John Stossel--Junk Journalist for Corporate Agribusiness

John Stossel, Junk Journalism & the Poison Peddlers
by: Barbara Keeler and Robert Sterling

"Science is highly politicized .... Beware of science that feeds political
agendas."

John Stossel, 20/20 reporter, "Junk Science: What You Know That May
Not Be So"

The 20/20 hit piece on organics by John Stossel is old news to readers of
alternative publications. Long a controversial voice in journalism, Stossel
became more so after his February 4, 2000 20/20 report, "The Food You Eat."

Stossel's main hatchet man on the segment, Dennis Avery, was not identified
on 20/20 as the author of SAVING THE PLANET WITH PESTICIDES
AND PLASTIC, or as an employee of the Hudson Institute. Agribusinesses
such as Dow, Monsanto, ConAgra, and Novartis are leading funders of the
Hudson Institute.

Represented on Hudson Institute's board is the biotech industry's PR firm,
Burson-Marsteller, involved in a massive PR campaign to counteract the
escalating global anti-GE movement in the US and abroad. Those familiar
with Avery and the Hudson Institute were not surprised that he was eager to
smear the organic food industry on 20/20.

The unanswered question about the segment was why Stossel chose a
mouthpiece for pesticides, biotech, chemical fertilizers, and agribusiness
as 20/20's expert on organics. Moreover, why would a respected journalist
create a segment calculated to mislead his audience about organic food?

We cannot say for sure, and maybe the question will never be answered for
certain. We have, however, connected the dots from Stossel and ABC back
to Monsanto, DuPont, Dow, ConAgra and others with vested interests in
discrediting organic foods.

As the segment was produced, ABC was receiving a percentage of sales from
"Stossel in the Classroom," educational materials published by the Palmer R.
Chitester Fund and based on Stossel's ABC reports. The Chitester Fund is a
conservative foundation dependant on contributions from the likes of the
John M. Olin Foundation. The Olin Foundation was created and is still
controlled by the Olin Corporation, a top producer of agricultural chemicals.

On the Board of Associates of the Chitester Fund sits Herb London, the
President of the Hudson Institute. London also holds the John M. Olin
Professorship of Humanities at New York University. The Hudson Institute
received grants from the Olin Foundation of $125,000 in 1993 and $300,000
in 1994.

All of the above suggests an inbreeding of interests between two
conservative foundations, a conservative think tank, and a supposedly
independent journalist. Add the funding Hudson receives from chemical
and agribusiness companies and the inbreeding appears potentially corruptive,
even before factoring the representation of a biotech PR firm on its board.

The interlinks go further. The Olin Corporation was, along with Occidental
Chemical and Dupont, one of the major firms involved in the Love Canal
environmental scandal in Niagara Falls, NY. Here is Stossel's comment
during a January 9, 1997 special report, titled "Junk Science: What You
Know That May Not Be So":

"What happens when government policy is based on junk science? Billions
of dollars are misspent, and people's lives altered forever. Love Canal. Times
Beach. Defoliant Agent Orange. These names arouse fear because of the
chemical dioxin. Dioxin is very poisonous. We know that from animal tests.
Tiny amounts kill guinea pigs. That's why our government's spending hundreds
of millions of dollars to protect us from dioxin."

"But is that good science? Just because a chemical hurts animals, does that
mean it's harmful to us?"

Stossel proceeds to argue that dioxin isn't harmful, and that cases such as
Love Canal are based on faulty science. The Environmental Protection Agency
begs to differ. A draft of a long-overdue EPA report concludes that dioxin is
indeed a dangerous and persistent "human carcinogen." Along the way, he manages
to smear a variety of other supposed cases of "junk science," including breast
implant lawsuits, during his report.

Apparently, Stossel hasn't learned his lesson: on July 15, he did another
dishonest slam piece of the story behind the film ERIN BROCKOVICH.
Though the giant utility company PG&E admits to illegally releasing the
carcinogen chromium-6 in Hinkley, CA (they settled for $333 million with
local residents), Stossel claimed there is no proof that chromium in drinking
water can cause cancer. PG&E's own documents concede "the material is toxic,"
and covered up the fact that they had released high concentrations of the material
in the water (up to 20 parts per million, according to PG&E's own measurements.)
When the real-life Brockovich, a legal assistant who uncovered the corporate
pollution, challenged Stossel to give himself and his family chromium-6 laced
water, he declined. His main source for the piece, incidentally, was Michael
Fumento, a Senior Fellow of the Hudson Institute.

To be fair to Stossel, these connected dots do not prove he is for sale. It
would be too easy to demonize him as an unprincipled hack for business
interests. In truth, Stossel has been at times a surprisingly lone voice of courage
in the mainstream media, speaking out in defense of free speech against frightening
examples of censorship in America. If he were merely a cynical opportunist,
he would have little reason to take stands where the rest of the establishment
media remains silent.

Whatever his faults, Stossel appears to be sincere in his libertarian-like
quest to limit the power of the state. If he was seduced by his ideology
into supporting dubious claims, he certainly wouldn't be the first. Even so,
nothing excuses his promotion of deceptive science that serves big business.

By incompetence or outright deceit, John Stossel has participated in what
many regard as a libel of a multi-billion dollar industry with rapidly
rising political influence. Such a blunder is rarely ignored. Some critics
believe Stossel's more questionable works are catching up with him.
For better or worse, many predict his is on his way down.

Barbara Keeler has focussed on nutrition and food safety as a journalist and
contributor to nutrition, child development, parenting, health, and science
textbooks.

Robert Sterling is publisher of Konformist.com, and the LA Meeting
Coordinator for the international Great Boycott targetting the leading
multinational producers of pesticides, GE food seeds, and toxic chemicals.
He has spoken about green and food safety issues on the BBC and a variety
of other radio and televsion stations.

SUGGESTED LINKS TO OTHER New Hope Media
STORIES

Organics: The Myths, The Facts
OTA Applauds EWG's Exposure of 20/20
Activists Say Stossel's Organic Apology Falls Short 8/14/00
OTA Says Planned Apology Falls Short, May Sue 8/8/00
Group Calls For Stossel's Job After Organic "Lie" Exposed 7/31/00
Prime-Time Organic Story Called Unfair


SOURCES FOR ARTICLE:



"Erin Brockovich, Fact or Fiction?" Josh Grossberg E! Online
http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,6824,00.html

FAIR On John Stossel
http://www.fair.org/media-outlets/stossel.html

"Prime-time Propagandist" David Mastio

Salon Magazine
http://www.salonmag.com/media/feature/2000/02/25/stossel

The Hudson Institute
http://www.hudson.org

Michael Fumento Website
http://www.fumento.com/

Palmer R. Chitester Fund
http://www.prcfund.org

BUYING A MOVEMENT: Right-Wing Foundations and American Politics

People for the American Way
http://www.pfaw.org/issues/right/rw/rep_rwfound.html

"Risky Journalism"
Reason Magazine
http://www.reason.com/9704/fe.stosselint.html

"Corporate Junk Science In The Media," Edward S. Herman
Z Magazine

http://www.zmag.org/ScienceWars/junk2.htm