Facts Versus Fears
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
FACTS VERSUS FEARS: A REVIEW OF THE GREATEST UNFOUNDED HEALTH SCARES OF RECENT TIMES by ADAM J. LIEBERMAN (1967–1997) SIMONA C. KWON, M.P.H. Prepared for the American Council on Science and Health THIRD EDITION First published May 1997; revised September 1997; revised June 1998 ACSH accepts unrestricted grants on the condition that it is solely responsible for the conduct of its research and the dissemina- tion of its work to the public. The organization does not perform proprietary research, nor does it accept support from individual corporations for specific research projects. All contributions to ACSH—a publicly funded organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code—are tax deductible. AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH 1995 Broadway, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10023-5860 Tel. (212) 362-7044 • Fax (212) 362-4919 URL: http://www.acsh.org • E-mail: [email protected] Individual copies of this report are available at a cost of $5.00. Reduced prices for 10 or more copies are available upon request. June 1998-03000. Entire contents © American Council on Science and Health, Inc. THE AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH GRATEFULLY ACKNOWLEDGES THE COMMENTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS. Dennis T. Avery, M.A. Gordon W. Gribble, Ph.D. James E. Oldfield, Ph.D. Center for Global Food Issues Dartmouth College Oregon State University Hudson Institute Rudolph J. Jaeger, Ph.D. M. Alice Ottoboni, Ph.D. Thomas G. Baumgartner, Pharm.D., Environmental Medicine, Inc. Sparks, Nevada M.Ed., FASHP, BCNSP University of Florida Edward S. Josephson, Ph.D. David B. Roll, Ph.D. University of Rhode Island University of Utah Michael B. Bracken, M.P.H., Ph.D. Yale University Ruth Kava, R.D., Ph.D. Gilbert Ross, M.D. American Council on Science and American Council on Science and Christine M. Bruhn, Ph.D. Health Health University of California John G. Keller, Ph.D. R. T. Ravenholt, M.P.H., M.D. Zerle L. Carpenter, Ph.D. Olney, Maryland Population Health Imperatives Texas Agricultural Extension Service Manfred Kroger, Ph.D. Paul D. Saltman, Ph.D. Robert G. Cassens, Ph.D. Pennsylvania State University University of California, San Diego University of Wisconsin Frank C. Lu, M.D., BCFE Harold H. Sandstead, M.D. Donald G. Cochran, Ph.D. Consulting Toxicologist, University of Texas Medical Branch Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State Miami, Florida University Edgar J. Schoen, M.D. Harold Lyons, Ph.D. Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Bernard L. Cohen, D.Sc. Rhodes College University of Pittsburgh Sidney Shindell, M.D., LL.B. Howard D. Maccabee, Ph.D., M.D. Medical College of Wisconsin Ilene R. Danse, M.D. Radiation Oncology Center, Walnut Enviromed Health Services, Inc. Creek, California Fredrick J. Stare, Ph.D., M.D. Harvard School of Public Health John E. Dodes, D.D.S. Roger P. Maickel, Ph.D. National Council Against Health Purdue University James H. Steele, D.V.M., M.P.H. Fraud (New York Chapter) The University of Texas, Houston Dade W. Moeller, Ph.D. J. Gordon Edwards, Ph.D. Harvard University Fredric M. Steinberg, M.D., M.B.A. San Jose State University Georgia Baptist Medical Center John W. Morgan, Dr.P.H. Madelon Lubin Finkel, Ph.D. Loma Linda University Elizabeth M. Whelan, Sc.D., M.P.H. Cornell University Medical College American Council on Science and Stephen J. Moss, D.D.S., M.S. Health F. J. Francis, Ph.D. New York University University of Massachusetts Robert J. White, M.D., Ph.D. Ian C. Munro, Ph.D., FRCPath Case Western Reserve University Ronald E. Gots, M.D., Ph.D. CanTox Inc. International Center for Toxicology Christopher F. Wilkinson, Ph.D. and Medicine John S. Neuberger, Dr.P.H. Jellinek, Schwartz and Connolly, Inc. University of Kansas School of Michael Gough, Ph.D. Medicine James J. Worman, Ph.D. Cato Institute Rochester Institute of Technology Albert G. Nickel Lyons Lavey Nickel Swift, Inc. F ACTS VERSUS FEARS TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction . 5 1. The ‘Cranberry Scare’ of 1959 . 6 2. DDT, 1962 . 7 3. Cyclamates, 1969 . 11 4. DES in Beef, 1972 . 13 5. Nitrites, 1972 . 14 6. Red Dye Number 2, 1976 . 16 7. Saccharin, 1977 . 18 8. Hair Dyes, 1977 . 20 9. Tris, 1977 . 21 10. Love Canal, 1978 . 22 11. Three Mile Island, 1979 . 24 12. Asbestos in Hair Dryers, 1979 . 27 13. 2,4,5-T, 1979 . 28 14. Coffee and Pancreatic Cancer, 1981 . 29 15. Times Beach, 1982 . 30 16. EDB, 1983 . 32 17. Alar, 1989 . 33 18. Electric Blankets, 1989 . 35 19. Video Display Terminals, 1989 . 37 20. Benzene in Perrier, 1990 . 40 21. Amalgam Dental Fillings, 1990 . 41 22. Asbestos in Schools, 1993 . 43 23. Cellular Phones, 1993 . 44 24. Perchloroethylene in a Harlem School, 1997 . 46 25. Not-Quite-Great Unfounded Health Scares . 48 Conclusions . 51 F ACTS VERSUS FEARS 5 Introduction rather than the natural plagues that claimed so many lives in the past. Often initiated by “environmental” or H. L. Mencken once said that “the whole aim of “consumer” organizations and fueled by modern mass practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and media, these scares emerged at a time when Americans hence clamorous to be led to safety), by menacing it enjoyed better health, an ever-increasing life span, a with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imagi- higher standard of living, and a greater scientific under- nary.” standing of the causes of human death and disease. Unfounded health scares for instance. As you read this report, you will see common Since its founding in 1978 the American Council themes and patterns emerge in the accounts of the on Science and Health has been dedicated to separating scares: real, proven health risks—such as cigarettes—from unfounded health “scares” based on questionable, hypo- • The indiscriminate presumption that the results of thetical, or even nonexistent scientific evidence. This laboratory tests involving rodents force-fed (usu- report summarizes the most noteworthy scares of the ally via stomach tubes) huge doses of a given sub- past half century. stance can be extrapolated to show that the tested In each case we review the charges made against substance causes cancer in humans. a given product or substance—or even against an entire community. We discuss the basis for the charges, the • Ignorance of the basic principle of toxicology, reactions of the public and the media, and the actual “The dose makes the poison,” as consumers fret facts as to what risk (if any) ever existed. Where applic- over the presence of even a single molecule of a able, we give an update on what the latest and most substance that is not hazardous to humans unless credible scientific studies have to say on each topic. The it is consumed in large amounts. scares are presented in chronological order, arranged according to the year in which each became a major • The acceptance—implicit or explicit—of the public issue. United Nations–conceived “precautionary princi- We have chosen these scares because each ple,” which states, “where there are threats of received widespread public attention in its day—and serious or irreversible environmental damage, each followed its own course to closure in terms of pub- lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as lic and regulatory response. For the same reason we a reason for postponing cost-effective measures have decided not to discuss certain current scares, such to prevent degradation.”1 In other words, all that as the furor over breast implants, for which the final matters is whether a substance or a technology chapter has yet to be written. Some of the scares exam- may do harm. If the risk of harm cannot be ruled ined here led to products or substances being banned. out, then the risky product or activity should not Some led to financial and economic disasters for the be permitted. producers and processors of the falsely accused prod- ucts. In other cases, after an initial panic, consumers • The fear of “synthetic” chemicals, even when shrugged off their fears. some of those same substances exist abundantly, It is interesting to note that the decisions to ban without causing harm, in nature. or to forget generally depended not on the relative mag- nitude of the risk but on the perceived role the products These themes and patterns were all present in the in question played in consumers’ daily lives. In some first of our scares, the infamous “cranberry scare” of cases a very small risk was exaggerated, or the risk was 1959. And they continued to pop up in almost every not compared with the benefits to be derived from the scare of the next three decades, reaching their zenith substance in question. In other cases the available evi- with the great Alar scare of 1989. dence showed no risk to human health, and the people The response to scares in the post-Alar era has making the charges knew—or should have known—this been more muted. This may be due to public “overload” all along. and to growing skepticism in the face of regular front- Widespread public fears and concerns over mat- page health warnings, such as the Center for Science in ters of health and safety are not new to our era, of the Public Interest’s periodic admonitions against course. But what makes these particular scares unique Chinese food, movie-theater popcorn, and other popular in comparison with the panics of earlier times is that gustatory diversions. these specifically involved the products of technology, The purpose of this report is not, of course, mere- 6 F ACTS VERSUS FEARS ly to reflect on modern society’s propensity to fear the in cranberry bogs to postharvest use.1 No residues were unfamiliar.