News Release

A Response to Food/Tobacco Industry Attacks
June 28, 2005

Groups funded by the tobacco, meat, dairy, or chemical industries often attack health advocacy and research organizations, including the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM). Such industry-funded groups include the “American Council on Science and Health (ACSH)” and the “Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF).” This background paper describes these groups and their attacks and provides key facts about the issues at hand.

Industry-Funded Critics

The American Council on Science and Health was founded in 1978 and is headed by Elizabeth Whelan. The organization has received funds from the chemical, meat, dairy, and alcoholic beverage industries, food product manufacturers, fast-food chains, and other commercial sources. ACSH routinely defends even damaging or suspect commercial products and often attacks health advocates. The organization made a name for itself in 1989 by defending Alar (daminozide), a compound manufactured by Uniroyal Chemical Company and used to regulate the ripening of apples. Alar was banned based on evidence indicating carcinogenic potential. ACSH’s financial supporters include Uniroyal, American Cyanamid, the American Meat Institute, Burger King, Chevron, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Exxon, Frito-Lay, Mobil, Monsanto, the National Dairy Council, the Salt Institute, the Sugar Association, Union Carbide, and many others.

The Center for Consumer Freedom was founded in 1995 under the name “Guest Choice Network” by tobacco lobbyist Rick Berman and was funded with $3 million from tobacco giant Phillip Morris. It has received considerably more money from the meat industry and other food and alcohol industry sources. Berman has rallied against stricter blood-alcohol levels for drivers and against increases in the minimum wage (because of the effect on fast-food chains). CCF has taken out full-page newspaper advertisements against the federal government’s warnings about the risks of obesity, labeling them “hype,” and has attacked Mothers Against Drunk Driving, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and many other public interest groups.

In speeches to industry groups, Berman openly presents his strategy, which is to avoid discussions about science and, instead, attack health advocates’ credibility. In the process, CCF often resorts to distortion and name-calling, portraying health advocates and scientists as “food police,” “nazis,” “nannies,” and, in the wake of 9/11, “terrorists.” A USA Today editorial on May 4, 2005, said of CCF, “Maybe the group should change its Web site from ConsumerFreedom.com to FatforProfit.com.”

These industry groups frequently react to the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine’s initiatives, using criticisms that are largely unchanged from year to year. Below, we set the record straight on each of these issues. First, the background:

PCRM’s Mission and Programs

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is a nonprofit organization founded in 1985 and based in Washington, D.C. PCRM promotes preventive medicine, particularly good nutrition, conducts clinical research studies, and advocates for higher standards in research. PCRM opposes unethical human research and promotes alternatives to animal research.

PCRM has conducted several clinical research trials testing the effect of low-fat vegetarian diets on cholesterol levels, diabetes, hormonal function, menstrual function, and body weight and has many programs promoting the broader use of such diets. In 2003, PCRM president Neal Barnard, M.D., was awarded a grant from the National Institutes of Health for research on diet and diabetes, conducted under the auspices of PCRM, the George Washington University School of Medicine, and the University of Toronto. The study’s initial findings were presented at the American Diabetes Association’s 65th Scientific Sessions in 2005.

PCRM’s scientific publications have appeared in Scientific American, the American Journal of Cardiology, Pediatrics, the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, the Archives of Family Medicine, the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Lancet Oncology, the Journal of Nutrition Education, Obstetrics & Gynecology, Nutrition Reviews, and Preventive Medicine, among other leading peer-reviewed journals. PCRM scientists are frequent lecturers at medical and scientific conferences. They hold clinical appointments at major universities, serve on various scientific panels, and consult with both government and industry in their areas of expertise.

In 1991, PCRM began The Cancer Project to increase awareness of the role of diet in cancer prevention and survival. The Cancer Project publishes The Survivor’s Handbook and conducts nutrition and cooking classes for cancer survivors at Whole Foods Market grocery stores, community hospitals, schools, and other locations across the United States.

In its work to promote ethical research practices, PCRM exposed experiments in which short, healthy children were to be injected with genetically engineered growth hormone to make them taller. PCRM also exposed the surprisingly widespread use of estrogen injections to arrest growth in tall girls.

PCRM scientists developed the first laboratory assay that measures insulin without the use of cruelly derived animal ingredients and has taken a leading role in shifting medical and surgical training away from the use of live animals. PCRM’s new insulin assay was presented at the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology and is now commercially marketed for scientific use. PCRM worked with anesthesiologists at the Massachusetts General Hospital to promote a novel alternative to animal laboratories developed at Harvard Medical School. Thanks in large measure to PCRM’s work, more than 100 of the 126 U.S. medical schools have replaced animal laboratories in their curricula with other teaching methods. PCRM is also the sponsor of the Benjamin Spock Award for Compassion in Medicine and the Henry J. Heimlich Award for Innovative Medicine.

PCRM’s funding comes from its members, along with occasional grants from the federal government or private foundations. PCRM membership includes approximately 5,000 physicians. Non-physicians are welcome as supporting members and currently number more than 100,000.

The Facts about Industry’s Complaints

Industry groups note that non-physicians can join PCRM. Here are the facts: PCRM currently has more than 5,000 physician members. Supporting members include dietitians, psychologists, nurses, other scientific and health professionals, and laypersons who wish to support PCRM’s programs, and currently number more than 100,000. PCRM maintains separate counts for each group.

Industry groups note that the American Medical Association was critical of PCRM in the early 1990s. Here are the facts:

In April 1991, PCRM held a news conference with Denis Burkitt, M.D., who was well known for the identification and successful treatment of what was to become known as Burkitt’s lymphoma and for his later research establishing the value of dietary fiber; T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D., of Cornell University and head of the China Health Study; Oliver Alabaster, M.D., a George Washington University oncologist and head of the Institute for Disease Prevention; and Neal Barnard, M.D., PCRM president. The press conference recommended that federal dietary guidelines favor whole grains, vegetables, fruits, and legumes and that other foods, including meat, dairy products, added oils, and sugar, among others, be considered optional, rather than required. For purposes of reference, the American Dietetic Association’s position statement on vegetarian diets states, “appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.” In sharp contrast, the AMA reacted with a press release attacking PCRM’s recommendations and saying that “meat and dairy products should be kept in healthy diets.”

September 1992: PCRM held a press conference featuring Benjamin Spock, M.D., and Johns Hopkins University Director of Pediatrics Frank Oski, M.D., in relation to new research findings linking cow’s milk proteins and type 1 diabetes. The press conference recommended that parents be warned of diabetes risks and that milk not be recommended or required in nutrition guidelines. For reference, the American Academy of Pediatrics released a work group report in 1994 concluding that, based on more than 90 studies addressing the subject, evidence suggested that avoiding early exposure to cow’s milk proteins could reduce the risk of type 1 diabetes. In contrast, the AMA issued a press release criticizing PCRM’s press conference and encouraging Americans to view milk as healthful. The AMA had previously criticized PCRM’s promotion of alternative research and educational methods available to replace animal use in some applications.

After the early 1990s, the AMA’s criticisms ended. In 1995, the AMA published one of Dr. Barnard’s research articles in the Archives of Family Medicine and subsequently used various PCRM physicians as quotable experts in American Medical News. Dr. Barnard is a lifetime AMA member.

Although industry groups have sometimes erroneously reported that the AMA “censured” PCRM, the AMA has clear-cut guidelines for the censure process and at no time has PCRM been subject to them in any way.

On February 10, 2004, responding to the tobacco/food industry-funded groups’ frequent exploitation of the AMA’s past criticisms of PCRM’s nutrition advocacy, the AMA issued an official statement saying that those criticisms were no longer current.

Industry groups note that PCRM frequently works with animal protection organizations. Here are the facts:

Two aspects of PCRM’s work are relevant to animal welfare interests: First, PCRM has conducted many research studies on vegetarian diets and favors such diets. Second, PCRM successfully develops and promotes technologies that replace animal use in research, testing, and education.

Although PCRM has no corporate affiliation with any animal protection group, in 1993, PCRM president Neal Barnard, M.D., helped found the Foundation to Support Animal Protection, which supported the animal-welfare-related programs of several organizations, including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, PCRM, and others. Although Dr. Barnard is no longer part of the Foundation, PCRM is often able to provide scientific information on vegetarian diets and on research practices that support the educational programs of organizations working for human health or animal welfare.

Also, in years past, PETA supported some of PCRM’s programs, notably PCRM’s efforts to stop the EPA’s cruel HPV testing program from going forward, although PETA’s support was never a major part of PCRM’s budget. PCRM is an entirely independent organization and has never been part of any other.

Industry groups sometimes use the word “terrorist” in relation to PCRM’s work. Here are the facts:

PCRM has a strict spokesperson policy that forbids any comment that could be taken as promoting discrimination or illegal activity. PCRM spokespersons have conducted thousands of interviews over 20 years, and this policy has become relevant only once. Some years ago, a member surgeon, Dr. Jerry Vlasak, was invited to comment in a debate about activist tactics, including illegal tactics. Although he was not speaking for PCRM at the time, his comments could easily have been construed as being permissive of such activity, and, as a result, Dr. Vlasak is no longer a PCRM spokesperson or a PCRM member. Industry groups have sometimes characterized the episode as somehow suggesting that PCRM tolerates illegal activity when, in fact, it shows the opposite.

Several years ago, amid allegations of cruelty to animals and poor scientific practices at a commercial testing company called Huntingdon Life Sciences, the head of an activist group called Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty (SHAC) asked PCRM president Neal Barnard, M.D., to join him in writing to manufacturers using Huntingdon’s services to encourage them to patronize other testing laboratories. Dr. Barnard did so, with a polite and informative letter. PCRM had no further interactions with SHAC. Several years later, SHAC was suspected of illegal activity in its protests. PCRM does not tolerate any such activity.

Conclusion

PCRM’s work focuses on clinical research, nutrition advocacy, and the development and promotion of ethical research methods. We continue to work with the federal government, private industry, other nonprofit institutions, and the public to further these aims.

Manufacturers of tobacco and unhealthful food products will no doubt continue to be targeted by criticism from health authorities and will react in ways they feel are appropriate to their commercial interests. PCRM would encourage them to facilitate a broader understanding of the health consequences of use of their products and face the fact that society is embracing these positive changes.

Media Center | Health | Research | About PCRM | Catalog | Join Us | Search | Site Index | Home

The site does not provide medical or legal advice. This Web site is for information purposes only.
Full Disclaimer | Privacy Policy