Talk:Center for Science in the Public Interest

Essential info. about Center for Science in the Public Interest

Some very strongly pro-CSPI (Center for Science in the Public Interest) individuals -- perhaps employees -- don't want readers to know about some of the activities of CSPI:

The so-called Center for science in the Public Interest has identified a number of foods as unacceptable: "Chinese [1], Italian [2], Greek [3] and Mexican [4] dishes; oatmeal and peanut butter cookies; pizza and pasta alfredo; soda, diet soda, coffee and tea; tuna, chicken and potato salads; movie popcorn; potato, corn and tortilla chips; french fries; red meat; whole and 2% milk [5]; butter and margarine [6]; mayonnaise; jello; beer, wine and alcoholic drinks; granola bars; candy bars; hot dogs and hamburgers; pretzels; baby food and baby formula; ice cream and salad dressings -- basically, anything with sugar or fat, or processed" [2].

The Center for Science in the Public Interest has identified ten foods people should never eat: Quaker Oats 100% Natural Granola Bugels Contadina Alfredo Sauce Entenmann Frosted Donuts Nissen Cup of Noodles and Shrimp Burge King French Fries Campbell red and White label condensed soups Frito-Lay Wow potato chips Dennys Grand Slam breakfast [3][4] It also alerts its readers to avoid Original Lay's, Ruffles, Cooler Ranch Dorritos, Nacho Cheesier Doritos, Lay’s Mesquite Bar-B-Q, Tostitos, Fat-free Pringles, Fat-free Bar-B-Q Pringles, and Fat-free Sour Cream and Onion Pringles [7].

In addition, the Center for Science in the Public Interest has criticized many, many foods, of which this is only a partial list: [5]: Alfalfa sprouts [8], “Any fried seafood” [9], Apple pies [10], Baby back ribs [11], Baby food [12], Bacon [13], Baked potatoes with sour cream, Baked stuffed shrimp [14], Baklava [15], Beef, Beef burritos [16], Beef chimichangas [17], Beef nachos [18], Beef tacos [19], Beer [20], Belgian waffles [21], Berries, BLT sandwiches [22], Biscuits & gravy [23], Bologna [24], Brie, Brownies [25], Buffalo wings [26], Butter [27], Buttermilk biscuits [28],Caffe latte, Caffe mocha, Caffeine, Candy bars [29], Canned fish, Cantaloupes, Cappuccino, Cereals [30], Cheese [31], Cheese quesadillas [32], Cheesecake [33], Cheese fries [34], Cheese manicotti, Cheese nachos [35], Cheese ravioli, Cheeseburgers [36], Cheesecake[37], Chef's salad with dressing [38], Chicken breast strips [39], Chicken burritos [40], Chicken enchiladas, Chicken fingers [41], Chicken nuggets[42], Chicken pot pies [43], Chicken salad sandwiches [44], Chile rellenos [45], Chimichangas, Chocolate cake, Chocolate candy [46] Chocolate chips, Chocolate mousse, Cinnamon rolls [47], Clams, Condensed soup [48], Condiments [49], Cookie dough, Cookies [50], Corned beef sandwiches [51],, Country fried steak [52], Crackers [53], Cream cheese Cream of broccoli soup, Creamed spinach, Croissants [54], Cupcakes [55], Danish pastries [56], Desserts, Dips, Donuts [57], Egg salad sandwiches [58], Eggnog [59], Eggplant Parmigiana [60], Eggs, Enchiladas [61], Fat-free cakes, Fat-free cookies, Fat-free ice cream, Feta cheese, Fetticcine Alfredo [62], Food coloring, Frappuccino [63] French fries [64], French toast, Fried calamari [65], Fried chicken [66], Fried clams [67], Fried fish [68], Fried mozzarella sticks [69], Fried rice, Fried shrimp, Fried whole onions [70], Frozen dinners [71], Frozen turkey, Fruit cocktails, Fruit drinks, Fruit juice, Fudge brownie sundaes, Garlic bread, General Tso's chicken [72], Granola bars, Greek salads, Grilled cheese sandwiches [73], Gyros, Ham sandwiches [74], Ham & cheese omelettes [75], Hamburgers [76], Home-canned vegetables, Homemade eggnog, Homemade frosting, Hot dogs [77], Hot fudge sundaes, Ice cream [78], Ice cream bars [[79], Ice cream bites [80],Kung pao chicken [81], Lasagna [82], Lettuce, Lo mein, Luncheon meats, Macaroni and cheese [83], Manicotti [84], Margarine, Mashed potatoes [85], Mayonnaise, Meat [86], Meatloaf [87], Meat-stuffed grape leaves, Melons, Microwave popcorn [88], Milk both regular and 2%) [89], Milk shakes [90], Movie popcorn, Muffins [91], Moo shu pork [92], Mushrooms, Mussels, No-chicken broth [93], Oat cereal bars [94], Olestra [95], Omelets, Onion rings [96], Orange beef [97], Oysters, Pancakes [98], Pastries [99], Patty melt [100], Pie [101], Pizza [102], Pork chops [103], Pot pies [104], Potato chips [105], Pork ribs [106], Poultry [107], Pound cake [108], Prime rib, Pudding, Rotisserie turkey, Saccharin, Salad dressings, Salads, Salt [109], Sandwich crackers [110], Sandwiches, Sausage [111], Scones, Seafood [112], Shellfish, Soft drinks [113], Sour cream [114], Spaghetti and meatballs, Steak [115], Steak fajitas [116], Stuffed potato skins, Sugar [117] Sweet and sour pork [118], Taco salad [119], Toaster tarts [120], Tuna salad sandwiches [121], Turkey pot pies [122], Veal [123], Veal Parmigiana, Waffles, White bread [124], and Wine [125].

The Center for Science in the Public Interest has also criticized Greek restaurants [126], Chinese restaurants [127], family restaurants [128], , fast food restaurants [129], Italian restaurants [130], Mexican restaurants [131], sandwich shops, seafood restaurants [132], and steakhouses [133] [6].

It's easy to understand Center for Science in the Public Interest president Miichael Jacobson's assertion that CSPI is proud of having criticised almost everything.Emma Jacobson 19:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intriguing. What's their objection to lettuce?

Please do not keep reinserting long passages of quoted material that relate more to User:Andrew P Lin's crusade against soft drinks than to the CSPI organization. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted it again. 66.173.192.96 02:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the whole article is pov.. I couldn't even find it at first.. how do you do those fancy "redirects" from say, "CSPI"?? --Kvuo 23:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The format for a redirect is #redirect [[article]]. It should be the only thing on the page to be redirected. I've created one at CSPI as requested. - RedWordSmith 06:57, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Adding POV-check: While CSPI may take positions that people find disagreeable or negative, it seems the article mentions only these perceptions. 24.46.122.98 08:37:00 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm I the only one who find it slightly amusing that all this stuff CSPI (or maybe even their employees!) supposedly doesn't want us to know is sourced directly to their website and press releases? Jean-Philippe 23:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, I've just looked at the date on that thing. Maybe we should archive this for posterity ^^; Jean-Philippe 23:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

alcohol

why did someone remove the mention of CSPI's anti-alcohol policy??? They ARE anti-alcohol, after all. [[134]] --Kvuo 13:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

saturated fat vs. Trans-fatty acids

The Center for Science in the Public Interest doesn't seem to want to recognise recent research that suggests that theses two fats, one natural, one mostly artifical don't seem to be equaly bad. anyone wanna try to tackle a NPOV addition? 66.173.192.96 02:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I got a paragraph from Trans-fat and included it over here 66.173.192.96 23:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Facts

CSPI was incorporated (became a corporation) in 1971. And according to its website "CSPI is primarily funded by the 900,000 subscribers to its Nutrtiion Action Newsletter and individual donors." That clearly makes the Newsletter a "major source of income" as correctly reported.

Bias

Although this article has a pro-CSPI bias, it's not strong enought to warrant a "nonconformity" label.

Grammatical error in external links section

CSPIscam.com is a site which receives funds from some in the food industry to the Center for Consumer Freedom.

^ I got a headache trying to read this. I can't tell what it's trying to say either

Nunquam Dormio 14:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC) I've rewritten it to what I think it's trying to say[reply]

This article have a strong anti-CSPI stance, and also the only critics are capitalistic and libertarian in nature. There is surely critics or defence on the left to counter this heavy bias, no? Where are they?

Honesty and accuracy required

To criticise foods as "unsafe," "dangerous," and "food porn," as does the CSPI, is to do much more than the bland "commented on" sugggests. Perhaps we should say that Adolf Hitler "commented" on Jews.Sandy Beech 14:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting comparison. Hitler is reponsible for 30 million deaths and the CSPI none.

Article is about the CSPI, not other groups

This article is about the CSPI -- it's mission, goals, beliefs, methods, actions and statements -- not about other groups.Enrique Perez 14:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC) I agree, but as with any other article you need to have criticisms to mantain a npov and thats where the other groups come in.--Soliscjw 20:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

citationneeded

Dear Enrique, it appears you are trying to insert a Harvard style reference. Such references, which are also known as the author-date system, consist normally of an author and a date. Your reference cites the Center for Science in the Public Interest as author - which seems unlikely, since the quote contains harsh criticism. Please correct the citation to show the correct author. Instead of the Harvard style, I would recommend the footnotes style, which is used for most citations in this article already. For the time being, I will reinsert the "citationneeded" tag. Thank you, Common Man 06:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CM- CSPI is the corporate author of the document in which 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 elementary, junior high, and high schools. Of course, for many logical and methodological reasons the resulting information is totally meaningless and cannot prove the claim. Its use for that purpose would be highly misleading. This isn't a point of view but a fact known to researchers. Thanks.Enrique Perez 15:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. You could make your point clearer by writing something like the above in the article. However, your argument is not convincing. You say "This isn't a point of view but a fact known to researchers". Can you back this up with a citation? (This is the kind of citation I expected.) As it stands, we would have to take your word for it. The term "misleading" is misleading itself. There is nothing wrong or even unscientific with collecting publicly accessible and verifiable data. You can not be scientific and truthful and censor actual data. Common Man 00:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks or your suggestion.Enrique Perez 01:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming a farce! Apparently all you did was Googling for "research methods"! IF you found anything to back up your claim, please provide quotes (and page numbers for the books). Common Man 03:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article written as series of lists -- should be written in narrative style

The article needs to be written as a narrative, not a series of lists. Mattisse (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came over after cleaning the POV mess at Michael Jacobson/Michael F. Jacobson, to see what CSPI was about and somehow I'm not surprised by what I see. This was ridiculous, so I've trimmed the fat. I'd like to see what argument people will have against that. Jean-Philippe 21:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms section

The criticisms section is clearly for ciriticisms that have been made about CSPI and its actions. It's not a place to criticize organizations that have criticized CSPI. That's unacceptable POV.Bryant Wright 03:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give me one such example? Jean-Philippe 03:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enduring negative POV pushing.

A quick look at the article history reveal that ever since this article was created last year, the article has been under pressure from one source attempting to drown what little information on the subject exist in favor of a massive amount of negative information. It's an open secret that 90%+ of those edits come from one source using a multitudes of sockpuppets. A simple look at the contribution histories confirm this. [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143]

I'm open to assuming good faith. Criticism most certainly belong on any controversial topic and from what little I know of subject of the article, it basicly scream controversy. Ideally, it should be weaved carefully, neutrally into the narrative of a subject. Here's a nice little graph that someone (with whom I disagree but is almost always right afaik) made a few days ago. I'll leave the graph as is out of respect, so replace "Peta" with "CSPI".

This is how it is right now.

PETA
- General info about PETA
  - History
  - Campaigns
  - Policies
  - Relationships
- Why PETA sucks!
  - Criticism of campaigns
  - Criticism of policies
  - Criticism of relationships

This is what it should have:

PETA
- History
- Campaigns
  Criticism of campaigns
- Policies
  Criticism of policies
- Relationships
  Criticism of relationships

Now we have a dilemma here. There is no narrative to speak off in the first place! The article is barely more than a stub. I suspect any attempt at writing one have been disprupted by the POV pushing source, but that's just speculation on my part :P So we have a problem. We have an article that says very, very little on the actual topic and so very much criticizing it, by as much to 5 to 1. I know little about the topic myself, but I'll research it and should come up with something by the end of next week hopefully. No promise as I'm quite unreliable ^^ In the meantime, I won't hesitate to seek and probably obtain article semi-protection to protect the article if the POV pushing gets out of hand again. Remember, criticism is well and good when appropriate, well sourced and written neutrally, but giving it undue weight is inherently NPOV. Jean-Philippe 03:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial page

It looks like this is a very controversial subject and that many people have strong opinions about it. Now J-P assumes ownership, threatening people, and promising that he will bring a neutral point of view to the article. Let's hope he can prepare a much-needed balanced and neutral piece. His proposed outline looks very good and suggests the possibility of a good article. It will be difficult to accomplish because his editing history suggests a strong bias. (See his lack of neutrality regarding PETA, Ingrid Newkirk (co-founder of PETA), and animal rights.) I wish him success in a difficult task.Bryant Wright 15:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that the next time we speak, you'll be using a different sockpuppet? That's a shame :P Jean-Philippe 15:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?? J-P, as you work to improve this page, here's something to consider. I thinks it would be a good idea to exclude criticisms that are simply "name-calling" and include only those dealing with matters of real importance. For example criticisms directed to the credibility of the organization, to charges that its activities may be influenced by monetary or other considerations, etc.

It looks like there has been an effort in some editions of the article to editorialize or "explain away" criticisms along he lines of: "XYZ, a special interest organization, claims that CSPI sometimes presents junk science in supporting its recommendations. CSPI has refuted tat charge as baseless and without any merit whatsoever."Bryant Wright 20:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Workshop in progress

I've started a little workshop on CSPI, anyone is welcome to toy around and add to it if you want, of course. I've been mostly going around reading about them and taking notes, there is some first-party links, but nothing third-party like the media or critics yet. I'm not sure what to make of "attacks on their credibility". It sound shady to me. Critics on their positions, now sure that would be great and you could maybe help me by looking around or salvaging some stuff from the lists I removed and posting them in the appropriate sections in my workshop. Well, you do what you want :) Jean-Philippe 23:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This workshop looks like a good idea and the outline is logical. (In the hypothetical example I gave above, if CSPI used junk science to support a recommendation, that fact might reasonably be used by someone in criticizing the position being promoted. Some might argue that using questionable evidence, especially if it occurs frequently, raises questions of integrity. I'd be inclined to argue that only one example might simply constitute an unfortunate error and only be relevant to the position in question)Bryant Wright 03:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]