Home > About ACSH >

FAQ

Printer Format E-mail Information

What distinguishes ACSH from other organizations?

Unlike some so-called consumer-advocacy organizations that misrepresent science and distort health priorities, ACSH has a well-established policy of presenting balanced, scientifically sound analyses of current health topics.

ACSH's is a unique voice, backed by mainstream science, defending the achievements and benefits of responsible technology within America's free-enterprise system.

What types of issues does ACSH investigate?

ACSH covers a full spectrum of contemporary public health issues, including cigarette smoking, AIDS, alcohol consumption, nutrition, pharmaceutical safety, low-level radiation, biotechnology, food safety, pesticides, medical screening, health quackery and many other topics.

ACSH's top priority is to help Americans distinguish between real and hypothetical health risks. ACSH aims to separate the leading causes of disease and death from the leading causes of unnecessary anxiety and tries to ensure that both individual health decisions and public policies are based on sound scientific evidence.

Does ACSH take strong positions on public health policy?

Yes. ACSH has taken an aggressive role in warning the public about cigarette smoking as the nation's top preventable killer. ACSH has also targeted the dangers of alcohol abuse, neglect of preventive care and promiscuous sexual behavior as major health threats.

What are some areas of health misinformation ACSH has identified?

Despite widespread media hyperbole about environmental health risks, ACSH has demonstrated that many alleged health threats-such as the presence of trace amounts of chemical residues in food and water-play no known role in human disease.

ACSH has a well-deserved reputation for being ahead of the curve on important health policy issues. For example, when misguided activists claimed in 1989 that American children were being poisoned by Alar on apples, ACSH was among the first to point out that Alar posed no health risk to the American public. Since then, the scientific community and regulatory groups have come forward to support the same position that ACSH advocated more than ten years ago.

How thorough is ACSH's peer-review process?

ACSH position papers are prepared by staff researchers or outside scientists and then reviewed by ten or more ACSH advisors and other experts. This compares favorably with the review process used by the nation's most prestigious scientific and medical journals.

Who funds ACSH?

ACSH receives financial support from about 300 different sources, including foundations, trade associations, corporations and individuals. Its funding list is highly diversified.

Do ACSH's funders influence its policies?

No. In fact, ACSH has often spoken out in ways that could jeopardize its support from particular funders. For example, ACSH's warnings about cigarette smoking resulted in the loss of substantial contributions from food manufacturers that had been acquired by tobacco companies. A metal pipe manufacturer withdrew its support after ACSH defended the safety of the proper use of plastic pipes. Fortunately, however, these incidents are exceptions to the rule. The great majority of ACSH's supporters accept and endorse its "no strings attached" funding policy and respect its commitment to positions that reflect valid, up-to-date scientific evidence.

Can ACSH demonstrate its success in reaching the public and decision-makers?

ACSH's views and publications are covered extensively by the print and electronic media. Through a special editorial fellowship program, ACSH authors contribute opinion pieces to publications from coast to coast.

What is ACSH's most important need?

The bottom line is budgetary. ACSH needs money to investigate more issues, publish more reports, hire more researchers and broaden its educational efforts. With expanded support, ACSH can have an even greater impact on public health education and policymaking by continuing to present a balanced scientific position to counteract the financially strong but misguided special-interest groups that often dominate today's health debates.