LEFT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources have a slight to moderate progressive/liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor progressive/liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.
- Overall, we rate CSPI as Left-Center biased due to their advocacy for progressive consumer protection policies. We also rate them as Mostly Factual in reporting rather than High due to sending mixed messages regarding GMOs where they appear in favor of GE foods but also highlight risks and advocate for labeling implying danger.
Detailed Report
Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: MOSTLY FACTUAL
Country: USA
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Organization/Foundation
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
History
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is a consumer advocacy organization founded in 1971 by microbiologist Michael F. Jacobson and two other scientists. CSPI aims to promote a healthy population by reducing preventable diseases and advocating for an equitable food system with access to healthy, sustainable food. They advocate for improved food labels to encourage healthier consumer choices and transparency in the food industry. CSPI is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and Peter Lurie, M.D., M.P.H., is the current president.
Read our profile on the United States media and government.
Funded by / Ownership
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization primarily funded through subscriptions to its Nutrition Action Newsletter, donations, and foundation grants. Notably, CSPI received a one-time $15 million gift from philanthropist MacKenzie Scott. CSPI does not accept corporate or government donations. Charity Navigator rates the organization with a 100% score and classifies it as a Four-Star Charity. For detailed financial information, visit their accountability page.
Analysis / Bias
CSPI advocates for policies promoting healthy eating, food safety, and transparency in food labeling, often pushing for stricter regulations, especially on food additives and marketing practices. For example, the article” Banning Red 3″ discusses CSPI’s efforts to remove harmful food dyes without displaying overt political bias.
In 2022, CSPI and 23 other organizations petitioned the FDA to remove Red 3 from approved color additives in foods, dietary supplements, and oral medicines. Despite being obligated to rule on the petition within 180 days, the FDA has yet to do so. The article/report cites the Environmental Working Group (EWG) for product safety scores, which MBFC rates as pseudoscience. However, the article also uses credible sources such as legislature.ca.gov and the Washington Post. The article uses terms like “failed to keep its promise” and “known carcinogen” to emphasize Red 3’s risks and criticize the FDA’s inaction. It emphasizes state-level actions, such as those in California, and cites the Delaney Clause, which prohibits carcinogenic substances in food, drugs, and cosmetics. Historical references, like the 1990 ban on Red 3 in cosmetics, are included to provide context on regulatory actions.
The FDA states, “The FDA is actively reviewing a petition filed for FD&C Red No. 3, authorized for use as a color additive in food and ingested drugs. The way that Red No. 3 causes cancer in animals does not occur in humans, so these animal results have limited relevance to humans.” For more details, visit the FDA’s page on Red No. 3.
Food colors are strictly regulated in the EU and the US. Both regions follow well-established risk assessment and management procedures to ensure food safety. Non-compliance can result in regulatory actions like adulteration, misbranding, border rejections, and market recalls. The focus in both regions is on safety through rigorous evaluation and enforcement.
CSPI also emphasizes the importance of rigorous safety assessments and transparent labeling for genetically engineered (GE) foods, acknowledging their potential benefits, such as improved nutrition. They support using GE technology but advocate for responsible regulation and clear labeling to ensure consumer trust and informed choices. Their critique of industry practices, stating, “It’s a little disappointing that the organic-food industry is being taken over by huge farms and huge supermarket chains,” reflects their preference for small-scale, sustainable farming and illustrates their cautious stance towards industrial agriculture and biotechnology.
In general, CSPI has left-leaning biases due to its advocacy for stricter regulations and transparency in food safety and labeling, which aligns with progressive consumer protection policies. However, their strong emphasis on potential risks and the need for labeling, particularly with GMOs, reflects a cautious stance that can be seen as subtly biased against GMOs.
Failed Fact Checks
- None in the Last 5 years
Overall, we rate CSPI as Left-Center biased due to their advocacy for progressive consumer protection policies. We also rate them as Mostly Factual in reporting rather than High due to sending mixed messages regarding GMOs where they appear in favor of GE foods but also highlight risks and advocate for labeling implying danger. (M. Huitsing 06/14/2024)
Source: https://www.cspinet.org/
Last Updated on June 14, 2024 by Media Bias Fact Check
Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.
or
Left vs. Right Bias: How we rate the bias of media sources