Ingrid Newkirk both were on the board of Foundation to Support Animal Protection (also known as PETA Foundation), and FSAP did the accounting for both PETA and PCRM. Barnard did not deny that there is a relationship with PETA during an interview with The New York Times in 2004. PCRM has had ties with Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC)—Jerry Vlasak was a former spokesman for PCRM and Barnard co-signed a letter with Kevin Kjonaas to hundreds of bosses of companies involved with Huntingdon on PCRM letterhead. SHAC has been called a domestic terrorist threat by the U.S. Department of Justice. The Center for Consumer Freedom, which represents the interests of restaurants and food companies, considers PCRM to be a front for PETA, saying that "its food rankings reflect that agenda" of opposing meat and dairy products, and "they do a very slick job of obscuring their real intentions". American Medical Association The American Medical Association (AMA) has criticized PCRM’s positions. In 1990, the AMA adopted a resolution condemning PCRM’s activism against the use of animals in research, objecting to PCRM "implying that physicians who support the use of animals in biomedical research are irresponsible, for misrepresenting the critical role animals play in research and teaching, and for obscuring the overwhelming support for such research which exists among practicing physicians in the United States." Barnard objected in the Journal of the American Medical Association to a December 1991 article by Jerod Loeb of the AMA that said the group had "officially censured" PCRM. Barnard wrote: "Censure is used by the American Medical Association (AMA) for specific purposes, and PCRM has never been the subject of any such proceeding." Loeb replied that "[t]he term 'officially censured' refers to a resolution adopted by the AMA House of Delegates in June 1990" and that the resolution "was passed without dissenting vote". In a 1991 news release, the AMA said that PCRM's dietary advice promoting vegetarianism "could be dangerous to the health and well-being of Americans". The statement, reaffirmed in 2000, states that the AMA objects to PCRM "implying that physicians who support the use of animals in biomedical research are irresponsible, for misrepresenting the critical role animals play in research and teaching, and for obscuring the overwhelming support for such research which exists among practicing physicians in the United States." According to Barnard, the disagreements between PCRM and the AMA are in the past;