dr oz bak

---

gotta figure this out some day , 420 fix covid BS; is he trumpian PR whore?

anomaly?

---

an 8 25

Dr. Mehmet Oz, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, disparaged “able-bodied” Medicaid recipients, alleging they spend hours each day watching television or engaging in other “leisure-time” activities instead of pursuing what he called their God-given desire to change the world. He asked why anyone would question the government would not want to get people to be wealthy.

The vast majority of “able-bodied” people who use Medicaid, a government safety net medical insurance program that does not provide income to recipients, are already working at least one job. In the majority of families that use Medicaid, at least one adult is working a full-time job. The majority of Medicaid users are children, people living with disabilities, or the elderly, who are unable to work.

“You want people to actually get out of their homes and go do things,” Administrator Oz told CNBC on Thursday (video below). “An able-bodied person on Medicaid today watches about 6.1 hours of television, or just hangs out — leisure time.”

“That’s a lot of time,” Oz insisted, claiming his data is sound.

IFrame Content

“No one’s gonna be happy sitting at home 6.1 hours a day doing nothing,” he insisted.

“Your desire to go out and do something, to change the world, is given to you by God, the moment you’re born,” Oz proclaimed. “We want people to go out there and live their fullest lives, so asking people to go out and either volunteer at a position, get educated, get engaged with your community, or go get a job, and we’re gonna help you do that.”

Complaining about critics, some of whom say the new work requirements are counter-productive or designed to kick people out of Medicaid, Oz retorted, “I don’t understand how you could possibly say, that’s a bad thing for America, for us, not to want to get people to be wealthy, to go out there and change their own lives for the better.”

Last month, Dr. Oz declared that the Trump administration will no longer “tolerate” what he called a culture that makes it “easy to be sick in America.” Framing childhood illness as a failure of parenting and physical activity rather than medical need, Oz linked obesity to national security and warned that industries would be forced to cooperate—or face government retaliation.

Critics blasted Dr. Oz’s remarks.

---

kicking authority in the balls T shirt

---

comm dr 10 22 an

Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, the state's Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, warned that Republican nominee Dr. Mehmet Oz is working with numerous people who pose "a direct threat to our American democracy" and demanded that he fire his staffers recently exposed as supporters of the January 6 insurrection.

Rolling Stonereportedon Sunday that at least two people working on Oz's campaign attended the rally former President Donald Trump held in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021 before thousands of his supporters waged an attack on the U.S. Capitol and tried to stop lawmakers from certifying the 2020 election results.

"It really says a lot about Dr. Oz that he's hired people who want to quite literally overthrow American democracy," tweeted Fetterman on Monday.

[twt]

lee Snover, a campaign coordinator for Oz, was among the Trump supporters who marched to the Capitol after the so-called "Stop the Steal" rally. She also participated in a Zoom call four days before the insurrection about the Trump campaign's plans for "decertifying" election results in swing states and called for state legislators to push then-Vice President Mike Pence to interfere with the counting of electoral votes.

Political adviser Josh Bashline was also profiled byRolling Stone, which reported that he attended the "Stop the Steal" rally.

"Dr. Oz and his disgustingly radical campaign must fire these insurrectionist staffers immediately," saidJoe Calvello, a spokesperson for Fetterman.

The news regarding Oz's campaign staff is just the latest evidence that the celebrity doctor supports Trump's continued baseless claims that he was the true winner of the 2020 election.

Oz said in April that "we cannot move on" from the election and he supports the gubernatorial campaign of Doug Mastriano, who organized buses to Washington, D.C. for the January 6 rally and whose campaign event Oz attended over the weekend.

Along with members of Oz's staff, a consultant for his campaign, Larry Weitzner, told a former supporter of the Republican candidate that Oz was not "an election denier" even as Weitzner promoted the false claim that fraud had taken place during voting.

"He is not denying the [2020] election," Weitzner texted Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, before adding, "Massive difference between saying their [sic] was fraud, which most Republican officials and voters believe as well as real evidence, [versus] saying the election was stolen or denying Biden won."

As Rolling Stonereported, Weitzner was among the Trump allies who received an email from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on December 8, 2020, which read, "The goal is to arouse the country's anger through new verifiable information the American people have never seen before... If we inform the American people in a way they find convincing and it arouses their anger, they will then bring pressure on legislators and governors."

In recent weeks, Fetterman has taken aim at Oz's claim that"local political leaders"should have a say in whether people can legally obtain abortion care and hislong history of promoting unproven and dangerous wellness products on TV, and demanded he disavow Trump's plans to sow doubt about the integrity of the Pennsylvania election on November 8.

"Whether it's with his abortion views on the debate stage or with his employment of multiple insurrectionists," said Calvello. "Oz's extremism is on full display in the campaign's final week."

A pollreleased by the New York Times/Siena College on Monday showed49% of likely Pennsylvania voters currently plan to support Fetterman while 44% are backing Oz.

dirty trick?

https://www.alternet.org/2022/10/john-fetterman-consequence-free-stigma/

// hayes

https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/fox-prime-time-goes-all-against-john-fetterman

Fox News’ prime-time shows are fixated on Pennsylvania’s Senate race as the post-Labor Day sprint to the midterm elections gets underway. The programs mentioned Democratic nominee John Fetterman more frequently during that period than the Democratic nominees in six other competitive Senate races combined, andRepublican nominee Mehmet Oz was referenced more than twice as many times as any of the other GOP candidates, according to a Media Matters review.

Fetterman appears to be the Democratic nominee Fox prime time hosts fear most. With their dramatic, ongoing fixation on Pennsylvania’s lieutenant governor, they are trying to bail out Republicans after Sean Hannity’s zealous promotion of Oz stuck the party with an unpopular nominee (Fox support was also crucial for the Republican nominees in Arizona, Georgia, and Ohio). The hosts’ deceptive attacks on Fetterman’s health and his record on crime have often aligned squarely with Oz’s campaign message.

Media Matters reviewed Tucker Carlson Tonight, Hannity, and The Ingraham Angle* from September 6 through September 27 for mentions of the names of the Republican and Democratic nominees for Senate in the seven states FiveThirtyEight identified as most competitive: Nevada, Georgia, Wisconsin, North Carolina,** Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Arizona.

Fox personalities and guests uttered Fetterman’s name at least 120 times on Tucker Carlson Tonight, Hannity, and The Ingraham Angle, Media Matters found. The Democratic nominees in the other six states combined for only 96 mentions on those programs; Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) was referenced the next most frequently, with 34.

Oz’s 48 mentions led the field among GOP candidates, with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) mentioned the next most with 19. Oz himself appeared on the programs 5 times over the period, more than any of the other Republican Senate nominees Media Matters examined.

The Pennsylvania race is the most discussed Senate election on all three programs, by sizable margins in each case. Sean Hannity, the sometime GOP political operative and adviser to Donald Trump, has given the midterm races significantly more attention than his prime-time colleagues. His broadcast has mentioned the Democratic and Republican Senate nominees a combined 171 times, compared to 79 for Laura Ingraham’s program and 73 for Tucker Carlson’s show. [grf]

the network’s stars are seemingly more interested in tearing down Democratic nominees than promoting Republican ones, with their programs referencing the former more often than the latter in every Senate race except for Wisconsin.

*Jesse Watters’ show, Jesse Watters Primetime, was not included in the study because it does not air in primetime; regardless, he devoted substantially less attention to the Senate races compared to his colleagues.

**None of the three Fox prime-time shows has mentioned the Senate nominees in North Carolina.

blame addict

https://www.alternet.org/2022/09/hes-not-from-pa-outsider/

https://www.alternet.org/2022/08/let-them-east-crudite-dr-oz-suffers-brutal-mockery-when-shopping-video-misfires/

aha doh he's {reality?} TV guy

In 2022, Republicans have nominated well-known celebrities rather than established politicians in three different U.S. Senate races: Dr. Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania, “Hillbilly Elegy” author J.D. Vance in Ohio, and football star Herschel Walker in Georgia.GOP strategists have been using a “these-aren’t-career-politicians” pitch to voters in all three races. But reporter Adam Gabbatt, in an article published by The Guardian on August 16, emphasizes that none of those Republicans have been performing well in recent polls.

“In Mehmet Oz, Herschel Walker and J.D. Vance, the Republican Party has three celebrities running for Senate in November,” Gabbatt explains. “The only problem? At the moment, each of them looks as though they might lose. Oz, a television stalwart better known as Dr. Oz to millions of Americans, is trailing his opponent in Pennsylvania by double digits. Vance, a bestselling author and conservative commentator, is behind in his race in Ohio, an increasingly red state that many expected Republicans to win. So far, the most notable point of his campaign was when Vance appeared to suggest women should stay in violent marriages.”

Gabbatt continues, “In Georgia, Walker, a former NFL running back, is running close against Raphael Warnock, the incumbent Democrat. But Walker’s campaign has been characterized by a series of gaffes, and this week, more seriously, his ex-wife recalled in a campaign ad how he once held a gun to her head. The three men’s travails spell out a problem in selecting outsider, celebrity candidates. Each brings name recognition, but in some cases, have been unexposed to the media’s glare.”

Some polls released in late July or early August showed Georgia’s Senate race to be close. Walker was trailing the Rev. Warnock by only 3 percent in polls from Insider Advantage, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Research Affiliates, although a SurveyUSA poll showed Warnock ahead by 9 percent.

Meanwhile, in Pennsylvania, Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, the Democratic nominee, had an 11 percent lead over Oz in a Fox News poll released in late July. And in Ohio, the Democratic nominee, Rep. Tim Ryan, was ahead of Vance by 3 percent in a late July poll conducted by Impact Research, although SurveyMoney’s polling in early August showed Ryan ahead by 11 percent. Ryan also had an 11 percent lead in a Center Street PAC poll from early August.

“The Pennsylvania Senate race is looking particularly dire for Republicans,” Gabbatt observes. “According to FiveThirtyEight’s polling average, John Fetterman, the Democratic lieutenant governor, holds an 11 percent lead over Oz. Among Republicans in Pennsylvania, just 35 percent say they are ‘enthusiastic’ about Oz’s candidacy, according to a Fox News poll in July, and 45 percent of Republicans say they ‘have reservations’ about the physician. Oz’s struggles are significant enough that the National Republican Senatorial Committee is considering diverting money away from Oz’s campaign ‘to seats that we feel we can win,’ Politico reported in July — a dramatic move given the Senate seat was previously held by a Republican.”

The Republican senator Gabbatt is referring to is Pat Toomey. Although arch-conservative, Toomey infuriated MAGA Republicans when he voted “guilty” in former President Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate in 2021 — and the two-term senator decided not to seek a third term in 2022.

If Fetterman defeats Oz in November, Democrats will be flipping a U.S. Senate seat that has been mostly in Republican hands for decades. Before Toomey, the seat was held by the late Sen. Arlen Specter, a moderate Republican who got along well with Pennsylvania Democrats like former Pennsylvania Gov./ex-Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell and Sen. Bob Casey, Jr. Near the end of his life, Specter became a Democrat, but he spent most of his years in the Senate as a Republican.

Presently, there is a 50/50 split in the U.S. Senate — 50 Democrats or allies of Democrats like independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and 50 Republicans — with Vice President Kamala Harris able to cast a tie-breaking vote. If Democrats are able to maintain all of the Senate seats they presently hold but flip the seats in Pennsylvania and Ohio, they would slightly increase their narrow majority but would still have to contend with the 60-vote requirement of the filibuster.

took farm subsidy?

https://www.alternet.org/2022/08/john-fetterman-dr-oz-fraud/

~ Fetterman

https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/fox-news-ramping-its-campaign-against-pennsylvania-democratic-senate-nominee-john

an 8 22

A political action committee has put seven figures behind a campaign to call out Pennsylvania Senate candidate Dr. Mehmet Oz for his rumored ties to New Jersey.

According to The Hill, End Citizens United's $2 million advertisement is scheduled to air August 2 - 13 on television broadcasts, multiple cable networks, and streaming platforms in the Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Harrisburg, Penn. areas.

In the political ad, Oz —who is mockingly called "Jersey Oz— is being accused of "taking money from the pharmaceutical industry," the news outlet reports.

In a statement to The Hill, Tiffany Muller, president of the political action committee, offered details about the campaign. “Mehmet Oz is as New Jersey as listening to Bruce Springsteen while driving on the parkway to go down to the shore. That’s exactly why he’s out-of-touch with hardworking Pennsylvanians,” Muller said in her statement.

The End Citizen's United ad is the latest to air attacking Oz. A number of other Democrats, including Pennsylvania's Democratic Senate nominee John Fetterman, have aimed to portray the New Jersey-born doctor as a carpetbagger.

Per The Hill, Fetterman has repeatedly mocked Oz over the issue and even flew an airplane banner along the beaches in South Beach. The banner read, “'HEY DR. OZ, WELCOME HOME TO NJ! ❤ JOHN' and enlisting the help of former 'Jersey Shore' cast member Nicole 'Snooki' LaValle.'"

However, Oz's campaign team has released a statement criticizing Fetterman's political tactics.

“Dr. Oz is busy criss-crossing the commonwealth and meeting with voters hearing how crime and inflation is impacting their lives, while John Fetterman is sitting behind his computer screen from his basement bunker refusing to meet with Pennsylvanians,” said Brittany Yanick, a spokesperson for the Oz campaign.

While the upcoming Pennsylvania Senate race is expected to be close, the RealClearPolitics polling average still projects Fetterman leading by approximately 8.7 points.

Watch the ad below or at this link.

an 7 22

Republican candidates and lawmakers are facing great challenges in the areas of campaign fundraising. A new analysis is explaining how they are being out-fundraised by their Democratic counterparts. According to Axios' Lachlan Markay, the biggest financial difference centers on grassroots contributions.

Lachlan explained the bigger picture writing, "Inflation, Trump-induced donor fatigue, and other factors are impacting the GOP grassroots, prompting Republican candidates to rely more heavily on high-dollar donors."

However, while the average Republican candidate is facing challenges securing small-dollar donations, Lachlan noted the one Republican who isn't having that problem. He noted that former President Donald Trump is "seeing huge small-dollar fundraising success" and "has hoovered up more than $60 million from under-$200 donors this cycle."

But, unfortunately for the Republican Party, Trump's massive haul isn't much of a benefit for the political party, collectively. Adding to that, he still isn't an official political candidate for any upcoming election. According to the report, only one Republican lawmaker is having substantial success with small-dollar donations: Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.)

So what's holding the Republican Party's campaign fundraising together? "High-dollar donors," according to Lachlan, are still their driving force.

"The GOP's high-dollar donors are keeping the money race competitive," he wrote. "And Republicans' national party committees are breaking fundraising records."

He noted, "Super PACs backing candidates such as Ohio's J.D. Vance and Arizona's Blake Masters are making up for some fundraising shortfalls. Others, such as Pennsylvania's Mehmet Oz,are pouring millions into their own campaigns."

The top Republican super PACs are "the Senate Leadership Fund and the Congressional Leadership Fund"as they are "both out-raising their Democratic counterparts by substantial margins."

Lachlan concluded, "The GOP's fundraising problems — in addition to the elevation of flawed or extreme candidates — are contributing to fears of a Senate debacle in what should be a favorable political environment for Republicans."

https://www.alternet.org/2022/07/mehmet-oz-has-gone-dark/

post primary pivot? post jan 6 #5 best hearing

https://www.alternet.org/2022/07/dr-oz-general-election-rebrand/

12 21

Some of you will be familiar with DARVO, an acronym for deny, attack and reverse victim and offender. DARVO describes the behavior of psychological abusers when they are being held accountable for their behavior.Donald Trump and his supporters clearly exhibit DARVO habits. Rather than accept blame for anything they do, they turn around and accuse those blaming them of creating the problem. Victimized Bully Syndrome (VBS), as I'm describing it, though, is slightly different from DARVO. With DARVO the abusive behavior comes first and DARVO only emerges if the attacker is asked to take responsibility. But with VBS the cries of being victims come first and are used to justify the underlying bullying behaviors. The bully under VBS is always already acting in self-defense.

Take this example: In a recent interview with Fox News, Dr. Mehmet Oz, candidate for Senate in Pennsylvania suggested that Americans had been victimized by President Biden's "one-size-fits-all" COVID-19 "rules that limit our freedom." According to Oz, U.S. citizens "want government to get out of their way to stop scaring them into submission."

If we set aside the sheer stupidity of a doctor suggesting that we need "as many different approaches as possible" to the pandemic, the critical takeaway is Oz's claim that Biden's policy is designed to victimize the public by scaring them, taking away their freedoms, and destroying their dignity. According to this logic, refusing to wear a mask, get vaccinated, or support public health policy is a valid defense, rather than bullying behavior that puts everyone in peril.

mma 320

https://www.mediamatters.org/coronavirus-covid-19/dr-mehmet-oz-tells-fox-friends-real-threat-humanity-virus-not-global-warming

cmd

Hypocritical Attack on Dr. Mehmet Oz Over Conflicts of Interest

In April 2015, a group of doctors published a letter calling on Columbia University to remove Dr. Mehmet Oz from the faculty of its College of Physicians and Surgeons, accusing Oz of "disdain for science and for evidence-based medicine," "baseless and relentless opposition to the genetic engineering of food crops," and "an egregious lack of integrity by promoting quack treatments and cures in the interest of personal financial gain."^[8]

Signers on the letter include Gilbert Ross, Acting President and Executive Director of ASCH, and Henry I. Miller, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution (a right-wing think tank physically located on the campus of Stanford University) and a former ASCH board member who was the leading spokesperson in election ads opposing GMO labeling in California (an ad campaign funded through millions of dollars from corporations that manufacture or use GMO products) and helped found a tobacco industry front group, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition.^[9]

Dr. Oz has denounced this as a smear campaign.

Dr. Oz has his own TV show on NBC, "The Dr. Oz Show," after becoming a prominent media figure through a series of appearances on the Oprah Winfrey Show. Through that platform, he has repeatedly maintained that the public has a right to know what is in their food and has supported the idea of labeling GMO foods. Other countries have stronger rules than the United States does on GMO products, and many people have raised concerns about some of the GMO products that have been created, particularly products created by Monsanto, an extremely controversial manufacturer.

Dr. Oz was accused of using his show to promote dubious health products in 2014, including facing criticism from Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) during a 2014 U.S. Senate hearing examining diet-product ads.^[10] McCaskill has received numerous campaign donations from Monsanto employees; Monsanto is located in St. Louis.^[11]

ACSH's Ross said in TV comments criticizing Oz, "I don't how much of this he actually has a financial interest in, but I would suspect it's quite a bit."^[10]

That interview with ACSH made no mention of its funding from corporate sources that profit from the products and industries ACSH defends, however,^[10] such as GMO crops, fracking, and e-cigarettes (see Funding below for more information).

Nor did the news show mention Ross' prior involvement in a scheme that defrauded New York's Medicaid system of $8 million. (Ross lost his medical license in 1995 and received a prison sentence of 46 months, serving 23 months.)^[12]

https://www.alternet.org/2021/11/dr-oz-senate/

an 420

Dr. Anthony Fauci stomps all over Fox & Friends after they challenge him by quoting Dr. Oz

Brad Reed / Raw Story April 4, 2020

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, slapped down the hosts of “Fox & Friends” on Friday after they challenged his medical opinions…

http://www.alternet.org/media/his-trump-interview-goes-broadcast-here-are-6-times-dr-oz-made-mockery-medicine

http://www.newyorker.com/contributors/michael-specter

not science beat

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/02/04/the-operator

Dr. Oz Show” frequently focusses on essential health issues: the proper ways to eat, relax, exercise, and sleep, and how to maintain a healthy heart. Much of the advice Oz offers is sensible, and is rooted solidly in scientific literature. That is why the rest of what he does is so hard to understand. Oz is an experienced surgeon, yet almost daily he employs words that serious scientists shun, like “startling,” “breakthrough,” “radical,” “revolutionary,” and “miracle.” There are miracle drinks and miracle meal plans and miracles to stop aging and miracles to fight fat. Last year, Oz broadcast a show on whether it was possible to “repair” gay people (“From Gay to Straight? The Controversial Therapy”), despite the fact that Robert L. Spitzer, the doctor who is best known for a study of gay-reparation therapy, had recanted. (Spitzer last year apologized to “any gay person who wasted time and energy” on what he conceded were “unproven claims.”) Oz introduced a show on the safety of genetically modified foods by saying, “A new report claims they can damage your health and even cause cancer.” He also broadcast an episode on whether the apple juice consumed daily by millions of American children contains dangerous levels of arsenic. “Some of the best-known brands in America have arsenic in their apple juice,” he said at the outset, “and today we are naming names.” In each of those instances, and in many others, Oz has been criticized by scientists for relying on flimsy or incomplete data, distorting the results, and wielding his vast influence in ways that threaten the health of anyone who watches the show. Last year, almost as soon as that G.M.O. report was published, in France, it was thoroughly discredited by scores of researchers on both sides of the Atlantic.

Addressing such issues, however, is part of what Oz describes as “the undiscussed conversation—the one we need to have but don’t.” He describes modern medicine as a “civil war” waged between conventional physicians and those who are open to alternative cures for maladies ranging from anxiety to cancer; he considers it his mission to walk the line that divides them.

...

On October 17th, Oz broadcast a program titled “GMO Foods: Are They Dangerous to Your Health?” Oz was not subtle. “You’re probably eating them right now and don’t even know,” he began, darkly invoking “the brave new world of food. Are they safe?” Oz then introduced Jeffrey Smith, the author of “Genetic Roulette,” who says that engineered foods may cause many serious diseases, including colitis, asthma, and cancer. Smith has also made a film version of the book; Oz, for the sake of full disclosure, noted that “my wife, Lisa, was a narrator in Jeffrey’s film.” He added that no scientists were willing to share the stage with Smith. “So today we are doing something we have never done before,” Oz said. “After Jeffrey makes his points, he has to leave the stage before we can speak with the scientists in favor of genetically modified foods.” Other than to say that Smith was controversial, Oz did not indicate why no scientists would appear with him.

When I asked Lisa about her involvement, she said that Smith presented a point of view that needed to be heard, and that the safety of genetically modified foods has not been proved. “I think Mehmet and I both feel, in general, that our mission is to empower the viewer or reader,” she said. “To give them the most information and the greatest number of tools they can use to make their own choices.”

On the show, Oz identified Smith as a scientist, but Smith has no experience in genetics or agriculture, and has no scientific degree from any institution. He studied business at the Maharishi International University, founded by the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Before the show aired, Bruce Chassy, a noted molecular biologist, wrote to Oz; he is a founder of Academics Review, a group of researchers who often debunk popular scientific claims. Chassy is professor emeritus in the department of food science and human nutrition at the University of Illinois. “As a public-sector scientist, researcher, and academic administrator with more than forty years’ experience, I am appalled that any medical professional would give a platform to the likes of Mr. Jeffrey Smith to impart health information to the public,” Chassy wrote. “His only professional experience prior to taking up his crusade against biotechnology is as a ballroom-dance teacher, yogic flying instructor, and political candidate for the Maharishi cult’s natural-law party.”

Graphic images of rats covered in tumors appeared on a monitor; the images were taken from a study, published in September, contending that the tumors were caused by genetically modified corn. The study was publicized widely throughout the world, but it was denounced by the European Union Food Safety Authority, rejected in a rare joint statement by the six French national scientific academies, and ridiculed by scores of scientists. None of that deterred Smith, who attacked the Food and Drug Administration for “ignoring” these problems. On the show, Oz never challenged him, although agricultural biotechnology has been under review by the F.D.A. for decades, and no agency, in the United States or anywhere else, has found evidence that genetically modified foods are metabolized by the body any differently from any other type of food.

There are many legitimate and articulate opponents of genetically modified products and, for that matter, of conventional medicine itself. But Oz has consistently chosen guests with dubious authority to argue those positions. Joseph Mercola, an osteopath, runs mercola.com, one of the most popular alternative-health Web sites in the country

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/04/arctic_apple_safety_dr_oz_sows_seeds_of_mistrust_on_gmos.html

Low-Hanging Fruit

Dr. Oz sows seeds of mistrust on genetic engineering.By Henry I. Miller and Kavin Senapathy

Dr. Mehmet Oz and GMOs.

Dr. Mehmet Oz does not recommend an Arctic apple a day.

Getty Images for Clear Channel apr 10 2015

Surgeon–turned–television doctor Mehmet Oz opened his show on March 10 with a “Dr. Oz Investigation” on the newly U.S. Department of Agriculture–approved “Arctic” apple, which doesn’t undergo the unappetizing browning that other apples do when it’s bitten, bumped, or cut. The episode, titled “The Non-Browning GMO Apple: Is It Safe?,” pushed the fallacy that there is some sort of “right to know” (via labeling) whether a food has been produced with the techniques of molecular genetic engineering (aka “genetic modification,” or GM).

reason the Arctic apple doesn’t discolor involves ingenious but simple biology. Enzymatic browning in apples is caused by the fruit’s intrinsic chemical reaction to cell injury, which ruptures the cells and triggers chemical reactions between the enzyme polyphenol oxidase (PPO) and the substances that cause the apple flesh to turn brown. A family of four genes controls the majority of PPO production, and by inserting low-PPO-producing genes from other apples, scientists were able to turn off more than 90 percent of PPO production.

ORDINARILY THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW APPLE VARIETY WOULD PROCEED UNEVENTFULLY, BUT BECAUSE THE SHUT-OFF OF THE FOUR GENES WAS DONE WITH MOLECULAR TECHNIQUES, THE PROPOSED COMMERCIALIZATION OF THIS NEW VARIETY WAS MET WITH UNCONSCIONABLE, IRRESPONSIBLE, AND LENGTHY REGULATORY DELAYS. (ON THE HEELS OF THE USDA APPROVAL, THE FDA APPROVED THE ARCTIC APPLE ON MARCH 20, FOLLOWING A “VOLUNTARY” FOOD SAFETY REVIEW THAT DRAGGED ON FOR FOUR YEARS.)

NOW THAT THIS REMARKABLE FRUIT HAS JUMPED THROUGH THE REQUIRED REGULATORY HOOPS, DR. OZ AND OTHER FEAR-MONGERS ARE TRYING TO ELICIT TOTALLY UNWARRANTED CONSUMER APPREHENSION ABOUT IT. OZ OPENED HIS PROGRAM THIS WAY:

WOULD YOU BUY THIS APPLE IF I TOLD YOU IT WOULDN’T BROWN WHEN YOU CUT INTO IT OR TOOK A BITE? WOULD YOU BUY THIS APPLE IF I TOLD YOU IT WAS GENETICALLY MODIFIED TO NOT TURN BROWN? WELL, A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE BANKING ON YOUR ANSWER. THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RECENTLY APPROVED THE FIRST GENETICALLY MODIFIED APPLE. THEY’RE CALLING THEM THE ARCTIC APPLE.

IT’S A SAFE BET THAT MOST PEOPLE IN THAT AUDIENCE THAT DAY SAID NO, THEY WOULDN’T BUY THE APPLE. A WHOPPING 98 PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS TO A DOCTOROZ.COM POLL CITED IN A JANUARY EPISODE SAID THAT THEY WANTED FOODS CONTAINING GENETICALLY ENGINEERED INGREDIENTS TO BE LABELED. IN ADDITION, NATIONWIDE POLLS SUGGESTED THAT UP TO 80 PERCENT OF AMERICANS WANT LABELS ON FOODS THAT CONTAIN DNA—ALTHOUGH, PRESUMABLY, FEW OF THEM REALIZE THAT THAT WOULD ENCOMPASS VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING IN THEIR DIETS EXCEPT HIGHLY REFINED FOODS SUCH AS OIL, SUGAR, AND SALT. THESE EXERCISES PROVE ONLY THAT PEOPLE KNOW LITTLE ABOUT THE CHEMISTRY AND BIOLOGY OF WHAT THEY EAT. (OR ABOUT THEIR OWN BODIES, FOR THAT MATTER—THEY, TOO, ARE COMPOSED OF CHEMICALS, INCLUDING DNA.)

THIS LATEST MANIFESTATION OF NEW AGE NONSENSE IS VINTAGE OZ. THE FDA SLAMMED HIM IN 2011 FOR AN “IRRESPONSIBLE AND MISLEADING” REPORT ON ARSENIC IN APPLE JUICE, AND IN JUNE 2014 AT A HEARING, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE GRILLED AND THOROUGHLY HUMILIATED OZ FOR HIS HAWKING OF FRAUDULENT PRODUCTS. IN ADDITION, PUBLICATIONS INCLUDING THE WASHINGTON POST, THE NEW YORKER, AND SLATE HAVE CRITICIZED HIS ANTI-SCIENCE VIEWS.

THE JAMES RANDI EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION HAS NO FEWER THAN THREE TIMES BESTOWED ON OZ ITS PIGASUS AWARD, WHICH IS GIVEN “TO EXPOSE PARAPSYCHOLOGICAL, PARANORMAL OR PSYCHIC FRAUDS THAT RANDI HAS NOTED OVER THE PREVIOUS YEAR.” THE LAST TWO OF THESE WERE FOR SUPPORT OF FAITH HEALING AND PSYCHIC COMMUNICATION WITH THE DEAD, AMONG OTHER THINGS (2010), AND “REFUSAL TO FACE REALITY” FOR HIS CONTINUED PROMOTION OF “QUACK MEDICAL PRACTICES, PARANORMAL BELIEF, AND PSEUDOSCIENCE” (2012).

AMONG SCIENTISTS, OZ IS KNOWN FOR HIS ANTI-GENETIC-ENGINEERING PROPAGANDA, WHICH HE PROMOTES REGULARLY ON HIS TV PROGRAM IN CONCERT WITH OUTSPOKEN BIOTECH OPPONENTS WHO LACK MEDICAL OR SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUNDS. IN SEPTEMBER 2014, OZ FEATURED ZEN HONEYCUTT, FOUNDER OF THE ANTI-GENETIC ENGINEERING ORGANIZATION MOMS ACROSS AMERICA, WHO SHARED HER BIAS WITHOUT A HINT OF SKEPTICISM OR SO MUCH AS A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION FROM OZ.

LIKE MANY ANTAGONISTS OF GENETIC ENGINEERING, HONEYCUTT ATTEMPTED TO DEMONIZE GLYPHOSATE, AN HERBICIDE USED IN VARIOUS TYPES OF FARMING, BECAUSE SOME GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS ARE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH IT. HONEYCUTT CLAIMED THAT HER SON HAD BEEN EXPERIENCING SYMPTOMS OF AUTISM, AND SHE WANTED HIS URINE TESTED FOR CHEMICALS USED IN FARMING. HIS DOCTOR DECLINED, SO SHE USED A PRIVATE LAB THAT SUPPOSEDLY DETECTED GLYPHOSATE LEVELS “EIGHT TIMES HIGHER THAN FOUND ANYWHERE IN EUROPE [IN] URINE TESTING.” SHE CLAIMED THAT WITHIN SIX WEEKS OF GOING “COMPLETELY [GENETIC ENGINEERING]–FREE AND ORGANIC, HIS AUTISM SYMPTOMS WERE GONE, AND THE LEVEL OF GLYPHOSATE WAS NO LONGER DETECTABLE.” SHE DIDN’T CLARIFY WHAT EUROPEAN DATA WERE USED FOR COMPARISON OR WHY. THERE IS NO MEDICAL EVIDENCE THAT EXPOSURE TO GLYPHOSATE HAS ANY CONNECTION WITH AUTISM; IN FACT, GLYPHOSATE HAS LOWER OVERALL HEALTH IMPACTS THAN WHITE VINEGAR (AKA THE CHEMICAL ACETIC ACID) WHEN USED AS A HERBICIDE.

HTTP://WWW.NYSIPM.CORNELL.EDU/PUBLICATIONS/EIQ/EQUATION.ASP =

A METHOD TO MEASURE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PESTICIDES

THE EIQ EQUATION DOWNLOAD DATASET FOR ALL HERBIVIDES?

THIS SORT OF NONSENSE IS PART OF A LONGSTANDING PATTERN. OZ’S WIFE AND THE CO-PRODUCER OF HIS PROGRAM, LISA OZ, IS A SUPPORTER OF BRAZEN ANTI-GENETIC-ENGINEERING CAMPAIGNER AND SELF-DESCRIBED LEVITATOR JEFFREY SMITH. AN ADVOCATE OF ALTERNATIVE HEALTH PRODUCTS—THE MANUFACTURERS OF WHICH HAPPEN TO SPONSOR HER AND DR. OZ’S RADIO AND TELEVISION PROGRAMS—LISA OZ RECENTLY COLLABORATED WITH SMITH AND SERVED AS NARRATOR FOR HIS LURID AND LUDICROUS ANTI-GENETIC-ENGINEERING MOVIE.

OZ MADE AN ATTEMPT TO APPEAR BALANCED ON THE MARCH 10 PROGRAM—HE INTERVIEWED NEAL CARTER, APPLE GROWER AND FOUNDER OF OKANAGAN SPECIALTY FRUITS, THE CREATOR OF THE ARCTIC APPLE. WHEN ASKED HOW TO DETECT WHETHER A NONBROWNING APPLE IS ROTTING, CARTER EXPLAINED, “IT’S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT ARCTIC APPLES ARE JUST LIKE ANY OTHER APPLE IN THIS REGARD.” HE DESCRIBED HOW ONLY THE ENZYMATIC BROWNING OF THE ARCTIC APPLE HAS BEEN “TURNED OFF.” WHEN AN APPLE ROTS, PATHOGENS HAVE THEIR OWN ENZYMES THAT MAKE IT TURN BROWN. THUS, THESE APPLES WILL BROWN WHEN THEY ROT.

WHY NONBROWNING APPLES? “APPLES AS A WHOLE APPLE ARE TOO BIG A COMMITMENT,” CARTER ASSERTED. “[B]Y MAKING IT NOT GO BROWN, IT MAKES IT MORE SUITABLE FOR FOOD SERVICE, PUTTING APPLES IN MORE PLACES, INCREASING CONSUMPTION.”

AFTER HIS OWN REDUCTIONIST DESCRIPTION OF HOW SCIENTISTS TURNED OFF THE BROWNING TRAITS, OZ CITED UNNAMED CRITICS WHO SAY THAT ALTERING ONE TRAIT MIGHT INADVERTENTLY AFFECT OTHERS. TO EXPAND ON THESE CONCERNS, OZ BROUGHT ON SO-CALLED GENETIC ENGINEERING EXPERT AND CONSUMERS UNION SCIENTIST MICHAEL HANSEN. ON THE PROGRAM HANSEN QUESTIONED THE APPLE’S SAFETY, CLAIMING THAT THE TECHNIQUE USED CAN ALSO POTENTIALLY TURN OFF OTHER GENES. (TESTING HAS SHOWN THAT IT DOESN’T, AND THAT THE ARCTIC APPLE IS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM ITS UNMODIFIED COHORTS, EXCEPT FOR LOWER LEVELS OF THE ENZYMES THAT MEDIATE BROWNING.) LINK IS TO CO PAGE: HTTP://WWW.ARCTICAPPLES.COM/ARCTIC-APPLES-STORY/HOW-WE-KEEP-APPLES-FROM-TURNING-BROWN

NEITHER OZ NOR HANSEN SEEMS TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE ENTIRE APPLE INDUSTRY OWES THE DIVERSITY OF VARIETIES TO DIFFERENT GENE EXPRESSION PATTERNS. A GOLDEN DELICIOUS APPLE LOOKS AND TASTES DIFFERENT FROM A RED DELICIOUS BECAUSE DIFFERENT APPLE GENES ARE EXPRESSED. RECENT GENOMIC SEQUENCING SHOWS THERE ARE ABOUT 57,000 GENES IN THE GOLDEN DELICIOUS APPLE.

HANSEN THEN INVOKED THE ISSUE OF “FRAUD,” LAMENTING THAT WITHOUT LABELS AT SALAD BARS AND ELSEWHERE, MOST CONSUMERS WILL SEE UNBLEMISHED SLICED APPLES AND THINK THEY’RE FRESHLY CUT. THEREBY, HANSEN TURNS A RED FRUIT INTO A RED HERRING. DO SLICED CUCUMBERS OR RADISHES TURN BROWN TO WARN CUSTOMERS OF WANING FRESHNESS?

LEADING UP TO THE SEGMENT’S CONCLUSION, OZ GUSHED TO CARTER, WHOSE COMPANY CREATED THE ARCTIC APPLE, “I TREASURE THE FACT THAT YOU’RE HERE. IT’S HARD TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION IN AMERICA RIGHT NOW; THE TWO SIDES AREN’T TALKING TO EACH OTHER VERY MUCH. I COMMEND YOU FOR YOUR TRANSPARENCY, AND THE FACT THAT YOU’VE BEEN WILLING TO COME HERE AND ARTICULATE IN A VERY TASTEFUL WAY AT MANY LEVELS.” THE TACIT MESSAGE WAS, OF COURSE, THAT CARTER IS A RARE EXCEPTION TO THE USUAL MENDACIOUS, OBFUSCATING BIOTECH PROPONENTS.

OZ THEN IMPLORED CARTER TO EXTEND HIS TRANSPARENCY TO LABELING ARCTIC APPLES IN THE MARKETPLACE AS GENETICALLY ENGINEERED (PRESUMABLY SO THAT CONSUMERS COULD AVOID THEM). CARTER DIDN’T BITE. HE RESPONDED CALMLY THAT THE PROPONENTS OF LABELING ARE ANTI-BIOTECH. “IT’S BEING DRIVEN BY OTHER BUSINESS OBJECTIVES AND I THINK THAT’S COMPLETELY WRONG.” FOR THAT REASON, HE STATED THAT THE FRUITS WILL BE LABELED WITH THE ARCTIC LOGO, BUT NOT EXPLICITLY AS GENETICALLY ENGINEERED.

OZ WASN’T SATISFIED, EXPRESSING CONCERN THAT CONSUMERS MIGHT NOT KNOW THAT ARCTICMEANS GENETICALLY ENGINEERED. THE REAL DEBATE, OZ CLAIMED, IS NOT WHETHER PRODUCTS MADE WITH GENETIC ENGINEERING ARE DANGEROUS, BUT WHETHER CONSUMERS HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW SO THEY CAN DECIDE. BUT THERE IS ALREADY PLENTY OF VOLUNTARY GMO-FREE LABELING AROUND, WHILE MANDATORY LABELING FAILS EVERY TEST—SCIENTIFIC, ECONOMIC,LEGAL, AND COMMON SENSE—AND THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE FOUND THAT THERE IS NO SUCH “RIGHT TO KNOW.” FORBES: HIS OWN ARTL W CONKO HTTP://WWW.FORBES.COM/SITES/HENRYMILLER/2011/12/08/LABELING-OF-BIOTECH-FOODS-IS-UNNECESSARY-AND-UNCONSTITUTIONAL/

DR. OZ FAILS TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A CENTURIES-OLD SEAMLESS CONTINUUM OF GENETIC MODIFICATION OF CROPS, ANIMALS, AND MICROORGANISMS, PERFORMED BY A VARIETY OF PRE-MOLECULAR TECHNIQUES, SOME OF WHICH HAVE DRASTICALLY ALTERED THE FOODS THAT WE CONSUME ROUTINELY. SOME HAVE MOVED GENETIC MATERIAL FROM ONE SPECIES OR GENUS TO ANOTHER TO YIELD OUTCOMES THAT DON’T EXIST IN NATURE. FARMERS AND PLANT BREEDERS HAVE BEEN CREATING NEW VARIETIES OF APPLES FOR MILLENNIA. THE NEW MOLECULAR TECHNIQUES FOR ACCOMPLISHING THIS ARE FAR MORE PRECISE, PREDICTABLE, AND CONSERVATIVE THAN OLDER, UNREGULATED TECHNIQUES FOR GENETIC IMPROVEMENT. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WILD BERRIES, WILD GAME, WILD MUSHROOMS, AND MOST FISH AND SHELLFISH, ALL OF THE FOODS IN OUR DIETS COME FROM ORGANISMS THAT HAVE BEEN GENETICALLY MODIFIED IN SOME WAY; AND ABOUT THREE-QUARTERS OF THE PROCESSED FOODS IN AMERICAN MARKETS CONTAIN INGREDIENTS FROM ORGANISMS GENETICALLY ENGINEERED WITH MOLECULAR TECHNIQUES SIMILAR TO THOSE USED TO CREATE ARCTIC APPLES.

THIS ARTICLE IS PART OF FUTURE TENSE, A COLLABORATION AMONG ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY, NEW AMERICA, AND SLATE. FUTURE TENSE EXPLORES THE WAYS EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES AFFECT SOCIETY, POLICY, AND CULTURE. TO READ MORE, VISIT THE FUTURE TENSE BLOG AND THE FUTURE TENSE HOME PAGE. YOU CAN ALSO FOLLOW US ON TWITTER.TOUTING CONSUMER CHOICE AS A RIGHT IS A SUBTERFUGE. WHEN THERE IS SUFFICIENT DEMAND, MARKET FORCES PROVIDE LABELS THAT PEOPLE WANT, LIKE KOSHER, HALAL, OR ORGANIC. DR. OZ MIGHT THINK HE CAN EMULATE DOROTHY BY CLICKING HIS HEELS THREE TIMES AND MAKING HIS CLAIMS TRUE—AND HE MAY HAVE LUCK CONVINCING OTHERS THAT THEY ARE—BUT SCIENCE AND COMMON SENSE ARGUE OTHERWISE.

forbes:

Henry I. Miller

Contributor

I debunk junk science and flawed public policy..

12/08/2011 @ 1:02PM 5,721 views

Labeling Of Biotech Foods Is Unnecessary And Unconstitutional

This piece was co-written with Gregory Conko.

Should the government require that labels on cans of marinara sauce contain information about whether the tomatoes in it were hand- or machine-picked? No way! Ridiculous and irrelevant, you’d say. Right on all counts. But that label makes as little sense as the demands of food activist and Forbes contributor Michelle Maisto.

Maisto’s latest Forbes article calls for compulsory, government-mandated labels to indicate foods that have been genetically improved. Yet the foods that Maisto wants to target are those manipulated with the most modern and precise gene-splicing techniques — and only those techniques. Such labels would not only put groundless fears ahead of science — promoting ignorance and hysteria among consumers — they would also be unconstitutional.never explains why

Product labeling that conveys essential information is important, but mandatory labeling of gene-spliced foods is a bad idea. First, it implies risks for which there is no evidence. Second, it flies in the face of worldwide scientific consensus about the appropriate basis of regulation, which focuses palpable risks, not the use of certain techniques. Third, it would push the costs of product development into the stratosphere. Finally, the requirement would constitute a punitive tax on a superior technology.

Maisto is misinformed in so many ways.

Let’s begin with her assertion that there’s “a lot of debate about whether or not it’s safe to eat GM [genetically modified] foods.” In the parlance of Maisto and other radical food activists, “GM” refers to products that come from plants, animals or microorganisms crafted with sophisticated gene-splicing techniques, in which genes are moved around precisely and predictably. Without any scientific basis, the term implies that gene-splicing is a meaningful “category” and that its use somehow gives rise to products the risks of which are higher or more uncertain than other techniques for genetic modification. However, a broad and decades-long scientific consensus holds that modern techniques of genetic modification are an extension, or refinement – that is, an improvement – on the kinds of genetic modification that have long been used to enhance plants, microorganisms, and animals for food.

One has to wonder whether Maisto knows that with the exception of wild game, wild berries, wild mushrooms and fish and shellfish, all the plant- and animal-derived foods in our diets – even the overpriced organic stuff at Whole Foods – have resulted from genetic modification that employs techniques that are far less precise and predictable than the ones that concern her. Likewise, is she aware that every major scientific and public health organization that has studied gene-splicing – from the American Medical Association to the National Academy of Sciences and dozens more – has concluded that gene-spliced foods are at least as safe, and probably safer, than conventional ones?

The safety record of gene-spliced plants and foods derived from them is extraordinary. After the cultivation of more than 3 billion acres (cumulatively) of gene-spliced crops worldwide and the consumption of more than 3 trillion servings of food and food ingredients from such crops by inhabitants of North America alone, there has not been a single ecosystem disrupted or a single confirmed adverse reaction.

What are the advantages of gene-spliced crops? Every year, farmers planting gene-spliced varieties spray millions fewer gallons of chemical pesticides and prevent less erosion of topsoil. In addition, many gene-spliced varieties are less susceptible to mold infection and have lower levels of fungal toxins, making them safer for consumers and livestock.

Now let’s get to the labeling issue.

Maisto complains that “food can be tinkered with at the DNA level and no one is obligated to say so.” True, but irrelevant. For one thing, with the exceptions mentioned above, all the foods in our diet have been altered “at the DNA level” – because that’s how changes in organisms occur. When plant breeders cross a tangerine with a grapefruit to get a tangelo or construct a variety of potato resistant to viruses, the genetic changes are mediated by alterations in the DNA.

p2: here are good reasons that such “tinkering at the DNA level” need not be revealed on labels. Federal regulation requires that food labels be truthful and not misleading and prohibits label statements that could be misunderstood, even if they are strictly accurate. For example, although a “cholesterol-free” label on a certain variety or batch of fresh spinach would be accurate, it transgresses the FDA’s rules because it could be interpreted as implying that spinach usually contains cholesterol, which it does not.

Following long-standing precedents in food regulation, the FDA requires labeling only to indicate that a new food raises questions of safety, nutrition or proper usage. But instead of educating or serving a legitimate consumers’ “need to know” certain information, mandatory labels on gene-spliced food would imply a warning.

The FDA’s approach to labeling has been upheld both directly and indirectly by various federal court decisions that have consistently struck down mandatory labeling not supported by data. In the early 1990s, a group of Wisconsin consumers sued the FDA, arguing that the agency’s decision not to require the labeling of dairy products from cows treated with a gene-spliced protein called bovine somatotropin, or bST, allowed those products to be labeled in a false and misleading manner. (In other words, the plaintiffs wanted the same sort of mandatory labeling advocated by Maisto.) However, because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any material difference between milk from treated and untreated cows the federal court agreed with the FDA, finding that “it would be misbranding to label the product as different, even if consumers misperceived the product as different.”

In another federal case several food associations and companies challenged a Vermont statute that required labeling to identify milk from cows treated with gene-spliced bST. The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a labeling mandate grounded in consumer perception rather than in a product’s measurable characteristics raises serious constitutional concerns. Namely, it violates commercial free speech. The court found both the labeling statute and companion regulations unconstitutional because they forced producers to make involuntary statements when there was no material reason to do so.[didn't amestoy? prevent vt farmers from vol labelling their own product?]B&J?

What’s more, consumers don’t need a mandatory “GM” label: The First Amendment protects the right of food purveyors to sell non-gene-spliced products and to advertise that fact to consumers by means of labeling. (This would be similar to the way that halal and kosher products are offered to consumers.)

Note to Ms. Maisto: If you really want to influence consumers’ views on genetic engineering try to gain at least a rudimentary understanding of the subject. We suggest two ways to start: the film Mandy and Fanny: The Future of Sustainable Agriculture and the book The Frankenfood Myth: How Protest and Politics Threaten the Biotech Revolution by the two of us. Maybe then your articles on this subject won’t mislead your readers.

Henry I. Miller is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University‘s Hoover Institution; he was the founding director of the FDA’s Office of Biotechnology.

Gregory Conko is a senior fellow at the Competitive EnterpriseInstitute.

Henry I. Miller, a physician, is a fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He was the founding director of the Office of Biotechnology at the Food and Drug Administration.

Kavin Senapathy is a science advocate and works for a genomics company in Wisconsin that doesn’t develop GE foods. Find her on Facebook and Twitter.

A group of 10 prominent doctors from around the country is taking aim at Dr. Mehmet Oz, calling on Columbia University to oust the popular TV doctor from its faculty.

In a letter addressed to Dr. Lee Goldman, Columbia's Dean of the Faculties of Health Sciences and Medicine, they write:

"We are surprised and dismayed that Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons would permit Dr. Mehmet Oz to occupy a faculty appointment, let alone a senior administrative position in the Department of Surgery.

"As described here and here, as well as in other publications, Dr. Oz has repeatedly shown disdain for science and for evidence-based medicine, as well as baseless and relentless opposition to the genetic engineering of food crops. Worst of all, he has manifested an egregious lack of integrity by promoting quack treatments and cures in the interest of personal financial gain.

"Thus, Dr. Oz is guilty of either outrageous conflicts of interest or flawed judgements about what constitutes appropriate medical treatments, or both. Whatever the nature of his pathology, members of the public are being misled and endangered, which makes Dr. Oz's presence on the faculty of a prestigious medical institution unacceptable."

The author of the letter, Dr. Henry I. Miller of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, told CBS News that in his view, "a person who endangers patients and is a menace to public health should not be on the faculty of a prestigious medical institution."

Oz -- in addition to being a TV personality first made famous on "Oprah" -- is a cardiovascular and thoracic surgeon and vice-chair of the department of surgery at Columbia's College of Physicians and Surgeons, where he says "our mantra is we train doctors to save lives."

Miller said he felt compelled to speak out because of what he called Oz's "fear-mongering" on the issue of genetically modified foods, which Miller has written about in Slate and elsewhere.

"He's been so wrong and so misleading and so unconstructive and antisocial on that subject, I thought enough is enough," Miller said.

Oz has come under fire before for making unsubstantiated claims and promoting questionable products on his syndicated program, "The Dr. Oz Show."

A 2011 episode about arsenic in apple juice prompted an angry rebuttal from the FDA, which called his report "irresponsible and misleading."

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, blasted him for making such claims on his show when "you know it's not true."And last summer, Oz was called before Congressto testify at a Senate hearing about deceptive advertising for over-the-counter diet supplements after he sang the praises of green coffee bean extract as a "miracle" weight loss pill.

"I've got no problem with celebrity endorsements of any product but I do have a problem when a science-based doctor says something is a miracle when there's no science to back it up," McCaskill told CBS News' Nancy Cordes at the time.

At the hearing, Oz defended his approach and the value of introducing viewers to a range of alternative treatments. "My show is about hope," he said. "We've engaged millions in programs -- including programs we did with the CDC -- to get folks to realize there are different ways they can rethink their future," he said.

The controversy did not die down after his testimony. The company behind the"miracle" diet supplement in question later agreed to pay a $3.5 million settlement over false advertising. A study that purported to prove the product's weight-loss benefits turned out to be based on fraudulent data and was retracted.

Miller points out that such supplements are not regulated by the FDA the way drugs are, and do not have to meet the same standards for safety and effectiveness.

"If [Oz] is promoting products that have side effects, possibly severe side effects, that's a menace to public health. And he has millions of people adhering to his advice," Miller said.

Miller admitted he did not really expect Columbia to act on his letter and fire Dr. Oz, though he held out hope that the board of trustees might take up the issue.

He and his co-signers received a brief email response from a university spokesman, stating: "As I am sure you understand and appreciate, Columbia is committed to the principle of academic freedom and to upholding faculty members' freedom of expression for statements they make in public discussion."

Read the full letter below:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/group-of-doctors-call-for-dr-oz-to-be-ousted-from-columbia-university/

Lee Goldman, M.D.

Dean of the Faculties of Health Sciences and Medicine

Columbia University

Dear Dr. Goldman:

I am writing to you on behalf of myself and the undersigned colleagues below, all of whom are distinguished physicians.

We are surprised and dismayed that Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons would permit Dr. Mehmet Oz to occupy a faculty appointment, let alone a senior administrative position in the Department of Surgery.

As described here and here, as well as in other publications, Dr. Oz has repeatedly shown disdain for science and for evidence-based medicine, as well as baseless and relentless opposition to the genetic engineering of food crops. Worst of all, he has manifested an egregious lack of integrity by promoting quack treatments and cures in the interest of personal financial gain.

Thus, Dr. Oz is guilty of either outrageous conflicts of interest or flawed judgments [sic] about what constitutes appropriate medical treatments, or both. Whatever the nature of his pathology, members of the public are being misled and endangered, which makes Dr. Oz's presence on the faculty of a prestigious medical institution unacceptable.

Sincerely yours,

Henry I. Miller, M.D.

Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy

& Public Policy

Hoover Institution

Stanford University

Stanford, CA

Scott W. Atlas, M.D.

David and Joan Traitel Senior Fellow

Hoover Institution

Stanford University

Stanford, CA

Jack Fisher, M.D.

Professor of Surgery (emeritus)

University of California, San Diego

La Jolla, CA

Shelley Fleet, M.D.

Anesthesiologist

Longwood, FL

Gordon N. Gill, M.D.

Dean (emeritus) of Translational Medicine

University of California, San Diego

La Jolla, CA

Michael H. Mellon, M.D.

Pediatric Allergist

San Diego, CA

GIlbert Ross, M.D.

President (Acting) and Executive Director

American Council on Science and Health

New York, NY

Samuel Schneider, M.D.

Psychiatrist

Princeton, NJ

Glenn Swogger Jr. M.D.

Director of the Will Menninger Center for Applied Behavioral Sciences (retired)

The Menninger Foundation

Topeka, KS

Joel E. Tepper, M.D.

Hector MacLean Distinguished Professor of Cancer Research

Dept of Radiation Oncology

University of North Carolina School of Medicine

Chapel Hill, NC

http://www.npr.org/2015/04/17/400424025/physicians-urge-columbia-to-fire-dr-oz-for-promoting-quack-treatments

NPR's Robert Siegel speaks with Michael Specter, staff writer at The New Yorkerabout some physicians' calls for Columbia University to sever ties with TV's Dr. Ozover what they call his "disdain for science" and promotion of questionable treatments.

ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST:

America's doctor is being taken to task by a group of his peers. Dr. Mehmet Oz hosts the TV program "The Dr. Oz Show." He is also vice chairman of the Surgery Department at Columbia University. And now 10 well-regarded physicians from all over the country are calling on Columbia to drop Dr. Oz from its faculty. The group penned a letter to the school, and they write this (reading) Dr. Oz has repeatedly shown disdain for science and for evidence-based medicine. They go on to say that he promotes quack treatments for financial gain. Columbia responded by saying that it is committed to upholding faculty members' freedom of expression. To discuss this letter and the dock at the center of the controversy now is Michael Specter. He profiled Mehmet Oz for The New Yorker magazine back in 2013. Welcome to the program.

MICHAEL SPECTER: Thanks for having me.

SIEGEL: What are some of the other claims that the letter from Dr. Henry Miller and his co-signees make about Dr. Oz?

SPECTER: Well, I think the principal claim is that he lets his many millions of viewers believe things to be true that he knows are not true. And it's very damaging. And that - I think that's the essential problem here.

SIEGEL: Things that are not true - for example?

SPECTER: He promotes a lot of what other people would call quack treatments - things that will lower your cholesterol and prevent you from having Alzheimer's and make sure you don't get colon cancer. And it would be great if any of that stuff was true, but none of it has ever been proven to be effective, and he knows this. The big problem with Dr. Oz is that he's intelligent and articulate and well-educated. There are lots of quacks out there. They're not worth dealing with because they're just quacks. The problem with Dr. Oz is that he gives a lot of good advice, in the middle of which he just says these things for which there is no support whatsoever. And it's very hard for normal people to know the difference.

SIEGEL: You quoted Dr. Oz in your New Yorker profile saying a few years ago, and I'm quoting, "the currency that I deal in is trust, and that is trust that has been given to me by Oprah and by Columbia University, and by an audience that has watched over 600 shows." Are - do you think those things are parallel or analogous, that is, being popular on television, being favored by Oprah Winfrey and being on the faculty at Columbia?

SPECTER: I would like to think they're not analogous. He has always acted as if they were the same thing. And I'm sorry to say that Columbia seems to act that way, too, because they responded to this letter by saying everyone basically has a right to say what they want. That's an academic belief that is sacrosanct, and it is. But another very important principle that every doctor in the world knows is, first, do no harm. And he does harm every time he goes on the air by recommending things for which there is no evidence and things often that he knows not to be true. And I believe that that is a much greater principle and a greater harm than any good that could come from protecting a very powerful and wealthy man's right to express himself.

SIEGEL: But enter the magical concept of tenure at a university. There are professors who, in addition to being brilliant engineers, espouse views that can be racist, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic - a variety of things. And yet, if they're tenured, there's a principle that that's almost like Parliamentary immunity against libel. You can go out and write what you want, and the university honors your tenured position on the faculty.

SPECTER: Well, there's a couple things here. First of all, I believe that's true and it ought to be true, but I think tenure in many ways was set up was to protect people who have minority views that could be persecuted for them. That is not the case with Dr. Oz, who is maybe the most powerful doctor in America. Secondly, he's an administrator at Columbia, and there isn't a tenured principle that protects his right to teach and rule the way other people work at Columbia University.

SIEGEL: Do you have any notion, by the way, that Dr. Oz in his life as a heart surgeon and in dealing with patients mixes that at all with recommendations for therapies that he would flog on television?

SPECTER: I think it's important to say that his history as a heart surgeon is one of excellence, and that there's no reason to believe that he sacrifices in the operating theater for his magical beliefs. But I do think there is history of him encouraging patients to embrace magical thinking, like Reiki and all this sort of mystical energy field therapy to make you feel better. And there is no data that exists on this planet that suggests that that's useful.

SIEGEL: If you were to place bets on this, would you be betting on Dr. Oz or on the signatories of that letter at this point.

SPECTER: Oz, sorry to say.

SIEGEL: I should say we tried to contact Dr. Oz and were unsuccessful in doing so today. Michael Specter, thanks for talking with us about him.

SPECTER: Oh, it's my pleasure.

SIEGEL: Michael Specter, staff writer at The New Yorker, profile Dr. Mehmet Oz in 2013. Michael Specter's most recent book is "Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Harms The Planet And Threatens Our Lives."

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is embarking on acomprehensive study of genetically engineered (GE) crops. It will examine the historic development of agricultural biotechnology, assess the “purported” benefits and negatives of GE crops, review food and environmental safety issues, and explore where the technology may be headed.

What is prompting such a deep dive into a thorny thicket? This:

Consumers in the United States and abroad get conflicting information about GE crops. Proponents tout the benefits while opponents emphasize the risks. There is a need for an independent, objective study that examines what has been learned about GE crops, assesses whether initial concerns and promises were realized since their introduction, and investigates new concerns and recent claims.

It so happens that the first public meeting for this study will be held today and tomorrow. More on this in a minute.

First, let’s review essential findings on crop biotechnology and related food safety concerns from the past decade.

In 2004, an NAS report declared:

To date, more than 98 million acres of genetically modified crops have been grown worldwide. No evidence of human health problems associated with these ingredients of these crops or resulting food products have been identified.

(As of last year, that cumulative total stood at 4 billion acres.)

In 2008, a paper published in the UK’s Royal Society of Medicine noted:

Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers comring from that most litigious of countries, the USA.

In 2010, the European Union declared:

The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that that biotechnology, and in particular, GMOs, are no more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.

Finally, the World Health Organization (WHO) states:

GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.

I know, I know, all these scientific institutions, professional societies and health bodies are bought off by Monsanto.

Seriously, back to the NAS study now underway. Remember, the justification for it is that “the public gets conflicting information about GE crops.” Yet, as I showed above, there is nothing ambiguous about the safety of GMOs. This is not to say that agricultural biotechnology doesn’t warrant strict regulation, monitoring, and continued testing. But let’s be clear: Thus far, nothing in the global food supply derived from genetically modified crops has been found harmful to public health.

So where is “conflicting information” coming from? Unfortunately, much skewed information on GMOs comes from thought leaders, advocacy journalists, and public interest groups, as I discussed in this 2012 Slate piece. And it will be on display at this week’s NAS public meeting. For a virtual who’s who of cranks, pseudoscientists and ideologues–the worker bees and stars on the anti-GMO circuit–will be appearing before the committee (Reputable scientists and science communicators will also be represented.) I don’t have time to run through them all, but two notorious individuals (who should be familiar to anyone vaguely familiar with the GMO discourse) are giving their presentations back to back on Tuesday: Jeffrey Smith and Gilles-Éric Séralini.

Smith is the author of two self-published books on GMOs– Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette. He appears to have no scientific credentials. I’ve discussed Smith several times in this space, including here. He’s made two appearances on the Dr. Oz show. One of them was a segment called, “GMO Foods: Are They Dangerous to Your Health?” As Michael Specter recounts in The New Yorker:

Oz was not subtle. “You’re probably eating them right now and don’t even know,” he began, darkly invoking “the brave new world of food. Are they safe?” Oz then introduced Jeffrey Smith, the author of “Genetic Roulette,” who says that engineered foods may cause many serious diseases, including colitis, asthma, and cancer. Smith has also made a film version of the book; Oz, for the sake of full disclosure, noted that “my wife, Lisa, was a narrator in Jeffrey’s film.” He added that no scientists were willing to share the stage with Smith. “So today we are doing something we have never done before,” Oz said. “After Jeffrey makes his points, he has to leave the stage before we can speak with the scientists in favor of genetically modified foods.” Other than to say that Smith was controversial, Oz did not indicate why no scientists would appear with him.

But Smith is just a fear-mongering messenger indulged by the likes of Dr. Oz. Séralini is a French researcher who published adeeply flawed (and ultimately retracted) study on GMO corn-fed rats and manipulated the media’s initial coverage of it. (This is the zombie paper that will not die.) Having Séralini give expert testimony at a scientific panel on GMOs is like having Andrew Wakefield present evidence at a similar panel on vaccine safety.

But hey, if the goal of the NAS committee is to discern nonsense from actual facts on genetically modified crops, then I suppose it is helpful to hear straight from the sources who have most succeeded in distorting the science of biotechnology and confusing the public about GMOs.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: AGRICULTURE, BIOTECHNOLOGY, GMOS, SCIENCE

MORE ABOUT: AGRICULTURE, BIOTECHNOLOGY, FOOD SECURITY, GILLES-ÉRIC SÉRALINI, GMOS,JEFFREY SMITH, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/04/arctic_apple_safety_dr_oz_sows_seeds_of_mistrust_on_gmos.html

rgeon–turned–television doctor Mehmet Oz opened his show on March 10 with a “Dr. Oz Investigation” on the newly U.S. Department of Agriculture–approved “Arctic” apple, which doesn’t undergo the unappetizing browning that other apples do when it’s bitten, bumped, or cut. The episode, titled “The Non-Browning GMO Apple: Is It Safe?,” pushed the fallacy that there is some sort of “right to know” (via labeling) whether a food has been produced with the techniques of molecular genetic engineering (aka “genetic modification,” or GM).

The reason the Arctic apple doesn’t discolor involves ingenious but simple biology. Enzymatic browning in apples is caused by the fruit’s intrinsic chemical reaction to cell injury, which ruptures the cells and triggers chemical reactions between the enzyme polyphenol oxidase (PPO) and the substances that cause the apple flesh to turn brown. A family of four genes controls the majority of PPO production, and by inserting low-PPO-producing genes from other apples, scientists were able to turn off more than 90 percent of PPO production.

Ordinarily the development of a new apple variety would proceed uneventfully, but because the shut-off of the four genes was done with molecular techniques, the proposed commercialization of this new variety was met with unconscionable, irresponsible, and lengthy regulatory delays. (On the heels of the USDA approval, the FDA approved the Arctic apple on March 20, following a “voluntary” food safety review that dragged on for four years.)

Now that this remarkable fruit has jumped through the required regulatory hoops, Dr. Oz and other fear-mongers are trying to elicit totally unwarranted consumer apprehension about it. Oz opened his program this way:

Would you buy this apple if I told you it wouldn’t brown when you cut into it or took a bite? Would you buy this apple if I told you it was genetically modified to not turn brown? Well, a lot of people are banking on your answer. The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently approved the first genetically modified apple. They’re calling them the Arctic apple.

It’s a safe bet that most people in that audience that day said no, they wouldn’t buy the apple. A whopping 98 percent of respondents to a Doctoroz.com poll cited in a January episode said that they wanted foods containing genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled. In addition, nationwide polls suggested that up to 80 percent of Americans want labels on foods that contain DNA—although, presumably, few of them realize that that would encompass virtually everything in their diets except highly refined foods such as oil, sugar, and salt. These exercises prove only that people know little about the chemistry and biology of what they eat. (Or about their own bodies, for that matter—they, too, are composed of chemicals, including DNA.)

This latest manifestation of New Age nonsense is vintage Oz. The FDA slammed him in 2011 for an “irresponsible and misleading” report on arsenic in apple juice, and in June 2014 at a hearing, members of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee grilled and thoroughly humiliated Oz for his hawking of fraudulent products. In addition, publications including the Washington Post, the New Yorker, and Slate have criticized his anti-science views.

The James Randi Educational Foundation has no fewer than three times bestowed on Oz its Pigasus Award, which is given “to expose parapsychological, paranormal or psychic frauds that Randi has noted over the previous year.” The last two of these were for support of faith healing and psychic communication with the dead, among other things (2010), and “Refusal to Face Reality” for his continued promotion of “quack medical practices, paranormal belief, and pseudoscience” (2012).

Among scientists, Oz is known for his anti-genetic-engineering propaganda, which he promotes regularly on his TV program in concert with outspoken biotech opponents who lack medical or scientific backgrounds. In September 2014, Oz featured Zen Honeycutt, founder of the anti-genetic engineering organization Moms Across America, who shared her bias without a hint of skepticism or so much as a follow-up question from Oz.

Like many antagonists of genetic engineering, Honeycutt attempted to demonize glyphosate, an herbicide used in various types of farming, because some genetically engineered crops are used in conjunction with it. Honeycutt claimed that her son had been experiencing symptoms of autism, and she wanted his urine tested for chemicals used in farming. His doctor declined, so she used a private lab that supposedly detected glyphosate levels “eight times higher than found anywhere in Europe [in] urine testing.” She claimed that within six weeks of going “completely [genetic engineering]–free and organic, his autism symptoms were gone, and the level of glyphosate was no longer detectable.” She didn’t clarify what European data were used for comparison or why. There is no medical evidence that exposure to glyphosate has any connection with autism; in fact, glyphosate has lower overall health impacts than white vinegar (aka the chemical acetic acid) when used as a herbicide. ....

This sort of nonsense is part of a longstanding pattern. Oz’s wife and the co-producer of his program, Lisa Oz, is a supporter of brazen anti-genetic-engineering campaigner and self-described levitator Jeffrey Smith. An advocate of alternative health products—the manufacturers of which happen to sponsor her and Dr. Oz’s radio and television programs—Lisa Oz recently collaborated with Smith and served as narrator for his lurid and ludicrous anti-genetic-engineering movie.

Oz made an attempt to appear balanced on the March 10 program—he interviewed Neal Carter, apple grower and founder of Okanagan Specialty Fruits, the creator of the Arctic apple. When asked how to detect whether a nonbrowning apple is rotting, Carter explained, “It’s important to understand that Arctic apples are just like any other apple in this regard.” He described how only the enzymatic browning of the Arctic apple has been “turned off.” When an apple rots, pathogens have their own enzymes that make it turn brown. Thus, these apples will brown when they rot.

Why nonbrowning apples? “Apples as a whole apple are too big a commitment,” Carter asserted. “[B]y making it not go brown, it makes it more suitable for food service, putting apples in more places, increasing consumption.”

After his own reductionist description of how scientists turned off the browning traits, Oz cited unnamed critics who say that altering one trait might inadvertently affect others. To expand on these concerns, Oz brought on so-called genetic engineering expert and Consumers Union scientist Michael Hansen. On the program Hansen questioned the apple’s safety, claiming that the technique used can also potentially turn off other genes. (Testing has shown that it doesn’t, and that the Arctic apple isindistinguishable from its unmodified cohorts, except for lower levels of the enzymes that mediate browning.)

Neither Oz nor Hansen seems to understand that the entire apple industry owes the diversity of varieties to different gene expression patterns. A Golden Delicious apple looks and tastes different from a Red Delicious because different apple genes are expressed. Recent genomic sequencing shows there are about 57,000 genes in the Golden Delicious apple.

Hansen then invoked the issue of “fraud,” lamenting that without labels at salad bars and elsewhere, most consumers will see unblemished sliced apples and think they’re freshly cut. Thereby, Hansen turns a red fruit into a red herring. Do sliced cucumbers or radishes turn brown to warn customers of waning freshness?

Leading up to the segment’s conclusion, Oz gushed to Carter, whose company created the Arctic apple, “I treasure the fact that you’re here. It’s hard to have this conversation in America right now; the two sides aren’t talking to each other very much. I commend you for your transparency, and the fact that you’ve been willing to come here and articulate in a very tasteful way at many levels.” The tacit message was, of course, that Carter is a rare exception to the usual mendacious, obfuscating biotech proponents.

Oz then implored Carter to extend his transparency to labeling Arctic apples in the marketplace as genetically engineered (presumably so that consumers could avoid them). Carter didn’t bite. He responded calmly that the proponents of labeling are anti-biotech. “It’s being driven by other business objectives and I think that’s completely wrong.” For that reason, he stated that the fruits will be labeled with the Arctic logo, but not explicitly as genetically engineered.

Oz wasn’t satisfied, expressing concern that consumers might not know that Arcticmeans genetically engineered. The real debate, Oz claimed, is not whether products made with genetic engineering are dangerous, but whether consumers have a right to know so they can decide. But there is already plenty of voluntary GMO-free labeling around, while mandatory labeling fails every test—scientific, economic,legal, and common sense—and the federal courts have found that there is no such “right to know.”

Dr. Oz fails to understand that there is a centuries-old seamless continuum of genetic modification of crops, animals, and microorganisms, performed by a variety of pre-molecular techniques, some of which have drastically altered the foods that we consume routinely. Some have moved genetic material from one species or genus to another to yield outcomes that don’t exist in nature. Farmers and plant breeders have been creating new varieties of apples for millennia. The new molecular techniques for accomplishing this are far more precise, predictable, and conservative than older, unregulated techniques for genetic improvement. With the exception of wild berries, wild game, wild mushrooms, and most fish and shellfish, all of the foods in our diets come from organisms that have been genetically modified in some way; and about three-quarters of the processed foods in American markets contain ingredients from organisms genetically engineered with molecular techniques similar to those used to create Arctic apples....

miller sempathy slate future tense