A Tax on Junk Food? NO
This article appeared in the May 1, 2005 New York Daily News, paired with an opposing argument from Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest:
This article appeared in the May 1, 2005 New York Daily News, paired with an opposing argument from Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest:
A May 1, 2005 article by Steve Wartenberg in The Morning Call mentions ACSH as a counterpoint to fears about irradiated beef:
Because of the efforts of grass-roots groups across the country, led by Public Citizen and local activists such as Szela and Stein, consumers have so far said ''no'' to irradiated beef.
A May 2005 list of environmentalism's critics in Outside magazine includes Emily Sohn's profile of Elizabeth Whelan: President, American Council on Science and Health:
Based on little more than trumped-up fears, activist groups say gene-spliced crops will damage the environment and harm human health. Recent research carried out in China, however, shows how baseless such concerns really are.
In an effort to cope with rising health care costs, areas of Washington state created a plan that will reward employees for good health by charging them less for healthcare if they meet certain standards of health.
As the public health community began digesting the much anticipated new food pyramid last week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), to its credit, released a new study suggesting that previous obesity-related mortality estimations were grossly overstated and that, get this, being slightly overweight actually adds to longevity.
California's legislature is now debating whether to ban a chemical found in plastic consumer products of many types, Bisphenol A, based on the so-called precautionary principle. This principle asserts that if a substance is suspected of being harmful, it must be banned or restricted until it's proven "safe."
But how does anyone go about proving a substance completely safe, and to whose satisfaction must it be proven?
Ah, it's spring again when our fancies are said to turn to romance. And with Earth Day upon us (April 22nd), the Greens' romantic fantasies turn to the environment, as they promote nineteenth-century Romantic ideologies to deal with twenty-first-century problems. Increasingly, the food sections of many newspapers have become year-round bastions of these romantic ideologies, touting the virtues of local produce, heritage varieties, and of course organic agriculture.
Obesity has been much touted in some quarters as being a leading cause of preventable death in the United States, second only to smoking. About a year ago, a study published by researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated the number of excess deaths attributable to obesity at 400,000, a value later corrected to 365,000. (1) Publication of these figures created quite a stir, and gave impetus to the drive by health professionals and others to encourage Americans to revise their lifestyles -- especially to eat less and move more.
ACSH Director Dr. Henry Miller wrote an article about unscientific activists for Genetic Engineering News, which you can read in its entirety and which contains many choice passages such as this one about EWG and their salmon scare: