A review by scientists associated with the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) has found no likely risk to human health associated with the levels of PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) to which the general population is exposed. The review disputes the claims by some journalists, litigators, and environmentalists that people are at risk from PFOA in the environment.

Assessing the Safety of the Chemical PFOA
Project Coordinator: Rivka Weiser
Editor: Gilbert L. Ross, M.D.
The American Council on Science and Health gratefully acknowledges the comments and contributions of the following individuals, who reviewed all or part of the longer position paper on which this booklet is based:
Larry Beeson, Dr.P.H., Loma Linda University 
Hinrich L. Bohn, Ph.D., University of Arizona
Joseph F. Borzelleca, Ph.D., Virginia Commonwealth University 
John Doull, M.D., Ph.D., University of Kansas 

An article in this week's Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) (1) adds to the mounting evidence (which ACSH has frequently pointed out) that antioxidant supplements are not the potent health-promoters that proponents claim. The study indicates they may even increase the risk of one of the very conditions that some claim they prevent.

For nearly three years, consumers have been warned about potential health risks from acrylamide, a chemical formed when foods containing high levels of carbohydrate are cooked at high temperatures (frying or baking, for example). Since its discovery in food by Swedish scientists, acrylamide has provided alarmist groups like the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) with a new focus for their bogus health scares.

A March 14, 2005 Los Angeles Times column by ACSH Director Henry I. Miller, M.D. addresses the question of whether banning all industry-associated scientists from advisory panels makes sense.

The scare story about vaccines containing mercury and causing autism is still with us, as a recent story on Fox 5 news here in New York City -- and a new book on the topic from St. Martin's Press -- suggest. (Indeed, the Fox 5 story caused such an outpouring of fear from parents that Fox 5 decided...to run it again.)

A tobacco company CEO appointed to the board of trustees of a reputable cancer institute? It's perhaps as outlandish as Time, Inc. being given an award for advancing tobacco control.

The Roanoke Times set off a unexpected scandal when it ran a photo of a Virginia woman who has (unwarranted) worries about the effect jackhammering on her street might have on her unborn baby -- but is, as seen in the photo (below), a smoker, a far more serious health threat.

A March 8 Reuters article entitled "Milk Alone Not Best for Bones" reported on a study that concluded that milk and other dairy products do not promote bone health in children over age seven. What Reuters neglected to note was the fact that the study's sponsoring organization, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), has a blatant anti-dairy agenda. That doesn't mean their study shouldn't be evaluated on its merits, but such potential conflicts of interest would probably be quickly noted in the case of, say, a study that came to "pro-industry" conclusions.

The New York Times in its March 4th editorial, "Experts and the Drug Industry," has it wrong. Recently, the FDA decided to allow the drugs Celebrex, Bextra, and Vioxx to be marketed despite research showing they seem to increase the risk of heart problems. The Times complains that this FDA decision is suspect because a "vast majority" of the scientists on the panel had financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry and ten of the thirty-two panel members had consulted or received research support from the three drug companies involved in this judgment.