Search results

The first half of 2004 has brought some weird health news. Whether good, bad, or ambiguous, these items are all worth noting:

Last Thursday, there was wide coverage of the fact that cancer rates have fallen according to a new report. There was extensive coverage in many news and TV broadcasts but not in America's newspaper of record.
There were actually two stories about cancer death and incidence rates, and perceptions about these important items, contained in the New York Times' coverage: one about health statistics and one about how little some in the press care about stories that can't be spun as scary.

An "alternative" paper in Las Vegas has gone into full-on tinfoil hat mode about the Morgan Spurlock documentary "Super Size Me."
They claim - third hand, of course - that this guy who has this friend who knows this dude tells him that a nefarious group known as The Firm was contracted by another firm to undermine the movie.

ACSH's Whelan v. CSPI's Wootan over vending machines on CNBC

People who view Morgan Spurlock's movie Super Size Me can be forgiven if they walk out thinking fast foods like those served at McDonald's and Burger King are particularly fattening. Mr. Spurlock ate (gorged, really) only at McDonald's for thirty days and ordered the super-sized versions whenever he was asked. As a consequence of his gluttony, he gained twenty-five pounds, raised his blood pressure and cholesterol, and saw deleterious changes in his liver.

It's amazing how many people feel comfortable blaming the food industry for the obesity epidemic in the United States. Less surprising is that having blamed industry, people seek to regulate what types of food can be marketed toward children. But refusal to take personal responsibility for eating misleads us into thinking that Americans are fat because of junk food. It also perpetuates the nonsensical claim that food can be separated into two categories: good and bad.

Dust on computers from flame retardants is called a health risk, explains a June 4 article by Benjamin Pimantel of the San Francisco Chronicle:
But Jeff Stier, associate director of the American Council on Science and Health, criticized the report's authors for exaggerating the dangers from brominated flame retardants.

A May 25 article by Star Lawrence (with Charlotte Grayson, M.D.) of WebMD Medical News about a device designed to make overeaters take smaller bites includes an ACSH reference (see http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/87/99579.htm?printing=true):

This letter was published on examiner.net

To the editor:

Morgan Spurlock's new movie, "Super Size Me," has led some in the media to call him a glutton for punishment. But what he demonstrated was just plain gluttony, compounded by an intentional lack of physical activity.

From the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel (http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/8841087.htm):
June 4, 2004
A Super Size Distortion

Published in the New London Day (CT):
An article calls movie director and actor Morgan Spurlock a glutton for punishment. (“Expose or con job? Film takes a bite out of McDonald's,” May 16.) But what he demonstrated in his movie, “Super Size Me,” was just plain gluttony, compounded by an intentional lack of physical activity.

Letter published in San Luis Obispo (CA) Tribune http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/8712182.htm
The article that ran in The Tribune titled "Exposé or con job? 'SuperSize Me' takes a bite out of McDonald's," calls director-star Morgan Spurlock a glutton for punishment. But what he demonstrated in his movie, "Super Size Me," was just plain gluttony, compounded by an intentional lack of physical activity.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." So states the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution a statement widely interpreted as specifying the "separation of church and state." Perhaps we need an amendment mandating the separation of church and diet, too. Some advocates of certain vegan and/or "raw" diets claim to garner their authority from the Bible presumably one can gain brownie points in heaven by eating according to "God's plan" (but no brownies would be allowed, unfortunately).

"Which beverage is best for staying slim -- a can of diet orange soda or a glass of orange juice?" asks the New York Sun's Julia Levy. "If you ask the city's Department of Education, it's option B, the orange juice," she writes.

Gary Null, Dr. Andrew Weil, General Nutrition Centers, and the other vitamin pitch men trusted by all too many Americans may be responsible for your worsening arthritis.
"Vitamin C May Worsen Arthritis, Study Finds," reports Reuters.

If ACSH had a nickel for every time an activist railed against the "cancer epidemic," well, we wouldn't have to ask you to contribute to our work.
Look no further than the Teresa Heinz-funded anti-chemical documentary, Rachael's Daughters: Searching for the Causes of Breast Cancer, "the story of seven women, all breast-cancer victims or survivors, working to unearth the causes of the breast-cancer epidemic."

As we begin June, are you more aware of asthma and allergies? Better sleep? Hepatitis? High blood pressure? Well, May was awareness month for these important health issues as well as others -- it was National Physical Fitness and Sports Month, too, and the public is reportedly better informed about all twenty-three of the issues brought to their attention last month.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest's flagship publication, Nutrition Action Health Letter is a prime fundraising tool for the Food Police. On its face, it looks like a well-written and visually appealing newsletter with health tips and recipes. But to the trained eye, it's not so pretty, at least from a scientific perspective.
Let's break down just a few things from their May 2004 feature "Sweet Nothings: Not All Sweeteners Are Equal." (Cute title. If only they did such a "Splenda-d" job with their science.)

Overhyped stories of danger from fish, underhyped stories of lead in candy -- but are the activists the real threat?

This piece first appeared on HuffingtonPost.com.

An important new piece of evidence may explain some of the controversy surrounding antioxidants and heart disease. A protein called haptoglobin may modify the effect of antioxidants. Only people with one form of the gene for that protein benefited, while those with another form got worse, and the other group showed no real effect.

Today a report issued on the Reuters Health news service told us that "Sodas Raise Cancer Risk" according to a U.S. "study." How could this be, and upon what evidence is this assertion based?
Don't ask.
The meeting at which this alarm was raised went unnamed in the press report, but occurred in New Orleans and is devoted to the intersection of diet and cancer, apparently.

The movie "Supersize Me" is misleading and a perversion of healthful nutritional practices, according to physicians and scientists at the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH). The documentary follows star and director Morgan Spurlock as he overeats at McDonald's restaurants every day for one month.

A 2001 Democratic National Committee commercial attacked George W. Bush's policy on arsenic levels in water: a young child asking, "Can I please have some more arsenic in my water, Mommy?" The underlying premises of the ad were that current environmental standards tolerated dangerous levels of naturally occurring arsenic in drinking water and that was just fine by President Bush.

The San Francisco-based Breast Cancer Fund has concluded that American cosmetics including nail polish put women at risk of cancer and children at risk of suffering birth defects. Never mind that no mainstream cancer epidemiologist believes that cosmetics contribute in anyway to human cancer or reproductive effects. The Fund is convinced that "chemicals" in the environment are the culprits and thus must be targeted and banished.