General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRemember tobacco? A product once "scientifically" proven to be harmless
Last edited Sun Mar 15, 2015, 04:32 PM - Edit history (3)
and even beneficial. According to tobacco marketers, that is.
As recently as 1953 Fairfax Cigarettes, for example, were marketed for the relief of respiratory symptoms.
And Trim Reducing Aid Cigarettes were marketed as a "safe" "non-habit forming" weight loss supplement in the 50's.
The first study that connected tobacco to lung cancer was done in Germany in 1930, but it wasn't till the 60's that the Surgeon General decided to require labeling. In the meantime, millions of people developed lung cancer and other tobacco related diseases. And even those who wanted to quit discovered that fighting nicotine addiction was an uphill battle.
So those of us who may seem overly skeptical when marketers push "science" may simply have longer memories than others.
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/11/suppl_1/i110.full
Evidence now indicates that senior scientists and executives within the cigarette industry knew about the cancer risks of smoking as early as the 1940 and were aware that smoking could cause lung cancer by the mid 1950s. By 1961, cigarette companies had access to dozens of published scientific studies warning that cigarette smoking and chemical agents found in tobacco smoke might cause cancer. Despite growing knowledge of the serious health risks associated with cigarette smoking, cigarette companies continued to reassure smokers that their products were safe. In January 1954, Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, Brown & Williamson, Lorillard, and American Tobacco jointly placed an advertisement entitled A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers which appeared in 448 newspapers in 258 cities, reaching an estimated 43 245 000 people.7, The Frank Statement advertisement questioned research findings implicating smoking as a cause of cancer, promised consumers that their cigarettes were safe, and pledged to support impartial research to investigate allegations that smoking was harmful to human health. This paper examines the extent to which cigarette companies fulfilled the promises made to consumers in the 1954 Frank Statement advertisement and the effect of these promises on consumer knowledge, beliefs, and smoking practices.
From the lawsuit that resulted when the government seized a shipment of Trim Cigarettes:
http://www.leagle.com/decision/19591025178FSupp847_1855.xml/UNITED%20STATES%20v.%20354%20BULK%20CARTONS,%20ETC.
The subject of these condemnation proceedings is a quantity of cigarettes intended to be smoked by human beings for the purpose of achieving and represented by claimant to be effective for a reduction in weight of the body of the users. These cigarettes are offered for sale in packages of twenty. The exterior of each package bears a legend that the contents are "trim reducing-aid cigarettes"; that the active ingredients of each of these cigarettes are "combustible tartaric acid, combined with tobacco and flavoring". Upon the back of each package are directions for the use of the contents, viz.: "Smoke one cigarette shortly before meals * * * and whenever you are tempted to reach for a late evening snack. Trim reducing-aid cigarettes contain a patented appetite satient that takes the edge off your appetite. Clinically tested . . . The notice further suggests that the user smoke three or four reducing aid cigarettes a day, that the article has been clinically tested, that satisfaction is guaranteed, and that the cigarettes consist of a scientific blend of finest quality tobacco. A window display streamer, to be employed for purposes of retail marketing of Trim cigarettes, which was also seized in this proceeding, is designed to attract the attention of a prospective purchaser by the following exhortative language. "Overweight? Lose weight without pills or diet. Smoke Trim reducing-aid cigarettes. Absolutely harmless. Five years of successful clinical tests. A full week's supply in one package. Smoke three a day. Patented by United States Government. Enjoy along with your favorite cigarettesas advertised on T.V.!" Salesmen's catalogue sheet, also seized with the articles here proceeded against, addresses the retailer as follows: "Mr. Retailer out to get your share of a * * $500,000,000 market," and then presents, over the name Cornell Drug Corp., 5 Davis St., Cambridge, Mass., printed and graphically illustrated information that Trim reducing aid cigarettes are a scientifically proven reducing aid backed by a national advertising campaign with radio, T.V., magazine and newspaper saturation, point-of-sale merchandising, and window displays, and a statement that there is a full $6.66 per carton profit for the retailer. The same circular reiterates the admonition to users "Puff your pounds away, Smoke 3-4 a day," gives assurance that by so doing pills and drugs are eliminated, represents that the product has been clinically tested, and announces that one package contains a week's supply, that the product is patented by United States Government, is scientifically blended and is backed by five years of successful clinical tests. Following the further admonition "Watch your weight go up in smoke," the retailer is assured that the product sells everywhere, on drug counters, in tobacco departments and in cosmetic departments.
The claimant admits all of the foregoing representations, exhortations, suggestions and directions. In addition to the employment of the foregoing media and methods of advertising and sales inducements claimant admits that the following is typical of the text of its radio and television "commercials": "It's here * * * a great scientific discovery * * Trim, reducing aid cigarettes that curb your appetite. Imagine * * * now you can lose up to twenty pounds or more, simply by smoking this delightful tasted cigarette * * * without giving up your favorite brand. Just light up a Trim reducing-aid cigarette before each
[178 F.Supp. 850]
meal. Watch your weight go up in smoke. Trim cigarettes contain a patented ingredient that stops that urge to eat fattening foods with your first puff. It's `will-power' in tobacco form. Trim cigarettes have been clinically tested and medically approved. * * * The results are excellent. Patients have lost up to twenty pounds or more in eight weeks * * * the safe, simple way. Puff your pounds away with Trim cigarettes. Watch your weight go down, down, down! Harmless, non-habit forming. Light a Trim cigarette at night, when you're tempted to raid the ice box * * * they work instantly. Appease your appetite. Even non-smokers can reduce with Trims. You smoke only three a day. Trim reducing aid cigarettes make reducing fun. Get your first pack of Trim cigarettes today at drug counters. Safely lose up to twenty pounds or double your money back."
Rex
(65,616 posts)People have a good reason to worry about huge companies and government capitulation.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)has equal value.
Rex
(65,616 posts)That's like the beer industry doing a scientific study on how bad marijuana is for you (shocking results, very bad!).
You always need to follow the paper trail. A company that makes GMO foods does not want to label the ingredients and that naturally causes human nature to become wary or curious. Nothing strange about that at all.
Just basic human nature.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Marketing materials claim all kinds of false stuff. False claims about science reflects poorly on marketing, not upon science.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)pnwmom
(109,021 posts)can do long term research. It took long term studies to prove the link with cancer.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)I am unaware of any such study.
It's generally been understood for the past several thousand years that smoke inhalation is bad for people.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)And when the Tobacco Research Institute was fighting labeling as to health risks, they claimed to have many more.
They could have had short-term studies that showed no serious effects, but it was long-term studies that were needed.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)pnwmom
(109,021 posts)Later, what the Tobacco Research Institute was claiming wasn't that cigarettes had been proven safe, but that they hadn't been proven injurious. Their claim was that they should be allowed to sell any product that wasn't proven injurious -- proven to their satisfaction.
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/11/suppl_1/i110.full
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)pnwmom
(109,021 posts)person isn't able to referee a fight between scientists with PhD's.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)It should also have an open mind when those risks don't pan out as previously thought. That's what real science is all about.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)require labeling of dangerous products?
The first scientific study connecting smoking and lung cancer was published in 1930. The Surgeon General's report came out in the 60's. In the interim, Big Tobacco kept arguing that the health risks weren't known.
And big Tobacco's scientists were keeping their mouths shut. This doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)pnwmom
(109,021 posts)And scientists are people.
So yes.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)pnwmom
(109,021 posts)current medical practices.
By the way, tapeworms have come back into medical fashion. You're not keeping up.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)But I'm not the one keeping up.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)Our 100 years of progress have brought us many medical advances. And nuclear war. And the Internet. And GMO's. And climate change.
It's a mixed bag.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)sort of a mismatch there
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)They made claims to be scientific; that doesn't mean they were.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Or thalidomide.
lark
(23,182 posts)Sucked bad.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)deliberatly hiding the information and responsible for addicting and killing millions of people in order to line the pockets of CEO's seem particularly distasteful to me.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)They said that cigarettes caused cancer sometime in the early 1960s. Both my parents smoked because it was common in their generation (people who were young adults during World War II). They both quit in the 1960s, but not before the damage was done to my lungs by second-hand smoke. I have scar tissue in my lungs that can be seen on an x-ray. It looks like little specks of dandruff on the lining of the tubules. I have never smoked tobacco myself. Not once.
Although I am glad that they quit and thus lived a lot longer than they would have otherwise.
Read about Dr. Alton Ochsner and his crusade against tobacco, which was opposed by the American Medical Association. One of his students was Dr. Michael DeBakey at Tulane:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3145444/
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)And of the smokers, one died of lung cancer. The other died of something else, I believe, but spent the last decade of his life talking with a robot voice from a little box in his neck.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Man, what an a-hole!
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Show me a liar and I'll show Thee a thief.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)The realization the US Government, academia, and other "authorities" covered up the health consequences of smoking so some big shots could continue to make a buck should shed light on anyone considering the current epoch, where "money trumps peace."
immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Wasn't brought up much after that.
Operation COFFEECUP - How Reagan Worked to Stop Universal Health Coverage in 1961
In December 1961, the AMA pulled out all the stops to prevent President John F. Kennedy from proposing universal health coverage. For their effort, they recruited a TV-personality.
Write those letters now. Call your friends, and tell them to write them. If you don't, this program I promise you will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow. And behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country, until, one day . . . we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don't do this, and if I don't do it, one of these days, you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children, and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free.
Sounds familiar to Tea Party crapola of today. Ironic: Corporate McPravda avoids mentioning how one has-been B-movie actor took part in the organized opposition to Medicare in the early 1960s. Here's the story, thanks to Mr. Scott E. Starr:
The Campaign Against Medicare
Monday, March 22, 2010
By Scott E. Starr
EXCERPT...
In order to maintain the illusion of spontaneity, the AMA did not announce the existence of Operation Coffeecup or publicize the Reagan recording. The record was to be used, campaign organizers cautioned, only in the groups meeting under the controlled conditions of the informal coffees. Under no circumstances, recipients of the record were warned, were they to permit commercial broadcast of the recording.
Operation Coffeecup was kept deliberately low-key and internal to the AMA, its Womans Auxiliary, and the trusted friends and neighbors of the Auxiliary women. Reagans efforts against Medicare were revealed, however, in a scoop by Drew Pearson in his Washington Merry-Go-Round column of June 17th. Pearson titled his item on Reagan, Star vs. JFK, and he told his readers:
Ronald Reagan of Hollywood has pitted his mellifluous voice against President Kennedy in the battle for medical aid for the elderly. As a result it looks as if the old folks would lose out. He has caused such a deluge of mail to swamp Congress that Congressmen want to postpone action on the medical bill until 1962. What they dont know, of course, is that Ron Reagan is behind the mail; also that the American Medical Association is paying for it.
Reagan is the handsome TV star for General Electric . . . Just how this background qualifies him as an expert on medical care for the elderly remains a mystery. Nevertheless, thanks to a deal with the AMA, and the acquiescence of General Electric, Ronald may be able to outinfluence the President of the United States with Congress.24
Reagans recorded remarks are quite extensive, and reveal a determined and in-depth attack on the principles of Medicare (and Social Security), going well beyond opposition to King-Anderson or any other particular piece of legislation.
My name is Ronald Reagan. I have been asked to talk on the several subjects that have to do with the problems of the day. . .
Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people would adopt every fragment of the socialist program. . . .
But at the moment I'd like to talk about another way because this threat is with us and at the moment is more imminent. One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. . . . Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We have an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.25
And what was this frightful threat that Reagan perceived as imminent?
. . . Congressman Forand introduced the Forand Bill. This was the idea that all people of Social Security age should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance. Now, this would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those who are disabled, this would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for Social Security. . . .
It should be obvious that Reagans description of the Forand bill is a description of any Medicare-type program, not just a specific piece of legislation.26 The idea that people of Social Security age should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance, just is the idea of Medicare.
CONTINUED...
http://geotheology.blogspot.com /
If you get a chance, immoderate and all DU, the geotheology blog continues with details on Operation COFFEECUP. The American Medical Association bankrolled the "mellifluous voice" of Ol' Pruneface.
I bring this all up because so many believe history started only yesterday. The rightwing warmongers and greedheads have been organized for a long time. They've demonized liberals like me and my political heroes as socialists and communists. The nation has devolved politically to the point where even the leaders of our own party run away from the word, "Liberal." It's past time America realizes supporting the causes of the rich helped launch the political career of Americas first presidential Reverse Robin Hood. Fronting for the BFEE, Reaganomics has resulted in the greatest transfer of wealth from the many to the few -- during the times 7/8 of all the wealth in human history was created, per David Stockman.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)virgogal
(10,178 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)Placebo? I don't care. Worked like a freaking charm every time.
uppityperson
(115,681 posts)copd is chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, found too often in smokers or previous smokers. It is not so much that you will die of lung cancer, but that your breathing will be so restricted that you can not function without supplemental oxygen and any respiratory virus you catch is so much worse. imo, speaking from working with people with lung problems like that.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)for a decade first. So she managed to have both COPD and cancer.
Her husband, also a smoker, didn't need oxygen. But after his surgery for esophageal cancer he needed a little box in his neck to give him a robot voice.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)I know. I've been there. I don't have COPD but have definitely had allergic asthma.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)my grandfather and 2 of his brothers lost limbs in their 70's due to smoking. My grandfather had been smoking since he was 11. He went in for a blood vessel replacement and came out minus a leg. His older brother lost 2 legs. Then my grandfather developed COPD partly due to blood clots in his lungs from his vein-replacement-turned-amputation surgery that had caused damage. Regardless, he still lived until he was 97. He went on to have several heart attacks, more blood clots, and other circulatory issues after his amputation. He was on oxygen for the last 12 years of his life. He was told, after his amputation, that if he didn't quit smoking he'd be dead in a year. He quit for a year then started up again. We all wonder how long he would've lived if not for the smoking. He died of a lung infection that caused respiratory distress. So, it was his lungs that finally 'got' him, but it was his circulatory issues that made his last 2 decades pretty miserable.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)He was one tough guy. How long would he have lived if he hadn't been a smoker?
But we know at least he would have lived those years in much better health.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Remember the pictures of Bill on the golf course with a cigar in his mouth?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)someone else's orifice...a rather embarrassing period to be watching the news with your parents or grandparents.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)His administration also filed suit to recover damages to the Medicare program from smoking-related health claims.
How exactly did he "benefit greatly" from the tobacco industry? They didn't benefit from his Presidency.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/The_U.S._Government's_racketeering_case_against_Big_Tobacco
After 6 years of litigation, 9 months of trial, hundreds of depositions and thousands of exhibits, on August 17, 2006 U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler ruled that the Government had proven its case and found that the tobacco company defendants have violated the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2000/04/a_tobacco_lawsuit_primer.html
The federal government. Last year, to the surprise of both Big Tobacco and Congress, President Clinton followed the lead of the states and sued the companies to recover the federal government's smoking-related medical expenses. Clinton said the awards (if there are any) would be used to strengthen Medicare and other health-related programs. The case is still pending.
progressoid
(50,011 posts)This is about false advertising, deception, and marketing to the feeble-minded regardless of science.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)and I used quotation marks to indicate that that was only a claim.
progressoid
(50,011 posts)But your title implies it is about deceptive science.
In fact, it was science that supported the government's case.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)in support of its propaganda campaign.
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/11/suppl_1/i110.full
Evidence now indicates that senior scientists and executives within the cigarette industry knew about the cancer risks of smoking as early as the 1940s and were aware that smoking could cause lung cancer by the mid 1950s. By 1961, cigarette companies had access to dozens of published scientific studies warning that cigarette smoking and chemical agents found in tobacco smoke might cause cancer. Despite growing knowledge of the serious health risks associated with cigarette smoking, cigarette companies continued to reassure smokers that their products were safe. In January 1954, Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, Brown & Williamson, Lorillard, and American Tobacco jointly placed an advertisement entitled A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers which appeared in 448 newspapers in 258 cities, reaching an estimated 43 245 000 people.7, The Frank Statement advertisement questioned research findings implicating smoking as a cause of cancer, promised consumers that their cigarettes were safe, and pledged to support impartial research to investigate allegations that smoking was harmful to human health. This paper examines the extent to which cigarette companies fulfilled the promises made to consumers in the 1954 Frank Statement advertisement and the effect of these promises on consumer knowledge, beliefs, and smoking practices.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)pnwmom
(109,021 posts)with the help of the scientists in its employ.
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/11/suppl_1/i110.full
Evidence now indicates that senior scientists and executives within the cigarette industry knew about the cancer risks of smoking as early as the 1940s and were aware that smoking could cause lung cancer by the mid 1950s. By 1961, cigarette companies had access to dozens of published scientific studies warning that cigarette smoking and chemical agents found in tobacco smoke might cause cancer. Despite growing knowledge of the serious health risks associated with cigarette smoking, cigarette companies continued to reassure smokers that their products were safe. In January 1954, Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, Brown & Williamson, Lorillard, and American Tobacco jointly placed an advertisement entitled A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers which appeared in 448 newspapers in 258 cities, reaching an estimated 43 245 000 people.7, The Frank Statement advertisement questioned research findings implicating smoking as a cause of cancer, promised consumers that their cigarettes were safe, and pledged to support impartial research to investigate allegations that smoking was harmful to human health. This paper examines the extent to which cigarette companies fulfilled the promises made to consumers in the 1954 Frank Statement advertisement and the effect of these promises on consumer knowledge, beliefs, and smoking practices.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)pnwmom
(109,021 posts)It's also, by the way, what GMO producers are doing . They limit which researchers can use their seeds and make them sign agreements not to publish without permission.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/15/us/tobacco-chiefs-say-cigarettes-aren-t-addictive.html?pagewanted=2
In his testimony, Mr. Campbell of Philip Morris admitted twice stopping publication of a study, in 1983 and 1985, that showed that laboratory animals could be conditioned to press levers repeatedly to get nicotine, the sort of study that is key to proving that a drug is addictive. He also agreed to waive the secrecy agreement that has kept a former company researcher, Dr. Victor DeNoble, from publicly discussing his work.
A Lorillard executive, Dr. Alexander Spears, admitted, when pressed in the hearing, that data he gave to Congress three weeks ago showing a drop in the amount of nicotine in cigarettes since 1982 was wrong. The chart he presented then before the same subcommittee showed a 10 percent drop in nicotine, when in fact the Surgeon General's report from which the data were taken showed an increase of the total nicotine in cigarettes by more than 10 percent.
Asked after the hearing how the error was made, Dr. Spears said, "I don't know."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/
Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.
To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a companys intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects.
Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering. It is important to understand that it is not always simply a matter of blanket denial of all research requests, which is bad enough, wrote Elson J. Shields, an entomologist at Cornell University, in a letter to an official at the Environmental Protection Agency (the body tasked with regulating the environmental consequences of genetically modified crops), but selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how friendly or hostile a particular scientist may be toward [seed-enhancement] technology.
Shields is the spokesperson for a group of 24 corn insect scientists that opposes these practices. Because the scientists rely on the cooperation of the companies for their researchthey must, after all, gain access to the seeds for studiesmost have chosen to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. The group has submitted a statement to the EPA protesting that as a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology.
druidity33
(6,450 posts)I have been making this point forever. I think it's the most important reason i don't trust GMO. The science that backs it up is co-opted! Always has been. No one really knows if it's safe. Period.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)I'm glad if it was useful to you.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)driven "science" except that today's is arguably worse.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)She's been on an anti-GMO kick recently, and needs to handle the pesky problem of no one being able to prove they cause harm.
So trying to link "scientifically proven safe" to tobacco helps her cause.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)how science has been forced to change it's tune and repudiate it's peer reviewed studies
We can talk about agriculture and what pesticides the scientists working in the service of agribusiness has wrought.
Science is done in a lab and it's researchers are generally TERRIBLE at predicting unintended consequences.
A huge chunk of the problem is so much of science is done by scientists working for industries who have zero ethics and are mainly interested in producing a patentable product. And the Governmental agencies that should be overlooking this research and its technological implementation are also controlled by same industries with zero ethics.
We can also look at the governing philosophy of most American scientists- materialsim.
Too many scientists are investing in using archaic methodologies and refuse to acknowledge any progress that doesn't fit into their world view.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Conservatives argue the free market will regulate itself - no industry would kill its own customers, that would be ridiculous!
When industry owns all the politicians, we are in a world of shit, aren't we?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)pnwmom
(109,021 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 15, 2015, 07:24 PM - Edit history (1)
Thalidomide here, despite all the pressure she was getting. At one point she even hired a lawyer because the drug company was threatening to sue her personally!
So the only cases we had here were from women who got their pills in other countries. But tens of thousands of families around the world were horribly injured.
And I had a friend who was a DES baby -- had to get her uterus removed when she was 30. And there were many other women like her.
randr
(12,418 posts)Some of the same techniques are being used to sell the rapid growth of yet another petro-chemical industry. Many of the same firms are engaged in convincing Americans that fracking is just a harmless as they once proposed tobacco as being.
As with tobacco the sell gets harder and harder the more lives are at risk. It does not take a rocket scientist long to find ample information of the harm that comes from much of the current fracking explosion.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)ErikJ
(6,335 posts)pnwmom
(109,021 posts)whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)chknltl
(10,558 posts)Accdg to Thom Hartmann some of the Scientists, Lawyers, lobbyists who worked for big tobacco back in the day now work for big oil today denying Global Climate Change. At least one of their very arguments is exactly the same: 'We shouldn't be jumping to conclusions because the scientists are not yet in consensus on the topic!'
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)scientists aren't exempt from the corruption that afflicts many other people.
tclambert
(11,087 posts)over all the noise coming from their profits. It's really easy to doubt scientific results if you can make money by ignoring them.
lpbk2713
(42,772 posts)The sponsor was a cigarette manufacturer (maybe Camels). They would end the
show by selecting a Veteran's hospital they would donate a case of smokes to.
I remember it because even then it seemed odd to me giving tobacco items to
hospitalized people.
jmowreader
(50,580 posts)It seems cigarettes were nicknamed "coffin nails" in the 1880s. People KNEW these things would kill you even then!
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)into agreeing to put warning labels on its products.
Watch today's SCOTUS decide some day that that's interfering with Big Tobacco's free speech.
jmowreader
(50,580 posts)...but if a Republican president is inflicted on us and one of the liberal justices leaves the court...who's to say? They'd be more likely to overturn the rules on advertising than the warning label requirement.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Punishing the companies that made it!
Once we find crops are dangerous scientifically, we can then regulate them also.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)was published in 1930. Millions died from smoking related diseases before the government finally issued the Surgeon General's report in the 60's, and it was decades longer before anyone won a liability award from Big Tobacco. In the meantime, scientists working with the industry were suppressing the results of negative research.
So that's what happens when we wait for companies manufacturing dangerous products to admit what they're doing.
But please explain how scientists can do the necessary epidemiological studies, tracking the effects on consumers, if the products aren't labeled.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Or did you think it was something other than further scientific research, that led us to what we know about tobacco today?
Science is a process, and it most definitely isn't static, as you seem to think it is.
Sid
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)-- and that their studies have given us the final answer.
I'd like to see some long-term studies conducted over decades by independent scientists (who haven't signed confidentiality agreements) , like those conducted by independent tobacco researchers.
And to do epidemiological studies we need labeling.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)One has to wonder what level of research would actually satisfy you. I suspect it doesn't exist.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)For the GMO producers to allow independent researchers unfettered access to their seeds, with no restrictions on study design or publication.
For the GMO producers to stop fighting labeling laws.
For long-term epidemiological studies to demonstrate they are safe but that requires labeling.
For the FDA to reverse its 1992 decision that henceforth every new GMO would be presumed safe, even across species, with the burden of proof being on those who questioned safety. Instead, the GMO producers should return to bearing the burden of proving the safety of their products, as drug manufacturers must do with theirs.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)What is stopping them? Anyone can buy GMO seeds.
For the GMO producers to stop fighting labeling laws.
If the organic industry was faced with a labeling law that offers no useful information about their products, but stokes irrational fear, should they not fight it?
Why not test all food this way? Probably because it's extremely unpractical and there's no reasonable hypothesis to test.
All GMO food does require testing, unlike non-GMO food. If peanuts were discovered today, they would never be approved if subjected to the same testing as GMO.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)And that contract allows the GMO producer to control publication of results. Quite a racket they've got going.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/
Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.
To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a companys intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects.
Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering. It is important to understand that it is not always simply a matter of blanket denial of all research requests, which is bad enough, wrote Elson J. Shields, an entomologist at Cornell University, in a letter to an official at the Environmental Protection Agency (the body tasked with regulating the environmental consequences of genetically modified crops), but selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how friendly or hostile a particular scientist may be toward technology.
Shields is the spokesperson for a group of 24 corn insect scientists that opposes these practices. Because the scientists rely on the cooperation of the companies for their researchthey must, after all, gain access to the seeds for studiesmost have chosen to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. The group has submitted a statement to the EPA protesting that as a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)No signature or approval necessary.
No patented seed manufacturer, GMO or otherwise, should be expected to consent to reverse engineering their product. Furthermore, people don't eat GMO seeds. They eat the product of those seeds, which has no restrictions on research.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)Where is your link?
And they weren't attempting to reverse-engineer the seeds. They needed to use them for planting.
Shields is the spokesperson for a group of 24 corn insect scientists that opposes these practices. Because the scientists rely on the cooperation of the companies for their researchthey must, after all, gain access to the seeds for studiesmost have chosen to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. The group has submitted a statement to the EPA protesting that as a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)pnwmom
(109,021 posts)phil89
(1,043 posts)To support your claims about gmo. Please provide actual evidence, not ridiculous analogies to tobacco.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)Until they allow unfettered access to seeds to all independent researchers, the studies they do allow to be released are suspect.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/
Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.
To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a companys intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects.
Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering. It is important to understand that it is not always simply a matter of blanket denial of all research requests, which is bad enough, wrote Elson J. Shields, an entomologist at Cornell University, in a letter to an official at the Environmental Protection Agency (the body tasked with regulating the environmental consequences of genetically modified crops), but selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how friendly or hostile a particular scientist may be toward technology.
Shields is the spokesperson for a group of 24 corn insect scientists that opposes these practices. Because the scientists rely on the cooperation of the companies for their researchthey must, after all, gain access to the seeds for studiesmost have chosen to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. The group has submitted a statement to the EPA protesting that as a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)pnwmom
(109,021 posts)No seeds, no independent research
Companies that genetically engineer crops have a lock on what we know about their safety and benefits.
Soybeans, corn, cotton and canola -- most of the acres planted in these crops in the United States are genetically altered. "Transgenic" seeds reduce the use of some insecticides. But herbicide use is higher, and respected experts argue that some genetically engineered crops may also pose serious health and environmental risks. The benefits of genetically engineered crops may be overstated.
We don't have the complete picture. That's no accident. Multibillion-dollar agricultural corporations, including Monsanto and Syngenta, have restricted independent research on their genetically engineered crops. They have often refused to provide independent scientists with seeds, or they've set restrictive conditions that severely limit research options.
This is legal. Under U.S. law, genetically engineered crops are patentable inventions. Companies have broad power over the use of any patented product, including who can study it and how.
Agricultural companies defend their stonewalling by saying that unrestricted research could make them vulnerable to lawsuits if an experiment somehow leads to harm, or that it could give competitors unfair insight into their products. But it's likely that the companies fear something else as well: An experiment could reveal that a genetically engineered product is hazardous or doesn't perform as promised.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)It's interesting how the anti-GMO folks keep repeating the same stuff, even though they know that there is more to the story.
http://grist.org/food/genetically-modified-seed-research-whats-locked-and-what-isnt/
and...
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/do-seed-companies-restrict-research/
And, she ignored much, much more, of course.
Including...
AAAS Scientists: Consensus on GMO Safety Firmer Than For Human-Induced Climate Change
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_8915_b_6572130.html
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)The agreement with the universities contains a loophole large enough for every new GMO to jump through:
According to Shields, the Cornell entomologist:
There was one problem still, he said: Scientists cant work with seeds before they come on the market. That hampers his ability to make recommendations about which seeds work best under different conditions, or to test for unwanted effects. Remember the study [PDF] that showed that Monarch butterflies might die if they ate too much insect-resistant GE corn pollen? That was technically an illegal study, he said.
So the independent researchers can't work with seeds until the FDA has already approved them, based on the producer-approved research, and put them on the market.
By the time independent research is completed, the GMO's have been in the fields, and on our dinner tables, for years.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Nor does your cherry picked quote represent to full content of those pieces.
Do you ever read the BS your links spew? We know you don't, or you don't care. It doesn't matter which one it is. Your disingenuous propaganda is far too obvious.
Goodbye.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)You are so FUNNY!!!
If you are so eager to avoid discussions with me, then why don't you stay out of discussions of OP's that I write?
GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)Therefore this seems like a strawman on your part.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)The arguments here, pro and con, are mostly yelling at each other without listening.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Your argument has absolutely nothing to do with science and everything to do with the need for regulated capitalism. You are using a time period where "truth in advertising" was not completely necessary. Often items were advertised during that time with complete lies. I don't recall any peer reviewed, thorough studies, that make the claim this company is making.
You are comparing apples and oranges to make an anti-science argument. The argument you are truly making is of the importance of strong legislation regulating capitalism. Your post truly has nothing to do with science. It has to do completely with capitalism. We would all be better if we could recognize that.
"As recently as 1953...." Blatant agenda based sentence. It could have just as easily read "before most of you were born...."
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)and capable of error -- and corruptible.
Any scientist who takes GMO seeds under an agreement that allows the producer to control publication of results has succumbed to a corrupt system.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/
Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.
To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a companys intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects.
Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering. It is important to understand that it is not always simply a matter of blanket denial of all research requests, which is bad enough, wrote Elson J. Shields, an entomologist at Cornell University, in a letter to an official at the Environmental Protection Agency (the body tasked with regulating the environmental consequences of genetically modified crops), but selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how friendly or hostile a particular scientist may be toward technology.
Shields is the spokesperson for a group of 24 corn insect scientists that opposes these practices. Because the scientists rely on the cooperation of the companies for their researchthey must, after all, gain access to the seeds for studiesmost have chosen to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. The group has submitted a statement to the EPA protesting that as a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)And what is that corrupt system. Hint. It's not science.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)It's what corporations call "science."
Science should be above it all but unfortunately scientists sometimes allow themselves to be used.
hunter
(38,340 posts)... and the mass media sources that depended on tobacco advertising.
People were calling cigarettes "coffin nails" in the nineteenth century. My great grandmother called them that.
http://tobacco.harpweek.com
closeupready
(29,503 posts)It's a dated film 16 years on, but really shows how bad our media establishment and 60 Minutes has become in providing real journalism.