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. Enviroblog is a project of EWG Action Fund.

Read about our authors.


FEED

 Subscribe in a Reader

Subscribe by Email


Mixed Greens
An EWG podcast for environmental health news on the go.


TWITTER UPDATES

    TIPS

    Did we miss something? Email Enviroblg.


    BLOGROLL


    STAY CONNECTED

    Get our monthly eNewsletter, action alerts, & environmental tips. [Privacy policy, About EWG]


    Consumers to FDA: Be there or be square

    Relax, it's baby safety month

    Toxic cosmetics in teenage girls


    FEATURED

    Elected officials MIA; Instead Wal-Mart and Burger King protecting your health

    Back to school: Are we ready? Are we non-toxic?

    Fire retardants: Disproportionate risk to small children

    Lead: Celebrate its ban, but don't cross it off your list

    Cheatsheet: Bisphenol A

    7 ways to reduce your exposure to PBDEs



    Ask EWG

    What can I do about fluoride in my water?

    What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?

    What is "fragrance"?

    Which infant formula is best?

    Are stainless steel water bottles safe?

    Is mineral-based makeup safer?


    SEARCH


    ARCHIVE

    « New and improved Skin Deep database | Main | Trying to honor Rachel Carson ain't easy »

    Clarification

    By Bill Walker

    May 24, 2007

    postcard_final.jpgAfter 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.

    « New and improved Skin Deep database |