acsh
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>not<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">e 2 other main nodes, 3 with whelan; no notes here 7/14</span></b></font><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">usrtk</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</font></div><div><div class="entry-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p style="line-height: 22.8571px; text-align: left; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Why You Can’t Trust the American Council on Science and Health</font></span></p><p style="line-height: 22.8571px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The American Council on Science and Health is a front group for the tobacco, agrichemical, fossil fuel, pharmaceutical and other industries.</font></p><h3 style="line-height: 1.1; box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 20px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Personnel</font></h3><ul style="line-height: 22.8571px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">ACSH’s “Medical/Executive Director” is Dr. Gilbert Ross.<a target="blank" href="http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/#ftn2" name="ftnref2" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">[2]</a> In 1993, according to <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">United Press International</em>, Dr. Ross was “convicted of racketeering, mail fraud and conspiracy,” and was “sentenced to 47 months in jail, $40,000 in forfeiture and restitution of $612,855” in a scheme to defraud the Medicaid system.<a target="blank" href="http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/#ftn3" name="ftnref3" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">[3]</a></font></li></ul><ul style="line-height: 22.8571px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">ACSH’s Dr. Ross was found to be a “highly untrustworthy individual” by a judge who sustained the exclusion of Dr. Ross from Medicaid for ten years.<a target="blank" href="http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/#ftn4" name="ftnref4" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">[4]</a></font></li></ul><h3 style="line-height: 1.1; box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 20px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Funding</font></h3><p style="line-height: 22.8571px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">ACSH has often billed itself as an “independent” group, and has been referred to as “independent” in the press. However, according to internal ACSH financial <a target="blank" href="http://www.motherjones.com/documents/809483-acsh-financial-summary" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">documents</a> obtained by <a target="blank" href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/american-council-science-health-leaked-documents-fundraising" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">Mother Jones</a>:</font></p><ul style="line-height: 22.8571px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“ACSH planned to receive a total of $338,200 from <b>tobacco </b>companies between July 2012 and June 2013. Reynolds American and Phillip Morris International were each listed as expected to give $100,000 in 2013, which would make them the two largest individual donations listed in the ACSH documents.”</span><a target="blank" href="http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/#ftn5" name="ftnref5" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">[5]</a></font></li></ul><ul style="line-height: 22.8571px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“ACSH donors in the second half of 2012 included Chevron ($18,500), Coca-Cola ($50,000), the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation ($15,000), Dr. Pepper/Snapple ($5,000), <b>Bayer Cropscience ($30,000),</b> Procter and Gamble ($6,000), agribusiness giant<b> Syngenta </b>($22,500), 3M ($30,000), McDonald’s ($30,000), and <b>tobacco conglomerate Altria ($25,000)</b>. Among the corporations and foundations that ACSH has pursued for financial support since July 2012 are Pepsi,<b> Monsanto, British American Tobacco, DowAgro, ExxonMobil Foundation, Philip Morris International, Reynolds American, the Koch family-controlled Claude R. Lambe Foundation,</b> the Dow-linked Gerstacker Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, and the Searle Freedom Trust.”<a target="blank" href="http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/#ftn6" name="ftnref6" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">[6]</a></font></li></ul><ul style="line-height: 22.8571px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">ACSH has received $155,000 in contributions from Koch foundations from 2005-2011, according to Greenpeace.<a target="blank" href="http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/#ftn7" name="ftnref7" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">[7]</a></font></li></ul><h3 style="line-height: 1.1; box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 20px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Indefensible and incorrect statements on science<span style="box-sizing: border-box;"> </span></font></h3><p style="line-height: 22.8571px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">ACSH has:</font></p><ul style="line-height: 22.8571px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Claimed that “There is no evidence that exposure to secondhand smoke involves heart attacks or cardiac arrest.”<a target="blank" href="http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/#ftn8" name="ftnref8" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">[8]</a></font></li></ul><ul style="line-height: 22.8571px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b>Argued that “there is no scientific consensus concerning global warming.</b> The climate change predictions are based on computer models that have not been validated and are far from perfect.”<a target="blank" href="http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/#ftn9" name="ftnref9" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">[9]</a></font></li></ul><ul style="line-height: 22.8571px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Argued that fracking “doesn’t pollute water or air.”</span><a target="blank" href="http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/#ftn10" name="ftnref10" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">[10</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">]</span></font></li></ul><ul style="line-height: 22.8571px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Claimed that “The scientific evidence is clear. There has never been a case of ill health linked to the regulated, approved use of pesticides in this country.</font><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">”<a target="blank" href="http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/#ftn11" name="ftnref11" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">[11]</a></font></li></ul><ul style="line-height: 22.8571px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Declared that “There is no evidence that <b>BPA</b> [bisphenol A] in consumer products of any type, including cash register receipts, are harmful to health.”<a target="blank" href="http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/#ftn12" name="ftnref12" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">[12]</a></font></li></ul><ul style="line-height: 22.8571px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Argued that the exposure to mercury, a potent neurotoxin, “in conventional seafood causes no harm in humans.</font><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">”<a target="blank" href="http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/#ftn13" name="ftnref13" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">[13]</a></font></li></ul><p style="line-height: 22.8571px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Footnotes</font></span></p><p style="line-height: 22.8571px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a target="blank" href="http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/#ftnref2" name="ftn2" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">[2]</a> “<a target="blank" href="http://acsh.org/about-acsh/meet-the-team/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">Meet the ACSH Team</a>,” American Council on Science and Health website.</font></p><p style="line-height: 22.8571px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a target="blank" href="http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/#ftnref3" name="ftn3" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">[3]</a> “Seven Sentenced for Medicaid Fraud.” <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">United Press International</em>, December 6, 1993. See also correspondence from Tyrone T. Butler, Director, Bureau of Adjudication, State of New York Department of Health to Claudia Morales Bloch, Gilbert Ross and Vivian Shevitz, “<a target="blank" href="http://w3.health.state.ny.us/opmc/factions.nsf/0/85b1e5abf211b2a585256a4a0047eb10/$FILE/ATTS6HQW/lc116347.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">RE: In the Matter of Gilbert Ross, M.D.</a>” March 1, 1995. Bill Hogan, “<a target="blank" href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/11/paging-dr-ross" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">Paging Dr. Ross</a>.” <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Mother Jones</em>, November 2005. Martin Donohoe MD FACP, “<a target="blank" href="http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/more/item/12-corporate-front-groups-and-the-abuse-of-science-the-american-council-on-science-and-health-acsh" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">Corporate Front Groups and the Abuse of Science: The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH)</a>.”<em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Spinwatch</em>, June 25, 2010.</font></p><p style="line-height: 22.8571px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a target="blank" href="http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/#ftnref4" name="ftn4" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">[4]</a> Department of Health and Human Services, Departmental Appeals Board, Civil Remedies Division, <a target="blank" href="http://www.hhs.gov/dab/decisions/civildecisions/1997/cr478.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">In the Cases of Gilbert Ross, M.D. and Deborah Williams M.D., Petitioners, v. The Inspector General</a>. June 16, 1997. Docket Nos. C-94-368 and C-94-369. Decision No. CR478.</font></p><p style="line-height: 22.8571px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a target="blank" href="http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/#ftnref5" name="ftn5" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">[5]</a> Andy Kroll and Jeremy Schulman, “<a target="blank" href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/american-council-science-health-leaked-documents-fundraising" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">Leaked Documents Reveal the Secret Finances of a Pro-Industry Science Group</a>.” <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Mother Jones</em>, October 28, 2013. “<a target="blank" href="http://www.motherjones.com/documents/809483-acsh-financial-summary" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">American Council on Science and Health Financial Report, FY 2013 Financial Update</a>.” <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Mother Jones</em>, October 28, 2013.</font></p><p style="line-height: 22.8571px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a target="blank" href="http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/#ftnref6" name="ftn6" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">[6]</a> Andy Kroll and Jeremy Schulman, “<a target="blank" href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/american-council-science-health-leaked-documents-fundraising" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">Leaked Documents Reveal the Secret Finances of a Pro-Industry Science Group</a>.” <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Mother Jones</em>, October 28, 2013. “<a target="blank" href="http://www.motherjones.com/documents/809483-acsh-financial-summary" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">American Council on Science and Health Financial Report, FY 2013 Financial Update</a>.” <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Mother Jones</em>, October 28, 2013.</font></p><p style="line-height: 22.8571px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a target="blank" href="http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/#ftnref7" name="ftn7" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">[7]</a> “<a target="blank" href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/american-council-on-science-an/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group: American Council on Science and Health (ACSH)</a>.” Greenpeace. See also Rebekah Wilce, “<a target="blank" href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/07/12538/koch-and-co-funding-pro-pesticide-pro-gmo-front-group" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">Kochs and Corps Have Bankrolled American Council on Science and Health</a>.” <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">PR Watch</em>, July 23, 2014.</font></p><p style="line-height: 22.8571px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a target="blank" href="http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/#ftnref8" name="ftn8" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">[8]</a> Richard Craver, “<a target="blank" href="http://www.journalnow.com/business/article_01cc055c-7c5c-5c4e-9087-3ad5e6b0567e.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">The Effects of the Smoking Ban</a>.” <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Winston-Salem Journal</em>, December 12, 2012.</font></p><p style="line-height: 22.8571px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a target="blank" href="http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/#ftnref9" name="ftn9" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">[9]</a> Elizabeth Whelan, “<a target="blank" href="http://www.pop.org/content/global-warming-not-health-threat-1583" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">’Global Warming’ Not Health Threat</a>.” <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">PRI (Population Research Institute) Review</em>, January 1, 1998.</font></p><p style="line-height: 22.8571px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a target="blank" href="http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/#ftnref10" name="ftn10" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">[10]</a> Elizabeth Whelan, “<a target="blank" href="http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/29/fracking-doesnt-pose-health-risks/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">Fracking Doesn’t Pose Health Risks</a>.” <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">The Daily Caller</em>, April 29, 2013.</font></p><p style="line-height: 22.8571px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a target="blank" href="http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/#ftnref11" name="ftn11" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">[11]</a> “<a target="blank" href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/bbf57d00/pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">TASSC: The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition</a>,” p. 9. Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, University of California, San Francisco. November 21, 2001. Bates No. 2048294227-2048294237.</font></p><p style="line-height: 22.8571px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a target="blank" href="http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/#ftnref12" name="ftn12" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">[12]</a> “<a target="blank" href="http://acsh.org/2013/02/the-top-10-unfounded-health-scares-of-2012/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">The Top 10 Unfounded Health Scares of 2012</a>.” American Council on Science and Health, February 22, 2013.</font></p><p style="line-height: 22.8571px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a target="blank" href="http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/#ftnref13" name="ftn13" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">[13]</a> “<a target="blank" href="http://acsh.org/2010/12/the-biggest-unfounded-health-scares-of-2010/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">The Biggest Unfounded Health Scares of 2010</a>.” American Council on Science and Health, December 30, 2010.</font></p><div class="clearfix" style="line-height: 22.8571px; box-sizing: border-box;"><footer class="entry-meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 20px; line-height: 22.8571px;"><div class="entry-meta-category-tag" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="cat-links" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="categories-icon glyphicon glyphicon-th-list" title="Posted in" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 1px; display: inline-block; line-height: 1; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased;"> <a href="http://usrtk.org/category/hall-of-shame/" rel="category tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">Hall of Shame</a>, <a href="http://usrtk.org/category/food-for-thought/" rel="category tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">Food For Thought</a></span></font></span></div></footer></div><div style="line-height: 22.8571px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></font></div><div style="line-height: 22.8571px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">some link missing</font></div><div style="line-height: 22.8571px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">andy kroll</font></div><div style="line-height: 22.8571px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</font></div><div><font style="line-height: 22.8571px;" face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/american-council-science-health-leaked-documents-fundraising"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">http://www.motherjones.com/politics/</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">2013/</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">10/american-council-science-health-leaked-documents-fundraising</span></a></font></div><div style="line-height: 22.8571px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</font></div><div><font style="line-height: 22.8571px;" face="Times New Roman" size="4" /><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font style="line-height: 22.8571px;" face="Times New Roman" size="4"> American Council on Science and Health bills itself as an independent research and advocacy organization devoted to debunking "junk science." It's a controversial outfit—a "group of scientists…concerned that many important public policies related to health and the environment did not have a sound scientific basis," it says—that often does battle with environmentalists and consumer safety advocates, wading into public health debates to defend fracking, to fight New York City's attempt to ban big sugary sodas, and to dismiss concerns about the potential harms of the chemical bisphenol-A (better known at BPA) and the pesticide atrazine. The group insists that its conclusions are driven purely by science. It acknowledges that it receives some financial support from corporations and industry groups, but ACSH, which reportedly stopped disclosing its corporate donors two decades ago, maintains that these contributions don't influence its work and agenda.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b>
</b></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b>Yet internal financial documents (read them here) provided to Mother Jones show that ACSH depends heavily on funding from corporations that have a financial stake in the scientific debates it aims to shape.</b> The group also directly solicits donations from these industry sources around specific issues. ACSH's financial links to corporations involved in hot-button health and safety controversies have been highlighted in the past, but these documents offer a more extensive accounting of ACSH's reliance on industry money—giving a rare window into the operations of a prominent and frequent defender of industry in the science wars.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">According to the ACSH documents, from July 1, 2012, to December 20, 2012, 58 percent of donations to the council came from corporations and large private foundations. ACSH's donors and the potential backers the group has been targeting comprise a who's-who of energy, agriculture, cosmetics, food, soda, chemical, pharmaceutical, and tobacco corporations. ACSH donors in the second half of 2012 included Chevron ($18,500), Coca-Cola ($50,000), the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation ($15,000), Dr. Pepper/Snapple ($5,000), Bayer Cropscience ($30,000), Procter and Gamble ($6,000), agribusiness giant Syngenta ($22,500), 3M ($30,000), McDonald's ($30,000), and tobacco conglomerate Altria ($25,000). Among the corporations and foundations that ACSH has pursued for financial support since July 2012 are Pepsi, Monsanto, British American Tobacco, DowAgro, ExxonMobil Foundation, Phillip Morris International, Reynolds American, the Koch family-controlled Claude R. Lambe Foundation, the Dow-linked Gerstacker Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, and the Searle Freedom Trust.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">FY2013 grants received as of 11/30/12 (pg 4)</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Dr. Gilbert Ross, the group's executive director, declined to answer specific questions about ACSH's fundraising. He did not dispute the authenticity of the documents provided to Mother Jones. (Multiple corporations listed as donors on these documents confirmed they had supported ACSH.) Ross says the group doesn't disclose its backers because "the sources of our support are irrelevant to our scientific investigations." According to Ross, "Only science-based facts hold sway in our publications, even if the outcome is not pleasing to our contributors."</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">As Mother Jones reported in 2005, Ross was previously convicted for defrauding New York State's Medicaid program of roughly $8 million. His medical license was temporarily revoked and a jury sentenced him to 46 months in prison, of which he served 23 months. Ross currently has his license and is allowed to practice.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b>Elizabeth Whelan, a Harvard-trained public-health scientist, founded ACSH in 1978 as a counterweight to environmental groups and Ralph Nader's </b>consumer advocacy movement. "ACSH protects consumer freedom from a variety of unscientifically based activist organizations—such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Science in the Public Interest, and Environmental Working Group—that use 'junk science' and hyperbole about risk to promote fears about our food, pharmaceuticals and chemicals, and other environmental and lifestyle factors," ACSH says on its website. "Their agenda is to limit or dismantle many technological achievements that contribute to consumer choice and good health."</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The documents say that ACSH staffers should approach potential corporate financial backers with pitches geared toward specific issues.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">From the start, ACSH has faced questions about its funding. It was launched with $100,000 in seed money from the Sarah Scaife Foundation, which has also supported the Heritage Foundation, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and Americans for Tax Reform, among other conservative groups. By the early 1980s, ACSH's donors included Dow, Monsanto, American Cyanamid, Mobil Foundation, Chevron, and Bethlehem Steel. In 1984, Georgia-Pacific, a leading formaldehyde maker, funded a friend-of-the-court brief filed by ACSH in an industry-backed lawsuit that overturned a ban on formaldehyde insulation.</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">When ACSH was founded, Whelan stated that the council "intends to remain free from financial ties with corporations with a financial interest in the topics we are investigating."</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Initially, ACSH disclosed its donors, and it was obvious that the group embraced numerous causes connected to its funders. ACSH defended the chemical Alar, used to regulate the growth of apples—and accepted donations from Uniroyal, which manufactured and sold Alar. It also<b> opposed new mandatory nutrition labeling requirements—and pocketed money from Coca-Cola, General Mills, Kellogg Co., Nestle USA, and the National Soft Drink Association.</b></span></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">ACSH maintains that it doesn't accept donations from corporations or trade associations earmarked for specific research projects—that is, that there's no quid pro quo. But in a March 1992 internal memo obtained by Consumer Reports, Whelan wrote that ACSH staffers would ask the Calorie Control Council, a trade group backed by diet food and drink companies, and McNeil Specialty Products, a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary that owned the US marketing rights to <b>Splenda</b> (an artificial sweetener), for contributions to underwrite the dissemination of a research paper touting artificial sweeteners. (Splenda was then seeking approval for sale in the United States.)</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The newly revealed documents say that ACSH staffers should approach potential corporate financial backers with pitches geared toward specific issues. Last year, the documents note, the group planned to "seize opportunities to cultivate new funding possibilities (Prop 37, CSC, and corporate caving, etc.)." Proposition 37 was a 2012 California ballot initiative mandating the labeling of genetically modified foods. (It failed.) "CSC" is shorthand for the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a consumer watchdog group that seeks to eliminate dangerous chemicals from cosmetic products. The documents suggest ACSH planned to mention CSC in its fundraising pitches to L'Oreal, Avon, and Procter and Gamble. </div></div><div style="line-height: 22.8571px;"><p style="margin: 0.8em 0px; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The documents suggest ACSH planned to mention CSC in its fundraising pitches to L'Oreal, Avon, and Procter and Gamble.<strong> </strong></font></p><p style="margin: 0.8em 0px; line-height: 25px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Lately, ACSH has become a vocal player in the debate over hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking.</b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">" In February, the council posted an </span><a href="https://www.facebook.com/FrackingScience/posts/511315098906951" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">outline</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> of a "systematic, objective review" it intends to publish on the scientific literature covering the potential health effects of fracking. In an April </span><a href="http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/29/fracking-doesnt-pose-health-risks/" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">op-ed</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> for the conservative</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> <em>Daily Caller</em> </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">website, Whelan criticized Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-N.Y.) for dithering on whether to allow fracking in New York State and asserted that "publicity savvy activists posing as public health experts are spearheading a disingenuous crusade to prevent the exploitation of the vast quantities of natural gas." Fracking, Whelan wrote, "doesn't pollute water or air."</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0.8em 0px; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The <em>Daily Caller</em> story included no disclosure of the funding ACSH has received from the energy industry. Big energy companies and ACSH go way back: In the 1992 memo, Whelan called ACSH "the great defender of petrochemical companies." On an ACSH-run Facebook page supporting fracking, the group <a href="https://www.facebook.com/FrackingScience/info" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">acknowledges</a> accepting "money from industry," but it does not indicate which companies have donated or how much. According to the ACSH documents, it received a $37,500 donation in 2012 from the American Petroleum Institute related to "fracking." That year, it also received other energy industry funds, including $18,500 from Chevron and $75,000 from the ExxonMobil Foundation.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.8em 0px; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The ACSH documents list ConocoPhillips as a "projected" donor for "fracking/general" and say ACSH should pitch the <a href="http://www.afpm.org/news-release.aspx?id=2066" target="blank" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">National Petrochemical & Refiners Association</a>, a "past supporter," around the issue of fracking.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.8em 0px; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">According to the documents, ACSH was awarded a grant for fracking work from the<b> Triad Foundation (</b>$35,000 for "gen/fracking"). Triad <a href="http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059961204" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">has supported</a> the Heritage Foundation and the Heartland Institute, a nonprofit that has worked to refute climate science. The <b>Bodman</b> Foundation also <a href="http://achelis-bodman-fnds.org/docs/grants_12.pdf" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">gave $40,000</a> to support a forthcoming ACSH study titled "Hydraulic Fracturing: Myths and Realities." Bodman is a reliable supporter of conservative causes, <a href="http://achelis-bodman-fnds.org/docs/grants_12.pdf" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">doling out five-figure sums</a> to the American Enterprise Institute, Hudson Institute, and National Center for Policy Analysis.</font></p><div class="pullquote-right" style="border-top-width: 4px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); border-bottom-width: 4px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 15px 0px; margin: 8px 0px 10px 22px; width: 200px; float: right; line-height: 26px; letter-spacing: -0.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ACSH expected to receive $338,200 from tobacco companies between July 2012 and June 2013. Reynolds American and Phillip Morris International were expected to give $100,000.</font></div><p style="margin: 0.8em 0px; line-height: 25px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Though ACSH has often taken industry-friendly positions on public health issues, it has </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">long campaigned against smoking. </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In 1993, Elizabeth Whelan wrote in the </span><em style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Wall Street Journal</em><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">—a frequent home for ACSH op-eds—in favor of a "user's fee" on smokers to fund health-care reform. Three years later, ACSH </span><a href="https://library.villanova.edu/Find/Record/474273" target="blank" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">published</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> a book called </span><em style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Cigarettes: What the Warning Label Doesn't Tell You</em><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, with chapters detailing how smoking makes men infertile, causes blindness, and leads to brittle bones. Ross, ACSH's medical director, has backed a call for the film industry to slap an "R" rating on any movie with smoking in it.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0.8em 0px; line-height: 25px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Yet more recently, the agendas of ACSH and Big Tobacco have overlapped, thanks to the growing market for tobacco alternatives, including <b>e-cigarettes</b> and other smoke-free products. As ACSH has courted tobacco companies large and small for financial support, it has touted e-cigarettes</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">—some being manufactured by subsidiaries of major tobacco companies—as a </span><a href="http://acsh.org/2013/08/n-y-times-attacks-e-cigarette-marketing-for-marketing-e-cigarettes-successfully/" target="blank" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">safer</a><a href="http://acsh.org/2012/11/the-great-american-smokeout-a-good-day-to-discuss-e-cigarettes/" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">alternative to cigarettes</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">. And the documents show that ACSH planned to receive a total of $338,200 from tobacco companies between July 2012 and June 2013. Reynolds American and Phillip Morris International were each listed as expected to give $100,000 in 2013, which would make them the two largest individual donations listed in the ACSH documents. (Reynolds confirmed making a $100,000 donation to ACSH in 2012 and donating additional money in 2013. Phillip Morris confirmed donating to ACSH in 2012 and 2013 but didn't disclose the amounts.)</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0.8em 0px; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Ross has stumped for e-cigarettes on TV and radio appearances and in op-eds, writing this month for <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/10/11/why-is-the-fda-shielding-smokers-from-the-good-news-about-e-cigarettes/" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><em>Forbes</em></a> that e-cigarettes are a "nascent public-health miracle" and urging US regulators to embrace e-cigarettes—which use liquid nicotine to deliver a smokeless hit for users—as an alternative to cancer-causing traditional cigarettes. Ross' op-ed was timely. Any day now, the FDA is <a href="http://www.philly.com/philly/business/consumer_news/20131017_FDA_set_to_decide_whether_to_regulate_e-cigarettes.html#uIFY62HAtUVM8sSO.99" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">expected to announce</a>new plans to regulate the $1.5 billion e-cigarette industry, which saw its sales triple this year.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.8em 0px; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But Ross' op-ed does not disclose ACSH's financial support from big tobacco companies like Altria and Reynolds that own e-cigarette-making subsidiaries. Nor does it mention that ACSH, as the fundraising documents suggest, is using the e-cigarettes issue to court potential new funders such as VMR Products and its subsidiary V2 Cigs, Green Smoke, and 21st Century.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.8em 0px; line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the <em>Forbes</em><em> </em>op-ed, Ross criticizes nonprofit groups campaigning against e-cigarettes, huffing that they are "heavily funded by pharmaceutical companies in the business of selling near-useless cessation drugs—a fact which they conveniently neglect to disclose." It was a bold charge, given ACSH's own record on the disclosure of industry donations.</font></p></div><div style="line-height: 22.8571px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></font></div><div style="line-height: 22.8571px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">oz/oprah</font></div><div style="line-height: 22.8571px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</font></div><div style="line-height: 22.8571px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">BS</font></div><div style="line-height: 22.8571px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</font></div><div style="line-height: 22.8571px;"><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Bruce Chassy, PhD</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Professor<b> Emeritus,</b> Department of Food Science & Nutrition</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">University of Illinois</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">https://cei.org/sites/default/files/ASCH%20Conko%20Food%20and%20You%203-24-14.pdf</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Written by William P. Kucewicz Based on a book authored by Martina Newell-McGloughlin, D.Sc. Director, UC Systemwide Biotechnology Research and Education Program University of California, Davis Bruce Chassy, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Department Food Science and Human Nutrition University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Gregory Conko, J.D. Executive Director and Senior Fellow Competitive Enterprise Instite</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">This publication is based on the book Food and You: A Guide to Modern Agricultural Biotechnology (ISBN 978-0-9727094- 8-4) by Dr. Martina Newell-McGloughlin, Dr. Bruce M. Chassy and <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Gregory Conko</span>, J.D., published by the American Council on Science and Health. The following people reviewed the original book on which this summary is based: </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Kent Bradford, Ph.D. Distinguished Professor of Plant Sciences Director, Seed Biotechnology Center University of California, Davis James I. Burke, Ph.D. Professor and Chair of Crop Science University College Dublin Christopher J. Leaver, Ph.D. Fellow of St John’s College University of Oxford Alan G. McHughen, D.Phil. CE Plant Biotechnologist University of California, Riverside</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">...A Distinction Without a Difference All new varieties of crops are the result of genetic modification regardless of the technology used for their development. To date, new crop varieties have been almost without exception safe to plant and safe to consume. The small number of documented cases in which a new variety was found to be unsafe for consumers were all the products of classical breeding methods (NRC 2004). Nevertheless, new varieties have proven so comparatively safe that non-biotech ones are released to farmers with essentially no oversight by regulators and, with very few exceptions, no requirements for safety testing. Crops produced using modern biotechnology are, however, all subject to special regulation with associated significant cost implications</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">....</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">No Evidence of Harm The consensus of scientific opinion and evidence is that the application of GE technology introduces no unique food or feed safety concerns or environmental impacts and that there is no evidence of harm from those products that have been through a regulatory approval process. This conclusion has been reached by numerous national and international bodies, including the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the World Health Organization, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the European Commission, the French Academy of Sciences, the U.S. National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society of London, and the Society of Toxicology. Take the U.S. National Research Council, for instance. In its report “Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants: Science and Regulation” (NRC, 2000), it determined that no difference exists between crops modified through modern molecular techniques and those modified by conventional breeding practices. </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The NRC emphasized that the authors were not aware of any evidence suggesting foods on the market today are unsafe to eat because of genetic modification. In fact, the scientific panel concluded that growing such crops could have environmental advantages over other crops. In a 2003 position paper, the Society of Toxicology (SOT, 2003) corroborated this finding and noted that there is no reason to suppose that the process of food production through biotechnology leads to risks of a different nature than those already familiar to toxicologists or to risks generated by conventional breeding practices for plant, animal or microbial improvement. It is therefore important to recognize that it is the food product itself, rather than the process through which it is made, that should be the focus of attention in assessing safety. </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Similarly, a European Commission report (EU, 2001, 2008) that summarized biosafety research of 400 scientific teams from all parts of Europe conducted over 15 years stated that research on GE plants and derived products so far developed and marketed, following usual risk assessment procedures, has not shown any new risks to human health or the environment beyond the usual uncertainties of conventional plant breeding. I</span>ndeed, the use of more precise technology and the close regulatory scrutiny probably make GE plants even safer than conventional plants and foods. More recently, EU-funded research from 130 projects involving 500 independent research groups over 25 years concluded, “There is, as of today, no scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms” (Europa Press Release, 2010)....</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">...</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Regulations pose even greater difficulties. In the U.S., regulatory compliance adds at least $1 million to the cost of developing a GE variety for each transformation event (Redenbaugh and McHughen, 2004). For crops intended for international commerce, the regulatory costs in key producing and importing countries have been estimated to range from $6 million to $15 million (Kalaitzandonakes et al., 2007) and as high as $35 million (McDougall, 2011). Unjustifiably burdensome rules add little to environmental and human health protection and, arguably, do more harm than good, especially in less developed countries. Complicating matters further is the highly charged political environment in which biosafety regulatory decisions are made</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">...</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Chassy, B. et al. (2004) Nutritional and safety assessments of foods and feeds nutritionally improved through biotechnology – Prepared by a task force of the ILSI International Food Biotechnology Committee. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 3, 35-104 Chassy, B. et al. (2008) Recent developments in the safety and nutritional assessment of nutritionally improved foods and feeds. Comp. Rev. Food Sci. Food Safety 7, 50-113</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">...</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Prakash, C.S. & Jaynes, J. (2000) Increasing the protein content in sweet potato using a synthetic storage protein gene. Abstr. Papers Am. Chem. Soc. 219, U36</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Society of Toxicology (2003) The Safety of Genetically Modified Foods Produced through Biotechnology. Toxicological Sciences 71, 2-8</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">whelan</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Nigel Bark, M.D.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Albert Einstein College of</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Medicine</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Robert L. Brent, M.D., Ph.D.,</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">D.Sc. (Hon)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Thomas Jefferson University / A. I.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">DuPont Hospital for Children</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">James E. Enstrom,</span> Ph.D.,</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">M.P.H.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">University of California, Los</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Angeles</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Thom Golab</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Media Research Center</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Herbert I. London, Ph.D.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">New York University /<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Hudson</span></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Institute / Manhattan Institute</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Paul A. Offit, M.D.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Fred L. Smith, Jr.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Competitive Enterprise Institute</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Daniel T. Stein, M.D.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Albert Einstein College</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">---</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Margareta Becker, CPA Accountant Jonathan Bloom, Ph.D. Director of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Sciences Ruth Kava, Ph.D., R.D. Senior Fellow in Nutrition Erik Lief Director, Media and Publications Cheryl Martin Associate Director and Director of Development William McCain Development Associate <b>Gilbert Ross</b>, M.D. Executive and Medical Director Ariel Savransky Associate Director of Public Health Ana Simovska Director of Video Productions</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div></div><div style="line-height: 22.8571px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="line-height: 22.8571px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="line-height: 22.8571px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">===</font></div></div></div>