The Man Who Loves To Bust Quacks - TIME - By Leon Jaroff - April 22, 2001

Barrett retired from his psychiatric practice in 1993 to devote himself full time to quackbusting. Along the way, he honed his communication skills and now considers himself an investigative journalist taking full advantage of the power of the Internet. “Twenty years ago, I had trouble getting my ideas through to the media,” he says. “Today I am the media.” ¹⁾

PEOPLE Magazine January 25, 1999 Vol. 51 No. 3

Doctor No By Thomas Fields-Meyer Considering Treatments That Sound Too Good to Be True? Quackbuster Stephen Barrett Has a Word for You: Don't Looking at the vitriol pouring into Dr. Stephen Barrett's World Wide Web site (Quack-watch.com), you might think he's been stealing candy from babies. “You are a disgrace to the world,” writes one inflamed correspondent. “You should be psychoanalyzed, or better yet, lobotomized,” writes another. Urges a third: “Rot in hell.” ²⁾

Stephen Barrett, M.D., a retired psychiatrist who resides near Chapel Hill, North Carolina, has achieved national renown as an author, editor, and consumer advocate. In addition to heading Quackwatch, he is vice-president of the Institute for Science in Medicine and a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. In 1984, he received an FDA Commissioner's Special Citation Award for Public Service in fighting nutrition quackery. In 1986, he was awarded honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association. From 1987 through 1989, he taught health education at The Pennsylvania State University. ³⁾

Curriculum Vitae ⁴⁾

Other Favorable Mentions

• NBNews Editor's Choice Award, May 1997
• Medical Web Site of the Month. Oncology Times, October 1997
• Superior Noncommercial Site. The Learning Fountain, November 1997
• Featured Site. CEO Express, November 1997
• One of four web sites selected by the Museum of Science and Industry in Paris to demonstrate the quality of health information on the internet at its “New Image, New Networks” exhibition from December 1997 through 1998.
• Site of the month. Protégez-vous, August 1998. Protégez-vous is a Canadian consumer-protection magazine whose name means “protect yourself” in English. Its review stated that Quackwatch is “one of the better sites to separate myths from reality as to health matters” and that Dr. Barrett “summarizes and criticizes tens of alternative methods, natural products, and fraudulant claims with an efficacy and precision difficult to equal.”
• Cool Site. Canadian Medical Association Journal, June 1998.
• Site du Jour of the Day. October 18, 1998.
• Listed as one of nine “select sites that provide reliable health information and resources.” Journal of the American Medical Association 280:1380, 1998.
• Site of the Week. Entertainment Weekly, March 15, 1999.
• Forbes “Best of the Web,” February 2000, June 2001.
• Best health care watchdog. Yahoo Internet Life, October 2000.
• U.S. News & World Reports, Best of the Web (alternative medicine), December 4, 2000.
• National Review: Top 100 Cool Sites.
• One of the 17 best general health sites on the Internet. ON Magazine, March 2001.
• “Kool Health Site of the Week.” Kim Komando Radio Show, March 16, 2001.
• One of 17 best general health sites. On Magazine, April 2001.

This page was revised on October 29 , 2001. ⁵⁾

“Organic” Foods: Will Certification Protect Consumers? Stephen Barrett, M.D. - December 2000

Organic foods are certainly not more nutritious [5]. The nutrient content of plants is determined primarily by heredity. Mineral content may be affected by the mineral content of the soil, but this has no significance in the overall diet. If essential nutrients are missing from the soil, the plant will not grow. If plants grow, that means the essential nutrients are present. Experiments conducted for many years have found no difference in the nutrient content of organically grown crops and those grown under standard agricultural conditions. Safer?

“Organic” proponents suggest that their foods are safer because they have lower levels of pesticide residues. However, the pesticide levels in our food supply are not high. In some situations, pesticides even reduce health risks by preventing the growth of harmful organisms, including molds that produce toxic substances [5].

To protect consumers, the FDA sets tolerance levels in foods and conducts frequent “market basket” studies wherein foods from regions throughout the United States are purchased and analyzed. Its 1997 tests found that about 60% of fruits and vegetables had no detectable pesticides and only about 1.2% of domestic and 1.6% of imported foods had violative levels [6]. Its annual Total Diet Study has always found that America's dietary intakes are well within international and Emvironmental Protection Agency standards.

Most studies conducted since the early 1970s have found that the pesticide levels in foods designated organic were similar to those that were not. In 1997, Consumer Reports purchased about a thousand pounds of tomatoes, peaches, green bell peppers, and apples in five cities and tested them for more than 300 synthetic pesticides. Traces were detected in 77% of conventional foods and 25% of organically labeled foods, but only one sample of each exceeded the federal limit.

Manfred Kroger, Ph.D., Quackwatch consultant and Professor of Food Science at The Pennsylvania State University, has put the matter more bluntly; “Scientific agriculture has provided Americans with the safest and most abundant food supply in the world. Agricultural chemicals are needed to maintain this supply. The risk from pesticide residue, if any, is minuscule, is not worth worrying about, and does not warrant paying higher prices.” ⁶⁾

December 1999 - Genetically Modified Organisms (false clams and wrong science do not age well.. this Monsanto talking points riff is a fun case study in shills )

Since life began, genes have crossed the boundaries of related and unrelated species in nature. Biotechnology applications by humans date back to 1800 B.C., when people began using yeast to leaven bread and ferment wine. By the 1860s, people started breeding plants through deliberate cross-pollination. They moved and selected genes to enhance the beneficial qualities of plants through cross-breeding without knowing the traits for which the genes coded. Most foods, including rice, oats, potatoes, corn, wheat and tomatoes, are the products of traditional cross-breeding. This time-tested practice continues to produce crops with desirable traits.

However, traditional cross-breeding has its limitations. It can only occur in the same or related plant species, so genetic resources available to any one plant are limited. Moreover, when plants are cross-bred, all 100,000 or so of each plant's genes are mixed, producing random combinations. Since traditional plant breeders ultimately want only a few genes or traits transferred, they typically spend 10 to 12 years backcrossing hybrids with the original plants to obtain the desired traits and to breed out the tens of thousands of unwanted genes. Clearly, this process is not speedy or precise.

Modern biotechnology or genetic modification adds tremendous timeliness and precision to this process. It is the result of scientists understanding and using what nature has been doing unaided since life began. What is genetic modification?

The term “genetically modified” is commonly used to describe the application of recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (rDNA) technology to the genetic alteration of microorganisms, plants and animals. This advanced molecular technology, developed in 1973, allows for effective and efficient transfer of genetic material from one organism to another. Instead of cross-breeding plants for several years to acquire a desired trait, scientists can identify and insert a single gene responsible for a particular trait into a plant with relative speed. Genes do not have to come from a related species in order to be functional; hence, genes can potentially be transferred among all living organisms.

What are the benefits of rDNA technology?

The World Health Organization estimates that the global population will double by 2050 to more than 9 billion people. Hence, food production must also increase, but little unused farmland remains. Simply put, rDNA technology is the most promising, precise and advanced strategy available today for increasing global food production by reducing crop losses and increasing yields while conserving farmland. Moreover, the use of rDNA technology has already shown that it can reduce the need for chemical pesticides and tillage, which can cause soil erosion, as well as enhance the nutritive value of crops. These benefits result from genetically engineering plants for ⁷⁾