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!
Help us 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.
ENVIROBLOG VIA EMAIL
Join EWG's live chat with Chef Ann Cooper
School lunch: More fruits & veggies, please!
Texas Schools are Drilling for Dollars
Why do blowouts take so long to fix?
SEARCH ENVIROBLOG
FEATURED
Support the 2010 Safe Cosmetics Act. It's Urgent.
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
Cell phone radiation series - Part 2: 8 Ways to reduce your exposure
Test Your Knowledge of Cosmetics Safety: 8 Myths Debunked
EWG's Tips for Parents: The Series
EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure
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.
« Defining the global environmental justice movement | Main | 17 Principles of Environmental Justice »
Correction
In a May 16 blog post about the possibility of Dennis Paustenbach being appointed to a federal asbestos committee, we said that Paustenbach's firm ChemRisk "committed scientific fraud on behalf of a client" by placing in a scientific journal an article concluding that chromium-6 does not cause cancer. The study was published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health in 1997 under the byline of a Chinese scientist without disclosing ChemRisk's involvement in the study.
Our statement that ChemRisk committed scientific fraud was in error. The Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health did retract the study, but it stated the reason it was doing so was that "financial and intellectual input to the paper by outside parties was not disclosed. Although it is impossible to know what the impact of such disclosure would have been, it is possible that full knowledge of the circumstances may have altered the review process or the subsequent interpretation of the study by readers."
On Dec. 23, 2005, The Wall Street Journal cited court documents that "indicate the . . . study was conceived, drafted, edited and submitted to medical journals" by ChemRisk, working for Pacific Gas & Electric Co., "a utility company being sued for alleged chromium pollution." The Wall Street Journal has not retracted or corrected these statements.
Leave a comment