1.We need more Foxes and less foxiness
2.Andrew Wadge is charged with the protection of public health. When is he going to take that responsibility seriously?
NOTE: The following piece is taken from the blog of Andrew Wadge, the Chief Scientist at the UK's Food Standards Agency (FSA). In it he praises Fiona Fox, the controversial director the Science Media Centre, and her SMC team for their impact on the reporting of science-related stories in the media.
http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Fiona_Fox
He notes how the SMC has won praise for "working quickly to put journalists in touch with impartial experts when science-based news stories break" and gives the Seralini study as a case in point, and says the SMC helped to shape UK coverage of the Seralini study.
In reality, of course, the one thing that one can say with certainty, is that the experts to whom the SMC directed journalists were overwhelmingly anything but impartial!
www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14224
But in Andrew Wadge's eyes, it seems, what we need is still more Foxes guarding the hen house!
–-
–-
1.We need more Foxes and less foxiness
Andrew Wadge
hungry for science, 3 October 2012
http://blogs.food.gov.uk/science/entry/we_need_more_foxes_and
Many congratulations to Fiona Fox and her dedicated team of scientists at the Science Media Centre (SMC), which held its 10th anniversary at the Science Museum in London last night.
Several speakers at the event praised the SMC for improving the quality of science journalism in the UK, by working quickly to put journalists in touch with impartial experts when science-based news stories break.
A case in point is recent coverage of the research published by Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini from CRIIGEN, which involved feeding rats with GM maize and roundup herbicide.
This had all the potential for becoming another sensational frankenfood, shock-horror story, particularly as the authors chose to publicise their research by issuing embargoed copies of the study direct to the media.
The story received balanced coverage, in the UK, partly due to the efforts of the SMC.
I will leave comment on the quality of the science to the independent experts advising EFSA (assuming that the authors of the research agree to share their data).
However, I do wonder why the authors chose to publish in the way they did and whether their aim was to stimulate a balanced rational debate. What do you think?
–-
–-
2.Comment from Dr Brian John in response to Andrew Wadge
Well now – this is very revealing. Sycophantic and irresponsible in the extreme. This is one of the most serious news stories about public health to break in the last decade, and the FSA response is to denigrate it and to praise the SMC for its attempts to bury the story and to create a "scientific furore" designed to confuse both the media and the public. Balanced coverage from the SMC? You must be joking..... have you actually looked at their briefing materials? "Impartial experts"? Come along now – just look at their CVs.
You are being entirely disingenuous in your comments about the manner in which the Seralini research was conducted and published. As you know full well, the study had to be conducted in conditions of complete secrecy because Monsanto, if they had known of it, would have moved heaven and hell to kill it and to prevent publication. It is a small miracle that the research was completed and published in a peer-reviewed journal.
And you are being disingenuous again in your comment about the French group agreeing to share its data sets with EFSA. Have you ever demanded the full release of the data sets used by the applicants for GM consents? I suspect not. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
When you have finished praising the sinister activities of the SMC, I advise you to look at this French study very seriously indeed. Its findings are not aberrations – they confirm what many other studies have shown, namely that chronic toxic effects are associated with the consumption of GM products and Roundup residues. You are charged with the protection of public health. When are you going to take that responsibility seriously?