Syngenta

===

promoted to evil. also given sep tag, as pops up in odd placessee also tag, atrazine, hackademicssee bak

bayer buys monsanto when it gets evil rep, same here?<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta</a>Syngenta AG is a global company that produces <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrochemical" title="Agrochemical" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">agrochemicals</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeds" class="mw-redirect" title="Seeds" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">seeds</a> and is based in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basel,Switzerland" class="mw-redirect" title="Basel, Switzerland" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Basel, Switzerland</a>. As a biotechnology company, it conducts genomic research. It was formed in 2000 by the merger of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novartis" title="Novartis" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Novartis</a> Agribusiness and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeneca" title="Zeneca" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Zeneca</a> Agrochemicals. As of 2014 Syngenta is the world’s largest crop chemical producer<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#cite_note-bn-2" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[2]</a> As of 2009 it ranked third in seeds and biotechnology sales.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#cite_note-Shand2012-3" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[3]</a> Sales in 2015 were approximately US$13.4 billion, over half of which were in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_markets" class="mw-redirect" title="Emerging markets" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">emerging markets</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#cite_note-AR2015-1" style="text-decoration-line: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">[1]</a> It is owned by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChemChina" title="ChemChina" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">ChemChina</a>, a Chinese <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprise" title="State-owned enterprise" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">state-owned enterprise</a>.<div id="toc" class="toc" style="border: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); background-color: rgb(248, 249, 250); padding: 7px; display: table; zoom: 1;"><input type="checkbox" role="button" id="toctogglecheckbox" class="toctogglecheckbox" style="direction: ltr; position: absolute; opacity: 0; z-index: -1; display: none;" /><div class="toctitle" lang="en" dir="ltr" style="direction: ltr; text-align: center;">
</div><ul style="margin: 0.3em 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none; list-style-type: none;"><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#History" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">1History</a><ul style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none; list-style-type: none;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-2" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#Acquisition_history" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">1.1Acquisition history</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-3" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#Products" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">2Products</a><ul style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none; list-style-type: none;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-4" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#Current_products" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">2.1Current products</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-5" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#Former_products" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">2.2Former products</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-6" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#Biofuels" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">2.3Biofuels</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-7" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#Corporate_structure" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">3Corporate structure</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-8" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#Litigation" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">4Litigation</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-9" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#Controversies" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">5Controversies</a><ul style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none; list-style-type: none;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-10" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#Brazil" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">5.1Brazil</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-11" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#Conflict_with_Tyrone_Hayes" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">5.2Conflict with Tyrone Hayes</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-12" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#Lobbying_in_the_EU" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">6Lobbying in the EU</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-13" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#Lobbying_in_the_US" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">7Lobbying in the US</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-14" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#Syngenta_Foundation" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">8Syngenta Foundation</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-15" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#Awards_and_community_involvement" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">9Awards and community involvement</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-16" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#References" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">10References</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-17" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#External_links" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">11External links</a></li></ul></div><h2 style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); line-height: 1.3;">History</h2>Based in Basel, Switzerland, Syngenta was formed in 2000 by the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merger" class="mw-redirect" title="Merger" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">merger</a> of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novartis" title="Novartis" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Novartis</a> Agribusiness and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeneca" title="Zeneca" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Zeneca</a> Agrochemicals.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#cite_note-4" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[4]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#cite_note-5" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[5]</a> Its roots are considerably older.Novartis was formed of the 1996 merger of the three Swiss companies:<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#cite_note-6" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[6]</a> Geigy, which has roots back to 1758;<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#cite_note-MinRec-7" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[7]</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandoz_Laboratories" class="mw-redirect" title="Sandoz Laboratories" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Sandoz Laboratories</a> which was founded in 1876;[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed" title="Wikipedia:Citation needed" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">citation needed</a>] and Ciba, founded in 1884.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#cite_note-8" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[8]</a> Ciba and Geigy had merged in 1971 and had concentrated mainly on crop protection in its agro division,[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed" title="Wikipedia:Citation needed" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">citation needed</a>]Sandoz more on seeds.[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed" title="Wikipedia:Citation needed" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">citation needed</a>]
In 2004, Syngenta Seeds purchased <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garst_Seed_Company" title="Garst Seed Company" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Garst</a>, the North American corn and soybean business of Advanta, as well as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Harvest_Seeds" title="Golden Harvest Seeds" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Golden Harvest Seeds</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#cite_note-10" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[10]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#cite_note-11" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[11]</a> On 5 December 2004, the European Union ended a six-year moratorium when it approved imports of two varieties of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_corn" class="mw-redirect" title="Genetically modified corn" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">genetically modified corn</a> sold by Monsanto and its Swiss rival, Syngenta.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#cite_note-12" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[12]</a>Zeneca Agrochemicals was part of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AstraZeneca" title="AstraZeneca" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">AstraZeneca</a>, and formerly of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Chemical_Industries" title="Imperial Chemical Industries" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Imperial Chemical Industries</a>. ICI was formed in the UK in 1926. Two years later, work began at the Agricultural Research Station at <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jealotts_Hill" class="mw-redirect" title="Jealotts Hill" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Jealotts Hill</a> near <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracknell" title="Bracknell" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Bracknell</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#cite_note-9" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[9]</a>In 2005, Syngenta opposed a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland" title="Switzerland" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Swiss</a> ban on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_organisms" class="mw-redirect" title="Genetically modified organisms" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">genetically engineered organisms</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#cite_note-13" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[13]</a> On 28 November 2005, Switzerland enacted a five-year ban on the farming of genetically modified crops, underscoring the problems facing the European Commission and biotech companies like Syngenta, Bayer and Monsanto as they try to overcome consumer doubts about safety.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#cite_note-14" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[14]</a>As of 2014 Syngenta's main competitors were <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Company" class="mw-redirect" title="Monsanto Company" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Monsanto Company</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASF" title="BASF" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">BASF</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_AgroSciences" title="Dow AgroSciences" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Dow AgroSciences</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_CropScience" class="mw-redirect" title="Bayer CropScience" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Bayer CropScience</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuPont_Pioneer" class="mw-redirect" title="DuPont Pioneer" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">DuPont Pioneer</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#cite_note-15" style="text-decoration-line: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">[15]</a>In 2014, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto" title="Monsanto" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Monsanto</a> sought to acquire Syngenta for a reported $40 billion, but Syngenta rejected the offer.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#cite_note-bn-2" style="text-decoration-line: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">[2]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#cite_note-16" style="text-decoration-line: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">[16]</a> Since April 2015 Monsanto and Syngenta had been working with their investment banks <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Stanley" title="Morgan Stanley" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Morgan Stanley</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Sachs" title="Goldman Sachs" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Goldman Sachs</a> respectively on a deal. The U.S. Treasury tried to stop the deal for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_inversion" title="Tax inversion" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">tax inversion</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#cite_note-17" style="text-decoration-line: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">[17]</a> Syngenta's Board of Directors rejected an even better offer by Monsanto during August 2015, and Monsanto withdrew from the negotiations on 26 August.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#cite_note-18" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[18]</a>According to the Swiss business weekly, <a href="https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finanz_und_Wirtschaft" class="extiw" title="de:Finanz und Wirtschaft" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Finanz und Wirtschaft</a>, many Syngenta shareholders were enraged, both by the company's refusal to enter into takeover negotiations with Monsanto, and with the subsequent offer withdrawal.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#cite_note-19" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[19]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#cite_note-WSJMonsantoBidRejected-20" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[20]</a> This resulted in a group of investors responding by creating the Alliance of Critical Syngenta Shareholders, which urged the Board to "evaluate all options for value creation without prejudice".<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#cite_note-ShareholderGroup-21" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[21]</a>In a 2015 interview, Chairman Michel Demaré was asked whether Syngenta could remain independent. He responded, "If you have the patience to wait for cycles to materialize, then it would be possible. But in these circumstances, where our shareholders have a kind of a benchmark share price, what they think this company is worth, it is very difficult to say that we can deliver this in the next twelve months."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#cite_note-22" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[22]</a> He thereby acknowledged that the company needs to be sold, especially given industry consolidation, which is creating larger competitors.The failed Monsanto buyout caused Syngenta shares to increase by nearly 40%. In February 2016, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChemChina" title="ChemChina" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 102); text-decoration-line: none;">ChemChina</a>, a Chinese <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprise" title="State-owned enterprise" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 102); text-decoration-line: none;">state-owned enterprise</a>, offered to purchase Syngenta for $43 billion (480 Swiss francs per share), a deal which the company "unanimously recommended to shareholders”.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#cite_note-23" style="text-decoration-line: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">[23]</a> In April 2017, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission" title="Federal Trade Commission" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 102); text-decoration-line: none;">Federal Trade Commission</a>, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Foreign_Investment_in_the_United_States" title="Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 102); text-decoration-line: none;">Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States</a>, and the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commissioner_for_Competition" title="European Commissioner for Competition" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 102); text-decoration-line: none;">European Commissioner for Competition</a> approved of the acquisition, allowing the largest foreign takeover in Chinese history to proceed.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#cite_note-24" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[24]</a> To secure approval, ChemChina agreed to divest from pesticide production of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraquat" title="Paraquat" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">paraquat</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abamectin" title="Abamectin" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">abamectin</a>, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorothalonil" title="Chlorothalonil" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">chlorothalonil</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#cite_note-25" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[25]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#cite_note-26" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[26]</a> As an additional condition for the acquisition, 67 percent of the shareholders of Syngenta had to offer their shares to ChemChina. According to a press release, over 80 percent of shareholders agreed to the takeover by May 4, 2017. The transaction was planned to close on June 7, 2017 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#cite_note-27" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[27]</a> and the transaction closed on June 26, 2017.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta#cite_note-28" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[28]</a><h3 style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom: 0px; line-height: 1.6;">Acquisition history</h3><div>[complex chart!]</div>=<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-syngenta-pesticides-2535467506.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-syngenta-pesticides-2535467506.html</a><div class="headline-container" style="margin-top: 10px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><h1 class="headline h1" style="margin: 10px; padding: 0px; position: relative; line-height: 31px;">Trump EPA Slammed for Ag Giant's 'Absurdly Low' Pesticide Fine</h1></div><div id="utm_campaign" style="margin-top: 10px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="body js-expandable clearfix js-listicle-body js-update-url" data-elid="2535467506" data-authors="Lorraine Chow" data-headline="Trump EPA Slammed for Ag Giant's 'Absurdly Low' Pesticide Fine" style="margin: 10px; line-height: 24px;"><div class="body-description">The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">EPA</a>) announced a <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-reaches-agreement-syngenta-farmworker-safety-violations-kauai" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">settlement</a> this week with Syngenta Seeds, LLC over violations of federal <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pesticides" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">pesticide</a> regulations at its farm in Kauai, Hawaii.The company, a subsidiary of Swiss biotech giant <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/syngenta" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Syngenta</a> AG, agreed to pay a civil penalty of $150,000 and spend another $400,000 on worker protection training sessions."Reducing pesticide exposure for the millions of farmworkers who cultivate our food is a high priority for EPA," said Alexis Strauss, EPA's acting regional administrator for the Pacific Southwest. "This settlement will bring to Hawaii and Pacific Island growers much-needed training to protect agricultural workers."That fine, however, is a tiny fraction of the $4.8 million in civil penalties initially sought by President Obama's EPA.<a href="https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-files-complaint-against-syngenta-farmworker-safety-violations-kauai.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">According</a> to an EPA complaint, on Jan. 29, 2016, 19 workers entered a Syngenta field recently sprayed with a restricted use organophosphate insecticide. Ten of these workers had to be taken to the hospital for medical treatment.The EPA alleged that Syngenta misused the pesticide "Lorsban Advanced," and failed to notify workers to avoid the field. The active ingredient in "Lorsban Advanced" happens to be <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/chlorpyrifos" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">chlorpyrifos</a>, a controversial insecticide linked to a host of health and environmental problems. It was said that Syngenta allowed workers to enter the site without protective gear and did not provide adequate decontamination supplies at the field, nor did it supply prompt transportation for emergency medical care.Then, in an <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-02/documents/fifra-09-2017-0001-syngenta_seeds_llc_amended_complaint-2018-01-12.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">amended complaint</a> filed this month, Syngenta again violated pesticide use rules in January 2017 after a worker sprayed chlorpyrifos on a field but did warn work crews about the treated areas. One worker who said he was exposed experienced "adverse health effects" as a result.Chlorpyrifos is widely used in citrus, nuts and orchards. Chemical maker <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/dow" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Dow Chemical</a> sells about 5 million pounds of it in the U.S. each year.But chlorpyrifos is acutely toxic and associated with <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/chlorpyrifos-ban-schneiderman-2434908038.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">neurodevelopmental harms</a> in children. Furthermore, the EPA released a report indicating that that <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/endangered-species-pesticides-2201058081.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">97 percent</a> of the more than 1,800 animals and plants protected under the Endangered Species Act are likely to be harmed by the commonly used insecticide....</div></div></div><div>=</div><div><h1 class="widgetheadline h1" style="margin: 10px 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; cursor: pointer; word-wrap: break-word; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a class="widgetheadline-text custom-post-headline" href="https://www.ecowatch.com/syngenta-neonicotinoids-2518688773.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; word-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; line-height: 31px;">EPA Considers Allowing Bee-Killing Pesticide to Be Sprayed on 165 Million Acres of U.S. Farmland</a></h1><div class="body js-expandable clearfix js-listicle-body js-update-url" data-elid="2518688773" data-authors="Center for Biological Diversity" data-headline="EPA Considers Allowing Bee-Killing Pesticide to Be Sprayed on 165 Million Acres of U.S. Farmland" style="margin: 10px; line-height: 24px;"><div class="body-description"><div class="widgetbrief">The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will consider allowing the bee-killing pesticide thiamethoxam to be sprayed on the most widely grown crops in the U.S. The <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0234-0001" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">application</a>, if approved, would allow the highly toxic pesticide to be sprayed directly on <a href="https://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/Acre/Acre-06-30-2017.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">165 million acres</a> of wheat, barley, corn, sorghum, alfalfa, rice and potato.The proposal by the agrochemical giant Syngenta to dramatically escalate use of the harmful neonicotinoid pesticide came last Friday, on the same day the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/neonicotinoid-pesticides-birds-2518407784.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">EPA released new assessments</a> of the extensive dangers posed by <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/neonicotinoids" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">neonicotinoids</a>, including thiamethoxam."If the EPA grants Syngenta's wish, it will spur catastrophic declines of aquatic invertebrates and pollinator populations that are already in serious trouble," said Lori Ann Burd, director of the <a href="http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">Center for Biological Diversity's</a> environmental health program. "You know the pesticide-approval process is broken when the EPA announces it will consider expanding the use of this dangerous pesticide on the same day its own scientists reveal that the chemical kills birds and aquatic invertebrates."Neonicotinoids have long been known to pose serious harm to bee populations. But the new EPA assessments found the commonly used <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pesticides" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">pesticides</a> can kill and harm birds of all sizes and pose significant dangers to aquatic invertebrates.Thiamethoxam is currently widely used as a seed coating for these crops. This application would allow it to be sprayed directly on the crops, greatly increasing the amount of pesticide that could be used.The just-released <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0581-0093" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">aquatic and non-pollinator risk assessment</a> found that the majority of uses of the neonicotinoid on currently registered crops resulted in risks to freshwater invertebrates that exceeded levels of concern—the threshold at which harm is known to occur.The EPA did not assess risks associated with spraying the pesticides on the crops it announced it was considering expanding use to on Friday. But it is likely that increasing the number of crops approved for spraying would dramatically increase that risk.In January the EPA released a <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0581-0034" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">preliminary assessment</a> of on-field exposures to thiamethoxam that found all uses of the pesticide—on foliar, soil and seeds—result in exposures that exceed the level of concern for acute and chronic risk to adult bees. But the agency has taken no steps to restrict use of these products and is now considering expanding their use.Despite growing scientific and public concern about neonicotinoids, the application for expanded use of thiamethoxam was not announced by the EPA but quietly posted in the Federal Register."For years the EPA and pesticide companies bragged that by using treated seeds they were avoiding spraying insecticides, and despite the science showing that these treated seeds were deadly to birds, claimed that they were environmentally beneficial," said Burd. "But we can expect the Trump EPA to now ignore the risks to birds and bees and approve these ultra-toxic pesticides to be sprayed across hundreds of millions of U.S. acres."Neonicotinoids are a class of <a href="http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/pesticides_reduction/index.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">pesticides</a> known to have both acute and chronic effects on aquatic invertebrates, honeybees, birds, butterflies and other pollinator species; they are a major factor in overall pollinator declines. These systemic insecticides cause entire plants, including pollen and fruit, to become toxic to pollinators; they are also slow to break down and therefore <a href="http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3941#.VPTcRy4RRpj" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">build up in the environment</a>.A large and growing body of independent science links neonicotinoids to catastrophic bee declines. Twenty-nine independent scientists who conducted a global review of more than 1,000 independent studies on neonicotinoids found overwhelming evidence linking the pesticides to declines in populations of bees, birds, earthworms, butterflies and other wildlife.<div class="around-the-web" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="around-the-webheadline" style="font-weight: 700; text-transform: uppercase;">RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB</div><ul class="around-the-weblist" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style: none;"><li class="around-the-webitem"><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/09/the-evidence-points-in-one-direction-we-must-ban-neonicotinoids" class="around-the-weblink" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; line-height: normal; display: inline-block; margin-top: 10px; word-wrap: break-word;">The evidence points in one direction – we must ban neonicotinoids ... ›</a></li><li class="around-the-webitem"><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/neonicotinoid-pesticides-birds-2518407784.html" class="around-the-web__link" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; line-height: normal; display: inline-block; margin-top: 10px; word-wrap: break-word;">EPA: Neonicotinoid Pesticides Pose Serious Risks to Birds, Aquatic ... ›</a></li></ul></div><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/syngenta-neonicotinoids-2518688773.html">https://www.ecowatch.com/syngenta-neonicotinoids-2518688773.html</a><div>
</div></div></div></div></div><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/bee-study-bayer-syngenta-2460732961.html">https://www.ecowatch.com/bee-study-bayer-syngenta-2460732961.html</a>The lead author of a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/neonicotinoid-pesticides-bees-2450456588.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">major study</a> which found that neonicotinoid pesticides harm <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/bees" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">honey bees</a> has hit back against criticism from the chemical companies that part-funded the work.Dr. Ben Woodcock from the <a href="https://www.ceh.ac.uk/staff/ben-woodcock" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH)</a>, said Bayer and Syngenta, which produce the controversial <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pesticides" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">pesticides</a>, had <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/bayer-bee-study-2457938599.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">looked to undermine</a> his work after it was published, despite providing $3 million in funding.Speaking exclusively to <a href="http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">Energydesk</a>, he said:"From a personal perspective, I don't really appreciate having them accuse me of being a liar. And accusing me of falsifying results by cherry-picking data. That's not what we've done. I've got little to gain from this and it's been a major headache. We just present the results we get."'Utterly Unfounded'Both companies have accused the scientists of overstating the threat posed by neonicotinoids to both honey and wild bees, adding that the data, as they saw it, did not reflect the conclusions from CEH.After the study was published a Bayer spokesperson told Energydesk:"This study is one of a number of landscape studies carried out recently. The results of the CEH study are inconsistent and therefore inconclusive with variability of effects over both the bee species and the countries in which they were studied."The company's head of UK government media relations, Dr. Julian Little, told Energydesk: "We're quite frustrated about how these results have been portrayed. The reality seems to be a long way away from the headline."Syngenta's environmental specialist Peter Campbell told the press that CEH had misrepresented the study and argued that full results of the experiments showed neonicotinoids had no effect in the vast majority (238 of the 258) of the 258 potential effects measured.Quoted in <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/pesticide-firms-attack-their-own-study-confirming-harm-to-be-fm9dshpsp" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">The Times</a>, Campbell also suggested the results had been talked up in order to get published in a prestigious journal.He said: "There is a pressure to get papers published. Any journal, particularly journals like Nature and Science, it has to be an interesting story. We don't get into Science and Nature with a study which says, for example, no effect of oilseed rape treated with [neonicotinoid] on solitary bees. It's not that interesting a story."Woodcock said the accusations made by Bayer and Syngenta were "utterly unfounded.""I'm intrigued to know what they would've wanted us to do. If you find negative results on key metrics—number of bees in hives, number of bees surviving after winter—how would they want us to present that? How could we interpret this in what they see as an unbiased way?"Science papers are short. There about 1,500 words. The discussion is tiny on this. It's like a paragraph. So it's not like we spent vast amounts of time discussing the details of this. You literally present the results more or less as they are, along with some broad statements on what you observed."The study, which was part-funded by Bayer and Syngenta, with the rest paid for by the UK government-backed Natural Environment Research Council, examined the impact of two neonicotinoids—clothianidin (made by Bayer) and thiamethoxam (made by Syngenta) on wild bees and honey bees in three European countries: Germany, Hungary and the UK.The experiments occurred in the field, with bees feeding on oilseed rape crops, treated with the neonicotinoids. From the start of the work in 2014, the research was hailed as significant. It was the first time neonics had been tested on such a large scale.The results differed from country to country, with bees largely unaffected by the chemicals in Germany, but badly hit in the UK and Hungary. Overall, the scientists concluded that the chemicals had a negative impact on the ability of wild bees to reproduce, while also showing, for the first time in real world conditions, that neonicotinoids harm honey bees.Bayer and Syngenta have both highlighted the results from Germany."They're trying to reduce the size of our experiment, by putting it into individual countries. And when you do that you reduce the replication to such a level that it's basically impossible to find a difference between an effect of neonics or no neonics," said Woodcock."Bayer and Syngenta said that if you look at each country individually, then you don't get the effects you see in our study. If you do any experiment, you have to think about replication."Think about tossing a coin in the air: if you tossed a coin once in the air and you got heads, would you assume that you would get heads every time? No, you would do it again and again until you understand there is a 50:50 chance of the coin landing on heads. And every experiment is like that. The more times you replicate something, the more chance you have of understanding what's going on."This is a problem that is well established in the literature. Previous studies have been criticized for having very poor replication because if you don't have the replication you could report the absence of an effect of neonics even when one was present."They're trying to muddy the waters. Because people aren't aware of how the regulations work and what the regulatory body wants to focus on. They're trying to say look at everything, rather than saying actually what they've presented here are the core metrics by which pesticides are regulated. That's a bit cynical."
'Statistically Flawed' StudiesNeonicotinoids have long been controversial, with recent research showing that the chemicals have a negative impact on bees and other pollinators.In 2013, the European Commission decided to issue a temporary ban on the pesticides in the EU, citing the risk the chemicals pose to bees.After taking evidence on the impact of the chemicals on bees for the last few years, the commission is reportedly likely to call for an outright ban on the chemicals at the end of 2017.Bayer and Syngenta have repeatedly funded research showing that the agricultural chemicals do not harm bees and other pollinators.Woodcock highlighted a number of papers from the last few years and accused both companies of putting out "statistically flawed" studies.He said: "What shocks me is how they can put out statistically flawed or massively under-replicated studies that show no effect and don't bat an eyelid. But then they tear apart any study that shows a negative effect as statistically wrong and unrepresentative."During the interview, Woodcock cited research <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0077193" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">published in 2013 by Plos</a> as being particularly flawed.The study, which credits Syngenta's Peter Campbell as an author, examined the impact of repeated exposure to thiamethoxam on honey bees and found the chemical posed a "low risk" to the insects.An assessment of the work published earlier this year in <a href="https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-016-0103-8" target="_blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">Environmental Sciences Europe</a> by scientists from St. Andrews University found the study to be "largely uninformative," "misleading" and based on "inadequate" data.Asked for a response to Woodcock's comments of the quality of its research, Bayer referred to previous comments made after the release of the CEH study.Syngenta told us: "We stand by our position that this is an inconclusive study that asks more questions than it answers. It should be noted that a number of other independent scientists who have reviewed this paper expressed similar concerns via the UK Science Media Centre."The data generated in the study whilst variable, provides valuable and unique insights that help to better understand the ways in which neonicotinoid pesticides can be used safely. The report is a helpful contribution to the ongoing debate about pollinator health."'I'm Not Surprised They Weren't Happy'Sunday Energydesk revealed that while the research was being carried out, Bayer and Syngenta made repeated attempts to get hold of the raw data from the experiments on wild bees which were funded by the Natural Environment Research Council, only to be rebuffed by the scientists.Email correspondence obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, also showed that both companies also sent their own studies to the scientists showing that the chemicals were a low risk to bees, but were largely ignored.After publication, Syngenta sent us a statement which read: "CEH appear to have responded to funding, interaction, and requests for data by drawing an even stronger negative conclusion regarding the impact of neonicotinoids on bees."<div class="share-tab-img share-buttons share-trigger" style="display: inline-block; max-width: 100%; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative; overflow: hidden;">
<div class="share-media-panel"></div></div>"This study is not conclusive… but it is sufficient to show there is something going on."Holger Weber / GreenpeaceWoodcock, an ecological entomologist at CEH who has in the past been commissioned to do research by the UK government, told Energydesk he was not surprised that Bayer and Syngenta had reacted negatively when the results from the experiments came in.
"I'll be honest, it wasn't a surprise to me that they weren't happy. We knew as soon as the results came back as being negative, they weren't going to be happy and I understand that."They've got a massive commercial interest in this. They pay for the data and the data is appended to the end of the paper. It's freely available and the idea is that other people can have a look."This is our interpretation and we believe it a robust interpretation. It's open to other people to look at. But the way they're doing this seems to be focused on getting a result they want, rather than doing it in a robust manner."Future of the DebateLooking ahead at what impact the research might have on the future of the neonicotinoids debate, Woodcock said he doesn't believe it can be proved conclusively that the nicotine-based chemicals harm bees, but he said: it is sufficient to show there is something going on."He added that there is some evidence, as shown in the experiments in Germany, that a high-quality natural environment for bees, can increase their chances of surviving not just neonics but also climate change and other factors that are thought to have led to declining bee populations."If you can create high-quality habitats and resources in an agricultural landscape that helps bee populations, they are more likely to take a lot of the impacts of environmental change exposure to something like neonics. This is not something that's been conclusively shown, but good habitat is likely to help."It's easy to say ban neonics, but you've got to take into account what the alternatives are. Simply saying there's no effect of neonicotinoids is not the way to go. There needs to be a sensible acknowledgment that there is a problem so we can work out a solution that best serves society and the natural environment."=<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/20/business/fact-check-paraquat-weed-killer-parkinsons.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/20/business/fact-check-paraquat-weed-killer-parkinsons.html</a> no linkLONDON — Syngenta, the Swiss pesticide giant, claims on its website that data from an influential 2011 study shows that farmers who use the weed killer paraquat are less likely to develop Parkinson’s disease than the general population.However, Syngenta’s claim is at odds with the actual findings of the study, according to two of its authors.The 2011 study, carried out by the National Institutes of Health and researchers from other institutions around the world, found that people who used paraquat or another pesticide, called rotenone, were roughly two and a half times more likely to develop Parkinson’s.The work is known as the Farming and Movement Evaluation, or FAME, study. It drew on a sweeping United States government project called the Agricultural Heath Study, which tracked more than 80,000 farmers and their spouses, as well as other people who applied pesticides, in Iowa and North Carolina.
UNCERTAIN HARVESTThis Pesticide Is Prohibited in Britain. Why Is It Still Being Exported? DEC. 20, 2016
U.S. Regulator Signs Off on ChemChina-Syngenta Deal AUG. 22, 2016
Monsanto, in Bid for Syngenta, Reaches for a Business It Left Behind MAY 8, 2015
The FAME researchers identified 115 people from the Agricultural Health Study who developed Parkinson’s, and studied 110 of them who provided information on the pesticides they used.The study was influential even among some people who had been skeptics of a connection between the chemicals and the disease. Gary W. Miller, a professor of environmental health at Emory University, referred to a link between Parkinson’s and paraquat as a “red herring” in a 2007 publication. But while Dr. Miller said in a recent email exchange that he had concerns about some previous research making the connection, “the FAME data are strong and should be considered.” He said the study “appears to show a connection between paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s disease.”Because of the prominence of the FAME study, Syngenta addresses it on one of its websites, paraquat.com. Syngenta claims that the study shows that only 115 people had Parkinson’s out of the more than 80,000 people in the broader Agricultural Health Study. Therefore, “the incidence of Parkinson’s disease” in the study “appears to be lower than in the general U.S. population,” Syngenta says....bayer also merge monsanto?

Syngenta has finally found a suitor it can accept.

The Swiss-based company on Wednesday said that its board of directors

had decided to unanimously recommend that shareholders accept

ChemChina’s cash offer of $465 per share plus a closing bonus equivalent

to $15 per share.

It adds up to a cash deal worth more than $43 billion.

“In making this offer, ChemChina is recognizing the quality and

potential of Syngenta’s business,” said Michel Demare, Syngenta’s

chairman, in a statement announcing the deal. ”This includes

industry-leading R&D and manufacturing and the quality of our people

worldwide. The transaction minimizes operational disruption; it is

focused on growth globally, specifically in China and other emerging

markets, and enables long-term investment in innovation. Syngenta will

remain Syngenta and will continue to be headquartered in Switzerland,

reflecting this country’s attractiveness as a corporate location.”

The all-cash nature of ChemChina's offer likely also gave it an edge;

Monsanto's last bid for Syngenta was a mix of cash and stock.
WALLHOSMERRichard A Brain   (3)SyngentaRonald J. KendallRonald J. Kendall   (3)Texas Tech UniversityAlan HosmerAlan Hosmer   (2)SyngentaTodd Alan AndersonTodd Alan Anderson   (2)Texas Tech UniversityMichael WinchellMichael Winchell   (1)Stone Environmental Inc
Richard A Brain   (8)SyngentaKeith R SolomonKeith R Solomon   (8)University of GuelphGlen Van Der KraakGlen Van Der Kraak   (7)University of GuelphWerner KloasWerner Kloas   (7)Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland FisheriesIlka LutzIlka Lutz   (5)Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries=<a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/deadly-pesticide-atrazine-harming-most-animal-and-plant-species-says-epa-new-report" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">http://www.alternet.org/environment/deadly-pesticide-atrazine-harming-most-animal-and-plant-species-says-epa-new-report</a>The amount of the herbicide atrazine that’s released into the environment in the United States is likely harming most species of plants and animals, including mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles, according to a <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/draft-ecological-risk-assessments-triazines" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; line-height: 32px;">risk assessment</a> released Thursday by the Environmental Protection Agency. Atrazine is also well known as a hormone disruptor that has been linked to birth defects and cancer in humans, and contamination of ground-, surface- and drinking-water supplies. About 70 million pounds of atrazine are used in the United States each year....<a href="http://ecowatch.com/2016/02/03/syngenta-merger">http://ecowatch.com/2016/02/03/syngenta-merger</a>

11/15<a href="http://www.alternet.org/food/david-and-goliath-illinois-farmer-takes-worlds-largest-agrochemical-company-over-gmo-corn">http://www.alternet.org/food/david-and-goliath-illinois-farmer-takes-worlds-largest-agrochemical-company-over-gmo-corn</a>...Despite knowing the rest of the world was not as eager as the United States to adopt bioengineered food or feed, Syngenta began selling Viptera in the United States before other countries decided whether to approve it," the complaint states. Though some countries did approve Viptera for feed and food use, China has a "zero tolerance" policy when it comes to unapproved genetic traits, Dereadt says. When China discovered Viptera corn in a November 2013 shipment of "what was supposed to be non-Viptera corn from the United States," the country rejected more than 665,000 metric tons of U.S. corn over the next two months. China banned all imports of U.S. corn the next year, but Syngenta "began marketing yet another genetically modified com seed known as Duracade," the complaint states.Dereadt says China, all 28 member states of the European Union and 13 other countries have refused to approve Duracade for human or animal consumption. Syngenta's home country of Switzerland is among this group as well.     "Although Syngenta did eventually gain approvalfor the import of Viptera to China in December of 2014, this approval came far too late to prevent the loss of the Chinese market to U.S. corn," the complaint states. "The loss of the Chinese market to U.S. com has caused diminished prices for com in the United States, and plaintiffs' resulting damages.Further, there is no end in sight to the loss of the Chinese market to U.S. com. As set forth above, Syngenta has now knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly commercialized its Duracade corn in the U.S., d...http://www.alternet.org/environment/how-monsanto-could-get-even-bigger-and-more-powerfulEarlier this month, Swiss seed and agrochemical company Syngenta rejected Monsanto's second takeover bid in a year. Syngenta's board said the offer undervalued the company and did not fully address regulatory risks.But the St. Louis-based biotech giant, the world's biggest seed seller, is not deterred and is planning a new offer to Syngenta, the world's biggest pesticide and fertilizer seller. If approved, it would be the biggest agribusiness merger in history. But clearing antitrust regulators in the U.S. and the EU is a big if.The combined behemoth would be the world's largest seed and crop chemical company with more than $30 billion in revenue and control over 35 percent of the world's seed supply. It would dominate a market that includes other Big Ag players like BASF SE, Bayer AG and Dow Chemical Co.Possible antitrust issues arise specifically because of the potential merger's<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-30/monsanto-is-said-to-approach-syngenta-again-about-a-takeover" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">business overlaps</a> in the herbicide markets in North American and Latin America, as well as the North American seed market, according to Morgan Stanley. To get the deal approved, Monsanto said it would divest Syngenta's seed business. But that isn't enough for critics who argue that the merger would result in a near-monopoly on the global food system.Syngenta Seeds v. County of Kaua‘iFree Speech For People has filed an amicus brief before the US District Court for the District of Hawaii in the case of Syngenta Seeds v. County of Kaua‘i, arguing that agribusiness corporations do not have a constitutional right, under the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, to flout a law requiring disclosure of pesticides and genetically-engineered crops used on the island of Kaua‘i.The companies are challenging a local law requiring commercial agricultural producers using more than a minimum pesticide threshold to disclose the pesticide and genetically-modified organisms that they use, and to maintain a pesticide buffer zone near any home, school, day care center, or similar facility. The companies claim that this ordinance violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, and support their theory by citing Supreme Court case law protecting gay and lesbian people, people with intellectual disabilities, and undocumented immigrant children.Free Speech For People’s amicus brief argues that the Equal Protection Clause—which was passed after the Civil War, to protect the rights of the newly-freed slaves—does not prevent local communities from adopting agricultural regulations. Furthermore, the companies’ reference to Supreme Court precedent involving vulnerable minorities threatens to dilute the protections of the Equal Protection Clause and endanger those who need it the most. Co-signers are the Equal Justice Society, National Center for Lesbian Rights, and EarthRights International.<a href="http://freespeechforpeople.org/sites/default/files/FSFP%20Kauai%20Amicus%20Brief.filed.pdf" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Free Speech For People amicus brief in Syngenta Seeds v. County of Kaua‘i</a>Two multinational chemical companies—Dow Chemical and Syngenta—have asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for permission to allow them to ramp up the use of two pesticides that could have deadly consequences for bees. Honeybees, native bees and other pollinators are vital to maintaining our food supply—and a mass extinction could lead to huge crop failures. Bee populations have plunged in recent years, and one big reason is the skyrocketing use of a new class of dangerous pesticides called neonicotinoids. The two pesticides in question—thiamethoxam and sulfoxaflor—are part of this group. see pollinator week? =infiltrates epa: <a href="http://www.alternet.org/print/personal-health/how-big-agribusiness-firm-infiltrated-epa-and-made-mockery-science">http://www.alternet.org/print/personal-health/how-big-agribusiness-firm-infiltrated-epa-and-made-mockery-science</a><div class="print-content"><div id="node-999869" class="node node-story view-mode-print clearfix" about="/personal-health/how-big-agribusiness-firm-infiltrated-epa-and-made-mockery-science" typeof="sioc:Item foaf:Document" style="position: relative;"><div class="byline living"><a href="http://alternet.org/">AlterNet</a> [1] / By <a href="http://www.alternet.org/authors/kamil-ahsan">Kamil Ahsan</a> [2]</div><div class="headline"><h1 property="dc:title" datatype="" class="node-title">How a Big Agribusiness Firm Infiltrated the EPA and Made a Mockery of Science</h1></div><div class="the_body body_living clearfix"><div class="clear"> </div><div class="story_tools_bottom"><div class="text-size"><div class="story_tools_email"><div class="story_tools_print"><div class="story_tools_share"><div style="clear: left;"><div class="story-date">June 5, 2014  |  </div>Earlier this year, in an <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/02/10/140210fa_fact_aviv?currentPage=all" target="blank">exposé</a> [3] in The New Yorker, Rachel Aviv detailed the story of Syngenta, an agribusiness firm that was sued by the community water systems of six states in a class-action lawsuit over the firm’s herbicide atrazine.Atrazine is the second most commonly used herbicide in the US and is used on more than 50% of all corn crops. It is one of Syngenta’s most profitable chemicals with sales at over $300 million a year. Banned in the EU, atrazine remains on the market in the US despite scores of scientific publications demonstrating its role in abnormal sexual development. Almost insoluble in water, atrazine contaminates drinking water supplies at 30 times the concentration demonstrated to cause <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111128121549.htm" target="blank">severe sexual abnormalities in animal models</a> [4]. Recently unsealed court documents from the lawsuit have <a href="http://100r.org/2013/06/pest-control-syngentas-secret-campaign-to-discredit-atrazines-critics/" target="blank">disclosed</a> [5] how Syngenta launched a multimillion-dollar campaign to disrepute and suppress scientific research, and influence the US Environmental Protection Agency to prevent a ban on atrazine.Tyrone Hayes, a professor of Integrative Biology at UC Berkeley has demonstrated in his research that atrazine leads to health problems, reproductive issues and birth defects. Hayes is a vocal proponent of legislative action to ban the dissemination of atrazine in water supplies. The court documents showed that Syngenta specifically attacked Hayes’ work with its smear campaign.In addition to smear campaigns, Syngenta hired a private detective agency to look into the personal backgrounds of scientists on an advisory panel at the EPA, the judge presiding over the lawsuit, and Hayes. The documents also <a href="http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/776820/how_global_chemical_giant_syngenta_paid_third_party_pundits_spin_the%22news%22_on_atrazine" target="blank">reveal</a> [6] a host of third-party organizations and independent "experts" who were on Syngenta’s payroll and supplied with Syngenta’s data in order to make public statements or write op-ed pieces in support of atrazine. Often, these experts were supplied directly with material that company employees edited or wrote.Syngenta’s CoverupIt all started in 1997 when Hayes was employed by Syngenta to study atrazine, which was under review by the EPA. Hayes’ experimental research on the developmental growth of frogs began to <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2011/11/tyrone-hayes-atrazine-syngenta-feud-frog-endangered" target="blank">reveal</a> [7] that even at levels of atrazine as low as 0.1 parts per billion (ppb), the chemical was capable of causing males to develop as hermaphrodites. Some males developed female organs and were even capable of mating with normal males and producing eggs. As reported in top peer-reviewed journals such as <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/02/12/0909519107.abstract" target="blank">PNAS</a> [8] and <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v419/n6910/full/419895a.html" target="blank">Nature</a> [9], at exposure to <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/99/8/5476" target="blank">0.1 ppb</a> [10] atrazine the frogs showed extremely reduced levels of testosterone and feminized voice boxes.As Hayes amassed data, Syngenta downplayed his results, citing problems with statistics or asking him to repeat studies, often nitpicking or questioning his credibility or scientific skills.In 2000, Hayes resigned from the panel. He continued to speak at conferences, publicizing his ongoing research in the lab. Meanwhile, Syngenta employees began to show up at conferences to publicly besmirch his data. Sporadically, the campaign turned into threats of violence. In a <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/21/silencing_the_scientist_tyrone_hayes_on" target="blank">Democracy Now</a> [11] interview with Amy Goodman, Hayes said:<blockquote>“Tim Pastoor, for example, before I would give a talk, would literally threaten, whisper in my ear that he could have me lynched, or he said he would send some of his 'good ol’ boys to show me what it’s like to be gay,’ or at one point he threatened my wife and my daughter with sexual violence.”</blockquote>Shockingly, even though Syngenta <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-25/syngenta-pays-105-million-to-settle-herbicide-lawsuits.html" target="blank">settled the lawsuit for $105 million</a> [12] in late 2012 after eight years of litigation, it still maintains that amount of atrazine present in the water is much lower than would be required to cause damage. In an <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/03/10/did-the-new-yorker-botch-puff-piece-on-frog-scientist-tyrone-hayes-turning-rogue-into-beleaguered-hero/" target="blank">article</a>[13] in Forbes published a week after the New Yorker story, Jon Entine criticized Hayes and claimed that “after numerous follow up studies by the EPA and a score of scientists… evidence of endocrine related problems Hayes claimed to have identified… are nowhere to be found.”This is a patently false assertion. A mere scientific literature search shows dozens of peer-reviewed articles showing atrazine-induced defects in animal models. A number of papers on <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17610964" target="blank">salmon</a> [14] and <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002117" target="blank">fish</a> [15] find similar results to those in frog: fish <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100519131126.htm" target="blank">exposed to atrazine</a> [16] showed major reproductive abnormalities in both males and females, low sperm counts and low testosterone levels in males. Similar defects have been observed in <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19364509" target="blank">reptiles</a> [17]. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20045047" target="blank">Research in rats</a> [18] has demonstrated decreased fertility, effects on sperm count, increased prostate disease in males and poor mammary development. A <a href="http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2011/11/28/Atrazine-reproductive-issues-reviewed/UPI-80111322537237/" target="blank">collaborative</a> [19] effort of an international team of scientists confirmed these studies by <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960076011000665" target="blank">demonstrating</a> [20] feminization of male gonads across vertebrate species.All signs point toward the same being true for <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080507084013.htm" target="blank">humans</a> [21]. Said Hayes:<blockquote>“A number of epidemiological studies in humans have associated atrazine with impaired reproduction and a decline in sperm count and fertility. Another <a href="http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2002-06-02/news/0206020009_1_atrazine-prostate-cancer-cancer-in-humans/2" target="blank">study</a> [22] looking at increased prostrate disease in <a href="http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2003/july/atrazineexposure.pdf" target="blank">workers who are exposed to atrazine</a> [23] in the production plant in <a href="http://www.pesticide.org/get-the-facts/pesticide-factsheets/factsheets/atrazineprostatecancer" target="blank">St. Gabriel, Louisiana</a> [24]. A number of studies now show birth defects in humans exposed to atrazine: <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100205081805.htm" target="blank">gastroschisis</a> [25] where the intestines are on the outside of the baby when it’s born, <a href="http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(12)01542-9/abstract" target="blank">choanal atresia</a> [26], an effect where the oral cavity and the nasal cavity close up. Most recently, there’s been <a href="http://oem.bmj.com/content/62/6/400.abstract" target="blank">work</a> [27] showing atrazine associating with three different types of genital abnormalities in males.”</blockquote>Corruption Within the EPAInterestingly, the scientific advisory panel to the EPA recognizes this wealth of scientific data. In a <a href="http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2012/june/061212minutes.pdf" target="blank">memo</a> [28] from the 2012 review the advisory panel repeatedly calls attention to the biased methodology employed by the EPA. In fact, the advisory panel disagreed with almost every conclusion the EPA made.Hayes explained: “The panel was only making recommendations, they don’t make decisions and so the EPA doesn’t need to listen to them. This really undermines the role of the scientific advisory panel.”Syngenta was closely involved with the EPA’s decision. The EPA mainly considered just one study that found inconclusive effects of atrazine. This was the sole premise for the EPA’s decision. It was based on the <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2639758/" target="blank">research</a> [29] of a group led by Kloas Werner. Said Hayes:<blockquote>“Kloas Werner was originally on the EPA scientific advisory panel that I presented my data to. He at that time was hired by Syngenta and subsequent to being on the panel he conducted a study in collaboration with the EPA and Syngenta and reported back to the panel that he was on. The panel’s conclusion was that more work needed to be done, and then he presented back to that panel. Essentially, his previous decision helped him get the money for his study. Furthermore, they selected a strain of frogs that don’t respond even to estrogen, which was acknowledged by the advisory panel which reviewed their work.”</blockquote>But Syngenta wasn’t satisfied with bad science and corruption within the EPA. As Syngenta was hiring Werner, a scientific advisory panel member who could sway the EPA review process, it also held scores of closed-door meetings with panel members. As the documents reveal, Syngenta also <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/02/10/140210fa_fact_aviv?currentPage=all" target="blank">hired a communications consultancy</a> [3], the White House Writers’ Group, to set up meetings with members of Congress and Washington bigwigs to discuss upcoming EPA reviews.The information about Syngenta’s misdeeds has had little to no effect. The fiction that Hayes is a scientific hack continues to pervade the work of pro-Syngenta writers like Entine. These columnists, who write from corporation-apologist perspectives, bolster the fiction by glossing over critiques of the EPA and pretending like its conclusions represent uncontroversial scientific consensus.Time and time again, these "third-party allies" of Syngenta hyperbolically talk about the <a href="http://academicsreview.org/2014/03/turning-science-into-a-circus-the-new-yorker-rachel-aviv-and-tyrone-hayes/" target="blank">"scientific method</a> [30]," and suggest that science is science, regardless of the angle of the investigator (none have much to say about Werner’s estrogen-insensitive frogs). For them, it seems, there is no conceivable way Syngenta employed techniques that would furnish them with results to protect its multimillion-dollar profits.In other words, for them, "conflict of interest" means nothing. Scientific publishing is uncompromising about this: journals require the disclosure of conflicts of interest in publications. Obviously, political and financial incentives are sufficient criteria to change scientific results because they deeply influence the way experimenters do science.Unsurprisingly, the Kloas paper failed to declare any conflict of interest.“How can you declare no conflict of interest when clearly the manufacturer benefits from the conclusions drawn by that paper as well as benefits from the decisions made by the EPA advisory panel?” Hayes said. “Especially when the member was both on the panel and was paid by Syngenta.”Corporation v. ScienceSyngenta frequently alleges that Hayes never made his data on atrazine publicly available, a damning indictment that makes it seem like his data could have been fabricated. Hayes said this is not the case.  “The work that I did for Syngenta, Syngenta owns all that raw data,” he said. “This includes the generated raw data, the transcribed typed data, and really everything. The EPA actually visited my lab. Members of the EPA actually were in my laboratory, they observed all of our processes and data collection. Mary Frankenberry, a statistician, actually analyzed the data herself.”Syngenta and its supporters also rely heavily on the vitriol that Hayes hardly seems like a disinterested, objective scientist. Rich criticism from a company that hires people to obtain the scientific results it wants.Hayes has spoken widely, set up a website <a href="http://atrazinelovers.com/" target="blank">AtrazineLovers.com</a> [31] and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MxrH4lN0-A" target="blank">rapped</a> [32] about Syngenta’s powerful lobbying to keep atrazine on the market. There is, however, a fundamental distinction between a company lobbying to get its favored scientific result, and a scientist who vocally defends his scientific results. Hayes’ response isn’t surprising or unusual. Scientists often claim ownership over their results and will doggedly defend them at conferences.The actions of big corporations like Syngenta, especially when dealing with highly profitable products, reveal a broader truth about the nature of corporate power. There is a dangerous trend in which corporate fiat is used to call scientific research into question and sway governmental policy. This trend puts millions of lives at risk as hazardous products avoid regulation and remain on the market.One wonders why the burden isn’t on Syngenta for proving without a doubt that atrazine has no effects before plying the entire population with a highly dangerous chemical. Even if it wasn’t a near-certainty that atrazine causes birth defects, why wouldn’t we require regulatory bodies such as the EPA to err on the side of caution?Today, atrazine remains legal and in the water supplies of millions of Americans, despite evidence from scores of labs outside Tyrone Hayes’ showing it to be hazardous. “In the 15 plus years that I’ve had experience with the EPA,  I don’t really have a lot of faith that we’re going to get an objective review that’s really going to focus on environmental health and public health with regards to atrazine, or any other chemical for that matter,” Hayes said.Who can blame him?</div><div id="report-typos"> tagged with:</div><div class="tags"><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/syngenta" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel">syngenta</a> [34],</div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/agribusiness" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel">agribusiness</a> [35],</div><div class="field-item even"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/big-ag" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel">big ag</a> [36],</div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/epa" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel">epa</a> [37],</div><div class="field-item even"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/environmental-0" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel">environmental</a> [38],</div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/environment-0" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel">environment</a> [39],</div><div class="field-item even"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/water-0" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel">water</a> [40],</div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/atrazine" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel">atrazine</a> [41],</div><div class="field-item even"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/chemical-0" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel">chemical</a> [42],</div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/pollution-0" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel">pollution</a> [43],</div><div class="field-item even"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/water-supply-0" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel">water supply</a> [44]</div></div></div></div><div class="comment_button"><div class="print-footer" style="text-align: center;"><hr class="print-hr" style="border: 0px; height: 1px; width: 876px; background-color: rgb(158, 158, 158);" />urce URL: <a href="http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/how-big-agribusiness-firm-infiltrated-epa-and-made-mockery-science">http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/how-big-agribusiness-firm-infiltrated-epa-and-made-mockery-science</a><div class="print-links">Links:
[1] http://alternet.org
[2] http://www.alternet.org/authors/kamil-ahsan
[3] http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/02/10/140210fa_fact_aviv?currentPage=all
[4] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111128121549.htm
[5] http://100r.org/2013/06/pest-control-syngentas-secret-campaign-to-discredit-atrazines-critics/
[6] http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/776820/how_global_chemical_giant_syngenta_paid_third_party_pundits_spin_the_%22news%22_on_atrazine
[7] http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2011/11/tyrone-hayes-atrazine-syngenta-feud-frog-endangered
[8] http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/02/12/0909519107.abstract
[9] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v419/n6910/full/419895a.html
[10] http://www.pnas.org/content/99/8/5476
[11] http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/21/silencing_the_scientist_tyrone_hayes_on
[12] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-25/syngenta-pays-105-million-to-settle-herbicide-lawsuits.html
[13] http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/03/10/did-the-new-yorker-botch-puff-piece-on-frog-scientist-tyrone-hayes-turning-rogue-into-beleaguered-hero/
[14] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17610964
[15] http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002117
[16] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100519131126.htm
[17] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19364509
[18] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20045047
[19] http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2011/11/28/Atrazine-reproductive-issues-reviewed/UPI-80111322537237/
[20] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960076011000665
[21] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080507084013.htm
[22] http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2002-06-02/news/0206020009_1_atrazine-prostate-cancer-cancer-in-humans/2
[23] http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2003/july/atrazineexposure.pdf
[24] http://www.pesticide.org/get-the-facts/pesticide-factsheets/factsheets/atrazineprostatecancer
[25] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100205081805.htm
[26] http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(12)01542-9/abstract
[27] http://oem.bmj.com/content/62/6/400.abstract
[28] http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2012/june/061212minutes.pdf
[29] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2639758/
[30] http://academicsreview.org/2014/03/turning-science-into-a-circus-the-new-yorker-rachel-aviv-and-tyrone-hayes/
[31] http://atrazinelovers.com/
[32] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MxrH4lN0-A
[33] mailto:corrections@alternet.org?Subject=Typo on How a Big Agribusiness Firm Infiltrated the EPA and Made a Mockery of Science
[34] http://www.alternet.org/tags/syngenta
[35] http://www.alternet.org/tags/agribusiness
[36] http://www.alternet.org/tags/big-ag
[37] http://www.alternet.org/tags/epa
[38] http://www.alternet.org/tags/environmental-0
[39] http://www.alternet.org/tags/environment-0
[40] http://www.alternet.org/tags/water-0
[41] http://www.alternet.org/tags/atrazine
[42] http://www.alternet.org/tags/chemical-0
[43] http://www.alternet.org/tags/pollution-0
[44] http://www.alternet.org/tags/water-supply-0
[45] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B</div>==

attacks on hayes <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/21/silencing_the_scientist_tyrone_hayes_on">http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/21/silencing_the_scientist_tyrone_hayes_on</a>

novartis/syng sells both the estrogen mimick and breast cancer drug OMG

===

<a href="http://www.linkedin.com/pub/tim-pastoor/9/663/924">http://www.linkedin.com/pub/tim-pastoor/9/663/924</a>

<h3 class="false" style="margin: 10px 0px 2px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-weight: bold; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; clear: both; overflow: hidden;">Principal Scientist</h3>

<h4 style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-weight: bold; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; clear: both; line-height: 1.4;"><a class="company-profile-public" href="http://www.linkedin.com/company/syngenta?trk=ppro_cprof" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none;">Syngenta Crop Protection</a></h4>

</div>

<p class="orgstats organization-details current-position" style="margin: 0px 0px 1px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.2; word-wrap: break-word;">Public Company; 10,001+ employees; SYT; Farming industry

<abbr class="dtstart" title="1998" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">1998</abbr> – <abbr class="dtstamp" title="2014-03-01" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">Present</abbr> (16 years) <span class="location" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.3em; padding: 0px 0px 0px 0.5em; border-width: 0px 0px 0px 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); outline: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">Greensboro/Winston-Salem, North Carolina Area

</div>

<h2 style="margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 4px 4px 3px; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(224, 224, 224); outline: 0px; font-weight: normal; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">Tim Pastoor's Publications</h2>

</div>

<h3 style="margin: 10px 0px 2px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-weight: bold; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; clear: both; overflow: hidden;"><a id="publicationsite" href="http://www.linkedin.com/redir/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Etoxsci%2Eoxfordjournals%2Eorg&urlhash=CVyL" target="_blank" title="New window will open" name="publicationsite" class="url" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none;"><cite style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">Toxicology and Epidemiology: Improving the Science with a Framework for Combining Toxicological and Epidemiological Evidence to Establish Causal Inference</cite></a></h3>

<li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 5px 0px 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline;">TOXICOLOGICAL SCIENCES 122(2), 223–234 (2011)</li>

<li class="dtstart" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 5px 0px 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline;">August 2011</li>

</ul>

<div class="attribution" style="margin: 4px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">Authors: <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/pub/tim-pastoor/9/663/924" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none;">Tim Pastoor</a>, Hans-Olov Adami, Sir Colin L. Berry, Charles B. Breckenridge, Lewis L. Smith, James A. Swenberg,, Dimitrios Trichopoulos, Noel S. Weiss</div>

This paper was selected as one of Toxicological Sciences 50th Anniversary Archival reviews. In addition, one of the graphics from the publication was put on the cover of the August, 2011 edition. The paper is about how the fields of toxicology and epidemiology can be used together to better understand the role of chemicals in human health and safety.

</div>

</li><li class="publication vevent vcard first" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: none;"><div class="attribution" style="margin: 4px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">
</div></li></ul></div></div>

also searched:

Pramila Singh, PhD DABT

Syngenta Crop Protection, Product...

Amber Goetz Amber Goetz

Toxicologist at Syngenta Crop...

Fernando Suarez Fernando Suarez

Toxicologist at Syngenta

Kevin Leiner Kevin Leiner

Richard Peffer Richard Peffer

Senior Toxicologist at Syngenta Crop...

Michelle DeSimone, Ph.D. Michelle DeSimone, Ph.D.

Toxicologist

Tom Hanley Tom Hanley

Toxicologist at Syngenta Crop Protection

Michael Dourson, Ph.D., DABT, ATS Michael Dourson, Ph.D., DABT, ATS

President at Toxicology Excellence for...

Odette Alexander Odette Alexander

Toxicologist at Syngenta Crop Protection

Melvin Andersen Melvin Andersen

Charles Hamner Distinguished Fellow at...

===

<a href="http://stoprush.net/rush_limbaugh_sponsor_list.php#current_a">http://stoprush.net/rush_limbaugh_sponsor_list.php#current_a</a>

rush sponsor

press2:

SYNGENTA

Danielle Ivory (Huffpo) kept asking questions that Syngenta did not want to answer, so they tried to figure out how to do opposition research on her to discover some vulnerabilities that could neutralize her. Maverick Strategies Bret Jacobson sent a dossier to Quinn Thomas Public Affairs [former first lady of Gov James] QT had been hired by White House Writers group [actually b1 admin guys] WHWG strategy was to use third party spokesmen and astroturf (half a million budgeted for the latter, overall budget well over a million). Amy Goodman had given Ivory props for breaking the story that EPA had covered up problems with Atrazine.   The dossier thus claimed she was driven by ego (and thus was likely to continue?). The dossier also notes she was successful in getting an insurance company to reverse its decision and give at 12 year old boy a prosthetic arm this proves effectiveness, thus confirms she's a threat?)

Pharma giant Novartis Based in Switzerland? combined its agricultural division that joined with AstraZeneca, spun off to become Syngenta second biggest in chemicals and third in seeds. Based in Greensboro NC. Bob Dole lobbies CEO gets almost six million dollars. Does animal testing with HLS

With Bayer, big seller of neonics that poison bees (threaten lawsuit?). With Monsanto and DuPont, control half the world's seed supply.

Atrazine is so evil, Sourcewatch has a whole portal (e.g. coal and tobacco).

EPA has a terrible record on regulating pesticides; traditionally a chemical is innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof is on the public. This is hard because symptoms and illnesses can show up years after exposure, and we are all exposed to multiple chemicals, so how to prove X caused Y? Even chemicals that are tested (and the line is very long, so only about 5 percent have been?). The chemical company will do a bait and switch, getting approval for one chemical, and then combining it with others . Dr Warren Porter says even “inert' chemical change properties when combined in this way. [TOSCA involved finding produce with the highest amount and then making that the standard?!]

Syngenta complex and costly campaign to defend: four public relations firms were hired, one run by former first lady of Illinois. they had a list of 130 people and organizations they could mobilize without detection, and wrote op-eds for them to publish under their names (Howard). They paid Elizabeth Whelan's ACSH 100,000 dollars for a hit piece on NYT's Charles Duhigg ghost wrote a chapter in AEI book, but also set out to “influence the media, potential jurors, potential plaintiffs, famers, politicians, scientists and the Environmental Protection Agency” CMD report quotes by ). Looked to hire investigative reported to “rattle the cages” at EPA. Looked into private life of judge (“personal conduct...dating websites—pic in robes), members of the EPA panel, but particularly Hayes and his wife, and commissioned a psychiatric profile of Hayes (“paranoid schizo and narcissistic”) (and Ivory, just narcissistic).

Atrazine is the number one herbicide? Eighty million pounds used every year, Especially corn in US but also golf courses and public lands; can contaminate both air and water; used since 50's but problems were found in the Eighties. 14.2 Billion in sales in total; Frog deformities were found at 1/3 of the EPA level; _ sued the EPA to do their job and (re-?)assess. Inexplicably, the government hired Syngenta, the manufacturer, to do the work (p 92)

Class action lawsuit settled in 2012 after eight years; did not admit guilt, paid 105 million dollars for filtration costs in more than a thousand communities in six states.

Tyrone Hayes UCB, youngest tenured faculty, originally was working with a firm that was working for Syngenta, but he got interested in hormone mimicking and went that way, assuming that at some point they would pay for the research (they were interested in it because threatened by it; class action lawsuit in six states?). Finally, he resigned but continued the research. They tried to buy him off (two million if he would keep the research quiet), then started training people sending them to his talks, sometimes videotaping. They contemplated buying his name as a search term to redirect all queries to their sites, but didn't. When he said he was going to publish, they reminded him he'd signed a non-disclosure agreement. Published in Nature and NAS, which ensured EPA would have to pay attention (Weiss). They did opposition research, trying to discredit him or his wife (websites set up for that). He was verbally threatened (said they would go after his wife), and phone calls were set -up to be taped, as well as posting on websites (Howard). He retaliated via email with taunts, some in hip-hop style. Syngenta tried to get him on ethics charges at UCB but failed, although he does now pay twenty times the going rate for lab space, and some highly rated grant applications have been turned down (Howard). Syngenta denied having pressured Duke University not to hire him, but in deposition admitted they had contacted Duke because it was close to HQ. Paid Alex Avery of the Hudson Institute to attack him; claimed Hayes debunked by independent a German professor who was in fact on Syngenta payroll (CMD). Attacked by Milloy (on Fox) called him Berserkeley atrazine-hater”, accused him of lying [he solicited 15 and then 25,000 dollars under various fronts)] but Milloy had been employee of Inst of Regulatory policy, which became Center for Regulatory Effectiveness, founded by Jim Tozzi, who pioneered regulatory capture/paralysis of OMB/OIRA under Reagan, extended brilliantly by John Graham under Bush, who managed to set up ersatz shop to capitalize on Harvard name (risk assessment has become a cottage industry)

AEI published a chapter written by Syngenta scientist, but they were looking for someone else to put name on it (why not Entine? He had already done something similar for Whelan's ACSH which is Syngenta funded ])

Presidential debates; Laura wells green party candidate handcuffed, though she had a ticket at Dominican U

Teachers jailed for T shirt at Bush rally

===

==

<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Portal:Atrazine_Exposed">http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Portal:Atrazine_Exposed</a>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Portal:Atrazine_Exposed" title="Portal:Atrazine Exposed">Atrazine Exposed</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Alex_Avery" title="Alex Avery">Alex Avery</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Council_on_Science_and_Health" title="American Council on Science and Health">American Council on Science and Health</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Atrazine" title="Atrazine">Atrazine</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Portal:Atrazine_Exposed/Intro" title="Portal:Atrazine Exposed/Intro">Atrazine Exposed/Intro</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/David_Morgan" title="David Morgan">David Morgan</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Dennis_Avery" title="Dennis Avery">Dennis Avery</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Elizabeth_Whelan" title="Elizabeth Whelan">Elizabeth Whelan</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Hudson_Institute" title="Hudson Institute">Hudson Institute</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Huntingdon_Life_Sciences" title="Huntingdon Life Sciences">Huntingdon Life Sciences</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/John_Martin_Taylor" title="John Martin Taylor">John Martin Taylor</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/JunkScience.com" title="JunkScience.com">JunkScience.com</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Michael_Mack" title="Michael Mack">Michael Mack</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Peter_Thompson" title="Peter Thompson">Peter Thompson</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Pierre_Landolt" title="Pierre Landolt">Pierre Landolt</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Steven_J._Milloy" title="Steven J. Milloy">Steven J. Milloy</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Syngenta" title="Syngenta">Syngenta</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Syngenta_Crop_Protection,_Inc." title="Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc.">Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc.</a></li>

</ul>

</div>

==

[<a href="http://www.alternet.org/print/food/why-monsanto-wrong-about-gm-crop-promises">http://www.alternet.org/print/food/why-monsanto-wrong-about-gm-crop-promises</a> Research Shows that Monsanto's Big Claims for GMO Food Are Probably Wrong].  A new peer-reviewed study published in the [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14735903.2013.806408#.UcE_LOsd67I International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability] examined those claims and found that conventional plant breeding, not genetic engineering, is responsible for yield increases in major U.S. crops. Additionally, GM crops, also known as genetically engineered (GE) crops, can’t even take credit for reductions in pesticide use.  7/13. also syn

===

<a href="http://100r.org/2013/06/pest-control-syngentas-secret-campaign-to-discredit-atrazines-critics/">http://100r.org/2013/06/pest-control-syngentas-secret-campaign-to-discredit-atrazines-critics/</a> images and links

By Clare Howard

100Reporters and Environmental Health News

To protect profits threatened by a lawsuit over its controversial herbicide atrazine, Syngenta Crop Protection launched an aggressive multi-million dollar campaign that included hiring a detective agency to investigate scientists on a federal advisory panel, looking into the personal life of a judge and commissioning a psychological profile of a leading scientist critical of atrazine.

The Switzerland-based pesticide manufacturer also routinely paid “third-party allies” to appear to be independent supporters, and kept a list of 130 people and groups it could recruit as experts without disclosing ties to the company.

Recently unsealed court documents reveal a corporate strategy to discredit critics and to strip plaintiffs from the class-action case.  The company specifically targeted one of atrazine’s fiercest and most outspoken critics, Tyrone Hayes of the University of California, Berkeley, whose research suggests that atrazine feminizes male frogs.

The campaign is spelled out in hundreds of pages of memos, invoices and other documents from Illinois’ Madison County Circuit Court, that were initially sealed as part of a 2004 lawsuit filed by Holiday Shores Sanitary District. The new documents, along with an earlier tranche released in late 2011, open a window on the company’s strategy to defeat a lawsuit that, it maintained, could have effectively ended sales of atrazine in the United States.

The suit originally sought to force Syngenta to pay for the removal of atrazine from drinking water in Edwardsville, Ill., northeast of St. Louis, but ultimately expanded to include more than 1,000 water systems covering six states.

For Syngenta, with $14.2 billion in sales last year, the stakes of the litigation were high. Atrazine has been popular with farmers since the 1950s because it is effective and economical in killing a broad spectrum of weeds. About 80 million pounds are used in the United States each year, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, most of it applied to corn in the Midwest. Three-quarters of all U.S. corn is treated with atrazine, but atrazine is also used on golf courses, Christmas tree lots and public lands.

UC Berkeley Professor Dr. Tyrone Hayes was targeted by the company's campaign to discredit him.

UC Berkeley Professor Dr. Tyrone Hayes was targeted by the company’s campaign to discredit him.

The herbicide has long stirred controversy at the EPA, which approved its use as recently as 2003 but plans to launch another registration review this summer.

Research has shown that atrazine is prone to run off fields and contaminate water supplies. It also drifts hundreds of miles by air from sites where it has been sprayed.

Relatively few studies have examined atrazine’s health effects using human subjects. It has been shown to act as an endocrine-disrupting chemical, meaning that it can block or mimic hormones, and some human studies have suggested that it may harm fetuses and reduce men’s sperm quality. An Indiana University study found that women who lived in areas with higher atrazine levels in water had children with higher rates of some genital birth defects (see sidebar).

The Holiday Shores case grew into a class action lawsuit, ultimately settled in 2012, after 8 years of litigation. While not admitting culpability, Syngenta agreed to pay $105 million last year toward filtration costs for more than 1,000 community water systems in Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Indiana, Iowa and Ohio.

Discovery documents from the lawsuit were unsealed by the Madison County Circuit Court in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by 100Reporters.

In a prepared statement, Syngenta defended its actions, describing the suit as an attempt to end atrazine sales in the United States. The demands of plaintiffs to receive reimbursement of their cleanup costs, the company wrote in an email, “would have effectively banned the use of this critical product that has been the backbone of safe weed control for more than 50 years.”

The documents show that the company conducted research into the vulnerabilities of a judge, and Hayes’ personal life. Sherry Duvall Ford, Syngenta’s former head of communications, ranked strategies that Syngenta could use against Hayes in order of risk, according to her notes from Syngenta meetings in April 2005. One possibility: offering “to cut him in on unlimited research funds.” Another: Investigate his wife.

In her deposition, Ford read from a memo emailed to her colleagues indicating that Syngenta had hired a detective agency to investigate members of an EPA Scientific Advisory Panel [SAP] examining atrazine.

“I don’t think it would be helpful if it were generally known that we research SAP members,” Ford read. “The real good stuff I have kept for myself . . . It [sic.] protection for Janis on atrazine.”  (Janis E. McFarland is a Syngenta employee involved with the public relations campaign.)

Ford on EPA Advisory Panel (p. 6)

Syngenta did not respond to questions about its use of a detective agency to investigate scientists on an EPA advisory panel or why it looked into the personal life of a judge. In response to a question about why it commissioned a psychiatric profile on Hayes, the company issued a statement saying: “In its defense of atrazine Syngenta focused on the science and the facts. And the scientific facts continue to make it clear that no one ever has been or ever could be exposed to enough atrazine in water to affect their health. Despite eight years of litigation, the plaintiffs were never able to show that atrazine ever caused any adverse health effects at levels to which people could be exposed in the real world. Most water systems involved in the litigation had never detected significant amounts of atrazine in their water.”

Third-Party Allies

The company also secretly paid a stable of seemingly independent academics and other “experts” to extol the economic benefits of atrazine and downplay its environmental and health risks, without disclosing their financial ties to the company, according to memos and emails between Syngenta and the public relations firms it hired.  At the same time, the company provided strict parameters for what these experts would say.

Don Coursey, Ameritech Professor of Public Policy at the University of Chicago collected $500 an hour from Syngenta to write economic analyses touting the necessity of atrazine, according to an April 25, 2006, email from Coursey to Ford.  Syngenta supplied Coursey with the data he was to cite, edited his work and paid him to speak with newspapers, television and radio broadcasters about his reports, without revealing the nature of his arrangement with the corporation, according to Ford’s deposition. Coursey’s work, presented in 2010 at the National Press Club, was widely picked up as independent analysis by newspapers across the country. Coursey also is affiliated with the Heartland Institute, a libertarian nonprofit focused on environmental regulations.

In one document dated 2005, Ford noted areas of vulnerabilities of a Madison County judge the corporation thought might be assigned to the case: “Not showing up for work. Personal conduct. Skybox from Tillery. Dating websites – pic in robes.”

Stephen Tillery, whose firm, Korein Tillery, represented plaintiffs in the suit, said his firm had never given the judge a skybox. “I was never with the judge in a skybox,” Tillery said, adding, “He was not the judge in the case. They thought he might be, and they were looking for ways to disqualify him.”

The allegation over the skybox was the basis of a formal complaint Syngenta filed against Tillery with the Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission. The complaint was dismissed as without merit.

At least four public relations firms were hired to work on the Syngenta campaign, according to the documents. The White House Writers Group, based in Washington, D.C., and Jayne Thompson & Associates, based in Chicago, were heavily involved. Invoices show that the White House Writers Group received more than $1.6 million in 2010 and 2011. Thompson is Illinois’ former first lady, wife of former Gov. Jim Thompson.

Tillery said, “They did everything they could with dirty tricks. The extent they went to was unprecedented.”  He added that only one firm working on behalf of Syngenta, McDermott, Will & Emery of Chicago, did not engage in “dirty tricks.”

Hayes in the Crosshairs

Hayes, a leading atrazine researcher and critic, became a major target. His published research reported that exposure to atrazine chemically castrates male frogs and makes them viable females, able to produce eggs that can be fertilized.

Hayes began his atrazine research in 1997 with a study funded by Novartis Agribusiness, one of two corporations that would later form Syngenta. Hayes said that when he got results Novartis did not expect or want, the corporation refused to allow him to publish them. He secured other funding, replicated his work and released the results: exposure to atrazine creates hermaphroditic frogs. That started an epic feud between the scientist and the corporation.

The new documents show that the company commissioned a psychological profile of Hayes. In her notes taken during a 2005 meeting, Ford refers to Hayes as “paranoid schizo and narcissistic.”

Strategy to discredit Hayes (p. 2)

Syngenta tracked Hayes’ speaking engagements and arranged for trained critics to attend each event, sometimes videotaping his remarks, according to a strategy proposed in 2006 memos by Jayne Thompson and later confirmed by Hayes. Syngenta explored the idea of purchasing “Tyrone Hayes” as a search word on the Internet and directing searches to its own marketing materials, but appeared to have ultimately decided against it.

Hayes said he had been unaware that Syngenta had discussed purchasing his name as an Internet search word.  “Given some of the things they did, that doesn’t surprise me,” he said. “This clearly shows they went beyond science and academia. It was all PR and tricks.”

Hayes readily admits he has “crossed the line” from dispassionate academic to anti-atrazine warrior. He raps about atrazine and has a website, “atrazinelovers.com,” with information on the dangers of atrazine.

Asked why he has become increasingly vocal, Hayes said, “I went to Harvard on scholarships. I owe you! I did not go to school to let someone pay me off to say things that are not true.”

In heated and sometimes mocking emails to Syngenta, Hayes has rapped, and used profanities and sexual taunts.

The corporation filed an ethics complaint with the University of California, Berkeley, and publicly released the emails in 2010. The ethics complaint was judged to be without merit.

Hayes accused Syngenta of pressuring him through UC-Berkeley officials. He said he now pays as much as 20 times more than other researchers for his lab operations. He added that his federal grant applications have been getting the highest scores in evaluations, but are being turned down. He suspects the company of involvement in the sudden hurdles he is facing.

Hayes said Syngenta employees had threatened him verbally and said they were going after his family, but this was the first time he knew these plans were in writing.

“They impacted my professional and personal life,” he said. “It’s sobering to get substantiation of the verbal attacks they made.”

The company contends that Hayes’ frog studies are flawed, and that its own research has not replicated his findings. Other scientists, however, are showing that atrazine disturbs the sexual development of other amphibians as well.

In one memo, the company denied pressuring Duke University not to hire Hayes, but in her deposition on June 9, 2011, Ford, Syngenta’s former spokeswoman, said that Gary Dickson, a Syngenta employee, contacted a dean at Duke to inform him of the contentious relationship between Hayes and Syngenta.

Another document, from Jayne Thompson & Associates, suggested why: “Duke, located in Durham, is close to Syngenta Crop Protection headquarters in Greensboro and to our research facility in RTP [Research Triangle Park], and we wanted to protect our reputation in our community and among our employees.”

Syngenta contact with Duke University (p. 5)

Ford also said Syngenta gave financial support to the Hudson Institute and had asked Alex Avery, at the institute’s Center for Global Food Issues, to write reports critical of Hayes. She later said that unlike Hayes, Avery has not published in any peer-reviewed journals that she knew of and he did not disclose payments from Syngenta.

The Hudson Institute is a conservative nonprofit focused on shaping public policy on issues ranging from international relations to technology and health care.

In one document, Ford noted that a principal with the White House Writers Group taped a phone call with Hayes and “set him up.” Hayes was baited through emails from Syngenta’s army of allies. The scientist’s emails were posted on the Syngenta web site as part of the campaign to discredit him.

“If TH [Tyrone Hayes] is involved in scandal, the enviros will drop him,” Ford wrote.   “Can prevent citing of TH data by revealing him as non-credible,” she added.

Secret Payments to “Independent” Allies

Court documents include a “Supportive Third Party Stakeholders Database” of 130 people and organizations the company could count on to publicly support atrazine, often for a price.  Documents show people on the list were coached, their statements in support of atrazine were edited by the company and payments to them were not publicly disclosed. In some cases, Syngenta or its PR team wrote the Op-Ed pieces and then scanned its stakeholder database for a signer.

In an Oct. 17, 2009, memo to Syngenta’s Ford, Jayne Thompson warned that some of the language in four Op-Eds penned by the White House Writers Group is suggestive of their source, which “should be avoided at all costs.”

Hiding the source of Op-Eds on atrazine (p. 12)

Court documents include an email dated Oct. 28, 2009, from a Syngenta employee asking her boss how to pay these third-party allies who write in support of atrazine. There are consistent warnings to be sure supporters appear independent, with no links to the corporation.

In one case, Syngenta paid $100,000 to the nonprofit American Council on Science and Health for support that included an Op-Ed piece criticizing the work of journalist Charles Duhigg of the New York Times, who wrote a story on atrazine as part of its Toxic Waters series in 2009. Without disclosing this financial support from Syngenta, president and founder Elizabeth Whelan derided the New York Times article on atrazine as, “All the news that’s fit to scare.”

ACSH is a nonprofit that advocates against what it considers government’s over-regulation of issues related to science and health.

ACSH $100,000 dollar campaign (p. 1)

“Dear Syngenta friends,” began a 2009 email from Gilbert Ross, a physician at ACSH, thanking Syngenta for its payments and financial support over the years. “Such general operating support is the lifeblood of a small nonprofit like ours, and is both deeply appreciated and much needed,” wrote Ross.

In response to emailed questions for this article, Ross defended the decision not to publicly disclose the payments, and dismissed Hayes as an “outlier.”

“To ‘disclose’ funding on every topic we cover – and there are many – would give the mistaken impression that the donations came first to encourage or persuade us to cover a topic, and cover it in a manner beneficial to the donor,” Ross wrote.

Atrazine, he said, “has been well-known and widely proven to be highly beneficial for agriculture and crop yields and economics of farming. Those who promote hysteria and baseless (commonly litigation-driven) attacks on it are not coming from a sound-science POV [point of view], and we have no apologies nor explanations needed for accepting support from companies who develop and market crop protection chemicals which are manifestly beneficial and pose either no health risk or merely hypothetical ‘risk.’ ”

Steven Milloy, publisher of junkscience.com and president of Citizens for the Integrity of Science, is also in Syngenta’s Supportive Third Party Stakeholders Database.

In a Dec. 3, 2004, email to Syngenta, Milloy requests a grant of $15,000 for the nonprofit Free Enterprise Education Institute for an atrazine stewardship cost-benefit analysis project.

In a letter dated Aug. 6, 2008, Milloy requests a $25,000 grant for the nonprofit Free Enterprise Project of the National Center for Public Policy Research. In an email on that date, he writes, “send the check to me as usual and I’ll take care of it.”

While Op-Eds aim to shape public opinion, economic and cost-benefit analyses were also important, because EPA rulings on pesticide use are based on health, environmental and economic effects.

In an email to Syngenta’s head of communications, Thompson praises an essay that ran in the Belleville News Democrat, an Illinois newspaper based about 20 miles from Edwardsville, the community that initiated the lawsuit.

The 2006 essay was signed by Jay Lehr of the Heartland Institute. The essay claimed the Holiday Shores lawsuit could, if successful, shrink the nation’s food supply.

“These are great clips for us because they get out some of our messages from someone (Lehr) who comes off sounding like an unbiased expert. Another strength is that the messages do not sound like they came from Syngenta,” Thompson wrote.

The Heartland Institute fought a subpoena all the way to the Illinois Supreme Court in 2012 that would have forced it to disclose any financial relationship with Syngenta and the source of its articles supporting atrazine. The Heartland Institute argued disclosure would violate its First Amendment rights. The case settled before a ruling was issued, so the relationship remains undisclosed.

In response to an emailed question, the Heartland Institute did not deny receiving funding from Syngenta. Any money it receives, the institute maintained, is considered a donation to a nonprofit, and Heartland was not obligated to disclose donor information. Its president, Joseph Bast, has said he would go to jail for contempt of court “rather than share a single note he had ever made during a meeting with a donor.”

In addition to working with third-party allies, another Syngenta effort to fight the lawsuit was to go directly to plaintiffs, both actual and potential.

An estimated 80 million pounds of atrazine are sold in the United States each year. 

In her deposition, Ford confirmed the company convened focus groups and contacted managers at community water systems to discuss the lawsuit, explain the financial and political implications of participation in the suit and help them evaluate whether they should stay in the class action or opt out.

In her deposition, Ford confirmed a discussion with Syngenta attorneys about how to pressure homeowners and Realtors or (real estate agents) in Holiday Shores to drop out of the lawsuit, by telling them the suit would harm property values.

Ford insisted the strategy was not carried out, but was then asked to read from a meeting agenda that stated: “assign who will identify groups and assemble lists of Realtors/Holiday Shores residents/growers” and “determine collateral materials needed for briefing these folks. Determine who will actually be reaching out to these individuals.”

She said that according to her recollection, these contacts did not take place.

Syngenta released a statement about the settlement agreement, saying: “This settlement ends the business uncertainty and expense of protracted litigation surrounding this critical product that has been the backbone of weed control for more than 50 years. It allows farmers to continue to realize the benefits of atrazine to agriculture, the economy, and the environment.”

Following the settlement, Tillery has shifted his strategy. He does not plan on filing another class action lawsuit over atrazine in drinking water. Instead, he said, he plans to start filing individual lawsuits on behalf of children with birth defects.

===

<h1 class="headline">Bee-killing pesticide companies are pretending to save bees</h1>

By <a href="http://grist.org/author/john-upton/" title="Posts by John Upton">John Upton</a>

Even as bees drop dead around the world after sucking down pesticide-laced nectar, pesticide makers are touting their investments in bee research.

Nearly a third of commercial honeybee colonies in U.S. were <a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/05/winter-honeybee-losses/">wiped out</a> last year, for a complicated array of reasons, scientists say: disease, stress, poor nutrition, mite infestations, and — yes — pesticides. Neonicotinoid pesticides seem to be particularly damaging to bees, so much so that <a href="http://grist.org/news/beleaguered-bees-catch-break-as-eu-bans-dangerous-pesticides/">the European Union is moving to ban them</a> (but <a href="http://grist.org/news/epa-sued-over-failure-to-protect-bees-from-pesticides/">the U.S. is not</a>).

Now the two main manufacturers of neonicotinoids, Bayer CropScience and Syngenta, are promoting their commitments to bee health, as is agro-giant Monsanto. From a <a href="http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/agri-giants-trying-to-solve-bee-deaths-some-believe-they/article_c56cefb3-c335-57de-8f27-7ab4cf1f4048.html" target="_blank">feature story in the St. Louis Post Dispatch</a>:

Monsanto Co., which two years ago bought an Israeli bee research company, hosts an industry conference on bee health at its headquarters in Creve Coeur this month. Bayer CropScience is building a 5,500-square-foot “bee health center” in North Carolina, and with fellow chemical giant, Syngenta, has developed a “comprehensive action plan” for bee health.

“The beekeeping industry has always crawled on its hands and knees to USDA and universities, begging for help,” said Jerry Hayes, a bee industry veteran recently hired by Monsanto to run its bee research efforts. “Now we have this very large company involved that knows how important bees are to agriculture.”

</blockquote>

With a very large company involved, the bees are as good as saved, right?

Not surprisingly, the industry is downplaying the role of insecticides in bee deaths.

For example, Iain Kelly of Bayer CropScience does a suspiciously incomplete job of explaining the scary plight of bees during an <a href="http://wunc.org/post/getting-bottom-disappearing-bees" target="_blank">interview with North Carolina Public Radio</a> about the company’s new bee research center:

Kelly … says other insects and diseases are invading much of the bee’s natural habitat.

“They have real problems now with pests and pathogens, including viruses and fungal diseases,” Kelly says.

“We’ve lost a lot of the natural foliage for them as well, which is a big concern to beekeepers.”

</blockquote>

Yeah, we know, this is a multi-faceted problem. But what about the pesticides? More on that from the Post-Dispatch:

Published last year, <a title="http://bit.ly/whnCDQ" href="http://bit.ly/whnCDQ">a study by Purdue University</a> found that dead bees that had foraged in and around corn fields contained high levels of neonicotinoid compounds. The study was prompted by massive bee die-offs that happened in the spring, when corn planters were spewing neonicotinoid-containing dust.

“I know, definitively, that there’s a relationship between treated seed and spring die-offs,” said <a title="http://bit.ly/15oLbsb" href="http://bit.ly/15oLbsb">Christian Krupke</a>, the study’s lead author. “It (neonicotinoids) blows out behind the planter and gets in the air, it lands on dandelions. It lands on the bees, even.”

While Krupke says there’s no direct link between neonicotinoids and Colony Collapse Disorder, he said, “anything that’s a stressor to bees is a concern now. We know they’re weaker because of it.”

The industry, however, flatly denies any link between bee health and the neonicotinoids it produces.

“There’s no scientific evidence linking neonics with bee health — period,” said Dave Fischer, director of environmental toxicity and risk assessment at Bayer CropScience.

</blockquote>

Perhaps pesticide makers are hoping their happy PR buzz will distract us from the missing buzz of these critical pollinators.

===

<table class="tablesorter"><tbody><tr class="odd"><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/resources/learn/anomalies.php?type=P&id=N00005870">Gene Green (D)</a></td><td>TX</td><td><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/resources/learn/anomalies.php?type=O&id=Syngenta+AG">Syngenta AG</a> <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/resources/learn/anomalies.php?type=B&id=N00005870&id2=Syngenta+AG"><img src="/0aba4bb6-2ae8-5e91-843a-0beb7ede4989.png"/></a></td></tr></tbody></table>

==

<h1 class="print-title">Bayer and Syngenta Lobby Furiously Against EU Efforts to Limit Pesticides and Save Bees</h1>

<div class="meta">by <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/users/35294/rebekah-wilce" title="View user profile.">Rebekah Wilce</a> [1] — April 22, 2013 - 6:53am</div>

<ul>

<li class="vocabulary-2">Topics: <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/topics/food">Food</a> [2], <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/topics/corporations">Corporations</a> [3], <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/topics/environment">Environment</a> [4]</li>

</ul>

</div>

<ul>

<li class="vocabulary-9">Projects: <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/projects/food-rights-network">Food Rights Network</a> []</li>

</ul>

</div>

Bee populations have been declining rapidly worldwide in recent years -- in the U.S., they have declined by almost <a href="http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1873833/frontline_online_whats_killing_our_bees.html" target="blank">50 percent</a> [7] just since October 2012, according to The Ecologist. The problem is complex, with possible culprits including certain parasites (like Varroa mites), viruses, pesticides, and industrial agriculture. But <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/gca?sendit.y=10&gca=sci%3B336%2F6079%2F348&gca=sci%3B336%2F6079%2F351&sendit=Get%20all%20checked%20abstract%28s%29" target="blank">two studies</a> [8] published in early 2012 in the journal Science suggested a particularly strong connection between the use of a class of pesticides called neonicotinoids and the decline of both bumble bee and honeybee populations.

These and other studies led the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to recommend a two-year ban of the most controversial neonicotinoids by the European Commission: thiamethoxam, manufactured by Swiss company <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Syngenta" target="blank">Syngenta</a> [9]; and imidacloprid and clothianidin, manufactured by German company <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Bayer" target="blank">Bayer</a> [10]. Private letters recently obtained and released by Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) reveal that Bayer and Syngenta have engaged in <a href="http://corporateeurope.org/publications/pesticides-against-pollinators" target="blank">furious lobbying</a> [11] against these measures. So far, the proposed partial ban has <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/liveanimals/bees/neonicotinoids_en.htm" target="blank">failed to reach a qualified majority</a> [12] of member states in the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health.

(Readers may recall that the Center for Media and Democracy <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/02/11277/syngenta-prs-weed-killer-spin-machine-investigating-press-and-shaping-news-about" target="_blank">reported</a> [13] in 2012 that Syngenta's PR team investigated the press and spent millions to spin news coverage in the face of growing concerns about potential health risks from its widely used weed-killer products containing atrazine.)

<h2>Anatomy of a Neurotoxin: Neonicotinoid Pesticides</h2>

Neonicotinoid insecticides have been used for years on corn, soy, wheat, and canola (called rapeseed in Canada and Europe). When they were introduced in the 1990s, they were <a href="http://bees.pan-uk.org/neonicotinoids" target="blank">initially welcomed</a> [14] as much safer for humans, livestock and birds than other insecticides. Their most common use is as a seed treatment. Since they are a systemic pesticide, from the seed they enter each part of the growing plant, including the pollen. According to the Pesticide Action Network of North America (PANNA), <a href="http://www.panna.org/press-release/farmers-press-access-bee-friendly-corn-seeds" target="blank">94 percent of U.S. corn seeds</a> [15] are treated with either imidacloprid or clothianidin. That makes nicotinoids remarkably prevalent in pollen collected by bees.

Dave Goulson, professor of biology at the University of Sussex, was one of the authors of the spring 2012 Science <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/gca?sendit.y=10&gca=sci%3B336%2F6079%2F348&gca=sci%3B336%2F6079%2F351&sendit=Get%20all%20checked%20abstract%28s%29#abstr-2" target="_blank">study on neonicotinoids and bumble bees</a> [16]. In the study, scientists exposed bumble bee colonies to the neonicotinoid imidacloprid. Compared to control colonies, treated colonies "had a significantly reduced growth rate and suffered an 85% reduction in production of queens..." Dr. Goulson told CMD:

<blockquote>"Exposure to these pesticides, which are essentially a neurotoxin, was affecting the ability of the bees to learn, to find their way home, to navigate, to collect food, and so on, which is hardly surprising if you realize they're neurotoxins. ... What we found, which was I must admit surprising in its extent, was that the treated nests did grow more slowly, but most dramatically, the effect on queen production was really strong. So we had an 85 percent drop in queen production of nests that were exposed just for that two-week period to pretty low concentrations of these pesticides compared to the control nests."</blockquote>

Results of the honeybee study published in the same issue were similar: <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6079/348.abstract" target="_blank">honeybee foragers got lost</a> [17] on their way back to hives after exposure to low doses of neonicotinoids.

<h2>Bayer and Syngenta Lobby to Prevent Ban</h2>

Earlier scientific studies had already induced Italy, Slovenia, and Germany to suspend approval of new neonicotinoid-treated seeds and ban certain uses of the pesticides. Then in March 2012, the European Commission mandated EFSA to deliver a scientific opinion on the <a href="http://www.cra-api.it/online/apenet.htm" target="_blank">report</a> [18] that had led to Italy's suspension of neonicotinoid-treated corn seeds. After the April 2012 publication of the Science articles, the Commission asked EFSA to include them in its review. In June 2012, the French government announced that it would withdraw the registration of thiamethoxam.

The response of Bayer and Syngenta was to unleash a barrage of letters to the food safety agency and the European Commission, followed later by threatened lawsuits. As CEO reported, the two companies made the following increasingly shrill arguments against the proposed partial ban: that past incidents of pesticide poisoning of honeybees were <a href="http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/letter_from_bayer_cropscience_to_commissioner_john_dalli_12th_june_2012.pdf" target="blank">farmers' fault</a> [19], not the products'; that member states that had limited use of neonicotinoids were "<a href="http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/letter_from_syngenta_to_commissioner_john_dalli_8th_june_2012.pdf" target="blank">driven by a small group of activists and hobby beekeepers</a> [20]"; that the pesticide company is an <a href="http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/letter_from_syngenta_to_commissioner_john_dalli_8th_june_2012.pdf" target="blank">important contributor to global food security</a> [20] and committed to spending money in Africa; that the agency was at risk of coming to "<a href="http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/letter_from_syngenta_to_commissioners_maire_geoghegan-quinn_and_dacian_ciolos_21st_november_2012.pdf" target="blank">wrong conclusions from a rushed process</a> [21] that could have disastrous implications for agriculture and ironically for bee health"; that "independent" analysis shows that Europe <a href="http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/letter_from_syngenta_to_commissioners_maire_geoghegan-quinn_and_dacian_ciolos_21st_november_2012.pdf" target="_blank">can't survive without neonicotinoids</a> [21]; etc.

Eventually, when EFSA concluded that it recommended the pesticides be banned and sent Syngenta an embargoed press release with its findings, the company claimed there were inaccuracies, threatened to "<a href="http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/letter_and_fax_interexchange_between_syngenta_ashurst_lawers_and_efsa.pdf" target="blank">consider our legal options</a> [22]" if the release was not changed by a deadline set by Syngenta. Then, when the release was published without the company's suggested changes, <a href="http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/letter_and_fax_interexchange_between_syngenta_ashurst_lawers_and_efsa.pdf" target="blank">demanded access</a> [22] to all documents related to the drafting of the press release "and in particular the name(s) of the civil servant(s) responsible for the decision to publish the Press Release setting aside Syngenta's comments."

<h2>Follow-up with a PR "Charm Offensive"</h2>

In the wake of EFSA's and the European Commission's <a href="http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/130116.htm" target="blank">recommendations</a> [23] and the subsequent <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/liveanimals/bees/neonicotinoids_en.htm" target="blank">failure</a> [12] of the European Member States to reach a qualified majority to put the ban in place effective July 2013, Bayer and Syngenta then launched what CEO called a "charm offensive to be seen as part of the solution rather than of the problem." For Syngenta, this consists of an upgrade of its PR sting "<a href="http://corporateeurope.org/news/not-industry-event" target="blank">Operation Pollinator</a> [24]," in which the company <a href="http://www.syngenta.com/global/corporate/en/news-center/news-releases/Pages/130328.aspx" target="blank">proposes to provide payments</a> [25] to a few farmers to grow strips of flowers and other plants attractive to bees alongside their neonicotinoid-treated crops.

"This comprehensive plan will bring valuable insights into the area of bee health, whereas a ban on neonicotinoids would simply close the door to understanding the problem," Syngenta Chief Operating Officer John Atkin <a href="http://www.greenwisebusiness.co.uk/news/manufacturers-propose-bee-action-plan-to-stave-off-eu-ban-on-pesticides-3880.aspx" target="_blank">told Greenwise Business</a> [26] in early April. "Banning these products would not save a single hive and it is time that everyone focused on addressing the real causes of declining bee populations."

Dr. Goulson responds that the answer is not so simple, but that "very probably" if neonicotoid pesticides were banned, "on average honeybees would be healthier and would be better able to cope with the other things that they're currently having to deal with..."

<h2>Next Steps</h2>

EU member states are likely to vote again on the proposed partial ban of neonicotinoids on either <a href="http://corporateeurope.org/publications/pesticides-against-pollinators" target="_blank">April 26 or May 2</a> [11], according to CEO, which notes: "Meanwhile, the pesticides industry is lobbying Member States hard to try to reach a qualified majority to reject the proposal outright and thus block the ban. The coming weeks' battle will be crucial: will industry interests prevail against bees' survival?"

But the issue of bees and pesticides is a global problem, and according to PRWatch contributor Jill Richardson, the extermination of honeybees, in particular, "<a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/21/without_honeybees_we_may_cease_to_be/" target="_blank">could set off a global food crisis</a> [27]." She reports that, in contrast with Europe's efforts to enact measures to save the bees, beekeepers in the United States "remain frustrated that the U.S. government is not as forward-thinking." In fact, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is "allowing the use of a new, unregistered neonicotinoids called sulfoxaflor, and proposing a 'conditional registration' for it," according to Richardson.

In response, the U.S. environmental advocate group PANNA and others are <a href="http://www.panna.org/press-release/beekeepers-and-public-interest-groups-sue-epa-over-bee-toxic-pesticides" target="blank">suing the EPA</a> [28] "for its failure to protect pollinators from dangerous pesticides." PANNA is <a href="http://action.panna.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9948" target="blank">asking supporters</a> [29] to urge the U.S. Congress to "step up," call a hearing, and "fix a broken pesticide law that leaves EPA hamstrung."

</div>

<div class="print-footer">Center for Media and Democracy • 520 University Avenue, Suite 260 • Madison, Wisconsin 53703

Phone: 608-260-9713 • Fax: 608-260-9714</div>

<div class="print-source_url">Source URL: <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/04/12066/bayer-and-syngenta-lobby-furiously-against-eu-efforts-limit-pesticides-and-save-b">http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/04/12066/bayer-and-syngenta-lobby-furiously-against-eu-efforts-limit-pesticides-and-save-b</a></div>

Links:

[1] http://www.prwatch.org/users/35294/rebekah-wilce

[2] http://www.prwatch.org/topics/food

[3] http://www.prwatch.org/topics/corporations

[4] http://www.prwatch.org/topics/environment

[5] http://www.prwatch.org/projects/food-rights-network

[6] http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prwatch.org%2Fnews%2F2013%2F04%2F12066%2Fbayer-and-syngenta-lobby-furiously-against-eu-efforts-limit-pesticides-and-save-b&linkname=Bayer%20and%20Syngenta%20Lobby%20Furiously%20Against%20EU%20Efforts%20to%20Limit%20Pesticides%20and%20Save%20Bees%20

[7] http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1873833/frontline_online_whats_killing_our_bees.html

[8] http://www.sciencemag.org/gca?sendit.y=10&gca=sci%3B336%2F6079%2F348&gca=sci%3B336%2F6079%2F351&sendit=Get%20all%20checked%20abstract%28s%29

[9] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Syngenta

[10] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Bayer

[11] http://corporateeurope.org/publications/pesticides-against-pollinators

[12] http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/liveanimals/bees/neonicotinoids_en.htm

[13] http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/02/11277/syngenta-prs-weed-killer-spin-machine-investigating-press-and-shaping-news-about

[14] http://bees.pan-uk.org/neonicotinoids

[15] http://www.panna.org/press-release/farmers-press-access-bee-friendly-corn-seeds

[16] http://www.sciencemag.org/gca?sendit.y=10&gca=sci%3B336%2F6079%2F348&gca=sci%3B336%2F6079%2F351&sendit=Get%20all%20checked%20abstract%28s%29#abstr-2

[17] http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6079/348.abstract

[18] http://www.cra-api.it/online/apenet.htm

[19] http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/letter_from_bayer_cropscience_to_commissioner_john_dalli_12th_june_2012.pdf

[20] http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/letter_from_syngenta_to_commissioner_john_dalli_8th_june_2012.pdf

[21] http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/letter_from_syngenta_to_commissioners_maire_geoghegan-quinn_and_dacian_ciolos_21st_november_2012.pdf

[22] http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/letter_and_fax_interexchange_between_syngenta_ashurst_lawers_and_efsa.pdf

[23] http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/130116.htm

[24] http://corporateeurope.org/news/not-industry-event

[25] http://www.syngenta.com/global/corporate/en/news-center/news-releases/Pages/130328.aspx

[26] http://www.greenwisebusiness.co.uk/news/manufacturers-propose-bee-action-plan-to-stave-off-eu-ban-on-pesticides-3880.aspx

[27] http://www.salon.com/2013/03/21/without_honeybees_we_may_cease_to_be/

[28] http://www.panna.org/press-release/beekeepers-and-public-interest-groups-sue-epa-over-bee-toxic-pesticides

[29] http://action.panna.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9948

===

grist:

Not only do manufacturers of bee-killing pesticides still insist that their products should be sold — now they are saying that everybody else needs to be doing more to help save the bees.

Syngenta and Bayer say that their poisonous products do not kill bees, despite a bevy of evidence <a href="http://grist.org/food/2012-01-13-honey-bees-problem-nearing-a-critical-point/?fb_ref=fbrw" target="blank">suggesting otherwise</a>. (The complex problem of colony collapse disorder, in which the pesticides are heavily implicated, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/science/earth/soaring-bee-deaths-in-2012-sound-alarm-on-malady.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&r=0&pagewanted=all">is getting worse</a>, by the way — not better.) Their neonicotinoid-based pesticides may soon be outlawed soon by the European Commission, and beekeepers and activists are <a href="http://grist.org/news/epa-sued-over-failure-to-protect-bees-from-pesticides/">suing the EPA</a> as they push for a similar ban here.

But the chemical companies want us to know that they care deeply about these pollinators. And they have kind-heartedly published a plan they think could help the rest of us boost bee populations.

After all, if neonicotinoids are banned, they say, then we may never truly understand how they affect bees. Imagine living without that kind of knowledge.

<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/28/us-syngenta-bayer-bees-idUSBRE92R04N20130328" target="_blank">From Reuters</a>:

Syngenta and Bayer, which say harmful effects of the pesticides on bees are unproven and that a ban would deal a blow to the EU economy, proposed a plan that includes the creation of more flowering field margins to provide habitats for bees.

They also proposed a field monitoring program to detect the neonicotinoids pesticides blamed for the decline of honeybees, measures to limit the exposure of bees to the products and more research into the impact of parasites and viruses.

“This comprehensive plan will bring valuable insights into the area of bee health, whereas a ban on neonicotinoids would simply close the door to understanding the problem,” Syngenta Chief Operating Officer John Atkin said in a statement.

</blockquote>

===

<h1 property="dc:title" datatype="" class="node-title">What it Means that Monsanto Holds the Patents on Life</h1>

</div>

<div class="story-date">March 1, 2013  |  </div>

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court began hearing arguments in a seed patent infringement case that pits a small farmer from Indiana, 75-year old Vernon Hugh Bowman, against biotech goliath Monsanto. Reporters from the New York Times to the Sacramento Bee dissected the legal arguments. They speculated on the odds. They opined on the impact a Monsanto loss might have, not only on genetically modified crops, but on medical research and software.

What most of them didn’t report on is the absurdity – and the danger – of allowing companies to patent living organisms in the first place, and then use those patents to attempt to monopolize world seed and food production.

The case boils down to this. Monsanto sells its patented genetically engineered (GE) “Roundup Ready” soybean seeds to farmers under a contract that prohibits the farmers from saving the next-generation seeds and replanting them. Farmers like Mr. Bowman who buy Monsanto��s GE seeds are required to buy new seeds every year. For years, Mr. Bowman played by Monsanto’s rules. Then in 2007, he bought an unmarked mix of soybeans from a grain elevator and planted them. Some of the soybeans turned out to have been grown from Monsanto’s patented Roundup Ready soybean seeds. Monsanto sued Mr. Bowman, won, and the court ordered the farmer to pay the company $84,000. Mr. Bowman appealed, arguing that he unknowingly bought soybeans grown from Monsanto’s seeds, not the seeds themselves, and that therefore the law of “patent exhaustion” applies.

The press and public have fixated on the sticky legal details of the case, and the classic David vs. Goliath nature of the fight. But win or lose, Mr. Bowman’s predicament is part of a much bigger problem.

The real issue is this: Why have we surrendered control over something so basic to human survival as seeds? Why have we bought into the biotech industry’s program, which pushes a few monoculture commodity crops, when history and science have proven that seed biodiversity is essential for growing crops capable of surviving severe climate conditions, such as drought and floods?

As physicist and environmentalist Vandana Shiva explains, we have turned seed, which is the heart of a traditional diversity-rich farming system across the world, into a powerful commodity, used to monopolize the food system. According to a recent <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Seed-Giants_final.pdf">report</a> [4] by the Center for Food Safety and Save our Seeds, three companies – Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta  control 53 percent of the global commercial seed market. They have pressured farmers to replace diverse, nutritional seeds, seeds that are resilient because they’ve been bred by small-scale farmers to adapt to local climates and soil conditions, with monocultures of genetically engineered seeds. In the U.S. these crops are predominately corn and soybeans. According to the report, entitled “Seed Giants vs. U.S. Farmers,” 93 percent of soybeans and 86 percent of corn crops in the U.S. come from patented, genetically engineered seeds.

</div>

==

Herbicide manufacturer <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta" title="reference on Syngenta" target="_self">Syngenta</a> had an interesting way of celebrating Earth Day this year, touting the joys of pesticides.

The multinational conglomerate sent out a <a href="http://www.syngentacropprotection.com/news_releases/news.aspx?id=164807" title="reference on press release" target="blank">press release</a> during the approach to Earth Day exclaiming that "modern farming is grounds for Earth Day celebration" because, it continues, "conservation tillage and no-till farming are responsible for significant environmental benefits often overlooked by Earth Day observers." These "no-till" farming techniques, which reduce erosion and fuel use, depend "on the ability to control weeds, demonstrating the importance of the 50-year-old herbicide <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=atrazine" title="reference on atrazine" target="self">atrazine</a>."

<img src="/14f2289b-94cf-50be-a26e-5c0ee0cf1bad.jpg"/>Atrazine Indicator Species Portrait (Source: Abigail A. Allan)Some scientists, including agricultural economist John Ikerd and toxicologist Warren Porter, are not buying the "atrazine is great for Mother Earth" spin.

Syngenta, which reported <a href="http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/financials.asp?ticker=SYT:US" title="reference on over $13 billion" target="blank">over $13 billion</a> in revenue in 2011, is the primary manufacturer of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=atrazine" title="reference on atrazine" target="self">atrazine</a>, which is commonly used to kill weeds in commodity crops, forests, and golf courses. As the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/02/11263/atrazine-molecular-bull-china-shop">has reported</a> as part of its "<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Portal:Atrazine_Exposed" title="reference on Atrazine Exposed" target="_self">Atrazine Exposed</a>" project, its potential harmful effects on human health have been documented since the 1990s. It has been banned in the European Union since 2004 as well as in some parts of the United States. However, it is still one of the most heavily used herbicides in the U.S.

Syngenta has <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Portal:Atrazine_Exposed" title="reference on spent millions" target="_self">spent millions</a> on marketing, public relations (PR) campaigns, and lobbying to maintain its market and fight calls to phase atrazine out of use in the U.S.

Some of that money has gone to public university researchers. Dr. Paul Mitchell, Associate Professor of Agricultural and Applied Economics at University of Wisconsin - Madison has published <a href="http://www.aae.wisc.edu/pubs/sps/pdf/stpap563.pdf" title="reference on two" target="blank">two</a> <a href="http://www.aae.wisc.edu/pubs/sps/pdf/stpap564.pdf" title="reference on studies" target="blank">studies</a> in tandem with other members of Syngenta's "Atrazine Benefits Team," funded by Syngenta. Those studies on the "economic benefits" of atrazine and other related herbicides in the triazine family are referenced in Syngenta's Earth Day press release.

<h2>Study Finds Atrazine's "Benefits"; Costs "Wasn't My Area"</h2>

Syngenta's release summarizes the benefits analyzed by Dr. Mitchell's studies as follows:

<ul>

<li>"More than one-third of U.S. cropland devoted to major crops such as corn and soybeans uses no-till systems";</li>

<li>"Farmers are applying atrazine on about half of no-till corn acres"; and</li>

<li>"Atrazine enables farmers to save as much as 28-million gallons of diesel fuel per year, equaling more than 600-million pounds of carbon-dioxide emissions."</li>

</ul>

When asked if he had examined other possible alternatives for reducing soil loss and carbon-dioxide emissions aside from the use of triazine herbicides, Dr. Mitchell said, "We were trying to estimate the benefits of atrazine. Just think about what would the world look like without atrazine, and then compare that to our current world. Well, if we didn't have atrazine, we would have more tillage. We tried to estimate what would that world with more tillage look like."

When asked if he had examined the potential costs of the use of atrazine, in addition to the supposed benefits, Dr. Mitchell said, "No, that wasn't my area. ... The company that hired me was interested in the benefits side..."

<h2>Costs: "Sexually Assaulting Our Children"</h2>

Dr. Warren Porter, Professor of Molecular and Environmental Toxicology at UW-Madison, has been studying some of atrazine's costs since the early 1990s. According to Dr. Porter, "There are neurological risks, learning disabilities, aggression level changes, immune suppression, and hormone changes like thyroid hormone. Probably the most significant and hot button thing that really has not been addressed yet ... is the impact of atrazine on the estrogen levels in the body, which [it] can elevate ..., as has been shown by many studies on animals, especially Tyrone Hayes' work at Berkeley."

Why is this significant? Porter continued, "What that feminization does when you elevate estrogen is to alter sexual development. He has male frogs with both ovaries and testes in them. Our society may be sexually assaulting our children before they're even born. ... What you're doing is you're not only changing the way they develop sexually, but you're also reducing their ability to reproduce."

A survey of scientific studies examining some of atrazine's potentially harmful effects on humans can be found <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/02/11263/atrazine-molecular-bull-china-shop">here</a>.

<h2>"It Certainly Casts Doubts About the Credibility"</h2>

When asked if he viewed Syngenta's support of your studies as a conflict of interest, or thought that it influenced the studies in any way, Dr. Mitchell said, "Basically, think about it this way: Who else would pay for the study? I mean, they provided us with data, and we did the analysis. In no way did we ever feel obligated to find a certain answer. They were just as much interested in trying to figure out what the benefits would be as well."

Dr. John Ikerd, Professor Emeritus of Agricultural Economics at the University of Missouri Columbia, has written extensively on how sustainable farming practices affect and are affected by industrialization, the environment, economics, and communities. When he read Dr. Mitchell's studies, he responded, "The study that I looked at depends, to a great extent, upon the credibility of Dr. Mitchell. And that's not saying anything personal about him at all. I think the very fact that it's stated in the footnote to the article in terms of credit that 'the author gratefully acknowledges the resources and support of Syngenta,' ... it certainly casts doubts about the credibility of the study overall."

<h2>Syngenta Fighting Atrazine Ban</h2>

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/images/fileicons/large/icon_pdf.gif" title="reference on currently re-evaluating atrazine's human health effects" target="blank">currently re-evaluating atrazine's human health effects</a> based on its prevalence in drinking water. A <a href="http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6000/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=2834" title="reference on recent petition" target="blank">recent petition</a> helped induce the EPA to open a period of public commentary that concluded on November 14, 2011. All this activity has led to a renewed focus on Syngenta's lobbying and PR efforts in support of this dangerous chemical.

Dr. Ikerd commented, "There's growing pressure to ban the pesticide atrazine. Syngenta's motivation in this kind of study would be to try to mount a body of 'scientific' evidence that would refute the criticism that's being raised by other scientists. If nothing else, it'll raise confusion in the minds of the policymakers about whether or not they should move ahead with the proposed ban on atrazine."

Kathryn Gilje, co-director of the Pesticide Action Network of North America (PANNA), told CMD, "Syngenta backs certain studies and intimidates scientists that speak up on the harm they're finding with atrazine, which stymies the debate. And atrazine stays on the market until action is taken."

<h2>"Ingenious" Farmers Have Alternatives</h2>

Dr. Ikerd continued, "History has shown that, when we've banned particular pesticides, that farmers are very ingenious in finding alternatives that tend to minimize any particular loss and tend to minimize the cost. So almost invariably, whenever we do analysis like this, particularly if it's done and presented by the industry that's trying to protect themselves against a ban, we find that the early estimates of the increase in cost, reduction in yield, and increasing cost to consumers is almost always an overestimate of what the impact will be."

Margaret Krome, Director of Public Policy for the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, a Wisconsin non-profit organization whose mission is to cultivate the ecological, social, economic, and spiritual vitality of food and farming systems commented that there are "a wide variety of strategies" to reduce tillage without applying atrazine, "ranging from good crop rotations to cover crops... Sometimes it has to do with when you cultivate and how you can do that to reduce soil erosion when you cultivate. There are a number of different strategies."

Krome remarked, "It is of concern if we end up with research giving one side of the story, and particularly, the side of the story of the entities that have the most money and are marketing, so aggressively, their product without seeking balance." For more on Syngenta's funding of research, see CMD's "<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Portal:Atrazine_Exposed" title="reference on Atrazine Exposed" target="_self">Atrazine Exposed</a>" project on SourceWatch.org.

PANNA is sending a letter to the EPA asking the agency to revise its estimation of the risks of exposure to atrazine to incorporate the report of its internal Scientific Advisory Panel that there is "suggestive evidence" of atrazine's carcinogenicity. Members of the public can sign onto the letter <a href="http://action.panna.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=10382" title="reference on here" target="_blank">here</a>.

<hr />

Listen to Rebekah Wilce's interviews with Dr. Paul Mitchell, Dr. Warren Porter, Dr. John Ikerd, and Margaret Krome -- which originally aired on WORT-FM community radio on <a href="http://archive.wort-fm.org/mp3/wort_120425_183001iobywed.mp3" title="reference on April 25" target="blank">April 25</a> and <a href="http://archive.wort-fm.org/mp3/wort_120502_183001iobywed.mp3" title="reference on May 2" target="blank">May 2</a> -- <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/files/audio/Atrazine%20Interviews.mp3" title="reference on here" target="_blank">here</a>.

----

<h1 class="title">Syngenta PR’s Weed-Killer Spin Machine: Investigating the Press and Shaping the "News" about Atrazine</h1>

<div class="meta">by <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/users/35278/prw-staff" title="View user profile.">PRW Staff</a> — February 7, 2012 - 10:33am</div>

<ul>

<li class="vocabulary-2">Topics: <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/topics/media/journalism">Journalism</a>, <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/topics/corporations">Corporations</a>, <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/topics/public-relations">Public Relations</a></li>

</ul>

</div>

<ul>

<li class="vocabulary-9">Projects: <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/projects/atrazine-exposed">Atrazine Exposed</a></li>

</ul>

</div>

<a class="da2a_button" href="http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prwatch.org%2Fnews%2F2012%2F02%2F11277%2Fsyngenta-prs-weed-killer-spin-machine-investigating-press-and-shaping-news-about&linkname=Syngenta%20PR%E2%80%99s%20Weed-Killer%20Spin%20Machine%3A%20Investigating%20the%20Press%20and%20Shaping%20the%20%22News%22%20about%20Atrazine" id="da2a_1"><img src="/7b29f5e4-5d81-50fd-9478-3cddf645bdb1.png"/> Share this</a>

- By Beau Hodai and Lisa Graves

Documents obtained by the Center for Media and Democracy, recently unsealed as part of a major lawsuit against Syngenta, reveal how the global chemical company's PR team investigated the press and spent millions to spin news coverage and public perceptions in the face of growing concerns about potential health risks from the widely used weed-killer "atrazine."

This story is part of a new series about this PR campaign to influence the media, potential jurors, potential plaintiffs, farmers, politicians, scientists, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the midst of reviews of the weed-killer's potential to act as an endocrine disruptor, over the past decade or so.

<h2>Dealing with Meddlesome Reporters</h2>

<img src="/005123b6-7a5d-5d15-ac38-ffe1d2bf069c.jpg"/>Reporter Danielle Ivory (Source: UC)Two years ago, on March 2, 2010, Huffington Post Investigative Fund (HuffPo) reporter Danielle Ivory contacted Syngenta Corporation Director of Corporate Communications-North America Paul Minehart and asked, as reporters do, a few questions.

Little did she know her questions to Syngenta—which reported sales of over $11 billion that year, almost half of which, $5 billion, was profit—would provoke the creation of a secret dossier on her.

According to emails discovered by St. Louis attorney Stephen Tillery in a class action to get Syngenta to compensate local water utilities for the cost of filtering Syngenta's weed-killer out of drinking water supplies, the Syngenta team did not simply respond to her questions with the usual PR spin. (Syngenta sought to keep this information out of the public eye in that case, "Holiday Shore Sanitary District v. Syngenta Crop Protection et al.," but a trial court in Illinois rejected the company's claims and "unsealed" some emails and materials last year, making them part of the public record.)

Ivory told Minehart she had been informed by a source that a new federal class action would soon be filed against Syngenta Crop Protection Incorporated ("Syngenta CP"), a subsidiary/division of Syngenta AG ("SAG"), a global holding company located in Switzerland.

Over a dozen municipal and county operators of water districts in Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Ohio, and Iowa were planning to sue Syngenta CP—whose U.S. headquarters is in Greensboro, North Carolina—and SAG for the costs associated with removing atrazine from their community's drinking water.

<h2>Daring to Seek Answers</h2>

A few days later, on March 8, 2010, several water utilities would claim Syngenta deliberately withheld data indicating human health risks from the public, which the company denies.

The New York Times' Charles Duhigg had reported in an August 2009 series called "Toxic Waters" on how huge spikes in atrazine concentration in drinking water were hidden from the American people and that scientists are concerned about atrazine's potential as an endocrine disruptor to affect hormone levels. The Natural Resources Defense Council had issued a major report documenting these issues. And Ivory had written about this online for HuffPo.

According to emails obtained by CMD, in March, Ivory was seeking comment on a number of questions about the coming federal lawsuit.

She wanted to know Syngenta's response to the allegation that the company, although it had the resources to do so, was refusing to aid communities seeking to remove atrazine from their water supplies. What was Syngenta's response to water utilities that could not afford the cost of removing the weed-killer from their customers' drinking water?

Ivory had previously reported that replacing the sand filtration system used by many water districts with carbon filters to remove atrazine were difficult for cash-strapped utilities to afford, especially after the Wall Street crash. She had noted that the conversion to carbon filtration could cost millions and that the carbon filters needed require annual replacement at a cost, for example, of over $100k for six filters.

Following several queries by Ivory, Minehart <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/9/90/Syn_email_response_to_HuffPo.pdf" title="reference on responded" target="_blank">responded</a> (PDF), via email on March 5, that atrazine was safe.

He also asserted, among other things, that since 2005 no water system in the nation had an "annual" average atrazine content above the three parts-per-billion ("3 ppb") threshold set by the EPA.

Less than an hour after Minehart's email had been sent, Ivory doggedly responded:

"Paul, thanks for this. I appreciate the statement, but I noticed that Syngenta did not respond directly to any of the questions that I asked...." She repeated her request for a comment on plaintiffs' claim they could not afford to filter Atrazine from their water supplies and that Syngenta should pay for it.

Ivory wasn't going to go away.

</div>

<h2>What to Do about a Persistent Reporter?</h2>

According to court records, Minehart then fired off a very interesting internal email, seeking guidance from others on Syngenta's team about how to further field Ivory's queries.

"Danielle is persistent: I just spoke with her. She said I did not respond to her questions!" the Minehart wrote.

The recipients of this email were Syngenta CP's director of communications, Sherry Ford, and three other Syngenta employees.

Also included on the email delivery chain were two public relations consultants: Josh Gilder, of White House Writers Group (WHWG), and Chris Robling, of Jayne Thompson and Associates (JTA), an Illinois public relations firm, hired as part of the company's PR strategy to deal with litigation in Illinois, among other things. WHWG had been part of Syngenta's PR team for about six months, coming on board after the New York Times story and NRDC report came out. (The litigation has opened a window on some of communications among the Syngenta PR team.)

<img src="/ef19dd10-d7f2-583b-99b5-a5f99f0322c4.jpg"/>PR Hierarchy ChartBefore that day, March 5, Ivory had been on the radar screen of the Syngenta spin team, and someone decided to do more than just react to her stories.

The day before, on March 4, Bret Jacobson, the founder and president of Maverick Strategies and Communications, a public relations/consulting firm specializing in "opposition research," submitted a dossier on Ivory to the firm "Quinn Thomas Public Affairs."

Quinn Thomas had been hired by Syngenta CP in October 2009, as part of an expanded PR operation led by WHWG, which the watchdog group Media Transparency has called "an umbrella firm of former ghostwriters for Republican presidents and bureaucrats now at the service of anyone willing to pay."

<h2>A "First-Strike" PR Team</h2>

Around the time of the New York Times investigation of atrazine levels and growing health concerns, according to e-mails discovered in the Holiday Shores suit, Syngenta CP had put out a request for proposals for a new PR effort.

According to the solicitation, Syngenta was seeking firms experienced with a "first strike" mentality and with managing "third party" spokespeople to carry Syngenta's message when it did not want those messages to be seen as coming from the corporation. It <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/1/10/Syn_2009_PR_Request_for_Proposal.pdf" title="reference on also listed" target="_blank">also listed</a> (PDF) its top two primary audiences as "media" and "potential jurors." (The Holiday Shores case was pending in Illinois; the Jayne Thompson firm had been hired a few years earlier and would continue to be part of Syngenta's PR operation along with the new PR team being solicited.)

WHWG responded with a $498,000 base proposal that included funding for the "grassroots mobilization" firm DDC Advocacy, which has been described as a big player in the "astroturf" world of making corporate initiatives look like they are the result of wide and deep grassroots support.

<h2>A PR Team Known for Attacking Trial Lawyers</h2>

DDC reportedly has also co-chaired an astroturfing "roundtable" with the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S.Chamber_of_Commerce" title="reference on U.S. Chamber of Commerce" target="self">U.S. Chamber of Commerce</a>, which is funded by the biggest global corporations in the world (WHWG has also spearheaded PR campaigns for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce). DDC has also worked on astroturf campaigns in the cyber-world against lawyers who represent injured Americans and in support of so-called "tort reform" that would limit the rights of Americans harmed or killed through corporate neglect or greed.

WHWG's proposal to Syngenta on atrazine also included Quinn Thomas Public Affairs, which was specifically touted for its success in "engaging" lawyers who represent American consumers and in fighting public interest groups through "aggressive third party activity." WHWG said Quinn Thomas' tactics had succesfully slowed or reversed "activist momentum."

"Third party activity" means using seemingly independent third parties that do not appear to be acting in concert with or at the behest of the corporation in a dispute. Aggressive, here, is undefined.

In documents uncovered through the Illinois state suit against Syngenta, a <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/d/d5/Syn_Ivory_Dossier_and_NRC_PANNA_Tides_all.pdf" title="reference on dossier on HuffPo reporter Danielle Ivory" target="_blank">dossier on HuffPo reporter Danielle Ivory</a> (PDF) has surfaced. Ivory had contacted Syngenta on March 2nd.

The March 4, 2010 dossier was prepared quickly by "Maverick Strategies" partner Bret Jacobsen as a memo to Quinn Thomas, who was working with WHWG, part of Syngenta CP's six-month old, expanded PR efforts.

From late 2009 through 2010, according to spreadsheets discovered in the litigation, WHWG's operations resulted in payments of over $1.2 million by Syngenta for "message management" and "campaign management." Its total to date is unknown.

<h2>Assessing a Reporter's "Motives"</h2>

As stated in the dossier, Quinn Thomas had sought an investigation into Ivory's history for "the purpose of assessing her motivations regarding her coverage of [a]trazine."

The dossier lists Ivory's work history as including a stint with Bill Moyers at the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy (which is distinct from the Madison-based Center for Media and Democracy), and a job at National Public Radio's award winning Weekend Edition. It also noted her writing for Democracy Now!, Alternet, Truthout, and HuffPo.

The dossier calls these respected organizations a "who's who of anti-employer employers."

Furthermore, wrote Jacobson, "[Ivory] has successfully used journalism to pressure an insurance company to reverse its decision not to cover a 12-year-old boy's prosthetic arm."

Aside from the purportedly unsavory nature of Ivory's past employers and her use of journalism to benefit a disabled child, he claimed the primary driver behind Ivory's atrazine reporting was egotism.

Noting that Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman had credited Ivory as the reporter who "broke the story on the EPA's [a]trazine cover-up," Jacobson concluded that Ivory's "professional reputation and ego are tied to the effectiveness of the attack on the chemical."...

<h2>Targeting the Tides Foundation</h2>

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 Syngenta contract is not known; what is known is that WHWG received over one million dollar in fees for its work on the atrazine PR efforts.

<h2>Science Under Siege</h2>

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.

<h2>Syngenta Admits It Investigated Dr. Tyrone Hayes</h2>

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.)

<img src="/185f68c1-0dcc-53d0-bfd1-d84b594256b3.jpg"/>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.

<h2>Searching for a Defender of Atrazine on HuffPo</h2>

In response, Syngenta CP's Steven Goldsmith sent an email to Josh Gilder of WHWG and Mike Burita at Quinn Thomas <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/b/b8/Syn_email_Need_Someone_at_HuffPo.pdf" title="reference on asking an interesting question" target="_blank">asking an interesting question</a> (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 <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/1/18/Syn_email_Ghostwrite_Atrazine_Chapter_for_AEI.pdf" title="reference on said" target="_blank">said</a> (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 [entine?]at the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute" title="reference on American Enterprise Institute" target="_self">American Enterprise Institute</a>, 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.

<h2>Also Needed: An Investigative Reporter to Rattle the EPA's Cages</h2>

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 <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/2/26/Syn_email_plan_get_investigative_reporter_rattle_cages_at_EPA.pdf" title="reference on agenda" target="_blank">agenda</a> (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 <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/c/c2/Syn_email_WHWG_Roundup_memo.pdf" title="reference on reveal" target="_blank">reveal</a> (PDF) that earlier that same week WHWG had reported to Syngenta that a third party the PR team was in communication with was Jon Entine of 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).

<h2>The "Third Party" Technique in Action</h2>

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 <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/14/letters-to-the-editor-19-5933" title="reference on told the Washington Times" target="_blank">told the Washington Times</a> 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 <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/b/bd/Syn_email_NYT_Toxic_Waters.pdf" title="reference on already been enlisted" target="blank">already been enlisted</a> (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 <a href="http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.1230/news_detail.asp" title="reference on responded" target="blank">responded</a> right away.

<h2>ACSH's Beth Whelan Defends Atrazine, Without Disclosing Big Bucks...</h2>

<a href="http://www.prwatch.org/node/11277">http://www.prwatch.org/node/11277</a>

<a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/02/11277/syngenta-prs-weed-killer-spin-machine-investigating-press-and-shaping-news-about">http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/02/11277/syngenta-prs-weed-killer-spin-machine-investigating-press-and-shaping-news-about</a>

---

Syngenta is a global agribusiness, agrochemical and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Biotechnology" title="Biotechnology">biotechnology</a> corporation based in Basel, Switzerland. It has substantial interests in the seed industry and genetically modified (GMO) crops. The company produces insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, field crop seeds (soybeans), vegetable seeds (corn, beans, tomatoes), and flowers.

In 2010, the company's operating revenue was $11.6 billion with a gross operating profit of $5.77 billion.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_note-0" title="">[1]</a><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_note-1" title="">[2]</a>

In 2009, Syngenta opened a North American subsidiary, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta_Seeds&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Syngenta Seeds (page does not exist)">Syngenta Seeds</a>, based in Hopkins, Minnesota. The president of Syngenta Seeds is <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_Morgan&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="David Morgan (page does not exist)">David Morgan</a>, and the company is a wholly-owned, indirect subsidiary of Syngenta AG in Switzerland. It is not traded separately from Syngenta AG on Wall Street. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_note-2" title="">[3]</a>

<h2>Contents</h2>

[<a href="javascript:toggleToc()" class="internal" id="togglelink">hide</a>]</div>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#History">1 History</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#Business_divisions">2 Business divisions</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#Syngenta_Crop_Protection">3 Syngenta Crop Protection</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#Revenues">4 Revenues</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#Lobbying_and_lobbying_expenditures">5 Lobbying and lobbying expenditures</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#PAC_contributions">6 PAC contributions</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#Executive_compensation">7 Executive compensation</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#Board_of_Directors">8 Board of Directors</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#Animal_testing">9 Animal testing</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#Contract_testing">9.1 Contract testing</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#Food_safety_issues">10 Food safety issues</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#Global_GMOs_.26_herbicide_market">10.1 Global GMOs & herbicide market</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#Key_executives">11 Key executives</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#Contact">12 Contact</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#SourceWatch_articles">13 SourceWatch articles</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#External_resources">14 External resources</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#External_articles">15 External articles</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#References">16 References</a></li>

</ul>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

<h2><a name="History" id="History">History</a></h2>

<a name="History" id="History">In November of 2000, </a><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Novartis" title="Novartis">Novartis</a> combined its agricultural division with that of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=AstraZeneca" title="AstraZeneca">AstraZeneca</a> to form the first global group focusing exclusively on agribusiness. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_note-3" title="">[4]</a>

<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pharmaceutical" title="Pharmaceutical" class="mw-redirect">Pharmaceutical</a> giants Novartis and AstraZeneca formed Syngenta, from the agrochemical and seed divisions of Novartis and the agrochemicals and biotechnology research divisions of AstraZeneca, and spun it off. Syngenta is the world’s second biggest player in agrochemicals and the third biggest seed producer. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_note-4" title="">[5]</a><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_note-5" title="">[6]</a>

<h2><a name="Business_divisions" id="Business_divisions">Business divisions</a></h2>

<a name="Business_divisions" id="Business_divisions">Syngenta divides itself into three main "reporting areas": Crop protection, seeds and business development. The Crop Protection division produces chemicals including herbicides, insecticides, fungicides and seed treatments to control weeds, insects and diseases in crops. Syngenta's Crop Protection business focuses mainly on herbicides for corn, cereals, soybean and rice; fungicides designed mainly to be used on corn, cereals, fruits, grapes, rice, soybean and vegetables, and insecticides for fruits, vegetables and field crops. Syngenta's "seed care" products are insecticides and fungicides that are applied to plants during the early stages of growth.</a><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_note-6" title="">[7]</a>

<h2>Syngenta Crop Protection</h2>

<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta_Crop_Protection,_Inc." title="Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc.">Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc.</a> in Greensboro, North Carolina (in the U.S.), is located at 410 South Swing Road in Greensboro, North Carolina 27409-2012. It is Syngenta's United States headquarters for research, and one of Syngenta's main U.S. sites for research and development. The facilities take up 2,970,000 square feet of space. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_note-7" title="">[8]</a> Syngenta's Crop Protection business also manufactures vaccines and antibiotics, rubber, plastic and other chemicals.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_note-8" title="">[9]</a> Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. was formerly called Novartis Crop Protection, Inc. It changed its name to Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. in 2000. The company was incorporated in 1996 and operates as a subsidiary of Syngenta AG. It is the manufacturer of the controversial chemical Atrazine.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_note-9" title="">[10]</a>

<h2>Revenues</h2>

In 2010, the company's operating revenue was $11.6 billion with a gross operating profit of $5.77 billion. 2011 revenues are estimated to hit $13.2 billion, and in 2014, the company is expected to make $14.2 billion. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_note-10" title="">[11]</a><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_note-11" title="">[12]</a>

In the fiscal year ending in December of 2008, Syngenta reported sales of $11.6 billion dollars, with a gross operating profit of $5.89 billion, and 19,300 employees. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_note-12" title="">[13]</a>

<h2><a name="Lobbying_and_lobbying_expenditures" id="Lobbying_and_lobbying_expenditures">Lobbying and lobbying expenditures</a></h2>

<a name="Lobbying_and_lobbying_expenditures" id="Lobbying_and_lobbying_expenditures">Syngenta spent a total of $410,000 on lobbying in 2011, $680,000 in 2010, $975,000 in 2009, $690,000 in 2008, $1.2 million in 2007, and $4.36 million in 2006, and $960,000 in 2005</a><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_note-13" title="">[14]</a> The company reported a total of $600,000 in lobbying expenses for 2011.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_note-14" title="">[15]</a>

In 2011, Syngenta paid $90,000 to the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alpine_Group" title="Alpine Group">Alpine Group</a>, $180,000 to <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cornerstone_Government_Affairs&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Cornerstone Government Affairs (page does not exist)">Cornerstone Government Affairs</a>, $90,000 to the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=EOP_Group&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="EOP Group (page does not exist)">EOP Group</a>, $240,000 to the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Podesta_Group" title="Podesta Group">Podesta Group</a>.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_note-15" title="">[16]</a>

Former Senator <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_Dole" title="Robert Dole" class="mw-redirect">Robert Dole</a> was a lobbyist for Syngenta in 2004.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_note-16" title="">[17]</a>

<h2>PAC contributions</h2>

The official name of Syngenta's PAC is the Syngenta Corporation Employee Political Action Committee (Syngenta PAC).

As of January, 2, 2012, in the 2012 election cycle, Syngenta had given a total of $90,000 to agribusiness-related political action committees, of which 37 percent went to Democrats and 63 percent to Republicans.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_note-17" title="">[18]</a>

In the 2010 election cycle, Syngenta's PAC spent $285,750 in contributions to federal candidates, with 58 percent going to Democratic candidates and 42 percent going to Republican candidates. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_note-18" title="">[19]</a>

In the 2008 election cycle, Syngenta's PAC spent a total of $226,120 on contributions to federal candidates, of which 46 percent went to Democrats and 54 percent went to Republicans.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_note-19" title="">[20]</a>

In the 2006 election cycle, Syngenta's PAC spent a total of $156,020 on contributions to federal candidates, with 30 percent going to Democrats and 70 percent to Republicans.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_note-20" title="">[21]</a>

In the 2004 election cycle, Syngenta's PAC spent $95,200 on contributions to federal candidates, of which 25 percent went to Democrats and 75 percent to Republicans.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_note-21" title="">[22]</a>

Syngenta CEO Michael Mack donated $1,000 to Syngenta's PAC in the 2012 election cycle. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_note-22" title="">[23]</a><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_note-23" title="">[24]</a>

<h2>Executive compensation</h2>

Syngenta's CEO and Executive Director, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michael_Mack" title="Michael Mack">Michael Mack</a>, was paid a total compensation in 2010 of $5.45 million. That figure included $1.25 million in salary, a bonus of $206,555, $2.56 million in stock awards, $127,295 in various other awards, and about $380,000 in pension and "deferred compensation earnings."<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_note-24" title="">[25]</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_note-25" title="">[26]</a>

The Chairman of Syngenta's Board, John Martin Taylor, earned a total compensation package in 2010 of just over $2.46 million, of which $1.85 million was in cash, $382,616 was in stock and $222,880 was in "other compensation."<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_note-26" title="">[27]</a>

Jurg Witmer, Syngenta's Vice Chairman of the Board, in 2010 earned a total compensation package of $364,765, of which $342,857 was in cash and $21,908 was in "other compensation."<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_note-27" title="">[28]</a>

<h2>Board of Directors</h2>

Board of Directors (as of December 31, 2010):

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Martin_Taylor" title="Martin Taylor">Martin Taylor</a>, Chairman of the Board, non-executive Director</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michael_Mack" title="Michael Mack">Michael Mack</a>, CEO, Executive Director</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jurg_Witmer&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Jurg Witmer (page does not exist)">Jurg Witmer</a>, Vice Chairman, non-executive Director</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stefan_Borgas&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Stefan Borgas (page does not exist)">Stefan Borgas</a>, Non-executive director</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Peggy_Bruzelius&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Peggy Bruzelius (page does not exist)">Peggy Bruzelius</a>, Non-executive Director</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pierre_Landolt" title="Pierre Landolt">Pierre Landolt</a>, Non-executive Director</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_Lawrence&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="David Lawrence (page does not exist)">David Lawrence</a>, Non-executive Director</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Peter_Thompson" title="Peter Thompson">Peter Thompson</a>, Non-executive Director</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jacquest_Vincent&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Jacquest Vincent (page does not exist)">Jacquest Vincent</a>, Non-executive Director</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rolf_Watter&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Rolf Watter (page does not exist)">Rolf Watter</a>, Non-executive Director</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Felix_A._Wever&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Felix A. Wever (page does not exist)">Felix A. Wever</a>, Non-executive Director<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_note-28" title="">[29]</a></li>

</ul>

<h2>Animal testing</h2>

Syngenta does <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Animal_testing" title="Animal testing">animal testing</a>.

<h3>Contract testing</h3>

Syngenta contract tests out to <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Huntingdon_Life_Sciences" title="Huntingdon Life Sciences">Huntingdon Life Sciences</a> (HLS). <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_note-29" title="">[30]</a> HLS is the 3rd largest contract research organization (CRO) in the world and the largest animal testing facility in all of Europe. Firms hire CROs to conduct animal toxicity tests for agrochemicals, petrochemicals, household products, pharmaceutical drugs and toxins. HLS has a long history of gross animal welfare violations. See also <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Huntingdon_Life_Sciences" title="Huntingdon Life Sciences">Huntingdon Life Sciences</a>.

<h2>Food safety issues</h2>

Syngenta inherits the dubious legacies of both parent companies, promoters of GMO (genetically modified organism) technology and manufacturers of hazardous chemicals (paraquat and atrazine11). In the late 1990s Novartis and AstraZeneca wanted to establish themselves as "lifesciences" companies in order to exploit potential synergies between their pharmaceutical, chemical and agricultural sectors. Both invested heavily in acquiring seed and biotechnology companies. The Syngenta spin-off was a result of the poor performance of both companies' agribusiness divisions in 1999 and at least partially due to the global backlash against GM crops.

The creation of Syngenta enabled the parent companies to make considerable savings and rid themselves of their controversial agricultural biotechnology ventures. Syngenta has so far managed to avoid the public vilification of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto" title="Monsanto">Monsanto</a>, while it quietly develops controversial agricultural biotechnology, including genetic use restriction technologies (GURTs)/traitor technology. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_note-30" title="">[31]</a>

<h3>Global GMOs & herbicide market</h3>

The top biotechnology companies are <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto" title="Monsanto">Monsanto</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=DuPont" title="DuPont">DuPont</a>, Syngenta and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bayer" title="Bayer">Bayer</a>. (Syngenta is a subsidiary of parent companies <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=AstraZeneca" title="AstraZeneca">AstraZeneca</a> and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Novartis" title="Novartis">Novartis</a>. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Aventis" title="Aventis" class="mw-redirect">Aventis</a>' agribusiness division was bought out by Bayer.) They account for almost 100% of the genetically engineered seed and 60% of the global pesticide market. Thanks to recent acquisitions, they now own 23% of the commercial seed market. In 1999, almost 80% of total global transgenic acreage was planted in GMO soy, corn, cotton and canola. Until then, farmers could spray herbicides before planting, but not after, as herbicides would kill the intended crop. The other 20% of genetically modified acreage is planted with crops that produce pesticides. Monsanto’s "New Leaf" potato kills potato beetles, but is itself registered as a pesticide with the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Environmental_Protection_Agency" title="Environmental Protection Agency" class="mw-redirect">Environmental Protection Agency</a> (EPA). The five largest biotech companies in the world are also the five largest herbicide companies. GMOs ensure a continuous and ever-expanding market for their agrochemicals. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_note-31" title="">[32]</a>

Under current policy, the government provides large subsidies to farmers to produce grains, in particularly corn and soybeans. Livestock producers use corn and soy as a base for animal feed as they are protein rich and fatten up the animals. They are also cheap (due to government subsidies.) Livestock consumes 47% of the soy and 60% of the corn produced in the US. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_note-32" title="">[33]</a> See also <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Food_and_Drug_Administration" title="Food and Drug Administration" class="mw-redirect">Food and Drug Administration</a>.

<h2><a name="Key_executives" id="Key_executives">Key executives</a></h2>

<ul>

<li><a name="Key_executives" id="Key_executives"> </a><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michael_Mack" title="Michael Mack">Michael Mack</a> - CEO & Director</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=J._Martin_Taylor&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="J. Martin Taylor (page does not exist)">J. Martin Taylor</a> - Chairman</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=J%C3%BCrg_Witmer&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Jürg Witmer (page does not exist)">Jürg Witmer</a> - Vice Chairman <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_note-33" title="">[34]</a></li>

</ul>

<h2>Contact</h2>

Syngenta AG

Schwarzwaldallee 215

Basel

4058

Switzerland

Phone: +41-61-323-11-11

Toll Free: 800-759-4500

Web address: <a href="http://www.syngenta.com/en/index.aspx" class="external free" title="http://www.syngenta.com/en/index.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://www.syngenta.com/en/index.aspx</a>

<h2>SourceWatch articles</h2>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Agricultural_Biotechnology_Council" title="Agricultural Biotechnology Council">Agricultural Biotechnology Council</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Animal_testing" title="Animal testing">Animal testing</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=AstraZeneca" title="AstraZeneca">AstraZeneca</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Biotechnology" title="Biotechnology">Biotechnology</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Chemical_companies,_lobbyists_and_agribusiness" title="Chemical companies, lobbyists and agribusiness">Chemical companies, lobbyists and agribusiness</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Food_and_Drug_Administration" title="Food and Drug Administration" class="mw-redirect">Food and Drug Administration</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Environmentalism" title="Environmentalism">Environmentalism</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Environmental_activists_who_have_been_injured_or_killed" title="Environmental activists who have been injured or killed" class="mw-redirect">Environmental activists who have been injured or killed</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Humane_Movement" title="Humane Movement">Humane Movement</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Human_rights" title="Human rights">Human rights</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Huntingdon_Life_Sciences" title="Huntingdon Life Sciences">Huntingdon Life Sciences</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Novartis" title="Novartis">Novartis</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michael_Pragnell" title="Michael Pragnell">Michael Pragnell</a> - former CEO</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta_Crop_Protection,_Inc." title="Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc.">Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc.</a></li>

</ul>

<h2>External resources</h2>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.gmwatch.org" class="external text" title="http://www.gmwatch.org" rel="nofollow">GM Watch</a>, accessed January 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.hsus.org/hsi/animal_experiments/product_testing/eu_product_testing_qa/qa_eu_testing_pesticides.html" class="external text" title="http://www.hsus.org/hsi/animal_experiments/product_testing/eu_product_testing_qa/qa_eu_testing_pesticides.html" rel="nofollow">Q & A: EU Testing of Pesticides</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Humane_Society_International" title="Humane Society International">Humane Society International</a>, March 2009</li>

<li><a href="http://depatentlaw.morrisjames.com/04%20305%2044a.pdf" class="external text" title="http://depatentlaw.morrisjames.com/04%20305%2044a.pdf" rel="nofollow">Lawsuit filing from 2006</a>, (offers a good explanation of the relationship between all Syngenta's holding companies, subsidiaries, etc.)</li>

</ul>

<h2>External articles</h2>

<ul>

<li>Rob Edwards, "<a href="http://www.robedwards.com/2005/10/drugs_watchdog.html" class="external text" title="http://www.robedwards.com/2005/10/drugs_watchdog.html" rel="nofollow">Drugs watchdog linked to pesticide company</a>", Sunday Herald, October 30, 2005</li>

<li>Syngenta-funded study finds Atrazine is beneficial to the environment: PRNewswire/Press release by Syngenta <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/05/4165428/atrazine-aids-environment-new.html" class="external text" title="http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/05/4165428/atrazine-aids-environment-new.html" rel="nofollow">Atrazine Aids Environment, New Research Finds</a>, Sacramento Bee, January 5, 2012</li>

<li>Bloomberg Business <a href="http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=2732461" class="external text" title="http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=2732461" rel="nofollow">Korein Tillery and Baron & Budd Files Lawsuit against Syngenta AG and Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. over Water Contamination Charges</a>, brief, November 2, 2011</li>

</ul>

<h2>References</h2>

<li id="cite_note-0"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_ref-0" title="">↑</a> Bloomberg Business Week <a href="http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/earnings/earnings.asp?ticker=SYT:US" class="external text" title="http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/earnings/earnings.asp?ticker=SYT:US" rel="nofollow">Syngenta AG-ADR (SYT:New York)</a>, Earnings report, January 17, 2012</li>

<li id="cite_note-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_ref-1" title="">↑</a> Forbes.com <a href="http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/IncomeStatement.jsp?tkr=SYT" class="external text" title="http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/IncomeStatement.jsp?tkr=SYT" rel="nofollow">Syngenta AG Annual Income Statement</a>, database, accessed January 17, 2012</li>

<li id="cite_note-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_ref-2" title="">↑</a> Dustin Thompson, Corporate Counsel <a href="http://puc.sd.gov/commission/dockets/graindealer/2011/GW11-002/ltr112211.pdf" class="external text" title="http://puc.sd.gov/commission/dockets/graindealer/2011/GW11-002/ltr112211.pdf" rel="nofollow">Letter to teh South Dakota Public Utilities Commission - Warehouse Division</a>, (pdf) Letter, November 22, 2011</li>

<li id="cite_note-3"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_ref-3" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://www.syngenta.com/en/about_syngenta/companyhistory.html" class="external text" title="http://www.syngenta.com/en/about_syngenta/companyhistory.html" rel="nofollow">"Company History"</a>, Syngenta, accessed December 2008.</li>

<li id="cite_note-4"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_ref-4" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=212" class="external text" title="http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=212" rel="nofollow">Syngenta: A Corporate Profile</a>, Corporate Watch, November 2002</li>

<li id="cite_note-5"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_ref-5" title="">↑</a> Securities and Exchange Commission <a href="http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1123661/000095010310000430/dp16433_20f.htm" class="external text" title="http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1123661/000095010310000430/dp16433_20f.htm" rel="nofollow">Form 20-F/Introduction/Nature of business</a>, government filing, February 18, 2010</li>

<li id="cite_note-6"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_ref-6" title="">↑</a> Syngenta/U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission [<a href="http://www.syngenta.com/global/corporate/SiteCollectionDocuments/pdf/reports/syngenta-2010-form-20-f.pdf" class="external free" title="http://www.syngenta.com/global/corporate/SiteCollectionDocuments/pdf/reports/syngenta-2010-form-20-f.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.syngenta.com/global/corporate/SiteCollectionDocuments/pdf/reports/syngenta-2010-form-20-f.pdf</a> Form 20 (ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended: December 31, 2010)], Government filing, accessed January 18, 2012, at pages 10 and 14</li>

<li id="cite_note-7"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_ref-7" title="">↑</a> Syngenta/U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission <a href="http://www.syngenta.com/global/corporate/SiteCollectionDocuments/pdf/reports/syngenta-2010-form-20-f.pdf" class="external text" title="http://www.syngenta.com/global/corporate/SiteCollectionDocuments/pdf/reports/syngenta-2010-form-20-f.pdf" rel="nofollow">Form 20 (Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 OR 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, for the fiscal year ended: December 31, 2010)</a>, Government filing, accessed January 18, 2012, at pages 28 and 51</li>

<li id="cite_note-8"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_ref-8" title="">↑</a> MacRae's Blue Book <a href="http://www.macraesbluebook.com/search/company.cfm?company=423933" class="external text" title="http://www.macraesbluebook.com/search/company.cfm?company=423933" rel="nofollow">Syngenta Crop Protection</a>, database, accessed January 18, 2012</li>

<li id="cite_note-9"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_ref-9" title="">↑</a> Bloomberg BusinessWeek <a href="http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=2732461" class="external text" title="http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=2732461" rel="nofollow">Syngenta Crop Protection Inc.</a>, database/profile, accessed January 18, 2012</li>

<li id="cite_note-10"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_ref-10" title="">↑</a> Bloomberg Business Week <a href="http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/earnings/earnings.asp?ticker=SYT:US" class="external text" title="http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/earnings/earnings.asp?ticker=SYT:US" rel="nofollow">Syngenta AG-ADR (SYT:New York)</a>, Earnings report, January 17, 2012</li>

<li id="cite_note-11"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_ref-11" title="">↑</a> Forbes.com <a href="http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/IncomeStatement.jsp?tkr=SYT" class="external text" title="http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/IncomeStatement.jsp?tkr=SYT" rel="nofollow">Syngenta AG Annual Income Statement</a>, database, accessed January 17, 2012</li>

<li id="cite_note-12"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_ref-12" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://www.hoovers.com/company/Syngenta_AG/rftjjci-1.html" class="external text" title="http://www.hoovers.com/company/Syngenta_AG/rftjjci-1.html" rel="nofollow">Company Description: Syngenta AG</a>, Hoovers, accessed January 2010</li>

<li id="cite_note-13"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_ref-13" title="">↑</a> Center for Responsive Politics/Senate Office of Public Records <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000029311&year=2011" class="external text" title="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000029311&year=2011" rel="nofollow">OpenSecrets.org/Annual Lobbying by Syngenta Corp.</a>, database, accessed January 17, 2012</li>

<li id="cite_note-14"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_ref-14" title="">↑</a> The Center for Responsive Politics <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000029311&year=2011" class="external text" title="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000029311&year=2011" rel="nofollow">Annual Lobbying by Syngenta Corp</a>, database, accessed January 17, 2012</li>

<li id="cite_note-15"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_ref-15" title="">↑</a> Center for Responsive Politics <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientlbs.php?id=D000029311&year=2011" class="external text" title="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientlbs.php?id=D000029311&year=2011" rel="nofollow">Lobbying Spending Data/Lobbyists representing Syngenta Corp.</a>, database, accessed January 17, 2012</li>

<li id="cite_note-16"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_ref-16" title="">↑</a> Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington <a href="http://www.citizensforethics.org/page/-/PDFs/Council%20on%20EQ.pdf?nocdn=1" class="external text" title="http://www.citizensforethics.org/page/-/PDFs/Council%20on%20EQ.pdf?nocdn=1" rel="nofollow">Council on Environmental Quality - National News at the time the White House e-mail went missing</a> (pdf), November 1, 2003 - January 11, 2004</li>

<li id="cite_note-17"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_ref-17" title="">↑</a> Center for Responsive Politics (based on Federal Elections Commission data) <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00363945" class="external text" title="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00363945" rel="nofollow">Syngenta Corp. 2012 PAC Summary Data</a>, database, accessed January 17, 2012</li>

<li id="cite_note-18"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_ref-18" title="">↑</a> Center for Responsive Politics <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expenditures.php?cmte=C00363945&cycle=2010" class="external text" title="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expenditures.php?cmte=C00363945&cycle=2010" rel="nofollow">Syngenta Corp. PAC Expenditures in the 2010 election cycle</a>, database, accessed January 17, 2012</li>

<li id="cite_note-19"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_ref-19" title="">↑</a> Center for Responsive Politics/Federal Elections Commission <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00363945&cycle=2008" class="external text" title="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00363945&cycle=2008" rel="nofollow">2008 Syngenta PAC Summary Data</a>, database, accessed January 17, 2012</li>

<li id="cite_note-20"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_ref-20" title="">↑</a> Center for Responsive Politics/Federal Elections Commission <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00363945&cycle=2006" class="external text" title="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00363945&cycle=2006" rel="nofollow">2006 Syngenta PAC Summary Data</a>, database, accessed January 17, 2012</li>

<li id="cite_note-21"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_ref-21" title="">↑</a> Center for Responsive Politics/Federal Elections Commission <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00363945&cycle=2004" class="external text" title="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00363945&cycle=2004" rel="nofollow">2004 Syngenta PAC Summary Data</a>, database, accessed January 17, 2012</li>

<li id="cite_note-22"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_ref-22" title="">↑</a> Center for Responsive Politics <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.php?name=Mack%2C+Michael&state=&zip=27409&employ=&cand=&c2012=Y&sort=N&capcode=pvjyj&submit=Submit+your+Donor+Query" class="external text" title="http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.php?name=Mack%2C+Michael&state=&zip=27409&employ=&cand=&c2012=Y&sort=N&capcode=pvjyj&submit=Submit+your+Donor+Query" rel="nofollow">Donor Query/Michael Mack</a>, database, accessed Janaury 17, 2012</li>

<li id="cite_note-23"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_ref-23" title="">↑</a> Federal Elections Commission <a href="http://query.nictusa.com/pdf/892/11932070892/11932070892.pdf#navpanes=0" class="external text" title="http://query.nictusa.com/pdf/892/11932070892/11932070892.pdf#navpanes=0" rel="nofollow">FEC Form #X-Report of Receipts and Disbursements</a>, database of PAC filings, accessed January 17, 2012</li>

<li id="cite_note-24"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_ref-24" title="">↑</a> Forbes.com <a href="http://people.forbes.com/profile/michael-mack/76135" class="external text" title="http://people.forbes.com/profile/michael-mack/76135" rel="nofollow">Michael Mack</a>, database/profile, accessed January 17, 2012</li>

<li id="cite_note-25"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_ref-25" title="">↑</a> Syngenta <a href="http://www.syngenta.com/country/us/en/Seeds/Information/News/Pages/MikeMack,SyngentaCEO,tokeynoteVirtualWaterSustainabilitySummit.aspx" class="external text" title="http://www.syngenta.com/country/us/en/Seeds/Information/News/Pages/MikeMack,SyngentaCEO,tokeynoteVirtualWaterSustainabilitySummit.aspx" rel="nofollow">Mike Mack, Syngenta CEO, to keynote Virtual Water Sustainability Summit</a>, corporate press release, February 4, 2011</li>

<li id="cite_note-26"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_ref-26" title="">↑</a> Forbes.com <a href="http://people.forbes.com/profile/martin-taylor/76137" class="external text" title="http://people.forbes.com/profile/martin-taylor/76137" rel="nofollow">Martin Taylor, Chairman of the Board - Syngenta</a>, profile/database, accessed January 17, 2012</li>

<li id="cite_note-27"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_ref-27" title="">↑</a> Forbes.com <a href="http://people.forbes.com/profile/jurg-witmer/76133" class="external text" title="http://people.forbes.com/profile/jurg-witmer/76133" rel="nofollow">Jurg Witmer, Vice Chairman of the Board, Syngenta</a>, profile/database, accessed January 17, 2012</li>

<li id="cite_note-28"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_ref-28" title="">↑</a> Syngenta <a href="http://annualreport2010.syngenta.com/en/governance/Board-of-directors.aspx" class="external text" title="http://annualreport2010.syngenta.com/en/governance/Board-of-directors.aspx" rel="nofollow">Annual Report, 2010</a>, corporate website, Governance/Board of Directors, accessed January 17, 2012</li>

<li id="cite_note-29"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_ref-29" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://www.shac.net/HLS/exposed/inside_hls/Inside_customers.html" class="external text" title="http://www.shac.net/HLS/exposed/inside_hls/Inside_customers.html" rel="nofollow">Inside Customers</a>, SHAC.net, accessed December 2009</li>

<li id="cite_note-30"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_ref-30" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=212" class="external text" title="http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=212" rel="nofollow">Syngenta: A Corporate Profile</a>, Corporate Watch, November 2002</li>

<li id="cite_note-31"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_ref-31" title="">↑</a> John Robbins <a href="http://www.celsias.com/article/the-food-revolution-genetic-engineering-part-i/" class="external text" title="http://www.celsias.com/article/the-food-revolution-genetic-engineering-part-i/" rel="nofollow">Genetic Engineering, Part I</a>, The Food Revolution, accessed December 2009</li>

<li id="cite_note-32"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_ref-32" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/feed/" class="external text" title="http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/feed/" rel="nofollow">The Issues: Corn and Soy</a>, Sustainable Table, accessed December 2009</li>

<li id="cite_note-33"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_ref-33" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://www.hoovers.com/company/Syngenta_AG/rftjjci-1.html" class="external text" title="http://www.hoovers.com/company/Syngenta_AG/rftjjci-1.html" rel="nofollow">Company Description: Syngenta AG</a>, Hoovers, accessed January 2010</li>

<li id="cite_note-34"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta#cite_ref-34" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://www.hoovers.com/company/Syngenta_AG/rftjjci-1.html" class="external text" title="http://www.hoovers.com/company/Syngenta_AG/rftjjci-1.html" rel="nofollow">Company Description: Syngenta AG</a>, Hoovers, accessed January 2010</li>

</ol>

<div id="mw-normal-catlinks"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Special:Categories" title="Special:Categories">Categories</a>: <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:Global_corporations" title="Category:Global corporations">Global corporations</a> | <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:Corporations" title="Category:Corporations">Corporations</a> | <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:Agriculture" title="Category:Agriculture">Agriculture</a> | <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:Human_rights_abuses" title="Category:Human rights abuses">Human rights abuses</a> | <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:Animal_testing" title="Category:Animal testing">Animal testing</a> | <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:Huntingdon_Life_Sciences" title="Category:Huntingdon Life Sciences">Huntingdon Life Sciences</a> | <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:Biotechnology" title="Category:Biotechnology">Biotechnology</a> | <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:Genetically_Modified_Organisms" title="Category:Genetically Modified Organisms">Genetically Modified Organisms</a></div>

</div>

<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta">http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta</a>

===

<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_Milloy" title="reference on Steven Milloy" target="self">Steven Milloy</a> is a commentator for FOX News who runs the website called "<a href="http://junkscience.com/what-is-junk-science/" title="reference on JunkScience.com" target="blank">JunkScience.com</a>," which claims to debunk "faulty scientific data and analysis used to advance special interests and hidden agendas." But Milloy himself has been funded by special interests. Milloy, directly or through his organizational alter egos, formerly the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Free_Enterprise_Education_Institute" title="reference on Free Enterprise Education Institute" target="self">Free Enterprise Education Institute</a> of the Cato Institute and the "Free Enterprise Project" of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Center_for_Public_Policy_Research" title="reference on National Center for Public Policy Research" target="self">National Center for Public Policy Research</a>, <a href="http://www.tnr.com/article/pundit-hire" title="reference on reportedly" target="blank">reportedly</a> received payments from <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Philip_Morris" title="reference on Philip Morris" target="self">Philip Morris</a> and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ExxonMobil" title="reference on ExxonMobil" target="_self">ExxonMobil</a>, among others. When the story broke a few years ago that he had received over $180,000 from Big Tobacco, Fox News said it was unaware of Milloy's connection with Philip Morris. Any affiliation he had should have been disclosed.

Documents obtained by CMD show that Milloy has also received <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/8/88/Syn_Email_Milloy_Asking_for_Grants.pdf" title="reference on an unknown number of checks for $25,000 each from Syngenta" target="_blank">an unknown number of checks for $25,000 each from Syngenta</a> (PDF) to amplify its talking points on atrazine. In one e-mail to Syngenta he asks if it is too soon to ask for another $25,000 and another email notes he was receiving payments in $15,000 increments. His projects at the time were about the "free enterprise" system. His most recent payment from Syngenta and the total amount he has received from corporation is not known.

When it comes to atrazine, Milloy has helped target UC-Berkeley integrative biology professor Tyrone Hayes. The professor is a leading independent scientist investigating the potential damage to health from atrazine exposure. He has spent over a decade researching atrazine and has reported findings that the weed-killer causes gender abnormalities in frogs -- even among frogs that were exposed to the weed-killer in doses smaller than the EPA sets as the limit for the annual average amount in drinking water.

Milloy has called Hayes a "<a href="http://junkscience.com/2011/11/09/syngenta-atrazine-benefits-u-s-consumers-by-up-to-4-8-billion-annually/" title="reference on Berserkeley atrazine-hater" target="_blank">Berserkeley atrazine-hater</a>" and has repeatedly attacked Hayes' scientific findings publicly. The Fox blogger has even gone so far as to accuse Hayes of lying about how he conducted the experiments: "We can't even be sure the concentrations of atrazine in the lab tanks are what Hayes' claims. After all, it's a lot easier to say the solution is 0.1 ppb of atrazine than it is to actually verify the assertion."

In the same blog post, called "<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,69497,00.html" title="reference on Freaky-Frog Fraud" target="blank">Freaky-Frog Fraud</a>," Milloy asserts that "Hayes seems to be determined to scare the public about atrazine." Milloy seems determined to do the opposite. Documents obtained by CMD include an <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/0/09/Syn_email_Talking_Points_for_Milloy.pdf" title="reference on 2008 email from Milloy to Sherry Duvall Ford" target="blank">2008 email from Milloy to Sherry Duvall Ford</a> (PDF), head of external communications for Syngenta, which reads, "Beth Carroll said that you had some Atrazine talking points for me. Would love to see them. Thanks, Steve." Milloy has not mentioned his payments from Syngenta in his tv appearances.

<h1>Steve Milloy is still a fact fighter for hire</h1>

<div class="details">Posted on February 9, 2012 by <a href="http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/author/brian-angliss/" title="Posts by Brian Angliss" rel="author">Brian Angliss</a> under <a href="http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/category/environment/" title="View all posts in Environment & Nature" rel="category tag">Environment & Nature</a>, <a href="http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/category/health-care/" title="View all posts in Health" rel="category tag">Health</a>, <a href="http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/category/science/" title="View all posts in Science & Technology" rel="category tag">Science & Technology</a> [ <a href="http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2012/02/09/steve-milloy-is-still-a-fact-fighter-for-hire/#comments">Comments: none</a> ]</div>

</div>

In an article titled <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/02/11276/syngentas-paid-third-party-pundits-spin-news-atrazine">“Syngenta’s Paid Third Party Pundits Spin the “News” on Atrazine,”</a> the Center for Media and Democracy’s (CMD) PR Watch revealed that Steve Milloy, editor of JunkScience.com, had been hired to PR outreach through both his “National Center for Public Policy Research” and his “Free Enterprise Education Institute.” CMD acquired <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/8/88/Syn_Email_Milloy_Asking_for_Grants.pdf">sealed court documents</a> from a lawsuit against herbicide manufacturer Syngenta that show Milloy asking for a $15,000 grant in 2004 and invoicing Syngenta for $25,000 in 2008.

<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/0/09/Syn_email_Talking_Points_for_Milloy.pdf">Another sequence of emails</a> shows two Syngenta employees talking about how Milloy was going to do his “weekly column” on the book “Poisoned Profits” and getting Milloy some talking points:

From N. Beth Carroll, Syngenta, to Sherry Duvall Ford, Syngenta

Sent: August 6, 2008 3:02 PM

Subject: Poisoned Profits

“FYI

Steve Milloy is doing is weekly column on this book”

From Sherry Duval Ford to Beth Carroll

Sent: August 6, 2008 2:03 PM [Ed note: the email on page 2 of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/8/88/Syn_Email_Milloy_Asking_for_Grants.pdf">pdf</a> shows clearly that this email follows the previous one]

Subject: RE: Poisoned Profits

“Thanks for the info. Does he need talking points on atrazine?”

From Steve Milloy to Sherry Ford

Sent: August 6, 2008 5:48 PM

Subject: Atrazine talking points

“Hi Sherry,

Beth Carroll said that you had some Atrazine talking points for me.

Would love to see them.

Thanks,

Steve”

From Sherry Ford to Steve Milloy

Sent: August 7, 2008 9:13 AM

Subject: RE: Atrazine talking points…

“Hi Steve–Thanks for your message. When do you need? I’ve been buried this morning but can get you something later this a.m.”

</blockquote>

Fox News published Milloy’s column on Poisoned Profits” on August 7, 2008.

Milloy has a <a href="http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/11/27/we-berate-you-deride-a-closer-look-at-the-background-of-steven-j-milloy-executive-director-of-demanddebatecom/">long and degenerate history of denying scientific facts</a> in the service of anyone willing to pay his price that dates back to when he was paid by Philip Morris to deny the dangers of second hand smoke. More recently, Milloy has turned his jaundiced eye toward human-driven climate disruption, organic milk, and apparently, Syngenta’s herbicide atrazine. Beyond this, Milloy’s own public statements on climate disruption reveal him to be either <a href="http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2011/05/20/milloy-either-incompetent-or-liar/">incompetent or a liar-for-hire</a>. Given how much money he commands in “grants” to his supposedly non-profit and/or tax-exempt foundations, I suspect that Milloy is actually quite competent.

Milloy represents a political underbelly that needs strongly enforced regulations and a great deal of sunlight. But he’s just one of the more visible tips of this particular iceberg. After all, CMD identified four other supposedly disinterested third parties that Syngenta paid to cast doubt upon the science that found atrazine was environmentally toxic. How many other people have been paid through foundations, think tanks, and PR companies to do the same?

Syngenta

Attachments