Advertising misinformation - EFR 6-22

Our goal as nutrition educators is to provide information based on good scientific research. The following article is a reinforcement of that approach.

Excerpted from FOOD CHEMICAL NEWS, February 26, 1996, pages 9-10

William London, director of public health for the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) is promoting the setting of public health priorities "in accordance with scientific assessments of hazards." In an editorial in the ACSH quarterly, Priorities, London said that "no public health 'cure' should be worse than the 'disease' it's intended to combat." London stated that interventions by government agencies should be based on science and not on an "exploitation of the public's fears."

While interventions are costly, they will be necessary according to London. As an example, he mentioned the recent imposition of standards and inspections aimed at preventing foodborne disease as an "obvious example."

Noting that funding for public health issues will continue to be limited, London cautioned against "misallocations" which may not only be "wasteful ... but potentially harmful to public health." Monies spent on fighting "hypothetical low-level risk" would therefore not be available for more "urgent, serious hazards," he added.

In a related article in Priorities, "Living Long Enough to Die of Cancer," the issue of cancer deaths as a public health concern was addressed by London and Loma Linda University professor John Morgan. They noted that the "most important explanation" of why many people die from cancer is that "where many people live long lives, many people die of cancer."

While cancer was the eighth leading cause of death in 1900, it had moved up to the leading cause, along with heart disease, by 1990, the authors noted, citing data rom the National Center for Health Statistics. However, London and Morgan pointed out that the proportion of deaths from cancer in developing nations today is "also relatively small," because in those countries many people die as infants, so "fewer people ... live long enough to ... die of cancer."

While "cures" for cancer may not be seen for a while, London and Morgan argued that although "many people will die of cancer," the "widespread adoption of prevention practices" will mean that these deaths will occur at the end of "long, productive lives."

The causes of cancer were discussed in another Priorities' article entitled, "Antipesticide Ads' Lies Are Hazardous to Our Health." J. Gordon Edwards, professor emeritus of biology at San Jose State University, San Jose, Calif., stated that advertisements which suggest the population is at risk from cancer caused by toxic residues on fruits and vegetables are "frantic ravings with no basis in fact." Edwards gave an example of one of the most "outrageous" ads which was produced by Food & Water, Inc. in The New York Times last July. Quoting the Food & Water ad as saying "it is still perfectly legal to kill someone with a zucchini," Edwards said that such misinformation may confuse and frighten many people.

Edwards pointed out that EPA only registers pesticides after many years of testing that prove "legal applications" pose no health risks. Produce found to have pesticide residues "higher" than the tolerance established by EPA is deemed illegal and must be destroyed.

The author reiterated the arguments that pesticides prevent large crop losses from infestations, and that the so-called "natural pesticides" occur "abundantly in meat, potatoes, berries and other fruit." He argued that if products containing these "natural carcinogens" were banned, "scarcely any plant or animal tissues could be sold legally for human consumption."

Edwards noted that there are laws which require "reasonable and reliable" data to support claims that food products are not safe for consumption. Edwards contended that ads such as the Food & Water "zucchini" ad appear to be in "flagrant violation" of these laws.