Grayling

This article is part of the Lobbying Portal, a sunlight project from Spinwatch.

Back to Lobbying Portal

Established in 1981, Grayling was a PR and lobbying group owned by Huntsworth. In 2008 Grayling was subject to a merger with sister firm Global Consulting Group, forming Grayling Global.

History

• Grayling was founded in London in 1981.
• Its public affairs capabilities started with the formation of Westminster Strategy in 1986 and were gradually expanded to Brussels, Edinburgh and Cardiff.
• Acquired by Lopex in 1988
• RS Live became part of Grayling in 1995 with specialist expertise in event management.
• Lopex sold to Havas in 1999
• In April 2004, Huntsworth plc acquired a 70% stake in Grayling, while the 30% minority shareholding is held by Grayling's senior managers.
• In March 2008 Grayling merged with sister firm Global Consulting Group, both subsidiaries of Huntsworth Plc, to form Grayling Global, focused on public affairs, public relations, investor relations and event management. It is headquartered in London, with offices in New York, Brussels, Bangkok, Singapore, Madrid, Moscow, Tel Aviv, Shanghai, Istanbul, Los Angeles, Sacramento, Dublin, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Bristol, and Birmingham. The firm has over 200 consultants.

People

• Nigel Kennedy, Group Chief Executive. Until the mid-eighties, spent 7 years in the oil industry primarily in marketing and public relations, working for Mobil in London and subsequently with Total Oil in London and then in Paris.

Former employees

• Michael Burrell, former chairman of GPS, now with lobbying and PR firm Edelman.
• Jo Moore, formerly of Westminster Strategy
• Bill Hamilton, head of comms and stakeholder relations, Nuclear Decommissioning Authority since 2005

Poisoned farmed Scottish Salmon

Grayling's work for Scottish Quality Salmon is to support their policy communications work with elected members and officials in Edinburgh, London and Brussels. "Our only role was to support SQS to ensure that policymakers were informed of the scientific facts on the issue." (John McGill, Grayling, hd of APPC Scotland)

In January 2004 the Sunday Herald reported:

The US study that sparked the toxic salmon scare has been strongly defended by leading scientists following allegations from the fish farming industry that it was biased and flawed.

"It is based on sound science and the results are undeniable," said George Lucier, former director of the US Department of Health's national toxicological programme and author of more than 200 studies on toxic chemicals. He has been backed by at least three other independent US experts.

The study, by scientists from four US universities and published 10 days ago in the US journal Science, analysed the levels of cancer-causing PCBs, dioxins and pesticides in 700 salmon from around the world. It found that farmed salmon were much more contaminated than wild salmon.

Despite the criticisms that followed, the conclusion has not been seriously challenged. But the subsequent findings - that eating farmed Atlantic salmon "may pose health risks that detract from the beneficial effects of fish consumption" - has provoked bitter argument.

The counterattack has been led by the salmon farming industry, which was forewarned of the study last October. It has alleged the research was biased because it was funded by a trust founded on US oil money.

The role played by the $ 3.8 billion Pew Charitable Trust, which funds research into global pollution, was spelled out in the study, and highlighted by Science magazine, the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general federation of scientists. Any suggestion that Pew interfered has been denied by all involved.

Nevertheless, the Scottish salmon farming industry maintains it has been the victim of a global conspiracy. "This was a deliberately engineered food scare orchestrated to attack the salmon farming industry in Scotland," said Brian Simpson, chief executive of Scottish Quality Salmon (SQS).

Science's editor-in-chief Donald Kennedy dismissed the allegations. He said that the authors were all respected members of academic institutions. "Pew funded the study but left the authors free to publish their results without review," he told the Sunday Herald, adding that Science's peer-review process"is among the most rigorous in the scientific community".

The levels of contamination reported by the study have been accepted by both the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and Scottish Quality Salmon (SQS) in the UK.

"The levels of dioxins and PCBs found in this study are in line with those that have previously been found by the FSA," stated the FSA on January 8.

The salmon industry was first alerted to the Science study by a talk given to an aquaculture conference in Vancouver, Canada, on October 27 last year. Charles Santerre, of Purdue University in Indiana, said: "Expect this bombshell to be spun in an unfavourable manner, so I think the industry needs to be prepared for it."

Although Santerre was widely quoted as a leading critic of the Science study last week, it was not always made clear that he is a paid consultant of industry group, Salmon of the Americas.

Resources

• Grayling Political Strategy, UK Clients and Staff 1.12.03 to 31.05.04
• Grayling UK Clients, PRCA Yearbook 2004

See also

Grayling Global | Grayling Political Strategy

References

Back to Lobbying Portal