Food writer Michael Pollan admits manipulation of high-profile stories, presenting one side of issues

Michael Pollan

Michael Pollan, one of the world's most cited commentators on food issues, has authored more than five books and has over 330,000 followers on Twitter. In spite of the expertise many believe he has, he recently acknowledged that he isn't an objective science journalist and "manipulates high profile stories on organics and crop biotechnology, particularly at The New York Times—and the paper's editors are willing dupes," Jon Entine writes for Forbes magazine, which usually takes a pro-business view.

Pollan, whose advice is often sought about issues like crop biotechnology, generally presents himself as a moderate on the genetic engineering controversy. "I actually think my position at GM is somewhat nuanced," Pollan said on National Public Radio. "Being skeptical about science and technology is very much in the scientific spirit. . . . You can accept that GM is safe—the narrow scientific issue—without accepting that it's a good idea for the American food system, or has contributed much of value." Based on this and similar interviews, Entine writes that Pollan doesn't think genetically modified organisms are harmful but is not a supporter because GMOs are part of large-scale agriculture, which he doesn't like.

However, lately Pollan has taken a stronger stand against GMOs. In an interview with vegan alternative lifestyle promoter John Robbins, he said, "I think there is no good reason to eat this stuff right now. All they offer is an unquantifiable potential risk." Entine writes, "Pollan goes on to admit, and almost boast, how he misrepresented himself to get inside Monsanto, claiming to be just a 'garden writer'."

Pollan, a journalism professor at the University of California, also admits in the interview that he is "not an objective science journalist but an advocate to the industry that has made him a millionaire," Entine reports. "He candidly says he manipulated the credulous editors at The New York Times, for which he writes regularly, by presenting only one side of food and agriculture stories." Pollan said in the interview, "When I wrote about food, I never had to give equal time to the other side. Say you should buy grass feed beef and organic is better, and these editors in New York didn't realize there is anyone who disagrees with that point of view. So I felt like I got a free ride for a long time."

On Twitter Pollan has been promoting anti-GMO studies that other scientists think are inaccurate. "Time and time again, Pollan plugs the latest anti-GMO scare study without ever reading it—an unheard of practice for a serious journalist," Entine writes, conclusing that Pollan "could end up, as viewed through the prism of history, as a tattered icon of an era when hysteria about GMOs trumped the empirical evidence—or he could emerge as a leader for positive engagement on crop biotechnology. He could be a teacher or a demagogue." (Read more)