1. Re Response on NGIN comments from IEA - NGIN
2. Response on NGIN comments from IEA - Prakash and Morris
---
1. Re Response on NGIN comments from IEA
Prakash has forwarded a "Response on NGIN comments from IEA" in which Julian Morris of the Institute of Economic Affairs states that, "nearly everything he [ie NGIN] says about the IEA is wrong ...".
Morris tells us, for example, that a press release attributed to the IEA, which stated that organic food "may well present a danger to children, the elderly and the sick" and which suggested such people should be discouraged from eating organic food, did not actually come from the Institute of Economic Affairs:
"That press release was put out by Roger Bate and myself", he says.
But Roger Bate and Julian Morris both work for the IEA, co-directing its Environment & Technology Programme, and as even Morris admits, "we did use the IEA's fax machine and letterhead..."
The press release, in fact, not only went out from the IEA's press office in the IEA's name but it centered on a survey said to have been "carried out by researchers from the Institute of Economic Affairs".
For anyone wanting to check it out, the press release can be found on the IEA website amongst the IEA's other press releases: http://www.iea.org.uk/press/butter.htm
It would, however, be quite wrong to conclude that this press release had anything to do with the Institute of Economic Affairs.
Yeah, right...
At another point in his response, Julian Morris denies the accuracy of the statement that, "The Institute contributed to the Counterblast’ broadcast on BBC 2 on 31 January 2000, which argued that organic foods were more dangerous than non-organic foods".
Morris comments:
"-- no, the counterblast programme was directed by roger and featured me; the only role the IEA played was as a backdrop in the scenes in which i appear"
So the programme was directed by someone who works for the IEA (Roger Bate), though interestingly that fact was never disclosed during the course of the programme, while featuring someone else who not only works for the IEA but who was described as doing so in the programme, and whose contributions were filmed in the IEA itself. It would, however, be utterly wrong to conclude that "the Institute contributed" in any way to the making of this programme.
In which case, of course, one can only wonder what CS Prakash actually meant when he titled this rebuttal, "Response on NGIN comments from IEA". Did Prakash mean what he would appear to mean? Or should he perhaps have made it clear that while this was a response defending the IEA solicited by him from someone who works for the IEA, it shouldn't in any way be taken as having anything to do with the IEA? That would perhaps be the most logical conclusion from the comments of Julain Morris of the, er... IEA.
Similarly, while we're busy splitting hairs, when Prakash attacks organic agriculture and promotes GM crops from the platform of some far right free market institute, with the financial support of the US Department of State, whose interests should he actually be seen as promoting?
Those of the Third World as championed by his AgBioWorld foundation, Prakash would presumably reply. But there may be room for doubt when one of the Foundation's two media respondents, given in Prakash's recent AgBioWorld press release attacking the Sri Lankan government for its ban on GM food imports, turns out to be none other than Gregory Conko of the Competitive Enterprise Institute - yet another right wing pro-globalisation grouping from the industrialised north. See: http://www.agbioworld.org/pr/srilanka.html
And finally, in order not to be outdone by Prakash and Morris in their quest for accuracy and correct attribution, we should perhaps point out that the "NGIN comments" about the IEA to which they take exception, weren't actually made by NGIN. They came from a section of a recent report, "Organic food and farming: myth and reality", compiled by the Soil Association and Sustain, an alliance campaigning for better food and farming and enjoying the support of many UK public interest groups, such as the National Federation of Women's Institutes and WWF-UK. The full 'Myth and reality' report is available as a pdf at: http://www.soilassociation.org/SA/SAWebDoc.nsf/bdedfca988b2db3c85256207004f45a9/3eb68f8aa6a9bc7780256aa700311a9e/$FILE/_59lsn8q16a9im2r39ehsg_.pdf
----
2. Prakash wrote:
Subject:
[SCOPE:GMF-news] Response on NGIN comments from IEA
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 18:36:31 -0500
From: Prakash <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
This message comes to you from SCOPE through the GMF-news email list.
For subscription details and archives, please see: ttp://scope.educ.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/gmf-news
-------------------------------------------------------
As NGIN posted several comments on Institute for Economic Affairs,UK (IEA) as among the 'organic myth' producers on the SCOPE's GMF earlier today (August 18), I asked Julian Morris of IEA to respond: Here are his answers:
From: Julian Morris <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Thanks Prakash, that's highly amusing: nearly everything he says about the IEA is wrong ...
The Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA) in the UK has perpetuated myths spread by the Hudson Institute.
According to a study based on the US Centers for Disease Control data, individuals consuming products made with these [organic] techniques are eight times more likely to contract the potentially fatal strain of bacteria E. Coli O157:H7, which killed hundreds in the United States in 1998 and left thousands with permanent organ damage. It was also responsible for the widely reported 21 deaths in Lanarkshire in1997.’ Institute for Institute for Economic Affairs, 1999.
-- That press release was put out by Roger Bate and myself -- OK, so we did use the IEA's fax machine and letterhead -- but as we repeat ad nauseam 'The IEA has no corporate view' ...
Organic food may well present a danger to children, the elderly and the sick; i.e. people with underdeveloped or weakened immune systems. Such people should be discouraged from eating so-called "organic" or "natural" foods.’ Institute for Economic Affairs, 1999.
-- ditto
This free market think-tank was founded in the 1950s by Antony Fisher who ‘became a highly successful businessman by founding Britain's first broiler-chicken farm which mass-produced Buxted Chickens’.
-- that is true and is something to be proud of: Fisher reduced the cost of protein dramatically and offered an alternative to wild salmon, which were close to extinction as a result of over-harvesting (these were the days before salmon farms -- also a great invention)
The IEA has links to the Hudson Institute in the US. In 1999 it published a book entitled Fearing Food: Risk, Health and the Environment with a contribution from Dennis Avery of the Hudson Institute on ‘The fallacy of the organic utopia’.
-- that's just not true: Fearing Food was published by Butterworth-Heinemann. I am not aware of any links betwen Hudson Institute and the IEA (other than a similar appreciation amongst the people who work in both organisations for the workings of the market and the use of science)
The press release to accompany the launch of the book was entitled Londoners demand regulation of potentially deadly organic food’ and was based on a survey of just 121 people in London.
-- the point of the survey -- lost on jonathan as it is lost on most journalists -- was to show that it is easy to create a food scare; all you need to do is frame the question in the right way
80 per cent of the Institute’s funding currently comes from membership fees, the rest mainly from publication sales and conferences.
-- that's not true either but it hardly matters
The Institute contributed to the Counterblast’ broadcast on BBC 2 on 31 January 2000, which argued that organic foods were more dangerous than non-organic foods.
-- no, the counterblast programme was directed by roger and featured me; the only role the IEA played was as a backdrop in the scenes in which i appear
-------------------------------------------------------
SCOPE GMF-news email list Please post GMF info resources to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. Change your subscription options by going to http://scope.educ.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/gmf-news or send a message with 'help' as the subject to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.