American Council on Science and Health
I’ve gotten several requests from the American Council on Science and Health for me to add their Health Facts and Fears weblog, but the more I read about the ACSH, the less disinformed I become.
The American Council on Science and Health sounds like quite the reputable organization, but I had a knee-jerk reaction once I started investigating their funding. I was initially skeptical of their Canadian drug scare post on their blog. This “tainted drugs from Canada” bit is the latest attempt by PhRMA to prevent reimportation of medications from Canada. (Note, the “recognized expert on consumer protection laws” in the press release is Peter Hutt, former FDA official and now PhRMA lobbyist.) Crawford should be ashamed of using his position for political purposes. How disgustingly vile. And if the terrorists are tampering with our meds, why aren’t the factories better secured, and why aren’t the drug companies press-releasing that they *are* secure? Smells fishy to me. Chilean sea bass fishy, which you should stop eating. Yes, you.
A quick aside on the FDA medicines ordered from Canada, promoted by GlaxoSmithKline: the medications were purchased through a *SPAM* message and turned out to be a bit suspect, routing through multiple countries. Again, they claim that buying meds through a SPAM website is the same as buying them from anywhere else online–or offline–in Canada. That’s like saying everyone on American Idol is a talentless hack because of William Hung. Let’s be clear here: spam is not safe to order medicine from. Spam is not safe to order anything from. I think most of the population knows that. Ordering from spam is *not* the same thing as buying medications on one of Senator Dayton’s bus trips to Canada. This is just another scare tactic to keep lower prices out of American hands. UPDATE: Look at that. Medpundit agrees. And she’s right on target: there’s not one factory that makes US pills and others that make Canadian pills. If the terrorists are tampering with our medications, they’re tampering with the world’s.
So a quick look at the ACSH’s Guidestar profile isn’t that interesting. But disinfopedia has plenty on them. The ACSH is an interesting mixture. They seem to take reasonable stand on tobacco policy, but poo-poo any claims of environmental health problems.
Frankly, I’m not all that surprised. ACSH has stopped publishing its list of funding sources, but over the years they’ve included some of the biggest mega-corp polluters in the world, as well as some of the biggest in Pharma as well (a full list):
* Abbott Laboratories
* Bristol-Myers Squibb
* Chevron
* Ciba-Geigy Corporation (Novartis)
* Exxon Corporation
* Mobil Foundation, Inc.
* Pfizer Inc.
* Procter & Gamble Fund
ACSH also likes to defend trans fats, the fast food industry, and Lorraine Thelian, one of its directors, works for Ketchum, where she worked with such health care advocates as Dow Chemical, Bristol Meyers Squibb, the National Pharmaceutical Council, and many other industry trade groups.
I don’t know, ACSH, I’m just a little more likely to believe CSPI, when they’re primarily funded by newsletter subscribers and donations than by industry grants. Call me crazy, but I think money has power and influence.
EXCELLENT post. Keep it up.
Wow. You get the award for most relevant links in one post!
Thanks for posting about this. I’ve been wanting to post about it but haven’t gotten around to it. ACSH is a mouthpiece of the industry, and it constantly claims it’s not.
ACSH hasn’t approached my blog (wonder why?) and I don’t think they will be anytime soon :>
Criticism of The American Council on Science and Health Unfounded
In light of the distortions promoted by the above Gross Anatomy posting, below are some facts about the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH).
We are disappointed that your reporter did not contact us in the manner requested before publishing misleading information about our work. Because of the numerous email requests we receieve, we asked that you send us your inquiries via mail. You did not do this. Nor did you incorporate any of the information we were able to provide you over email such as the following….
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 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.
Jeff Stier
American Council on Science and Health
There are many sources of bias other than funding: careerism religion and other deeply-held beliefs. Why don’t you read or at least peruse our publications, including the credentials of those who peer-reviewed them, and comment on them, rather than casting all of ACSH’s work aside based on funding. None of our funders contribute more than 5% of our budget, and none ever has or ever will get to tell us what to say or publish. G. Ross MD, Medical and Executive Director, the American Council on Science and Health
Dr. Ross and Mr. Stier,
Thank you for your comments. I’d be happy to reconsider my position on
the ACSH if the ACSH would publicly provide a list of its funding sources
and Annual Report. I requested a copy initially, but was told I’d have to
mail off for one. Don’t really have time for that.
He who pays the piper calls the tune. Maybe I’m a jaded cynic, but I
honestly can’t believe that your massive list of corporate funders has no
influnece on the issues you choose to highlight. They’re businesses.
Corporations. Their only goal is to maximize profits for their shareholders.
I’ve worked at several non-profits, and I know the basics of grant-writing
and grant-making–even private foundations steer the work of the
organizations they fund!
I find it highly suspect that a great deal of your work focuses on
playing down environmental health fears and criticizing those that criticize
PhRMA, since it looks like your largest funders are industrial polluters and
the pharmaceutical industry. Public comments and interviews made by many of
your board members also make me suspect of the ACSH’s objective outlook on
science.
I’d also be very curious to know how many of your board of scientific
advisors actively participate in the organization. Do you require any
disclosure agreements that require the board members to disclose any
financial ties they may have? I know many times nonprofits have figureheads
used for name only, who aren’t active in the organization.
I’ve read through some of your reports, and I find a stark contrast
between the tobacco warnings and the other environmental health and
nutrition pieces; I’d like to comment on your weblog, but I’m not sure the
ACSH gets the concept–weblogs are generally open and simple to comment on,
but yours requires me to register, and there’s no option to trackback,
either.
I wonder about this issue myself.
You write that this group gets its money from the companies they side with. But isn’t it the same with groups who are diamertrically opposed to them,like the Natural Resources Defense Council? Don’t they get money from foundations that seek to play up environmental scares? If a simple correlation between positions and funding sources is enough to challenge their credibility, aren’t both sides equally vulnerable? Shouldn’t peer review be given more weight than just funding? I’d trust both sides more if they subjected their studies to outside review— not just review by their own like-minded people.
MC