Health groups' donor ties questioned

Related articles

Re: "Health groups' donor ties questioned":

In light of the distortions promoted by the anti-consumer-choice, left-wing funded, advocacy group, Center For The Science in the Public Interest, below are some facts about the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH). We are disappointed that your reporter did not contact us before publishing misleading information about our work.

  • ACSH is a not for profit organization led by a voluntary board of more than 350 leading physicians and scientists from prominent hospitals and universities
  • ACSH's work is not only peer-reviewed by these leading independent scientists, but ACSH reports are then further reviewed and published by mainstream medical and scientific journals with no connection to ACSH.
  • Some of the scientific and professional journals that have recently published ACSH's work include: Medscape (the online medical journal edited by former JAMA editor Dr. George Lundberg), CRC Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences, Exotoxicology and Environmental Safety, Journal of Health Communications, Clinical Therepeutics, and Technology.

ACSH has a long history of going where the science takes it, even when that science is counter to the interest of its funders.

For instance, ACSH regularly criticizes industries who are guilty of

  • Making unscientific and overstated health claims
  • Promoting dangerous natural supplements
  • Failing to tell the truth about scientific issues, including industry's failure to defend the safety of genetically modified foods. In other words, it's not just tobacco. ACSH regularly criticizes all of those responsible for distorting the truth about important public health issues.

Bottom line: ACSH is an organization that plays by the rules of science. We don't host slick CSPI-styled press conferences and make ad hominem attacks. We focus our resources towards responsible science. None of the wealthy Naderite organizations, including CSPI, can point to a board of scientific advisors as prestigious as ACSH's, and unlike ACSH, they cannot point to a record of independently published scientific work. Its no wonder they are forced to take the low road.

We encourage reporters and the public to consider sources of bias beyond corporate funding. For instance, where does CSPI gets its money? Did your reporter ask about their funding from left wing foundations whose stated goal is to increase governmental regulation and take away choices from consumers.

CSPI is suggesting (although not dignified enough to admit it) that unless you agree with CSPI, you must be a paid liar.

Jeff Stier
American Council on Science and Health
New York