California is a trendsetter. It’s home to world-class wine, championship basketball teams, beautiful weather and legendary cities like San Francisco. But sadly, it's also a trendsetter when it comes to wrongheaded public health policy. There’s no better example of this than Proposition 65, a law that as of 2016 has cost California businesses close to $300 million.
The editorial board of the New York Times came out in favor of revising FDA regulations of cosmetic products. This is a reasonable suggestion since such a review has not taken place since 1938. But sound science, especially toxicology, is essential for any change in regulations to be meaningful. Unfortunately, on the science itself, the newspaper's proposal misses the mark.
Cigarette smoking is at an all-time low, and secondhand smoke exposure is also collapsing. So some public health officials have manufactured a new threat: Thirdhand smoke.
Should John Oliver decide that he's had enough, there is someone who can slip seamlessly into his seat. Jonathan Jarry - a member of the McGill Office on Science and Society. Jarry, who blames The Boogeyman in different forms, for all of mankind's ailments absolutely obliterates chemophobia and alternative medicine and those who practice it. Brilliant and hilarious. Don't miss.
The Sierra Club's adventure and lifestyle editor wrote about toxic chemicals in food (which aren't even toxic). And she had help. From a bug expert and shampoo salesman.
If you are concerned that we aren't wasting enough time in court with stupid lawsuits fear not. There's another one in the works about the label of what is little more than fizzy water with a little flavoring. The case was written up by Popular Science, but to a chemist, Unpopular Science would be more accurate.
The anti-chemical movement just keeps chugging along. This time it's the media webiste Vox in the caboose. Chemicals in plastics. Blah blah blah. But at least they cite GQ, that well-respected science magazine!
Perhaps Nick Kristof, the New York Times' non-expert on chemical toxicology, was on vacation. But the paper had a backup - Niraj Chokshi - to replace him. Chokshi is a psychology major who interviewed a member of the United States Public Interest Research Group, a bunch of lawyers, about scary chemicals in school supplies which aren't really scary at all.
This law firm shows no concern for the truth. It fits comfortably and profitably into our postmodern world, in which truth and lies are no longer distinguishable. Unscrupulous people can make a lot of money by exploiting the public's confusion over vaccines, chemicals and pharmaceutical products.
Normally a reliable source of information, Live Science published an article that is a dream for anti-pesticide and anti-chemical fearmongers.
This uniquely American tendency to assign racism where none exists has struck again in yet another bizarre way. And it's absurd to try to make the case that we are racist toward Chinese food, when the number of Chinese restaurants triples those of U.S. cultural icons such as McDonald's and Starbucks.
Veteran New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof fancies himself an expert in chemistry and toxicology. Chemists and toxicologists disagree.