Questionable Studies Make Good Headlines
ACSH’s Dr. Gilbert Ross is quoted in an article in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune whose headline declares, “Drinking 2 sodas a week nearly doubles risk of pancreatic cancer, U study finds.” The study in question, from researchers at the University of Minnesota, is being published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.
“This is a fourteen-year study of 62,000 people, of which there were 140 cases of pancreatic cancer,” says Dr. Ross. “The statistical relationship they found was insignificant since the number of cases is too small. This study found, over fourteen years, ten cases per year of pancreatic cancer, with about ninety in soda drinkers and about fifty in non-drinkers. How can anyone make a link so tenuous into a causal link? It's absurd. Also, there are several other large studies that are better controlled than this one which have failed to show such a relationship. This is far from a cause-and-effect relationship, which is something even the authors seem to realize. They’re very measured in their analysis of this data. Still, you’ll see headlines like this that try and convince you that soda will give you cancer.”
“It’s also very sad, since pancreatic cancer is such a devastating disease,” says ACSH’s Dr. Whelan. “It’s so tragic when someone is diagnosed with it, and now you’ll have people saying it’s their fault for drinking a few sodas.”
Green Police Ad
ACSH’s Jeff Stier was intrigued by an ad that aired during the Super Bowl that depicts the “green police” tyrannically cracking down on people who commit “crimes” against the ecosystem by using plastic bottles and incandescent light bulbs, etc. The ad concludes that a new, clean-diesel car will appease the green police.
“It’s interesting because it illustrates if not exaggerates how absurd the ‘green’ movement has become by showing these environmentalist ‘police’ going overboard, but then it tries to make you feel good about buying a ‘green’ car,” says Stier. “The ad doesn’t work since it plays into the same absurd reasoning that it is criticizing.”
Junk Food in Schools
The New York Times reports: “In legislation, soon to be introduced, candy and sugary beverages would be banned and many schools would be required to offer more nutritious fare.”
“For the first time ever, the federal government is officially going to try to take junk food out of schools,” says Stier. “The best quote in the article is from an eighteen-year-old who says if he can’t buy his Pop Tarts at school, he’ll just bring them from home.”
“And in the end,” adds Dr. Whelan, “we are left with the most basic question: what exactly is the definition of ‘junk food?’”
Good News for Those Who Don’t Like Mental Math
The FDA is considering adjusting the official serving sizes applying to the nutrition facts on food products in order to more accurately reflect the amount of food that people actually consume in one sitting.
“I have to agree that serving sizes on some of these packages are often completely out of touch with reality,” says Dr. Ross. “No one opens a bag of chips and then only eats six of them.”
“We often find ourselves objecting to the FDA’s regulatory decisions,” says Dr. Whelan “In this case, it seems like the role of government could be used to provide more useful information to people.”
Dealing with a Touchy Subject
AP reporter David Caruso writes, “As the first cases in a massive battle over illnesses linked to 9/11 near trial, an Associated Press investigation has found that several of the initial thirty suits contain inconsistent or exaggerated claims about how the workers got sick or how much time they spent at Ground Zero.”
“We’ve been saying this for years,” says Stier. “Still, this is the first time I’ve seen the mainstream media take this on, and we have to give credit to the Associated Press for taking a critical look at some of these cases. They go through a number of examples where health claims and exposure claims have been overstated. There’s typically hesitation to critically evaluate the legitimacy of WTC health claims, since the rescuers are automatically considered heroes and it is assumed that we should support them.
“In fact, this has been a concerted campaign by unions, plaintiff’s lawyers and opportunistic politicians who want to be seen as being on the ‘right side,’ in favor of these heroes. It’s so distasteful to take advantage of the sympathy everyone has for New Yorkers because of this tragedy in order to get money. The really interesting thing will be when they take on cases that are less obviously fraudulent but where the health claims are tenuous at best.”
Curtis Porter is a research intern at the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org).