Damn it. First burgers rot my brain from the inside; now fries give me cancer. I'm waiting for the inevitable study that announces milkshakes cause impotence.

This is yet another example of a bogus consumer scare. These activist groups attempt to get everyone all riled up about some theoretical risk of cancer from eating food by extrapolating mega-dose animal studies to low-dose levels found in human food. If you want to stay away from carcinogens and other nasties, don't BBQ or grill anything (benzo-a-pyrene), don't eat fresh fruits, berries, and vegies (full of insects, insects parts, and rodent hairs, affectionately known as "heavy filth") and don't eat yeast-raised breads (acetaldehyde and alcohol). For better information based on peer-reviewed studies and facts, check out the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), a consumer education group directed and advised by over 300 leading scientists and physicians. ACSH states "it would be in the best interest of the American consumer if the media treated such reports with a greater degree of skepticism than is currently employed."

"ASCH states "it would be in the best interest of the American consumer if the media treated such reports with a greater degree of skepticism than is currantly employed"
ASCH is tax exempt funded by Exxon, Coca-Cola, American Cyanamid, Dow Chemical among other large corporations. Why would anyone take seriously what they reported? Better choice is CSPI-Center for Science in the Public Interest which accepts no industry or government funding.

I like this even better:
"Since the list of such compounds is determined to a large extent by high-dose animal tests, its relevance to human health is at best unknown."

So, according to ACSH, this list would be much more valuable if ONLY we would do high-dose human tests, to verify the carcinogenic and teratogenic nature of all the compounds? High-dose human tests would certainly be relevant to human health.

It took approximately 35 seconds to disprove ACSH's claim that there's no link between acrylamide and cancer. How solid are the rest of their claims?

You both are showing your stripes. Facts simply get in the way of your dogma. No one ever disputed the results of the high-dose studies on the animals tested. And no, ACSH doesn't support testing humans at high doses. But the dose makes the poison. You can drink reasonable amounts of water with no ill effect, but drink too much and you will die (it happened in Chico to a college student during hazing). If you want to stay away from carcinogens, stop drinking coffee - it's loaded with natural toxins. Ditto for celery, peanut butter (even the organic natural stuff has levels of alfatoxin), and potato skins (naturally toxic glycolalkaloids ... ooo scary stuff). I would rather listen to credible scientists who provide some perspective and context. Do I have any problem that ACSH is funded by industry groups? Nope. Because those industry groups are populated by experts rather than the so-called "scientists" of groups such as the CSPI.

Molly,
Thanks for the comment, but I have no stripes, nor do I have a dogma. I just call 'em like I see 'em. In this case, your gripe should be with the legislators, not the scientists. The facts are undisputed. What to do about the facts is a different matter. ACSH's focus on the facts is misdirected and their evidence is weak.

Molly,

You accuse others of "showing their stripes," so why don't you share any biases you might have? Do you have any "dogmas" or affiliations (Garden Grow Co.?) that might indicate or lead to bias?

Everyone has biases. Here's an opportunity to share any you might have. Since you brought it up and everything.

Thanks,
Joey

Gladly. I work for Central Garden & Pet, the nation's largest garden and pet product distributor. I have managed federal, state, and international regulatory compliance (for pesticides, fertilizers, and seeds) for 18 years. Before that I managed an analytical testing lab (specializing in environmental samples and toxins/contaminants in foods). I work daily with the USEPA and state regulatory agencies on issues related to consumer pesticides, fertilizers, and seeds. I am a lawyer. I was awarded our corporation's 2003 President's Award for Merit. I sat on the Oregon Poison Prevention Task Force (appointed by Governor Barbara Roberts) and the Oregon Pesticide Use Reporting Work Group (appointed by Governor John Kitzhaber). I presented information about industry efforts to produce kinder and gentler products to a meeting of Congressional staffers (I believe there was an actual Congress person in the room, too) and won an industry award for the presentation. I'll proudly hold out my experience and knowledge in this area to anyone who is interested in listening to reason and facts.

Facts and reason are usually skewed by the motivation of the entity paying the bills-in this case an organization funded in part by Burger King- is telling us there is no link between acrylamide and cancer? I'd rather listen to research results that are truely unbiased.

Molly,
So you're a lobbyist for a party that has a vested interest in the outcome of hazardous-chemical regulation.

(Not that there's anything wrong with that :-))

Jud

kim at September 21, 2005 10:01 AM:
Better choice is CSPI-Center for Science in the Public Interest which accepts no industry or government funding.
JK:
Do they,perhaps, get money from individuals by telling worst case scare stories?
(like Steve Schnier, global warming hack, admitted to doing in Discover mag a few years back)
JK

JK:
Molly, you left out the pesticides found in most fruits and vegitables that are wholly natural .

Glad to see another rational person here in Portland. Please consider adding your rationality to other topics here.

Thanks
JK
www.saveportland.com