Recently, you may remember, the rap mega-star son of CS Prakash, responded in his own inimitable fashion to material we'd put out on GM Watch. Prakash Jr told us we must be, the greatest "dick ass bith whor" in history, and it would be better for us if we desisted from annoying either him or his father in future - or words to that effect!
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4435

Now one of those listed as an expert to advise the media by CS Prakash's AgBioWorld campaign - Dr Tom Hoban, has also taken issue, in this case with our piece "The Professor who got cold feet - GM zealot's 'Change of Heart'". This contrasted the GM-sceptical opinions that Hoban put forward in a Pew Biotech Buzz article, with his earlier staunchly pro-GM views.

In the Pew Biotech piece, the North Carolina State University professor and former GM enthusiast says he thinks GM foods need to be labelled and that, "The FDA practices of voluntary pre-market notification and substantial equivalence are no longer valid. It is time for the US to learn from the EU about regulation." Hoban also says of GM pharma crops, "You probably don't want that stuff in food. You don't want to be the food company identified as having plastic or pig vaccines in your corn flakes."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4387

We contrasted this with his earlier output and in particular with the work done for the International Food Information Council, as reported by Karen Charman in a PR Watch article from the end of 1999, "The Professor Who Can Read Your Mind".

Here's Hoban (item 1), followed by the PR Watch piece (item 2).
1.Hoban Responds to GM WATCH
2.The Professor Who Can Read Your Mind
------

1. Subject: Hoban Responds to GM WATCH daily
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004
From: Tom Hoban <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]

I have read with interest some of the comments on my profile that appeared in the Pew Biotech Buzz. I want to take this chance to respond to some of the charges made by people who have never even met or talked to me.

Those who worry about me having too much influence on the plant biotechnology debate pay me a complement. You can breath easier now that I am on to more interesting and important topics (such as transgenic animals and the social impacts of human genetics.) I admit to being enthusiastic about biotechnology during the mid-nineties. Like any other job, I was hired by the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at NC State with specific expectations (which I exceeded). Until about five years ago, I truly believed my main allegiance should be to American farmers. Based on most assessments of the relative benefits and risks, I still believe the first generation of GM crops are a good thing. My PhD research had focused on ways to persuade farmers to adopt no-till farming in southwestern Iowa (something that was made possible by herbicide-tolerant soybeans.)

During my 25-year interdisciplinary career, I have always tried to understand all sides of complex socio-technical subjects (something you don’t learn just by breeding plants.) I have worked closely (some say "too closely") with all sectors of the modern food system from farmers through to the supermarket industry. My research over the past decade has included interviews with over 600 food industry leaders and global government leaders. As the food processing, retail and service sectors became more concerned with issues like pharmaceutical crops and cloned animals, I did as well.

The only critique of my work that anyone ever references was published almost ten years ago in a trade newsletter entitled PR-Watch. The major error in that story was that their critique of "my research" was actually a critique of a survey conducted by the International Food Information Council (IFIC). I had worked with IFIC on the design of that survey. The final wording and selection of questions was up to them – not me. The PR-watch freelancer never bothered to review the vast amount of research I had conducted for the US Department of Agriculture, the National Science Foundation, and others. In fact, the PR-Watch reporter was so unprofessional I had never felt the need to respond to her (except now that people insist on citing such out-dated misinformation.)

I am glad that my views on biotech (and life in general) have evolved and will continue to do so. I have gone through a major transformation in my professional and personal life during the past five years. Anyone who is interested can learn more from my new website: http://www.hiphappy.com. I am now focused on using music and my college teaching to raise social awareness and political activism among young people. This continues my 25 year commitment to environmental protection, social justice and other important social causes.

Thanks for listening to my side of the story. I am comfortble with of all my work. I have always tried to make decisions that reflected my own values and those of the larger society. Full copies of all my surveys and reports are available if anyone is interested. My career is an open-book – full details available at: http://hoban.ncsu.edu Overall, I have never been happier -- playing music and building friendships around the world. I would be glad to answer questions from anyone who wants further information. Please contact me directly instead of slinging more mud online.
------

2.The Professor Who Can Read Your Mind
by Karen Charman
PR Watch, 4th Quarter 1999, The Professor Who Can Read Your Mind
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1999Q4/hoban.html

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