This is unfortunate. Committees of the Academies typically work behind closed doors and are not transparent. Regardless of the funding source this authoritarian effort (click here) to define scientific misinformation will likely have a bad ending. Concerns have already been raised about abuse of power (e.g. here) as a result of such effort.
As an observer of this I have to ask, who is the motivation coming from for this effort to turn NAS, NAE, and NAM into an information filtering agency.
The best way to counter misinformation is to make data publicly available so that analysis of such data and the claims being made can be confirmed or disputed by others. Two equally qualified scientists can look at exactly the same information and draw different or even opposite interpretations. What is misinformation to one scientist may a valid argument to another.
Just because an interpretation or statement may not be generally accepted does not mean it is “misinformation.” All new ideas in science begin as “misinformation” to those scientists entrenched in the “status quo”.
It seems to me that the abuse of science mostly occurs in the media and news articles that promote unsupported or exaggerated claims.