In his second post, Prof Stott sets out his stall:
This Weblog will monitor carefully the output of environmental and science journalists in the British media. The purpose is not to take up a particular position on a given subject (e.g., 'global warming'), but to assess whether the topic is being fairly covered by press, radio, and television.It’s a noble aim but unfortunately, after reading through the posts at Envirospin Watch, I’m concerned that Stott himself may not be fairly covering the issues. I’m not alone, Chris Bertram at Crooked Timber took him to task for a post on global warming. Chris’s post has engendered a debate that currently runs to seventy comments.
The E Watch post I had most difficulty with is called “So you think organic food is really safer and better” (archive links aren't working so you'll have to scroll down ). The post reports that a number of batches of contaminated organic maize have been withdrawn from sale in the UK and asks why the British media didn’t cover the story (the emphasis in the following is Stott’s).
While conventional and GM crops are subjected to a daily tirade of abuse in the UK media, 'organic' products are lauded as the salvation of humankind. The scientific facts do not bear this out,, as witness the above.You know what? I’m not surprised there’s no scientific evidence that organic products are the salvation of humankind. But I am surprised to be told that the contaminated maize story is evidence against that proposition. As Chris Bertram pointed out, Professor Stott seems to have a problem evaluating evidence.
Reading Stott’s post, you might get the impression that organic maize is more likely to be contaminated by fumonisins than non-organic maize. There is no evidence that this is the case. The Food Standards Agency is sponsoring ongoing research by the Central Science Laboratory into fumonisin contamination. The project, which is still in its development stage, will look at both organic and non-organic maize products. So it’s not really appropriate for Stott to be talking about “scientific facts” in this context.
It looks to me like Philip Stott, despite his declared intentions, is taking a definite position against organic foods. That’s not really surprising; Stott is a regular commentator on biotechnology and a vocal supporter of GM crops. He has written widely on these subjects and has a very particular point of view.
I’m going to keep reading Envirospin Watch; Stott writes about things that interest me and I appreciate his perspective. I just think it would have been better if, instead of trumpeting his objectivity, he had openly declared his position and left it to his readers to judge whether or not he was being fair and balanced.
I don’t think he is, but then I never expected anything else.
UPDATE
Flitting through the blogosphere I notice that City Comforts Blog also takes issue with E Watch’s organic food post. And, to introduce another perspective, here's a page from NGIN reporting on their past correspondence with Philip Stott.
UPDATE AND CORRECTION
When you’re wrong, you’re wrong and it’s best to just come out and say it.
I said in the post above that there is no evidence that organic maize is more likely to be contaminated by fumonisins than non-organic maize. That is incorrect, and it’s no use me saying that I meant there was no evidence from the FSA that this was the case. If that’s what I meant then that’s what I should have said.
There is evidence that myco-toxins are more prevalent in organic crops than in non-organic crops. This article from Science in Africa provides an overview of fumonisin contamination in maize.
My mistake doesn’t invalidate the whole post, but it seems cheap to defend any part of it, given that the error I made is much bigger than the one I had initially sought to draw attention to.
