Institutionalized lawlessness

[Ezliving_Jim]

Institutionalized lawlessness
Terence Corcoran
Financial Post

June 14, 2005


For this, our sixth-annual Junk Science event, the theme is institutionalized lawlessness: How junk science is used to further entrench the arbitrary power and scope of governments and their agencies. Our opening example: the federal Competition Bureau, which is taking an Alberta-based owner of tanning studios to competition court for claiming that tanning may be good for you.

Junk science occurs when scientific facts are distorted, risk is exaggerated and the science is adapted and warped by politics and ideology to serve another agenda, even just to keep bureaucrats busy. The Competition Bureau's pursuit of Fabutan Sun Tan Studios of Calgary fits the mould of an agency attempting to turn official junk science into a vehicle for expanded regulatory power.

On March 31, the Bureau charged Fabutan with making "false representations to the public that there are health benefits associated with indoor tanning." The charge was brought under a section of the Competition Act aimed at curbing false and misleading advertising. By claiming that the sun, real or fake, might be beneficial, Fabutan ran afoul of the great dermatological scare that now dominates official government policy. "There is no safe way to tan," declares Health Canada. It claims, supported by much of conventional dermatology, that tanning risks premature ageing, skin cancer and eye problems.

Such fears, years in the making, have driven Canadians and much of the world indoors and into aggressive sun avoidance. People carry umbrellas under clear skies, cover every part of their bodies and put hats and full body gear on their children before letting them out on summer afternoons. They slather on quantities of sunscreen with powers to block ultraviolet rays -- all because the sun is allegedly bad for us.

Fabutan, by claiming that tanning provides a good source of healthy ultraviolet light, is flouting official government "science" and inviting the wrath of the chief anti-sun worshippers: dermatologists. The dermatology case against sun exposure is that it can cause melanoma -- cancer of the skin. But a growing number of scientists believe the anti-sun movement, led in part by the makers of sunscreens and lotions, has the science all wrong. While there are risks associated with excessive sun exposure, there are also huge benefits that may well exceed the risks.

One of the scientists leading the charge against the conventional wisdom is Dr. Reinhold Vieth, professor in the departments of nutritional sciences and laboratory medicine, University of Toronto. Dr. Vieth, who is also with the pathology department at Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, has written extensively on the subject. In a commentary on this page, he joins the long and growing list of scientists who find the dermatology case against sun exposure to be wrongheaded and even dangerous to the health of Canadians.

The scientific focus is on vitamin D, of which the sun is a major source. Too much sun causes three melanoma deaths for each 100,000 people in the United States. But too little sun, and therefore too little vitamin D, may cause 70 deaths per 100,000 people from other forms of cancer. Dr. Edward Giovannucci, a Harvard University professor, recently published a review of evidence on exposure to sunlight. His conclusion was that higher sunlight exposure or vitamin D consumption appears to lower the risk for some cancers. "I would challenge anyone to find an area or nutrient or any other factor that has such consistent anti-cancer benefits as vitamin D," he said.

But the power of official junk science can be awesome. The fact that an agency as far from the science as the Competition Bureau, charged with maintaining competition in the marketplace, should emerge as the arbiter of appropriate science claims is astounding in itself. It's a form of institutional lawlessness. One agency takes the dubious edicts of another agency and builds a new base for the prosecution of corporations and citizens.

The bureau builds its case by taking each of Fabutan's claims on the benefits of tanning and brands them as unscientific and unfounded. It quotes Health Canada's statement that there's no such thing as a safe tan. And it insists that Fabutan has no scientific backing for its claims. When Fabutan cited a World Health Organization statement that sun exposure can reduce the risk of osteoporosis, the Competition Bureau said people could get the same protection by taking vitamin D supplements. A tan isn't necessary.

Fabutan's formal response to the bureau, filed two weeks ago, briefly takes on each charge and then lists almost 100 papers that support the company's marketing claims as to the possible benefits of using tanning studios as a source of vitamin D. Also backing Fabutan's case are signs that the dermatology powers are beginning to back down on their fanatical anti-sun position. A report on a conference last year said dermatologists concluded that "based on increasing documentation of vitamin D benefits, it is timely to review public health policy."

If any science should be up for review as false and misleading, the standing government arguments against sun exposure and vitamin D would be at the top of the list. Numerous claims by Health Canada and others on the risks of the sun, bordering on junk science, look downright irresponsible compared with the benefits.

But there's a pattern here. Junk science claims, based on exaggerated risk while ignoring benefits, often become entrenched as dogma. Then the dogma is used as a stepping stone for greater political and bureaucratic activity. When it comes to false advertising and exaggerated claims, few institutions surpass governments. Let the sun shine where it's darkest.


Source

[RTD]

Let us not forget the role the press plays in this issue. There are headlines in "danger" real or not.
There is no attention (read that as ratings) in reporting good news. Pulitzer would be proud of our
press. He made his fortune with Yellow Journalism. He was famous for bold headlines and was
not restricted by something so mundane as the facts.

[missmojorising]

"But there's a pattern here. Junk science claims, based on exaggerated risk while ignoring benefits, often become entrenched as dogma."

The Karma should be running over the Dogma any time now. The fact is this---Big Business, The Government, The Medical Comminty--they have lied. Sunshine is not how the devil radiates you.

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/solar_system/103264

Without the Sun, our solar system would be a dark and barren place. We owe our very lives to the warmth and light of the Sun. In this article, you will learn everything you need to know about the Sun that sustains us!


http://www.mercola.com/2004/apr/3/vitamin_d_grant.htm

Valuable Insights Into the Importance of Vitamin D and Sun

Vitamin D deficiency is a major problem in the United States but many Americans are not aware that they may be lacking this important nutrient. Although word is beginning to leak out even among the traditional medical community, testing for vitamin D will not skyrocket like cholesterol or other testing because there is no expensive drug to push, thus making the public more aware.
It is essential to understand that in order to know how much vitamin D you should be taking, you should get your blood level checked. Unfortunately, very few doctors do the blood test for vitamin D. You can't rely on the media to expose the issue. If and when they do, it will be too late for most of you and you will have suffered decreased bone density and an increased risk of many cancers. But you don't have to wait for the media.

This is a great site to keep on top of.
http://www.phototherapynews.com/