Document wqEEEQXz563d06DegLn5Z1rNQ

FILE NAME: Doubt Science (DBTS) DATE: 2005 DOC#: DBTS011 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Jacobson Journal Article from IJOEH - Lifting the Veil of Secrecy from Industry Funding of Nonprofit Health Organizations Lifting the Veil of S e cre cy from Industry Funding of Nonprofit Health O rganizations M ICHAEL F. JA CO BSO N , PHD NTanhdosseciwenhcoe pproolivciydenoirnmfoarlmlyaptrioensenabt othuetmssceielvnetisfiacs bisesiunegs Tauhtaotm'soobnieler,eaansodnowtheehracvoemsepeanniteosbathcacot ,msaorftkdetricnokn, toriol, oobfjheecatilvteh acnhdar"itsiceise,nptirfoicfe."sTsihoinsaalratiscsloecidaetisocnrisb,ensoanrparnogfiet versial products developing relationships with non profit groups. People would be far more skeptical of a atidovnoscathcyatorregcaenivizeastiiognnsif,icaanndt ifnudnudsitnrgy-fcrroemateidndoursgtaryn.izIan some cases, industry appears either to influence an Corporate Polluters Lobbying Association than an industry-funded Prestige University Center on Public forregeadnoizmattioons'psepakosoituiotnosn omrattoterlsimoiftinatneroesrgt atonitzhaetifounn's Huseeasltthh.eAsexopneertadovpeinrtiiosinngocfoamupnainvyersstiatytedP,h"DG--atomruadche dpeortse.ntNiaolnipnrfolfuietnocregaonnizatthioenirs innedeedpetnodecnocnesidiefr ththeey better than just having someone from the company say it--to encourage more people to consume its sports aascscoecpitatfiounnsd.inKgeyfrwoomrdsi,ntienrdeusstetrdy cfoumndpianngi;escoannfdlicttrsadoef udnriinvker.s"iStyim'siglaorloyd, cnoammpeanwiiells bhuorpneisthhatthaeinrorneppurotaftiito'snosr. interest; health charities; professional organizations. Call it "innocence by association." Many nonprofit groups welcome corporate support. 1NT J O C C U P EN VIRO N HEALTH 2 0 0 5 ;! 1:349-355 The funds allow them to have a higher public profile (which may translate into increased donations), hire onprofit organizations traditionally have been a nneowtwisthtasftfa,ndainndg inesxipstaenndcetbhyebirotphrothgeradmosn.orHs oawndevtehre, bulwark of independent thinking and action in American society, a pillar of our democracy. Be recipients that such grants come with no strings attached, a price usually is paid for accepting corporate tohreuynhiveearlstihtiecsh, athrietiyesa,reheuaslutahl-lpyrocofensssiidoenraeldatsosobceiaotibojnefibscu,inlidtyinagn.dTihnadteppaeynmdeenntcme.a(yObfecionutrhsee,cruercreeinpctyooffincdreuds tive and serving the public interest. And, indeed, over the years, organizations as disparate as the American try funding hardly proves that an organization has lost its independence or is irresponsible. Some groups with Heart Association and World Wildlife Fund have made enormous contributions in their spheres of interest. industry funding have some excellent publications, sponsor sound research, and make valid criticisms of In recent decades, though, a new factor has crept, often secredy, onto the scene. Corporations have independent organizations and government policies.) learned that they can influence public opinion and public policy more effectively by working through PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS seemingly independent organizations rather than-- accotmuapllayn,iiens ahdadvietiosonutgoh--t utondinefrlutheenicreowanndnammaekse.Juusset oasf Mtieesdairceala-pmroofnegsstihoenabligogregsatnriezcaitpiioennstsaonfdinhdeuasltthry cfhuanrdi politicians and journalists, they have recognized that it can be very useful to get an apparently independent ing. Drug and other companies have provided substan tial funding to such groups to publicize and give nonprofit organization to advocate on their behalf. credibility to the companies' high-profit products. In 1997, for instance, the American Medical Associ ation generated a firestorm of outrage when it agreed Dr.Jacobson is the executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit organization based in Washington, to a scheme endorsing products made by the Sunbeam Corporation. The five-year agreement would have D.C. This paper is adapted from a CSPI report that details industry funding received by more than 100 nonprofit organizations (see placed the AMA's logo on a line of thermometers, blood pressure monitors, and other home healthcare "Lifting the Veil o f Secrecy" at <www.IntegrityInScience.org>). Cita tions for facts in this article, unless otherwise provided, as well as information about corporate support of professors, will be found in products and generated millions of dollars in royalties for the medical group. Unfortunately, the AMA hadn't that report. CSPI is funded largely by the 900,000 subscribers to its Nutrition Action Healthletter and does not accept funding from MevaennyeAvaMluAatemdemthbeerqsuawlietyreaonudtrcaogsetdo, fatnhde tphreodAucMtsA. industry or government. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Michael F. became engulfed in a widely publicized scandal. Ulti mately, more sober-minded AMA members forced the Jacobson, PhD, 1875 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20009, U.S.A.; e-mail: <mjacobson@cspinet.org>. departure of five of the group's executive leaders and 349 ended the Sunbeam relationship. But that didn't stop Sunbeam from suing the AMA for breach of contract and winning a $9.9 million settlement. (Around the same time, the AMA issued a statement that was sup portive of Procter and Gamble's fat substitute olestra. That support, though, began to look more like a quid pro quo than an independent scientific judgment when the Chicago Sun-Times discovered that the AMA was negotiating with Procter and Gamble to pay $80M0,e0d0i0catlocsopnovnesnotiroanns AsoMmAetfiimtneesssenpdrougpralmoo.)king like trade shows, because of massive corporate support. According to a Washington Post article on the role of industry in medical meetings, "in several dozen sympo siums during the week-long [American Psychiatric Association] meeting, companies paid the APA about $50,000 per session to control which scientists and papers were presented and to help shape the presenta tiniodnuss.t"ryT-shpeon2s0o0r2edAsnynmuaplosmiuemestinsgpohnasdoreadtobtyalAobfbo4t2t LabIns, E20li0L3i,llyth, ePfAizmer,erNicoavnarAtisc,aadnemd yotohefrPs.ediatric Den tliisotnryf,raomsmCalolcpar-oCfoelsas.iTonhael aacsasdoecmiatyiowna,sawccideepltyeadn$d1pmuibl lliecalyrnecrditoicfiztheed dwehale--n imthaegipnue,blainc o(ragnadnizitastiomneomsbteenrssi) bly concerned about children's teeth taking money from arguably the world's biggest producer of sugary fdoeondts.DaBvuitd tChuertsiistudaetfieonndgeodthwisorgsreouwph.eHneAsAtaPteDd:Pr"eSscii entific evidence is certainly not clear on the exact role Tthhaattswofatsdqriuniktes pdliafyfeirnentetrfmrosmofachpirledvrieonu'ss ostraatledmiseenatseb.y" the group: Fcarenqbueenat scigonnisfuicmanpttifoanctoorf isnugthares cihnildanaynbdeavdeoralegse cgerenstsdioinet othfatdecnotnatlribcuarteiess.toAtdhdeitiinointiaalltyio,nthaendapcridos pterreisoeunst einffethctes(eerboesvioerna)geosncaennahmaveel tahganreathteer adceildes gtheenedrraintekds.bMyaonryalsoflfotrdarifnrkosmaltshoecsoungtaarins psirgensiefnictainnt ammayoulenatsd otof icnacfrfeeainseedw, hevicehn, hiafbciotunaslu,museadger.egularly, Apparently, the gift affected the organization's views. And Coca-Cola apparently turned a potential critic into an ally. While Coke's contribution suppos edly is no-strings-attached, what generally guarantees good behavior by recipients of corporate funding is not a contract requiring fealty at every turn, but a desire for moAres,soacnidatiionncsreaosfedm, ifnuonrditiynghienatlhthe fpurtoufrees.sionals are hmauvcehgsrmeaatlelrerditfhfaicnultthyeriarisminaginmstorenaemy. Tcohuant tmerapkaerststhaenmd yesepaercitahlelyAvusslonceiraatbiolen toofcoBrlpaockratCioanrds.ioTlohguiss,tsinoabrteaicneendt 80% of its $5 million budget from the drug industry. In 2000, the group received $2.2 million from BristolMyPerrosfSeqssuiiobnba.l associations may claim that they are concerned about the public interest, but, understand ably, their primary mission is to advance their mem bers'interests. And their members intei ests sometimes cinosntfalniccte,wthiteh 7a0,0b0ro0-amdeermbpeurbAlicm-seerrivciacneDfiuentecttiicoAn.ssFocoir ation focuses primarily on increasing the credibility and income of dietitians, many of whom work directly fiomrm, oerdisaetervlye raasisceosnscuolntaflnictst-otof-,infoteordestcoimssupeasn,iebse.cTauhsaet what is good for the public may not be good for the ADA's book balance and many companies. The food industry sees the ADA as a vehicle for reaching the hearts and minds of dietitians and the general public. TGheurbs,erm--acnoyntrmibaujoter tfoootdhecAoDmAp,anaidevs--ertfirsoemin Mitsarjsoutro nsoalr, "afancdt esxhheiebtsit."aTt ihtse aNnantuioanl aml eSeotifntgD. rTinhkeyAaslssoocisaptoionn sopgoynsionrdsutshtreyfascptosnhseoertsona sfoafcttdrsihnekest. 'Iohne abgioritceuclhtnuorall biotechnology. McDonald's sponsors the fact sheet on "Nutrition on the Go." Ajinomoto, the maker of MSG, sponsors the fact sheet on "Food Allergies and Intoler ances." The feet sheets typically are written by corpo rate PR firms and are lightly veiled defenses of the sponsors' products or practices. At least, though, the facEt vsheneetasndoodrgisacnloizsaetiwohno ofuf nmdeedditchaelmjo. urnalists has gotten in on the drug-industry gravy train. The Ameri can Medical Writers Association (AMWA), which calls imtseedlfictahleco"lmeamduinngicaptroorfse,s"sihoansalreocregivaendizaftuinodninfgorfrboimo tOhneelwikoesulodfthEilnikLtilhlya,tjAoubrbnoatltisLtsabwoorualtdorsiteusd, ioaunsdlyPafivzoeird. entanglements with special interests. It could get pretty dicey for a journalist to be trying to write an objective shteorryorwghainleizaetniocno.urBaugti,nign athcisomcapsaen, ymtaoybseupopbojercttihviistyoirs not the goal for AMWA members, considering that man(ByeofstuhreemndootPRtofocrodnrfuugseantdheothAeMr WcoAmpwanitihes.the AMWA--the American Medical Women's Association. That group also gets funding from the likes of Eli Lilly, Abbott Laboratories, and Pfizer. The women's medical gthraotu, pinuesexdchtaonsgpeofnosro$r2a5,P0r0o0d, uaclltoAwcecdeppatacnkcaegePsroofgvriatmaminpills and other products to be emblazoned with an "AMCWomApAanpipersovheadv"elanboelc.)onfusion about professional acsasnocuisaetiotonsp:roTmheoytesesealethseamndasinTflruoejanncehpoursbelsicthpoalticthieesy. TAomceirtiecaonneVoetfemrinaanryyeMxaemdipcliense, vAestseoricniaatriioanns(AviVewMAth)eairs a professional organization. But makers of animal 350 Jacobson w w w .lioeh.com INT J OCCUP ENVIRON HEALTH drugs see the AVMA as a means of advancing their interests. A "landmark day" for the president of the AVMAwas when drug-giant Bayer announced a "longrange, five-year financial commitment to the AVMA." AVMA appears to have reciprocated by defending the routine feeding of antibiotics to healthy animals, a great profit center for the antibiotics industry, but a cnaounsethoaft arendtiubcioesticthreeseifsfteacntciveeninesbsaocftesruiac,h adrpuhgesnwomheen used to treat food-borne illnesses in humans. HEALTH CHARITIES Health charities--such as the American Cancer Society and American Heart Association--are distincdy differ ent from professional associations. The charities are often founded by two groups with symbiotic interests: victims of various diseases and researchers who study potential cures. In a further symbiosis, companies that make drugs and medical devices often are major sup pbeotretesrAs.sWsohcioatbioenttetrhaton scuopmpopratn, iseasy,mthaerkAemtinegriceaxnisDtiniag treatments and investigating new ones? Thus, that group has received contributions of $750,000 or more from such companies as Abbott Laboratories, Bristol- AMsyesorsmSeqouifbtbh,oEseli (Lainlldy, oGthlaexro)ScmoimthpKalniniees,'adnrdugMs ehracvke. been discovered to have serious unsuspected side effects, the health groups have been largely silent. It's all too easy for donors and recipients to develop a mutually back-scratching relationship that translates intoTh"eseAe mnoereivcialn, hDeiaarbnetoesevAils,ssopceiaatkionnoisevaills.o" a benefi ciary of "cause-related marketing"--in which compa nies boost their images and profits by supporting worthy causes. That'swhat'sbehind the proliferation of 10K runs and bike-athons sponsored by drug, liquor, and other companies. For prices between $25,000 and $so1r0e0d,00"0a,isKlersa"ft,inGetnheeradl iMabilelste, sanadssQouciaakteiornh'save"vsirptounal stiuopnerdmenaireksett"haotniittsisWeenbdosirtsei.nEgvtehnetbhroaungdh-ntahme aespsorcoida ucts featured on its virtual shelves, it's hard to see that actAivintyotahsesrohmeeatlhthingchoatrhietyr,ththaen pArrotdhruictitspFroomunodtiaotnio. n, found itself in the headlines in an unwanted way after it licensed its name to McNeil Consumer Products. The company marketed aspirin, acetominophen, and ibuprofen under the Arthritis Foundation brand name. Of course, they were just neatly packaged versions of the common drugs, but they generated $2 million in income for the foundation. A coalition of Minnesota and 18 other states' attorneys general sued McNeil and won the a pr $2 od mil ucts l iwone rsee tntleewm emn t e dinic a1t9i9o6n s f or cr imply eated inbgy t hat the foundation. Minnesota Attorney General Hubert Humphrey said, `When a nonprofit's credibility is sold LIST 1-- Amounts Contributed to the Arthritis Foundation by Corporate Funders in 2001 $500,000-$999,999 Am gen Inc. Bayer Consumer Care Immunex Corporation Rexall Sundown Inc. Wyeth Pharm aceuticals $250,000-$499,999 GlaxoSm ithKline M erck & Co. Inc. Pharm acia Corp. $ 100,000-$249,999 Abbott Laboratories Aventls Pharm aceuticals Barr Laboratories Inc. Centocor Inc. HealthSouth Corp. The Hoglund Foundation New York State Laborers' Health & Safety Trust Schering-Plough H ealthcare Products Inc. Welder Nutrition Fund $50,000-$99,999 Pfizer's Warner Lambert Consumer Group Royal Appliance Mfg. Co, Watkins M anufacturing Co. $25,000-$49,999 Cardinal Brands Grabber Perform ance Group Leading Lady The J. M. Long Foundation Pactiv Corporation The Roslyn Savings Foundation Sonic Corp. M edical Research Wyeth Consumer Healthcare Foundation $10,000-$24,999 Dalichl Pharm aceutical Corp. Garden Pals Hlllcrest M edical Center Foundation Oxnard Foundation Pfizer Inc. Pilot Pen Corporation of Am erica Quick & Reilly Dr. Scholl Foundation Tucson Marriott Business Council UPMC Health System Webster Industries Source: Annual Report 2001, Arthritis Foundation; <h1tp:// w w w .arthritis.org/resources/aboutus/annuaLreports/2001/ 2001report.asp>; accessed 5/28/03. for profit, the public has a right to know who's behind the name, what's inside the product, and where the money is going." The corporate funding received by the Arthritis Foundation (see List 1) is an example of the major corporate ties that a mid-sized health charity mitya'ys fhiaevlde owfitihntceoremstp.anies that have a stake in the char Charities generally portray themselves as vigorous proponents of the public interest, helping victims, seek- VO L 11/NO 4, OCT/DEC 2005 www.ijoeh.com Industry Funding of Nonprofit Health Organizations 351 LIST 2--Members of the Corporate Advisory Council of the Society for Women's Health Research________________ 3M Abbott Laboratories AdvancePCS Am erlcasDoctor Amgen A stra Z e n e c a Aventls Pharm aceuticals, Inc, Barr Laboratories, inc. Baxter H ealthcare Corporation Bayer Corporation Berlex Laboratories, Inc. Boston Scientific Corp. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co, The Chlorine Chemistry Council C ytyc Corporation Dlgene Corporation Dow Corning Corporation Ell Lilly and Com pany GE M edical Systems G laxoSm ithKline G yn e care Hoffman-La Roche Inc. IRIS-Global Clinical Trial Solutions Johnson & Johnson Kimberly-Clark Corporation M edtronic, Inc. Merck & C o ., Inc. Novartis Corporation Organon Inc. Ortho Biotech Ortho-McNeil Pharm aceutical, Inc. Pfizer Inc. Pharm acia Playtex Products, Inc. PPD Procter and Gam ble Roche Schering-Plough Corporation Solvay Pharm aceuticals SynerMed Com m unications Wyeth Pharm aceuticals__________________________________ Source: <http://w w w.w om ens-health.org/contributlon/CAC. htm>; accessed 2/24/03. ing cures, and investigating preventive measures. But otankianngocrogarpnoizraattieond'osnaacttiivointisespauntsd eraniosrems qouuesstcioonnsstarabionutst a group's objectivity and independence. For instance, does a group such as the American Cancer Society not focus on dangers of chemicals or pollution because of fEulnecdtirnicg iCt roeocpeeivraestivfreo,manDduPsoinmti,laBrP cAommepraicnai,esA?laWbahmaat about the American Heart Association's acceptance of funding from the National Cattlemen's Beef Associa ptiroonm--omtinigghtditehtasttbheatapsrmevaellnrtehaseoanrtfdoirseitassela?cAk nodf zmeailgihnt the fact that the heart association receives more than $2 mgriolluiopn'saaybeilaitrybytocecrrtiitficyiizneg pbrroadnudc-ntsa?mCeofropoodrsarteedfuucneditnhge is likely a reason that some health charities focus on cures and forget about prevention. Relatively benign image-enhancing relationships may be converted into protective shields when circum stances dictate. For instance, the Society for Women's Health Research played a major role in stimulating gov ernment sponsorship of research on women's health. But a decade down the line, according to the 'Washing mtonacMeuotnicthally,ctohmepgarnoyupWvyiegtoh,rowushliychdemfe;inrdkeetds tthhee pmhoasrt wwihdeenlya umsaejdorhnoerwmsotnuedyrperpolvaicdeemdesntrtonthgeeravpidyen(cHeRthTa),t the dangers of long-term use of HRT outweighed its benefits. Wyeth has given donations as large as $250,000 to the association and was the "Grand Bene factor" of the society's 2003 annual gala. The society also has lent its name to a multi-million-dollar cam pfoarigirnribtaybolneeboowf ietsl ssypnodnrsoomrse,.NTohvearmtise,mtobemrsarokfetthaedsroucgi ety's corporate advisory council are shown in List 2. NONPROFIT GROUPS CREATED OR SUSTAINED BY INDUSTRY Health charities and professional organizations typi cally retain a substantial degree of independence and undertake worthy projects, even while they receive fbuilnitdyinagrefrothme dourbgiaonuiszadtoionnosrs.thHaatvcinogrpmoruacthiolnesssccrreeadtie fcreonmt-ssocurnadtcihn.g Tnhaomsees,orlgikaenitzhaetioInnsteronftaetnionhaalveLibfeenSecfii ences Institute (funded by food and chemical compa ncaiettsl)e,, thhoegC, oaanlditioonthfeorraAgnriibmuasilnHesesaelst)h, (tfhuenCdeedntbeyr tfhoer Consumer Freedom (funded initially by a $300,000 grant from Philip Morris, but which now receives much of its funding from agribusiness, food, and restaurant industries), the Foundation for Clean Air Progress (funded by the petroleum, trucking, and chemical industries), and the American Council for Fitness and Nutrition (funded by food manufacturers). Their cor porate affiliations are sometimes hidden or mentioned only in the small print at the back of the brochure. Such groups pretend to be serving the public interest bsoyripnugbrliessheianrgchp,aomrpahplpeetsa,rihnogldoinngtelceovnisfeiorennscheosw, ss.pBount scratch the surface and all semblance of independence iannddusotbryjecftriovnittygvraonuipssh.esT.hTehirowsehoalree rpaliasoinn adn'dtrseimisptloe advManocset tihnediursctroyrpforroantet sgproonuspos,rs'foinrteorebsvtiso.us reasons, decline to provide detailed information about their fund iFnrge.eTdohme ex(CecCuFti)vetodlidrectthoer oafutthheorCethnatetr dfoisrclCoosinnsgumtheer group's funders would only help the group's opponents smtreiknecebaockf aCtCitFs'sfunatdtaecrsk.sInodneehde,aclothn,sivdeegrientgartihane,veahned animal-rights organizations (such as the Physicians Com mittee for Responsible Medicine, People for the Ethical 352 Jacobson w w w .ljoeh.com INT J O CCUP ENVIRON HEALTH LIST 3--Corporate Funding Received by the Center for Consum er Freedom in 2001 and 2002 2001 Anton's Alrfoods, Inc..........................................................$3,000 A pplebee's International, Inc..................................... $15,000 Cam eron Mitchell R estau ran ts................................... $1,250 Cam pagna-Turano Bakery, Inc........................................ $500 Casual Restaurant C o n c e p ts...................................... $3,300 C o ca-C o la C o m p a n y................................................ $200,000 Coldw ater S e a fo o d ........................................................ $15,000 Crystal's International ........................................................ $252 Custom Cuts ........................................................................$1,500 Daisy Brand .............................. $1,000 Exce l/C a rg ill.....................................................................$100,000 Fired Up ..................................................................................$6,000 Hatfield Quality M eats...................................................$33,700 HMS Host C o rp o ratio n ...................................................$50,000 Jeff's Gourm et P ie s .......................................................... $1,000 John R. Dally C o m p a n y ..................................................... $750 Kagom e, In c...........................................................................$1,086 King and Prince Seafood ..............................................$9,200 KorBert, In c.................................................................................. $300 KPR Foods .............................................................................$1,000 LTP M anagem ent G ro u p ................................................ $3,250 Marie Callendar Pie S h o p s........................................ $11,900 M exican R esta u ra n ts...........................................................$750 M onsanto.......................................................................... $200,000 National Steak and P o u ltry........................................ $10,000 Restaurant Concepts .................... Rosemount Estates (Southcorp) . Royal Cup .......................................... Save-on Seafood............................. Sugar Foods Corporation ............ T. Marzettl C o m p an y...................... TrIOak Foods ..................................... Tyson Foods, Inc................................. Wendy's International, Inc............. White Castle System ...................... Worldwide Restaurants Concepts ...........................$$56,,030000 ........... $1,000 ............................ $$25,,000000 .........................$. $150,,100000 ....... $100,000 .............................$...2$. 0$4013,,,058007002 2002 Brinker International, Inc................................................ $25,000 Cam eron Mitchell R estau ran ts................................... $1,250 Cam pagna-Turano Bakery, Inc........................................$500 China M ist..................................................................................$400 C o ffee Reserve, Inc................................................................$140 Darlfalr Fo o d s....................................................................... $5,000 Dean Foods C o m p a n y .................................................. $5,000 Ell's C heesecake C o m p a n y ........................................ $1,000 E xce l/C a rg ill.....................................................................$100,000 Good Humor/Breyer's Ice Cream ........................... $1,500 HMS Host C o rp o ratio n ...................................................$25,000 John Soules Fo o d s.............................................................$1,000 Ken's Foods In c.....................................................................$5,000 North Am erican Enterprises ........................................... $500 North Am erican Provisioned ........................................... $150 M ichigan Turkey Producers Coop ........................... $7,000 National Everclean S e rv ic e ..............................................$500 Not Your Average J o e 's ......................................................$347 Not Your Average J o e 's ..................................................... $347 O utback Steakhouse...................................................$164,600 Paradise Tomato Kitchens, Inc...................................... $7,500 P. F. Chang's China Bistro ........................................... $15,000 Perdue Farms, Inc............................................................. $40,000 Packaging Corporation of A m e rica .......................$10,000 Perform ance Food Group .........................................$15,000 Pro C le a n ...............................................................................$1,500 Revolution, Inc.......................................................................$1,000 Pilgrim's Pride Corporation ...................................... $100,000 Royal Cup ............................................................................ $1,500 Pro Edge ............................................................................... $2,400 Quantum Fo o d s............. ................................................. $18,000 RTM, Inc..................................................................................$64,872 Simmons Foods, Inc............................................................ $5,000 Raising C a n e's Chicken F in g e rs................................. $1,000 Sun O rchard, In c..................................................................$2,000 Rare Hospitality ................................................................$15,000 Real Food Marketing ...........................................................$500 Syracuse's Italian Sausage ............................................. $500 Tyson Foods, Inc...............................................................$100,000 Source; <http://www,dis!nfopedia.org/wlkl,phtm l?title=Center_for_Consum er_Freedom >; accessed 7/10/03. Treatment ofAnimals, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest) that it dislikes, that secrecy might be war ranted. Nevertheless, a nonprofit organization, PRWatch, received and publicized a list of CCF'sfunders that shows wLiisdte3sp).reCaodmspuapnpioerst tfhroamt cmonatjroibruftoeodd$c1o0r0p,o00ra0tioornsm(oseree include Coca-Cola, Excel/Cargill, Monsanto, Outback Steakhouse, Tyson Foods, and Wendy's. Somewhere between health charities and industry front groups are organizations that were not complete creations of corporate interests, but that rely largely on corporate support. They claim to be independent, but much of what they do is consistent with their support ers'interests. One prominent example is the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH). It receives funding from corporations and foundations (mosdy caognosesrtvoaptipveed, pdrios-cbluossiinnegssfrfoomundwahtiiocnhs)c, oAmCpSaHnielsonigt received funding, but according to the group's 1991 annual report, major funders include chemical compa nniieess,, afonoddauctoomcpoamnipeasn, ioesil. Ccoomnspiadneireisn,getnheorsgeyfucnodmeprsa, it should not surprise one that ACSH devotes much of its energy to trying to debunk concerns raised by envi raoirnamnednwtaaltearnpdocloluntsiounm,eprogorronuupstr.iItitodno,wdnapnlgaeyrssroisfkpseosf ticides, global warming, and other problems. The group speaks out on concerns related notjust to its cur rent donors, but also to other companies, perhaps in the hope that its utterances will lead to new funding. In other words, every whitewash serves both as a repay ment and as a marketing tool (and, to be fair, as an expression of the group's apparent actual beliefs). Another such organization is the International Soci ety for Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology t(iIsStsR, TpoPl)i,cywmhiackhersse,rvthees mtoed"iinafaonrmd thaendpuebdliuccaatbeousctitehne scientific issues affecting the regulatory process." VO L 11/NO 4, OCT/DEC 2005 . www.IJoeh.com Industry Funding of Nonprofit Health Organizations 353 ISRTP publishes the scientific journal Regulatory Toxi cology and Pharmacology. Its sponsors include Dow Agro Sciences, Eastman Kodak, Gillette, Merck, Procter and Gamble, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco, and other corpora tions that have an interest in weakening government regulations of toxic chemicals. The journal's editorial bwohaordcoinssduoltmfoinr ainteddusbtryy.inIdnuosntreyelgarweygeiorsusanedpissocdieen,titshtes journal's editor was paid $30,000 by the tobacco indus ntrayl--todwowritnepalapyianpgerth--ewrihsikcshowf assecpounbdli-shhaendd isnmtohkeej.o u r UNIVERSITIES University affiliations are particularly effective surro gates for propagating industry's views, helpful in bur nishing companies' reputations and giving companies access to respected faculty members. The most notori ous such group is the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. It was launched primarily with gifts from Bethlehem Steel, British Petroleum, Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical, Merck, Monsanto, and a dozen other companies. It now gets funding from everyone from AT&T Wireless and the California Avocado Commission to the Chemi cal Manufacturers Association and the Chlorine Chem istry Council, as well as the government. Its studies gen erally exonerate technologies alleged to cause ipnriotibalteivmess ainnd bperoavtiindge abcaacdkemgiocvbearcnkm-uepntfohrecaolrthporaantde JsoafhentyDru. lGesr.ahNaoms,uwrporuislde athskatPthhielipdiMreocrtorirs afot rth$a2t5t,i0m00e,, spaeyrsinogn,al"lIyw. o. u. .ldIltikies tihmepooprtpaonrttufnoirtymteo tmo eleetawrnithmyoorue about the risk-related challenges that you face." Other university-based groups include: Center for the Study and Improvement of Regula tion is housed in the Department of Engineering and Public Policy in the Carnegie Institute of Tech nology. It is funded by several corporations, founda Atiolcnosa,,atnhde tCrahdeemaiscsaolcMiaatinounfsaicntuclruedrsinAgs:sEocxixaotino,nF, oarndd, the American Petroleum Institute. Center for Food and Nutrition Policy was started at Georgetown University and is now at Virginia Poly pteecnhdneicnt,Innsotnitpurteofaitn"dgrSotuaptedoUensivneorstidtyis.cTlohsiesw"hinodiets backers are, despite claiming that it has a "full dis cthloesuGrreo"cpeorlyicMy.a(nInuffaaccttu, riet rhsasofreAcmeivereidcaf,unthdeinAgnfirmomal Health Institute, the Sugar Association, and other Tfohoed garnodupdrruegguclaormlypfainleiesscaonmdmternadtse oanssroecgiautliaotnosr.y) iasntrdatpioolnicaynidssUue.Ss,aDt tehpearUtm.S.enFtooodfAagnrdicDulrtuugreA. dmin The Vanderbilt University Medical Center's Institute for Coffee Studies was established with funds from the Association of Coffee Producing Countries, the National Coffee Association of the U.S.A., and the All-Japan Coffee Association. Also, it received $275,000 from Kraft-General Foods, the maker of Maxwell House coffee. The institute unapologeti hcaelalylthstabteensetfhitastoiftscmofifseseio."nItiswtooul"dstbudeyinttheerepsotisnsgibtloe see what this university-based organization would do iMf ietrcdaistcuosvCereendtearhaetaGltehoprgroebMleamsocnauUsneidvebrysictyofifsee"a. n e[wduocrkaitniogn] ,wirtehsescahrcohlarsa,npdoliocuyterexapcehrts,oargnadngizoavteiornn ment officials to bridge academic learning and real world practice." Its funders have included Enron, International Paper, Microsoft, Pfizer, Xerox, and other corporate giants. The Mercatus Center focuses heavily on what it considers excessive and unwise government regulatory activities.1 Of course, aside from those special academic centers, companies provide funding for many regular academic departments. The most controversial of' those arrange ments was between drug giant Novartis (later Syngenta) and the University of California at Berkeley's Depart ment of Plant and Molecular Biology. In exchange for $25 million over five years, Novartis had a say in what studies were conducted, first rights to negotiate patents oclnosseomreelatoifonthsehipdsepwairtthmmenatn'ys rpersoefaerscsho,rsa.2nd(,Tohbeviaogurselye, ment was not renewed, and it is unclear whether Novar mtise'nftu.3n)diSnmg ahllaedr daneyalsunatroewalergdioenff.ecTtuoftns Uthneivdeerspiatyrt's School of Nutrition Science and Policy has received funding from Kraft Foods, Procter and Gamble, and a maker of dietary supplements. The School of Medicine raetcethiveedU$n5i0v0er,0si0ty0 forofmNBorritshtolC-MaryoelrisnaSqautibCbhCaopmelpaHniyll. Merck gave $1 million a year for five years (1998-2003) to Harvard University's Institute of Chemistry and Cell Bisiogloivgiyn.gAnthde, nMotatsosapclhayusfeatvtsoriItnesstiintuCteamobfriTdegceh,nMoleorgcyk (MIT) up to $15 million over five years and is providing fnuiensdminagyfhoarv1e8no"MtheinrcgkmSocrheolianrsm."inWdhtihleanthsoimseplcyowmapnat ing to have the inside track in identifying profitable new products, the intertwining of universities and corpora teinocnes.mSatyujdeeonptsard(aiznedupnrivofeersssitoierss)' twrahdoitioarnealaisnsdisetpedenbdy corporate funding see expressions of gratitude to cor ptioornastheipsspwonitshocrsorapsorthatee nooffrimcia,lsanmdaydfeivnedloitphcalrodsetorcerliat icize certain companies or industry practices. INDUSTRY FUNDING INTERNATIONALLY As a few examples from the United Kingdom demon strate, the co-optation or use of nonprofit organiza- 354 Jacobson w ww .iJoeh.com INT J O CCUR ENVIRON HEALTH tions by industry is not limited to the United States, but pgroovbearbnlmyeonctcaucrtsivwithieesr.ever industry feels threatened by The British Dental Association rents out its logo to companies, but in 2001 it became enmeshed in a controversy over its endorsement of Ribena Toothkind drink, which is made by SmithKline Beecham. The company had paid the association 55,000. The British High Court ruled that Ribena misled consumers by claiming that "it does not encourage tooth decay." In fact, the drink contains sugar and does promote tooth decay. In 2000, the British Heart Foundation let Nestl use it2s5l0o,0g0o0.asNepsatlrt woafstfhienecdhathrirteye'stipmroegsrtahmat taomroauisnet for advertising that its Shredded Wheat would reduce the risk of heart disease, a violation of Britain's food labeling laws that prohibit medical claims. TthheehBarrmitifsuhlnNesustroitfitornanFs ofautnadnadtiosanlt,samysatltietrtlseoafbcoount cern to most health experts. That foundation is fCuanddbeudryla, rgtehley bMy eMatcDaonndaldL'siv, eNsetostclk, BCroimtismhiSssuigoanr,, Unilever, and others. With units around the globe, the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) is another story. It was founded in 1978 "to work toward a safer, healthier world." The question is, safer and healthier for whom? ILSI was founded by major coffee and soft-drink makers, including Coca-Cola, Procter and Gamble (Folger's coffee), Nestl, and Kraft Foods (Maxwell wHeoruessetiCrroefdfeien)t,oasacwteiollnabsymcarintyiciostmheorfccoamffpeainneieasn. dThtheye mThaejogrrcoaufpfesinpeo-ncsoonrtsacinoinnfgerfeonocdes:s caonfdfeseenandsdsscoifetndtirsintsktso. government conferences to represent industry's take on controversial issues. To a degree unusual in the nor mally genteel world of science, ILSI has been harshly fcorirtiictiszelodbbbyyinthgeaWndoroldtheHreparltahctiOcergs.anTihzaetiWonHO(WcHhOas) tised ILSI for "the failure to fully disclose ILSI's fund ing sources," advocacy of "public health policy direc tions . . . that are counter to accepted nutrition policy (especially related to obesity, alcohol, caries and cpherrocenpictiodnisetahsaet cmaaunseysoafnd[ILmSeI'asn]sdoevf ecloonptirnogl)c;oaunndtrya partners and recipients of funds are unaware of ILSI's [industry] funding base." The WHO greatly restricted ILSI's interactions with the WHO. * * sk Nonprofit organizations, at least those that wish to protect their independence and best serve the public finutnedriensgt,. nMeaendy--tosugcrahpapsleCownisthumtheersiUssnuieono,fPcuobrlpicorCatiet izen, and the Center for Science in the Public Inter est--reject all such funding and rely more on member ship donations and foundation grants. Others believe rtehcaetivthienyg cinandumstariyntfauinndtihnegi,r sionmdeeptiemndesenacdeopevtienngwphoillie cies to aid that effort. Of course, some of those groups have been the subject of intense media scrutiny and criticism, because conflicts of interest, be they real or apparent, real warning flags. And other groups simply mmaeymnboertsbtehicnoknocefrtnheedir arebcoeuivt iwnghactotrhpeorpauteblsicupoprotrht.eir At the very least, nonprofit organizations and their top officials should disclose, in annual reports, studies, and web sites, aswell as when appearing in the media or giving speeches, their sources of funding. Doing so winofluulednacleloswanthdecpounbsltircaitnotsunodnetrhsteaonrdgabneitzteartisoonms.eUonfftohre tunately, many organizations (such as the Center for Food and Nutrition Policy, Center for Consumer Free mdoemnt,iaonndedthaebAovme)erriecfaunseCtooundicsiclloonseStchieeinrcfeuanndderHs.ealth It is critical that policy makers, such as legislators, and policy advisors, such as the National Academy of Sciences, know the conflicts of interest of organizations that seek to influence their decisions. Researchers who hteadvetodisreercvtecoonnfpliacntselos.f iInftceorensftlicshteodulodrgnaontizbaetiopnesrmteist tify at public hearings or provide written statements, they should be required to disclose their conflicts so Tthhaet pthuebilricvcieowusntcsoounldjobuernpallaicsetsdtoinexthpeosreiguhntdicsocnlotesxetd. financial relationships, and it is heartening that some Pmoesdt,iaas, iwnecllluadsinagn tihnecrNeeawsinYgorknuTmimbesedreoadf athceadWemasihcinjogtuorn nals, are making disclosure the norm. References 1. Dudley S, Warren M. Regulatory spending soars in fiscal year 2003. July 22, 2003. Press release. <htip://www.mercatus. org/ardcle.php/359.html>; accessed March 12, 2005. 2. Buchanan B., Chapela I. Novartis revisited. California Monthly, February 2002. <http://www.alumni.berkeley.edu/Alumni/ C al_M onthly/February_2002/Novartis_revisited__,asp>; accessed March 12, 2005. 3. Schoch R, Novartis: gone but not forgotten. California Monthly, December 2004. <http://www.alumni.beikeley.edu/Alumni/ Cal_Monthly/February_2004/Novartis-_Gone_but_not_forgot ten_.asp>; accessed March 12, 2005. VOL 11/NO 4, OCT/DEC 2005 . www.IJoeh.com Industry Funding of Nonprofit Health Organizations 355