Overthe years, ABC newsman John Stossel has raised the dander of many with hisunique ability to debunk conventional wisdom and expose special interests,politicians, and politically correct causes. As a reporter for the program 20/20, Stossel has on occasion gone aftersome hot environmental causes. Theseprograms raise the ire of environmental activists, who respond with campaignsto get Stossel off the air.

Wedesigned this site in response to one of the environmentalists’ efforts to getStossel fired in August 2000. The siteprovided information on the issue and how to express support for Stossel toABC. Stossel and his fans won that roundas ABC stood by its star reporter, but activists continue their attacks. This site now serves as a forum forinformation sharing and to express support for Stossel to counter ongoingenvironmentalist efforts to silence him.

HISTORYOF THE 2000 CAMPAIGN TO GET STOSSEL FIRED

InAugust 2000, the Environmental Working Group, working with the organic foodlobby and other left-leaning activists, called on ABC to fire John Stosselbecause he and his colleagues at ABC made an honest mistake in a February 20/20report titled: "HowGood Is Organic Food"? Mistakes happen, and reporters should render corrections when theydo. John Stossel rightly offered anapology for himself and ABC on the August11 edition of 20/20. But a publicapology is not enough said the EnvironmentalWorking Group and the Organic TradeAssociation.

Sowhat did Stossel do that was supposedly so egregious? ABC hired researchers to perform tests on various food productsfor traces of pesticide residues and E. coli. According to an ABC statement and press reports, an ABC staffer toldStossel that tests included one that measured pesticide residues on bothorganic and conventionally grown produce and that this test found no residue oneither. Stossel reportedaccordingly. However, the tests onlymeasured the levels of E. coli bacteria on produce and poultry as well aspesticide residues on poultry. They didnot measure pesticides on produce. "The labs we used never tested the produce for pesticides. Wethought they had, but they hadn't. We misunderstood, and that was ourfault," explained Stossel.

Whileactivists are calling this error a fabrication, there's no reason for Stosselor ABC to fabricate anything. First,the issue about pesticide residues on produce was more or less a side issue tothe report, which focused on E. coli. But more importantly, the most comprehensive studies on pesticideresidues find what Stossel thought ABC studies found. ABC did not need to engage in an elaborate fabrication, becausethe information was already available. Governmentreports show that pesticide residues are indeed so low that they are oftenundetectable.  For example, in its1997 study on pesticide residues, the State of California found noresidue on 62 percent of its 5,660 samples of 170 different commodities.  California reports that a large majority ofsamples that did contain residue had less than 10 percent of the levelregulators consider perfectly safe. Likewise, after analyzing thousands of samples in their 1999 survey, theU.S. Food and Drug Administration reports that about 70 percent of domesticvegetable samples and about 40 percent of fruit samples had no detectableresidues.  And 99 percent of all sampleshave either no residue or levels that were well within the government's verystringent safety standards. FDA found similarly lowresidues on imported produce.  For asummary of key findings in these reports, see Pesticide Facts: GovernmentStudies on Pesticide Residue Routinely find what Stossel Thought ABC Found

Yetthe Environmental Working Group and the Organic Trade Association would notrelent with their campaign because they are not simply interested in correctingan error or getting to the truth.  Theywanted to silence John Stossel because he says things they don't want thepublic to hear.  The Organic TradeAssociation went as far as to threaten to a class action lawsuit.  According to them, the organic food industrysuffered damages because (they claim) Stossel's program wrongly depictedorganic food as more dangerous than regular produce.

However,Stossel's point was not that organic food represents a serious healththreat.  He noted to Barbara Walters onthe February edition of 20/20 that all produce is "pretty safe."  The real issue Stossel addressed was thatpeople pay more for organic produce because they think it's safer, healthier,and better for the environment.  But, ashe documented, that's not necessarily so. Others have come to similar conclusions.  Agricultural expertDennis Avery has made this case for decades.  The Organic Trade Association may not have much of a case, butthat the threat of expensive litigation and a public mud slinging campaignalone could produce enough pressure on ABC to dump Stossel.

TheOrganic Trade Association and the Environmental Working Group have a right todisagree with Stossel, but Stossel has a right to free speech — a right topublicly state his conclusions about any topic. That right has enabled Stosselto give us many years of top-rate reporting and entertaining programming — butpolitically correct causes and special interests are prepared to place thatfreedom in jeopardy.

In response to the activistcampaign, we launched this site and initiated a petition in support ofStossel.  In addition, we urged Stosselsupporters to contact ABC to let them know that viewers want to continueviewing John Stossel's entertaining and informative programs.  As soon as we launched, we have anoverwhelming response, with nearly 3,000 signers to our petition after just afew weeks.