Return to the ground floor of this tower
Return to the Main Courtyard
Return to Fort Freedom's home page
]]]]]]]]]]]] PROF. BRUCE AMES REBUTS CBS [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
(10/3/1989)
[From Priorities, Fall 1989, pp. 38-39]
[Published by the American Council on Science and Health, 1995
Broadway, 16th Floor, New York, NY, 10023-5860, (212) 362-7044]
[Kindly uploaded by Freeman 10602PANC]
Dr. Bruce Ames, noted biochemist and Chairman of the Department
of Biochemistry at the University of California, Berkeley, was
also interviewed by Mr. Bradley. His comments to ``60 Minutes''
were also distorted, as CBS did their best to discredit him.
Specifically, the producers misquoted Dr. Ames -- and then
brought on Dr. William Lijinsky and allowed him, uncritically, to
challenge the distorted statements attributed to Dr. Ames,
without allowing Dr. Ames a rejoinder to clarify points. Below
is the letter Dr. Ames wrote to Don Hewitt, ``60 Minutes''
producer, following the [14 May 1989] airing of the interview.
June 29, 1989
Mr. Don Hewitt
Executive Producer
60 MINUTES
CBS NEWS
524 West 57th Street
New York, N.Y. 10019
Dear Mr. Hewitt:
SCIENCE vs. ``60 MINUTES''
``60 Minutes'' interviewed me for its second program on Alar,
which was shown on May 14, 1989. Mr. David Gerber, the producer,
and Mr. Ed Bradley, the interviewer, grossly distorted the
scientific arguments I presented, thus dishonestly discrediting
me. The program dealt both incompetently and dishonestly with a
scientific issue and was therefore unprofessional. I assume that
such an egregious mistreatment of a scientific issue was made by
``60 Minutes'' in order to buttress its previous scientifically
flawed coverage of the Alar issue [broadcast on 26 February
1989], rather than to pursue the truth.
The focus of my discussion in the interview was that the fear of
cancer from the breakdown product of Alar was based on
misinterpretation of the meaning of animal cancer tests. Below,
I briefly summarize the relevant facts, which are documented in
greater detail in the enclosed papers. I also indicate how
Gelber distorted the facts to make his case.
Of all chemicals tested at high doses in both rats and mice
(about 400 chemicals), about half are carcinogens: thus,
carcinogens, as defined by such tests, are extremely common.
Synthetic industrial chemicals account for almost all (-85%) of
the chemicals tested. However, despite the fact that more than
99.9% of the chemicals humans eat are natural, only a small
number (about 70) of natural chemicals have been tested in both
rats and mice; again, about half are carcinogens. These results
imply that synthetic chemicals, except in the case of high-dose
occupational exposure, are unlikely to be responsible for much
human cancer. This is in agreement with the conclusion of the
epidemiologists who study human cancer: only a minuscule
proportion, if any, of cancer is likely to be due to pesticide
residues.
Nature's pesticides are one important group of natural chemicals
that we have investigated. All plants produce toxins to protect
themselves against fungi, insects, and predators such as man.
Tens of thousands of these natural pesticides have been
discovered, and every species of plant contains its own set of
different toxins, usually a few dozen. In addition, when plants
are stressed or damaged, such as during a pest attack, they
increase their natural pesticide levels many fold, occasionally
to levels that are acutely toxic to humans. We estimate that
99.9% of the pesticides we eat are all natural.
Surprisingly few plant toxins have been tested in animal cancer
bioassays, but among those tested, again about half (20/42) are
carcinogenic. Even though only a tiny proportion of plant toxins
in our diet have been tested, natural pesticide carcinogens have
been shown to be present in the following foods: anise, apples,
bananas, basil, broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, cantaloupe,
carrots, cauliflower, celery, cinnamon, cloves, cocoa, coffee,
comfrey tea, fennel, grapefruit juice, honeydew melon,
horseradish, kale, mushrooms, mustard, nutmeg, orange juice,
parsley, parsnips, peaches, black pepper, pineapples, radishes,
raspberries, tarragon, and turnips. Thus, it is probable that
almost every plant product in the supermarket contains natural
carcinogens. The levels of the known natural carcinogens in the
above plants are almost always much higher than the levels of
man-made pesticides, and many are in the range of thousands to
millions of parts per billion. I pointed out to ``60 Minutes''
that a glass of the suspect Alar-contaminated apple juice posed
only 1/10th the possible carcinogenic hazard of the average
peanut butter sandwich and 1/50th that of a mushroom, as well as
other relevant comparisons [see ``Pesticides, Risk, and
Applesauce,'' Science, May 19, 1989]. Furthermore, we need not
be alarmed by the presence of low doses of synthetic toxins and a
plethora of natural toxins in our food. Humans are well
protected by many layers of general defenses against low doses of
toxins -- defenses which do not distinguish between synthetic and
natural toxins. In addition, new research suggests that
conventional worst-case extrapolations from very high-dose rodent
cancer tests to very low-dose human exposures to chemicals, such
as the NRDC performed, enormously exaggerate the possible
hazards.
Additionally, there is a fundamental trade-off between nature's
pesticides and man-made pesticides. We can easily breed out many
of nature's pesticides, but then we will need more man-made
pesticides to protect our crops from being eaten by insects. In
contrast, growers are currently breeding some plants for insect
resistance and unwittingly raising the levels of natural
pesticides.
Although I am considered one of the world's leaders in this
field, and I devoted a day of my time to explain in detail the
above points to Gelber/Bradley, they chose to ignore most of
these facts. The points that were covered on the air were
handled in the following incompetent and unprofessional manner.
(1) My discussion of natural carcinogens was grossly misquoted:
Bradley: ``Dr. Lijinsky disputes Ames' claim that 99.9% of all
carcinogens come from natural foods.''
This obviously incorrect claim was never made by me.
Gelber/Bradley made it up. What I stated was that 99.9% of
chemicals we ingest are natural. It is well known that 30% of
human cancer is due to smoking and another large percentage of
cancer is due to viruses, hormones, sunlight, alcohol, dietary
imbalances, radon, and occupational causes. Thus, Lijinsky
rebutted a statement made up by Gelber/Bradley, and, as a
consequence, publicly discredited me. When I asked Gelber where
he got that statement from, he couldn't come up with an answer.
(2) Gelber/Bradley grossly misquoted me again and publicly
discredited me in two unjustifiable ways.
Bradley: ``Well, who's right? This is the most recent
listing of carcinogens published by the U.S.
government's National Toxicology Program. That's the
agency which determines which chemical compounds are
known to cause tumors in animals or humans. It does
not support Dr. Ames' claim that there are tens of
thousands of carcinogens in natural food. He believes
further tests will show he's right. But for now, the
national toxicology survey lists just 148 substances,
and the compounds in celery and broccoli aren't among
them. One compound that is, is the one produced by
Alar.''
(a) The attribution to me of the statement ``there are
tens of thousands of carcinogens in natural food''
is not right.
(b) Bradley's statement that the natural carcinogens in
celery and broccoli aren't listed by the National
Toxicology Program (NTP) is not correct. In the
``60 Minutes'' interview, I said that Brussels
sprouts, cabbage, broccoli, and celery contain
carcinogens. Gelber later phoned me asking what
these carcinogens were. The information on three
of these foods was in the article ``Pesticides,
Risk, and Applesauce,'' which I had sent to Gelber
and which he had promised to read before he came to
interview me, and which has since been published in
Science. Nevertheless, I told him on the phone
that allyl isothiocyanate is in cabbage, Brussels
sprouts, and broccoli, and that 8-methoxypsoralen
is in celery, and that both plant compounds were
found to be carcinogens by the NTP in its own
bioassay program. Bradley said in the quote above
that these compounds are not in the latest NTP list
of carcinogens, thus discrediting me. The list he
waved was years old. The compounds are, in fact,
on other lists that NTP sends out to all interested
parties several times a year: allyl isothiocyanate
was evaluated by NTP as positive for carcinogenesis
in 1982 and 8-methoxypsoralen in 1988.
Gelber/Bradley could have clarified this easily of
they had wanted to, but, apparently, scientific
truth was not on their list of priorities.
(3) Gelber/Bradley turned the Alar issue into a
question of motives rather than of science. For
example, they attempted to tie me to the ``bad
guys'' -- the American chemical industry -- by
introducing me as follows:
Bradley: ``At the urging of the agricultural
chemical industry, we spoke with Dr. Bruce Ames,
chairman of the Biochemistry Department at
Berkeley. Dr. Ames says he is completely
independent and does no consulting for industry.''
Gelber/Bradley, of course, could as well have chosen to say that
I am a member of the National Academy of Sciences, or have
received a long list of scientific honors from numerous
countries.
In any scientific controversy, a professional reporter wishing to
obtain an unbiased view should ask advice from the leading
scientists in the field. Gelber did not do this in the first
Alar program. If Gelber had wanted to obtain a professional
scientific opinion on Alar he could have assembled a list of
outstanding scientists in the field by consulting Nobel
prizewinners or other leading scientists who are familiar with
the field. If these scientists were asked to name leaders in the
field, I am confident that I would be near the top of everyone's
list -- not just the agricultural chemical industry's. I doubt
if Lijinsky would be on anyone's list. Lijinsky, who was the
scientist given the most time on the program, was introduced as
the head of a chemical carinogenesis lab at the National Cancer
Institute (NCI), yet Lijinsky is not an NCI employee. Gelber
didn't talk to any of the leading chemical carcinogenesis people
at NCI, e.g. Richard Adamson, the head of Cancer Etiology, for
their opinions of either Lijinsky or myself or Alar.
The theme of the ``60 Minutes'' program seemed to be that anyone
who has consulted for or is connected with industry is biased,
without considering that bias can exist on both sides. Although
I do no consulting for industry or law firms, I am aware from my
experience in 20 years in toxicology that the American chemical
industry is extremely competitive and consistently tries to get
the best toxicologists in the country to advise them because it
is in their self interest to do so. On the other hand, my
experience with the environmental organizations is that they
specialize more in ideology than in expert science. The activist
lawyers of the NRDC and similar organizations choose scientists
who are selectively interested in rodent carcinogens that are
produced by chemical companies, and they believe that anyone
connected with a chemical company or industry works only for
greed (profit) while they work for altruism. Perhaps feeling
virtuous compensates for their lack of success in being
competitive in science. Such scientists can profit very well
from their ``altruism'' by testifying for a generous fee in the
flourishing toxic torts industry. For example, testifying that a
few parts per billion of some man-made rodent carcinogen will, as
Lijinsky phrased it, ``put someone over the edge and they'll
develop cancer'' can be very lucrative. But Lijinsky's or the
NRDC's possible biases did not interest ``60 Minutes''.
I won't elaborate on the many inaccuracies in your treatment of
Elizabeth Whelan. The American Council on Science and Health
(ACSH), directed by Dr. Whelan, is that rare creature, a ``public
interest'' organization that is based in science. Dr. Whelan has
assembled an impressive list of knowledgeable people on her
scientific advisory board. I have been as impressed with the
scientifically sound pamphlets that ACSH has published, as I have
been unimpressed by the scientifically unsound claims of the
NRDC.
There are many important issues concerning cancer that ``60
Minutes'' could tackle without bankrupting apple farmers and
falsely convincing the public that their apples are poisonous.
One real issue in environmental cancer is how a few ideologue
lawyers and second-rate scientists working through the media have
convinced many Americans that pesticide residues, water
pollution, and ``toxic chemical'' pollution are serious causes of
cancer or birth defects, and that what this misdirected effort
costs the country by diverting attention from real to trivial
problems.
A final thought: Reed Irvine of Accuracy in Media (AIM) was a
pleasure to deal with, in contrast to Gelber. He was a stickler
for detail and cared about scientific integrity. When I was
first contacted by him, I didn't know who he was, but he deserves
more than a brushoff. He raised a lot of issues that need
answers, and so does my letter.
Yours truly,
Bruce N. Ames
Professor and Chairman
Department of Biochemistry
University of California
* * *
Return to the ground floor of this tower
Return to the Main Courtyard
Return to Fort Freedom's home page