- Corrective legislation needed following Supreme Court’s weakening of federal agencies
- Multivitamin use not linked to lower mortality risk.
- Scientific misconduct identified in homeopathy study.
- Key points about genetically modified foods explained.
Corrective legislation needed following Supreme Court’s weakening of federal agencies. The U.S. Supreme Court’s six conservative justices overturned the court’s 1984 ruling in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council that required judges to defer to the expertise of federal agencies to reasonably interpret laws with ambiguous statutory language passed by Congress. [Reichmann K, Knappenberger R. After scathing Kagan dissent, experts warn of fallout from Chevron overturn. Courthouse News Service, June 28, 2024]
In response to the new ruling, Consumer Reports created an online petition to urge Congress to uphold strong pro-consumer rules accompanied by this alert:
Some of our most basic and trusted safety, environmental, and public health protections are under threat after a breaking Supreme Court decision that will undermine the ability of federal agencies to protect the public. The ruling effectively gutted a decades-old principle that helped federal agencies and their experts carry out their responsibilities under the law and issue evidence-based rules ranging from consumer protections against financial scams to standards that prevent environmental pollution.
This decision puts us at risk of weakened consumer protections and a national patchwork of rules. It could also upend many of the health and safety regulations currently in place. But Congress can take action now to uphold these protections and give agencies the discretion they need to ensure public health, safety, and fairness in the marketplace.
The petition:
We call on the U.S. Congress to enact legislation that ensures agencies have the discretion they need to protect public health, safety, and fairness in the marketplace. For years, regulatory agencies have defended consumers by banning contaminated foods and hazardous products, preventing air and water pollution, and stopping predatory financial schemes. Now the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the doctrine of Chevron deference undermines regulatory agencies’ ability to do their jobs and puts our wellbeing at risk.
Threats to consumers, including emerging issues such as the use of AI and algorithmic decision-making tools, will continue to unfold. We need the experts at regulatory agencies to be able to develop new consumer protections against these evolving threats, as well as to enforce current protections. We should be able to rely on the health, safety, environmental, and market safeguards that protect Americans every day. Please pass legislation to codify that regulatory agencies can reasonably interpret the laws they oversee, and enforce the consumer and safety protections they have established.
Multivitamin use not linked to lower mortality risk. In a study that followed 390,124 generally healthy adults in the United States for more than 20 years, National Institutes of Health researchers have found no evidence suggesting multivitamin use promotes longevity. Compared to non-users of multivitamins, people who took a multivitamin daily had a 4% higher risk of dying. The researchers statistically controlled for 13 characteristics that might skew the association between multivitamin use and mortality: age, sex, race and ethnicity, education, marital status, body mass index, cigarette smoking, daily alcohol intake, daily coffee intake, scores on a measure of healthy eating, family history of cancer, and individual supplement use. It’s possible the findings could have been skewed by either inadequate measurement of these characteristics or by factors the researchers did not measure. The findings may not be generalizable to the total U.S. population. [Loftfield E, and others. Multivitamin use and mortality risk in 3 prospective US cohorts. JAMA Network Open 7(6):e2418729, June 26, 2024] In 2022, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) concluded that current evidence at the time was insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of the use of multivitamin supplements for preventing cardiovascular disease or cancer.
Scientific misconduct identified in homeopathy study. Dr. Edzard Ernst, an emeritus professor of complementary medicine at University of Exeter, has criticized the editors of The Oncologist journal for not removing a paper they published in 2020 about a seemingly rigorous clinical trial of individualized homeopathic treatment as an add-on to standard treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. [Ernst E. Data falsification, fabrication, and manipulation by a prominent homeopath. Skeptical Inquirer 48(4):10-11, July/Aug 2024] The questioned paper concluded that patients receiving homeopathic treatment: (a) survived longer than patients receiving either placebo as an add-on or no add-on treatment, and (b) improved significantly more in quality of life compared to those receiving placebo. In October 2022, the editors of The Oncologist published an Expression of Concern about the paper:
In August 2022, the journal editors received credible information from the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity about potential data falsification and data manipulation in this article. While The Oncologist editorial team investigates and communicates with the corresponding author, the editors are publishing this Expression of Concern to alert readers that, pending the outcome and review of a full investigation, the research results presented may not be reliable.
Professor Ernst provided an English translation of the Austrian Agency’s assessment, which substantiated “the suspicion of data falsification, fabrication, and manipulation,” and stated: “The journal responsible for the publication was asked to withdraw the publication on the basis of the findings of the investigation.” In 2020, he expressed suspicion about the homeopathy paper because its lead author, Michael Frass, “had published no fewer than twelve studies of homeopathy—all of which arrived at positive conclusions” contrary to most homeopathy clinical trial conclusions that are consistent with homeopathic treatment being of implausible value.
Key points about genetically modified foods explained. In her Substack, immunologist and microbiologist Andrea Love, Ph.D., has provided an illuminating overview of genetic modification in food production. [Love A. GMOs and genetic engineering are wildly misunderstood. Immunologic, May 16, 2024] She discusses these key points:
- All our foods are genetically modified since domestication methods of genetic modification (selective breeding and cross-breeding) have been used for thousands of years.
- In the 1940s, plant breeders started exposing seeds to ionizing radiation of high-dose chemicals to alter their DNA.
- Modern genetic engineering to change DNA is more precise than previously used genetic modification methods.
- The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved 14 food products produced through modern genetic engineering: alfalfa, Arctic apple, canola, corn, cotton, BARI Bt eggplant, papaya, pink pineapple, potato, AquaAdvantage salmon, soybean, summer squash, sugar beet, and sugar cane.
- Genetically engineered crops can have improved shelf life and nutrition.
- Genetically engineered crops can reduce the amount of pesticide needed.
- Genetically engineered crops are safe for the environment.
- Genetically engineered crops can improve the stability of the food supply.
- Misinformed activists seek to restrict potentially life-saving genetically-engineered crops.
- Genetically engineered foods are rigorously tested and monitored for safety by multiple organizations.
Consumer Health Digest is a free weekly e-mail newsletter edited by William M. London, Ed.D., M.P.H., with help from Stephen Barrett, M.D. It summarizes scientific reports; legislative developments; enforcement actions; other news items; Web site evaluations; recommended and nonrecommended books; research tips; and other information relevant to consumer protection and consumer decision-making. The Digest’s primary focus is on health, but occasionally it includes non-health scams and practical tips. Items posted to this archive may be updated when relevant information becomes available. To subscribe, click here.
2001 || 2002 || 2003 || 2004 || 2005 || 2006 || 2007
2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || 2012 || 2013 || 2014
2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || 2021
2022 || 2023 || 2024 || 2025
To subscribe, click here.
