webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Whelan, B ac sh

see Am Council on sci and health (two nodes)

RIP

ggle doc

note color below

promoted to primary 5/14 b/c # of tags (number and duration/age)

i confuse w/ another woman? amy ridenour?

html Heather;

bak 820

The incidence of sepsis appears to be increasing in the United States. The causes of this increase may include:

==

nyt obit

Whelan, an epidemiologist who crusaded against what she called junk science by starting a national organization to question conventional wisdom on food, chemicals and the environment, died on Sept. 11 in Manahawkin, N.J. She was 70.

The cause was complications of sepsis, her husband, Stephen T. Whelan, said.

Dr. Whelan (pronounced WHEEL-an) believed that much research concerning complicated health questions lacked proper scientific underpinning, and in 1978 she started her organization, the American Council on Science and Health, to remedy this perceived deficiency.

One of the first scientists to join the initiative was Norman E. :{Borlaug:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:, the biologist awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for his contributions to the vast increase in global grain yields known as the green revolution.

Dr. Whelan had earlier collaborated with Dr. Fredrick J. :{Stare:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:, who founded the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health, on the 1975 book “Panic in the Pantry: Food Facts, Fads and Fallacies,” which asserted that many federal food regulations were absurd.

The council’s main contention was that some chemicals and products were regulated without proof that they were harmful. Dr. Whelan thus often found herself on the side of industry, which partly financed her efforts, against consumer and environmental groups and regulatory agencies.

At first, the council refused corporate financing, though it accepted money from private foundations. But “in avoiding corporate donations, we were limiting A.C.S.H.’s fund-raising potential to no avail,”Dr. Whelan wrote in a commentary for the organization’s 25th anniversary in 2003.

So the council’s board voted to accept corporate donations as long as no strings were attached. It came to get about 40 percent of its money from corporations, she said in the 2003 commentary.

Critics say that corporations have donated precisely because the council’s reports often support industry positions. “I was regularly called a shill for the food industry,” Dr. Whelan wrote.

The organization has argued in favor of a variety of chemical products, including saccharin and other artificial sweeteners, pesticides, growth hormones for dairy cows, and polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs. But it has also argued for controls on handguns and tobacco sales, and has endorsed bicycle helmets.

Relying on a panel of more than 350 scientists who volunteer their time, the council has produced papers and pushed its views in television appearances and columns by Dr. Whelan and others. It has disparaged critics of smokeless tobacco, [but not ETS?]which it sees as far less pernicious than traditional tobacco, andendorsed the hotly debated petroleum drilling technique called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

The council has also said that public-interest groups like Ralph Nader’s have frightened people away from making personal choices in cases where no danger has been proved. One of its bugaboos was former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s drive to curtail sales of large servings of sugared soda in New York City. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/18/us/elizabeth-whelan-who-challenged-food-laws-dies-at-70.html?...Consumer and environmental advocates have challenged the organization’s findings on the safety of various products. One self-described watchdog group, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, summed up its view of the council in the title of a 1982 booklet: “Voodoo Science, Twisted Consumerism.”

But the council is undeterred. On its website, it says its critics’ agenda “is to limit or dismantle many technological achievements that contribute to consumer choice and good health.”

Elizabeth Ann Murphy was born in Manhattan on Dec. 4, 1943. She earned a bachelor’s degree from Connecticut College, a master’s in public health from Yale, and a master’s in science and a Ph.D. from Harvard.

After Harvard, she wrote about health for Harper’s Bazaar, Glamour and other magazines. In 1974, she wrote the book “Sex and Sensibility: A New Look at Being a Woman,” which was intended to provide plain, understandable facts about sex to adolescents. She followed up two years later with “Making Sense Out of Sex: A New Look at Being a Man,” co-written with her father-in-law, Stephen T. Whelan.

In between, she wrote “A Baby? ... Maybe: A Guide to Making the Most Fateful Decision of Your Life” (1975). In an interview with The New York Times in 1977, she told how she had decided her answer was yes: “I suddenly panicked because I was going to be 30,” she said.

In addition to her husband, Dr. Whelan, who lives in Manhattan, she is survived by her daughter, Christine Whelan Moyers, and two grandchildren.

Her career as an advocate on public health issues began in 1973, when she became fascinated with the so-called Delaney clause, a 1958 amendment to the 1938 Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The clause mandated that any chemical that causes cancer in animals or people be banned. As analytic chemistry became increasingly sophisticated, ever smaller amounts of chemicals were found to cause cancer in animals. The law took no account of actual carcinogenic potency.

Dr. Whelan wrote a polemic in 1973 arguing that the development of cancer in one rat out of many as a result of an almost infinitesimal exposure to a chemical could be irrelevant to human health. Using an oft-quoted phrase, she wrote that a particular food additive could be banned “at the drop of a rat.”

She wrote a total of 27 books. Several attacked the tobacco industry for lack of openness; others prescribed diets.

The title of another book, written with Professor Stare in 1983, was emblematic of Dr. Whelan’s consuming passion and sometimes insouciant approach: “The One-Hundred-Percent Natural, Purely Organic, Cholesterol-Free, Megavitamin, Low-Carbohydrate Nutrition Hoax.”

:{

}:

==

jerving: 

ACSH's Elizabeth Whelan: "A Great Weapon"

Elizabeth Whelan [7] is founder and President of the American Council on Science and Health [8] (ACSH). ACSH is a network of scientists whose stated mission to "ensure that the coverage of health issues is based on scientific facts – not hyperbole, emotion and ideology." Whelan has used hyperbole to advance her agenda, for example, calling the New York Times reporting on atrazine "All the news that's fit to scare."

Some of ACSH's published materials have a disclaimer saying it accepts corporate donations but it "does not accept support from individual corporations for specific research projects." Documents obtained by CMD show [9] (PDF) that Syngenta has been a long-term financial supporter of ACSH and that in the midst of reports about spikes in atrazine levels reported by the New York Times, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Huffington Post Investigative Fund, ACSH sought an additional $100,000 to produce more materials about atrazine in addition to seeking increased funding in general by Syngenta.

Whelan has crafted the word "chemophobia" [10], a term for what she tells the public is the "unfounded" fear of chemicals. Her mantra [11] is that the public shouldn't be alarmed by the presence of chemicals at "low" levels, a claim that flies in the face of new scientific studies [12] that indicate potential health risks from exposure to atrazine. (Even very small amounts of some man-made substances like BPA have been shown to potentially disrupt the human body's sensitive endocrine system.)

In a 2009 MSNBC interview [13], Whelan responded to a New York Times piece [14] that questioned the safety of atrazine levels in drinking water, calling the claim a "bogus risk." "Atrazine has been used for 50 years, it's very, very tightly regulated," she asserted.

In response to that media appearance by Whelan, Syngenta's Vice President of Corporate Affairs Jessica Adelman called Whelan a "great weapon," 15 according to documents obtained by CMD. A weapon for which the global corporation has paid a significant fee over time. The ACSH proposal unsealed by the court shows Whelan telling Syngenta's "Stewardship Manager," that Syngenta's regular financial support "is the lifeblood [9]"(PDF) of an organization the size of ACSH and "is both deeply appreciated and much needed." Whelan's group has annual income of about $2 million a year, and she is paid over $350,000 in compensation from this non-profit group funded by Syngenta and other global corporations. ACSH does not reveal the amounts received by corporations, and Whelan did not tell viewers of her claims about atrazine that she receives major funding from the global corporation that makes the weed-killer.

people mag 1979

Dr. Elizabeth Whelan must be appearing on a lot of enemies lists these days. One TV host introduced her as "pro-air pollution." The National Nutritional Foods Association, a "health" food trade group, is suing her for $1.3 million for defamation. A New Jersey legislator demanded she be investigated after she concluded that the state's cancer rate was no higher than other industrialized Eastern states. "A lot of people imagine I'm drinking chemicals out of a beaker all day," chortles Whelan, 35, an epidemiologist whose doctorate in science is from Harvard's School of Public Health. 

Whelan is now the executive director of the controversialManhattan-based American Council on Science and Health, which she founded last year to voice "the scientifically balanced truth" on how foods and chemicals affect health. Her critics charge that council studies are just apologias for the food and chemical industries. The council, for example, insists there is no proof that red dyes, nitrites (found in bacon) or saccharin hurt humans; the harm they cause lab animals, she maintains, is caused by excessive dosages. "There is no evidence any food additive currently in use has ever caused any ill health, much less cancer, in Americans," she asserts. 

Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of Ralph Nader's Health Research Group, is outraged by, among other things, Whelan's claims on saccharin: "No responsible scientist has said that it is safe. It is clearly a carcinogen." Adds Wayne L. Pines, information director of the Food and Drug Administration: "Whelan just makes blanket endorsements of food additives. Her organization is a sham, an industry front." 

Whelan got into the field in the early '70s when cyclamates were banned by the FDA. "I was at Harvard and heard about rats being fed cyclamates. All of a sudden my diet sodas were gone. I saw a misuse of scientific data and got enraged," she says. Following graduation in 1971, she co-wrote a book, Panic in the Pantry, which charged there was a "back-to-nature mania perpetrated by opportunists intent on taking advantage of very gullible consumers." She says now, "A major hoax was being perpetrated. Things were banned at the drop of a rat."

After the book appeared in 1975, Whelan was billed by the press as a counterforce to natural-food advocates, so she decided to formalize her role. She assembled a board of scientists—a critic asserts it reads like "a who's who of defenders of industry"—and after two years got a $100,000 grant from Pittsburgh's Sarah Scaife Foundation. Whelan says she's meeting her $250,000 annual budget without food and chemical industry subsidy. 

Whelan is not automatically pro-business. She indicts cigarette smoking as a cancer cause and criticizes irresponsible dumping of chemicals. "But," she says, "the concept of safety has gone berserk. We're out to say we can have good health and the benefits of technology." 

She was raised in Larchmont, N.Y., the daughter of an attorney (now on her council board). After graduating from Connecticut College, Beth went on to Yale for her master's and met her husband Steve, a Wall Street lawyer, while at Harvard. 

The mother of a daughter, Christine, 2, Whelan starts her day preparing the family breakfast at 6:30 a.m. and has swum half a mile at the local Y before arriving at her office at 8 a.m.She hosts a syndicated radio health show, is a research associate at Harvard, writes on health, pregnancy and diet for a number of women's magazines and has written seven books and co-authored another four. Even when she travels (which is often), she and Steve exchange memos about household details during the week. 

The Whelans ban nothing from their diet, though Beth limits her "fun" food to two glasses of rosé a day, since she fights a constant weight battle. She once bought some wheat germ but, upon discovering each tablespoon contains 36 calories, left it to bloom in her refrigerator. 

==

bs

Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan is President of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) and a member of its Board of Trustees. She founded ACSH in 1978.

Whelan is a graduate of Connecticut College . She has a Masters in Public Health from the Yale School of Medicine a Master of Science from the Harvard School of Public Health , and a Doctor of Science from the Harvard School of Public Health .

Whelan is the author or co-author of twenty-three books on nutrition, smoking, and environmental issues. She has authored or co-authored over 300 articles for popular and professional publications such as Across the Board, Health Confidential, Journal of the American Medical Association, and newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal and New York Post.

Whelan has many professional affiliations and honorary positions in associations such as Men and Women in Science, the American Institute of Nutrition, and the American Medical Writers Association. She has received many awards, including ones from the American Public Health Association [ American Public Health Association filed the amicus curiae brief in the Forster (MN) suit. ]   and the American Institute of Chemists.

==

Whelan

Elizabeth

Student/partner with Fred Stare at Harvard in running support for food processing, chemicals and pharmaceutical industries. Was fervently anti-smoking - which gave her credibility. Ran the ACSH 'scientific grassroots' operation.

srcwtch:

Elizabeth Whelan is president and co-founder of the industry-friendly American Council on Science and Health.

Contents[hide]

Background

Credentials

Dr. Whelan does not have a medical degree. Her degrees are:[1]

Postgraduate

She stayed on after 1971 in the Department of Nutrition of the Harvard School of Public Health, as an Honorary Research Associate, which means that she was supported entirely by external grants, most from large corporations or trade associations. (citation needed)

In April 1973, she "accepted a freelance writing assignment from the pharmaceutical company Pfizer: they wanted a background paper on something called "the Delaney Clause""[2]

"That brief, isolated, assignment prompted me (on my own time, at my own expense) to write a book on the history of food scares: Panic in the Pantry." She asked her colleague - food, chemical and pharmacy industry-funded Dr. Frederick Stare - to write the preface; he became co-author, and the book was published in 1976.[2]

In 1975 Whelan and Stare began a long and highly profitable partnership - jointly writing a number of books and running a syndicated radio program, "Healthline". (citation needed)

Other affiliations

Whelan and AIHC

In October 1977, Elizabeth Whelan was working on scientific public relations for the Chemical Manufacturers Association while still retaining her position at Harvard. For CMA's offshoot SOCMA (Synthetic Organic Chemical Manfacturers Association) she began a new subsidiary organisation called the American Industrial Health Council (AIHC) which was nominally led by Paul E. Oreffice, President of Dow Chemical. This organisation coordinated industry responses to government regulations, and promoted a series of industry-set criteria for regulating potentially cancerous materials in the environment.

Whelan was judged to be highly successful in her political lobbying. However, the tobacco industry loathed her because she was deflecting all blame for chemically induced cancer rates to the more visible problem of smoking. [1]

These early scientific-manipulation activities of the chemical industry were part of an organised reaction to Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" published in 1962. The Chemical Manufacturer's Association (CMA) quickly realised that it must organise science and lobbying efforts; it had to discredit scientific research and attack the environmental activists if it were to maintain profits and keep free of government oversight and regulation.

For many years, most of the CMA's propaganda and lobbying was conducted through PR firm :{E. Bruce Harrison:(style="background-color:#fff200"):}: (taken over by :{Hill and Knowlton:(style="background-color:#fff200"):}:), but gradually the AIHC andACSH took over and played a very important part, especially with the gullible media.

Also at this time, the chemical industry and the tobacco industry were trying to blame each other for the rapid increase in the rate of cancers. So the strategy adopted by the SOCMA and the AIHC was to blame tobacco smoke (correctly) as the major cause of cancer in smokers and non-smokers, while attempting to exonerate (incorrectly) environmental products like asbestos, preservatives and pesticides.

Whelan soon made herself a name as "consumer advocate" on radio and in the TV by vigorously attacking smoking and the tobacco industry. Very soon she was a television celebrity who was toasted by activist groups opposed to smoking. It was the perfect camouflage.

Quite probably she is a genuine anti-tobacco activist. But from 1973 she become a full-time partner with Stare in a number of enterprises, and she cannot have been unaware of his close connections to Seltzer and the tobacco industry, or his mentoring of tobacco scientists and his deals with chemical and food companies. Some of her Harvard School of Public Health associates worked virtually full time for the tobacco industry and appeared in public enquiries on behalf of the industry.

American Council on Science and Health

In mid 1978 Whelan and Stare founded the American Council on Science and Health, with Whelan taking the front position as "Executive Director" and Stare assuming the role of Deputy. He tended to keep his head down when she attacked the tobacco industry. Whelan's husband Steven provided the legal backup through his law firm, Thacher, Proffitt and Wood.

A number of professional science-lobbyists were coopted to form an "Advisory Council" for ACSH (they, presumably, were able to use their connections financially). Many more genuine, but gullible, scientists from around the world were suckered into joining as members by signing a "motherhood statement" about the need for "sound science". ACSH was funded by the same corporations which supported Stare's Nutrition Department for so many years -- and over time it became the model for :{Steve Milloy:(style="background-color:#fff200"):}:'s notorious TASSC (":{The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition:(style="background-color:#fff200"):}:") "scientific grassroots organisation" which differed only in the fact that it included tobacco lobbying, while being supported by the same corporate funders from chemicals and food industries. (Philip Morris had bought Kraft/General Foods and RJ Reynolds Tobacco had bought Nabisco).

Nader on ACSH

Almost the only group which did not accept ACSH as a genuine "association of concerned scientist" was Ralph Nader's Center for Science in the Public Interestwhich branded it "a consumer fraud" and an industry front group. They exposed the fact that its Advisory Board has many industry lobbyists, and that its reports were loaded with errors. However, the media has generally ignored these warnings and treated ACSH as a genuine scientific grassroots organisation until recently.

ACSH and Alar

Whelan and ACSH's reputation was made (and finances assured) mainly by her successful propaganda win over the activists in the Alar scare(a hormone sprayed on Apples). This campaign was funded $25,000 p.a. byUniroyal (the manufacturer of Alar) and by most of the other SOCMA members, including Dow, DuPont, Monsanto and Union Carbide, who made large contributions. Then in 1990 the apple and chemical industries filed a libel lawsuit against the activists over publicising Alar's dangers, and lost the suit. The court concluded that the scientific case against Alar was justified. Uniroyal itself later admitted the chemical was dangerous and voluntarily took it off the US market (but continued to sell it elsewhere).

Books

Whelan is the author or co-author of over two dozen books mainly devoted to supporting the food and chemical industry by promoting the idea that fears about additives, colourings, and preservatives are the result of media sensationalism which has generated "cancerphobia":

Contact

American Council on Science and Health

1995 Broadway

Suite 202

New York, NY 10023-5882

Phone: (212) 362-7044

Fax: (212) 362-4919

E-mail: acsh at acsh.org

External links

Articles by Whelan

General Articles

Resources and articles

Related Sourcewatch articles

References

  1. ↑ Elizabeth Whelan. ExxonSecrets. Retrieved on 2010-01-12.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Elizabeth Whelan (2004-04-29). Where Did ACSH Come From?. American Council on Science and Health. Retrieved on 2010-01-12. “A 25th Anniversary Commentary from Dr. Elizabeth Whelan President, Co-Founder American Council on Science and Health”
  3. ↑ Advisory Board, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, accessed September 19, 2008.
  4. ↑ Board of Advisors. National Youth Rights Association. Retrieved on 2010-01-12.
Search the Documents Archives of the Tobacco IndustrySearch the Documents Archives of the Tobacco IndustrySearch the Documents Archives of the Tobacco IndustrySearch the Documents Archives of the Tobacco Industry
Legacy Tobacco Documents Library:

Categories: Tobaccowiki | Politics (U.S.) | Tobacco documents biographies

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Whelan

1.5M$ rev 250K ceo

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=8177#.U8VcpvldUs8

Targeting the Tides Foundation

The dossier on Ivory also revealed that Maverick had given a dossier to Quinn Thomas on NRDC, the Pesticide Action Network of North America (PANNA), the Land Stewardship Project (LSP), and the Tides Foundation.That dossier was not in the documents unsealed by the court in the Holiday Shores litigation.

According to the Ivory dossier, Maverick had previously provided a more thorough report on these organizations than was summarized there. Its summary claimed that the listed environmental groups "share one very powerful, controversial funding source: The Tides Foundation, an uber-wealthy and far-left philanthropy...."

The March 4, 2010 dossier goes on to channel a Glenn Beck-like tone in linking the groups to Tides and its management in a guilt-by-association manner.

The dossier on Ivory notes that the Tides Center provided funding for a 1999 report on pesticides and herbicides, including atrazine. And, it notes that the Tides' donors gave NRDC between $64,000 and $96,000 a year for three years.

The amount of funding Maverick received from Quinn Thomas or the amount Quinn Thomas received from the Syngentacontract is not known; what is known is that WHWG received over one million dollar in fees for its work on the atrazine PR efforts.

Science Under Siege

NRDC and Syngenta have a long, contentious relationship.

NRDC recommends atrazine be filtered out of drinking water.Due to an array of health concerns, NRDC has recommended that atrazine use be phased out and that the weed-killer be filtered out of Americans' contaminated drinking water. Its investigations and lawsuits in the public interest have resulted in judicial decrees requiring more monitoring of water and have spurred the EPA to subject the herbicide to additional reviews by the EPA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) -- including an EPA SAP atrazine review launched in October, 2009 -- based on emerging science and growing concerns.

The dossier on Ivory also expressed the view that NRDC's "Poisoning the Well" report was in essence part of a conspiracy funded by Tides, which might include Ivory's work for HuffPo.

The dossier writer had also contacted HuffPo "to inquire about additional information about their funding model, sources and ties to the Tides family of organizations." Jacobson reported that he had not yet received a reply and that he did not expect further details.

As for Ivory, the dossier reported that its opposition research was based on "publicly" available information and was the best that could be prepared under the short deadline provided by Quinn Thomas.

On June 9, 2011, as part of a sworn deposition given in the Illinois suit, Syngenta's PR rep, Sherry Ford, denied that Syngenta or anyone acting on its behalf had "investigated" anyone except one person.

That person was not Danielle Ivory, according to Ford.

Yet, the March 4, 2010, dossier on Ivory was requisitioned by Syngenta's hired PR team following Ivory's query to Syngenta about the coming federal lawsuit. It was produced for a PR team known for its aggressive tactics. The term "investigated" was not specifically defined in the deposition or by the opposition research firm tapped by the PR team.

Syngenta Admits It Investigated Dr. Tyrone Hayes

No, the person Ford admitted had been investigated by Syngenta was not Ivory.

He's a U.C.-Berkeley scientist whose extensive studies suggest that atrazine causes sex mutations in frogs. (A detailed story of how Syngenta has attacked this scientist's reputation is reported in January's Mother Jones magazine. The deposition of Syngenta's head of PR is not discussed in that story.)

Hayes studies atrazine in frogs.Ford claimed under oath that she herself no longer has the opposition research on Dr. Hayes.

She also claimed under oath that Syngenta's expanded first-strike PR team had been assembled in late 2009 in direct response to a tip they had received from a reporter indicating that a new federal lawsuit against the company was in the offing. At the time of Ivory's e-mail exchange with Syngenta's Paul Minehart starting March 2, 2010, the company claimed it had no knowledge of any pending federal litigation or of the allegations of the plaintiffs about atrazine.

On March 5th, HuffPo ran a story about atrazine contamination in Iowa, but it was not by Ivory.

The piece by Kerry Trueman, titled "Our Toxic Waterways: Flushing Away Our Future," discussed a new documentary called "Big River," by Ian Cheney and Kurt Ellis whose previous piece "King Corn," won critical acclaim. The new documentary traced how the atrazine they used to grow corn had contaminated their local creek.

Trueman noted that recent news stories had reported concerns that atrazine might chemically castrate or "feminize" male frogs, according to Dr. Hayes' research, and that the EPA had recently announced it would re-assess the weed-killer.

Searching for a Defender of Atrazine on HuffPo

In response, Syngenta CP's Steven Goldsmith sent an email to Josh Gilder of WHWG and Mike Burita at Quinn Thomas asking an interesting question (PDF).

"Is there anyone at HP [HuffPo] who we could cultivate on this issue rather than continuing to get bashed by everyone on their payroll?"

WHWG and Quinn Thomas had already been hard at work for six months on an array of tactics to advance Syngenta PR's third party strategy on atrazine.

One was to have Syngenta's chief scientist, Dr. Mike Bushell, ghostwrite a chapter for a book challenging the idea of regulating atrazine by applying the "precautionary principle."

This standard, which is embedded in U.S. and EU consumer law, places the burden of proof on manufacturers to establish that their products are not harmful if science points to significant risks to human health or the environment. WHWG said (PDF) it would "find someone else willing to put their name" on Syngenta's "Ghost Author" story about atrazine and challenge the potential embrace of the precautionary principle by the Obama Administration's EPA.

The ghostwritten chapter was for a book to be published in conjunction with someone at the American Enterprise Institute, a DC think tank that is funded in part by large donations from corporations. It is not known whether Syngenta has funded this think tank or any of its "fellows," directly or indirectly.

Also Needed: An Investigative Reporter to Rattle the EPA's Cages

On December 3, 2009, Syngenta's in-house PR staff held a planning meeting to deal with the fallout from the New York Times investigation, the agenda (PDF) was to "[o]btain the services of a well know (sic) investigative reporter to probe around the EPA" and, at a minimum get advice "on what buttons to push and cages to rattle."

As part of the effort to influence EPA's review, another tactic was to identify long-term needs for published materials and which third parties "should be approached/retained."

Unsealed e-mails reveal (PDF) that earlier that same week WHWG had reported to Syngenta that a third party the PR team was in communication with was Jon Entineof the American Enterprise Institute. Entine is a former producer with NBC and ABC News, whose books attacked the idea of socially responsible investing and the precautionary principle (Let Them Eat Precaution).

The "Third Party" Technique in Action

While WHWG worked to cultivate new third party voices for Syngenta, some old mainstays of the company continued to defend it in the press.

For example, Elizabeth Whelan had long been on the short-list of people Syngenta's PR team considered when shopping corporate op-eds to publish under someone else's byline.

Whelan is the president of the "American Council for Science and Health" (ACSH). ACSH has been called "a receptacle for payments from pharmaceutical, chemical, biotechnology, food and other companies who appreciate the convenience of having their grantees and former employees serve on government science panels," by Michael Jacobsen, the Director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Jacobsen told the Washington Times that ACSH had "stopped disclosing its donors in the 1990s, presumably out of embarrassment." ACSH's list of leaders, scientists, and co-collaborators include other names of third party advocates that pop up in the e-mails unsealed in the litigation.

ACSH had :{already been enlisted:(style="background-color:#fff200"):}: (PDF) by the Syngenta PR team to attack the New York Times article by Charles Duhigg, "Debating How Much Weed Killer Is Safe in Your Water Glass," before the story was even published on August 22, 2009, and she responded right away.

ACSH's Beth Whelan Defends Atrazine, Without Disclosing Big Bucks

ACSH's Beth Whelan Defends Atrazine, Without Disclosing Big Bucks

Whelan defended atrazine in a morning appearance on MSNBC the week the story broke. She told viewers across America that the New York Times story was "bogus."

She did not tell viewers that she was the beneficiary of big donations from Syngenta.

In the MSNBC debate with Whelan, the NRDC's Jennifer Sass suggested that scientific studies indicated that atrazine had chemically castrated frogs, by disrupting their endocrine systems with even small amounts of the weed-killer, which Whelan dismissed.

When Duhigg’s New York Times article was reprised on NPR's "Fresh Air" in late October 2009, Whelan and her colleague at ACSH, Gilbert Ross, reached [16] (PDF) out to Syngenta's [17] (PDF) PR team again with their spin on atrazine, claiming:

"Mr. Duhigg's articles are replete [18] (PDF) with exaggerated risk, bias, misrepresented science and sensationalism. . . . 'Chemophobia' is in: scaring people about chemicals in our food, water and consumer products gets attention -- but it is counterproductive,distracting us from the real public health hazards we face today."[not named? recall old scam of pointing to cigs to defend chems]

In an October 20, 2009 email [19] (PDF) from WHWG’s Josh Gildersent a note to his colleagues on the Syngenta PR team with a framework for countering the Duhigg analysis:

"I believe Duhigg's interview on NPRrepresents the new line of attack on [a]trazine, and just as the other side has been getting its organizational duck in a row, they have advanced their message in a way that will require a certain amount of catching up on our part," wrote Gilder. "This advanced message is that 'new science' suggests that exposure to even infinitesimal amounts of atz, measured in ppb, at critical points in pregnancy can cause birth defects or premature birth for a few members of the population. This renders past EPA decisions less compelling, as this is 'new science.'"

WHWG recommended Syngenta enlist the aid again of allies at ACSH -- namely Ross and Whelan.

ACSH Gets "Lifeblood" Funding from “Dear Syngenta Friends”

As the e-mails uncovered in the litigation reveal, Whelan had also submitted a new financial proposal from ACSH for a special project from Syngenta. The proposal began “Dear Syngenta friends” and proposed that ACSH produce a publication on pesticide and Atrazine exposure and human health.

She was seeking $100,000 to publish and consumerize a discussion of “myths and realities” about agribusiness chemicals and health.

Her proposal concluded bynoting that her request was separate from the “general operating support Syngenta has been so generously providing over the years, which we request to continue at current or increased levels.Such general operating support is the lifeblood of a small non-profit like ours, and is both deeply appreciated and much needed.”

Whelan, the president of the non-profit ASCH, is paid over $350,000 a year out of the organization’s $2 million in annual income, as of 2009. It is not clear how much "lifeblood" Syngenta pays each year as its generous contribution to ACSH budget and Whelan’s large salary.

ACSH’s published materials include a boilerplate disclaimer that it accepts grants from any source but that it is solely responsible for its research andthat it “does not accept support from individual corporations for specific research projects.”

Spinning the Idea of “Chemophobia”

While aiding in attacks on Duhigg’s New York Times reporting, Whelan pushed the idea that people expressing concerns were engaged in “chemophobia,” an irrational fear of chemicals.

The e-mails contained in the court record are incomplete regarding ACSH’s project grant proposal, the total funding it has received over the years, and the subsequent funding for ACSH, WHWG, and others post-spring 2010.

Nevertheless, it is plain that Syngenta’s PR operations did not suddenly cease that spring, with the EPA’s decision on atrazine still pending along with ongoing litigation in the state and federal courts.

And just last month a long-time friend of Syngenta announced the release of a new book.

It was finalized in 2011 along with a “companion friendly” paper called “Scared to Death: How Chemophobia Threatens Public Health.” The book attacks the EPA and “harmful, unnecessary regulation” as well as the precautionary principle.

It has a chapter-long “case study” defending atrazine, just as members of the Syngenta PR team had been seeking.

The publisher? ACSH, consistent with the pitch Whelan made to Syngenta.

The book? Designed to rattle the cages at the EPA, which was on the Syngenta PR team's wishlist.

The author? John Entine, described as a highly regarded science reporter from the American Enterprise Institute, a third party Syngenta’s PR team had been cultivating.

The HuffPo contributor who wrtote about the book and its attack on critics of atrazine? It was Entine, whom Syngenta trusted. HUH?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine

~ haynes: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/frog-day-afternoon-choose_b_853776.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/toxic-chemicals-debate-_b_831851.html  BPA is good for U!

It was not the investigated investigative HuffPo reporter, Danielle Ivory.

Jon Entine  Contributor

I write skeptically about science, public policy, media and NGOs.

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

FOLLOW

OPINION 8/19/2013 @ 6:35AM 9,564 views

Berkeley Anti-Atrazine Crusader Blames 'Big Ag', Set To Sue, After University Dispute Over Dwindling Research Funds

Comment Now Follow Comments 

Has ‘Big Ag’ finally nailed a long time nemesis? Or has an activist scientist with a long history of  discredited studies finally fallen victim to his own bizarre behavior?

These are the competing narratives in play as journalists and policymakers try to make sense of reports last week that Tyrone Hayes, the University of California at Berkeley herpetologist who churned out study after study about the alleged dangers of a popular herbicide—research that many scientists and the federal government have found neither convincing nor reproducible—has at least temporarily been forced to shutter his lab because of a lack of funds. Hayes suggests the university has unfairly shut him down because of outside pressure from his longtime critics, including the Swiss-based chemical company Syngenta.

This saga began in 1999, when Hayes was working as a contract researcher for the chemical company Novartis to study atrazine (in 2000, Novartis spun off its agribusiness to form Syngenta, and today the companies are unrelated). Hayes claimed he found that the herbicide might cause hormonal abnormalities. Hayes and Novartis parted ways shortly thereafter; he steadfastly claims he was blackballed because of his findings.

Three years later, Hayes published a blockbuster study, claiming that atrazine, hailed by scientists for decades because of its low toxic profile, caused sexual abnormalities in frogs and speculating that it may cause problems in humans as well. Hayes’ claims set off a firestorm despite the fact that a much larger independent study released at the very same time found no meaningful link between atrazine exposure and abnormalities. Numerous follow up studies since then have failed to find the endocrine related problems Hayes claimed to have identified.

Over the past decade, Hayes has become a major thorn in the side of the chemical industry and an annoyance for regulators who have come to view his research methodology as shoddy and his demeanor quirky—when they’re talking nice. But as Hayes tells his story—and he has found a compliant vessel in Paul Basken, a reporter for the Chronicle of Higher Education [whose article is behind a paywall]—the beleaguered amphibian expert has finally fallen victim to a 14-year campaign by Syngenta to personally savage him and his work.

It’s a powerful and disturbing storyline, if true: Big, bad multinational company out to destroy courageous, whistle-blowing scientist to protect sales of a profitable but dangerously toxic chemical, public health be damned. Basken, for one, bought it hook line and sinker, portraying Hayes as a cutting edge researcher with broad and admiring support among independent scientists. The conspiracy theory was immediately disseminated without a hint of critical analysis by the usual anti-chemical crusaders, such as Tom Philpott at Mother Jones. But what’s the real story?

Atrazine over time

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, atrazine is one of the most widely used pesticides in the world. The odorless white powder is used on dozens of crops, including more than half of the country’s corn, 90 percent of its sugar cane and two-thirds of its sorghum. It’s applied to control a wide range of broadleaf and yield-robbing grassy weeds that would otherwise choke a crop and starve it of nutrients, but do not harm the plant itself. It’s considered so comparatively gentle that it can be applied even after a crop’s first shoots appear above the ground.

An EPA study concluded that atrazine boosts yields by 6 percent or more, saving corn farmers as much as $28 per acre—more than $2 billion in direct economic benefits, which could be the difference between solvency and bankruptcy for many. In other words, it is effective and is certainly a moneymaker for its manufacturer. But does it pose serious health challenges to humans as Hayes and a small coterie of scientists who are known for their political activism contend?

Atrazine is one of most scrutinized chemicals in history. There have been almost 7,000 studies of it over the past 40 years. This compares to the 100 to 200 safety studies generally required by the Environmental Protection Agency before registering a product.

“Since we concluded our last evaluation of atrazine in 2003,” the EPA writes on its website, “we have evaluated close to 150 published studies investigating a wide array of effects potentially relevant to human health risk assessment.”

The EPA’s assessment reflects the consensus by many scientific bodies around the world, including the World Health Organization and regulatory agencies in Australia, Canada the European Union’s safety review: atrazine has a short half-life, does not bio-accumulate in organisms, is not carcinogenic and study after study has shown it does not cause abnormalities and deformities at levels occurring in groundwater.

Atrazine is not sold in Europe after a vote by the European Union in 2003 in response to campaigns by advocacy groups over trace amounts found in groundwater at levels well below safety cut off standards in the US and Australia. The decision came despite the fact that the EU, in its science review, had determined that when properly used, atrazine “will not have any harmful effects on human or animal health or any unacceptable effects on the environment.” Ironically, European farmers now control their weeds with the herbicide terbuthylazine that has nearly the same chemical and safety profile as atrazine—but is not in the ideological crosshairs.

The case against atrazine rests largely on the integrity of the research by Hayes, its chief critic. For example, a widely circulated joint polemic issued in January 2010 by the Land Stewardship Project and the Pesticide Action Network cites Hayes more than 50 times and includes a question-and-answer section with him in which he outlines his allegations.

While a hero to anti-chemical campaigners, Hayes has long been a perplexing figure to the broader science community. After his sensational 2002 study, government scientists and regulators were eager to do follow up experiments, drawing on his supposedly extensive data. But he was uncooperative—an oddly defensive reaction as scientists rely on data sharing and reproducible experiments to ensure that their results are not tainted or anomalous and policy decisions are grounded in ‘weight of evidence’ data.

The EPA was put in the untenable position of having hundreds, even thousands, of studies showing that atrazine was comparatively benign while one scientist, Hayes, blamed the herbicide for a decline in the worldwide frog population. Hayes claimed the supposedly shrinking number of amphibians was a canary in the mine for mysterious illnesses in humans. In fact, the decline of the frog population is a complicated phenomenon (much of the evidence is anecdotal) for which few mainstream scientists link directly to atrazine usage.

Under relentless attack by those touting Hayes’ work, the EPA examined the frog allegations in 2007, concluding, “atrazine does not adversely affect amphibian gonadal development based on a review of laboratory and field studies, including studies submitted by the registrant and studies published in the scientific literature.”

The dying frogs theory seems largely relegated to the Berkeley lab. “Atrazine has been used widely in South Africa for the past 45 years, and our studies showed that Xenopus are doing equally fine in agricultural and nonagricultural areas,” zoologist Louis du Preez of North-West University in South Africa noted in 2010. African clawed frogs do not appear to be suffering from the herbicide in their native habitats. “If atrazine had these adverse effects on Xenopus in the wild, surely we would have picked it up by now.”

Threat to human health?

But the most explosive charge was Hayes’ belief, echoed by anti-pesticide activists, that atrazine could cause endocrine related developmental health problems in humans. But where were the data? To support that theory and as evidence that Hayes is being persecuted, reporter Basken draws on an article published on the website Environmental Health News. EHN is run as an anti-chemical propaganda vehicle by John Peterson Myers, who the reporter positions as an independent and highly respected neutral observer.

According to the EHN piece published in June, Syngenta has run an “aggressive multi-million dollar campaign that included hiring a detective agency to investigate scientists on a federal advisory panel [and] looking into the personal life of a judge.” In fact Myers is a controversial out-of-the-mainstream campaigning scientist and longtime crony of Hayes.

Both Hayes and Myers have tried over the past 15 years to pump what’s known as the “endocrine disruptor” theory. That’s a novel, widely circulated notion popular with the Environmental Working Group, Center for Food Safety, Natural Resources Defense Council and other anti-chemical activists, including a tiny but vocal minority of scientists, in part because mysterious illnesses can be claimed even in the absence of hard data. They’ve made a particular point of championing Hayes’ questionable findings.

According to these critics, chemicals like atrazine and Bisphenol-A (also much maligned by activists, but which a slew of new studies show is also comparatively benign) can be blamed for everything from cancer to obesity, retarded neurological development, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, infertility and disorders related to sexual development. Hayes’ deformed frogs were touted as a central piece of evidence.

These are catastrophic allegations, which if supported by the evidence would warrant immediate intervention. But the evidence falls short. Responding to alarm bells rung by activist scientists and DC-based lobby groups, the government in recent years has commissioned tens of millions of dollars of studies on the endocrine disruption hypothesis with no conclusive evidence to support it.

In the case of atrazine, without any real data from Hayes or other research supporting his contentions, the independent government oversight and mainstream science community has rejected his relentlessly alarmist conclusions.

“Dr. Hayes claims not only that his laboratory has repeated the findings many times in experiments with thousands of frogs, but that other scientists have also replicated his results,” said Anne Lindsay, then deputy director of EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs in 2005, in government testimony. “EPA, however, has never seen either the results from any independent investigator published in peer-reviewed scientific journals nor the raw data from Dr. Hayes’ additional experiments.”

Recently, Australia’s Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts—it’s EPA—carefully reviewed Hayes latest study, from 2010, finding the lab work flawed and recommending no change to its conclusion that atrazine is safe as used. The EPA concurs. Donald Brady, director of the EPA’s Environmental Fate and Effects Division, stated in a publicly released letter that the agency “could not properly account for the sample sizes and study design reportedly used by the Berkeley researchers.” That’s bureaucratize and science-speak for saying Hayes peddles junk science.

The emerging scientific consensus is that restrictions placed years ago on atrazine in response to anti-chemical campaigns were too stringent rather than not tight enough. Following an extensive review of the latest scientific studies, the World Health Organization moved in 2011 to raise the allowable levels of atrazine in drinking water by 50 fold.

Of course none of this contextualized reporting found its way into Basken’s article, which portrayed Hayes as a hero-under-siege. The article also passes along some outright false statements, apparently because the reporter relied on Hayes as a reliable source. He quotes Hayes as claiming Berkeley officials may have targeted him out of a “desire to protect a $25-million, five year research agreement between Berkeley and Novartis, a parent company of Syngenta.”

That’s an explosive charge. In fact, the five-year research agreement that Hayes’ research was theoretically endangering was from Novartis and dates back 15 years, to 1998, before Novartis and Astra Zeneca spun off their agri-businesses to form Syngenta. The grant expired by 2004.That one-time grant aroused controversy at the time. Activist critics cited it as an example of a big corporation corrupting science at a public university—allegations dismissed after an independent investigation that cost the university almost a quarter of a million dollars. The Chronicle of Higher Education reporter could have easily dug out what really transpired by talking to university officials or even through a simple Google search. Instead he just passed along a discredited bogus allegation.

Hayes contends he has in effect been fired because he’s the ‘good guy’ fighting an uphill battle against the university and Big Ag conspiring against him. But what really went down at Berkeley? There is certainly no evidence of a conspiracy theory.

“I … just wanted to state in no uncertain terms that the university’s administration has not frozen his funds or taken any other steps against him,” I was told in an email from Dan Mogulof, Berkeley’s public affairs executive director. The situation is far more mundane than” Hayes claims, he adds. “The professor had a standing deficit with our animal lab as a result of unpaid care/feeding/maintenance bills. So, his departmental business manager was forced to draw from his account to pay the bill, thereby depleting his available resources given his recent challenges when it comes to attracting funding…. The university has no institutional ties, contracts or connections with Syngenta, and the contract with Novartis lapsed about ten years ago and was not renewed,” Mogulof added in a subsequent email. “In other words, not only didn’t the administration take any actions against Prof. Hayes, there is also an absence of any motive.” In fact, the university is providing bridge financing for Hayes and keeping care of his frogs in case Hayes is able to rustle up more funding.

Hayes continues to contend that the university jacked up his fees and targeted him specifically. “I must also note,” writes Mogulof,  “that he [was] charged by the lab in the EXACT same manner as his faculty peers.”

By most accounts, Hayes is a celebrity obsessed and self-promoting (read his self-written Wikipedia page for a laugh) activist scientist who has a history of turning out questionable studies. It’s seems reasonable to conclude that Berkeley had had it up to here with Hayes’s antics and mismanagement. That said, they have carefully refused to take any action against him. This current brouhaha has been brewing for years as Hayes drained his research funds and failed to extract funding. Excising the professors phony “smoking gun” charge from the Chronicle of Higher Education article we are now left with a much clearer and more factually based picture of what has probably gone down in Berkeley.

Skepticism about the integrity of Hayes’ research is compounded by his erratic professional behavior. For years he has been sending abusive rap like email barrages filled with salacious comments to Syngenta employees. For example, in March 2008, after Hayes apparently turned down an offer to meet directly with the company, he emailed an executive: “everywhere i go i cause a raucus; act like you know that’s how i do it m*th* f*ck*s.” Asked to desist, Hayes responded: “I told ya, you can’t stop the rage.” Syngenta was concerned enough by the fusillades that it filed an ethics complaint with the university that included an astonishing document with 102 pages of bizarre emails.

Hayes resurfaced again this past weekend. There he was in San Francisco as the signature speaker at a “save the frogs” event—part of an ongoing series of regular presentations he helps set up to preserve and promote his now threatened status as a ‘go to’ star source for anti-chemical campaigners. Hayes also announced he had retained a lawyer to challenge the university’s decision to freeze his research budget.

Pesticides such as atrazine present challenges for regulators. They provide huge benefits, including the ability to pump yields with limited ecological damage, which has cut production and food costs and led to more nutritious foods. But because of their potential toxicity when misused, prudent regulatory oversight is essential. That requires careful balancing. The government has to rely on the work of independent researchers. If ideology becomes more important than data than the public pays the consequences.

That returns us to the role of journalists, like Basken, in this fiasco. Why have journalists refused to provide a balanced perspective on pesticides and other chemicals? Simply stated, many reporters are poorly schooled in science. They often do not have the sophistication or inclination to apply weight of evidence criteria or critically parse science from ideology.

The EPA will soon be undertaking its regularly scheduled periodic review of atrazine, but Hayes data, long since discredited, will not be part of the process. Hayes has led the international regulatory community on a wild goose chase for more than a decade, wasting hundreds of millions of dollars in the process. In a world where public research funds are limited and dwindling, that borders on criminal.

More on science literacy at the Genetic Literacy Project

Follow Jon on Twitter

Jon Entine, executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project, is a senior fellow at the Center for Health & Risk Communication and STATS (Statistical Assessment Service) at George Mason University.

Frederick J. Stare (d. 2002-04-04[1]) was an industry-friendly, industry-funded Professor of nutrition and head of the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, who also took money from the tobacco industry. From 1945 to 1980, Stare wrote a nationally syndicated newspaper column, "Food and Your Health." He also wrote many popular books on nutrition, and had a regular syndicated radio show along with an ex-student Elizabeth Whelan promoting his nutritional ideas and lambasting anyone who thought chemicals in food, or excessive sugars in the diet, could be a health problem.

In 1950, Dr. Stare assisted in establishing the Food Protection Committee (FPC) of the National Research Council and the National Academy of Sciences with grants from the food industry and the government. The committee's first report assured the country that DDT and other pesticides were safe.

Stare served as Chairman of the Board of Directors for the American Council on Science and Health in 1980, at which time he sought funding from Philip Morris for ACSH's activities.[2][3]

Contents[hide]

Food lobbyist

The April 1973 Harvard's student publications The Present Illness carried a diagram of Stare's industry links. It says he had been director of Continental Can Co. since 1964. It also revealed that Harvard University held $8.737 million worth of shares in the family(?) company. According to this article, Stare also had retainers from Nabisco, Kellogg and Cereal Institute. (See The Present Illness page 18 -21.[4])

The Kelloggs were eventually persuaded to fund him $2 million to set up the Nutrition Foundation at Harvard, and his family associations provided excellent connections to other large organisations in the food processing business willing to provide funds. The Nutrition Foundation is independent of the university (except for the use of the Harvard name) and it published a journal Nutrition Reviews which he edited for 25 years.[1]

A book jointly written with Whelan, Panic in the Pantry, carried the jacket message, "Eat your additives, they're good for you"; that, along with Stare's support for the sugar industry, earned him the sobriquet at Harvard University of "The Sugar King."

Tobacco helper - cut-out for Carl Seltzer

Despite the virulent anti-smoking campaign carried on by his associate Elizabeth Whelan through their shared industry-friendly group the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), Stare worked for the tobacco industry as a cut-out for Carl C. Seltzer. [2], who Stare protected for many years. He also organised a lecturing position for Seltzer at Tufts University (through a close associate) which allowed Seltzer to use the title of "Professor"; Seltzer thereupon offered voluntary statistical services to the American Heart Foundation, Kaiser Permanente, and to other genuine research institutes, using his Harvard School of Public Health and Tufts University credentials.

The tobacco industry was then able to utilize this entirely-artificial status by promoting Seltzer as an independent "Professor" from the "Harvard School of Public Health" who was an "expert on cardiac (heart) diseases" and a "consultant to the American Heart Foundation."

Over a number of decades, more than $2 million in tobacco money (via a secret Special Projects #4 A/c) was channeled to Seltzer via Stare through the law firm Shook, Hardy & Bacon. Yet both Seltzer and Stare publicly maintained that he was totally independent and never took a penny from the tobacco industry.

They were able to expoit the Harvard name and maintain they had "never taken a penny from the industry" without fear of prosecution, because this last statement was correct; the money had all come from lawyers, and it was passed to them via Stare's department, which theoretically decided what research would be done.

After constant claims about his Department's funding sources, on January 28, 1972, Stare made a written public statement which said:

"I don't recall that any individual tobacco company has ever contributed any money directly to the department." [3]

These were weasel words intended to deceive: he was himself a recipient of a couple of tobacco grants from the joint tobacco industry body (via the secret CTR (Council for Tobacco Research) Special Account #4 held by a Kansas City law firm), and his department systematically laundered payments for the notorious Dr Carl Seltzer and a half-dozen other Harvard scientists, for a couple of decades. [4]

In mid 1973, Stare was exposed as a scientific lobbyist for the food, chemical, and pharmaceutical companies by Harvard students in the campus magazine (The Present Illness),(See student magazine claims about Stare: page 19-20 [5]) and also at the same time the student body attacked the support being given to the university scientists by the tobacco industry. Dr Gary Huber, and a couple of other Medical faculty members were eventually driven out of the university, but Seltzer, Stare and many others survived.

SourceWatch Resources

External resources

References

  1. ↑ Newsletter May/June 2002 - Remembering Fred Stare. National Council Against Health Fraud (2002-05). Retrieved on 2010-01-12.
  2. ↑ Fred Stare, American Council on Science and Health Untitled letter to Helmut Wakeham of PM Letter. December 5, 1980. Bates No. 1000283163/3165
  3. ↑ John L. Hess, Saturday Review Issues Harvard's Sugar-Pushing Nutritionist Article. Estimated date August, 1978. Bates No. 10413210/3217
  4. ↑ L.R. Berger, Harvard Medical Alumni Bulletin The Present Illness Magazine/newsletter. January, 1974. Bates No. 2001210704/0754

Categories: Tobaccowiki | Sugar industry | Tobacco industry | Corporations | Health

related?

Michael Whelan, executive director of Fur Commission USA, estimated that in the 1990s “there were close to 20 attacks per year on our farmers” and that since 2003 there have been fewer than two attacks a year on American mink farms.

“Overall we’ve seen a decline in activity, in terms of violent criminal activity,” FBI intelligence analyst Erin Weller said in an interview.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/business/james-r-whelan-first-editor-of-the-washington-times-dies-at-79.html?_r=0

james r w 1st ed of WTimes: He was married and divorced several times, his nephew said. He is survived by a son, Robert; a daughter, Heather; nine brothers and sisters; and four grandchildren.

==

Attachments