Guardian: Latest Dr Oz accusations have more to do with GMOs than diet

[villager]

<snip>


Having previously been rebuked by the FDA for his report on arsenic in apple juice and questioned by the US Senate for describing untested weight-loss supplements as magic, Oz is no stranger to criticism. This latest attack seems to have been inspired by a less controversial issue, namely Oz’s stance on GMOs and their labelling.

Meet the critics

Henry Miller, the lead author of the letter, has long been an advocate of GMOs. Miller is currently a fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University. He has previously served as FDA drug regulator. In a tagline of his Forbes contributor blog, he describes its purpose asdebunking “junk science and flawed public policy”. Those Miller has debunked include other proponents of the GMO labeling such as Mark Bittman, columnist for the New York Times. In the column on Bittman’s stance on GMOs, Miller quoted Glenn Swogger, who is also a proponent of GMOs and has signed off on the letter sent to Columbia.

Both Miller and Swogger have previously been associated with the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), a nonprofit advocacy organization. The ACSH has been known to advocate on behalf of issues like GMOs and fracking. While neither belongs to ACSH at the moment, two other doctors who have signed the letter, Gilbert Ross and Jack Fisher, do. According to the letter, Ross is currently the acting president and executive director of the ACSH. Fisher belongs to the ACSH board of directors.

While the ACSH supports the sentiments expressed in the letter, the organization did not play a role in its drafting, Erik Lief, ACSH communications director, told the Guardian.

“Bear in mind that there are 10 people listed on this letter and all Dr Ross did was support the fact that Dr Oz has been known – and it has been documented – that he dispenses questionable medical advice on TV,” said Lief.

ACSH’s donors include Monsanto, according to a Mother Jones report. Lief told the Guardian that the organization does not disclose who it deals with and who its supporters are.

“We do routinely support groups working to advance science and agriculture,” a Monsanto spokeswoman told the Guardian. “For example, over the years we have provided modest grants to the American Council on Science and Health to sponsor specific projects such as the recent GMO publications that were prepared and edited by recognized subject experts.”

Ross himself isn’t without controversy, having previously served all of 1996 in a federal prison camp for participating in a Medicaid scam.

<snip>

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/22/dr-oz-respond-doctors-dismissal-quack-treatments

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Yeah, having Dr Oz 'sign on' to your ideas is not exactly helpful.

We'd have better off if he'd come out in favour of Monsanto.

[villager]

3. The reverse also seems to be true: Censuring by those in Monsanto's pocket...

...doesn't exactly lend credibility to their cause.

[enough]

2. I did think it was strange that the letter asking for his removal from the faculty of

the medical school at Columbia mentioned his criticism of GMO's as a reason for his ouster. It was a very short letter and was supposed to be about his touting of untested nutritional supplements. I was wondering what GMO's were doing in the letter. Now I understand.

[villager]

6. That's the point -- that's really the main issue of the corralled "critics."

They're actually not so concerned about anything else the TV Doc might be up to...

[longship]

4. If it quacks like a duck... nt

[SidDithers]

5. If those were his only critics, you'd have a point...

But there are many, many critics, with far, far more credibility than the asshats at ASCH.

Mehmet Oz is a quack and a fraud.

Meet the medical student who wants to bring down Dr. Oz

Sid