RE: [pf] Risks, imposed or chosen

by David A

18 December 2000 02:11 UTC

Tom, I know Karen, I like her, and I respect her greatly as a person and 
as a journalist. She admits she is anti-GM. To what extent should this 
factor in how I read this? 

Tom Wheeler wrote:
> From: David A <davidnh@visto.com>
> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56807-2000Nov25.html
> >
> >Tacogate: There Is Barely A Kernel of Truth
> >
> >By Thomas Hoban
> >Washington Post
> >Sunday, November 26, 2000; Page B02
> 
> More on Thomas Hoban from PR Watch. He was quite a nasty, threatening 
> fellow
> when PR Watch contacted him. - Tom
> 
> 
> Professor Thomas Hoban: Biotech's Leading Propagandist/Pollster in the 
> USA
> PR Watch <www.prwatch.org/> Volume 6 #4 Fourth Quarter 1999
> 
> The Professor Who Can Read Your Mind
> 
> by Karen Charman
> 
> Tom Hoban is a man with a mission: to convince people to embrace 
> genetically
> engineered food. I had the opportunity to experience this firsthand at 
> the
> Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) annual conference in New York 
> City
> in
> June 1998 while we were lining up for lunch. Seeing the press pass 
> dangling
> around my neck, he made a beeline for me and proceeded to attempt to
> educate me about the wonders of food biotechnology.
> 
> That might not seem strange--plenty of people push biotech--but Hoban is
> not a public relations flack or salesman at a company peddling biotech
> food. He is a
> professor in the sociology department at North Carolina State University
> (NCSU).
> Hoban specializes in consumer behavior and the psychology of conflict, a
> position that gives him a veneer (but only a thin veneer) of 
> objectivity.
> 
> Industry promoters widely regard Hoban as the pre-eminent expert in 
> consumer
> attitudes on gene-altered food, and he is listed in several industry 
> source
> guides for journalists. Over the last ten years, he has conducted a 
> number
> of government-and industry-funded surveys, which he says consistently 
> show
> "two-thirds to three-quarters of U.S. consumers are positive about food
> biotechnology." Considering the controversy swirling around biotech food
> overseas and the likelihood that it will erupt on these shores, such a
> finding must be comforting to industry. His data, however, is 
> questionable.
> 
> Hoban says he helped design the questions in a much-touted consumer 
> survey
> conducted for the International Food Information Council (IFIC) but 
> carried
> out by the Republican political and polling firm, the Wirthlin Group. 
> The
> survey was first done in March 1997 and then repeated in February 1999,
> ostensibly so that a trend could be established. Besides trumpeting 
> strong
> support for genetically engineered food, the nine-question survey 
> indicates
> that consumer awareness of biotech food is low. It also claims there is
> little support for labeling biotech foods.
> 
> The problem with the survey, however, is that the questions it asked are
> loaded
> with language designed to bias the answers. Examples include:
> 
> "How likely would you be to buy a variety of produce, like tomatoes or
> potatoes, if it had been modified by biotechnology to taste better or
> "fresher?"
> 
> "How likely would you be to buy a variety of produce . . . if it had 
> been
> modified by biotechnology to be protected from insect damage and 
> required
> fewer pesticide applications?"
> 
> "Biotechnology has also been used to enhance plants that yield foods 
> like
> cooking oils. . . . Would this have a positive effect, a negative 
> effect, or
> no
> effect on your purchase decision?"
> 
> "Some critics . . . say that any food produced through biotechnology 
> should
> be
> labeled even if the food has the same safety and nutritional content as
> other
> foods. However, others, including the FDA, believe such a labeling
> requirement has no scientific basis, and would be costly and confusing 
> to
> consumers. Are you more likely to agree with the labeling position of 
> the
> FDA
> or with its critics?"
> 
> James Beniger, a communications professor at the University of Southern
> California and past president of the American Association for Public 
> Opinion
> Research, reviewed the IFIC survey and said it is so biased with leading
> questions favoring positive responses that any results are meaningless.
> UCLA communications professor Michael Suman agreed, adding that the
> questions "only talk about the food tasting better, being fresher,
> protecting food from insect damage, reducing saturated fat and providing
> benefits. It's like saying 'Here's biotechnology, it does these great
> things for you, do you like it?'" The results might be different, Suman
> offers, if it contained questions biased in the other direction such as:
> "Some people contend that some foods produced from biotechnology cause
> higher rates of cancer. If that is so, what effect would that have on 
> your
> buying decision?"
> 
> Ignorance is bliss
> 
> Hoban's rap, either while presenting a paper at a biotech industry
> conference or
> in a one-on-one interview, is equally questionable. It goes something 
> like
> this (my paraphrase): "The public is much more positive about food
> biotechnology than the activists would have you believe. Most people 
> don't
> know much about
> biotechnology, but that's because it is not important to them.
> Americans--unlike
> Europeans who have been through traumatizing food scares--have great 
> trust
> in the public agencies that regulate our food supply. Since the FDA says
> genetically modified food is safe, that is good enough for most. The FDA
> position on labeling is sensible because a label for biotech food would
> only confuse consumers and hike the cost. Activist types are suspicious 
> of
> biotechnology, but they are probably technophobic and only represent a
> minority view. Biotechnology is no different than what crop breeders 
> have
> been doing all along--it's just more sophisticated and more precise, so
> what's the big deal? People support biotechnology in food because it 
> will
> benefit them. People's views on food are based on whether they think it
> will bring them a tangible benefit--fresher, better taste, convenience,
> higher nutrition, and
> price. Environmental and food safety concerns only surface if there is
> irresponsible and sensational media attention that stirs up fear. 
> Besides,
> biotechnology is good for farmers, and Americans--unlike Europeans--like 
> to
> support their farmers."
> 
> At industry gatherings, Hoban emphasizes--and pokes fun at--the 
> scientific
> illiteracy of the general public. At the BIO meeting, after telling his
> audience that consumers decide what food to buy based on taste, value, 
> and
> convenience, not on how the seed was produced, he quipped: "Lots of
> American consumers probably don't know seeds are involved in
> agriculture--they don't even know farms are involved in agriculture."
> 
> "Everybody's going to be
> using biotech foods
> pretty soon, so there
> won't be a lot of alternatives."
> 
> --Professor-cum-Pollster Tom Hoban
> 
> In a recent telephone interview, he said that when he asks people about
> concerns critics have been raising about the technology, most 
> respondents
> only
> express a vague sense that biotech may result in some unwanted and
> unanticipated
> consequences somewhere down the line. But again, ignorance shapes their
> response. "People tend to think the positive is going to outweigh the
> negative when we describe it for them. In general, they don't know 
> enough
> about it to get into all the details--that a plant is going to somehow 
> have
> its genes transferred to another plant," he said. "When you present that 
> to
> people in a focus group, they will scratch their head and not really 
> know
> what you are talking about."
> 
> Comfort Food
> 
> Hoban sees such public ignorance as a great opportunity for industry to
> "proactively educate" consumers to gain trust in biotechnology. At the 
> BIO
> meeting, he complimented biotech companies and industry groups like IFIC
> and BIO for "paving the way for biotechnology in the U.S." and making 
> the
> public "comfortable" to the point that he predicted genetically 
> engineered
> food "will not be an issue for the vast majority of consumers."
> 
> Hoban miscalculated the extent to which genetically engineered food has
> become an issue in Europe. At the June 1998 BIO meeting, he said 
> activist
> groups
> like Greenpeace had gotten all the media attention but they didn't 
> really
> represent the average European consumer. Today he concedes the biotech
> industry made some mistakes in being too aggressive about pushing the
> technology and not
> labeling the products so that European consumers could make their own
> choices.
> However, he blames most of Europe's reaction on an out-of-control media 
> that
> "terrorized" European citizens with daily headlines of Frankenfood,
> combined with the aftershocks of betrayal over mad cow disease in 
> England
> and dioxin
> contamination in Belgium.
> 
> European controversy or not, Hoban doesn't seem to be too worried about 
> the
> future prospects of the industry. He says non-GMO products are becoming
> difficult to find, and "everybody's going to be using biotech foods 
> pretty
> soon, so there won't be a lot of alternatives."
> 
> Expert for Hire--Attorney Included
> 
> A short biography of Hoban precedes an interview with him that appeared 
> in
> the
> May 1996 issue of PBI Bulletin, a publication of the Canadian National
> Research
> Council. It describes him as an Associate Professor and Extension 
> Sociology
> Specialist at NCSU whose "main responsibilities involve working with
> government
> agencies, industry and others to improve the assessment and transfer of 
> new
> technologies." Much of his work "focuses on how people accept new 
> products
> and
> respond to change," including "ethical and educational implications of
> biotechnology." Besides a PhD in rural sociology, Hoban has master's 
> degrees
> in
> agricultural journalism and water resource management, plus a BS in 
> biology.
> 
> Hoban advertises his social research consultant services on his own web 
> page
> (sasw.chass.ncsu.edu/~tom/). The page says he has "unique and
> interdisciplinary
> perspectives" and "provides a practical focus for managing change." It 
> also
> says, "Dr. Hoban provides timely advice and expert assistance in a 
> number
> of areas including: consumer response to new products; public 
> perceptions
> of food
> biotechnology; management of innovation and change; public opinion about
> technology and the environment; and issue and crisis management." 
> Specific
> skills listed include: "survey and focus group research; team building 
> and
> partnering; strategic planning; policy analysis; needs assessment; and
> technology forecasting."
> 
> Hoban was out of the country when I called to ask who his clients are, 
> so I
> called NCSU to request the "External Professional Activities For Pay" 
> forms
> that the university requires its faculty to file when they take on 
> outside
> work. The university replied that the forms were "confidential personnel
> information" and refused to provide them. When I called Hoban later to
> request the information, he refused and was furious that I had contacted
> the university. He added that he had checked out PR Watch, found it to 
> be
> very biased, and threatened that his attorney would look closely at
> anything we wrote.