Out of step?

A further study on the potential link between mobile phone use and brain tumours has been published by a Danish group (see Mobile phones "safe for brains" on the BBC website, for example). This shows no link between the two: the scientific evidence is building that mobile use is really not a direct risk to health. Nevertheless, many are still urging precaution. Dr Christoffer Johansen, author of the paper, is quoted as saying "We advise all people who use a mobile phone to use a hands free set. It reduces exposure".

There are a number of other studies due to be published in the next eighteen months. The likelihood is that these will also show there to be no problem. But will this satisfy those who are concerned? Unlikely: some will almost certainly continue to call for "more research". Of course, no amount of scientific enquiry can ever prove 100% safety, but as more evidence is amassed, we should really move on to more pressing concerns. The problem is that the scientific method is merely an overlay on the belief system of a particular individual. People will not usually change deeply-held views just because of facts.

Such is life. There are no obvious ways to change this. In the meantime, scientists must continue to test hypotheses as objectively as possible.

It's a funny old world. There is much rejoicing among sandal-wearers today at the opinion of an advocate general at the European Court of Justice that the EU directive on vitamin and mineral supplements should be annulled (see Throw out EU food supplement laws, court aide says). The directive would create a positive list of permitted vitamins and supplements of the kind which fill the shelves in so-called "healthfood" stores beloved of a certain section of society. The court's recommendation is actually based on a technicality: there is no clear guidance on how a new supplement might be deemed to be suitable to be put on the list. Nevertheless, this is being hailed as a triumph by the Alliance for Natural Health and other campaigning groups.

If the court accepts this advice - which is likely - then this market will continue to be unregulated, and consumers will continue to be able to buy untested, unstandardised extracts with, in most cases, no proven efficacy or safety data. Since the content of any active ingredient will often be minimal, they can generally at least do no harm, apart from parting the gullible from their money. However, the same people who demand to be able to continue to buy their "natural" extracts would often avoid like the plague additives which have undergone extremely thorough safety testing and are tightly regulated. Equally, they would probably regard GM food - about which we know much more than "conventional" crops - as the work of the devil.

Which only goes to show that people are not always rational decision makers. They operate from the comfort of their belief systems, and no amount of regulation, testing or assurances from experts will ever convince them that something is safe if they have already come to the opposite conclusion. Equally, as this example shows, no amount of well-meaning regulation to protect consumers will necessarily convince them what they eat needs testing at all, if it's something they believe is "good". As I said, it's a funny old world...