1
edit
Changes
m
Some perceive GreenFacts as having many has all the characteristics of an industry-funded [[front group]], having established itself as a non-profit group and claimed to have been formed by a wide range of stakeholders. It has established tries to establish a level of credibility through its work, especially with key European institutions, and has appeared to be while using this activity as a way of influencing debate over public policy. GreenFacts has been specifically criticised at times for its heavy reliance on corporate funding, for downplaying concerns about global warming, the use of phrases that were seen as partisan and for its role in having advocated positions favorable to the chemical industry.
It must however be acknowledged that such information is usually not available on other websites and that the level of transparency and disclosure on GreenFacts' website is higher than on most other websites.
SW: →Criticism: edited ambiguous language
==Criticism==
===Handling conflicts of interest===
However, there is limited disclosure of information to the public which would enable those outside the organization to determine whether actual or potential conflicts of interests exist. The authors of digests are disclosed in the "About" section of each Digest, but the "peer-reviewers" are only disclosed for Digests published since 2005. The biographical details posted on the organization's website on members of the Scientific Board - who select the source documents - are cursory and do not provide any details of current or past consultancy affiliations. <ref>[http://about.greenfacts.org/whos-who/scientific-board.htm "GreenFacts' Scientific Board"], accessed December 2007. </ref> The individual digests list who was involved in the preparation of the report and its "peer review". However, it is unclear what disclosure standards are required of reviewers.
===Exaggerating origins===