The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), the self-appointed "food police," is distressed that Congress has voted to repeal the warning label that has appeared on saccharin since 1977. Why is the scary little warning label soon to be a thing of the past? Because saccharin was voted off the federal "carcinogen list" because it does not cause cancer in people.

With most of the country covered in snow and gearing up for the holidays, far too little attention was paid this month to the Supreme Court's hearing of the lawn pesticide case. It also looked like a simple, even trivial, off-season issue. Do municipalities have the right to ban the use of pesticides by homeowners whose objective is strictly "cosmetic" a green lawn free of pests and weeds? But this is far from trivial. The pesticide case is actually a deep repository of legal and political trouble.

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States. Understandably, Americans are very concerned and fearful about cancer and would welcome sound information on how to reduce the risk of the various forms of this disease. In an attempt to fill that need, some 20 years ago Congress passed a law requiring the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to publish a biennial report telling American consumers what is known or suspected to cause human cancer. The DHHS delegated that responsibility to the National Toxicology Program (NTP).

To the Editor:
The Personal Health column on Dec.5 correctly notes the potential of genetically-improved food to help feed the world while reducing the need for pesticides ("Gene-Altered Foods: A Case Against Panic"). Genetic engineering is thoroughly regulated by at least three separate federal agencies. Scientific data reveal no cases of any human illness from GM foods, despite over four years of common use.

Science is under attack in affluent nations, where antibiotech activists claim consumers are being poisoned by inorganic fertilizers and synthetic pesticides. They also claim that newer genetic engineering technologies decrease biodiversity and degrade the environment. Neither claim is true, but fear-mongering could be disastrous for less-developed nations.

Scientists and physicians associated with the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) report that California's Proposition 65 (Prop65), a law whose purported intent was to improve the public's health, is misdirected and highly unlikely to effect such improvement. Other states and the U.S. Congress should consider these findings as they deliberate similar prospective "right to know" legislation.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This letter was written in response to an article Time published on October 30, 2000 that discussed early puberty in girls and linked it to a variety of possible causes.

For the past few decades, Americans have been manifesting a chronic condition best described as "chemicalphobia."
All around us, ads brag that products are "100% natural" or "organic" or chemical free." Many consumers think that "chemical" is the opposite of "natural" and the opposite of "good." Viewed in this context, the 100-percent natural Holiday Dinner Menu that the American Council on Science and Health publishes each year comes as quite an eye-opener.