People have a good reason to worry about huge companies and government capitulation.

has equal value.

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.

Marketing materials claim all kinds of false stuff. False claims about science reflects poorly on marketing, not upon science.

can do long term research. It took long term studies to prove the link with cancer.

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.

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.

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

person isn't able to referee a fight between scientists with PhD's.

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.

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.

And scientists are people.

So yes.

current medical practices.

By the way, tapeworms have come back into medical fashion. You're not keeping up.

But I'm not the one keeping up.

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.

sort of a mismatch there

They made claims to be scientific; that doesn't mean they were.

Or thalidomide.

Sucked bad.

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.

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/

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.

Man, what an a-hole!

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."

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.

Placebo? I don't care. Worked like a freaking charm every time.

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.

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.

I know. I've been there. I don't have COPD but have definitely had allergic asthma.

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.

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.

Remember the pictures of Bill on the golf course with a cigar in his mouth?

someone else's orifice...a rather embarrassing period to be watching the news with your parents or grandparents.

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.

This is about false advertising, deception, and marketing to the feeble-minded regardless of science.

and I used quotation marks to indicate that that was only a claim.

But your title implies it is about deceptive science.

In fact, it was science that supported the government's case.

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.

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.

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 company’s 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 research—they must, after all, gain access to the seeds for studies—most 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.”

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.

I'm glad if it was useful to you.

driven "science" except that today's is arguably worse.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!'

scientists aren't exempt from the corruption that afflicts many other people.

over all the noise coming from their profits. It's really easy to doubt scientific results if you can make money by ignoring them.

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.

...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.

Punishing the companies that made it!

Once we find crops are dangerous scientifically, we can then regulate them also.

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.

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

-- 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.

One has to wonder what level of research would actually satisfy you. I suspect it doesn't exist.

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.

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 company’s 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 research—they must, after all, gain access to the seeds for studies—most 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.”

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.

Where is your link?

And they weren't attempting to reverse-engineer the seeds. They needed to use them for planting.

To support your claims about gmo. Please provide actual evidence, not ridiculous analogies to tobacco.

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 company’s 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 research—they must, after all, gain access to the seeds for studies—most 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.”

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

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 can’t 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.

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.

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?

Therefore this seems like a strawman on your part.

The arguments here, pro and con, are mostly yelling at each other without listening.

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...."

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 company’s 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 research—they must, after all, gain access to the seeds for studies—most 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.”

And what is that corrupt system. Hint. It's not science.

It's what corporations call "science."

Science should be above it all but unfortunately scientists sometimes allow themselves to be used.

... 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

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.