical step. "Putting even more numbers and data on the menu board would not only be a logistical nightmare but would turn the meal into a clinical event," she wrote in a November 28 essay published in the Washington Times. Whelan concludes, "Enough already with these patronizing policies that assume we are all idiots who need the nutrition nannies continuously scolding us even at point of sale."