260 THE (HINA STUDY"consumer education consortium concerned with issues related to food,
nutrition, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, lifestyle, the environment and
health." The group also claims to be an "independent, nonprofit, tax-ex-
empt organization,"6 but they receive 76% of their funding from corpo-
rations and corporate donors, according to the National Environmental
Trust who cite the Congressional Quarterly's Public Interest Profiles.^7
According to the National Environmental Trust,? the ACSH has
claimed, in their reports, that cholesterol is not related to coronary
heart disease, "the unpopularity of food irradiation. .. is not based in
science," "endocrine disruptors" (e.g., PCBs, dioxins, etc.) are not a
human health problem, saccharin is not carcinogenic and implementa-
tion of fossil-fuel restrictions to control global warming should not be
implemented. Searching for a serious critique of the food industry from
the ACSH is like searching for a needle in a haystack. Although I believe
that some of their arguments may have merit, I seriously question their
claim to be an objective broker of "consumer education."FALLING ON MY PETARD
During the entire experience with the Public Nutrition Information Com-
mittee, I continued to work on the National Academy of Sciences report
on diet, nutrition and cancer, which was released in June 1982.4 As might
have been expected, when this report was published all hell broke loose.
Being the first such report on diet and cancer, it received extensive public-
ity; fast becoming the most sought-after report in NAS history. It was estab-
lishing high-profile goals for the dietary prevention of cancer which were
very similar to those of the 1976 McGovern Committee report on diet and
heart disease. Principally; we were encouraging the consumption of fruits,
vegetables and whole grain cereal products, while decreasing total fat in-
take. The fact that this report was concerned with cancer instead of heart
disease, however, elevated emotions. The stakes were high and getting
higher; cancer incites a far greater fear than heart disease.
Given the stakes, some powerful enemies came out of the woodwork.
Within two weeks, the Council on Agriculture, Science and Technology
(CAST), an influential lobbying group for the livestock-based farming
industry, produced a report summarizing the views of fifty-six "experts"
who were concerned about the effect of our NAS report on the agricul-
ture and food industries. Olson, Jukes, Harper and their like-minded
colleagues on the now defunct Public Nutrition Information Commit-
tee weighed in as experts. Their report was quickly published, then