Eur Food Safety Authority EFSA
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">assoc v authority?</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">le monde</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">...</font></div><div><h6 style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 3rem 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.2;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">IARC, a stronghold of independence and integrity</font></h6><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">IARC has seen it all before. Not for the first time is it the target of criticisms and attacks —those are commensurate with the agency’s reputation. Although IARC’s evaluations do not have any regulatory value, they can sometimes threaten huge commercial interests.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; font-size: small; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b><a href="http://www.who.int/tobacco/publications/industry/who_inquiry/en/" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">The most documented attack </a>concerns passive smoking,</b> which was evaluated by IARC at the end of the 1990s. But even in the heyday of confrontations with Big Tobacco, the weapons used were relatively tame. “I have been working for IARC for 15 years and I have never seen anything like what has been happening in the past two years,”</span><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);"> confided Kurt Straif, Head of the agency’s Monographs Program.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It would be difficult to make IARC look like a controversial agency, contested within the scientific community itself and driven by an “anti-industry” bias. For the <a href="https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1409149/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">overwhelming</a> majority of scientists in the academic world—cancer specialists or public health researchers—the agency represents a stronghold of independence and integrity. “I honestly have trouble imagining a more rigorous and objective way to proceed towards collective scientific reviews,” said epidemiologist Marcel Goldberg, a researcher at the French National Institute for Health and Medical research (INSERM), which has participated in the work of several monographs. For each of them, IARC brings together around 20 researchers from different countries, selected not only for their experience and scientific competence but for the absence of any conflicts of interest.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; font-size: small; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);">Moreover, IARC bases its opinions on studies published in scientific journals and excludes confidential industry-sponsored studies. This is not the case for most regulatory agencies, which—on the contrary—may give decisive weight to studies performed and supplied by the companies whose products are being assessed. Among them is the </span><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">European Food Safety Authority (EFSA),</b><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);"> <b>the official EU agency in charge of assessing risks related to pesticides.</b></span></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; font-size: small; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In fall<b> 2015</b>, the European Union was to decide whether or not it would renew its authorization for glyphosate for at least another decade. As the basis for that decision, EFSA’s opinion on glyphosate was much-awaited. By November, Monsanto could take a breath. <b><a href="https://www.efsa.europa.eu/fr/press/news/151112" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">EFSA’s conclusions</a> contradicted IARC</b>: EFSA concluded that glyphosate was neither genotoxic nor carcinogenic. Shortly afterwards, Monsanto’s breath was taken way again.</font></p><h6 style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 3rem 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.2;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Attack against a scientist</font></h6><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; font-size: small; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">A few weeks later, around a hundred scientists <a href="http://jech.bmj.com/content/70/8/741" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">severely criticized</a> EFSA’s conclusions in a respected journal, considering them flawed by numerous shortcomings. Behind the initiative was a U.S. scientist who had helped the scientists working on IARC’s monograph as an “invited specialist.”</b></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; font-size: small; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">It was on him that the attacks concentrated.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>In environmental health circles, Christopher Portier is certainly not a nobody. “I have read here and there that Chris Portier has no competence and it’s probably one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard,”</b> said Dana Loomis, the Vice Director of the IARC monographs. “He developed many of the analytic tools that are used everywhere to interpret toxicological studies!” Mr Portier is one of those scientists whose CV does not fit in less than 30 pages.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Author of more than 200 scientific publications, he has been Director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), director of the U.S. Agency on Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, associate director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and of the National Toxicology Program. “That’s undoubtedly a unique career,” said Robert Barouki, director of a toxicology research unit at INSERM.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Newly retired, Christopher Portier now offers his competence as an expert and adviser to several international organizations, including the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), a U.S. environmental protection NGO.</b></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>And it is this man who was to become the target of an attack</b> … On April 18, 2016, the news agency<b> Reuters p</b>ublished a<a href="https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-who-iarc/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">long article on IARC</a> in which the agency was described as a “semi-autonomous” WHO agency guilty of “confus[ing] consumers.”</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The article referred to “concerns about potential conflicts of interest at IARC: It involves an adviser to the agency who is closely linked to the Environmental Defense Fund, a U.S. campaign group opposed to pesticides”.</font></p><h6 style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 3rem 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.2;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Rants and recriminations</font></h6><h6 style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 3rem 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.2;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></h6></div><div><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>http://www.alternet.org/environment/republicans-rush-monsantos-aid-industry-biased-reuters-report</b></font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>In their latest attempt to shield Monsanto from accountability, House Republicans have seized upon the flawed and biased reporting of a Reuters journalist whose work has emerged as a key lobbying tool for the embattled agrichemical company </b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">as it faces <a href="https://usrtk.org/pesticides/mdl-monsanto-glyphosate-cancer-case-key-documents-analysis/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">lawsuits</a>, regulatory threats and a wave of awful <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/business/monsantos-sway-over-research-is-seen-in-disclosed-emails.html?r=0" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">press</a> coverage <a href="http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/08/04/monsanto-ghostwriting-stanford-university-hoover-institution-fellow/amp/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">about</a> <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-09/monsanto-was-its-own-ghostwriter-for-some-safety-reviews" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">allegations</a> of improper influence over <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-pesticides-dicamba-insight-idUSKBN1AP0DN" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">research</a>.</span></font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">On Tuesday, House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy <a href="http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/visuel/2017/06/01/operation-intoxication-les-reseaux-de-monsanto_5136945_3244.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">demanded answers</a> about “possibly withheld information” that “could change” a cancer panel’s decision to list glyphosate, the main chemical in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide,</span> as a<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> probable human carcinogen. <a href="https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2017-08-08-TG-BF-SR-to-Collins-NIH-Aaron-Blair-due-8-22.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">Gowdy’s letter</a> was heavily referenced with one source: a June 14 <a href="http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/glyphosate-cancer-data/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">Reuters article</a> by Kate Kelland. </span></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>But the Kelland article that drove Rep. Gowdy’s lobbying was <a href="https://usrtk.org/pesticides/reuters-kate-kelland-iarc-story-promotes-false-narrative/" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">deeply flawed</a> and contained errors Reuters has refused to correct.</b></font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">What’s more, as I reported <a href="http://fair.org/home/reuters-vs-un-cancer-agency-are-corporate-ties-influencing-science-coverage/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">last month in FAIR</a>, the flawed Reuters-article-turned-lobbying-tool was only the latest in a series of biased articles Kelland has written about the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) since the agency <a href="http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">listed glyphosate</a> as a Class 2 carcinogen.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>The IARC working group of scientists—now the chief target of Monsanto’s “war on science,</b>” as the French newspaper <a href="http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2017/06/01/monsanto-operation-intoxication_5136915_3244.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">Le Monde reported</a>—<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">did not conduct new research, but reviewed years of published and peer-reviewed research before concluding there was limited evidence of cancer in humans from real-world exposures to glyphosate and “sufficient” evidence of cancer in studies on animals. IARC also concluded there was strong evidence of genotoxicity for glyphosate alone and for Roundup herbicide, whose use has <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/glyphosate-now-most-used-agricultural-chemical-ever-422419" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">skyrocketed</a> alongside Monsanto’s genetically engineered “Roundup Ready” crops.</span></font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In her stories about the IARC decision, Kelland has ignored much of the published research backing the classification and has instead parroted industry’s criticisms of the scientists. Her reporting has relied heavily on pro-industry sources, failed to disclose their industry connections and presented cherry-picked information out of context from documents she did not provide to readers.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Raising further questions about Kelland’s objectivity as a science reporter are her close ties to the Science Media Centre, a <a href="https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/science-media-centre/" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">controversial nonprofit PR agency</a>that connects scientists with reporters and gets its <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/about-us/funding/" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">largest block of funding</a> from industry groups.</b></font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/science-media-centre/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">Multiple researchers</a> have accused SMC, which launched in 2002 <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Science-Media-Centre-consultation-report.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">partly as an effort</a> to tamp down news stories driven by groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, of downplaying the environmental and human health risks of controversial products and technologies that are important to its funders.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kelland’s bias in favor of SMC is evident; she appears in the PR agency’s <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/film/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">promotional video</a> and <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/SMC-Views-from-the-front-line-essays-on-the-SMC.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">promotional report</a>, regularly attends <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/Risk%20Communication%20with%20the%20media_0.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">SMC briefings</a>, speaks at <a href="https://storify.com/Paraphyso/wellcome-trust-science-media-centre" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">SMC workshops</a> and attended <a href="https://blogs.fco.gov.uk/sunilkumar/2013/11/26/engaging-science-and-media/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">meetings in India</a> to discuss setting up an SMC office there.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither Kelland nor her editors at Reuters would respond to questions about her relationship with SMC or to specific criticisms about her reporting. SMC Director Fiona Fox said her group did not provide Kelland with sources for her IARC stories beyond those included in SMC’s press releases.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It is clear, however, that Kelland’s reporting on glyphosate and IARC mirrors the views put forth by SMC experts and industry groups on those topics—and also raises serious concerns about bias and fairness in science reporting.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><strong><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Reuters takes on cancer scientist</font></strong></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On June 14, 2017, Reuters published a <a href="http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/glyphosate-cancer-data/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">special report</a> by Kelland accusing Aaron Blair, an epidemiologist from the U.S. National Cancer Institute and chair of the IARC panel on glyphosate, of withholding important data from its cancer assessment.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kelland’s thesis that Blair withheld crucial data was at odds with the source documents on which she based her story, but she did not provide readers with links to any of those documents, so readers could not check the veracity of the claims. Her bombshell allegations were then widely circulated, repeated by reporters at other news outlets (including <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/06/monsanto-roundup-glyphosate-cancer-who/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">Mother Jones</a>) and immediately deployed as a <a href="https://www.bna.com/monsanto-cancer-study-n73014453449/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">lobbying tool</a> by the agrichemical industry.Kelland’s story went so far as to suggest that the information supposedly withheld could have changed IARC’s conclusion that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic. Yet the data in question was but a small subset of epidemiology data gathered through a long-term project known as the <a href="https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/atniehs/labs/epi/studies/ahs/index.cfm" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">Agricultural Health Study</a> (AHS). An analysis of several years of data about glyphosate from the AHS had already been published and was considered by IARC, but a newer analysis of unfinished, unpublished data was not considered, because IARC rules call for relying only on published data.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">After obtaining the actual source documents, Carey Gillam, a former Reuters’ reporter and now research director of U.S. Right to Know (the nonprofit group where I also work), <a href="https://usrtk.org/pesticides/reuters-kate-kelland-iarc-story-promotes-false-narrative/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">laid out</a> multiple errors and omissions in Kelland’s piece.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The analysis provides examples of key claims in Kelland’s article, including a statement supposedly made by Blair, that are not supported by the 300-page <a href="http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/glyphosate-cancer-data/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">deposition of Blair</a> conducted by Monsanto’s attorneys, or by other source documents.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kelland’s selective presentation of the Blair deposition also ignored what contradicted her thesis—for example, Blair’s many affirmations of research showing glyphosate’s connections to cancer, as Gillam wrote in a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/monsanto-spin-doctors-target-cancer-scientist-in-flawed_us_594449eae4b0940f84fe2e57" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">Huffington Post article</a>.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kelland inaccurately described Blair’s deposition and related materials as “court documents,” implying they were publicly available; in fact, they were not filed in court, and presumably were obtained from Monsanto’s attorneys or surrogates. (The documents were available only to attorneys involved in the case, and plaintiff’s attorneys have said they did not provide them to Kelland.)</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>Reuters has refused to correct the errors in the piece</b>, including the false claim about the origin of the source documents and an inaccurate description of a key source, statistician Bob Tarone, as “independent of Monsanto.” In fact, Tarone had <a href="http://governance.iarc.fr/ENG/Docs/IARC_responds_to_Reuters_15_June_2017.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">received a consultancy payment</a> from Monsanto for his efforts to discredit IARC.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In response to a USRTK request to correct or retract the Kelland article, Reuters global enterprises editor Mike Williams wrote in a June 23 email:</font></p><blockquote style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">We have reviewed the article and the reporting on which it was based. That reporting included the deposition to which you refer, but was not confined to it. The reporter, Kate Kelland, was also in contact with all the people mentioned in the story and many others, and studied other documents. In the light of that review, we do not consider the article to be inaccurate or to warrant retraction.</font></p></blockquote><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Williams declined to address the false citing of “court documents” or the inaccurate description of Tarone as an independent source.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Since then, the lobbying tool Reuters handed to Monsanto has grown legs and run wild. A June 24 <a href="http://www.stltoday.com/opinion/editorial/editorial-in-a-scientific-dispute-over-roundup-monsanto-gets-a/article_dca54b1d-6025-5c8a-b765-cf286adac9ec.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">editorial</a> by the St. Louis Post Dispatch <a href="http://www.stltoday.com/opinion/mailbag/editorial-relied-on-inaccurate-reporting-about-glyphosate-study/article_754e8e59-c63a-5925-bdc0-0006af6cc05c.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">added errors</a> on top of the already misleading reporting. By mid-July <b>right-wing blogs</b> </font><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">,</span><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">were using the Reuters story to accuse IARC of </span><a href="https://twitter.com/USRightToKnow/status/885194196839129088" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">defrauding U.S. taxpayers</a><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">, pro-industry news sites were predicting the story would be “</span><a href="https://morningconsult.com/opinions/cancer-data-suppressed-international-organization/" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">the final nail in the coffin</a><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">” of cancer claims about glyphosate and a </span><a href="https://www.facebook.com/pg/Science-News-Today-1927007787570501/reviews/" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">fake science news group</a><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> was promoting Kelland’s story on<b> Facebook</b> with a phony headline claiming that IARC </span><a href="https://twitter.com/USRightToKnow/status/885192740677595137" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">scientists had confessed to a cover-up</a><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><strong><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Bacon attack</font></strong></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This was not the first time Kelland had relied on Bob Tarone as a key source and failed to disclose his industry connections in an article attacking IARC.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">An April 2016 <a href="http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-who-iarc/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">special investigation</a> by Kelland—“Who Says Bacon Is Bad?”—portrayed IARC as a confusing agency that is bad for science. The piece was built largely on quotes from Tarone, two other pro-industry sources whose industry connections were also not disclosed, and one anonymous observer.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">IARC’s methods are “poorly understood,” “do not serve the public well,” sometimes lack scientific rigor, are “not good for science,” “not good for regulatory agencies” and do the public “a disservice,” the critics said.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The agency, Tarone said, is “naïve, if not unscientific”—an accusation emphasized with capital letters in a sub-headline.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Tarone works for the pro-industry <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company-beta/1929869/" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">International Epidemiology Institute</a></b> and was once involved with a <a href="http://news.cision.com/the-investor-relations-group/r/environmental-health-trust-questions-new-study-claiming-no-cell-phone-brain-cancer-link-among-childr,c9147452" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">controversial cell phone study</a>, funded in part by the cell phone industry, that found no cancer connection to cell phones, contrary to <a href="http://science.time.com/2010/09/27/health-a-cancer-muckraker-takes-on-cell-phones/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">independently funded studies</a> of the same issue.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The other critics in Kelland’s bacon story were Paulo Boffetta, a controversial ex-IARC scientist who wrote a paper defending asbestos while also <a href="http://www.rightoncanada.ca/?p=2400" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">receiving money to defend</a> the asbestos industry in court; and Geoffrey Kabat, who once <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/James_E.Enstrom" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">partnered</a> with a tobacco industry-funded scientist to write <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/326/7398/1057" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">a paper</a> defending secondhand smoke.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kabat also serves on the advisory board of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), a <a href="https://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">corporate front group</a>.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The day the Reuters story hit, ACSH posted a <a href="http://www.acsh.org/news/2016/04/18/whats-ailing-iarc-another-round-of-criticism-ensues" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">blog item</a> bragging that Kelland had used its advisor Kabat as a source to discredit IARC.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The industry connections of her sources, and their history of taking positions at odds with mainstream science, seems relevant, especially since the IARC bacon exposé was paired with a Kelland <a href="http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-who-iarc/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">article about glyphosate</a> that accused IARC advisor Chris Portier of bias because of his affiliation with an environmental group.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The conflict-of-interest framing served to discredit a letter, organized by Portier and <a href="http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2016/03/03/jech-2015-207005" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">signed by 94 scientists</a>, that described “serious flaws” in a European Union risk assessment that exonerated glyphosate of cancer risk.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Portier attack, and the good science/bad science theme, <a href="https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/04/18/glyphosate-battles-different-european-agencies-came-different-cancer-conclusions/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">echoed through</a>chemical industry <a href="https://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/jon-entine-the-chemical-industrys-master-messenger/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">PR channels</a> on the same day the Kelland articles appeared.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><strong><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">IARC pushes back</font></strong></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In October 2016, in another <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-cancer-iarc-exclusive-idUSKCN12P2FW" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">exclusive scoop</a>, Kelland portrayed IARC as a secretive organization that had asked its scientists to withhold documents pertaining to the glyphosate review. The article was based on correspondence provided to Kelland by a <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/energy-environment-legal-institute" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">pro-industry law group</a>.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In response, IARC took the unusual step of posting Kelland’s questions and the <a href="http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/Reuters_questions_and_answers_Oct2016.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">answers they had sent her</a>, which provided context left out of the Reuters story.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">IARC explained that Monsanto’s lawyers were asking scientists to turn over draft and deliberative documents, and in light of the ongoing lawsuits against Monsanto, “the scientists felt uncomfortable releasing these materials, and some felt that they were being intimidated.” The agency said they had faced similar pressure in the past to release draft documents to support legal actions involving asbestos and tobacco, and that there was an attempt to draw deliberative IARC documents into PCB litigation.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The story didn’t mention those examples, or the concerns about draft scientific documents ending up in lawsuits, but the piece was heavy on critiques of IARC, describing it as a group “at odds with scientists around the world,” which “has caused controversy” with cancer assessments that “can cause unnecessary health scares.”</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">IARC has “secret agendas” and its actions were “ridiculous,” according to a Monsanto executive quoted in the story.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">IARC wrote <a href="http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/Reuters_Readmore_Oct2016.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">in response</a> (emphasis in original):</font></p><blockquote style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The article by Reuters follows a pattern of consistent but misleading reports about the IARC Monographs Programme in some sections of the media beginning after glyphosate was classified as <em>probably carcinogenic to humans</em>.</font></p></blockquote><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">IARC also <a href="http://governance.iarc.fr/ENG/Docs/IARC_responds_to_Reuters_15_June_2017.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">pushed back on</a> Kelland’s reporting about Blair, noting the conflict of interest with her source Tarone and explaining that IARC’s cancer evaluation program does not consider unpublished data, and “does not base its evaluations on opinions presented in media reports,” but on the “systematic assembly and review of all publicly available and pertinent scientific studies, by independent experts, free from vested interests.”</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><strong><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">PR agency narrative</font></strong></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>The Science Media Centre</b>—which Kelland <a href="http://archives.cjr.org/the_observatory/science_media_centers_the_pres_1.php" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">has said</a> has influenced her reporting—does have vested interests, and has also been criticized for pushing pro-industry science views.<a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/about-us/funding/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">Current and past funders</a> include Monsanto, Bayer, DuPont, Coca-Cola and food and chemical industry trade groups, as well as government agencies, foundations and universities.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By all accounts, SMC is influential in shaping how the media cover certain science stories, often getting its <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/working-with-us/for-journalists/roundups-for-journalists/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">expert reaction</a> quotes in media stories and driving coverage with its <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/working-with-us/for-journalists/briefings-for-journalists/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">press briefings</a>.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As Kelland explained in the SMC <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/film/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">promotional video</a>, “By the end of a briefing, you understand what the story is and why it’s important.”</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That is the point of the SMC effort: to signal to reporters whether stories or studies merit attention, and how they should be framed.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sometimes, SMC experts downplay risk and offer assurances to the public about controversial products or technologies; for example, researchers have criticized SMC’s media efforts on <a href="http://www.talkfracking.org/frackademics/frackademics-case-study-4/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">fracking</a>, <a href="http://www.emfacts.com/download/Science_media_centre_spin.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">cell phone safety</a>, <a href="http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/The-SMC-and-its-campaign-against-MECFS.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">Chronic Fatigue Syndrome</a> and <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-pJR4cGo9ckcG9udmZWVGxmMkk/view" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">genetically engineered foods</a>.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">SMC campaigns sometimes feed into lobbying efforts. A 2013 <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/science-media-centre-of-attention-1.13362" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">Nature article</a> explained how SMC turned the tide on media coverage of animal/human hybrid embryos away from ethical concerns and toward their importance as a research tool—and thus stopped government regulations.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The media researcher hired by SMC to analyze the effectiveness of that campaign, Andy Williams of Cardiff University, came to see the SMC model as problematic, worrying that it <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/science-media-centre-of-attention-1.13362" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">stifled debate</a>. Williams <a href="http://www.scidev.net/global/journalism/feature/uk-s-science-media-centre-lambasted-for-pushing-corporate-science.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">described SMC briefings</a> as tightly managed events pushing persuasive narratives.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On the topic of glyphosate cancer risk, SMC offers a clear narrative in its press releases.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The IARC cancer classification, according to <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-carcinogenicity-classification-of-five-pesticides-by-the-international-agency-for-research-on-cancer-iarc/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">SMC experts</a>, “failed to include critical data,” was based on “a rather selective review” and on evidence that “appears a bit thin” and “overall does not support such a high-level classification.” <a href="https://monsanto.com/company/media/responses-iarc-glyphosate-classification/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">Monsanto</a> and other <a href="https://scottsmiraclegro.com/media/glyphosate-answers/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">industry</a><a href="https://gmoanswers.com/iarc%E2%80%99s-classification-glyphosate-%E2%80%93-what-does-it-mean-you" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">groups</a> promoted the quotes.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">SMC experts had a much more favorable view of risk assessments conducted by the <b>European Food Safety Authority</b> (<a href="https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/151112" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">EFSA</a>) and the European Chemicals Agency (<a href="https://echa.europa.eu/-/glyphosate-not-classified-as-a-carcinogen-by-echa" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">ECHA</a>), which cleared glyphosate of human cancer concerns.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-efsas-conclusions-on-glyphosate-safety/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">EFSA’s conclusion</a> was “more scientific, pragmatic and balanced” than IARC’s, and the <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-the-european-chemicals-agency-echa-committee-for-risk-assessment-not-classifying-glyphosate-as-a-carcinogen/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">ECHA report</a> was objective, independent, comprehensive and “scientifically justified.”</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kelland’s reporting in Reuters echoes those pro-industry themes, and sometimes used the same experts, such as a <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-monsanto-glyphosate-idUSKCN0T61QL20151117" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">November 2015 story</a> about why European-based agencies gave contradictory advice about the cancer risk of glyphosate. Her story quoted two experts directly from an <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-efsas-conclusions-on-glyphosate-safety/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">SMC release</a>, then summarized their views:</font></p><blockquote style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In other words, IARC is tasked with highlighting anything that might in certain conditions, however rare, be able to cause cancer in people. EFSA, on the other hand, is concerned with real life risks and whether, in the case of glyphosate, there is evidence to show that when used in normal conditions, the pesticide poses an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment.</font></p></blockquote><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Kelland included two brief reactions from environmentalists: Greenpeace called the EFSA review “whitewash,” and Jennifer Sass from the Natural Resources Defense Council said IARC’s review was “a much more robust, scientifically defensible and public process involving an international committee of non-industry experts.” (An <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/jennifer-sass/glyphosate-iarc-got-it-right-efsa-got-it-monsanto" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">NRDC statement</a> on glyphosate put it this way: <b>“IARC Got It Right, EFSA Got It From Monsanto.”</b>)</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kelland’s story followed up the environmental group comments with “critics of IARC…say its hazard identification approach is becoming meaningless for consumers, who struggle to apply its advice to real life,” and ends with quotes from a scientist who “declares an interest as having acted as a consultant for Monsanto.”</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When asked about the criticisms of pro-industry bias of the SMC, Fox responded:</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">We listen carefully to any criticism from the scientific community or news journalists working for U.K. media, but we do not receive criticism of pro-industry bias from these stakeholders. We reject the charge of pro-industry bias, and our work reflects the evidence and views of the 3,000 eminent scientific researchers on our database. As an independent press office focusing on some of the most controversial science stories, we fully expect criticism from groups outside mainstream science.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><strong><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Expert conflicts</font></strong></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Scientific experts do not always disclose their conflicts of interest in news releases issued by SMC, nor in their high-profile roles as decision-makers about the cancer risk of chemicals like glyphosate.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Frequent SMC expert Alan Boobis, professor of biochemical pharmacology at Imperial College London, offers views in SMC releases on <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-the-european-food-safety-authority-efsa-draft-scientific-opinion-on-the-safety-of-the-artificial-sweetener-aspartame/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">aspartame</a> (“not a concern”), <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-press-release-from-fote-and-gm-freeze-about-glyphosate-in-urine/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">glyphosate in urine</a> (no concern), <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-paper-on-insecticides-and-birth-defects-to-be-published-in-occupational-and-environmental-medicine-a-bmj-specialist-journal-2-2/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">insecticides and birth defects</a>(“premature to draw conclusions”), <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-research-on-alcohol-and-cancer/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">alcohol</a>, <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-efsa-report-conclusion-that-seralini-study-conclusions-were-not-supported-by-data/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">GMO corn</a>, <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-study-of-trace-metals-and-lower-or-higher-cancer-risk-as-published-in-gut-2-2/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">trace metals</a>, <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-study-investigating-content-of-and-contaminants-in-laboratory-rodent-diets/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">lab rodent diets</a> and more.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-the-european-chemicals-agency-echa-committee-for-risk-assessment-not-classifying-glyphosate-as-a-carcinogen/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">ECHA decision</a> that glyphosate is not a carcinogen “is to be congratulated,” according to Boobis, and the <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-carcinogenicity-classification-of-five-pesticides-by-the-international-agency-for-research-on-cancer-iarc/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">IARC decision</a> that it is probably carcinogenic “is not a cause for undue alarm,” because it did not take into account how pesticides are used in the real world.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Boobis declared no conflicts of interest in the IARC release or any of the earlier SMC releases that carry his quotes. But he then sparked a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/17/unwho-panel-in-conflict-of-interest-row-over-glyphosates-cancer-risk" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">conflict-of-interest scandal</a> when news broke that he held leadership positions with the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), a <a href="https://usrtk.org/sweeteners/ilsi-wields-stealthy-influence-for-the-food-and-agrichemical-industries/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">pro-industry group</a>, at the same time he co-chaired a U.N. panel that found glyphosate <a href="http://www.who.int/foodsafety/jmprsummary2016.pdf?ua=1" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">unlikely to pose a cancer risk</a>through diet. (Boobis is currently <a href="http://ilsi.org/about/leadership-support/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">chair</a> of the ILSI Board of Trustees, and <a href="http://ilsi.eu/about-us/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">vice president ad interim</a> of ILSI/Europe.)</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>ILSI has received <a href="https://usrtk.org/sweeteners/ilsi-wields-stealthy-influence-for-the-food-and-agrichemical-industries/" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">six-figure donations</a> from Monsanto and CropLife International,</b> the pesticide trade association. Professor Angelo Moretto, who co-chaired the U.N. panel on glyphosate along with Boobis, also held a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/17/unwho-panel-in-conflict-of-interest-row-over-glyphosates-cancer-risk" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">leadership role in ILSI</a>. Yet the panel <a href="http://www.who.int/foodsafety/faq/en/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">declared</a> no conflicts of interest.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Kelland did not report on those conflicts, though she did <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-who-glyphosate-idUSKCN0Y71HR" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">write about</a> the findings of the “U.N. experts” who exonerated glyphosate of cancer risk, and she once recycled a Boobis quote from an <a href="http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/experts-respond-to-the-news-that-high-levels-of-dioxins-have-been-found-in-slaughtered-pigs-in-the-republic-of-ireland-2/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">SMC press release</a> for an article about <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ireland-food-recall-idUSL751490720081207" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">tainted Irish pork</a>. (The risk to consumers was low.)</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When asked about the SMC conflict of interest disclosure policy, and why Boobis’ ISLI connection was not disclosed in SMC releases, Fox responded:</font></p><blockquote style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">We ask all researchers we use to provide their COIs and proactively make those available to journalists. In line with several other COI policies, we are unable to investigate every COI, though we welcome journalists doing so.</font></p></blockquote><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Boobis could not be reached for comment, but told the Guardian lnx, “My role in ILSI (and two of its branches) is as a public sector member and chair of their boards of trustees, positions which are not remunerated.”</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But the conflict “sparked furious condemnation from green MEPs and NGOs,” the Guardian reported, “intensified by the [U.N. panel] report’s release two days before an EU relicensing vote on glyphosate, which will be worth billions of dollars to industry.”</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And so goes it with the tangled web of influence involving corporations, science experts, media coverage and the high-stakes debate about glyphosate, now playing out on the world stage as Monsanto <a href="https://usrtk.org/pesticides/mdl-monsanto-glyphosate-cancer-case-key-documents-analysis/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">faces lawsuits</a> over the chemical due to cancer claims, and seeks to complete a <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-07-13/does-the-world-s-top-weed-killer-cause-cancer-trump-s-epa-will-decide" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">$66 billion deal with Bayer</a>.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Meanwhile, in the U.S., as Bloomberg <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-07-13/does-the-world-s-top-weed-killer-cause-cancer-trump-s-epa-will-decide" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">reported</a> on July 13: “Does the World’s Top Weed Killer Cause Cancer? Trump’s EPA Will Decide.”</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A version of this story originally ran in <a href="http://fair.org/home/reuters-vs-un-cancer-agency-are-corporate-ties-influencing-science-coverage/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting</a>.</font></p><div wibbitz="embed-main-player" style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="bio-new body_environment" style="width: 630px; line-height: 22px; height: auto; border-top: 3px solid rgb(223, 223, 218); clear: both;"><div class="author-bio"><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stacy Malkan is co-director of <a href="http://usrtk.org/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">U.S. Right to Know</a>,</font></p></div></div><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></p></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">infiltrated ?</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><p style="margin: 0.4em 0px 0.5em; font-size: small; line-height: 1.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The following is an email of 10 August 2008 from Dr Pusztai to Claire Robinson and Jonathan Matthews of GMWatch, in which<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Dr Pusztai comments on the 10th anniversary of the television interview.</span></font></p><dl style="font-size: small; line-height: 19.2px; margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dear Claire and Jonathan,</font></dd></dl><dl style="font-size: small; line-height: 19.2px; margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">I thought that I should write to you on the 10th anniversary of my 150 seconds of TV "fame" and tell you what I think now. It is very appropriate to write to you because you have provided the most comprehensive service to inform people about the shenanigans of the GM biotechnology industry and its advocates.</font></dd></dl><dl style="font-size: small; line-height: 19.2px; margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On this anniversary I have to admit that, unfortunately, not much has changed since 1998. In one of the few sentences I said in my broadcast ten years ago, I asked for a credible GM testing protocol to be established that would be acceptable to the majority of scientists and to people in general. 10 years on we still haven't got one. Instead, in <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Europe we have an unelected EFSA GMO Panel with no clear responsibility to European consumers,</span> which invariably underwrites the safety of whatever product the GM biotech industry is pushing onto us.</font></dd></dl></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The fifth scientific review was published by the European Food Safety</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Association</b> (EFSA 2014). Like many agency reviews, it typically is prepared</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">by a scientific panel and has many scientific reviewers commenting</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">on drafts before it is released. ‘‘The EFSA GMO panel concludes that the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">proposed uses of MON 87769 soybean oil in foods will not result in intakes</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">4 Science, Technology, & Human Values</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Downloaded from sth.sagepub.com at The New School on August 7, 2015</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">of stearidonic acid (SDA) with diverse effects and that the other changes in</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">the dietary fatty acid pattern are unlikely to have negative nutritional consequences</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">for humans. The EFSA GMO panel notes that the quantitative</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">dietary estimates described here would have to be revisited if the oil produced</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">by the soybean MON 87769 were to be extensively used in food</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">products not considered in this assessment, for example as dietary supplements</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">or to modify animal feed products.’’</font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The second paper was a published commentary that focused on conflicts
of interest of those criticizing Se´ralini’s papers (Se´ralini et al. 2014). The
authors note that a new assistant editor of biotechnology joined the journal
Food and Chemical Toxicology after Se´ralini’s article was published and
that this assistant editor previously worked for Monsanto for seven years.
The authors interpret the decision to retract their paper a little over a year
after it was appropriately refereed grew out of the role of the new assistant
editor who had a conflict of interest as a former employee of Monsanto.
A third paper discussed the conflicts of interest at the European Food
Safety Authority (EFSA), a weak counterpart to the US FDA since it issues
advisories to members of the European Union. According to its website,
‘<b>‘The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)</b> [an independent European
agency funded by the EU budget that operates separately from the European
Commission, European Parliament and EU Member States] is the keystone
of European Union (EU) risk assessment regarding food and feed safety
... . EFSA provides independent scientific advice and clear communication
on existing and emerging risks’’ (EFSA). The agency reviewed the Se´ralini
et al. publication and published the results in the EFSA Journal in 2012.
EFSA found the study to be ‘‘inadequately designed, analysed’’ and discounted
Se´ralini’s response to critics concluding that the study is of ‘‘insufficient
scientific quality for safety assessments.’’</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</span></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
Robinson et al. (2013) argued that the EFSA has been rife with conflicts
of interest.</span> For example, the chair of EFSA’s management board had a longstanding
relationship with the industry funded International Life Sciences
Institute (ILSI). They claim that in 2010 more than half of the EFSA experts
on the GMO panel had financial conflicts of interest. The agency had been
cited by the Ombudsman for failing to manage conflicts of interest and
Krimsky 25
Downloaded from sth.sagepub.com at The New School on August 7, 2015
despite changes still has not distanced itself from ILSI and thus does not
represent an independent review of Se´ralini’s work. Among the points
raised by Robinson et al. is that when differences are found between GMOs
and non-GMO counterparts, several authors, including those funded by
industry, dismiss the findings as being within the normal range of variation
and are not biologically relevant. ‘‘An EFSA opinion allows industry
to define biological relevance on a case-by-case basis’’ (Robinson et al.
2013, 2).</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b> Conclusion </b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">I began this article with the testimonials from respected scientists that there
is literally no scientific controversy over the health effects of GMOs.
My investigation into the scientific literature tells another story. I found
twenty-six animal feeding studies that have shown adverse effects or animal
health uncertainties (Table 2). The eight review articles were mixed in their
assessment of the health effects of GMOs (Table 1). The analysis of how
two respected scientists were treated so poorly by the scientific community
over their peer-reviewed work raises questions about likely political and
ideological influences in the science. I could find no comparable case in the
history of science where someone’s published and peer-reviewed work was
retracted because it was not definitive. Comparable works that found GMOs
equivalent to their non-GMO parental strain were not retracted for the same
reason since they too were not definitive. It has been argued that the weight
of evidence is favorable to the hypothesis that the current family of commercialized
GMOs is safe to humans and animals because there is a preponderance
of articles establishing that point. In risk assessment, the number
of studies that reveal a risk can be more significant than a larger number
of studies that do not. Imagine a hundred flights to test a new aircraft.
Ninety-five prove safe. Five flights produce electrical problems, failed
landing gear, and a wing collapse. Does one just negate the five flights and
go with the weight of evidence? Those five flights are very significant, perhaps
because the aircraft was pushed beyond standard flight operations but
within its design limits.
When there is a controversy about the risk of a consumer product, instead
of denying the existence of certain studies, the negative results should be
replicated to see if they hold up to rigorous testing. This point was made
by the 300 scientists who signed a joint statement that was published in
Environmental Sciences Europe. The statement ‘‘does not assert that GMOs
are unsafe or safe. Rather the statement concludes that the scarcity and
26 Science, Technology, & Human Values
Downloaded from sth.sagepub.com at The New School on August 7, 2015
contradictory nature of the scientific evidence published to date prevents
conclusive claims of safety, or lack of safety, of GMOs’’ (Hilbeck et al.
2015, 1). David Schubert, professor at the Salk Institute, summarized the
state of affairs of the GMO controversy as follows: ‘‘To me, the only reasonable
solution is to require that all GM plant products be tested for
long-term toxicity and carcinogenicity before being brought to market’’
(2002, 969). Until the twenty-six studies, or at least the best of them, are
replicated and shown to be false positives, we have an obligation to treat
these studies with respect and concern. My results have broad implications
for the study of scientific and medical controversies, whether climate
change, endocrine disruptors, statins, or mercury preservatives in vaccines.
STS scholarship is best accomplished when it approaches a controversial
issue systemically and includes a deep analysis of the primary science, a
review of the function of professional societies, an analysis of the peer
review process of journals, a study of the political climate and its impact
on science and on federal regulatory agencies which set policy, the media’s
role in shaping public understanding or misunderstanding, and the role that
financial interests play in scientific risk analysis. All of these factors
are brought into play in the GMO debate, about which I have argued that
the putative consensus about the inherent safety of transgenic crops is
premature.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Europe: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> “It is not foreseen that EFSA carry out such [safety] studies as the onus is on the [GM industry] applicant to demonstrate the safety of the GM product in question.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">– European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I suggest to biotechnology companies that they publish results of studies on the safety of GM foods in international peer-reviewed journals. The general population and the scientific community cannot be expected to take it on faith that the results of such studies are favourable. Informed decisions are made on the basis of experimental data, not faith.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">– Domingo JL. Health risks of GM foods: Many opinions but few data. Science. 2000; 288(5472): 1748–1749. [1]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In Europe, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is given the task of assessing the safety of GM foods and crops. Based on EFSA’s assessment, the EU government authorities make the final decision on whether to approve or reject the GMO.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Typically the EU member states fail to agree on whether to approve a GM crop, with most voting not to approve it, but the vote does not achieve the “qualified majority” required to reject the GMO. The decision passes to the European Commission, which ignores the desires of the simple majority of the member states and approves the GMO.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Worldwide, safety assessments of GMOs by government regulatory agencies are not scientifically rigorous. As in the US, they do not carry out or commission their own tests on the GM crop. Instead, they make decisions regarding the safety of the GMO based on studies commissioned by the very same companies that stand to profit from the crop’s approval.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The problem with this system is that industry studies have an inbuilt bias. Published reviews evaluating studies assessing the safety/hazards of products show that industry-sponsored or industry-affiliated studies are more likely to conclude that the product is safe than independent (non-industry-affiliated) studies, which are more likely to find risk. The most notorious example is industry studies on tobacco, which succeeded in delaying regulation for decades by sowing confusion about the health effects of smoking. [2] But a similar bias has been found in studies on other products, including pharmaceuticals,[3,4] mobile phones[5] – and GM crops and foods. [6,7]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Often the studies that companies submit to regulatory agencies have not been published in a peer-reviewed journal and so cannot be scrutinized by the public or independent scientists.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Serious problems in the GMO regulatory process identified by civil society groups include:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">• Lack of standardized testing requirements</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">• Lack of mandatory animal feeding studies</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">• Absence of long-term safety studies</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">• Poor quality industry tests</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">• Reliance on industry test data</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">• Data gaps</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">• Inadquate test methods, meaning that toxic or allergenic effects will likely be missed</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">• Signs of toxicity and adverse effects in industry tests and independent scientific studies being ignored or dismissed by EFSA. [8,9,10]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In addition, EFSA experts have frequently been exposed as having conflicts of interest with the GM industry. Their decisions on GM foods and crops – and the regulatory system they helped develop – have been repeatedly challenged by civil society groups, independent scientists, the media, and Members of the European Parliament as meeting the needs of industry at the expense of public health. [9,11]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Labelling: GM foods and ingredients must be labelled in the EU. However, products such as meat, milk and eggs from animals fed on GM feed do not have to be labelled. This is an important loophole as most GM crops imported into the EU go into animal feed and thus remain ‘under the radar’ of the public.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.gmoseralini.org/europe-european-food-safety-authority-efsa/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==</font></div></div></div>