Stacy Malkan, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, February 4, 2016
A few months ago, I raised concerns about Washington Post food columnist Tamar Haspel (FAIR.org,10/28/15) after she admitted taking money from agribusiness interest groups that she covers.
I pointed out that her columns are biased in favor of those industry groups, particularly on the topic of GMOs, even though her column is presented to readers as an unbiased effort to find middle ground in debates about our food system.
My article was met with crickets of silence from Haspel, her Post editor Joe Yonan and the band of biotech promoters who prolifically praise Haspel on Twitter. I figured that, soon enough, Haspel might write another column that would warrant raising the concerns another notch up the pole. She didn’t disappoint.
In her January column (Washington Post, 1/26/16), Haspel offered an investigation (“the surprising truth”) about the food movement—without speaking to anyone in the food movement—concluding that there isn’t much of a food movement after all, and most people don’t really care about labeling genetically engineered foods (GMOs).
Her sources? A two-year-old survey, another survey conducted by a food-industry front group, and consumer research by the agrichemical industry’s public relations firm. Let’s take a closer look.
Latest USRTK In the News
Comment Coca-Cola a bafoué ses promesses de transparence dans les contrats de recherche
Stéphane Horel, Le Monde, May 8, 2019
Coca-Cola’s Research Contracts Allowed for Quashing Negative Health Findings, Study Finds
Mari A. Schaefer, Philadelphia Inquirer, May 8, 2019
Coca-Cola Contracts Could Allow it to “Quash” Unfavourable Research Findings
Elisabeth Mahase, BMJ, May 8, 2019
University Records Reveal Coca-Cola’s Immense Power Over Health Research
Peter Hess, Inverse, May 7, 2019
Study Pulls Back Curtain on Contracts Between Coca-Cola and the Researchers it Funds
Andrew Joseph, STAT, May 7, 2019