ABOUT
Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Written by EWG staff.
DONATE TO EWG TODAY
We need you to help protect your health and environment! Please donate $5 to EWG today.
GET EWG'S TIPS & ACTION ALERTS
Sign Up here to receive email updates and tips from EWG and stay informed on the issues that matter most to you.
Get EWG widgets & blog badges.
ENVIROBLOG TO YOU
ENVIROBLOG VIA EMAIL
You could (almost) eat this furniture
Is your sunscreen in EWG's Sunscreen Hall of Shame?
Fracking: Live chat with EWG & 'Gasland' director Josh Fox
Understanding Sunscreen: 4 Questions about SPF
SEARCH ENVIROBLOG
FEATURED
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
Cell phone radiation series - Part 2: 8 Ways to reduce your exposure
Infant formula: How to choose it & use it
EWG's Tips for Parents: The Series
EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure
Let's talk some serious shop about TSCA reform
EWG on TV
Cutting the Pork from U.S. Farm Bill
Sunscreen safety & DC drinking water
Perchlorate in people, kids' personal care products & plastics, and sunscreen
BPA in baby formula & safe cosmetics
What can I do about fluoride in my water?
What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
PEOPLE TALKING TOXICS
TALK TO US
Did we miss something? Email Enviroblog.
« New and improved Skin Deep database | Main | Trying to honor Rachel Carson ain't easy »
Clarification
After our May 16 blog about consultant Dennis Paustenbach’s possible appointment to an EPA panel on asbestos, we received a letter from Dr. Paustenbach’s attorney. It says our use of the word "fraud" in describing the involvement of Dr. Paustenbach's company, ChemRisk, in the publication of a since-retracted study on chromium-6 in drinking water was "false and defamatory."
To clarify: The stated reason for the retraction by the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine was that "financial and intellectual input to the paper by outside parties was not disclosed." JOEM said it found "no evidence to suggest the existence of scientific fraud," but our post could have been misinterpreted to say that it had.
EWG believes ChemRisk’s activities – producing and publishing a study under other scientists’ bylines while hiding its involvement and the fact that the study was paid for by a corporation with a financial interest in the findings – were deceptive and unethical, but JOEM did not say they were fraud. To further clarify, here are the letter and supporting documents EWG sent to the journal that resulted in the retraction.
I am not a scientist, just wondering if I am reading this right. You are claiming that Chemrisk has a link to a corporation that could possibly want a skew in the results.
The only reason I want clarification, is I have a personal friend that is a high ranking member of Chemrisk. Just want clarification that there may be ethical issues that have been breached....is this true? I would hate to think a friend is responsible, but really wouldn't put it past him.