Jump to content

Center for Science in the Public Interest: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
removed link to another CSPI website, it could belong in the article if it fit the narrative somehow
No edit summary
Line 12: Line 12:


==Criticisms==
==Criticisms==
*[[Social Issues Research Centre]]:
** "scare-mongering is the hallmark of the majority of CSPI's reports and so-called 'information booklets.'"<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.sirc.org/articles/public_interest.shtml | title = Of public interest? | work = Social Issues Research Centre | date = [[2001-10-24]] | accessdate = 2006-07-25 }}</ref>
** SIRC also accused CSPI of misrepresenting research evidence,<ref name = Consumerfreedom> {{cite web | url = http://www.consumerfreedom.com/activistcash/org_blackeye.cfm?ORG_ID=13 | title = Center for Science in the Public Interest report | work = Center for Consumer Freedom | accessdate = 2006-07-25 }}</ref>


*[[F. R. Duplantier]] (columnist):
The [[Center for Consumer Freedom]], a non-profit U.S. lobby group funded by the fast food, meat, and tobacco industries, criticize CSPI throught one of it's websites. CCF regards CSPI as part of the "food police". It claims that: "(CSPI) and its founder, Michael F. Jacobson, are not as nice, sweet, and unbiased as CSPI's name might imply. The group routinely uses scare tactics justified by "junk science" and media theatrics as part of their ceaseless campaign for government regulation of your personal food choices."<ref>[http://www.cspiscam.com CSPIscam.com], retrieved September 2, 2006</ref>
**"There's nothing scientific about the Center for Science in the Public Interest".<ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.americasfuture.net/1998/june98/98-0615a.html | work = America's Future | last = Duplantier | first = F. R. | title = A Bronx Cheer For Professional Scolds | date = [[1998-06-15]] | accessdate = 2006-07-25 }}</ref>


*[[Center for Consumer Freedom]]:
The [[Heartland Institute|Heartland Institute's]], a free-market oriented public policy think tank, says that "What makes officious nannies like CSPI so maddening is that they cloak their apparent goal of prohibition in the language of health advocacy. Some of the advice in the group's ''Nutrition Action Healthletter'' is perfectly sensible, but the remainder can be highly controversial."<ref>[http://www.heartland.org/archives/health/may02/police.htm "Food and Drink Police: Center for Science in the Public Interest wants government to control our eating habits"], [[Heartland Institute]]'s website, retrieved September 2, 2006</ref>
**inflating statistics by as much as 100%,<ref name = Consumerfreedom />
**publishing false and incorect information,<ref name = Consumerfreedom />


*Others:
''Undue Influence'', a website funded by [[Ron Arnold]], vice-president of the [[Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise]], claims that "For 30 years CSPI has injected ideology, politics and fear-mongering into science to attack nearly every food product, every restaurant, and every cuisine on the market. Seeks power over the diet of all Americans through a "fat-tax" on hamburgers, french fries and soft drinks."<ref>[http://www.undueinfluence.com/cspi.htm Center for Science in the Public Interest: a Ralph Nader spinoff], ''Undue Influence'', retrieved September 2, 2006</ref>
**misrepresenting research evidence,<ref name = Consumerfreedom />
**selectively reported evidence that creates a false impression<ref>{{cite web | format = PDF | url = http://www.consumerfreedom.com/downloads/reference/docs/030710_acrylamide.pdf | title = Reply Brief to June 4, 2003 Petition of the Center for Science in the Public Interest to Establish Interim Acceptable Levels for Acrylamide in Major Food Sources | work = Center for Consumer Freedom | date = [[2003-07-10]] | accessdate = 2006-08-12 }}</ref>
**self-publishing its reports without scientific peer review<ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.1130/pub_detail.asp | title = Good Stories, Bad Science: A Guide for Journalists to the Health Claims of "Consumer Activist" Groups | first = Ruth | last = Kurva | date = [[2005-06-10]] | work = [[American Council on Science and Health]] }}</ref>
**denying making statements earlier published (Goetz & Jacobson ''et al''., 1983).
**encouraging others to collect misleading information to bring about policy changes(Center for Science in the Public Interest, n.d.) For example, it tells activists that they can support their claim that alcohol advertising targets children by documenting the location and number of alcohol-related billboards found near schools. In reality the resulting information is totally meaningless and misleading. The idea that [[Correlation implies causation]] is a common [[logical fallacy]] that misleads people.

*CSPI's attacks on foods of which it does not approve have drawn the ire of many social commentators who feel that CSPI's campaigns take away simple pleasures that people have enjoyed for generations, dubbing CSPI the "food police" and "food Nazis"<ref>Williams, Walter. [http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams061103.asp Is ''This'' the America We Want?] ''The Jewish World Review'', June 11, 2003.</ref>. The CSPI has been particularly criticized for leading movie theaters to stop using [[coconut oil]] to make [[popcorn]], a change that many say has detracted from the flavor of movie theater popcorn, which few people eat often.

*The CSPI campaigned against fast foods using [[saturated fats]] starting in [[1984]]. When fast food companies replaced the saturated fat with [[Trans fat|''trans'' fat]], CSPI's campaign ended. CSPI defended ''trans'' fats in its [[1987]] ''Nutrition Action Healthletter''. By [[1992]], CSPI began to speak against ''trans'' fats and is currently strongly against their use. Dr. Mary G. Enig outlines the controversial reversal.<ref>[http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/cspi.html "The Tragic Legacy of Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)"]</ref><ref>{{cite news | url = http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060615-084016-8930r.htm | title = Special interest's secret recipe | publisher = [[Washington Times]] | date = [[2006-06-15]] | accessdate = 2006-07-25 }}</ref>

*The [[American Dietetic Association]] has criticized CSPI for "masquerading a public relations stunt as science" <ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/media_2980_ENU_HTML.htm | title = Response to CSPI Restaurant Meals Survey | publisher = [[American Dietetic Association]] | date = [[1997-01-17]] | accessdate = 2006-07-25 }}</ref>

*The Organic Consumers Association has called SCPI a "pseudo-public interest group" <ref>[http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/cspisupport.cfm "Pseudo-Public Interest Group, CSPI, Now Supports Agbiotech"]</ref> and a "bogus public interest organization." <ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.organicconsumers.org/gefood/cspi082101.cfm | title = CSPI-Bogus Public Interest Organization-Takes Pro-GE Food Stance | date = [[2001-08-17]] | work = Organic Consumers Association | accessdate = 2006-08-11 }}</ref>

*''[[Fox News]]'' commentator [[Steven Milloy]] asks, "why is CSPI trying so carnivorously to destroy (meat substitute) Quorn? CSPI appears to have an unsavory relationship with Quorm competitor[it appears some vandalism was done at this point]health and greater longevity than is abstention, although the reasons underlying this correlation are not settled. (See [[Effects of alcohol on the body]] for more.)

*Economics Professors James Bennett (Washington University) and Thomas DiLorenzo (George Mason University) say, "What makes officious nannies like CSPI so maddening is that they cloak their apparent goal of prohibition in the language of health advocacy.<ref> Bnnett, J. and DiLorenzo, T. Food and drink police. ''Health Care News'' May, 2002 </ref>

*Dr. [[David J. Hanson]] suggests that four grants CSPI received from tobacco interests ([[Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation]]) may have influenced CSPI not to campaign on tobacco and disease, a suggestion denied by Jacobson. However, its website provides no evidence of any smoking research, smoking cessation programs, or other commitment by CSPI to reducing the health hazards caused by smoking.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.alcoholfacts.org/CSPInoSciencePubInterest.html | title = The Center for Science in the Public Interest: Not Scientific and Not in the Public Interest | author = [[David J. Hanson|Hanson, David J.]] | work = Alcoholfacts.com | accessdate = 2006-08-12 }}</ref>

*The [[American Council on Science and Health]] says "CSPI is knowingly engaging in deceptive practices as they attempt to persuade the public and the media that their food safety scares are legitimate" and "If CSPI's efforts were an elementary school science project, young Dr. Jacobson would have received an 'F' and would have found himself in the principal's office for cheating."<ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.542/healthissue_detail.asp | title = Deceptive Practices Undermine Credibility of Consumer Group | date = [[1998-06-22]] | work = American Council on Science and Health | accessdate = 2006-08-12 }}</ref>

* Writing in the [[Cato Institute]]'s newsletter ''Briefly Noted'', Dr. Henry I. Miller (of the [[Hoover Institution]] and the [[Competitive Enterprise Institute]] and former official for the [[National Institutes of Health]] and the [[Food and Drug Administration]]) writes, "For more than a decade, CSPI has forsworn both common sense and overwhelming scientific evidence in attacking Olestra". He further writes, "Why is CSPI doing this? Maybe to boost the organization’s humming little business."<ref>{{cite news | first = Dr. Henry I | last = Miller | url = http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv24n1/brieflynoted.pdf | format = PDF | title = Obstructing Olestra | work = Briefly Noted | publisher = [[Cato Institute]] | date = Spring 2001 | pages = 12-13 | accessdate = 2006-08-12 }}</ref>

*The Tufts University Nutrition Navigator observed that "CSPI provides a valuable public service in its examination of important issues, but its coverage of some topics, such as food additives, tends to be one-sided. Consumers will have to look elsewhere for a balanced discussion of nutrition 'hot topics' such as sugar and hyperactivity in children and the safety of artificial sweeteners."

*''[[Pittsburgh Post-Gazette]]'' food writer Nancy Anderson says of CSPI's ''Nutrition Action Healthletter'', "In true CSPI fashion, the newsletter makes sweeping damnations of brand-name foods that are full of fat or sugar or both." She further says of the ''Healthletter'', "It's opinionated, readable and not to be taken too seriously".<ref>{{cite news | title = Nibbles: 3-alarm chili contest at Rock Bottom tonight | url = http://www.post-gazette.com/food/20030327nibs0327fnp7.asp | first = Nancy | last = Anderson | date = [[2003-03-27]] | accessdate = 2006-08-12 | publisher = [[Pittsburgh Post-Gazette]] }}</ref>

*In an article in the [[Capital Research Center]] publication ''Organization Trends'', John K. Carlisle writes, "On balance, the organization has done far more harm than good. It has not achieved its mission to better inform the public about the link between good health and nutrition. It has needlessly frightened the public with scientifically-baseless food scares. It has hindered efforts to improve food safety and nutrition. No matter what it calls itself, CSPI does not do science and it certainly isn't in the public's interest."<ref>{{cite news | format = PDF | title = Center for Science in the Public Interest: Profiting from Peddling Junk Science | url = http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/Organization%20Trends%20October%202001.pdf | work = Organization Trends | publisher = [[Capital Research Center]] | first = John K. | last = Carlisle | date = October 2001 | accessdate = 2006-08-12 }} </ref>


==References and sources==
==References and sources==
Line 26: Line 61:
== External links ==
== External links ==
*[http://www.cspinet.org/ CSPI official website]
*[http://www.cspinet.org/ CSPI official website]
*[[Center for Consumer Freedom]] (Critical site)
*[[Heartland Institute]] (Critical site)



[[Category:Activism]]
[[Category:Activism]]

Revision as of 03:07, 3 September 2006

File:Centeresgtsd.jpg

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is a U.S. not-for-profit consumer organization headed by Michael Jacobson. Founded in 1971, CSPI's mission statement states that its twin missions are to "conduct innovative research and advocacy programs in health and nutrition and to provide consumers with current and useful information about their health and well-being." The CSPI lists its goals as:

  • To provide useful, objective information to the public and policymakers and to conduct research on food, alcohol, health, the environment, and other issues related to science and technology;
  • To represent the citizen's interests before regulatory, judicial, and legislative bodies on food, alcohol, health, the environment, and other issues; and
  • To ensure that science and technology are used for the public good and to encourage scientists to engage in public-interest activities.[1]

CSPI is a section 501(c)(3) organization exempt from federal income tax. All contributions are tax-deductible as provided by law. The CSPI's chief source of income is its Nutrition Action Healthletter, which has 900,000 paid subscribers and accepts no advertising, and accepts no corporate or government grants, although it does receive grants from trade groups.[2][3]Private foundation grants make up approximately 5-10 percent of CSPI's annual revenue of $15 million.

Criticisms

  • Social Issues Research Centre:
    • "scare-mongering is the hallmark of the majority of CSPI's reports and so-called 'information booklets.'"[4]
    • SIRC also accused CSPI of misrepresenting research evidence,[5]
  • F. R. Duplantier (columnist):
    • "There's nothing scientific about the Center for Science in the Public Interest".[6]
  • Others:
    • misrepresenting research evidence,[5]
    • selectively reported evidence that creates a false impression[7]
    • self-publishing its reports without scientific peer review[8]
    • denying making statements earlier published (Goetz & Jacobson et al., 1983).
    • encouraging others to collect misleading information to bring about policy changes(Center for Science in the Public Interest, n.d.) For example, it tells activists that they can support their claim that alcohol advertising targets children by documenting the location and number of alcohol-related billboards found near schools. In reality the resulting information is totally meaningless and misleading. The idea that Correlation implies causation is a common logical fallacy that misleads people.
  • CSPI's attacks on foods of which it does not approve have drawn the ire of many social commentators who feel that CSPI's campaigns take away simple pleasures that people have enjoyed for generations, dubbing CSPI the "food police" and "food Nazis"[9]. The CSPI has been particularly criticized for leading movie theaters to stop using coconut oil to make popcorn, a change that many say has detracted from the flavor of movie theater popcorn, which few people eat often.
  • The CSPI campaigned against fast foods using saturated fats starting in 1984. When fast food companies replaced the saturated fat with trans fat, CSPI's campaign ended. CSPI defended trans fats in its 1987 Nutrition Action Healthletter. By 1992, CSPI began to speak against trans fats and is currently strongly against their use. Dr. Mary G. Enig outlines the controversial reversal.[10][11]
  • The Organic Consumers Association has called SCPI a "pseudo-public interest group" [13] and a "bogus public interest organization." [14]
  • Fox News commentator Steven Milloy asks, "why is CSPI trying so carnivorously to destroy (meat substitute) Quorn? CSPI appears to have an unsavory relationship with Quorm competitor[it appears some vandalism was done at this point]health and greater longevity than is abstention, although the reasons underlying this correlation are not settled. (See Effects of alcohol on the body for more.)
  • Economics Professors James Bennett (Washington University) and Thomas DiLorenzo (George Mason University) say, "What makes officious nannies like CSPI so maddening is that they cloak their apparent goal of prohibition in the language of health advocacy.[15]
  • Dr. David J. Hanson suggests that four grants CSPI received from tobacco interests (Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation) may have influenced CSPI not to campaign on tobacco and disease, a suggestion denied by Jacobson. However, its website provides no evidence of any smoking research, smoking cessation programs, or other commitment by CSPI to reducing the health hazards caused by smoking.[16]
  • The American Council on Science and Health says "CSPI is knowingly engaging in deceptive practices as they attempt to persuade the public and the media that their food safety scares are legitimate" and "If CSPI's efforts were an elementary school science project, young Dr. Jacobson would have received an 'F' and would have found himself in the principal's office for cheating."[17]
  • The Tufts University Nutrition Navigator observed that "CSPI provides a valuable public service in its examination of important issues, but its coverage of some topics, such as food additives, tends to be one-sided. Consumers will have to look elsewhere for a balanced discussion of nutrition 'hot topics' such as sugar and hyperactivity in children and the safety of artificial sweeteners."
  • Pittsburgh Post-Gazette food writer Nancy Anderson says of CSPI's Nutrition Action Healthletter, "In true CSPI fashion, the newsletter makes sweeping damnations of brand-name foods that are full of fat or sugar or both." She further says of the Healthletter, "It's opinionated, readable and not to be taken too seriously".[19]
  • In an article in the Capital Research Center publication Organization Trends, John K. Carlisle writes, "On balance, the organization has done far more harm than good. It has not achieved its mission to better inform the public about the link between good health and nutrition. It has needlessly frightened the public with scientifically-baseless food scares. It has hindered efforts to improve food safety and nutrition. No matter what it calls itself, CSPI does not do science and it certainly isn't in the public's interest."[20]

References and sources

  1. ^ Center for Science in the Public Interest Mission statement
  2. ^ [1]
  3. ^ [2]
  4. ^ "Of public interest?". Social Issues Research Centre. 2001-10-24. Retrieved 2006-07-25. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. ^ a b c d "Center for Science in the Public Interest report". Center for Consumer Freedom. Retrieved 2006-07-25.
  6. ^ Duplantier, F. R. (1998-06-15). "A Bronx Cheer For Professional Scolds". America's Future. Retrieved 2006-07-25. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  7. ^ "Reply Brief to June 4, 2003 Petition of the Center for Science in the Public Interest to Establish Interim Acceptable Levels for Acrylamide in Major Food Sources" (PDF). Center for Consumer Freedom. 2003-07-10. Retrieved 2006-08-12. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  8. ^ Kurva, Ruth (2005-06-10). "Good Stories, Bad Science: A Guide for Journalists to the Health Claims of "Consumer Activist" Groups". American Council on Science and Health. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  9. ^ Williams, Walter. Is This the America We Want? The Jewish World Review, June 11, 2003.
  10. ^ "The Tragic Legacy of Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)"
  11. ^ "Special interest's secret recipe". Washington Times. 2006-06-15. Retrieved 2006-07-25. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  12. ^ "Response to CSPI Restaurant Meals Survey". American Dietetic Association. 1997-01-17. Retrieved 2006-07-25. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  13. ^ "Pseudo-Public Interest Group, CSPI, Now Supports Agbiotech"
  14. ^ "CSPI-Bogus Public Interest Organization-Takes Pro-GE Food Stance". Organic Consumers Association. 2001-08-17. Retrieved 2006-08-11. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  15. ^ Bnnett, J. and DiLorenzo, T. Food and drink police. Health Care News May, 2002
  16. ^ Hanson, David J. "The Center for Science in the Public Interest: Not Scientific and Not in the Public Interest". Alcoholfacts.com. Retrieved 2006-08-12.
  17. ^ "Deceptive Practices Undermine Credibility of Consumer Group". American Council on Science and Health. 1998-06-22. Retrieved 2006-08-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  18. ^ Miller, Dr. Henry I (Spring 2001). "Obstructing Olestra" (PDF). Briefly Noted. Cato Institute. pp. 12–13. Retrieved 2006-08-12.
  19. ^ Anderson, Nancy (2003-03-27). "Nibbles: 3-alarm chili contest at Rock Bottom tonight". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved 2006-08-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  20. ^ Carlisle, John K. (October 2001). "Center for Science in the Public Interest: Profiting from Peddling Junk Science" (PDF). Organization Trends. Capital Research Center. Retrieved 2006-08-12.
  • Center for Science in the Public Interest. Project to Empower Students to Transform the Campus Drinking Culture: Survival Skills for the Successful Advocate. Washington, DC: Center for Science in the Public Interest, n.d.
  • Goetz, D. Liquor industry gets stricter on advertising. Louisville Courier-Journal, 10.09.03
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Center_for_Science_in_the_Public_Interest&oldid=73509479"