Talk:GreenFacts Foundation

I have added a link to the Response by GreenFacts to this SourceWatch article. Stephanie Mantell, Head of GreenFacts Publications 8 July 2005

SW: Help me updating this article

A lot of the information in this article is out of date. I would like to update it, preferably in collaboration with other contributors to the article, which I invite to contact me (my email and phone number are temporarily in my "user page").

Thanks, Jacques (de Selliers, founder and former General Manager of GreenFacts). --Deselliers 16:22, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

I have changed the structure of this article, made a major update to the section "Summarising Scientific Reports", and made a few more changes. Being new to wikis, I would appreciate getting some feedback from other contributors - see my contact info in my "user page".

Thanks, Jacques (de Selliers, founder and former General Manager of GreenFacts). --Deselliers 17:43, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Edit Notes

I have almost finished reworking the funding section, which I think has incorporated the following material. But I need to check the section and recheck the citations but am about out of time on this page for the moment. --Bob Burton 19:41, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Hi, Bob, I have corrected the Ferrari funding figure for 2003 and added the other public agencies having provided financial support in 2006. With these hanges, the facts and figures seem correct to me. Cheers, --Deselliers 18:32, 19 November 2007 (EST)

• 42% of its income came from several private companies, including:
  • Carrefour,
  • CEFIC (European Chemical Industry Council, jointly with Euro Chlor and PlasticsEurope),
  • Ferrari Textiles,
  • Raffinerie Tirlemontoise,
  • Solvay,
  • Suez,
• and 58 % from other sources (public subsidies from UN and governmental organization, foundations, and individual donors) .

Park section during edit

I have moved the following section from the article page while overhauling the article. It didn't make much sense being at the top of the article and seems more sensible to incorporate it in further down the page. But I'll leave that until I have worked through the rest of the page. --Bob Burton 19:16, 18 November 2007 (EST)

I moved it in the section "Criticism" - "Attitude towards NGOs" where I think it fits well. --Deselliers 18:05, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Who are GreenFacts?

According to its website, its links to environmental NGOs are:

• Partnership agreements with a few environment or health NGOs

• Presence of people active in NGOs in its governance structure, such as the co-founder of the Flemish Green Party as President, the president of Pro-Natura International, an ex-CEO of WWF Belgium on its Board of Directors, and the previous CEO of WWF France as one of the 'Full Members'. GreenFacts' points out that "All members of GreenFacts commit themselves on a purely personal basis. Their involvement does not constitute an official position of their other affiliations".

• Membership of the World Conservation Union (IUCN)

Relocate section

I have relocated this section off the article page for the moment as, at best, it seems more appropriate for a page on Jacques de Selliers not GreenFacts. --Bob Burton 04:52, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Related sites

Jacques de Selliers, the General Manager of GreenFacts, has a personal website that links to GreenFacts, and also to a number of other websites, that included in the past:

• GreenBalance, a site that claims to offer "balanced views on green issues" and to be "published by two moderate individuals from both sides". The section on climate change (which uses GreenFacts summary information) states that "Unfortunately, there is no single action that will solve the problem. The first step would be to reduce the energy consumption in industrialized countries - by shifting the tax burden to CO2 emitting activities and products, by rethinking the planning of cities, and by improving public transportation. But also, CO2-friendly energy sources must increasingly be developed: renewable energies, CO2 underground storage, and nuclear power plants".

• toxfacts.org, a password protected website "under construction which will soon publish some ATSDR studies."

• www.sickoflawsuits.org, which claims to be a grassroots campaign against lawsuit abuse in the US. The US NGO Public Citizen had an article - now removed - claiming that the tobacco industry in supporting this organisation.

All three links were removed in 2005.

Edit Notes=

A few notes on the rationalistion of the last sections in the article

• "Both these issues are closely linked to the debate on the precautionary principle. They are also well known priorities for chemical industry lobbying, which would provide a rationale for the Solvay and CEFIC funding of GreenFacts.

merged into revamped section

• "The presence since 2004 of two companies in the food sector in the list of GreenFacts partners - the supermarket group Carrefour and the sugar company Raffinerie Tirlemontoise - suggests that GreenFacts may start working on the food sector.

ditto (into the funding section), though I removed the speculative last clause.

• " According to its website, its links to environmental NGOs are currently :

• Presence of people active in NGOs in its governance structure, such as the co-founder of the Flemish Green Party as President, the president of Pro-Natura International, an ex-CEO of WWF Belgium on its Board of Directors, and the previous CEO of WWF France as one of the 'Full Members'. GreenFacts' points out that "All members of GreenFacts commit themselves on a purely personal basis. Their involvement does not constitute an official position of their other affiliations".

This didn't belong in the criticisms section and I needed to get it out of the way. So I have parked it here for the moment and will return to it when I have finished the remaining section (which I'll get to later).

• 2) Moderation of a few debates on Risk Communication by an employee that left the organization at the end of 2004.

I'll return to this later when I rewrite the advocacy section.--Bob Burton 00:36, 14 December 2007 (EST)

SW: Is GreenFacts a Front Group?

Who really believes that GreenFacts is indeed a Front group?

As the Founder of GreenFacts and its former General Manager for its six first years of existence, I can assure you that our organization has NOTHING of a Front group.

GreenFacts aim is truly to help all stakeholders, including government officials, industries and NGOs, to understand the scientifically agreed bases for environmental and health concerns. We achieve our aim by publishing faithful, peer-reviewed summaries of leading international scientific assessments which are worldwide recognized by the scientific community as the best available reference on the topic covered.

Never have GreenFacts' summaries been criticized for faithfulness to their source document. As a matter of fact, all scientific organizations producing our source document support our summaries one way or another, usually by recommending us valuable peer-reviewers, and also by linking to our summaries from their websites.

I strongly believe that GreenFacts' website really provides a very valuable source of unbiased information for all stakeholders and helps everyone making better recommendations and/or decisions in the environmental and health fields. I also strongly believe that the accusation of being a Front group is totally unjustified and, furthermore, detrimental to the protection of the environment and health: it only serves the purpose of those who want to discredit the scientific bases of the environment and health debate.

So I propose that GreenFacts' classification as Front group should be revised. --Deselliers 05:14, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Since there has been no objection for over 6 years, I remove this classification --Deselliers (talk) 08:14, 10 June 2015 (EDT)

unreferenced text

I have removed the following unreferenced text from the article:

GreenFacts 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 tries to establish a level of credibility through its work, especially with key European institutions, 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.

All information on SourceWatch should be referenced (see SourceWatch:References), but it is especially important to do so when making claims like calling an organization a front group. In addition, since this appears in the "criticism" section, it should include quotes from critics of the group. Otherwise, readers don't know who is making these criticisms.

thanks,

Diane Farsetta 10:38, 22 July 2009 (EDT)