"

This new addition of the ACSH criticism (sourced from a rebuttal on the PCRM's website) seems like more of the same thing  trying way too hard to find a way to insert special-interest fights into the page.  I'm not disputing the factual correctness that ""a group said such and such"", but I don't believe that this sniping between the groups adds substance to the article.  As Slim and Rocket both suggested, it seems silly to give lots of page space to the opinions of conflicting lobby groups about other lobby groups.  At this point, I would oppose having PCRM criticism on ASCH's page and oppose having ASCH criticism on PCRM's page.  It's noise in a sea of posturing.  Can we keep this article to factual information that originates with reliable sources?   "