Ah, it's that time of year! Taxes, spring, pagan fertility rituals, and not coincidentally Easter (with its eggs, fast-breeding bunnies, and a resurrection), Arbor Day, and Earth Day. With Earth Day only a week away, now is a good time to reflect on whether the environment is improving or worsening, with all the implications for human health that implies.

Interested in losing weight? Want to do it without: (1) moving, (2) counting calories, (3) restricting food intake, or (4) any change in lifestyle whatsoever, and do it without any detrimental health effects? Well, step right up there are many products designed just to help you accomplish that goal. Then I have some Enron stock to sell you.

Remarks delivered at Wellesley Congregational Church, Saturday, April 13, 2002.

ACSH's Jeff Stier contributed to the debate on the chemical industry scheduled for broadcast April 15 on NPR. You'll also be able to hear it here:
http://www.justicetalking.org/getshow.asp?showid=210
Summary of Stier's remarks:

Defenders of cloning are up against fears that are more deeply rooted than anything born of modern science or politics, I suspect. This worries me, since I've written in defense of therapeutic cloning and, away from my official ACSH duties, have helped organize a petition protesting the ban on cloning that is being considered by Congress.

The Inuit, or Eskimo, population of Canada has a lower rate of death from cardiovascular disease than their Northern European counterparts. Is it because fish dominates their diet? Three recent studies support the claim that the omega-3 fatty acid found in fish can reduce the risk of death from heart disease. Now the U.S.

Consumers today are inundated with ads for so-called "functional foods" that will supposedly improve their health. But scientists and physicians associated with the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) find that many of the supposed health benefits of these foods are not backed by substantial scientific information.

"The Quist and Chapela study is a testament to technical incompetence."
That's a description of a study that was retracted by Nature, which had argued that genetically-modified corn was spreading out of control in Mexico. This quote comes from Matthew Metz, one of several scientists who co-authored a critique of the Nature study.

You've heard that quote, "The trouble is not what we know, it's what we know that isn't so?"
Well, one of the things I do at the Reason Public Policy Institute is argue for safety, health, and environmental policy that is rooted in the sound use of science, and more often than not "what we don't know" is glossed over in favor of unsupportable statements of certainty. Time after time, we hear that this policy or that policy is based on "sound science," and that the "debate over the science is done, now it's time to implement!" But it's virtually never that simple.

This is how CNN (and most other media, including the New York Times, which ran a front-page, above-the-fold story) reported the "kissing cousins" story early in April:
"An unrelated couple has about a 3 percent to 4 percent risk of having a child with [birth defects]. But for close cousins who are married, that risk jumps only 1.7 percent to 2.8 percent, the study said."