GMW: RETRACT THIS PAPER: IT'S A DISGRACE TO SCIENCE - PARTS 1 & 2

[Guest guest]

GMW: RETRACT THIS PAPER: IT'S A DISGRACE TO SCIENCE - PARTS 1 & 2

" GM WATCH " <info

Tue, 25 Apr 2006 16:55:11 +0100

 

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

---

 

The British Food Journal's Award for Excellence for Most Outstanding

Paper in 2004 went to research that should never have been published.

What the reviewers mistook for an impressive piece of scientific enquiry

was a carefully crafted propaganda exercise that could only have one

outcome. Both the award and the paper now need to be retracted.

 

For multiple links to source materials and a photo of one of the signs

the researchers used to bias consumer responses, go to:

http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=72 & page=1

---

 

 

RETRACT THIS PAPER - PART 1

 

It was late September 1999. The scene was a news conference outside a

Loblaws grocery store in downtown Toronto. Greenpeace and the Council of

Canadians were launching a public awareness campaign urging customers

to ask the chain to remove all genetically modified foods from their

shelves.

 

" The food is safe, " shouted someone on the edge of the crowd. Jeff

Wilson, who farms about 250 hectares northwest of Toronto, was part of a

small group of hecklers. He had come to the store with Jim Fischer, the

head of a lobby group called AgCare which supports GM foods. Doug

Powell, an assistant professor at the University of Guelph, was also

there.

 

And they had come prepared. Holding aloft a bug-ravaged cabbage, Wilson

demanded, " Would you buy that? " Wilson claimed the cabbage could have

been saved by genetic engineering.

 

According to a report in the Toronto Star, Doug Powell ended up in a

shouting match with a shopper - 71-year old Evan John Evans, who told

him, " I resent you putting stuff in my food I don't want. "

 

A year later and Powell and Wilson's street theatrics had given way to

a much more carefully choreographed exercise in persuading people that

GM foods were what they wanted.

 

The scene this time was not Loblaws but Jeff Wilson's farm store, just

outside the village of Hillsburgh. Here Powell and Wilson were running

an experiment that had been conceived following the Loblaws encounter.

 

During summer 2000 Wilson grew both GM and conventional sweet corn on

his farm. And following the first harvest in late August, both types of

corn were put on sale amidst much publicity. The aim was to see which

type would appeal most to Wilson's customers.

 

According to an award winning paper published in the British Food

Journal, a sizeable majority opted to buy the GM corn. In the paper,

authored by Wilson and Powell, and Powell's two research assistants -

Katija

Blaine and Shane Morris, the choice appears simple - the bins were

" fully labeled " - either " genetically engineered Bt sweet corn " or

" Regular

sweet-corn " . The only other written information mentioned in the paper

that might have influenced the preference of customers was lists of the

chemicals used on each type of corn, and pamphlets " with background

information on the project. "

 

What Powell and his co-authors failed to report was that the

information on the chemicals came with a variation on the bug-eaten

cabbage stunt

Wilson pulled outside Loblaws. There Wilson had demanded of shoppers

" Would you buy that? " In Wilson's store the sign above the non-GM corn

bin asked, " Would You Eat Wormy Sweet Corn? " Above the the Bt-corn bin,

by contrast, the equivalent sign was headed: " Here's What Went into

Producing Quality Sweet Corn " .

http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=72 & page=1

 

Toronto Star reporter Stuart Laidlaw, who visited Wilson's farm several

times during the research, says, " It is the only time I have seen a

store label its own corn 'wormy' " . In his book Secret Ingredients,

Laidlaw

includes a photograph of the " wormy " corn sign, and drily notes, " when

one bin was marked 'wormy corn' and another 'quality sweet corn,' it

was hardly surprising which sold more. "

 

Laidlaw also notes that any mention of the corn being labelled as

" wormy " or " quality " was omitted in presentations and writings about the

experiment. This is certainly the case with the paper in the British Food

Journal. Yet the paper describes in some detail the care that the

researchers took to avoid biasing consumer choice - by having, for

example,

both corn-bins kept filled to the same level throughout the day; and by

selling the two different types of corn for exactly the same amount. We

are even told the precise purchase price: Cnd$3.99/dozen.

 

The emotively worded signs are not the only instance of glaring

experimenter bias that went unmentioned in the award winning paper.

During his

visits to the store, Laidlaw noted that an information table contained,

as well as press releases and pamphlets on the experiments, a number of

pro-GM fact sheets - some authored by industry lobby groups, but no

balancing information from critics of genetic engineering.

 

And the bias didn't stop there. The lead researcher, Doug Powell,

actually demonstrated to the journalist his ability to influence customer

responses to questions about Bt corn and their future purchasing

preferences. Laidlaw describes how when a customer who'd bought non-Bt

corn was

walking to his truck, " Powell talked to him about Bt corn - describing

how it did not need insecticides because it produced its own and that

it had been approved as safe by the federal government. Powell then told

me I should talk to the man again. I did, and he said he would buy GM

corn the next time he was at the store. Powell stood nearby with his

arms crossed and a smile on his face. "

 

Outside Loblaws the previous Fall, Powell had ended up in an

unsuccessful slanging match. Now Powell and his associates had

engineered a

setting in which customer responses could be influenced far more

successfully. Seeing Powell in action convinced Laidlaw that the only

conclusion

which could safely be drawn from these " experiments " was that, " fed a

lot of pro-biotech sales pitches, shoppers could be convinced to buy

GM products. "

 

But none of the " pro-biotech sales pitches " made their way into the

paper for which Powell and his associates were commended. Instead,

research that was little more than pro-GM propaganda was presented as

providing a meticulous scientific evaluation of consumer purchasing

preferences.

 

FOR THE FULL ARTICLE AND A POINT BY POINT REBUTTAL OF THE ORWELLIAN

EFFORT TO COVER UP WHAT HAPPENED, GO TO:

http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=72 & page=1

 

 

 

---------------------------

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

---

 

This is the second part of the real story behind the British Food

Journal's Award for Excellence for Most Outstanding Paper in 2004, and

why

the award and the paper now need to be retracted.

 

For both parts and multiple links to source materials + a photo of one

of the signs the researchers used to bias consumer responses, go to:

http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=72 & page=1

 

---

 

RETRACT THIS PAPER - PART 2

 

Attempts to defend the research

 

One of the paper's co-authors, Shane Morris has made a number of

attempts to defend the research and his role in it. On examination,

however,

these turn out to be as misleading as the research itself.

 

*Morris says it's all " FAKE information and Lies!!! "

 

When we first drew attention to the evidence in Stuart Laidlaw's book,

Morris replied on his blog with a piece entitled " More Spin, FAKE

information and Lies!!! " in which he denied ever seeing any " misleading

'signs' " .

 

So where does the photo on page 89 of Stuart Laidlaw's book come from?

 

The copyright belongs to the Toronto Star, the largest-circulation

newspaper in Canada. It was one of several photographs taken at Wilson's

farm store by one of the Star's top photographers, Bernard Weil. Weil is

something of a hero in journalistic circles. Less than two years later,

he was injured in Afghanistan when a grenade was thrown into his car.

Last Fall, he was one of the first photographers into New Orleans after

Hurricane Katrina.

 

It would clearly be more than surprising if either Weil or the Toronto

Star were complicit in " FAKE information and Lies!!! "

 

*Morris says no " misleading signs during the data collection period "

 

Bernard Weil's photo of the " wormy " corn sign was one of several shot

at Wilson's store during a media day held by Doug Powell and Jeff

Wilson to publicise their study. The corn in the bins below the signs had

just been harvested and was on sale as part of the study.

 

This is something that their press release for the event confirms.

 

" The first sweet corn and table potatoes of the season, including

genetically engineered varieties, were available for consumers at

Birkbank

Farms today. The crops are part of an experiment comparing different

pest management technologies coupled with consumer buying preference in a

complete farm-to-fork approach. " (HARVEST OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED

SWEET CORN AND POTATOES BEGINS AT BIRKBANK FARMS, 30.Aug.00)

 

That is what was said on August 30, 2000. The British Food Journal

paper also confirms that August 30 was when the two types of corn were

put

on sale to customers at the store.

 

" Sales of both types of corn were recorded from August 30, when the

corn was first harvested, to October 6... "

 

There's even a table in the paper where you can see how many dozen cobs

of corn were sold on August 30.

 

So when Morris claims, " No data from any such " signs " were included in

publication data " , it is simply untrue. The " wormy " sign was

photographed above the non-GM corn bin during the data collection period.

 

See the sign here:

http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=72 & page=1

 

*What Morris denies, Powell confirms

 

Curiously, although Morris claims the misleading signs were never there

while the research was going on, the lead researcher, Doug Powell, has

never made any attempt to disassociate himself from the signs. Powell's

young daughter was photographed by Weil at the media day in front of

the signs and in his book Laidlaw reports asking Powell explicitly about

the " wormy " corn wording, and Powell's reply is included on page 118.

 

Powell told Laidlaw that the " wormy " question was simply rhetorical. He

did not suggest that the wording or the sign were not part of the

research. And it would be strange if he had. It was Powell, after all,

who

invited the media out to see his study on the day Bernard Weil took his

photographs. In other words, this was the impression Powell wanted - at

that time, at least - to present to the world.

 

On Powell's Food Safety Network website you can also read a letter of

complaint that Powell wrote to the Toronto Star about an article about

the research by Stuart Laidlaw - Altered food tested at the market,

October 8, 2000. In his letter Powell says, " We simply asked consumers to

decide for themselves, as the picture accompanying the story

illustrated. "

 

The picture accompanying the story was one of Bernard Weil's, showing

Powell's young daughter in front of the corn bins with the signs above,

ie Powell confirms that the signs photographed by Weil were a critical

part of the choice presented to consumers.

 

*Morris says he has photographic evidence of no misleading signs

 

Morris has also sought to dismiss the photographic evidence by

producing his own. His photographs, he says, confirm there were no such

" misleading signs during the data collection period " .

 

But in the photograph of the signs that Morris has put on his blog, the

resolution is so low that the wording on the relevant sign above the

non-GM sweet corn bin simply cannot be read. However, from what can be

seen - in terms of the number and position of words and the style of

lettering - the sign would seem remarkably similar to the " wormy " corn

sign

in Bernard Weil's photograph!

 

The only differences in Morris's photograph appears to be the addition

of the big sign in the middle of the picture (apparently, added shortly

after August 30), and when Weil took his photographs the hand-written

signs, including the " wormy " corn sign, were lower, resting on the back

of the sweet corn bins.

 

*Morris says Greenpeace Canada had no problem with his work

 

The other image Morris has put on his blog, and repeatedly drawn

attention to, is styled, " Greenpeace Canada review of work. " This text

links

to a photograph of Greenpeace Canada's former National Biotechnology

Campaigner, Michael Khoo, looking at a sign in Wilson's store. Morris

implies that if the Greenpeace campaigner wasn't happy with what he saw,

he would hardly have kept quiet about it.

 

So we asked Michael Khoo about this. He told us that, contrary to what

Morris claimed, it had been apparent in every way that he and

Greenpeace disapproved of pretty much everything Morris and his

co-researchers

were up to.

 

Khoo said, " I well remember when I visited the experimental farm, which

was a bit of a propaganda lab. Jeff [Wilson] and he [shane Morris] took

me around for a while, they were friendly, I took some pictures and

spoke to their intern who had been conducting the " study " .

 

Shane himself well knows that I thought his consumer testing booth had

no validity, I told him so. I certainly never endorsed anything there

and he is self-delusional if he says he remembers otherwise.

 

I formally request that my photo be removed from his website, as it

only serves to blatantly misinform the public. "

 

Khoo also said he remembered discussing with the Star's Stuart Laidlaw

" how their 'study' lacked basic methodological integrity, principally

because there were leading elements like the 'wormy' corn sign. "

 

Khoo was subsequently quoted by Laidlaw in an article in the Star as

saying, " It's junk science. " The article said that in Khoo's view, " the

study was deliberately skewed to favour Bt corn, out of fear that

consumers would reject the controversial technology. " (Altered food

tested at

the market, Toronto Star, October 8, 2000)

 

*Morris seeks to attack Laidlaw's credibility

 

Morris has also sought to undermine Stuart Laidlaw's credibility.

Laidlaw is a leading journalist at the Toronto Star - at one time

serving on

the paper's editorial board before choosing to go back to reporting. He

was invited to join the Star's board as a direct result of the articles

on food and farming that formed the basis of his book.

 

Shane Morris, however, implies on his blog that journalistic peers give

Laidlaw a doubtful rating. To this end he quotes extensively from a

review critical of Laidlaw's book. The piece was published in an Ontario

farming paper, the Manitoba Co-operator.

 

What Morris doesn't tell his readers is that the piece by Jim Romahn

was about the only bad review the book received. Laidlaw's book was

widely praised in major papers across Canada, even to a surprising

extent in

the pro-business Globe and Mail. The book has also been on reading

lists at Queen's and Wilfrid Laurier universities, the University of

Manitoba and, we understand, Doug Powell's own University of Guelph.

 

There were also positive reviews in the farm press, and even the

Manitoba Co-operator, which ran Romahn's review, later ran a favourable

column about Laidlaw and the book. It's also ironic that Shane Morris

sets

such store by a piece in the Co-operator, given that the same paper also

ran a damning editorial about an article by Morris and Doug Powell that

it chracterised as " offensive " propaganda marked by " irrational views "

and " virulent attacks on respected scientists. " (Rude Science , John W.

Morris, The Manitoba Co-operator, June 21 2001)

 

Finally, it's worth noting that Stuart Laidlaw - currently the Star's

Faith and Ethics reporter - is someone anxious to maintain his

journalistic integrity. When we contacted him for his comments on

Morris's

claims, he was keen not to be seen as partisan in his responses: " I do no

want to be drawn into this, other than to stand by my reporting. "

 

That reporting includes not only the evidence of bias in the signs, but

the evidence of bias in the literature available to the store's

customers and the overt attempt by Powell to influence a customer's

attitude

and future purchasing preferences. This latter type of intervention is

not only indicative of flagrant bias but also has direct significance,

given that the store, as Powell's paper notes, had a high number of

repeat customers. This, of course, is equally relevant to the bias in the

literature customers could pick up at the store.

 

*Morris claims he wasn't there

 

In his initial response to the information from Stuart Laidlaw's book,

Shane Morris claimed on his blog, " I wasn't even in the Country for

your alledged (sic) 'sign' fraud!! "

 

Morris said he only arrived in Canada in mid-September 2000. Even if

this were true, his own paper shows the consumer preference part of the

study as running till October 6, so for several weeks of the study

Morris cannot claim to have been out of the country. Michael Khoo, of

course, says that he was shown around the study by Morris.

 

And any absence cuts both ways. How can Morris declare there were no

misleading signs during the data collection period when, according to his

own testimony, he was not even there for a significant part of the

time?

 

CONCLUSION

 

The pro-biotech sales pitches Laidlaw documented at Wilson's farm store

are consistent with the origins of this research. The editor of The

Manitoba Co-operator, describes the lead researcher, Doug Powell, as

someone who " morphed into a full-blown apologist for biotechnology, while

still operating under his 'food safety' umbrella " at the University of

Guelph. Powell is widely seen like this - as an aggressive biotech

propagandist operating from within an academic setting. The dressing

up of

agitprop antics as scientific research is entirely consistent with this.

 

Initially, in their search for publicity, Powell and his co-researchers

seem to have felt little need to disguise their lack of experimenter

neutrality. After all, nobody engaged with these issues in their locality

would have been in any doubt about where Powell et al were coming from.

The extensive funding of Powell's " food safety " activities by the

biotech industry and big agribiz corporations was also widely known.

 

This is how the Toronto Star reported on the research at the time:

 

" the study, a subject of intense criticism from organic farmers and

activists opposed to GM foods, seems more likely to inflame the debate

over biotechnology than settle any arguments... For supporters, it

will be

taken as proof of consumer acceptance of GM foods. For critics, it will

be proof the biotech industry cannot be trusted to conduct a proper

study of the issue. "

 

It's revealing that the researchers were considered so partisan as to

be synonymous with the industry. Such a perception is perhaps

unsurprising. The biotech industry-funded Council for Biotechnology

Information

was amongst the study's backers, as was the Crop Protection Institute

of Canada (the trade body of the agro-chem/biotech corporations - now

known as Croplife Canada). And even in their press release for the media

day the researchers had no qualms about devoting significant space to

Wilson's assertions that reduced pesticide use is what his customers

really wanted, and that Bt corn was already helping to meet this consumer

demand. Their findings would later precisely mirror these assertions.

 

As they presented their research more widely, however, and sought to

have it published, the researchers seem to have realised that, in order

to have an impact, the propagandist origins and character of what they

had been doing would have to be written out of the story. At this point

the line between transparent farce and outright deceit seems to have

been irretrievably crossed. Six years on, at least one of the researchers

seems prepared to engage in a brazenly Orwellian effort to deny what

actually happened and to present the study and the researchers as

entirely non-partisan.

 

Whether reviewers and editors will continue to collude with such

behaviour remains to be seen. Either way, important questions need to be

posed about a culture of science and the academy that allows

scientists who

raise questions about GM, and other corporate interests, to suffer a

barrage of criticism and abuse, and even terminal damage to their

careers; while those whose opinions and findings support GM are

validated and

affirmed, regardless of whether those opinions and findings stand up to

critical scrutiny.

 

This is the context within which a publicity showcase came to be

rewarded as exemplary science.

 

 

 

 

 

-----------------------------