Another Phony Scare Story

[Vocalek]

I was experiencing a lot of Deja Vu while reading this story. Although this particular editorial deals with environmental scare stories pedaled as legitimate research, the methods used are the same as those used by anti-THR* activists.

[h=1]DRIESSEN: Another phony scare story[/h][h=2]Media credibility and the public interest suffer when activist claims are presented as fact[/h]
Studies show even low concentrations of pesticides and other chemicals have a “powerful effect” on amphibian immune systems, causing diseases that have been around for decades to “suddenly become much more deadly,” the story said. It quoted Elizabeth Salter Green, director of CHEM Trust, which sponsored the “research,” as saying “the European Union needs to take a lead on both identifying and controlling the risks.”


The plausible-sounding story has some credibility problems, however. CHEM Trust is financially supported by Greenpeace, which spends millions of dollars annually opposing pesticide spraying to prevent malaria that kills nearly a million people annually; genetically modified Golden Rice, which contains a Vitamin A precursor that can save millions of children in the developing world from blindness and death; and fossil fuels that enhance, safeguard and prolong lives everywhere. Were CHEM Trust industry-funded, the Times would almost certainly have noted that affiliation, regardless of how scrupulous and transparent the work might have been. This time, though, it promoted environmentalist assertions as unimpeachable science.


Moreover, the CHEM Trust paper was an advocacy brief — a summary of research papers and conclusions selected to support claims that chemicals pose unacceptable risks. As Ms. Green suggested, its purpose was to promote tougher EU chemical laws, under the “precautionary principle.” That arbitrary standard focuses on risks of using chemicals — but never on risks of not using them. It spotlights risks a chemical might theoretically cause, but ignores risks it would reduce or prevent. It is another potent weapon for anti-technology activists: whatever they support complies with the precautionary principle and whatever they oppose violates it.

Read more: DRIESSEN: Another phony scare story - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
​

Sound familiar?

The situation below involves an environmental issue, but CASAA had a similar situation with a "study" on e-cigarettes.

The study was released under an “embargo” to selected journalists, who signed an agreement not to show the paper to outside scientists before the media covered the story. That meant the journalists could not seek unbiased comments or provide any balance or corrections to the activist storyline. Within 24 hours after the embargo was lifted, independent scientists exposed almost every aspect of the “study” as flawed and even fraudulent.

In our case, journalists were sent an advance copy of an e-cigarette scare story masquerading as a research report, with an "embargo" date of when the paper was going to be presented at an organization's convention. (I don't believe the journalists were asked to sign an agreement to honor the embargo.) One journalist wisely asked us ahead of time to provide him with some context for that report.


-----------------
*THR - tobacco Harm Reduction. The practice of substituting low-risk products such as e-cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, or pharmaceutical nicotine products for cigarette smoking.

 

[Uma]

Eerily so.

 

[AgentAnia]

Moreover, the CHEM Trust paper was an advocacy brief — a summary of research papers and conclusions selected to support claims that chemicals pose unacceptable risks. As Ms. Green suggested, its purpose was to promote tougher EU chemical laws, under the “precautionary principle.” That arbitrary standard focuses on risks of using chemicals — but never on risks of not using them.

Something clicked in my brain on reading this. The EU TPD advocates make much of this "precautionary principle," and certainly in this country Tobacco Control and minions love to tout the theoretical risks of ecigs. But.

Whatever happened to the good old-fashioned risk/benefit analysis? If policymakers can ignore the benefit side of the equation, they ignore the real world and can categorize just about anything, in one way or another, as a risk. Including anything they just don't know about, or just don't like.

Oh wait....

 

[Steamix]

Might stab someone with a knife, as a 'precautionary measure' against him getting shot....