CSPI vs. ACSH

In response to the the latest press release from the advocacy group
called the Center for Science in the Public Interest, below are some
facts about the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH):

· 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, Ecotoxicology and Environmental
Safety, Journal of Health Communications, Clinical Therepeutics, and
Technology.

ACSH has a long history of going where the science takes us, 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, as in the case of
industry's failure to defend the safety of genetically modified foods.

Of course, we are known for pointing out the dangers of tobacco in all
its forms: Smoking is the #1 public health threat in the world (you
wouldn't know this from listening to CSPI).  But it's not just
tobacco.  ACSH regularly criticizes all of those responsible for
distorting the truth about important public health issues -- including
those who demonize specific foods as causes of obesity, a favorite
tactic of CSPI.

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.  It's no wonder they are forced to take the
low road.

It is interesting that CSPI continues to attempt to attack our
credibility rather than our actual peer-reviewed science.  It is
emblematic of the difference in our approaches.  CSPI focuses on media
and public perception.  ACSH focuses on science.

We encourage reporters and the public to consider sources of bias
beyond corporate funding alone.  For instance, from which foundations
does CSPI gets its money?  Do reporters ask about their
project-specific funding from left-wing foundations whose stated goals
are to increase governmental regulation and take away choices from
consumers?

CSPI, though not bold enough to say so openly, is suggesting that
unless you agree with CSPI, you must be a paid liar.

This information was found online at:
http://www.acsh.org/about/pageID.86/default.asp

I see. Anyone who disagrees with Bush, about the war or anything else,
is automatically a liberal or a leftist. Labeling and name calling is
wonderful, isn't it. There is no such thing as a legitimate criticism
of the Bush administration. Anyone exercising their constitutional
right of free speech is buried under a pile of name-calling by phony
"patriots". If the Bush people are successful in something, they claim
credit. If they screw something up they still "win" because they can
accuse their opponents of "gloating". What a racket. And the so-called
"liberal"media let them get away with it. Please. It's not as simple as
"liberals" vs Republicans. Overall, the media is pro-Bush once you
factor in talk radio, cable and the fact that most of the newspaper
circulation (not necessarily readership) is run by extremely pro-Bush
publishers.