8 ms·
The Spanish cooking oil scandal (2001)
- jsvaughan 10y agotldr: it wasn't the oil: "without any doubt, the contaminated foodstuff was tomatoes, and it was the pesticides on them that were responsible for the epidemic" (This relates to the separate NYP post about phony food, which says "Fake olive oil...has killed people...more than 20,000 people were poisoned in Spain...")
- cies 10y agoJust like that the symptoms supposedly caused by the "Zika virus" is more likely to be a result from food by contaminated by pesticides/herbicides. The last line of the article is most telling indeed: > "Under no circumstances should the general public be informed." This is the main problem. We would all be much more selective when it comes to our food if we knew how flaky the quality is. But instead we trust the gov't in controlling the food supply; which the quote shows we should not be doing.
- jnbiche 10y ago> Just like that the symptoms supposedly caused by the "Zika virus" is more likely to be a result from food by contaminated by pesticides/herbicides. You're making a claim here that pretty radically departs from scientific consensus. Do you have any background information on where you read this/how you determined this?
- cies 10y agoSure (sorry for not backing it up in the first place): http://thefreethoughtproject.com/doctors-groups-deny-microcephaly-zika-connection-blame-monsanto-linked-pesticide-birth-defects/ http://thefreethoughtproject.com/doctors-groups-deny-microce... Only days after a list of articles claiming no link with pesticides were published, here a link to one of them: http://www.sciencealert.com/argentinian-report-says-monsanto-linked-pesticide-is-to-blame-for-microcephaly-outbreak-not-zika http://www.sciencealert.com/argentinian-report-says-monsanto... I'm quite close to some people in academic virology and they also were not to keen on calling for a Zika outbreak.
- steve19 10y agoA study published in The Lancet found a strong connection between Zika and microcephaly in fetuses in French Polynesia http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)00651-6/abstract http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67...
- divbyzer0 10y agoThe main point of the article is that scientific & regulatory community was led by profit and not in the "spirit of disinterested inquiry". From the article: The original study on which the oil theory is founded, by Dr Juan Tabuenca Oliver, was published in the Lancet Also from the article: they concluded that, without any doubt, the contaminated foodstuff was tomatoes, and it was the pesticides on them that were responsible for the epidemic. The organo-phosphorous chemicals would indeed cause the range of symptoms observed by clinicians. Getting published in The Lancet does not prove anything. eg MMR vacine\autism. The article is well worth a read.
- heliumcraft 10y agoThat may be so, but I'll take The Lancet over thefreethoughtproject.com, natural news and random conspiracy internet websites any day.
- jnbiche 10y agoOK, you've implied or linked to some significantly different claims here: 1. That there is no Zika outbreak / outbreak of Zika-like symptoms (this seems irrefutably wrong and as far as I know even the typical conspiracy theorist sites aren't claiming this much). 2. That the symptoms of Zika are in fact caused by the organo-phosphate pesticide Pyriproxyfen (Zika has been a recognized viral illness just like others e.g. Dengue for at least 50 years, predating the widepread use of organo-phosphates in Brazil, so this also is very, very unlikely). 3. That the microencephaly in babies borne to mothers with Zika, that is being attributed to the Zika virus, is in fact caused by Pyriproxyfen (for epidemiological reasons [1], this seems very unlikely but it cannot be ruled out at this point). By the way, your second source didn't seem terribly bad, and assumed an appropriate amount of skepticism toward the claims in question. Your first source, written by an "political analyst" currently pursuing a global affairs degree, and with no apparent scientific credentials, wasn't as convincing. Are any of the academic virologists you're referring to on public record with their skepticism about the Zika outbreak? 1. In the three cities reporting the most cases — Recife, Jaboatao and Paulista — pyriproxyfen is not in use, according to: http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/02/18/467138913/did-a-pesticide-cause-microcephaly-in-brazil-unlikely-say-experts http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/02/18/46713891....
- joshvm 10y agoTo get an idea of how serious this scandal was, I have plenty of Spanish friends who won't use rapeseed oil today because they believe it's too risky.
- avree 10y agoThis was a linked article from a comment in this thread, which contains quite a bit more discussion on the topic for those interested: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12068983 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12068983
- willvarfar 10y agoAre particular politicians implicated? Why does no Spanish TV station do a documentary on this scandal? What is the situation and dynamics of the 'free press' in Spain today?
- nextos 10y agoI think you are wrong. This scandal is incredibly well-known in Spain. It's gotten massive press coverage throughout the years. In fact, most people that used to use cheap cooking oils switched to olive oil after the scandal. (For those who are not familiar with the matter, the scandal involved using chemicals on industrial-grade rapeseed oil to remove dyes and re-sell it to consumers.)
- ethomson 10y agoI'm sorry if I misunderstand you, but your comment quite suggests that it has _not_ gotten any press if the takeaway is to switch oils. Are you suggesting that you still see evidence of people responding to the misinformation reported in this article? And that the news is still reporting this as fact?
- nextos 10y agoNews does report toxic oil as a fact. But most people are familiar with other hypotheses, including the Bayer pesticides one. I've seen compelling first-hand evidence that oil was the culprit, but I'm open to other hypotheses too.
- willvarfar 10y agoThe article says it wasn't cooking oil, and that cooking oil was the scapegoat coverup. Politicians let people die by not tackling the root causes. And, scarily, it says that pesticide use in Spanish fruit is still high, and that a similar mass poisoning recently in Mexico was also covered up and another non-cause blamed.
- maus42 10y ago
- Narretz 10y agoAnd yet, Wikipedia only has an article about "Toxic Oil Syndrome" that doesn't mention at all that it might have been a cover-up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_oil_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_oil_syndrome
- oceanofsolaris 10y agoActually, the last paragraph of the linked wikipedia article mentions the organo-phosphate theory (it somewhat labels it as conspiracy-theory, but it mentions it). The talk page actually mentions a kind of rebuttal to the organo-phosphate theory (which claims that the symptoms are not compatible with organo-phosphate poisoning): http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/33/3/443 http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/33/3/443 I can't really evaluate any of these claims since my expertise in this field is non-existant. Things might be as simple as described in the Guardian article (which portrays the organo-phosphate theory as self-evident but suppressed truth), or maybe more complicated. The forced resignation of all responsible researchers certainly smells very funny and the Spanish government seems to have tried to suppress the truth or at least give the impression that they were able to handle things by suppressing dissenting opinions.
- falava 10y agoThe spanish version of the article[1] links to the alternative explanation (Bayer Nemacur pesticide): [1] https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enfermedad_del_aceite_tóxico_de_colza https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enfermedad_del_aceite_tóxico_d... [2] http://www.cbgnetwork.org/129.html http://www.cbgnetwork.org/129.html [3] http://cbgnetwork.org/1522.html http://cbgnetwork.org/1522.html As early as 1981 relevant spanish newspapers were telling the same story: [4] http://free-news.org/index02-pag.htm http://free-news.org/index02-pag.htm [5] http://free-news.org/cambio01.htm http://free-news.org/cambio01.htm Edit: This is the last interview to Dr. Muro: [6] http://free-news.org/afaber02.htm http://free-news.org/afaber02.htm
- m_mueller 10y agoDon't look on Wikipedia when you want to know the consensus on a debated topic. It's notoriously bad at updating itself once new information has been found that contradicts a previous consensus and it also often presents one when there really isn't.
- pipio21 10y agoIt was not a scandal, it was criminal negligence, with lots of victims. My hyphothesis after talking with chemists in the field is that someone reused a container tank for synthetic oil in order to carry rapeseed oil. The rapeseed oil dissolves synthetic oil easily. They probably thought nothing would happen because of ignorance on the part of the man that made it. He probably used water in order to clean the original tank. We have some bottles today of the stuff that was retired from the market and could analyze it. There are traces on it of synthetic oil components. This oil was sold in cheap rural markets, with a green colorant in order for it to look similar to olive oil. Because of rapeseed accident, nobody in Spain uses rapeseed anymore. They use sunflower oil. Cheap oil from big multinationals that make things like cookies is basically Palm oil. Palm oil is destroying a big part of the world natural environment.
- Rezo 10y agoThe article makes a convincing argument that it had nothing to do with oil at all and the government knew this from the start. Sounds like criminal negligence on the government's part.
- reo9Sahx 10y agoYou did not read the article
- lovemenot 10y agoBy introducing such an irrelevant yet controversial topic as palm oil, this comment appears to deliberately attempt to deflect the thrust of the 2001 article: organophospates on tomatoes probably, not contaminated oils of any kind, were responsible for this epidemic.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Bartweiss 10y agoThis is both irrelevant and inaccurate to the article. The claim is of scandal, specifically a conscious cover-up and dishonest presentation of evidence. Moreover, nothing in this theory addresses the core observation here: the pattern of illness is completely unaligned with oil consumption, but matches the Almerian tomato distribution quite well.
- santialbo 10y agoMy grandmother got intoxicated by the oil. She got super sick but recovered completely. She´s been receiving a pension since as compensation.
- lovemenot 10y agoCan you find out whether she was induced into claiming it was caused by the oil? The article claims that victims were only classified as such after they had accepted oil as the cause of their sickness. So they had an incentive to do so.
- argonaut 10y agoFWIW, it appears many of these concerns were known and brought up during the original scandal 30 years ago: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/21/world/trial-in-spain-on-toxic-cooking-oil-ends-in-uproar.html http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/21/world/trial-in-spain-on-to... http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/02/world/a-long-trial-in-spain-on-fatal-tainted-food.html http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/02/world/a-long-trial-in-spai...
- slr555 10y agoIt is interesting that that within the last few days the NY Post has published an article on the food supply that continues to promulgate this myth. The book author they cite is also blaming olive oil for the tragedy in Spain. It is unfortunate that even with better data available publishers continue to quote myth as fact. http://nypost.com/2016/07/10/the-truth-behind-how-were-scammed-into-eating-phony-food/?contact-form-id=widget-text-4&contact-form-sent=10277367&_wpnonce=bc86efccda#contact-form-widget-text-4 http://nypost.com/2016/07/10/the-truth-behind-how-were-scamm...
- peterwwillis 10y agoI don't see any links whatsoever to hard evidence in the article. The only thing close are a book and an article published in Spanish and French, respectively, and seemingly no translation or availability in English bookstores. Yet everyone in the comments here are accepting it as fact, almost as readily as people accepted the tainted oil as fact. It's funny how human heuristics prevent critical thinking, even after reading an article about the lack of critical thinking. One of the most obvious pieces of evidence this article could have included is "The Spanish toxic oil syndrome 20 years after its onset: a multidisciplinary review of scientific knowledge." [1]. In the abstract you will find the following: Attempts to reproduce the condition in laboratory animals have been unsuccessful, and no condition similar to TOS has been reported in the scientific literature. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240833/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240833/
- maus42 10y agoWell, it's a newspaper article written by who would be a source, of sorts: >The FIS - the government agency responsible for toxic oil syndrome - refused to release details of the fieldwork carried out or any background information. However, the families described in the reports were given code numbers and these could be matched against the official list of victims which then became part of the trial documentation. Eventually we identified the families supposedly interviewed for the key epidemiological reports and went to see them. I'd be interested if they have any full detailed notes about interviews published anywhere, other than the documentary.
- lolc 10y agoThe article is from 2001, the study you mention from 2002. Also that part was covered in my opinion, as the article states "Nor was the oil theory underpinned by any laboratory science. In the years since the 1981 outbreak, the suspect oils have been analysed in leading laboratories throughout the world. No chemical, or contaminant, that would account for the symptoms observed in the afectados has ever been found." Sure we could deplore the lack of citations. Of all the newspapers I read, only one lists sources at the end of the article. Unfortunately it's not common practice.
- plafl 10y agoI started to read the article but after reading some paragraphs it still continues spreading mistrust about scientists. This is a very bad indicator in my experience. I think there was some article about it here some time ago, since we cannot attack the science we attack the scientists. I skimmed the rest. I can believe in a government cover up, but I don't see the motivation. The article says it was to cover that some pesticides were harmful, but if that was the case the epidemic should have been more widespread. I don't see also the Spanish government covering a foreign multi national by spreading fear about oil in Spain. A link to the Der Spiegel article would have been great. There are lots of vegetables produced in Spain, that some have too high levels of pesticides is obvious, the question is how many but there is no mention of it. To me the article smells like FUD.
- Kadin 10y agoI started to read your comment, but stopped after the first sentence when you made it clear you didn't read the article.
- Mahn 10y agoNote the last paragraph that suggests that this isn't just the 80s scandal, but something that is on-going today as well: > An internal German government memo was recently leaked to Der Spiegel. According to this, the monitoring of imported produce had revealed that there continued to be unsafe pesticide residues on fruit and vegetables from Spain. Some peppers were "highly contaminated" and the residues had "reached levels we can no longer tolerate". It was the last line of the memo that was most telling: "Under no circumstances should the general public be informed."
- eximius 10y agoThis absolutely blew my mind. I cannot imagine why government folk, presumably mostly decent folk, fall in line with this. They are not just harming others, they are harming themselves.
- fuzzbucket 10y agoTo be fair, the article was published in 2001.
- waqf 10y agoIf only we'd known back in 2001 that we were living in the bad old days when governments were irresponsible! At the time, we thought the new, shiny future had arrived! Of course, we don't need to worry about this today, because the new, shiny future has arrived.
- summarite 10y agoVery interesting article and sounds well researched and conclusive on the toxic oil case. I'm not expert enough to draw any real conclusions or doubt the evidence but it seems all rather sound. But his wholesale dismissal of most of science as agenda driven is just absurd. The US case... might be possible if it's to protect local industry, like the whole fracking instanity. That being said, the line he draws from the Spanish case to conclude without any actual evidence that the newer cases are the same is spurious at best and just pure conjecture. I highly doubt that German ministerial staff would avoid food warnings for a known polluted food. They give such warnings or ban sales all the time and certainly wouldn't risk their heads for some Spanish farmers. No link to the PDF or hint at the source makes this sound like just a typical crackpot. As the author said, the media is not always to be trusted and while scientists might worry about funding, journalists certainly often have to make bold claims and publish unverified theories to make a living.