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.
FEED

An EWG podcast for environmental health news on the go.
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
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
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?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
SEARCH
« 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.
Comments
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.
Posted by: karen p | September 20, 2008 1:33 AM