Sir

We were disappointed that your News story “US chemist attacks consumer magazine's food safety work” (Nature 431, 117; 200410.1038/431117a), reporting Joseph Rosen's allegations against Consumers Union, did not supply readers with the full context surrounding Rosen's presentation. This was part of a one-day American Chemical Society (ACS) symposium organized by Rosen on the question “Is organic food healthier than conventional food?”.

Not only did Rosen's presentation contain misleading assertions and assumptions, but we were not even allowed to ask questions after the session. Had we been invited to participate in the session or to respond to the public criticisms levelled at our work, the ACS could have engaged in a true scientific debate.

As it was, the ACS symposium lacked any alternative perspectives from consumer, environmental or organic organizations, including the National Organic Program (a government programme that adds credibility to environmental farming and practices that have been around for decades).

As a result, no one in that session heard the broader context surrounding organic food. No one heard that the risks posed by pesticides on fruits and vegetables were not invented by Consumers Union, as Rosen led the audience to believe. In fact, by pursuing this research we were fulfilling a responsibility to our readers and the American public to evaluate the effectiveness of the Food Quality Protection Act — a 1996 law that Rosen failed to mention, aimed at protecting children.

And no one heard that — far from being a disinterested, unbiased academic, who just recently felt compelled to speak out — Rosen has for more than 15 years polarized complex scientific debates by attacking Consumers Union (an independent, non-profit organization that accepts no advertising and has no stake in the outcome of its findings) for daring even to question the safety of the food supply. Contrary to what he told Nature, Rosen started criticizing Consumers Union long before we published our report on irradiation in 2003.

He has done so not only as an academic but as an adviser to the American Council on Science and Health. This is not simply “a lobby group generally supportive of the food industry”, as your News story says. It is worth noting that this organization, while claiming to represent the public interest, receives significant funding from companies whose profit margins depend on the continued use of pesticides.