Center for Science in the Public Interest
61
4
"Up" is the number of experts who agree that the nonprofit has had the most impact in the
field. "Down" is the number of experts who disagree that the nonprofit has had the most impact in field.
Headquarters Location: Washington, D.C.
Founded: 1971
Mission: The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is a consumer advocacy organization whose twin missions are to conduct innovative research and advocacy programs in health and nutrition, and to provide consumers with current, useful information about their health and well-being.
Tags:
national, childhood nutrition & health, advocacy, information services, food labeling, healthy schools, physical activity, food safety, trans fats elimination
Summary
Stories
Expert Reviews
Leadership
From the Nonprofit
Leadership
Michael Jacobson.
Michael Jacobson, CSPI's executive director, has worked at CSPI for almost his entire career. Dr. Jacobson was awarded the 2010 CDC Foundation Hero, which is given each year to an individual who has made a significant contribution to improving public health and embodies the characteristics of creative leadership, innovative advocacy, and superior scholarship. He has authored or co-authored more than…
See full bio.
Financial Data
Overhead Ratio:
10.51%
Total Revenue:
$14,852,500
From the Nonprofit
The nonprofit has not added any comments yet. If you are a representative of this nonprofit and would like to leave a comment, please email us at
feedback@myphilanthropedia.org
with your request.
Contact Info
Address:
1220 L Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20005, USA
Story:
Founded by executive director Michael Jacobson, Ph.D. and two other scientists, CSPI carved out a niche as the organized voice of the American public on nutrition, food safety, health, and other issues during a boom of consumer and environmental protection awareness in the early 1970s. CSPI has long sought to educate the public, advocate government policies that are consistent with scientific evidence on health and environmental issues, and counter industry’s powerful influence on public opinion and public policies.
Over the years, CSPI has grown along with its reputation as an influential and independent science-based organization. When he was Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, David Kessler credited CSPI with "one of the greatest public health advances of the century" by promoting the importance of the link between diet and health to the government, industry, and the public. In 2007, the FDA Commissioner awarded CSPI the agency’s highest honor, the Harvey W. Wiley Special Citation. Talk show host Oprah Winfrey called Nutrition Action Healthletter "the master-mind critic that sounded the food alarms."
CSPI's accomplishments include leading the efforts to win passage of laws that require Nutrition Facts on packaged foods (and, later, to include trans fat on those labels), define the term "organic" for foods, and put warning notices on alcoholic beverages. CSPI also conducted eye-popping studies on the nutritional quality of restaurant meals and movie theater popcorn, helped to increase funding for the government's food safety inspections and nutrition and physical activity programs, and spurred new policies in some cities and states to remove soda and junk foods from schools. CSPI also helped New York City adopt the nation's first ordinances to ban trans fat from restaurants and list calorie information on menus and menu boards, and is working with other cities and states on similar measures. Its award-winning newsletter, Nutrition Action Healthletter, with some 900,000 subscribers in the United States and Canada, is the largest-circulation health newsletter in North America. (Source: http://www.cspinet.org/about/index.html)
Expert Reviews of Center for Science in the Public Interest
Evidence of Impact Summary:
The Center for Science in the Public Interest is lauded for compelling industry practices to become better aligned with health concerns through lobbying and legislation. Experts cite marketing efforts to children, food labeling, menu labeling, and school nutrition standards as examples of impact.See expert comments.
Organization Strengths Summary:
The vast majority of respondents cite leadership as a major asset for the center. Nearly as often, experts praise the organization's advocacy work. Others mention different operating efficiencies like marketing and communications.See expert comments.
Areas for Improvement Summary:
While experts were generally supportive of the organization's advocacy efforts, many considered there to be an opportunity to tone down or adjust some of their messaging.See expert comments.
Expert Comments: Evidence of Impact
Select the boxes to display the results according to expert type.
Show:
Show:
X
Foundation Professionals (F)
X
Researchers and Faculty (R)
X
Nonprofit Senior Staff (N)
X
Other (consultants, journalists, policy makers) (O)
Impact |
|||
|
F
|
They have had an impact related to work on eliminating competitive foods in schools through specific reforms in legislation reauthorizing child nutrition programs. | ||
|
F
|
This organization is an aggressive advocate for national policy change on issues such as marketing innutritious food to children. | ||
|
R
|
They produce a great deal of useful products: their newsletter, their website, quizzes, and informational sheets. Also, they do advocacy in the form of legislation on food labeling, marketing to kids, and school foods. | ||
|
R
|
This group has been successful at pressuring the food industry to drop deceptive marketing campaigns, etc. They often file law suits against large food companies, in the interest of child health. This group is also very successful at helping the public lobby their congressmen/women, asking them to support child nutrition legislation, using email letter writing campaigns. | ||
|
R
|
More than any other foundation I can think of, they have produced measurable change in the world around us. Movie theater popcorn is not popped in trans-fat thanks to them. School policies have been influenced as have restaurant practices. | ||
|
R
|
They work to affect national policy related to child nutrition. | ||
|
R
|
They have had an impact on public policy: reaching out and informing the press, health professionals, and the public on legislative issues. | ||
|
R
|
This advocacy organization has been a driving force promoting nutrition policies for many years. Margo Wootan is a tireless advocate and has been involved in helping get strong nutrition policies passed at the national level, as well as keeping an eye on what is happening in states. | ||
|
R
|
They are a respected national advocacy voice that has a reputation for not compromising values to push policy changes. They are willing to take on much stronger and better-funded interests--examples include threatened lawsuits against children's cereal makers. | ||
|
R
|
They have had heavy involvement with policy makers in Washington. They are effective at getting access and have a strong presence in the press. | ||
|
N
|
They have offered leadership on improving school food, menu-labeling, trans-fat, and other issues that raise awareness about nutrition and have made meaningful changes to the food system. | ||
|
N
|
Their leadership role in the passage of menu labeling laws at the local, state, and national level signify impact. | ||
|
N
|
They are brilliant at handling the media and they are very influential on Capitol Hill because they convened a large group of nonprofits (including AHA, ADA, etc.) that are interested in nutrition, physical activity and obesity. Thus, they have a "louder voice" with their coalition. They were influential in increasing funding for DNPAO at the CDC and they deserve a lot of credit for that. | ||
|
N
|
It has successfully worked to pass national legislation related to healthy eating such as packaged food labeling, menu labeling, and school nutrition standards. | ||
|
N
|
They create campaigns to address processed food issues and, as a result, have changed labeling (trans-fats for example) and knowledge among the public of how bad some processed foods are. | ||
|
N
|
They have a strong public media presence, regular communications, clear communication, and sound information. | ||
|
N
|
They are nonjudgmental and look at facts and evidence. | ||
|
N
|
They have led the way in challenging industry to meet stronger standards in food and nutrition. They have done work on issues including federal legislation (such as the child nutrition act), marketing food to children, and the agriculture bill. | ||
|
N
|
They are expert at getting policies passed at the state, local, and federal level. They provide incredible resources for state and local groups trying to get policies passed. I've found them to be the most helpful group in the nation for improving child and adult nutrition. | ||
|
N
|
They have a strong voice, progressive, and primarily related legislation at the federal level. | ||
|
N
|
It is definitely leading the way in public policy that supports childhood nutrition. | ||
|
N
|
They are extremely savvy on federal policy issues and organize an effective coalition to work on nutrition issues. They have had an undeniable impact on federal legislation in this area. | ||
|
N
|
They provide major national leadership on critical policies such as regulating marketing to children, establishing school nutrition standards, and promoting other policies such as menu labeling improve child nutrition and health. | ||
|
N
|
Their messaging and policy positions are repeated, supported, and disseminated throughout the nutrition and public health communities by groups and networks such as NYSHEPA (NYS Healthy Eating and Physical Activity Alliance), NYC Alliance for Child Nutrition Reauthorization, various state dietetic associations, etc. | ||
|
N
|
An offshoot of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, they send out incredibly helpful updates, resources, and other information on a regular basis. They lead national workgroups and put together memos of support. They have been very helpful to our coalition in terms of keeping us updated, informed, and involved on a national level. | ||
|
N
|
This is a large advocacy network (NANA Coalition) has been influential in impacting federal legislation. | ||
|
N
|
They developed state and local policies to limit the marketing of unhealthy food to children. | ||
|
N
|
They move policy inside the "beltway" and stay in touch with key power-brokers to frame legislation. | ||
|
O
|
They contributed to federal policy and evidence-based dietary recommendations. | ||
|
O
|
They have been instrumental in bringing together organizations across the nation working to improve nutrition in our nation's schools through legislation and policy. Through this network and their strong understanding of the legislative process, they have been able to impact federal legislation such as the Child Nutrition Reauthorization and mobilize stakeholders to voice their support and opinions with legislators. | ||
|
O
|
I recommend Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), specifically the sub-group National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity (NANA) which advocates national policies and programs to promote healthy eating and physical activity. NANA promotes within the legislative and executive branches of government a better understanding of the importance of healthy eating, physical activity, and obesity control to the nation's health and health-care costs. | ||
Expert Comments: Organization Strengths
Select the boxes to display the results according to expert type.
Show:
Show:
X
Foundation Professionals (F)
X
Researchers and Faculty (R)
X
Nonprofit Senior Staff (N)
X
Other (consultants, journalists, policy makers) (O)
Operations |
|||
|
F
|
They combine research, advocacy, and coalition building to advance their healthy food/nutrition agenda. They provide leadership to the field. | ||
|
N
|
They have a very knowledgeable staff, fantastic outreach through their newsletter, and are great collaborators. | ||
|
N
|
Clarity and accessibility in messaging are strong. Their website, action alerts, direct emails from leadership, Nutrition Action newsletter are all clear, concise, and offer easy to understand explanations about why there is concern for a particular practice or policy, and what the supporting action should be. Their professionalism is a strength of CSPI and avoidance of radicalism is another. They are also willing to acknowledge the landscape of child nutrition with respect to corporate control of food production and marketing while still developing effective strategies to make positive change. | ||
|
N
|
The staff have many years of experience on very complicated issues, and therefore bring a strong track record of understanding and engagement. In addition, they utilize a multi-pronged approach to get a job done: research, media advocacy, legislative negotiations, coalition politics, and litigation. This broad toolbox of approaches makes them flexible and effective. | ||
Program Design |
|||
|
F
|
The organization's work is for the most part well-researched and informed. It keeps up to date on potential policy levers to improve the nutritional environment for children. | ||
|
R
|
They have a reputation for integrity. They are innovative and willing to take chances. | ||
Website |
|||
|
R
|
Their website and publications are strengths. | ||
Leadership |
|||
|
R
|
This group's leadership is very well known and respected in the field, and they often appear in the media, which suggests a big impact. | ||
|
R
|
The outstanding leadership in Michael Jacobson and Margo Wootan; they have a willingness to stake out bold positions that shake up the status quo. | ||
|
R
|
I would say the biggest strength of this organization is the leadership: Mike Jacobson and Margo Wootan. | ||
|
R
|
Their leadership is good and they are good at leveraging resources to affect policy. | ||
|
N
|
Their leadership, Dr. Michael Jacobsen, is hard-working and committed. He has hired excellent people (like Dr. Margo Wootan) who is equally hard-working and committed. They are articulate and handle the media extremely well. | ||
|
N
|
The National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity has shown strong leadership in the childhood obesity area; strong staffing has enabled this. | ||
|
N
|
Their leadership and marketing are strong. | ||
|
N
|
Margo Wootan is a strength. She knows her stuff, works the Hill, and has excellent media skills. | ||
|
N
|
Margo Wootan is a strong leader. | ||
|
O
|
They have strong leadership, knowledge of the federal legislative process, knowledge of child nutrition, and current recommendations such as those from the Institute of Medicine. | ||
Publications |
|||
|
R
|
They provide a strong newsletter and work assertively to get people across the country engaged. | ||
|
R
|
The information they produce is great: quizzes, action, information. | ||
|
N
|
I am aware of their research, studies, legislative updates, and some work they've done to promote policy change at the national level. This is good and we need more of this. | ||
Communications |
|||
|
R
|
Their public relations and press placement are strengths. Their use of electronic communications to contact legislators is also strong. | ||
|
N
|
It has a very effective communications arm - with the ability to disseminate information to a broad range of organizations across the country and mobilize their action. | ||
|
N
|
They are the most media-savvy organization of the entire list of top childhood nutrition nonprofits. They are dedicated and hard-working. I don't always agree with them, but I respect them. | ||
|
N
|
Their messaging, credibility from leadership qualifications/credentials, and diversity of support base are all strengths of this organization. | ||
Awareness |
|||
|
R
|
They play a useful gadfly role. They get more attention than other groups (though I'm not sure that is warranted). | ||
|
N
|
They are continually becoming more well known and well-respected. | ||
Advocacy |
|||
|
N
|
This organization has tremendous expertise in framing public health issues and creating effective coalitions to advocate for policy change. They have strong leadership and a wealth of expertise. | ||
|
N
|
Their advocacy, grassroots mobilization, and communications via newsletter/website are strengths. | ||
|
N
|
They are savvy and politic about legislation but are willing to take on industry through other means like lawsuits. I think they strike a good balance of working through the system and shaking up the system. We would not have menu labeling legislation without their input. | ||
|
N
|
They have an incredible command of the media and are effective advocates. They are leaders nationally of campaigns like the trans fat ban and menu-labeling, while also supporting smaller local efforts. They have brilliant leadership. | ||
|
O
|
As a national watchdog and advocacy organization, they keep current with child nutrition issues state-to-state and their organization is appropriately positioned in Washington D.C. to influence and inform federal policy. | ||
|
O
|
They are policy leaders, good at convening diverse interests, and good at pushing the policy agenda. | ||
Staff & Funding |
|||
|
N
|
Its creative staff and broad funding base are strengths. | ||
Marketing |
|||
|
N
|
They are well known and are good at getting the word out. They are good at marketing and reaching the media to make their message known. | ||
|
O
|
They have very good marketing. | ||
Research |
|||
|
N
|
Their research informs work of local partners. They also keep us to date on federal activity. | ||
Resources |
|||
|
N
|
The organization has a broad membership base which provides critical support for advocacy efforts and an independent source of income. | ||
Funding |
|||
|
N
|
They have strong financial support as well as very passionate and qualified staff leadership. They have over 150 member organizations. | ||
Impact |
|||
|
N
|
They are highly effective at leveraging media to support their work. | ||
|
N
|
This is a great group that creates real and meaningful change. | ||
Awareness & Neutrality |
|||
|
O
|
They are very visible, objective, unbiased, and have no industry funding. | ||
Expert Comments: Areas for Improvement
Select the boxes to display the results according to expert type.
Show:
Show:
X
Foundation Professionals (F)
X
Researchers and Faculty (R)
X
Nonprofit Senior Staff (N)
X
Other (consultants, journalists, policy makers) (O)
Target Audience |
|||
|
F
|
They could incorporate a more deliberate focus on low income communities and communities of color to demonstrate awareness of how nutrition issues, especially access to healthy food, impact these communities. | ||
Collaboration |
|||
|
F
|
The organization is sometimes seen as overly aggressive. However it is seen as a credible voice. | ||
|
R
|
Could they partner with the AAP and other MD organizations? | ||
|
R
|
They could have better connections with scientists. | ||
|
N
|
In its passion to succeed, sometimes this organization does not heed the advice and guidance of its local partners. | ||
|
N
|
They could try not to alienate people. | ||
|
O
|
They could provide more opportunities for professional collaboration. | ||
Messaging |
|||
|
R
|
They could be a bit less bold. They go to extremes to make their point, and alienate a lot of people as a result. They are the quintessential 'food policy' and 'nutrition nannies' in the eyes of their detractors. | ||
|
N
|
They sometimes demonize particular foods. It is true that some of the foods they demonize deserve it -- but the nutrition establishment rejects the demonization of particular foods -- claiming there are no good or bad foods -- only good or bad diets (the word "diet" here refers to one's customary daily intake of food and does NOT refer to weight loss diets). | ||
Neutrality |
|||
|
R
|
They can sometimes sensationalize issues and present information/research findings by telling one side of the story. | ||
|
R
|
They appear to be getting to be too 'inside the beltway' with their increasing stature, leading to greater influence but at the price of compromise. However, they are still generally very principled but need to maintain that even if it lessens their access. | ||
|
O
|
Their marketing is biased. | ||
Advocacy |
|||
|
R
|
This organization has an advocacy orientation that could be perceived by some as hostile to the industry. | ||
|
N
|
Sometimes their processes are very quick and don't give local organizations enough time to conduct internal processes that would allow them to respond effectively. It could also engage more with local organizations as they develop legislative and policy strategies so that these line up with local priorities and actions. | ||
Outreach |
|||
|
R
|
They just need help getting out the message. | ||
|
O
|
CSPI and NANA’s strength is its reach and its partners; however, it might be useful to offer direct links to local organizations (e.g. via see grants, CBPR opportunities). If this organization has done so, it is unclear – and might be outside the scope of their mission. | ||
Expand Programming |
|||
|
N
|
They should expand funding to assist state/local nonprofits and have a focus on physical activity. | ||
|
N
|
I think they have begun to do this already but move more beyond the processed foods to promote whole foods. | ||
|
N
|
They are very focused on nutrition, but need to do more it the physical activity realm. | ||
|
N
|
I don't know if they provide technical assistance to state and local organizations seeking to make policy change at the state and local levels. If they don't, I see this as a need (at least for my organization). | ||
Awareness |
|||
|
N
|
They are not well known enough. | ||
Capacity |
|||
|
N
|
I think they are spread thin and could use more staffing. | ||
Program Integration |
|||
|
N
|
The staff tends to work in silos. This seems to be the management style; more strongly integrating efforts could enhance their impact and ensure consistency. | ||
Program Design |
|||
|
N
|
They could show a greater deference to the history of child nutrition advocacy. | ||
Transparency |
|||
|
N
|
I don't always believe they tell the full truth about their insider negotiations to their constituents; they seem to use the power of the coalitions to negotiate insider-deals on occasion that all the members may not have had an opportunity to influence. They settle for federal preemption of state and local action (e.g., menu labeling) without thinking about how that damages community organizing and movement building. | ||
|
N
|
They could improve by providing greater transparency about how public positions are determined. | ||
Leadership
Michael Jacobson
Executive Director
Executive Director
From the Nonprofit
The nonprofit has not added any comments yet. If you are a representative of this nonprofit and would like to leave a comment, please email us at
feedback@myphilanthropedia.org
with your request.