Fluoride and Fish

May 12, 2013

While the early years of the anti-fluoridation movement were dominated by conservative voices, anti-fluoridationists can now be found across the political spectrum. In Portland, OR (which is set to vote on fluoridation this month) the opposition is fairly diverse, coming from both the left, and the right, and well as from some more politically unaffiliated voices. Aside from the usual arguments about “health freedom”, a traditionally right-wing movement that still finds much support in the vegan community, activists in Portland have also been pushing the environmental argument fairly hard, with their central concern being the health of the Columbia River and the salmon populations it supports. Activists have even enlisted the support of some smaller environmental organizations such as the Oregon Sierra Club’s Columbia Group and Columbia Riverkeeper giving their claims an air of credibility.

While I certainly can appreciate a more bio-centric approach to the issue, I still find the arguments put forward by the fluoridation opponents to be unconvincing. To support their claim anti-fluoridationists point to a 1989 study by David M. Damkaer and Douglas B. Dey published in the North American Journal of Fisheries Management that purports to find a safety threshold for salmon exposed to concentrations of fluoride as low as 0.2 ppm. But on closer inspection this study is problematic and does not offer any conclusive evidence. A more recent review from the British Columbia Environmental Protection Division suggested a conservative safety threshold twice that of Damkaer and Dey (0.4ppm). But what does this mean in the context of water fluoridation? How much will the fluoridation of Portland’s public water raise levels in the Columbia River?

Some fluoridation opponents have noted that the expected concentration of fluoride added to Portland’s public water supply will be nearly four times the limit proposed by Damkaer and Dey, and that sewage effluent can exceed this limit even further. However Portland will not be directly fluoridating the Columbia River and despite concerns about run-off, this source is insignificant and is highly diluted by the time it makes it into the Columbia. Nor will Portland simply discharge untreated sewage into the river, that in itself would be a major environmental concern. Waste water is first treated, where around half of the fluoride content may be removed. From there waste water will then be diluted to less than 0.2 ppm fluoride in the mixing zone before heading downstream and diffusing further. A back-of-the-envelope calculation based on the work of John Osterman accounting for flow rate of the Columbia, waste water flow rate, and background fluoride levels shows no more than a 0.00047 ppm change in fluoride concentrations in the river as a result of fluoridation. This is well below any dangerous level for salmon or their prey and would be undetectable against background fluoride levels. A 2004 review of the literature by Howard F. Pollick published in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health offers further support for the pro-fluoridation side, concluding, “[t]here appears to be no concern about the environmental aspects of water fluoridation among those experts who have investigated the matter”.

Further Reading:

Environmental Effects of Fluoridation: City Club of Portland

Why Salmon Have Nothing to Fear from Fluoridation by carmackart

How Some on the Right use Fluoride to Co-opt the Left by carmackart

You Can’t Handle the Tooth: Why the far right and left have come together to defeat fluoride. By Marty Smith

Evaluating the impact of municipal water fluoridation on the aquatic environment.

Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department Fluoridation Resolution Environmental Checklist

City of Port Angeles Municipal Water Fluoridation Environmental Checklist

Fluoridation Conspiracy in the Bay Area

March 25, 2013

Last Friday I had the opportunity to go and observe an anti-fluoridation march and symposium in San Francisco held by a group calling themselves Get The F Out (with the “F” standing for fluoride). The real draw was that the main presentation was to be given by no other than Dr. Paul Connett, director of the Fluoride Action Network. I couldn’t miss that. Check out my guest post on the event over at Conspiracy Check.

Get The F Out march

Get The F Out march

Water Fluoridation: A Communist Plot?

March 7, 2013

For over six decades Americans have enjoyed the dental benefits of public water fluoridation. Yet, from its very beginning, sectors of the America public have expressed various concerns over the practice. While some of these concerns are not unreasonable, the over-all history of public opposition to fluoridation has been filled with wild claims, distortions, and conspiracy theories. Perhaps the most recognizable of these fringe claims is the idea that water fluoridation represents a “communist plot.”

The belief that fluoridation began as a “communist plot” was pervasive throughout much of the early far-right opposition to fluoridation. This should not surprise many who are familiar with the Red Scare of the ‘forties and ‘fifties; when fears of communist infiltration where rampant. In The Fluoride Wars: How a Modest Public Health Measure Became America’s Longest Running Political Melodrama, authors R. Allan Freeze and Jay H. Lehr make the following observation:

“One can also identify a historical time line associated with these objections, wherein each issue mirrors the tenor of its times. In the 1950s, wary citizens worried about communist plots. The 1960s saw a growth in concern over military–industrial conspiracies. The 1970s placed fluoridation in an environmental context. The issues of the 1980s and 1990s reflected societal obsessions with personal health, beauty, and aging. Even the diseases targeted by anti-fluoridation forces reflect the fears of the day, as early concerns over Down’s syndrome gave way to anxiety over heart disease, then cancer, and now AIDS.”

However, while new conspiracy theories and arguments have popped up over the decades, this belief still persists to some extent in the echo-chambers of the online anti-fluoridation community. Yet, this belief is little more than a myth based on the flimsiest of evidence. Even Paul Connett, who heads up the Fluoride Action Network, a major anti-fluoridation organization, and co-author of The Case Against Fluoride, has said,

“The historical evidence for this assertion is extremely weak. It is sad that the U.S. media has done such a bad job of educating the public on this issue that it is so easy for crazy ideas to fill the vacuum.”

I agree with Connett that the media certainly holds some of the blame; in part for their insistence on giving fringe claims some degree of credibility through false balance. But, after examining the available evidence it seems clear to me that another major factor in the continuation of this and other myths is due in large part to the uncritical and conspiratorially minded personalities that subjects such as fluoridation attract. Rather than simply dismiss such an outlandish story, however, proper skepticism dictates that we examine it a little closer. When researching the topic four names come up over and over again; Charles E Perkins, George Racey Jordan, Kenneth Goff, Emanuel Bronner.

Charles E Perkins

In 1952, American fluoridation opponent Charles Perkins published The Truth about Water Fluoridation, a 44 page treatise on the evils of water fluoridation. In this book he makes the claim, with no supporting evidence, that, “Mass medication, involving fluoridation of public water systems, has long been known as an important technique of the Communist philosophy of mass control,” and that it “was taken to England by the English-born Russian Communist Kreminoff in 1935.” When later asked for clarification and documentation on this claim, Perkins responded with a letter in 1954 that simply added a new layer of complexity. According to Perkins fluoridation was not just a Communist plot, but had actually found its genesis in Nazi Germany,

When the Nazis under Hitler decided to go into Poland, both the German General Staff and the Russian General Staff exchanged scientific and military ideas, plans, and personnel, and the scheme of mass control through water medication was seized upon by the Russian Communists because it fitted ideally into their plan to communize the world.”

While nowadays the claim that Stalin or Hitler utilized fluoride as a mass tranquilizer is mostly relegated to the world of conspiracy forums and alternative health blogs, it has occasionally reached more mainstream public media and the halls of government. One much cited example was a statement by Harley R. Dickinson, Liberal Party Member of the Victorian Parliament for South Barwon, Australia. In his 1987 address to the Victorian Legislative council Mr. Dickinson cited claims made by Perkins,

“At the end of the Second World War, the United States Government sent Charles Elliot Perkins, a research worker in chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology, to take charge of the vast [IG] Farben1 chemical plants in Germany. While there, he was told by German chemists of a scheme which had been worked out by them during the war and adopted by the German General Staff…This scheme was to control the population in any given area through mass medication of drinking water. In this scheme, sodium fluoride occupied a prominent place”

This statement is a good example of how Perkins’ unsupported claims get uncritically parroted by fluoridation opponents. Interestingly, his book The Truth about Water Fluoridation makes no mention of Nazi Germany or IG Faben, a major producer of poison gas during the war. It is rather the 1954 letter around which the Nazi-fluoride conspiracy theory revolves. Yet, like his book, the 1954 letter on which the above statement is based offers not a single shred of verifiable evidence on the subject. Rather than provide “further documentation”, as we are promised, all we are given is a second hand story from an unnamed source. In addition to a lack of evidence for the claims made in his book and letter, it is also hard to even verify the claim that Perkins was put in charge of IG Farben. He makes no mention of IG Farben in his 1952 book and the legal documents for the Faben war crimes trial make no mention of him or of fluoridation.

Perhaps inspired by Perkins’ letter, another similar claim; copy and pasted across numerous anti-fluoridation websites it states,

“The first occurrence of fluoridated drinking water on Earth was found in Germany`s Nazi prison camps. The Gestapo had little concern about fluoride`s supposed effect on children`s teeth; their alleged reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to sterilize humans and force the people in their concentration camps into calm submission. (Ref. book: “The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben” by Joseph Borkin.)”

The reference given is to the book The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben by Joseph Borkin, the onetime chief of the Patent and Cartel section of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice in Washington. It was reported that through his wartime investigation and prosecution of IG Farben that he came to know “more about I. G. than anyone outside of it.” Yet, in his book he makes not a single mention of fluoridation or of Charles Perkins. While IG Farben’s actual wartime activities were atrocious, there appears to be absolutely no evidence that they were ever involved in any scheme to fluoridate water as a form of social control.

George Racey Jordan

Major George R Jordan was a US military liaison officer for the Lend-Lease Program between the Soviets and the U.S during WWII. He came to public attention when in 1949 he accused the Roosevelt administration smuggling nuclear secrets to the Soviets; charges which were later rejected after investigation by Congress and ridiculed in Time magazine. But, conspiracy theories of infiltration of the US government and general anti-Communist fears were rampant in those days and many on the far right eagerly bought into Jordan’s sensational stories. His 1952 memoir detailing these events, From Major Jordan’s Diaries, was soon a classic among far right organizations such as the John Birch Society. Jordan subsequently became a sought after speaker at conferences for various far right groups. In one such speech to the Thirtieth Women’s Patriotic Conference on National Defense in 1956 Jordan states,

“During the war I learned how the Soviets used fluorides in the drinking water of Siberian prison camps to weaken the minds of their prisoners, to make them dull, cowlike and more resigned to their slavery.”

But while fluoridation opponents like to point to the transcript of this speech, it offers no actual evidence for the claim and appears to be little more than a tall tale. Casting further doubt onto the veracity of the story is that Jordan apparently didn’t feel it important enough to include anything about the Soviets and fluoride in his 1952 memoir. From all available sources it appears that he only started making the claim many years after supposedly learning about it. If, as he claims, he learned this information during the war, why did he only begin mentioning it years later? To a critical reader, Jordan comes off as an untrustworthy conspiracy theorist who constructed a story over time. As Drew Pearson notes in an expose titled, “Facts Don’t Back Jordan’s Charges”, in the Wilmington News, Dec 8, 1949: “Jordan is no amateur at peddling stories to the newspapers. In fact, he has spent most of his life in the public relations field.”`

Kenneth Goff

Perhaps the most colorful character in this strange story is Kenneth Goff. In his 1948 book, Confessions of Stalin’s Agent, he relates the story of his recruitment to the Communist Party of the United States of America in 1936 and subsequent defection in 1939. Upon leaving the Communist Party, Goff enthusiastically testified before the Dies Committee, the predecessor to the infamous House Committee Investigating Un-American Activities, thus beginning his career of paranoid anti-communist activism. Trading in Stalin for Christ, he soon gained a reputation as a “self-styled freelance Evangelist” of a white supremacist flavor of Christianity, called Christian Identity. Allying himself with Gerald L. K. Smith, a well known anti-Semitic preacher of the day, he soon held influential positions in various far-right and anti-Semitic organizations of the day: the Colorado Anti-Communist League, Christian Youth for America, National Youth Organization, Soldiers of the Cross, and the Washington-based Liberty Lobby. Afraid that his radical change of heart was a clever cover story, the FBI kept their eye on Goff, who they later came to regard as a “borderline psychopathic case.”

Over the next years Goff toured the nation writing and delivering lectures with paranoid themes such as: Treason in our State Department, Should we use the Atom Bomb?, Red Secret Plot for Seizure of Denver, and Do the Reds Plan to Come by Alaska? He soon became well know for his sensational fabrications; a number of which are detailed in Morris Komisky’s 1970 book, The Hoaxers: Plain Liars, Fancy Liars and Damned Liars, where he calls Goff, “one of the most dangerous Ultra-Rightist propagandist in the country.” In Goff’s world everything was a Communist plot to destroy white-Christian America, desegregation, dope, violent movies, mental healthcare, hippies, ufo scares2, and of course water fluoridation.

Among his many imaginative works, Goff wrote a publicly notarized statement in 1957 which has subsequently circulated among fluoridation opponents. In the letter he tells of how earlier involvement with the Communist party and that during some meetings,

“We discussed quite thoroughly the fluoridation of water supplies and how we were using it in Russia as a tranquilizer in the prison camps. The leaders of our school felt that if it could be induced into the American water supply, it would bring-about a spirit of lethargy in the nation; where it would keep the general public docile during a steady encroachment of Communism.”

While this letter sets out the now familiar story line of fluoridation as a Communist infiltration plot, it offers hardly any evidence to examine. In fact this appears to be one of the first mentions by Goff on the topic. His 1948 memoir, Confessions of Stalin’s Agentis strangely silent on this issue. Adding even further doubt to his story is the lack of any mention of the fluoridation issue in his 1939 congressional testimony.

“Dr.” Emanuel Bronner

It is at this point down the rabbit hole that we run into a familiar figure in vegan circles, the late “Dr.” Emanuel Bronner. Yes, that “Dr.” Bronner, of Dr Bronner’s Magic Soaps All-One! Bronner’s connection to this story comes through a letter he wrote in which he states that, “Fluoridation of water systems can be slow national suicide, or quick national liquidation. It is criminal insanity ——- treason!!” The rambling, conspiracy laden letter repeats a number of common anti-fluoridation claims but interestingly it actually never claims that the Soviets or Nazis used fluoridated water in their prison camps. Rather, the only mention of either is in one brief passage reading, “No wonder Hitler and Stalin fully believed and agreed from 1939 to 1941 that, quoting from both Lenin’s ‘Last Will’ and Hitler’s Mein Kampf: “America we shall demoralize, divide, and destroy from within.”

That anti-fluoridation activists actually cite this letter is a bit laughable. In addition to not actually providing any support for the conspiracy, the quote given appears to simply be fabricated. To make matters worse, every website accompanies it with the same bogus introduction: “Quoting Einstein`s nephew, Dr. E.H. Bronner (a chemist who had also been a prisoner of war during WWII) in a letter printed in The Catholic Mirror, Springfield, MA, January 1952” Yet, Bronner immigrated to the US 1929 and was never a prisoner of war. He also was not a “Dr.” or a “chemist”, having never obtained a degree in chemistry. But what of the claim that he was “Einstein`s nephew”? When his son Ralph was asked in a 2007 interview whether there was any truth to the story he stated, “We are remotely related, like a tenth cousin. Dad had an ego problem. He exaggerated.”

Bronner’s 1952 letter and overall position on fluoridation are easier to understand if you know a little about his personal history. After leaving his family in Germany and immigrating to the US is 1929 Bronner took various jobs with several different chemical manufactures and soap makers. He soon married and would eventually have three children. Over those early years Bronner desperately tried to convince the rest of his family to flee the rising Nazi threat in their homeland but to no avail. In 1944 the Nazi government nationalized his family’s soap making factory and shipped his mother and father off to Auschwitz and Theriesenstadt where they eventually perished. Adding to his sorrow, not long after receiving word of his parents’ deaths, his wife Paula also died, leaving behind Bronner and their three children. The stress of it all was too much to handle and an already eccentric Bronner descended into madness. It was at this point that he adopted the “Dr.” moniker and began claiming to be a Rabbi. Leaving his children in the care of foster homes, he began touring and lecturing across the country about his plan to unite humanity, culminating in his 1947 at the University of Chicago and institutionalized in the Elgin State Insane asylum. But Bronner mounted several escapes, and on the last one hightailed it for California where in 1948 he began selling the first incarnation of what would become his famous soap.

Christina Lubinski, of the German Historical Institute and Marvin Menniken, of the Free University of Berlin sum up the next chapter in his life in their biography,

“Bronner made his way to Los Angeles, a city to which he had no obvious prior connections. He continued his political activism, giving speeches at least once a week on Friday nights. World peace and interreligious tolerance were only two of many topics Bronner addressed on a regular basis. In the late 1940s two new topics began to play a dominant role in his speeches: anti-communism and anti-water fluoridation. In a time of emerging Cold War rhetoric, Bronner identified communism as a political threat to the American state and democracy. He wanted to have his speeches understood as a “mental attack on communism, an army of American principles spread over this earth.” The fear of a communist infiltration of American society shaped his speeches as well as his letters and telegrams, which he sent out to political leaders and the FBI. As Bronner wrote to Vice President Richard Nixon in 1957: “Beginning 1929 over 6100 such telegrams were sent to Washington by our builder of three American soap plants, inventory of 53 chemical processes, […] your loyal chemist Better Health Foundation Dr. Bronner and Associates, Escondido, Calif[ornia].”

Less concerned with selling soap than spreading his “All-One-God-Faith” philosophy and what he called the Moral ABC, Bronner plastered his soap bottles with his very unique writing. One of the many odd statements from his unforgettable, densely worded packaging proclaims,

“Replace half-true Socialist-fluoride poison & tax-slavery with full-truth, work-speech-press & profitsharing Socialaction! All-One! So, help build 4 billion Hannibal wind-power plants, charging 96 billion battery-banks, powering every car-factory-farm-home-monorail & pump, watering Babylon-roof-gardens & 800 billion Israel-Milorganite fruit trees, guarded by Swiss 6000 year Universal Military Training!”

Conclusion

In the end we have very little evidence to support the idea that water fluoridation was ever a communist plot. It certainly makes for a good story, but that’s all it is, a story. This myth, entirely absent from the works of any holocaust historian, appears to be little more than the product of a small number of individuals with highly questionably credibility. Unless proponents of this conspiracy theory can offer up any actual evidence I see no reason why the idea should be taken seriously.

Footnotes

1IG Farben was a major chemical conglomerate involved in war crime during WWII

2 In his 1959 book, Red Shadows, Goff ties Orson Welles and his infamous War of the World radio broadcast to a Communist conspiracy,

“During the past few years, the flying saucer scare has rapidly become one of the main issues, used by organizations working for a one-world government, to frighten people into the belief that we will need a super world government to cope with an invasion from another planet. Many means are being used to create a vast amount of imagination in the minds of the general public, concerning the possibilities of an invasion by strange creatures from Mars or Venus.

“This drive began early in the 40’s, with a radio drama, put on my Orson Welles, which caused panic in many of the larger cities of the East, and resulted in the death of several people. The Orson Wells (sic) program of invasion from Mars was used by the Communist Party as a test to find out how the people would react on instructions given out over the radio. It was an important part of the Communist rehearsal for the Revolution.”

Woo in My Food, Part 3: African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem & Soul Vegetarian

February 26, 2013

Continuing my Woo in My Food series, today we will take a closer look at a restaurant chain called Soul Vegetarian. If you have ever eaten there, as I have, then you know they make one of the best vegan mac & “cheeses” around. This plant-based¹ soul food chain, owned and operated by members of the African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem, spans from Chicago, to Atlanta, to Tel Aviv. But who exactly are the African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem? To begin we will have a cursory look at the roots of African Isrealism.

African Isrealism encompasses a group of similar beliefs that hold that Africans are descendents of the ancient Israelites of biblical fame. African Isrealites claim that after the expulsion of the ancient Israelites from Jerusalem that they settled in various places throughout Africa including the west coast and subsequently arrived in the US as part of the slave trade where their descendents make up a large percentage of the African American population today.

The central idea in the US of Africans being descendents from ancient Israelites goes back the the mid-eighteenth century. Many slaves in the American South identified their enslavement with the biblical narrative of the ancient Israelites toil in Egypt² but in time some began to identify directly as Israelites themselves. Black congregations that focused increasingly on the Old Testament and ideas of Israelite heritage popped-up in the late 1800′s thru the early 1900′s. But most surviving African Israelite groups can be tracked back to the 1960′s (or slightly later) at the height of the civil right movement and black nationalism.

The African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem, founded by former Chicago resident Ben Carter, were one such group. Carter, born in 1939, grew up on Chicago’s South Side during a troubled period of the nations history. In his early adult years Carter worked hard and was determined to grab a piece of the American pie for himself, saying, “I had a good job, figured in a couple years I would have a new car, maybe in a decade have my own home and pay for it until I died.” But one day a co-worker posed a question that would change his life, “Do you know that our people are descendants of the biblical Israelites?”

After further discussion and study Carter was convinced and became a zealous convert. He was eager to evangelize his new found faith, preaching on the street and forming discussion groups in his home. Carter soon took on a new name, he was to be known as Ben Ammi Ben Israel (Son of my people, Son of Israel). While the organization that Carter/Ammi formed shares many traditions and holy days with mainstream Judaism, it often departs radically on many fronts. Adherents of the faith are expected to maintain a plant-based diet, avoid intoxicants, and live according to strict gender norms. Polygny is allowed and is also practiced by a number of members. One survey found that about a third of African Israelite marriages were polygamist. Regular full body massages, colonics, and reflexology treatments are also encouraged, while pharmaceuticals and modern medical treatments are generally discouraged.

Soon Ammi had amassed a few hundred followers and in 1966 claimed that a voice told him “that the time had come for Africans in America, the descendants of the Biblical Israelites, to return to the land of our forefathers.” But like their forefathers, this journey would not be a direct one. In late 1966 Ammi and his followers arrived in Liberia, a west African nation founded by freed slaves. At first they found life in the small African nation hard and many left for the US but a number persevered. These surviving members spent this time building the community and strengthening their skills for the arduous task ahead. In 1969 a small group of African Israelite followers were finally granted access to Israel, where they settled in Dimona (& later Arad & Mitzpe Ramon), with Ben Ammi and more adherents followed shortly after and they got down to the hard work of nation building.

The relationship between mainstream Judaism in Israel and the African Isrealite was been strained from the very beginning. Israeli Jews found the ancestry claims and unorthodox customs of the African Israelites hard to swallow. At first Israel denied the African Israelites work permits and granted only temporary visas. But, when their visas inevitably expired the African Israelites would not budge. A number were arrested and deported for working with out permits, but for the most part the government was hesitant to make any large or decisive moves against the community. Without the legal ability to work and economic conditions in the US being poor money was needed from somewhere. Investigators soon uncovered evidence of a white collar crime ring in the organization involving millions of dollars in check and credit card fraud and trafficking in stolen passports and fraudulent ID. Often these stolen or fraudulent identification documents, investigators charged, were used by members to aid in flight from prosecution. At one point up to 43 followers of Ammi were federal fugitives, many of whom have never surfaced. But at least one such story ended tragically when Bernard Bradley was found mysteriously shot dead in his Chicago apartment while awaiting sentencing for unlawful flight after having been deported back from Israel.

Over the years, however, the African Israelites gained greater acceptance through their contributions to Israeli society and across Africa with their charity organization The African Hebrew Development Agency. Eventually they were granted work permits and then permanent residency in 2003. Today the African Israelite community started by Ammi has grown to an estimated 3,000 in Israel with many thousands more living around the world, largley in the US. Ben Ammi is reported now to run the organization from his home in Jerusalem, with local leadership in various cities bearing the task of outreach and daily operations.

Recently in the US, Soul Vegetarian and it’s African Israelite founders became the subject of much controversy after a 2011 interview with The A.V. Club. In the interview, Soul Vegetarian co-founder Yohanna Brown nonchalantly described the belief system, “It’s a complete lifestyle with diet, positive thinking, and styles of dress. Women don’t wear men’s clothing, and men don’t wear women’s. If you look at present culture, you can see how breaking these guidelines has led to things like homosexuality.However, this was not the first time that Ammi’s group has spoken out against homosexuality. The leader of the Atlanta chapter, Prince Rahm, openly denounced gay marriage in a 2006 address , saying, “In the early 1970s, homosexuality was classified as a psychological disease. Those evil marketing geniuses now got us saying ‘gay’ cuz it sounds nicer.” He also warned that the AIDS crisis was a punishment from god, saying, “This is Deuteronomy 28* coming into effect.” And on the subject of accusations of child abuse one member, Abshalom Ben Shlomo, remarked, “We support the authority of the parents. Families are not democracies.”

Despite apologies and attempt to assure us otherwise, vegans and social justice advocates must understand that this organization’s anti-homosexual and patriarchal beliefs are not just the result of the personal prejudices of a few members, rather it is at the core of their religious dogma. This leaves many in an ethical conundrum, should we give our money to an organization that supports such things? Different people have drawn their own line on the issue. As for me, the statements they have made about homosexuality make me very uncomfortable. But not to fret, there is no need for anyone to miss out on their award-winning mac & “cheese”; it can be made at home quite easily.

Footnotes:

1. Watch out for the honey!

2. Despite its continued belief by even many secular individuals, most historians seem to agree that the biblical narrative of thousands of Jewish slaves in Egypt is false.

Recommend Reading:

The Prince and I by Benyamin Cohen

The Cult on Coventry by Kevin Hoffman

soul veg east on Vegans of Color

Dental Fluorosis

September 14, 2012

Fluoridation opponents have pointed to the rising prevalence of dental fluorosis as a reason to rethink fluoridation, they often present the public with images of brown, pitted teeth as if to say “This is what could happen if your city fluoridates.” Yet, like many tactics used by the anti-fluoridation movement, this is fundamentally misleading.

Dental fluorosis is described by the CDC as,

…a change in the appearance of the tooth’s enamel. These changes can vary from barely noticeable white spots in mild forms to staining and pitting in the more severe forms. Dental fluorosis only occurs when younger children consume too much fluoride, from any source, over long periods when teeth are developing under the gums.

Unlike the pictures of brown and pitted teeth presented by anti-fluoridationists, the vast majority of dental fluorosis in the US is of the mild variety, resulting in little more than slight white streaking on the tooth enamel that is often barley noticeable¹. This form of dental fluorosis is considered a cosmetic condition only, does not negatively affect the health of the teeth, and requires no treatment. In fact, research indicates that people with mild fluorosis get less cavities and are more satisfied with their oral health, in one such study the authors wrote, “mild fluorosis was associated with a lower risk of dental caries and a more acceptable appearance. It is essential that a balanced view of the relative benefits and risks of the use of fluorides is maintained and proven benefits are not overwhelmed by largely unfounded aesthetic concerns.

The fearmongering of anti-fluoridationists over community water fluoridation and severe fluorosis is largely unfounded. Cases of the more severe form of fluorosis are not very common in most developed nations such as the US and can often be linked to known risk factors such as improper supplement usage or drinking water with fluoride levels above the recommended concentration. The Nation Research Council found that, “the prevalence of severe enamel fluorosis is close to zero in communities at all water fluoride concentrations below 2 mg/L.

Prevalence of severe enamel fluorosis at the person level by water fluoride concentration, permanent teeth, age < 20 years, U.S. communities.

While the incidence of dental fluorosis² has risen in the past several decades, it has increased in both fluoridated and unfluoridated communities. In fact, the increase in prevalence is “proportionally greater in non-fluoridated areas than in fluoridated areas.” This fact, along with other research suggests that increased prevalence of sources of fluoride other than municipal water have been central to this increase. Canadian researchers summarized the situation nicely, “water fluoridation has unique advantages from the perspectives of distribution, equity, compliance and cost-effectiveness over other fluoride technologies, it remains as the fundamental base for caries prevention. The increasingly greater contribution that other sources of fluoride make to dental fluorosis suggests that these sources of fluoride, many of which are used on an elective basis, should be more closely examined for needed changes.

Notes:
1. For examples of what fluorosis looks like see, What does dental fluorosis look like?

2. The prevalence of mild fluorosis may be somewhat overestimated as researchers have noted that there are other causes of mild streaking and discoloration.

Further Reading:
The CDC on Dental Fluorosis
Prevalence and Severity of Dental Fluorosis in the United States, 1999–2004
Fluoride & Heart Disease?
Fluoride & Brain Damage
Fluoride & the Brain: Déjà Vu
Fluoride & the Brain: Strike 3, You’re Out!
Fluoride & the Brain: The China Studies
Fluoride & Cancer Quackery
Science by Press Release: Fluoride & IQ

Cheese Addiction?

August 10, 2012

It is common to hear claims in the vegan community that milk & cheese are literally addictive and contain a morphine-like substance, for many this factoid has become so ubiquitous  that it is generally taken as an accepted scientific truth. But what is the actual evidence for this claim?

One of the main proponents of this claim is Dr Neal Barnard who heads up the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM). Barnard has gone so far as to claim that cheese “can be as addictive as morphine” and referred to it as “dairy crack”. Barnard’s premise in Breaking the Food Seduction is that not only is the food addiction model correct (still a contentious issue in itself) but that it is not, as hypothesized, merely due to endogenous biochemicals acting on reward pathways in the brain but also due to the fact that many foods such as dairy, chocolate, and meat contain addictive chemicals themselves and can induce food-specific addictions, such as a “cheese addiction”. As evidence of the addictive potential of cheese Barnard cites the presence of exogenous opioid peptides, or exorphins,

“Cow’s milk-or the milk of any other species, for that matter-contains a protein, called casein, that breaks apart during digestion to release a whole host of opiates, called casomorphins.”

To demonstrate the addictive power of food Barnard cites research in which Naloxone, an opioid antagonist, caused a loss of interest in the food being studied. Bardnard would like us to believe that “cheese’s popularity may have less to do with its meltability and mouth-feel and more to do with its addictive qualities.” Unfortunately for him the Naloxone research he cites contradicts this claim. The studies most cited were investigating chocolate, sweets, and fats and opioid antagonists like Naloxone reduce cravings for all of these. Far from establishing the role of casomorphin in the appeal of cheese, studies done with Naloxone point more to the importance of general palatability. In other words it may not be the presence of specific psychoactive chemicals that we find so compelling about certain foods but rather the overall sensory appeal of the food.

Placebo controlled research on chocolate addiction for example found “no role for pharmacological effects in the satisfaction of chocolate craving”, rather it found that sensory aspects were more likely the primary factor. Research on casomophin also found that it did not demonstrate “reinforcing properties similar to those of morphine” and concluded that “beta-casomorphin is not likely to become the focus of an addiction.” While there is evidence that the endogenous opioid system plays some role in food intake and craving, the problem comes in when people such as Barnard try to make it appear that it is more due to the effects of specific exogenous opioids rather than the complex interactions of mostly endogenous biochemicals and when the case is overstated with extreme claims and hyperbole.

Dairy isn’t the only source of exogenous opioid peptides however. There are a variety of other opioid peptides in various foods such as hemorphins derived from hemoglobin (a component of blood), gluteomorphin from gluten, rubiscolin derived from spinach, and even soymorphins derived from soy. One study even found that soymorphins “showed opioid activity more potent than human beta-casomorphins”, at least on guinea pig ileum. If Barnard’s theory is true we might expect similar addiction patterns for these foods. While there are claims among some that products containing gluten are addictive, this is also still scientifically controversial and is even approached warily by other anti-wheat writers. One would also expect that if gluten does have this effect that vegans would be a high risk population as they are the most likely to consume relatively large amounts concentrated gluten in the form of seitan. While seitan is quite yummy when prepared well, I don’t think many would describe it as literally addictive. The case of soymorphin is also quite interesting, these peptides should be ubiquitous in the diets of many vegans, though there is still little concern over a tofu addiction. Perhaps casomorphin does have an effect that would elicit casein-specific cravings, however it appears from the current research that if this effect does exist that it is so far indistinguishable from food cravings for any other high preference food.

Further Reading:
Is cheese really addictive? by Diana of The Vegan Option
Vegan Cheese: Casein, Casomorphins, and the Daiya Redwoods Vegusto Taste Test on The Vegan Option podcast
Review of the potential health impact of β-casomorphins and related peptides European Food Safety Agency (2009)
Chocolate: The news you wanted to hear by Glenn Cardwell
The plausibility of sugar addiction and its role in obesity and eating disorders.

Science by Press Release: Fluoride & IQ

July 27, 2012

A press release has been making the rounds online and is even being picked up in print raising false fears about water fluoridation and brain development. The press release from NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF), a misinformation laden anti-fluoridation organization, cites not a study about water fluoridation relevant to their western audience but rather a systematic review of 27 epidemiological studies relating to endemic fluoride exposure, in China and Iran, and cognitive function. I’ve written about this dishonest propaganda tactic by anti-fluoridation activists before, but activists know that the public has a short memory and the issue continues to periodically be brought up to whip up more fear and more donations for anti-fluoridation organizations. As I thoroughly demonstrated in a previous post, Fluoride & the Brain: The China Studies, levels of fluoride to which people are exposed in places such as China and India are much higher than approved fluoride levels used in community fluoridation programs in places such as the US. Injecting such studies on endemic fluoride into the public discussion on water fluoridation without proper context is simply irresponsible and misleading.

In an attempt to rescue their conclusion from anyone noticing this obvious deception, the authors cite a study, Ding 2011, in which it appears that a dose response between relatively low fluoride levels in the urine and low IQ is established. The dose response in this one study however is contradicted by other research that found that children with the lowest fluoride intake in the study had lower IQs than children who lived in areas with fluoride levels closer to our national standard in the US. It also should be noted that in the Ding 2011 study other water contaminates and iodine intake do not appear to be taken into account, these important variables have been show to have an large impact in other studies and could easily account for inaccuracy in this study. With water fluoridation programs in the US averaging around 1 mg/L fluoride (or less), the claim in the study that an “increase in 1 mg/L of urine fluoride [was] associated with [a] 0.59-point decrease in IQ” is just not significant. Perhaps most important, the claim that fluoride negativity impacts cognitive function is simply not supported by any studies on water fluoridation programs in developed nations.

So once again, while the focus of anti-fluoridation activists is on stopping community fluoridation programs in places such as the US, not a single study presented was actually about community fluoridation in developed nations. Rather, the studies presented in the press release are about the threat of endemic fluorosis among those exposed to high levels naturally occurring in the groundwater in developing nations, an issue on which they are not active. This is a disingenuous use of scientific research to advance a fear-based agenda. I urge my readers to join me in supporting real, meaningful efforts to protect communities from the harms of endemic fluorosis. If you enjoyed this post please donate what you can to Frank Water and their efforts to provide sustainable water filtration to some of the worlds poorest communities, including those hit hardest by endemic fluoride.

Further Reading:
Fluoride & Heart Disease?
Fluoride & Brain Damage
Fluoride & the Brain: Déjà Vu
Fluoride & the Brain: Strike 3, You’re Out!
Fluoride & the Brain: The China Studies
Fluoride & Cancer Quackery
Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (Full Text & Supplemental Material)
Anatomy of a propaganda press release: Fluoride and IQ by idoubtit
Fluoride Lowers Your IQ: B.S. Headline of the Week by David Wong
Anti-Fluoride Propaganda as News by Steven Novella

Fluoride & Cancer Quackery

July 11, 2012

One of the many arguments offered in the never-ending manufactroversy surrounding water fluoridation is that it causes cancer. This unsupported claim is nothing new and while it has been addressed many times it continues to periodically pop up and make the rounds again and again. In the age of the internet misinformation spreads quickly and myths die hard. The “natural health” blogosphere often capitalizes on this cycle of misinformation, dredging up outdated scare stories and spinning them as accepted fact. One such article from Natural Society reads,

In 1977, it was shown that fluoridation caused about 10,000 cancer deaths in epidemiological studies by Dr. Dean Burk, former head of the Cytochemistry Section at the National Cancer Institute and Yiamouyiannis.

This extraordinary claim originated with a paper on the subject of fluoride and cancer, titled ”Fluoridation and cancer, age-dependence of cancer mortality related to artificial fluoridation”, which was originally put forward in 1975 and then again in 1977 by Dr. Dean Burk and fellow fluoridation opponent John Yiamouyiannis¹. However, the paper was not well received by the majority of scientists at the time and the paper’s methodology was criticized, such as for failure to adjust for important variables. Numerous subsequent scientific studies from the US, Ireland, Taiwan, Wales, Australia,  and New Zealand, including a  review of over 50 published studies contradicted Burk’s conclusion and found no evidence to support such an outrageous claim. The CDC has since been quoted saying,

at this time, the weight of the scientific evidence, as assessed by independent committees of experts, comprehensive systematic reviews, and review of the findings of individual studies does not support an association between water fluoridated at levels optimal for oral health and the risk for cancer, including osteosarcoma.

The American Cancer Society has also gone on record stating, “Scientific studies show no connection between cancer rates in humans and adding fluoride to drinking water.”  But rather than listen to the scientific community, fluoridation opponents prefer to stay in their echo-chamber with select fringe “experts” where they can build their conspiratorial narratives.

Anti-fluoridation activists love to cite Dr. Burk, who has gone so far as to say that “fluoridation is a form of public mass murder.” As the past head of the National Cancer Institute’s Cytochemistry Sector² from 1938 to 1974, Burk is often cited as an unquestionable expert. However, Dr. Burk is an outlier on this issue in the scientific community. While Dr. Burk had a long scientific career and was notable as a co-discoverer of both biotin and a MRI prototype, a closer look at his career raises serious questions about his credibility. Burk’s approach to fluoridation was one of an activist more than a scientist. The self-correcting model of science advances on the basis of new evidence, yet Burk was never able to accept the mounting evidence against his favored hypothesis.

Burk’s quackery did not end at his anti-fluoridation activities however, he was also known for his support of the now disproven and potentially dangerous cancer “cure” laetrile. While in initial in vitro experiments Burk claimed to see “cancer cells dying off like flies“, these results are now understood to be very misleading and subsequent in vivo experimentation did not support the claims made for laetrile. A 2011 Cochrane Review of over 63 papers found “no reliable evidence for the alleged effects of laetrile or amygdalin for curative effects in cancer patients.” A common theme of Burk’s career was an over-confidence in preliminary data, while having a lack of respect for peer review and scientific criticism³.

Unfortunately even distinguished scientists are not above quackery. This can happen when a researcher strays outside their field of expertise, as is common among those cited by promoters of pseudoscience, though it can even occur with respected researchers within fields related to their expertise. Linus Pauling was a Nobel Laureate and admired chemist, yet in his later life he became a major proponent of high-dose vitamin C as a cancer cure, a worthless “treatment”. Peter Duesberg, a professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley, may be responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths for his promotion of HIV/AIDs denial. Luc Montagnier, who was awarded the Nobel prize for co-discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), has gone down the rabbit hole with his own crank theory of the true cause of autism. Unfortunately there is no shortage of once respectable-researchers-turned-cranks. This is why it is important to consider the scientific consensus formed by relevant experts, rather than the statements of outspoken advocates on the fringe, even though they may have a degree and the air of authority.

Notes:
1. Yiamouyiannis was a dedicated anti-fluoridation advocate and author and his work is held in high regard among fluoridation opponents. Like Burk, Yiamouyiannis was not content to be a single issue crank, he also denied a link between HIV and AIDs as well as opposing vaccination. In 2000 he died of colorectal cancer, he had chosen to forgo science-based medicine and instead sought “treatment” in Mexico in the form of vitamins and laetrile.

2. NOT head of all NCI research as is sometimes touted.

3. Burk also developed of what he considered a “safer” cigarette filter that incorporated charcoal. Evidence of its effectiveness was lacking however.

Further Reading:
Fluoride & Heart Disease?
Fluoride & Brain Damage
Fluoride & the Brain: Déjà Vu
Fluoride & the Brain: Strike 3, You’re Out!
Fluoride & the Brain: The China Studies
Science by Press Release: Fluoride & IQ
How do scientists become cranks and doctors quacks? by David Gorski

The Amaz!ng Meeting 2012

July 10, 2012

The James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) will be hosting The Amaz!ng Meeting once again at the South Point Hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada this July 12th-15th. For those that are unfamiliar with the event, TAM “is an annual celebration of science, skepticism and critical thinking.” Consisting of four days of skeptical speakers, panels, workshops, and entertainment, TAM is a fun learning experience and also a great chance to connect with like minded individuals. In fact, as great as the presentations are, many attendees report that their favorite part of TAM is the socializing. Whether it’s a large group dinner or a 2 am drink* in the Del Mar Lounge, there are always great conversations to be had. Last year was my first TAM and I had a blast! I’m hoping this year will be just as good. I can’t wait to catch up with old friends and meet new ones.

Look for me sporting this nifty button (courtesy of Pythagorean Crank)

Last year I helped organize a meet-up among the vegetarian and vegan attendees that was dubbed The Pythagorean Posse. This year’s meet-up is tentatively planned for the 6-9 pm dinner slot on Saturday the 14th and my vote on location is for Yayo Taco, though I’m open to other suggestions. Meet up at the Del Mar at 6:15 and we will head out shortly afterwards. I’m also looking to go out to dinner on the other nights if anyone would like to join.

I’ve learned a few things since last year. While the food situation isn’t the best, it could be much worse. Ronald’s Donuts are probably one of the best things about Vegas, definitely the best donuts I’ve ever had.  The continental breakfast usually has some decent vegan pickings such as fruit and cereal as well. If you are willing to pay hotel prices Don Vito’s Italian in the lobby area serves the “Vegan Vito’s“, a pasta and veggies dish. If you just need a quick lunch there is also a Subway Sandwich shop just down the street from the hotel that can be a real lifesaver. My favorite meal last year was the taco platter at Yayo Taco, I highly recommend it. For more ideas on where to get grub in Vegas check out the listing of vegan & veg friendly restaurants on Happy Cow.

Facebook event page is here.
Lanyrd page is here.
Twitter hashtag is #vegtam (the main TAM hashtag is #tam2012)
You can tweet me here.

Further Reading:
Pythagorean Posse at TAM9
Viva Las Vegan
Why I’m Going To TAM
What To Do In Vegas If You Don’t Gamble and Aren’t at TAM
rbutr at The Amazing Meeting 2012

*Not sure if that beer is vegan? Check it out on Barnivore.

A Case of Mistaken Identity

June 24, 2012

A disturbing news story has been making the rounds about cyanide-producing grass killing cattle in Texas. Initial reports from news outlets such as CBS mistakenly described the grass as “genetically-modified” and while some subsequent reports clarified the issue this has not stopped anti-GM bloggers and activists such as our old friend Anthony Gucciardi from repeating the story in a misleading effort to whip up more fear.

Common bermudagrass on the left & Tifton-85 on the right with improved yield and quality

The grass in question, Tifton 85, is actually a conventionally bred bermudagrass hybrid that has been in use since the 1980′s largely for forage. While such an event has never been reported with Tifton 85 before, poisoning events with other forage are not unheard of and are usually driven by environmental factors such as drought. A number of forage grasses and other crops have cyanogenic potential, farmers growing forage and ranchers raising cattle have been aware of this issue for a long time and are already advised to take steps to avoid such problems. While this latest incident justifies a closer look at Tifton 85, it is not in anyway evidence against the use of genetically engineered crops. In the face of widespread public misunderstanding and fear of technologies such as genetic engineering and the anti-scientific threat of GMO labeling bills in California and elsewhere, the false framing of this news as an anti-GMO horror story is not just dishonest but is downright harmful to the public understanding of science.

Such cases of misidentification and misrepresentation are not uncommon in the anti-GMO community. It seems that anytime something goes wrong in the food system or something “scary” is discovered, “GMOs” are one of the first culprits that jump to mind. A prime example was the reporting of a 2011 study about microRNAs from rice. While GM rice is not currently on the market and the study was performed using conventional rice, not GM rice, this did not stop news outlets such as the Atlantic from presenting the study as an example of “the very real danger of genetically modified foods”. Nor have subsequent rebuttals prevented many anti-GM activists from perpetuating a misleading representation of the study. A retraction or correction of a false story generally isn’t enough, people tend to remember the myth and forget the correction, news outlets must strive the get the story right in the first place.

Some cases of misidentification may be the result of innocent (though willful) ignorance. Many people are prone to assuming that unfamiliar or “strange looking” produce is a GMO, rather than bothering to look deeper. The Grapple, a grape flavored apple, is a common example of this. Produced by soaking conventional apples in a bath of grape flavoring, Grapples are not a genetically engineered product but clear labeling of this fact has not prevented many people from spreading false assumptions. Another interesting example is the fruit salad tree. By grafting different cultivars within the same family onto different branches of the same tree, growers were able to create trees that produced multiple different fruits, in the same family (stone fruit, citrus, apple, and nashi varieties are available), simultaneously. New and foreign cultivars are often misidentified by the public as GMOs as well, Plutots, Papples, and Tangelos have all been mistakenly presented as examples of “frankenfood”. Unfortunately many cases of misidentfication appear not to be mere mistakes but rather a result of prejudicial and lazy thinking.

A good example of this was the reaction to the 2011 Listeria outbreak that was traced back to a Colorado melon farm, Jensen Farms. While most of those familiar with the food system understood the nature of relativity rare Listeria outbreaks, other more conspiratorially-minded people saw a cover-up.  One anti-GMO blogger wrote that she believes “this is probably further proof of the damages from genetically modified SEEDS” and Jensen Farms had to respond to multiple inquiries regarding the nature of their seed, repeating, “we do not use gmo cantaloupe seed.” I have no doubts about the truth of Jensen’s claim considering that GM melons are not currently on the market, and how GM cantaloupes, if they existed, would even cause Listeria is beyond me. Another case of a perceived GMO cover-up was the introduction of the Kumato, a hybrid black tomato, to the UK market. While most consumers saw no issue with the tomato, at least one blogger wrote a post titled, “Are Sainsbury’s Black Tomatoes Genetically Engineered (GMO)?“, citing her belief that the public was being duped. As evidence, the blogger quotes a patent for parthenocarpy genes in tomato,

And here’s the patent for  Kumatoes (Sainsbury’s black tomatoes):  “21. A S. lycopersicum plant according to claim 1, wherein the plant is of a commercial tomato type selected from the group consisting of cherry, cocktail, mini plum, plum cocktail, plum, round, and beef.”

Yep….what the heck is “beef” genes in there?

The misunderstanding here should be obvious, the patent does not refer to “beef” or bovine genes, rather it is referring to the name of a variety of tomato. In the end the anti-GMO crowd is so desperate to latch onto anything that might support their preconceived fears and so credulous that they can even be fooled by non-existent crops such as the mythical blue strawberry and GMO cannabis. The anti-GM community is going to have to do a lot better than this if they wish to be taken seriously. Once again, in the face of widespread public misunderstanding and fear of technologies such as genetic engineering and the anti-scientific threat of GMO labeling bills in California and elsewhere, the false framing of agricultural news as anti-GMO horror stories is not just dishonest but is downright harmful to the understanding and advancement of science.

Further Reading:
Accuracy in Reporting Matters
by R343L
GMO food: Hybrid poison grass that kills Texas cattle not genetically modified by Linda Gentile
Potential Toxicity Issues with Tifton 85 Bermudagrass from Dr. Larry Redmon, Extension Forage Specialist


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers