posted April 13, 2006 12:24 AM            

The Environmental Protection Agency says the much-ballyhooed environmental contaminant dioxin is 10 times more dangerous than previously thought. Environmental activists already have begun a food scare campaign centered on dioxin. But amidst this eco-terrorism, the long-running and costly health scare over the dreaded dioxin is finally debunked — courtesy of ice cream maker, Ben & Jerry’s.

Ubiquitous in the environment, dioxin is a by-product of many industrial processes (e.g., chemical manufacturing and incineration), consumer activities (e.g., automobile tailpipe exhaust and fireplace wood-burning) and natural processes (forest fires and volcanic eruptions).

Over the last 25 years dioxin has been portrayed by environmental activists as “the most toxic substance known to man.” Dioxin was the contaminant of concern at the infamous Love Canal and Times Beach environmental “disasters” and in the Vietnam-era defoliant Agent Orange.

The EPA has been “reassessing” the alleged hazards of dioxin for almost 10 years. The agency’s 1994 effort to label dioxin as a “known human carcinogen” was rejected by its independent science advisers. Back from the drawing board this June, the EPA urges dioxin be labeled as even a more potent human carcinogen.

Environmental activists extrapolating from the EPA’s report claim 1 of every 14 cancers is caused by the dioxin in our bodies and from unavoidable daily exposures through food and the environment. Allegedly, dioxin is causing a variety of developmental, behavioral, and immune problems in children.

Following the EPA’s announcement of its tentative conclusions, the environmental activist group Center for Health, Environment and Justice placed a full-page advertisement in The New York Times picturing a breakfast and pointing to all the foods containing dioxin, including an omelet’s eggs and cheese, bacon, sausage, cream, milk and butter. The ad states that dioxin is “the most toxic man-made substance on earth... And you had some for breakfast. And you’ll have some for lunch. And for dinner...”

Scary stuff, certainly. And what’s a consumer to do? The only health effect that scientists agree dioxin may cause is severe but temporary acne from very high exposures — as occurred in some of the population surrounding a chemical facility in Seveso, Italy that exploded in 1976. Still, the EPA and the environmentalists press their case that dioxin is far more dangerous.

That’s where Ben & Jerry’s ice cream comes to the rescue.

As I was enjoying some Ben & Jerry’s ice cream at one of their “scoop shops” last summer, I noticed a Ben & Jerry’s marketing brochure titled “Our Thoughts on Dioxin.” The brochure stated, “Dioxin is known to cause cancer, genetic and reproductive defects and learning disabilities... The only safe level of dioxin exposure is no exposure at all.” Knowing that dioxin is in virtually all food, Dr. Michael Gough and I put Ben & Jerry’s ice cream to the test. Gough is a former government scientist who chaired the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services advisory panel on the effects of dioxin-contaminated Agent Orange on U.S. Air Force personnel in Vietnam and served as one of EPA’s science advisers in the 1994 review of dioxin.

We measured the level of dioxin in a sample of Ben & Jerry’s “World’s Best Vanilla” ice cream. We presented the results at the Dioxin 2000 scientific conference held this week in Monterrey, California.

Two independent laboratories using different methodologies reported a single serving of the ice cream contained about 200 times the level of dioxin the EPA says is safe — according to the existing EPA standard. Under the new EPA standard, a serving of Ben & Jerry’s would exceed the EPA’s safe level by a whopping 2,000 times. The level would be about 7,400 times what the EPA says is safe for a 40-pound child.

If dioxin is so dangerous — as Ben & Jerry’s and Greenpeace, the ice cream-maker’s science adviser, seem to think it is — then how can Ben & Jerry’s sell its ice cream? Doesn’t the company care about “the children?” — a segment of the population continually exploited to promote the political and social agendas of the EPA and environmental activists.

The answer, of course, is that the low-levels of dioxin in our food and the environment are not dangerous.

The story gets better.

The EPA and a California-based activist group, Communities for a Better Environment, are attacking a San Francisco-area gasoline refinery operated by the Tosco Corp for its discharges of dioxin into San Francisco Bay. Tosco’s wastewater is permitted by the EPA to contain 0.14 trillionths of a gram of dioxin per liter. Last November, the EPA moved to reduce this level to zero.

But based on our testing, a single serving of Ben & Jerry’s contains about 2,285 times more dioxin than an 8-ounce “serving” of gasoline refinery wastewater at the permitted level.

None of this is to say that Ben & Jerry’s ice cream is dangerous. But here’s the conundrum for the pushers of dioxin hysteria, including their ally and financial backer Ben & Jerry’s.

If dioxin was so dangerous, it is unlikely that Ben & Jerry’s would be selling ice cream. Certainly, an appropriate new flavor would be “Tasty Toxics.”

But since Ben & Jerry’s intends to continue selling its “dioxin-laden” ice cream, that can only mean that dioxin is not dangerous — in which case an appropriate new flavor might be “World’s Best Hypocrisy.”

Despite our tests, the Greens and others will likely persist in fearmongering about dioxin. Why? The answer is simple — politics and money.

Promoting the dioxin scare is an effective fund-raising strategy for environmental activists. Forcing lower emissions of dioxin on industry provides the EPA with greater regulatory power. Vietnam veterans have already bullied the federal government into compensating them for a variety of illnesses allegedly due to Agent Orange. Now they want a monument to supposed “casualties” of Agent Orange.

Researchers have enjoyed over $1 billion in federal funds over the last 20 years. University of Texas researcher Arnold Schecter, who also has worked with the activists at the Environmental Defense Fund, wants money to investigate alleged Agent Orange-associated health effects among the Vietnamese population. Conceivably, Vietnam may be working through U.S. environmental activists to extort “compensation” from the U.S.

Ben & Jerry’s isn’t the only business trying to exploit the dioxin scare for profit. Two firms, Toronto-based Bio Business International and a Denver-based Natracare LLC, are marketing dioxin-free tampons in the midst of an “anonymously” started e-mail scare campaign that even the Food and Drug Administration has decried as a hoax.

posted April 13, 2006 12:27 AM            

A federal judge this week dismissed an $800 million lawsuit alleging cell phone use caused a Maryland physician's brain cancer.

Judge Catherine Blake ruled the plaintiff's scientific evidence wasn't sufficiently reliable or relevant.

If you worry that cell phone use might cause brain cancer, Judge Blake's ruling should ease your mind. It's safe to assume the plaintiff's lawyers -- the case was handled by the firm of infamous personal injury lawyer Peter Angelos -- presented the "best" possible case against cell phones.

Judge Blake screened the potential testimony to ensure the "reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue."

Christopher Newman used a cell phone for an estimated 343 hours from October 1992 until the March 1998 diagnosis of his brain tumor. Newman claimed to hold the phone with his right hand next to his right ear, the area where the tumor developed.

Dr. Lennart Hardell, the only medical doctor offered to support the phone-cancer link, testified the tumor was caused by cell phone use. He relied on his own research -- including two published studies -- to support his testimony.

But Judge Blake observed Dr. Hardell's 1999 study reported no "overall increased risk for brain tumors associated with exposure to cellular phones" and his 2001 study, purporting to link cell phone use with cancer, was criticized by defense experts as a faulty effort to recast the 1999 study results.

Dr. Hardell's subsequent research -- not published as of the court hearing -- showed no overall statistically significant increased risk between cell phone use and brain cancer.

But Dr. Hardell nonetheless maintained the overall findings didn't matter because the cancer was only associated with ipsilateral phone use, in which the cancer develops on the same side of the head as the phone is held -- as in Newman's case.

Judge Blake dismissed this claim since Hardell also reported a statistical association between ipsilateral use of cordless phones and cancer, "even though there is otherwise no scientific claim that cordless phones cause brain cancer." A defense expert attributed Hardell's results concerning ipsilateral use to "recall bias" -- study subjects' inability to accurately recall which side of their heads phones were used.

In addition to point-by-point disassembly of Dr. Hardell's testimony, Judge Blake added, "Arrayed against Dr. Hardell's findings are the numerous studies published in peer reviewed journals and by international scientific and governmental bodies."

Another expert, Dr. Elihu Richter of Hebrew University, withdrew his opinion about a cell phone-cancer link before the hearing. During depositions, Dr. Richter conceded Newman's phone was within the parameters of studies reporting no cell phone-cancer link.

Without evidence from human studies, Newman's lawyers offered animal studies supposedly showing relevant biological effects of radiofrequency radiation -- the type of low-level radiation emitted by cell phones.

Judge Blake noted, however, "No peer-reviewed published study was identified [that] reported an increased risk of brain cancer from RFR at cell phone frequencies."

Newman's lawyers offered a study by the University of Washington's Dr. Henry Lai where rats exposed to RFR at a frequency of 2450 megahertz supposedly had more DNA strand breaks. DNA damage can result in a mutation that gives rise to a cancer cell.

Judge Blake found, however, Dr. Newman's cell phone frequency ranged from 824 to 848 megahertz, way below the frequency used in Lai's experiments.

Dr. Lai also acknowledged that RFR at cell phone levels is not a strong enough energy source to break chemical bonds and thereby cause DNA damage.

My favorite plaintiff's expert was Dr. Neil Cherry, a meteorologist called on to provide background testimony about RFR.

Dr. Cherry would have been more useful to the plaintiff's lawyers if he had forecast the storm of science that rained out the plaintiff's case.

Newman's lawsuit met a similar fate -- dismissal for lack of evidence -- as the 1993 cell phone lawsuit that was infamously announced on Larry King Live and that launched the cell phone scare.

posted April 13, 2006 12:29 AM            

Last week’s revelations that a South Korean stem cell researcher faked results that were touted in the journal Science might result in a most Dickensian Christmas Eve for editor-in-chief David Kennedy, who shouldn’t be surprised if the ghost of Jacob Marley appears at his bedside warning of imminent visits by the Ghosts of Junk Science Past, Present and Future.

The Ghost of Junk Science Past might take Kennedy back to June 1996, when Science published a study by Tulane University researchers claiming that combinations of manmade chemicals, including pesticides and PCBs, were as much as 1,600 times more potent in disrupting normal hormonal processes than the chemicals were acting alone.

Kennedy would be reminded that Science not only published the study but touted it in the journal’s news coverage and an editorial – enormous fanfare in a journal where the vast majority of studies are published without news or editorial notice.

Newspaper headlines from June 7, 1996, would flash in front of him, including the Washington Post’s “Environmental Estrogens May Pose Greater Risk, Study Shows,” the Associated Press’ “Study: Harmful Effects of Pesticides Far More Potent When Mixed,” and USA Today’s “Pesticides, PCBs grow more harmful together.”

Headlines would be followed by quotes from notable officials such as: “The new study is the strongest evidence to date that combinations of estrogenic chemicals may be potent enough to significantly increase the risk of breast cancer, prostate cancer, birth defects and other major health concerns,” from then-Environmental Protection Administrator Carol Browner; and “These findings are astonishing. The policy implications are enormous about how we screen environmental chemicals for estrogen effects. It is a very high priority for us to address the implications of this,” from then-EPA pesticide chief Lynn Goldman.

The Ghost of Junk Science Past would then guide Kennedy to the halls of Congress in time to see unanimous adoption of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 that included a mandate that the EPA regulate so-called “environmental estrogens” or “endocrine disrupters.”

Kennedy would then witness the unraveling of the Tulane study. By the end of 1996, reports began appearing that other researchers could not replicate the Tulane results – replication of results being a fundamental part of sound scientific method. The Tulane study was retracted from publication in July 1997 when its authors acknowledged that they could not replicate their own results.

The culmination of the Tulane study implosion was a finding by the federal Office of Research Integrity in October 2001 that the researchers had “committed scientific misconduct by intentionally falsifying the research results published in the journal Science and by providing falsified and fabricated materials to investigating officials.”

Waking in a cold sweat, Kennedy may then be visited by the Ghost of Christmas Present who will take him on a journey through Science’s ongoing stem cell research fiasco, which began when the journal rushed to publish on its web site -- four weeks ahead of its print publication -- a study by South Korean researcher Dr. Woo Suk Hwang claiming to have created 11 colonies of human embryonic stem cells from adult skin cells.

The flashing headlines from May 19-20, 2005 will include Cox newspapers’, “Stem Cell Researchers Report ‘Giant Step’”, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s, “S. Koreans Hail Stem Cell Breakthrough” and the Christian Science Monitor’s “Stem-Cell Research Surges Ahead Of Lawmakers.”

Kennedy will again be whisked to Capitol Hill where he will witness the May 23, 2005 vote in the House of Representatives to override President Bush’s August 2001 limits on embryonic stem cell research, setting up Senate debate on the bill in 2006.

Then Kennedy will again witness a highly-touted Science study disintegrate.

Time-travelling through November and early-December, Kennedy will re-live the accusation that Hwang illegally obtained the human eggs used in his experiments and the subsequent discovery that erroneous data and images were published in Science.

Kennedy will relive his denial of the looming reality when he told the Washington Post (Dec. 6) that “There is no reason to believe at the moment that it is a problem that affects the scientific outcome of the paper,” Kennedy said.

At a Dec. 16 media conference, Kennedy announced that Science received a request for retraction of the study from its lead authors. Moving on, Kennedy will see the Dec. 16 Times (UK) headline “I faked my cell research, admits cloning pioneer.”

But Kennedy’s rough night won’t be over until a visit from the Ghost of Christmas Future.

After the spirit chastises him for Science’s track record of sensationalizing studies that turn out to be based on faked data and that subsequently impact public policy, Kennedy will find himself standing together with the spirit in a graveyard, the Ghost’s gnarled finger pointing to a headstone that has “Science” engraved on it.

“Spirit!” Kennedy will exclaim, “Hear me! Science isn’t the journal it was. I will honor real science in my heart, and try to keep it all the year. I will no longer rush fake science to publication.”

Should Kennedy keep this principle, of course, he will no longer be bothered by the Ghosts of Junk Science, but it will always be said of him that he knew how to keep science well.

posted April 13, 2006 12:32 AM            

One of the most controversial “junk science” issues of recent years — whether air pollution causes premature death — will remain controversial for the foreseeable future despite activist claims and media headlines.

“Independent Institute Finds Key Pollution Studies Are “Sound Science,” blared a recent press release from the American Lung Association. “It shows once again that air pollution shortens lives, and strong [Environmental Protection Agency] standards are needed to protect public health,” stated the ALA.

The reality is somewhat different — at least according to Health Effects Institute, the organization whose work is being cited.

The saga starts in November 1996 when the EPA proposed more stringent regulation of airborne particulate matter (soot). The EPA initially claimed further regulation would prevent 20,000 “premature deaths” every year at an annual cost of $8 billion. By valuing each life saved at about $5 million, the EPA estimated the monetized benefits of saving these lives at $100 billion per year.

But the validity of the EPA’s estimates was questioned. In particular, the estimate of premature deaths was based on a single study — called the “Pope study,” after its lead researcher C. Arden Pope of Brigham Young University. The Pope study reported that airborne particulates were associated with a 17 percent increase in premature deaths. But this result constituted only a weak statistical correlation — not scientific proof of a cause-and-effect relationship between air particulate pollution and premature death.

Although the study included more than 550,000 people, the researchers did not measure how much air pollution even one study subject was exposed to. Instead, they guessed how much pollution these individuals might have encountered.

Study subjects undoubtedly differed in many behavioral, occupational, environmental and genetic factors that probably were not adequately considered by the researchers. Any one of these factors, or a combination thereof, could explain the reported correlation.

For example, the researchers did not look at the subjects' diets, income, health histories, genetic predispositions to illness, exercise habits and social habits — all well-established risk factors for premature death. The researchers did adjust for some factors — including smoking habits, education level and occupational exposures — but additional adjustments could easily negate the purported 17 percent increase in risk.

A further problem was that no one has ever demonstrated how typical levels of airborne particulates could cause premature death.

In this context, the reported correlation could easily have been a statistical artifact. As the National Cancer Institute earlier pointed out: “In epidemiologic research, [risks of less than 100%] are considered small and usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias or effects of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident.”

But the EPA did not back down — even when an elementary statistical error in the EPA’s calculations was discovered that knocked down the lives-saved estimated to 15,000 and some economists estimated the proposal’s cost to exceed $100 billion annually.

The controversy prompted Congress to ask the EPA to produce the Pope study’s raw data so independent scientists could check the study’s results.

The EPA initially balked, saying there was no purpose in any re-analysis of the EPA-funded study. Finally, after the EPA issued the regulations, access to the Pope study data was given to the Health Effects Institute, a Massachusetts-based research organization funded by the EPA and auto industry.

HEI issued its report last week — three years after the regulations were finalized. The results are not quite as the ALA press release touts.

Using essentially the identical methodology as the Pope study researchers, HEI produced virtually the same results — hardly a surprise. A naive media reported this “replication” in headlines such as “Research on air particles passes muster” and “Studies back particulates’ link to death.”

But the re-analysis ha essentially the same shortcomings as the original study. The researchers did not factor in to their analysis the effect of diet or genetics on death rates. Data on exercise habits were factored in and reduced risk estimates by almost 30 percent. But the quality of the data on exercise is debatable; incredibly, it indicates no difference in death rates between non-exercising study subjects and heavy-exercising study subjects. Better quality exercise data could have a more dramatic effect.

There is a similar data quality problem with health history. The re-analysis paradoxically indicates that healthy study subjects had twice the risk of premature death of diseased study subjects.

Neither of these data problems is surprising given how the study data were collected. The American Cancer Society amassed the data by having 70,000 volunteers — not trained data collection specialists — go to their friends, family and neighbors and ask personal, health-related questions. No effort was made to verify or validate the study subjects’ responses.

It’s no wonder the HEI concluded its report: “It is important to bear in mind that the results of our reanalysis alone are insufficient to identify a causal relation with mortality.”

So why did the ALA jump to its conclusion? That question perplexed HEI’s president Daniel Greenbaum who noted the ALA issued a press release last April titled “New Health Research 'Vindicates' EPA; Soot Particles Are Deadly, Lung Association Notes ” — three months before the HEI report was made available to the public.

The explanation, though, lies with the finances and politics of the ALA. As first reported by Investors Business Daily in January 1997, “The ALA has had a long — and lucrative — relationship with the EPA.” In the years before the EPA air pollution proposal, the agency gave the ALA almost $5 million — despite the ALA suing the EPA almost every year claiming the agency wasn’t complying with the nation’s air pollution laws.

“If you think the EPA is upset with the ALA suing them, think again,” said Scott Segal, a Washington, DC-based attorney. “Truth be known, the EPA wants to be sued, because every time they are sued it expands the reach of the Clean Air Act.”

Unfortunately for the ALA and the EPA, another lawsuit has pre-empted the claimed “vindication” of the Pope study. A federal appellate court overturned the EPA regulations in May 1999 on a number of grounds. The case is pending before the Supreme Court.

No doubt more research will continue into the potential health effects of air pollution. But another by-product of the Pope study controversy may change the shape of the next scientific debate.

Because of difficulty in obtaining the Pope study data, a federal law was enacted in October 1998 requiring that federally funded scientific data used to support federal policy must be publicly available through the Freedom of Information Act.

posted April 13, 2006 12:35 AM            

Obesity hysteria recently collapsed under its own weight. But the public health establishment, media and politicians are doing their best to revive it.

Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a study in the April 20 Journal of the American Medical Association that estimated the net death toll attributable to obesity to be 25,814 people per year.

This, of course, was quite a downward revision from CDC’s March 2004 claim that obesity caused about 400,000 deaths per year, approaching the toll estimated for smoking. Readers of this column learned at the time that the 400,000-estimate was quite faulty and it’s rather refreshing to see the CDC admit that it was wrong.

But don’t expect the 93.5 percent reduction in the size of the scare to have any measurable impact on the obesity industry’s momentum.

When the new study was published, CDC chief Dr. Julia Gerberding told the Associated Press that the agency won’t scale back its anti-obesity campaign which, by the way, won’t mention the new reduced death toll estimate.

“There's absolutely no question that obesity is a major public health concern of this country,” Gerberding insisted.

The translation, of course, is that CDC receives plenty of taxpayer funding to promote the obesity scare and it’s not giving it back.

In the wake of the new study, the Center for Consumer Freedom, a group “promoting personal responsibility and consumer choice,” took out full-page ads in several major daily newspapers depicting the “Obesity Epidemic” as shrinking over the last year to a “Problem,” then to a “Threat,” then to an “Issue,” and finally to just "Hype."

Although the Washington Post was happy to take $100,000 or so from the Center to run the ad, the newspaper apparently wasn’t too happy about the message. Several days after the ad ran, the Post published a lengthy story on front-page of its Business section knocking the Center for Consumer Freedom as the tool of the restaurant industry.

Adding insult to injury a few days later, the Post then ran an editorial in which it ridiculed the Center for Consumer Freedom’s ad as a “scandal.”

“A group actually calling itself the Center for Consumer Freedom did buy $600,000 worth of advertising in The Post and elsewhere last week calling the links between obesity and mortality ‘hype’ fostered by the government's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In principle, these advertisements are no less of a scandal: The high cost of diabetes and other obesity-related illnesses is not in dispute, any more than is the cost of tobacco-related illnesses. Obesity rates in the United States have more than doubled in the past 30 years and have tripled among children,” editorialized the Post.

Note how the Post actually tried the old trick of changing the subject, shifting the focus from the CDC’s bogus estimate of 400,000 deaths to perhaps equally dubious factoids about childhood obesity.

What’s really scandalous, though, is how the Post kept the Center’s money while simultaneously disparaging it.

Former President Clinton joined the obesity fray this week announcing a joint campaign with the American Heart Association to encourage children to have healthy diets and to be physically active -- both worthy goals.

But President Clinton stepped into the realm of obesity hype when he stated, “The truth is that children born today could become part of the first generation in American history to live shorter lives than their parents because so many are eating too much of the wrong things and not exercising enough.”

The reality of the matter is actually quite different.

First, there is little evidence to support the notion that otherwise healthy adults have shorter lifespans simply because they may be overweight. In fact, the new CDC study reported that adults who are merely “overweight” actually live longer on average than adults who are of “normal weight.”

Next, there is absolutely no evidence to support the notion that, for otherwise healthy children, childhood weight determines or impacts longevity.

Perhaps worse than any weight problem that may or may not be occurring, is the problem of the obesity scare industry, consisting of government regulators, the media, politicians, and various nonprofit groups.

Regardless of the facts, these groups have a vested interest -- mainly at taxpayer expense -- in maintaining the fiction that Americans are eating themselves to death.

posted April 13, 2006 12:37 AM            

"Who plays God in the 21st century?" is the rhetorical title of a recent full-page advertisement in The New York Times attacking genetic engineering. The rhetorical reply should be, "Someone who takes more seriously the Ninth Commandment: 'Thou shalt not bear false witness.' "

The Oct. 11 advertisement was the first in a series lambasting genetic engineering, "economic globalization," "industrial agriculture" and "technomania." The series is sponsored by The Turning Point Project, a coalition of anti-technology and environmental groups including Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. Ads appear weekly and will continue through Spring 2000.

The "Who plays God?" ad features a photograph of a shaved laboratory mouse with what looks like a human ear attached to its back. The caption states, "This is an actual photo of a genetically engineered mouse with a human ear on its back."

The text rails against genetic engineering: "The genetic structures of living beings are the last of Nature's creations to be invaded and altered for commerce . . . the infant biotechnology industry feels it's OK to . . . reshape life on Earth to suit its balance sheets. Who appointed the biotech industry as Gods of the 21st century? So far, there exist no half-human, half-animal 'chimeras' (like mermaids or centaurs) but we may soon have them."

Dramatic language, indeed. But let's return to that mouse photograph.

In reality, the mouse with the attached "human ear" has nothing to do with genetic engineering. That's not even a real ear attached to the mouse.

A template in the shape of a human ear was formed and then seeded with human chondrocytes, or cartilage cells. The template was then surgically implanted on the back of a mouse, under its skin. The chondrocytes eventually grew into the structure resembling a child's ear.

Eventually this technology may help children who are either born without ears or who lose their ears through injury. The advantage of the technique is that tissue grown from a patient's own cells avoids the problem of rejection.

Thanks to this "tissue engineering," a "whole host of other lab-grown body parts are just around the corner," says Dr. Charles Vacanti, an anesthesiologist and director of the Center for Tissue Engineering at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center. "I believe that it's technically possible at this time to replace any bone or any cartilage lost in an accident - or to disease," adds Dr. Vacanti.

But nothing in this process involves changing the genetic structure of any living thing. The ad claims that "Biotech companies are blithely removing components of human beings (and other creatures) and treating us all like auto parts at a swap meet. An astounding array of new creatures is being created. They include mice with human ears."

Of course, if the pictured mouse reproduced, no "new" creature would be created. A normal mouse would result because the mouse's genetic makeup was not changed.

If the photo has no connection to the topic of the ad, what's it doing there? Apparently, the Greens will stoop to any level necessary to make their dubious points. Unfortunately, the "Who plays God?" ad is only the tip of the iceberg. Subsequent advertisements haven't been any more credible.

An ad titled "Genetic Roulette" features a photo of a Monarch butterfly with the caption, "Cornell University scientists discovered that genetically engineered corn pollen killed 50 percent of Monarchs in their test." The reality is somewhat different. John Losey, the lead Cornell scientist, said in an interview last June, "Our study was conducted in the laboratory and, while it raises an important issue, it would be inappropriate to draw any conclusions about the risk to Monarch populations in the field based solely on these initial results." Subsequent research by Mr. Losey and others has made premature drawing of conclusions even more inappropriate.

Another ad, titled "Unlabeled, untested - and you're eating it," states, "In secret, genetically engineered foods are showing up on American grocery shelves . . . the Food and Drug Administration still does not require labels or safety tests." Not quite. The Turning Point Coalition is lucky The New York Times doesn't require truth tests.

A longstanding approval process for genetically modified crops involves the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture and the FDA. The FDA standard for approving GM foods is whether they are substantially equivalent to non-GM foods. Safety assessment procedures focus on unique or novel components of GM-foods, such as proteins or metabolites. Foods not "substantially equivalent," but deemed "safe" must be labeled as to what is different.

This regulatory process was subject to notice and public comment prior to adoption. The FDA is currently holding public hearings around the country to determine whether the public wants more involvement. Where's the big "secret"?

posted April 13, 2006 12:39 AM            

Radical animal-rights activists may be the last people you'd think would be planning school lessons for your children. Well, think again.

Through its innocuous-sounding "educational" programming arm known as TeachKind, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has found a way to reach school children starting as young as kindergarten with its extremist agenda. The opportunity for PETA (search) to gets its message into the classroom has been paved, at least in part, by various laws on the books in at least 12 states mandating humane education in public schools — thus creating a demand for curricula centered on teaching children about the humane treatment of animals.

Naturally, PETA is only too happy to provide ready-made lesson plans, videos and handouts to already overworked teachers.

"Kids who hurt animals may be on a dangerous path that will only get worse if it is not corrected. Psychiatrists, FBI profilers and law enforcement officials have repeatedly documented that kids who abuse animals rarely stop there," TeachKind warns.

Its fact sheet, entitled "Animal Abuse and Human Abuse: Partners in Crime," points out that "violent acts toward animals have long been recognized as indicators of a dangerous psychopathy that does not confine itself to animals," and goes on to detail how many notorious school shooters, including Columbine's Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, were known to mutilate animals prior to their attacks on humans.

Indeed, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (search) (DSM-IV) published by the American Psychiatric Association, participation in animal torture is one of the early warning signs of a severe emotional disturbance in a child, ranking alongside fire-setting as a strong indicator of future criminal behavior as well as the likelihood of psychopathy in adulthood.

While there's no question that the small number of children who torture animals are quite disturbed and that all children should be taught how wrong such behavior is, it's quite another matter for PETA to capitalize on this issue as an opportunity to indoctrinate children with PETA's own radical, catch-all definition of what constitutes "animal cruelty." And that's precisely what PETA is doing through TeachKind.

As its Web site prominently touts the animal cruelty-psychopathy connection with quotes from FBI criminalists and others, a closer inspection reveals that the bulk of TeachKind's educational efforts are actually crafted so as to make children believe that everyday behaviors, such as eating a diet that contains meat or animal products, are unmistakably, unequivocally acts of animal cruelty.

PETA's frightening of young children by equating, or even associating, truly disturbed behavior such as mutilation of a family pet with common everyday practices such as eating hamburgers amounts to nothing less than ideological child abuse.

PETA even accuses schools across America of being major perpetrators of animal cruelty. They oppose basic learning methods widely practiced throughout our educational system such as insect collection, field trips to zoos or aquariums, and dissection in the classroom.

"Hearing a lot about violence in schools? You can do something to help. Cut out dissection!" announces their Web-based anti-dissection campaign, which even mentions how a young Jeffrey Dahmer "became fascinated with blood and guts" as a result of participating in a biology assignment involving dissection. With this assertion, PETA is inviting impressionable young minds to believe that all it takes is one experience with a dissection assignment to walk away a psychopathic serial killer.

In addition to encouraging kids to refuse to participate in dissection assignments, the campaign even coaches kids on the exact wording to use in their formal written objections so as to "provide the basis for a possible legal case."

A significant portion of TeachKind's curriculum is devoted to persuading children to adopt a vegetarian diet as a way to avoid participating in "animal cruelty." PETA's Web-based materials provide the warped logic that if farmers treated a cat or a dog the way they treat livestock, they would "be prosecuted for animal cruelty and locked up" — once again stressing the theme of hypothetical criminality for those who eat meat.

PETA even tries to scare kids away from drinking milk, a food so controversial that it occupies its very own wedge on the latest FDA food pyramid for optimal nutrition. A series of trading cards called "Don't Be a Milk Sucker" available from its Web site, features cartoon characters suffering a host of illnesses PETA attributes to milk consumption such as ear infections, obesity, acne, and even diabetes!

Nor does milk consumption escape PETA's definition as a distinctly cruel act against animals. We meet "Milk-Stealing Ming," who is depicted with his mouth directly attached to an unhappy cow's udder, alongside a "wanted poster" describing his crimes and exclaiming, "cows make milk for their babies, not for maniacs like Ming."

If we are to take at face value PETA's irresponsible suggestion that "animal cruelty" — as defined by their radical, catch-all parameters — is a reliable indicator of psychopathic tendencies, I suppose it's just a matter of time before we all read about Milk-Stealing Ming's future adult crime sprees in the headlines.

posted April 13, 2006 12:44 AM            

Swedish scientists reported this week that eating potato chips may expose you to dangerously high amounts of the supposedly cancer-causing substance acrylamide.

Not to worry, though. You'd choke on the chips before you croaked from the chemical.

Stockholm University researchers claim to have shown that baking or frying carbohydrate-rich foods, such as potatoes and cereals, formed acrylamide, a substance classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a "probable human carcinogen."

"I have been in this field for 30 years and I have never seen anything like this before," said Leif Busk, head of research for Sweden's National Food Administration. "The discovery ... is new knowledge. It may now be possible to explain some of the cases of cancer caused by food ... Frying at high temperatures or for a long time should be avoided," Busk added.

Should you chuck your chips and get a haz-mat team to decontaminate your pantry? Should personal injury lawyers fire up the class action lawsuit machine against potato chip makers for addicting us to an allegedly cancer-causing product? ("Lays Potato Chips, betcha can't eat just one!")

Hardly.

First, there isn't even a study available for review. The dire news was rushed to market via press conference. The researchers deemed their findings so important that they couldn't wait to have them officially published in an academic journal.

But science-by-press-conference is not part of the tried-and-true scientific method and almost invariably indicates junk science.

What's the rush in making these claims anyway? Humans have only been consuming baked and fried foods for thousands of years. If these foods were killing us, we likely would have noticed by now.

Yes, the EPA classifies acrylamide as a probable human carcinogen. But this is not based on any studies involving humans. The classification is based only on laboratory animal experiments that are of questionable relevance to humans.

Mice obviously aren't little people. Lab animals are bred to be prone to cancer and are so cancer prone that they get cancer simply from overeating, which they typically are allowed to do. Then, the lab animals are fed massive doses of the tested substances.

Using such experiments to predict human cancer risk isn't science — it's voodoo.

Putting aside that reality check, the claims don't pass the next one.

The researchers claim that a single potato chip may contain as much as one-millionth of a gram (a microgram) of acrylamide.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the lab animal tests are relevant to humans, the lowest dose in lab animals at which a slight increase in cancer incidence was reported is 500 micrograms per kilogram of rodent bodyweight per day, according to the EPA.

For the average 70 kilogram adult (about 154 lbs.), that would be an equivalent dose of acrylamide of 35,000 micrograms. To get an equivalent daily dose of acrylamide as the lab animals, someone of average bodyweight would have to eat 35,000 potato chips (about 62.5 pounds) per day for life.

No, I can't eat only one potato chip, but 35,000? Let's get real.

The idea that you can get cancer from acrylamide-laden potato chips is as dopey as the 1989 scare concerning the agricultural chemical Alar, formerly used on apples. Assuming the lab animal tests for Alar are relevant to humans, one would have to consume about 19,000 quarts of apple juice per day for life to get the same dose as the lab animals.

Moreover, as pointed out in the American Council on Science and Health's annual Holiday Dinner Menu, many foods naturally contain multiple supposed carcinogens, including coffee, tea, alcohol, lettuce, tomatoes, cooked meats, apples, pears, grapes, and others.

posted April 13, 2006 12:46 AM            

Global warming alarmists marked the Kyoto Protocol’s first anniversary in subdued fashion this week. The treaty so far has been a failure and its future doesn’t appear much brighter.

As tallied up at JunkScience.com courtesy of the global warmers’ own data, Kyoto is estimated to have cost about $150 billion so far, while only hypothetically reducing the average global temperature by 0.0015 degrees Centigrade.

At that rate, it would take 667 years and cost $100 trillion to hypothetically avert just 1 degree Centigrade of global warming.

But such infinitesimal estimates of averted global warming would only apply, of course, if Kyoto’s signatories actually complied with its provisions. They are finding it virtually impossible to even do that.

Kyoto obligates the European Union to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 8 percent from 1990-levels by 2012. But the European Environmental Agency projects that EU greenhouse gas emissions in 2010 will be 7 percent above the 1990 levels.

The Russian news agency Novosti took a charitably long-term view of Kyoto noting, “Many people question the effect of the measures outlined by the Kyoto Protocol on the climate. Today, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is approximately 370 PPM (units of these gases per million units of the air).

"In 2012, as compared with the base year of 1990, their concentration will increase by 18 PPM, if the Kyoto measures are not carried out, or by 16-17 PPM, if they are implemented. It transpires that the effect of these measures on the climate is a mere 1-2 PPM. This fact allows the critics of the Kyoto Protocol to describe it as ineffective. But experts maintain that a reduction by even 1 PPM is quite good, considering that the task of stabilizing greenhouse emissions in the atmosphere has been set for a hundred years, not for five.”

I doubt that world leaders, however, will perpetually sacrifice 2 percent or more of their nations’ annual economic growth, year after year, for no tangible benefits.

While Kyoto’s failure may be news to the public, it’s not to former vice president and global-warmer-in-chief Al Gore, who smugly admitted on Jan. 4 at a political gathering that included yours truly, “Did we think Kyoto would work when we signed it [in 1997]?... Hell no!”

Gore explained that the actual point of Kyoto was to demonstrate that international support could be mustered for action on the environment – quite an expensive political exercise.

A year into Kyoto, global warmers seem to be focusing more on melodrama than science.

There’s NASA scientist Jim Hansen’s claim, first reported in the New York Times, that the agency is trying to “silence” him by asking to preview his lectures, papers and Internet postings before he goes public. To Hansen, this “seems more like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union than the United States.”

Hyperbole aside, Hansen cannot credibly claim to have been censored on global warming. He first sounded the climate alarm in 1988 congressional testimony and has since been quite outspoken on the topic. He gives more speeches than the agency’s head, according to NASA.

Hansen’s problem isn’t that anyone is trying to silence him; it’s that he has a track record of being wrong – for example, overestimating 1990s warming by 200 percent.

Then there’s the new Al Gore movie – a documentary production of his global warming lecture and slide show – that was recently screened at the Sundance Film Festival. The movie’s promotional material features penguins trekking as in the hit documentary “March of the Penguins” – but across a desert rather than Antarctic ice.

To those unfamiliar with the global warming controversy, Gore’s one-sided movie may appear compelling. Pictures of melting glaciers, ominous temperature graphs and cartoons for the science-impaired – one features Mister Sunbeam trapped by the Greenhouse Gas bullies – give the impression that the planet is doomed unless we cede control to global warming alarmists.

“We are recklessly, mindlessly destroying the Earth. As Lincoln said, ‘We must disenthrall ourselves. And then we will save our country.’ And our planet,” Gore said in a statement.

“Reckless” and “mindless” are certainly some of the terms that occurred to me after watching Gore’s slide show. Some glaciers are receding, but others (omitted from his slides) are advancing. No one knows what causes glaciers to advance and retreat – the physics are complex and much more is involved than simply air temperature.

University of Virginia climatologist Pat Michaels points out, for example, that, “Glaciers [in Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska] have been receding ever since John Muir first publicized them in the 19th century” – well before the advent of significant manmade greenhouse gas emissions.

Gore’s graphs imply that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide historically have preceded increases in global temperature.

But a 2005 study in the journal Science reported that higher temperatures may actually have preceded increased carbon dioxide levels in the past – the opposite of the global warming hypothesis.

posted April 13, 2006 12:52 AM              

*******

Steven J. Milloy

Steven J. Milloy is a columnist for Fox News and a paid advocate for Phillip Morris, ExxonMobil and other corporations. From the 1990s until the end of 2005, he was an adjunct scholar at the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute.

Milloy runs the website Junkscience.com, which is dedicated to debunking what he alleges to be false claims regarding global warming, DDT, environmental radicalism and scare science among other topics.[1] (http://www.junkscience.com/define.htm) His other website, CSR Watch.com, is focused around attacking the corporate social responsibility movement. He is also head of the Free Enterprise Action Fund, a mutual fund he runs with tobacco executive Tom Borelli, who happens to be listed as the secretary of the Advancement of Sound Science Center, an organisation Milloy operates from his home in Potomac, Maryland .

Milloy holds a B.A. in Natural Sciences from the Johns Hopkins University, a Master of Health Sciences in Biostatistics from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, a Juris Doctorate from the University of Baltimore, and a Master of Laws from the Georgetown University Law Center.[2] http://www.junkscience.com/Junkman.html

In January 2006, Paul D. Thacker reported in The New Republic that Milloy has received thousands of dollars in payments from the Phillip Morris company since the early nineties, and that NGOs controlled by Milloy have received large payments from ExxonMobil [3] http://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20060206&s=thacker020606 . A spokesperson for Fox News stated, "Fox News was unaware of Milloy's connection with Philip Morris. Any affiliation he had should have been disclosed."

Milloy the lobbyist

Milloy has spent much of his life as a lobbyist for major corporations and trade organisations which have poisioning or polluting problems. He originally ran NEPI (National Environmental Policy Institute (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=56)) which was founded by Republican Rep Don Ritter (who tried to get tobacco industry funding) using oil and gas industry funding. NEPI was dedicated to transforming both the EPA and the FDA, and challenging the cost of Superfund toxic cleanups by these large corporations.

NEPI was also associated with the AQSC (Air Quality Standards Coalition) which was devoted to emasculating Clean Air laws. This organisation took up the cry of "we need sound science" from the chemical industry as a way to counter claims of pollution -- and Milloy became involved in what became known as the "sound-science" movement. Its most effective ploy was to label science not beneficial to the large funding corporations as "junk" -- and Milloy was one of its most effective lobbyists because he wrote well, and used humour (PJ O'Rourke was another -- but better!)

He joined Philip Morris's specialist-science/PR company APCO & Associates in 1992, working behind the scenes on a business venture known as "Issues Watch". By this time, APCO had been taken over and become a part of the world-wide Grey Marketing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_market organisation, and so Milloy was able to use the international organisation as a feed source for services to corporations who had international problems.

Issues Watch bulletins were only given out to paying customers, so Milloy started for APCO the "Junkscience.com" web site, which gave him an outlet to attack health and environmental activists, and scientists who published findings not supportive of his client's businesses. Like most good PR it mixes some good, general criticism of science and science-reporting, with some outright distorted and manipulative pieces.

The Junkscience web site was supposedly run by a pseudo-grassroots organisation called TASSC (The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition), which initially paid ex-Governor Curruthers of New Mexico as a front. Milloy actually ran it from the back-room, and issued the press releases. Then when Curruthers resigned, Milloy started to call himself "Director" (Bonner Cohen - another of the same ilk also working for APCO - became "President")

Initially all of this was funded by Philip Morris, as part of their contributions to the distortion of tobacco science, but later they widened out the focus and introduced even more funding by establishing a coalition -- with energy, pharmaceutical, chemical companies. TASSC's funders include 3M, Amoco, Chevron, Dow Chemical, Exxon, General Motors, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Lorillard Tobacco, Louisiana Chemical Association, National Pest Control Association, Occidental Petroleum, Philip Morris Companies, Procter & Gamble, Santa Fe Pacific Gold, and W.R. Grace, the asbestos and pesticide manufacturers.

TASSC was then exposed publicly as a fraud. And so Milloy established the "Citizens for the Integrity of Science" to take over the running of the Junkscience.com web site.

Radioactive Junk

In August 2005 Media Matters for America reported that Milloy (who is not a scientist himself) had self-published a deceptive "study" purporting to show that radiation levels at the U.S. Capitol Building were 65 times higher than the proposed standards for the federal government's planned high-level radioactive waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain. [4] http://mediamatters.org/items/200508120001

Funding

Milloy also runs the Advancement of Sound Science Center and the Free Enterprise Action Institute. Those two groups—apparently run out of Milloy’s home—received $90,000 from ExxonMobil. Key quote: The date of Kyoto’s implementation will "live in scientific and economic infamy." Connections to ExxonMobil-funded groups: at least five. [5] http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html

Writing in The New Republic in January 2006 Paul Thacker noted Milloy's long-term, close relationships with corporations, including ExxonMobil and Philip Morris. "According to Lisa Gonzalez, manager of external communications for Altria, the parent company of Philip Morris, Milloy was under contract there through the end of last year," Thacker wrote. "But, whereas Scripps Howard fired Fumento and apologized to its readers, Fox News continues to look the other way as Milloy accepts corporate handouts," Thacker writes. Fox's Paul Schur told Thacker, "Fox News is unaware of Milloy's connection with Philip Morris." [6] https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20060206&s=thacker020606

Milloy is also the co-founder, with tobacco industry executive Thomas Borelli, of the Free Enterprise Action Fund, which claims to be an investment fund that seeks "long-term capital appreciation through investment and advocacy that promote the American system of free enterprise." According to a January 26, 2006 report in the Chicago Tribune, "The fund's advocacy stance boils down to opposing many of the things supported by traditional 'social investment funds,' because issues like global warming or corporate governance distract business from its real role of operating in the best interests of shareholders." However, its performance as an investment has been less than stellar. The Tribune called it the "Stupid Investment of the Week ... Strip away the rhetoric, and you're getting a very expensive, underperforming index fund, while Milloy and partner Thomas Borelli get a platform for raising their pet issues. ... An expense ratio capped at 2 percent--ridiculously high for a portfolio of corporate giants--makes stock market returns unrealistic. From inception on March 1 of last year through Dec. 31, Free Enterprise Action returned 2.32 percent; the S&P 500 returned 4.72 percent. That's ugly." [7]
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_J._Milloy

posted April 13, 2006 12:54 AM            

Not too surprising the leftist junkers would try to fight back but alas, Milloy is right and they're just SOL.

posted April 13, 2006 01:09 AM              

In 1993, the tobacco industry organized a public relations campaign to attack studies on
secondhand smoke and prevent states, cities, and businesses from adopting smokefree policies; it
named this program “sound science.” In the short run, the objective of the “sound science”
campaign was to stimulate criticism of the 1993 US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
report, which identified secondhand smoke as a cancer causing substance.1
(http://www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/pdf/9.6-Ong&Glantz-JunkScience.pdf)

In February 1993, Philip Morris (PM) and its public relations firm, APCO Associates, worked to
launch a “sound science” coalition, budgeting between $300,000 to $600,000 in seed money for
the first 24 weeks.2 Three months later, APCO created The Advancement for Sound Science
Coalition (TASSC) to help PM fight smokefree policies. TASSC was designed to minimize
“sound science’s” connections to the tobacco industry.3 Over the past decade, the tobacco
industry has created and commissioned numerous subsidiaries to spout its “sound science”
message.

Steven Milloy has adopted the role of a tobacco industry “sound science” defender.
Milloy has made it his life’s work to deny scientific studies conducted and published by the
world’s most reputable and credible scientific agencies—such as the Environmental Protection
Agency and the World Health Organization—and legitimate peer reviewed periodicals—such as
Science, Nature, the Lancet, and the Journal of the American Medical Association—and label
their objective evidence as “junk science.”

As you will see, Milloy has a lucrative and lengthy
relationship with the tobacco industry that has resulted in his incarnation as Big Tobacco’s posterboy for “junk science.”

• In 1992, at the beginning of his career, Milloy worked as a lobbyist for Multinational
Business Services (MBS), a group hired by PM as its primary contact on secondhand
smoke issues in the early 1990’s. Milloy worked under James Tozzi,4 who was under
contract with PM for $40,000 a month in 19935 and up to $610,000 in 1994.6 In 1993
and 1994, Tozzi was to work with PM “to develop materials designed to intensify the
debate on the need for scientific standards on meta-analysis and epidemiology,” with the
purpose of “supporting legislative mandates on epidemiological standards” and
“increasing debate on ETS [environmental tobacco smoke] risk assessment within the
EPA.”7 Tozzi also formed a group called Federal Focus, Inc., which was charged with
monitoring and addressing government health policy in 1994. PM provided Tozzi with
$500,000 for start-up costs in 1993.8 Federal Focus, Inc. and MBS shared the same
address at 11 Dupont Circle, NW, Washington DC, 20036.9
• In 1993, Milloy dismissed the U.S. EPA’s study linking secondhand smoke to cancer as a
“joke”. In 1996, he and Shook, Hardy & Bacon, a PM-hired law firm, co-authored Policy
2
Analysis: Cancer Risk Guidelines: Guidance to Nowhere to refute the EPA report.10 The
law firm’s name does not appear on the document’s final draft.11

• Milloy was registered as a lobbyist for the EOP Group, a Washington, DC firm created in
1995 that represents the American Crop Protection Association, the Chlorine Chemistry
Council, Edison Electric Institute, Fort Howard Corp., Monsanto, and the International
Food Additives Council, among others, and works closely with APCO Associates.12

• In 1996, Milloy created the one-man front group the Environmental Policy Analysis
Network (EPAN). On paper, EPAN is a Washington-based think tank that argues that
many environmental risks cannot be proven.13

• In 1997 and 1998, Milloy acted as the executive director of The Advancement of Sound
Science Coalition (TASSC) and remained its chief until TASSC was retired in late 1998.
TASSC was charged to “link the tobacco issue with other more ‘politically correct’
products.”14 In its pilot year, PM budgeted $880,000 in funding for TASSC.15 Both Philip
Morris and Lorillard Tobacco were members of TASSC.16

• Milloy also runs an organization called the Citizens For the Integrity of Science (CFIS).
CFIS is the alleged sponsor of the Junk Science website. The Internet site, www.cfis.org
is registered to Milloy’s home address with Milloy as the administrative contact.17
However, the site is currently not operational.

• In April 1996, Milloy proclaimed himself a public health expert and began turning out a
stream of anti-environmental, anti-public health commentary through his “Junk Science”
website (www.junkscience.com). The site claims to fight “bad science used by lawsuithappy
trial lawyers, the ‘food police,’ environmental Chicken Littles, power-drunk
regulators, and unethical-to-dishonest scientists to fuel specious lawsuits, wacky social
and political agendas, and the quest for personal fame and fortune.”18 Although Milloy’s
Junk Science Home Page does not disclose its specific funding source, the website, CFIS
[in 1999],19 and the defunct TASSC20 share the same address at 1155 Connecticut
Avenue, NW, Suite 300 in Washington, DC.

• As part of its “Common Sense Science” Project, R.J. Reynolds reviewed and revised
Milloy’s Junk Science website in 1996, and offered feedback and recommendations for
its future content and material.21

• In August 1997, the New York Times reported that Milloy was one of the paid speakers at
a Miami briefing for foreign reporters sponsored by the British-American Tobacco
Company.22 The company flew in reporters from countries that included Brazil,
Argentina, Chile, and Peru and paid for their accommodations and lodging. The seminar
consisted of presentations that addressed the “infinitesimal, if not hypothetical risks”
related to inhaling a “whiff” of secondhand smoke.23

• In 1998, Milloy sat on the Guest Choice Network’s Advisory Panel to discuss “Junk
Science, Risk Hype and the ‘Anti’ Crowd.”24 The Guest Choice Network (renamed the
3
Center for Consumer Freedom in January 200225) was launched in 1995; its initial
funding of $600,000 came entirely from PM.26 The Guest Choice Network’s stated
objective was to “unite the restaurant and hospitality industries in a campaign to defend
their consumers and marketing programs against attacks from anti-smoking, antidrinking,
anti-meat, etc. activists.”27 Over the course of four years, PM contributed at
least $2.3 million to sustain the Guest Choice Network.28

• In 1999, Milloy became an “adjunct scholar” with the Cato Institute, a libertarian thinktank
based in Washington, DC that received at least $100,000 from PM and $50,000 from
R.J. Reynolds in 1995.29 Cato’s board of directors includes Rupert Murdoch, who also
sits on PM’s board.30 The Cato Institute has published three books by Milloy—Science
Without Sense; Silencing Science; and Junk Science Judo: Self Defense Against Health
Scares and Scams.

• Phillip Morris budgeted $92,500 of its “Issue Watch” Project budget for Milloy to act as
a consultant to the company in 2000 and 2001. As an “Issues Watch” consultant, Milloy
was to “provide [Phillip Morris] corporate affair professionals with perspective on
changes in the societal trends, pubic attitudes, and issues development” pertaining to
scientific studies concerning tobacco.31

4
REFERENCES
1 Merlo E. Memo to William Campbell [re: PM USA ETS actions.] February 17, 1993. Bates No. 2021183916-
3930.
2 Merlo E. Memo to William Campbell [re: PM USA ETS actions.] February 17, 1993. Bates No. 2021183916-
3930.
3 Cohen N, Hochaday T, Kraus M. [Memo re: revised 1993 TASSC launch program. October 15, 1993. Bates No.
2045930491-0504; Kraus M [Memo to Matt Winokur re: TASSC briefing.] October 26, 1993. Bates No.
2025840783-0784; Lattanzio, T. [Memo re: ETS Task Force update.] May 20, 1993. Bates No. 2021178204; Lenzi,
J. [Memo re: TASSC media programs.] November 15, 1993. Bates No. 2024233664. The Advancement of Sound
Science Coalition [Information sheet describing TASSC.] 1993. Bates No. 2046989061.
4 Tozzi J, Milloy S. [Fax to Steve Parrish of re: MBS, Inc.] November 17, 1992. Bates No.
2500016595/2021173460.
5 Boland J, Borelli T. [Memo re: monthly budget supplement re: ETS/OSHA federal activities.] February 17, 1993.
Bates No. 2046597149-7148.
6 [n.?] [Memo re: Jim Tozzi re: agreement dated January 1, 1994.] August 8, 1994. Bates No. 2029377061-0763.
7 Boland J, Borelli T. [Memo re: monthly budget supplement re: ETS/OSHA federal activities.] February 17, 1993.
Bates No. 2046597149-7148.
8 Fuller C. [Letter to Jim Tozzi re: Federal Focus check.] July 13, 1993. Bates No. 2046597569; Parrish S. [Memo
re: grant in aid request re: Federal Focus.] April 1, 1994. Bates No. 2071413114-3115
9 Parrish S. [Memo re: grant in aid request re: Federal Focus.] April 1, 1994. Bates No. 2071413114-3115; Tozzi J,
Milloy S. [Fax to Steve Parrish of re: MBS, Inc.] November 17, 1992. Bates No. 2021173460.
10 Shook, Hardy, Bacon, Milloy S. [R&D Document Transmittal Form of the Primary Central File.] November 18,
1996. Bates No. 2063657985.
11 Gough M, Milloy S. Policy Analysis: EPA’s Cancer Risk Guidelines: Guidance to Nowhere. November 12, 1996.
Bates No. 206367958-7984.
12 Fist S. Junk Science and the Art of Spin-Doctoring. Available at: http://www.electricwords.
com/junk/milloy/milloy.html. Accessed October 20, 2003; [n.a.] Featured Backlash site: Steven Milloy and
JunkScience.com. Available at: http://clearproject.org/backlash.html. Accessed October 22, 2003.
13 Charman K. Saving the Planet with Pestilent Statistics. Available at: http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1999Q4/avery.html. Accessed October 20, 2003; Gough M, Milloy S. EPA’s
Cancer Risk Guidelines: Guidance to Nowhere. November 12, 1996. Bates No. 2063657958-7984; Milloy S. [Letter
to William Farland from Steve Milloy re: EPA proposal to update cancer risk assessment guidelines.] May 9, 1996.
Bates No. 2081928296-8297; [n.a.] Featured Backlash site: Steven Milloy and JunkScience.com. Available at: http://clearproject.org/backlash.html. Accessed October 22, 2003.
14 Cohen N, Hochaday T. [Memo re: thought on TASSC Europe.] March 25, 1994. Bates No. 2025492898-2905.
15 [n.a.: found in office of Victor Han] [Memo re: 1994 communications plan.] 1994. Bates No. 2023918833-8852.
16 Charman K. Saving the Planet with Pestilent Statistics. Available at: http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1999Q4/avery.html. Accessed October 20, 2003.
17 [n.a.] Featured Backlash site: Steven Milloy and JunkScience.com. Available at: http://clearproject.org/backlash.html. Accessed October 22, 2003; Rampton S, Stauber J. How Big Tobacco Helped
Create “the Junkman.” “PR Watch” 7(3), Third Quarter. Available at: http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2003Q3/junkman.html. Accessed October 20, 2003.
18 Rampton S, Stauber J. The Usual Suspects: Industry Hacks Turn Fear on its Head. “PR Watch” 7(3), Third
Quarter 2000. Available at: http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2003Q3/junkman.html. Accessed October 20, 2003.
19 Gough G, Milloy S. [Letter to the National Academy of Science re: epidemiological data access.] February 23,
1999. Available at: http://www.junkscience.com/feb99/tonasmem.html. Accessed October 22, 2003.
20 Milloy S. [Memo to TASSC Board Members re: annual report.] January 7, 1998. Bates No. 2065254885-4890.
21 Powell, T. “Activity Report R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. December 1996 (19961200),” R.J. Reynolds, December
1996, Bates No: 520526642/6643. Download at http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/syq70d00.
22 Rampton S, Stauber J. How Big Tobacco Helped Create “the Junkman.” “PR Watch” 7(3), Third Quarter.
Available at: http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2003Q3/junkman.html. Accessed October 20, 2003.
23 Rampton S, Stauber J. How Big Tobacco Helped Create “the Junkman.” “PR Watch” 7(3), Third Quarter.
Available at: http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2003Q3/junkman.html. Accessed October 20, 2003.
5
24 [n.a.] Agenda for 2nd Annual Advisory Panel Meeting [Memo re: Guest Choice Network.] September 9, 1998.
Bates No. 2072396155-6157.
25 [n.a.] A Rogues Gallery of Industry Front Groups and Anti-Environmental Think Tanks. “Impropaganda
Review.” Available at: http://www.prwatch.org/improp/ddam.html. Accessed January 7, 2002.
26 Trach, B. [Memo to Ellen Merlo re: Guest Choice Network.] December 15, 1995. Bates No. 2072395960; Trach,
B. [Letter to Rick Berman re: Philip Morris funding of the Guest Choice Network.] December 21, 1995. Bates No.
2072395693.
27 Berman, R. [Letter to Barbara Trach re: establishment of the Guest Choice Network.] December 11, 1995. Bates
No. 2072395962.
28 Trach, B. [Letter to Rick Berman re: Philip Morris funding of the Guest Choice Network.] December 21, 1995.
Bates No. 2072395693; Culley, E. [Letter to Rick Berman re: Philip Morris funding of the Guest Choice Network.]
August 22, 1996. Bates No. 2072395970; Culley, E. [Letter to Rick Berman re: Philip Morris funding of the Guest
Choice Network.] December 10, 1996. Bates No. 2072395969; Culley, E. [Letter to Rick Berman re: Philip Morris
funding of the Guest Choice Network.] June 23, 1997. Bates No. 2072395968; Culley, E. [Letter to Rick Berman re:
Philip Morris funding of the Guest Choice Network.] October 24, 1997. Bates No. 2072395967; Culley, E. [Letter to
Rick Berman re: Philip Morris funding of the Guest Choice Network.] November 8, 1998. Bates No. 2072396007.
29 [n.a.] Tobacco Industry Efforts Subverting the IARC on Secondhand Smoke. November 1999. Bates No.
2505441140-1159.
30 Smith G. [Inter-office Correspondence to all department heads re: Election of Rupert Murdoch to Philip Morris
Board.] August 30, 1989. Bates No. 2070151044; Rampton S, Stauber J. The Usual Suspects: Industry Hacks Turn
Fear on its Head. “PR Watch” 7(3), Third Quarter, 2000.
6
31 [n.a., “Issues Management,” Philip Morris, January 16, 2001, Bates No: 2082656417/6505. Download at http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kwk84a00.

http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/stevenmilloy.pdf

posted April 13, 2006 02:46 AM            

The heads of the EPA have been addicted to junk science and promoted junk science at every opportunity.

Ralph Nader is a junker and his little sycophant Joan Claybrook is a junker clone. Carol Browner is another and all are radical leftist kooks.

The president should go through that agency and have all their papers peer reviewed by real scientists in the real world, then fire every scientist there who are using their position and so called research to push their political agenda.

In fact, the agency should be dismantled completely and real scientists in the real world should take over whatever research needs to be done on environmental issues.

All government grants and research money should be withheld from universities and private research groups who are using junk science to push a political agenda.

The federal government and regulatory agencies have become the dumping grounds for 2nd and 3rd rate junk scientists who can't make it in the private sectors. The federal government doesn't owe anyone a job. I would fire every last one of them, not because of their political views but because their political views get mixed into and color their work product.

posted April 13, 2006 09:59 PM            

quote:

---

behaviors, such as eating a diet that contains meat or animal products, are unmistakably, unequivocally acts of animal cruelty.

---

But it is cruel. And it certainly isn't an everyday thing for a lot of people.

cruel
cru·el ( P ) Pronunciation Key (krl)
adj. cru·el·er, or cru·el·ler cru·el·est or cru·el·lest
1. Disposed to inflict pain or suffering.
2. Causing suffering; painful.

I mean, you can't argue that animals don't feel pain because that is scientifically verifiable. And you certainly can't argue that killing an animal doesn't cause it pain. It's not like it stops feeling pain just because you're going to eat it.
Why shouldn't children know where their food comes from? If you can argue that there is nothing wrong with the way animals are treated and killed and the way their body parts are processed before they get to your table ... why can't children be shown all that? From talks I've had with meat eating friends, they're afraid that their children won't want to eat meat or animal products if they know where it comes from and how it is made.
Besides, with a balanced vegetarian diet you can get all the nutrition your body needs. At least, last I checked, the AMA and FDA don't seem to think a vegetarian diet is unhealthy at all.
So, if there are non-meaty ways for children to develop just as healthy as children who do eat meat ... why can't children be educated about the way animals are treated and killed and processed so they can make their own choices?
Or do children not have the right to choose to not eat something if their parents don't approve even if they make other healthy choices that provide them with the nutrition their bodies need?
That kind of thinking I don't understand.

All the rest of it I might have a chance to read later but I doubt it.

And, btw, I love me some Ben & Jerry's ice cream.

posted April 13, 2006 10:43 PM              

surely, as a scientist, you must find the 'junk science' of dioxin exposure just hilarious??

*******

posted April 13, 2006 11:20 PM            

Eleanore, have you read Linda Goodman's "Star Signs"?

If you have, you will know there's a chapter devoted to plant life. A study where sensitive monitoring equipment was hooked up to plants. Seems plants can sense our thoughts and when those thoughts turn to killing, injuring or eating those plants, they feel panic and fear which registers on the monitors.

So Eleanore, is it justified to kill and eat plants? Is it justified to eat the children of plants...i.e., their seeds?

If you want to carry this to the limits of absurdity then you would eat neither animals, plants or seeds, for all would seem to be protected by an overarching element of harm done to them by killing, collecting and eating them.

I'm not sure what members of PETA are actually eating but it's surely nothing good for humans. They look like bottom tier representatives of death warmed over.

posted April 13, 2006 11:29 PM              

why dont you want pidaua's opinion?

posted April 13, 2006 11:34 PM              

(At least the back of the container for the ice cream that we ate last night did...)

Maybe they changed the packaging?

Edit: Yeah...most of the articles that I can find on the B&J dioxin scare are from 2000...bet they changed their packaging.

One achievement of Ben & Jerry’s in environmental protection is to promote businesses to stop using products that can yield dioxin. By cooperating and consulting with Greenpeace, Ben & Jerry’s began using a non-chlorine bleached container for its ice cream —known as the "ECO-Pint" as a means of reducing dioxin emissions. This step toward using totally non-chlorine materials is to draw public attention to the harmful substance dioxin which is often produced by industries that use large amounts of chlorine. For more detailed information: please check www.greenpeaceusa.org/features/benjerrystext.htm and Ben and Jerry’s home page at www.benjerry.com/dioxin.tmpl which describes the ECO-Pint program and the dangers of dioxin.

For more information for what Ben and Jerry’s has done to make a product that is environmentally friendly, go to Ben and Jerry’s home page at www.benjerry.com

posted April 13, 2006 11:37 PM            

quote:

---

so pidaua, why arent you joining in with cracking jokes about dioxins?
surely, as a scientist, you must find the 'junk science' of dioxin exposure just hilarious??...Petron

---

Nevertheless Petron, this is clearly an attack when Pid hasn't offered an opinion on this subject.

posted April 13, 2006 11:37 PM              

in star signs LG advocates our moving slowly from meat eating...7 years, i think...to vegetarianism...to fruitarianism, and eventually to breatharianism.

perhaps you think this the limit of absurdity? as a breatharian, we will "eat neither animals, plants or seeds..."

and i think that the plant chapter in star signs is for this precise purpose, to illustrate the preferability of becoming breatharian, in order to eliminate the "overarching element of harm done to them by killing, collecting and eating them."

i don't think her ideas absurd, i think them brilliant...as do i think this site brilliant, as it is hers.

btw...i believe in gooberz she praises Ralph Nader as some kind of saint?...may even mention her hope to marry him one day...

don't remember exactly...i'll find it for you.

salome

i'm sure she would cheer you on in the ongoing expression of your wonderful passion as well.

posted April 16, 2006 11:52 PM              

Steven J. Milloy

(Cato Institute)

Junk science is the abuse of science by health scare con artists. It is fraud perpetrated to advance a special interest, or more likely, a political agenda. Junk science hurts us all, causing a significant negative impact on the quality of our life. For example during the early 1990s a massive cholera outbreak in Latin America caused 10,000 deaths as a result of countries refusing to use chlorine to disinfect water supplies because of the labeling of chlorine as a carcinogen by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

posted April 16, 2006 11:53 PM              

Consider alchemy, the ancient art that sought to transmute base metals, such as lead, into silver and gold. It was the forerunner of the modern chemistry — and maybe even meta-analysis? Alchemy appeared back in the 5th century B.C. and lasted well into the Middle Ages. It didn't fall into disrepute until some alchemists became obsessed with a quest for the secrets of transmutation and adopted deceptive methods of experimentation. Hmmm... you don't think... nah, it'll take forever for the public to figure out the shady type of risk assessment.

Then there's astrology. Astrology is the practice of foreseeing future events through omens or signs. (Do you think a statistical association is an omen?) It's based on the theory that the movements of celestial bodies influence human affairs and the course of events. Astrology was first practiced by the Assyrians (around the first millennium B.C.) and continued as a serious form of study into the 17th century when Christian theologists waged all-out war against it. Although their work eventually helped undermine it, the most famous early scientists, including Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, Galileo, René Descartes and Isaac Newton, were all practicing astrologers.

In contrast, science, as defined by the scientific method, is still relatively young. Using this discipline, we learn things about our world slowly, over time, through piece-by-piece observation and experimentation. Science is not a quick-n-dirty, one-study endeavor. It has served mankind well over time, but we've seen fit to shunt it to the side, particularly recently, in the name of public health. Fortunately for the ambitious, this trend does not appear likely to change anytime soon.

posted April 17, 2006 10:03 PM              

Government Says Aspartame Is Good For You

By Paul Watson - April 2006

The deadly toxin Aspartame which is included in more than 6,000 food and drink products around the world good for you according to a new government study. The Associated Press falsely labels the results as independent and omits referencing previous human studies undertaken by groups with no corporate or government ties that concluded the opposite.

Associated Press health correspondent Marilynn Marchione seems to revel in suggesting the study is beyond reproach because it uses human subjects rather than rats.

"A huge federal study in people -- not rats -- takes the fizz out of arguments that the diet soda sweetener aspartame might raise the risk of cancer," smarms the article in an attempt to discredit last year's Italian study which linked aspartame to an increased risk of leukaemias and lymphomas in female lab rats "at doses very close to the acceptable daily intake for humans."

In putting the study in this context, the Associated Press has lied by omission. Numerous independent controlled studies (not ones conducted by corporations or government) using human subjects have concluded that aspartame is deadly. They are Camfield (1992), Elsas (1988), Gulya (1992), Koehler (1988), Kulczycki (1995), Spiers (1988), Van Den Eeden (1994), Walton (1993). Why doesn't the AP mention any of these studies?

Why doesn't the AP mention the fact "out of 90 independently-funded studies, 83 of them found one or more problems caused by aspartame. But out of the 74 studies funded by the aspartame industry (e.g., Monsanto, G.D. Searle, ILSI, etc.), every single one of them claimed that no problems were found?"

reputable researchers independent of any funding or ties to industry groups."

The AP cites the Center For Science in the Public Interest as praising the results of the study. CFSPI is a Rockefeller front organization that also receives funding from Ted Turner's Nuclear Threat Initiative. Its board of directors is also littered with former government henchmen, including former FDA officials.

Having the federal government conduct studies that heavily impact profits of major corporations depending on the results and calling them independent is like Charles Manson being judged by Jeffrey Dahmer. In the 21st century of corporate fascism the two are inseparable from one another.

The Aspartame controversy is noted for the fact that it explicitly connects government conflicts of interest with corporations. Donald Rumsfeld became the chief executive officer of a worldwide pharmaceutical G.D. Searle & Company (later bought out by Monsanto) in 1977, 12 years after aspartame was discovered by G.D. Searle chemist James Schlatter.

A story by Rishi Mehta, associate commentary editor for the University of Connecticut Daily Campus newspaper, points out the following: “In 1981, after over 15 years of FDA disapproval of aspartame, Rumsfeld said in a Searle sales meeting that he would use ‘political rather than scientific means’ to finally get FDA approval.

Only 20 days later, Ronald Reagan was sworn in as 40th President of the United States, appointing Rumsfeld as Special Envoy to the Middle East and Arthur Hayes Hull Jr. - a friend of Rumsfeld's - to FDA commissioner."

If one of the most influential members of the current administration has publicly stated that he would use political pressure to force the acceptance of aspartame would it would therefore overwhelmingly be in the interest of a federal government study to conclude that the use of aspartame was acceptable?

Yes.

Therefore the study is not independent and it is not credible.

Futhermore, the FDA has been caught in the past removing negative data from government studies that indicated aspartame was dangerous to humans.

According to consumer rights group Mission Possible, "Since its 1981 approval, the FDA has published a list of 92 symptoms of aspartame poisoning, which includes headaches, vision loss including blindness, seizures, neurological problems, cardiovascular problems and death. The FDA admits adverse reactions to aspartame comprise about 80 percent of consumer complaints it receives each year."

Proponents of aspartame are like the idiots in the 50's who said there were no health dangers in smoking. Moves by British parliamentarians and bills such as one in New Mexico calling for the outright banning of aspartame in all foods should be supported and this poison-peddling industry shut down.