[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Japanese research on LDI therapy for Type II diabetes [FW]
I believe you will also find that the Delaney Clause was the basis for
banning
saccharin (bladder cancer in lab rats) for years -- until finally an act
of Congress
granted an exemption. (If mistaken, please invoke fuzzy memory, a la
Jerry -- I'm
now old enough to qualify) I also believe EPA has overtly encouraged and
even
funded suits by consumer groups against EPA (similar to John's
references
below) as a means for expanding the EPA empire. Legal evidence certainly
is not
an identity with scientific evidence.
Cheers,
Maury Siskel maury@webtexas.com
======================
John Jacobus wrote:
> Jerry,
>
> Thanks for the corrected information. (As you get older your memory
> doesn't fail, it just gets fuzzier.) Searching the Internet, I found
> some good sites, like
>
> What Do Animal Cancer Tests Tell Us About Human Cancer Risk?: Overview
> of Analyses of the Carcinogenic Potency Database
>
> Lois Swirsky Gold1,2,*, Thomas H. Slone1,2, and Bruce N. Ames2
>
> at http://potency.berkeley.edu/text/drugmetrev.html which has nifty
> quotes like
>
> Among chemicals to which humans are exposed, we estimate
> that 99.9% occur naturally [12]; however, among chemicals in
> the CPDB only 22% (293/1298) are natural. Since half the
> natural chemicals tested are positive, human exposures to
> rodent carcinogens are likely to be ubiquitous. (See Section
> VI below.)
>
> About the law itself, there is "The Delaney Clause Effects on
> Pesticide Policy" at
>
> http://www.ncseonlin
> .org/NLE/CRSreports/Pesticides/pest-1.cfm?&CFID=7080632&CFTOKEN=60570172
>
> which has little tidbits like
>
> Delaney's standard of absolute zero or "no cancer-causing
> food additives" does not allow for the characterization of
> relative risk in various foods, even if the risk of the
> residue is extremely small.
>
> and
>
> After EPA decided to use a de minimis (insignificant)
> criteria to set pesticide residue tolerances, several
> environmental and consumer groups objected. They asked the
> courts to review EPA's 1988 order to use the negligible risk
> interpretation to permit four pesticide residues as food
> additives, although the residues were found to be
> carcinogenic in animals. These groups alleged that EPA had
> violated the provisions of the Delaney Clause. On July 8,
> 1992, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed
> and decided in their favor in Les vs. Reilly.(3) The court
> ruled that the Delaney Clause's history and purpose
> reflected that Congress intended to prohibit the use of any
> food additive that is a carcinogen, regardless of the degree
> of risk involved
>
> My impress is that the Delaney Clause was supposed to protect the
> population without a clear understanding of the limits our our
> knowledge about the risk are and the consequences of what the law
> would do. In legislation, like life, "no good deed shall go
> unpunished."
>
> Jerry Cohen <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET> wrote:
>
> John, I believe the legislation you refer to is the
> so-called "Delaney clause" circa 1957 which mandated pretty
> much what you describe. This was the landmark policy that
> officially sanctioned a non-scientific basis for formulation
> of health and safety regulations and began the trend we are
> seeing today. Substances are labeled and regulated as
> carcinogens based on the Ames test which I believe uses
> yeasts (or some form of single-celled critters) as the test
> animal. No wonder the opinions of movie actors and rock
> stars carry equal or greater influence than those of
> scientists. It is the will of Congress.
>
> -- John
> John Jacobus, MS
> Certified Health Physicist
> e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
--
If at first you do succeed, try to hide your astonishment.
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/