Dear EWG,

The Environmental Working Group is an amazing group doing ground-breaking work in the chemical body-burden field, which makes it all the more perplexing that you have chosen to rather vigorously attack a writer (me) and a magazine (National Geographic) that has just published a story highlighting your cause. Your complaint is not about the article itself, but rather the fact that we neglected to mention EWG as a source for the story.

This omission is regrettable, as I have said several times to EWG staff, because it's true that you provided a great deal of help for the article. I believe that you should have been mentioned in the story, and as a source for the charts and graphs. One of your experts was quoted in an early draft of the text, but was later cut by an editor, I'm not sure why, though it was certainly not intentional or malicious. A few days ago, your director and others at EWG brought the omission to my attention, and I apologized. I then asked the editors at NG to send EWG a letter acknowledging your role, which the magazine sent to you last week.

Apparently, this wasn't enough. But rather than continue a dialogue with me and with the magazine, you have chosen to launch this assault that singles me out as if I am a villain that has committed some horrible wrong. This is terribly unfair and, frankly, beneath such an esteemed organization. As you well know, at NG and many other national media outlets, the writer is only one of many people responsible for a story. I write the initial text, but several editors review and edit the piece, and the editors have the final say. I fully accept responsibility for the oversight, but I am one of many.

As for the rest of the story-making process -- creating charts and graphs, fact-checking, and so forth -- I had only a peripheral role. I had no idea about the hours spent by others at NG working with EWG. EWG knows this is the process at a major media group, yet still chose to put a face on their website -- mine! -- as if I was somehow in control of the entire process. You know better!

EWG was indeed very helpful to me as a source for the article, but you were not the only source. I have three thick, 3-ring binders full of information, a box full of studies, and hours of notes and tapes from interviews with dozens and dozens of people, some of whom spent more time with me than EWG. Also, most of my testing was actually handled by Mt. Sinai and Dr. Leo Trasande -- with some key assists by EWG, the lab that did the testing, and others. And EWG did make suggestions about which chemicals to test for, though these were suggested by others as well. My major source for selecting chemicals was the CDC's 2005 study of chemical exposure.

I respectfully request that you remove my picture -- I'm the little guy in this project, the independent writer trying to make a living – and also the insinuation that I am the front man for some malicious intent to slight you. I also don't think anyone is served by keeping up this item on the EWG website as is. Surely a cool assessment of the oversight and your disappointment at not being mentioned, and the truth about my efforts and the magazine's efforts to make amends, is more worthy of such an excellent group, and gets your point across without resorting to unwaranted attacks.

In the end, it's quite discouraging when a group doing such pioneering work goes after a writer and a magazine that has published an article highlighting that group's cause, if not them personally, with a vim and vitriol better left to true enemies and evil doers. Such are the times we live in, I suppose.

I personally can do no more than what I have done to make amends. I understand the magazine is trying to reach you to see what they can do. I do not work for NG, but they have a reputation for being reasonable and thoughtful in these matters, and you should give them a chance before you escalate things.

So EWG, please set this matter straight and remove the vitriol, and my picture;and then carry on with your fine work.

Best,
David Ewing Duncan

Dear EWG,

If you really cared about your cause I don't think you would be so concerned about getting credit. The mean-spirited nature of your article makes it sound like you are more concerned with your own pride than the causes you are trying to promote.

This is childish.

Best,

Stephen Elliott

This is not about credit or pride, but about National Geographic being honest with its readers about where the story came from, and fair to us about use of our intellectual property. We don't hold a copyright on the research procedures used in our Body Burden tests, but we have gone to considerable lengths to develop them. We'd feel the same way (maybe not so strongly) if another environmental group developed a groundbreaking method for detecting airborne toxins, then saw 60 Minutes do a big expose on pesticide drift without acknowledging where the idea came from. We've provided more assistance on, and been left out of, many articles bigger than this one. Where National Geographic crossed the line was appropriating our methodology, getting us to walk them step-by-step through how to use it and interpret the results, then disingenuously presenting the article as if it they'd come up with the study design on their own.

Ken Cook
Environmental Working Group

Dear Ken and EWG,

This is really getting strange -- I think you have a fabulous group doing ground-breaking work, and I have gone to great lengths to apologize for not mentioning you in the article, which was not intentional. Why have you chosen to continue in attack mode? You are going after a straw man, because I agree with you that you were wronged – there is no enemy here!

National Geographic is also trying to make amends – if they weren’t, I’d be on the barricades with you. They called you today and tried in good faith to figure out a solution to make this up to you, but apparently you were so vitriolic on the phone with them that making amends was never discussed. You simply must stop this attack-dog posture! It's demeaning to you, esp. when the article supports your cause, I respect your work, and NG was great to give your cause such a high profile. I don’t know what else I can do to try to set this straight, yet you persist in vilifying me.

As for swiping your methods, the reality is that you were not my major source for the testing process – nor did you invent the idea of body burden testing, or, as far as I know, the scientific methods the lab used to run the tests. You were also just one of several sources for my analysis. My two major sources for protocols, testing and analysis were the CDC – which was running body burden tests long before the EWG existed – and the doctors at Mt. Sinai Hospital, particularly Dr. Leo Trasande. EWG also did not select the chemicals for me to be tested. This was done based on many sources and recommendations, most notably the 2005 CDC study. For this study the CDC tested thousands of Americans – I believe without the assistance of the EWG – for levels of 148 chemicals. My aim was to duplicate that list. I added a couple of other chemicals at the suggestion of EWG and others.

Leo Trasande then oversaw my testing, which was done in NY at Mt. Sinai. Sinai phlebotomists drew the blood and sent the samples to the lab. Dr. Trasande received the results and reported them to me with his analysis and opinions. I then sought out other opinions from many sources, including EWG. EWG’s major assist in this process was to direct me to the lab we used after Mt. Sinai’s first choice said no – I am grateful for this assist, but Dr. Trasande would have found a lab on his own eventually. This lab is used by researchers all over the world for chemical screenings of organisms, and has no connection with EWG as far as I know, except that EWG has been a client of theirs. As for the analysis of my test, this was primarily done by Dr. Trasande and the CDC, with a many other experts weighing in – including experts at EWG. However, with all due respect to EWG, if I had a choice in the story between quoting a world-renowned expert on PBDEs, or the top expert at the EPA or the CDC, I chose the world-renowned expert.

I think it's terrible that National Geographic took up so much of EWG’s time without recognition – but as the writer I was not even aware of most of this, which is why you need take down that photograph. Talking about IP – you took it from my website without asking, and without getting permission from the photographer, Mark Leat, who holds the copyright.

In the end, I wonder what you are trying to achieve with this attack against me. You should be upset, and state your case, but why be so over-the-top? Many of my journalist friends and colleagues are appalled by this excessive behavior, and you are in danger of damaging your own reputation and cause with them, which is very unfortunate given your good work.

Again, I respectfully request that you withdraw this needlessly inflammatory page, accept my apology, let NG make amends, and let's continue to work to make the world a safer place. In addition, I would love to post an apology to EWG on my site, so that everyone who goes there can know about your contributions. But I won't post anything as long as my photograph is up on your site, and I am depicted as some sort of arch-villain of the press taking advantage of unwitting sources. This isn't me, and what you are doing isn't right.

Best,
David Ewing Duncan

In recent years there has been, by both the journalism industry and news consumers, an increasing demand for greater transparency by journalists, who once were cavalier about using information from sources without attribution. Reporters for most major news outlets are no longer allowed to copy stories from smaller local papers, rely on unacknowledged help from freelancers, or even use off-the record information without at least describing the source so that readers can judge how much credence to give it.

This is the same thing. EWG is unashamedly an advocacy organization, but the process by which we work is in many ways similar to investigative reporting: We conduct research, gather and analyze data, and present it to the public. A major difference is that as advocates for one position, we aren't obligated to report the other side of the story. That's the journalists' job, and in this case National Geographic did its job by reporting on the perspective of the chemical lobby.

By failing to acknowledge the major role EWG played in the research that made Duncan's story, National Geographic is being less then fully transparent with its readers, with whom it has deservedly built a reputation of trust. A magazine of its caliber wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) write a story about chemical safety that was built on research by the American Chemistry Council without acknowledging the industry's role; nor should it have failed to tell its readers that it borrowed our study design and then used us as guides through the process.

Dear David and EWG,

I hate to see conflicts of this kind. Believe it or not the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) has a Code of Ethics and it's a good one.
Here's a segment:

Seek Truth and Report It
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should:

— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
— Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
— Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.

Bottom Line- David should have included information that he used protocol from EWG just as he mentioned Mt Sinai. Apparently the "advocacy organization" had information that was good enough to replicate, not good enough to include in the article? To not do so not only slighted EWG but failed to tell viewers the entire story.

Saying that "editors did it" is as lame as an anchor who reads words a producer writes then claims to have no accountability for the story.

I particularly like this part of the Code:

Be Accountable
Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.
Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.

National Geographic will you admit your mistake?

Thank you,
Jane Akre
Freelance Journalist

National Geographic now has two major strikes: Environmental Working Group's claim and National Geographic's television program, Seconds from Disaster. In which, it shows a computer generated animation in its poor attempt to explain how a comercial jet airliner crashed into the pentagon. It shows wings breaking off before impact, but no wings show up in several actual video footage and pictures of the aftermath of the pentagon destruction nor were wings ever reported or shown removed from the lawn of the pentagon. Makes me think, now, if they don't review the material before actual plagiarism occurs.

I'm with EWG on this. National Geographic Mag should be ashamed of itself for cutting the source of their information out of the article. I really thought National Geographic might be less inclined to practically plagiarize material. Your denials are empty. The article and the omissions speak for themselves. I support EWG in every way and I will never give another dime to anything National Geographic after seeing how few ethics the editorial staff has.

Columbia Journalism Review says it well, in its article about this blog
(http://www.cjrdaily.org/behind_the_news/national_geographic_bite.php):
"If the group [EWG] once had a valid point to make, it has been overshadowed by its infantile pursuit of reparations."

*********************************************************************************************************
ENVIROBLOG EDITOR'S NOTE: Tim Appenzeller is the science editor for National Geographic Magazine.