It makes complete sense that the Environmental Working Group (EWG)
would attack ABC’s John Stossel. After all, the 20/20
reporter spends most of his time investigating issues that his
liberal-minded colleagues never seem to get around to, and his
reports often bring to light facts that embarrass pro-government,
pro-regulation activists who otherwise wouldn’t have to deal with
pesky reporters asking skeptical questions.
But it’s a different issue with Stossel’s media brethren.
Allegedly mainstream news organizations revealed their true mindset
when they chose to repeat the EWG’s distorted claim that Stossel is
a sloppy and biased reporter, rather than hunt down the facts for
themselves.
If
you haven’t already heard, here’s what Stossel did that was wrong:
In a 20/20 report that originally aired on February 4 and
re-broadcast on July 7, he erroneously stated that laboratory tests
comparing conventional and organic produce found "no pesticide
residue" on either type of produce, when ABC, in fact, didn’t
conduct such tests. Rather, tests for E. coli bacteria were
conducted, and higher bacteria concentrations were found on some of
the organic food than in conventional produce.
The Environmental Working Group, a factory for studies about the
evils of pesticides and other chemicals, pounced on Stossel’s
mistake. Showing that they disapprove of all mistakes, the
EWG declared the error "a serious breach of journalistic
ethics," and demanded that the reporter be fired.
No one paid much attention to the EWG’s demand until the New
York Times on July 31 ran a relatively brief item by media
reporter
Jim Rutenberg that leaned heavily on the environmentalists’
anti-Stossel spin. Explaining Stossel’s comment about pesticide
residue, Rutenberg, who credited the EWG with exposing the mistake,
wrote that "ABC executives are now looking into whether the
statement about produce, a key premise on which Mr. Stossel built
his case, was made without any basis in fact."
But
the discussion about pesticides wasn’t a "key premise" of the story
at all -- that’s just what the EWG’s was claiming in an effort to
elevate a misdemeanor into a felony, and their hyperbolic spin
dominated the media’s re-telling of the story. "John Stossel’s
erroneous 20/20 report on organic foods blatantly mixed truth
with lies," charged the Seattle Times’s Kay McFadden. "The
most embarrassing moment in TV news since CNN decided to retract its
‘Tailwind’ story," blasted USA Today. "A grossly inaccurate
piece -- apparently deliberately so," condemned the Washington
Times.
Actually, Stossel’s report was well-crafted, and correct in all
of its key assertions. MediaNomics went to the videotape, and
found that the wrong comments about pesticides were just two
sentences in a report that lasted nearly ten minutes. Stossel’s main
point -- that consumers are buying expensive organic foods because
they mistakenly believe they are more nutritious -- was amply
documented and hasn’t been contradicted by any of his critics.
Do consumers think that organic produce is more nutritious? In
his report, Stossel quoted several food shoppers testifying to their
belief that organic produce is superior to conventional produce,
including one man who insisted "I know it has more nutrients, which
is what I’m interested in getting when I eat food." To bolster this
anecdotal evidence, Stossel presented a scientific poll conducted by
ABC that showed that nearly half (45%) of consumers say they believe
organic foods are "more nutritious." So, yes, many of the consumers
who support the organic food industry believe as a matter of faith
that such foods contain more nutritional value. Score one for
Stossel.
Are organic fruits and vegetables more nutritious than
conventional produce? Stossel twice asked Katherine DiMatteo,
executive director of the Organic Trade Association, if she would
state on-camera that organic foods were more nutritious, and twice
she declined, stating only that "it’s as nutritious as any other
product." Stossel than asked if organics were "healthier," and she
told him that "organic agriculture and its products are healthier
for the environment," but once again wouldn’t say they were any
better for people than conventional produce. In other words, a
tomato is a tomato is a tomato. Score another one for Stossel.
Organic farmers don’t use chemical fertilizers, of course, but
instead use manure-based compost as plant food. Dennis Avery, a
former Agriculture Department analyst, told Stossel that one
consequence of relying on manure is that organic produce is
consequently "more likely to be infested with nasty strains of
bacteria." ABC tested to see if organic produce might, in this
respect, be more harmful than regular produce. Stossel reported that
contamination levels were very low for the broccoli, parsley and
celery, but fairly high in the organic sprouts and pre-bagged spring
mix for salads.
"The real bad news for you organics buyers is that the average
concentration of E. coli in the contaminated spring mix was much
higher," Stossel reported right before mistakenly asserting: "And
what about pesticides? Our tests surprisingly found no pesticide
residue on the conventional samples or the organic."
Then, bantering with anchor Cynthia McFadden at the conclusion of
the main report, he told her that "it’s logical to worry about
pesticide residues, but in our tests we found none on either organic
or regular produce, and it’s never been proven that pesticide
residues hurt anyone, yet we know there are about 5,000 deaths from
bacteria, so I think you’re worrying about the wrong thing."
Score one for his critics, but also score one for Stossel. The
point Stossel was making was that conventional produce isn’t more
harmful because of pesticide residue and, although he gave credit to
tests that were never done, his basic point is still correct. Three
years ago, Consumer Reports did the tests, and found
pesticide residue (expectedly) on three-fourths of the conventional
and (unexpectedly) on one-fourth of the organic produce, which means
you can’t necessarily escape pesticides by consuming only organic
produce.
Further, Stossel’s statistics about illnesses and deaths
attributable to pesticide residue (none), compared with 5,000 deaths
from food-borne bacteria, are correct. He’s wrong when he says
conventional produce has no pesticide residue (the tests certainly
wouldn’t have shown that), but he’s right when he says pesticide
residue is just not as big of a health hazard as contamination. And,
he’s also correct when he advises consumers to think twice before
paying more for expensive organic foods.
Stossel’s obviously not perfect. But what about the Environmental
Working Group’s record of accuracy? As a truth squad, it seems the
EWG needs some basic training. "The EWG is well known for spreading
fear of pesticides through misinformation," reported
junkscience.com’s Steve Milloy in a column written for Fox News’s
web site and posted on August 11.
Among the examples cited by Milloy, an adjunct scholar at the
Cato Institute, was the EWG’s August 1997 report, "Tough to
Swallow," which claimed millions of Americans were "routinely
drinking tap water contaminated with an unhealthy dose of
agricultural weed killers, many of which are carcinogens." But,
Milloy countered, "the EWG based its report on the wrong safety
standard -- one the EWG fabricated." According to Milloy, federal
safety standards allow 20 times as much atrazine [a weed killer] in
drinking water as the EWG’s claimed standard.
The EWG study wasn’t tough for the media to swallow. On August
12, 1997, the New York Times published an Associated Press
report that failed to include any comments from environmental
scientists who disagreed with the EWG, but did point out that the
EWG’s standards were stricter than federal standards. The Seattle
Times and USA Today also published stories on the EWG’s
flawed study, but only USA Today cited a critic, Chris Klose
of the American Crop Protection Association, who said the report was
"a health scare not based on anything but shaky political science."
The EWG issued another report on atrazine in drinking water in
1999, "Into the Mouths of Babes," which used the same bogus
standards to alarmingly push the idea that mothers who mixed baby
formula with tap water were putting their infants at risk. "The EWG
has a history of shunning the time-honored scientific peer-review
process in evaluating the accuracy of it positions," David Whitacre,
senior vice president for science of Novartis Crop Protection, Inc.,
the company that developed atrazine, said in reaction to the 1999
study. Earlier this summer, a 15-member scientific advisory panel
unanimously rejected an EPA proposal, encouraged by the EWG, to
tighten restrictions on atrazine.
The EWG has a history of grandstanding rhetoric. In addition to
demanding Stossel’s termination, EWG has asked Cato to fire
junkscience.com’s Milloy. The EWG’s President, Ken Cook, once
protested an article written by Milloy by sending him an obscene
letter that Milloy later posted on his
site. Their
"studies" don’t just document pesticide levels, but scream that
babies are in peril. But too many in the media chose overlook this
history and accept the EWG’s complaints about Stossel at face value,
just as they’ve uncritically relayed the contents of flawed EWG
studies in the past.
On August 11, Stossel
apologized for his mistaken statements about pesticide tests.
"The labs we used never tested the produce for pesticides," he told
his audience. "We thought they had, but they hadn’t. We
misunderstood, and that was our fault." For ABC viewers, that was
enough to set the record straight, but the Environmental Working
Group immediately issued a statement saying that the broadcast
apology was not enough -- even though they have yet to apologize for
their misleadingly fearful studies that have repeatedly found their
way into the mainstream media.
Whatever they are, the EWG aren’t "accuracy experts" and it’s a
shame that the New York Times and others in the media took
advantage of Stossel’s mistake to showcase them as a serious study
group instead of the raging fearmongers that they truly are.
— Rich
Noyes