webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

MILLER, Henry

===

see MILLER2 BAk

1 24 did something good?!

no merri

hackademics, entine poster boy but this guy runnerup?

see TAASC ACSH... thinktanks

ggl doc entine:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PPkRCl98kqsVGTPK2p7mOMdv68eAFjtIIrWi-vpgCFM/edit

---

gmail 3 26

Entine

Daily update ⋅ March 10, 2026

Microplastics as a blueprint for health scares: How the "panic pipeline" of activists and ...

Genetic Literacy Project

Jon Entine is the executive director of the Science Literacy Project/Genetic Literacy Project. Henry I. Miller is a physician and molecular ...

---

---

Joseph Ladapo says anti-vaccine crusade was God’s plan. It cost him his peers’ trust

Gov. Ron DeSantis appointed Dr. Joseph Ladapo as surgeon general of Florida on Sept. 21, 2021. (Governor's Office photo/TNS)

By Cindy Krischer Goodman | cgoodman@sunsentinel.com | South Florida Sun Sentinel and Caroline Catherman | ccatherman@orlandosentinel.com | Orlando Sentinel

:{May 13, 2023

Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo marked the third anniversary of the pandemic in March by heaping praise on his boss, Gov. Ron DeSantis, for putting the “kibosh on vaccine mandates.” He then asserted that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine “has a terrible safety profile.”

“At this point in the pandemic, I’m not sure anyone should be taking them,” he said.

This type of COVID rhetoric had helped the former University of California-Los Angeles associate professor catch the eye of the Florida governor with big political ambitions.

Since his appointment as Surgeon General in September 2021, Ladapo, 44, has made a reputation for himself as a prominent DeSantis ally for his stance against the COVID vaccine, masks, other pandemic containment measures, and gender-affirming care for transgender children.

“He’s one of the folks who has been with me battling Dr. Fauci for many years,” DeSantis said Thursday when introducing Ladapo to a cheering crowd at a news briefing where he signed three new health care bills, including one giving providers a right to deny patient services based on beliefs. The battle reference was to former U.S. Chief Medical Advisor Anthony Fauci, who served under Presidents Trump and Biden during the height of the COVID pandemic.

To examine Ladapo’s transformation from a doctor dedicated to noncontroversial research into an outspoken doubter of mainstream COVID-19 science, the South Florida Sun Sentinel and Orlando Sentinel interviewed 14 medical and research professionals throughout the state, including faculty members at the University of Florida; analyzed hundreds of pages of public records from UCLA, the Florida Department of Health, and UF; and reviewed dozens of op-eds and hundreds of social media posts by Ladapo.

His evolution placed him in a position of power that peers say came at the cost of the respect of many in the academic and medical communities. He now takes home a salary of about a half-million dollars annually, including what he earns from UF where he works as a professor in addition to his income as the state’s surgeon general.

Ladapo’s contract with UF requires him to spend 80% of his time in research and 20% of his time teaching at the school. But records show Ladapo has presented only two guest lectures, and official calendars reveal limited evidence of other work at UF during his 20-month tenure.

Not only is he not fulfilling his stated duties at UF, he’s facing a serious accusation of data manipulation from fellow health academics and researchers, and his colleagues say other professors would have faced termination if they had faced the same complaint. The University of Florida is not currently investigating these claims.

Five faculty members who asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation said Ladapo’s UF colleagues are wary of collaborating with him. “They don’t want to work with him,” one said.

Ladapo did not respond to multiple interview requests nor an emailed list of questions from the South Florida Sun Sentinel and Orlando Sentinel.

While his UF peers keep a distance, Florida’s Republican lawmakers sang his praises earlier this month.

Related Articles

Florida Senate confirms Surgeon General Ladapo’s reappointment}:

Ladapo ‘cherry-picking’ studies to back no COVID vaccines for kids, researchers say

Experts express confusion, concern as Surgeon General Ladapo begins new COVID-19 study }:

Ladapo was confirmed for another year as the state’s top public health official on May 4 with a 27-12 Florida Senate vote along party lines.

“Thank you for pulling back the curtain and showing us some of the data that public health officials not only knew existed but refused to give us over these past few years,” Jonathan Martin, a Republican senator representing Fort Myers, told Ladapo in front of other lawmakers.

Sen. Tina Polsky, a cancer survivor who had clashed with Ladapo in 2021 when he refused to wear a mask while meeting with her, accused him of causing harm in his role as Surgeon General, a claim some Florida parents have made, too.

She unsuccessfully implored her fellow lawmakers on the state committee on ethics and elections to remove him as Florida’s surgeon general.

“Since he has been in that position, I don’t feel like he’s done anything to help our health,” said Polsky, a Democrat representing parts of Broward and Palm Beach counties. “The child immunization rate is down. His focus on COVID is very dangerous. I think he is unfit for that position. He is a dangerous leader and he is hurting the health of Floridians.”

Scientists such as Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist and the Glenn Swogger Distinguished Fellow at the American Council on Science and Health, say the surgeon general has engaged in “professional misconduct that has harmed the citizens of Florida.” Miller believes Ladapo’s role as a UF professor could be his last.

“I think he will have great difficulty being hired by another university after this gig is over,” said Miller....

forgot TASSC Milloy founder w/ Gough CEI

Founding member scientists

---

2x?

Using USA Today as an outlet

In February 2017, two dozen health, environmental, labor and public interest groups wrote to the editors of USA Today with concerns that the paper regularly publishes science columns authored by ACSH staff, including Campbell, without disclosing ACSH’s funding from multiple corporate interests. ACSH Vice President of Scientific Affairs Alex Berezow, who co-authored Campbell’s 2012 book, remains on the USA Today Board of Contributors buthis biothere does not disclose his leadership staff position at ACSH.

Related:

---

ref 1

no lnx pix

FEBRUARY 2, 2018

Newsweek and USA Today Need Standards for Opinion Writers

STACY MALKAN

Newsweek: The Campaign for Organic Foods Is a Deceitful, Expensive Scam

Why are Newsweek and USA Today so willing to let special interests mislead their readers? Clear standards are needed for disclosing conflicts of interest.

Facts don’t matter in commentaries printed by Newsweek, so long as the writer “seems genuine.” That’s the takeaway from a troubling email exchange with Newsweek opinion editor Nicholas Wapshott in response to concerns and questions I raised about a recent commentary attacking the organic industry.

Newsweek: The Campaign for Organic Food Is a Deceitful, Expensive Scam [trump pix?]

This Newsweek article (1/19/18) doesn’t mention that its author has been exposed as putting his name on Monsanto-written articles—but it does spend several paragraphs attacking the reporter who exposed him.

The organic hit piece in Newsweek (1/19/18) carried the byline of Henry I. Miller, who lost his platform at Forbes last year after the New York Times (8/1/17) revealed that Miller had published an article in Forbes under his own name that was actually written by Monsanto.

In his recent Newsweek article, Miller spent several paragraphs attacking Danny Hakim, the New York Times reporter who revealed that ghostwriting scandal; but Miller didn’t disclose to readers either the scandal or his collaborations with Monsanto.

Yet Monsanto’s fingerprints were all over Miller’s Newsweek article, as I reported (US Right to Know, 1/23/18). Miller used pesticide industry sources to make false claims about organic farming, and attacked people who were named on a target list that had been developed by Monsanto and Jay Byrne, Monsanto’s former director of corporate communications, who was quoted in Miller’s piece with no mention of the Monsanto affiliation.

None of this appears to bother Newsweek opinion editor Nicholas Wapshott, according to an on-the-record email exchange.

Miller ‘Flatly Denies’ Facts

On January 22, I emailed Wapshott to raise concerns that Newsweek continues to publish Miller’s commentaries without disclosing his relationship with Monsanto, and asked if he was aware that:

1) The New York Times reported in August that Miller had been caught publishing an article ghostwritten by Monsanto under his own name in Forbes, in violation of Forbes’ policy. Forbes ended its relationship with Miller and deleted all his articles from the site.

2) A 2015 internal Monsanto PR plan (recently released by lawyers involved in litigation against Monsanto) lists “Engage Henry Miller” as one of its first action items.

3) A source Miller used in his Newsweek article, Jay Byrne, is a former Monsanto employee (not identified as such). According to emails I reported here, Byrne worked with Monsanto to set up a front group of “independent” academics, secretly funded by industry, who attacked the organic industry as a “marketing scam,” the same theme in Miller’s Newsweek article.

4) Miller has a long history of partnering with—and pitching his PR services to—corporations that need help convincing the public their products aren’t dangerous and don’t need to be regulated.

Wapshott responded, “Hi Stacy, I understand that you and Miller have a long history of dispute on this topic. He flatly denies your assertions. Nicholas”

Henry I. Miller: “He seems genuine.”

I wrote back to ask for clarification.

Hi Nicholas, to clarify:

Miller denies he published a column ghostwritten by Monsanto under his own name in Forbes and that Forbes has since deleted all his articles? (NYT story,Retraction Watch story)

Miller denies the Monsanto’s PR plan to address the IARC cancer rating of glyphosate lists “Engage Henry Miller” on page 2, item 3?

Miller denies that Jay Byrne, the former Monsanto employee not identified as such in his Newsweek article, was involved with setting up Academics Review as a front group? (Byrne has not denied writing theseemails.)

Miller and I have disagreed yes, we were on opposite sides of a political campaign to label GMOs, but the above facts are facts, and provable. Do you think it’s fair to your readers to continue to publish his work without disclosing his ties to Monsanto?

Wapshott responded, “I think so. I have met Miller and he seems genuine. And I find it hard to believe that his flat denial is a lie. We would need a full trial to determine the truth and those resources are, thank goodness, beyond our means.”

Jumbled Mix of Conflict Disclosures

I wrote back to Wapshott once more, pointing out that a trial is not necessary in the Miller case, since the facts have been established by reporting in the New York Times and corroborated by Forbes’ spokesperson Mia Carbonell, who told the Times:

All contributors to Forbes.com sign a contract requiring them to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and only publish content that is their own original writing. When it came to our attention that Mr. Miller violated these terms, we removed his blog from Forbes.com and ended our relationship with him.

Does Newsweek have a similar policy to require writers to disclose potential conflicts of interest and use only their own writing?

Newsweek editors have yet to respond to my query about disclosure policies. But the problem of weak, confused or non-existent conflict-of-interest disclosures is widespread in the media.

For a 2015 article in CJR (11/23/15), Paul Thacker asked 18 media organizations that cover science to describe their disclosure standards for both journalists and the sources they use in their stories, and 14 responded.

“The responses present a jumbled mix of policies,” Thacker wrote.

Some draw a bright line—preventing journalists from having financial ties to any outside sources. Others allow some expenses and speaking fees. To complicate matters further, some organizations have written rules, while others consider incidents on a case-by-case basis. Standards advocated by professional societies also seem to differ.

Tamar Haspel (Photo: Gretchen Ertl/Washington Post)

Washington Post food columnist Tamar Haspel is allowed to take money from agribusiness groups, because she’s not a “reporter.” (Photo: Gretchen Ertl/Washington Post)

Some outlets apply different standards to reporters and columnists, as I learned when I asked why Washington Post food columnist Tamar Haspel can take speaking fees from agrichemical industry groups while writing about that industry as part of her regular column beat (FAIR.org, 10/28/15). Reporters at Washington Post aren’t allowed to do that, but in the case of columnists, the editor decides.

It’s all very murky. And some outlets are clearly crossing a bright line by publishing the views of groups and people who work with corporations to promote pro-industry science views without telling readers about the corporate collaboration.

Henry Miller’s attack on organic food in Newsweek is one example. Another is USA Today’s regular publication of science columns from the American Council on Science and Health, a front group for the tobacco, chemical, fossil fuel, pharmaceutical and other industries seeking to discredit scientific information about the harm of their products.

USA Today Lends Platform to Corporate Front Group

In February 2017, two dozen health, environmental, labor and public interest groups wrote to the editors of USA Today asking the paper to stop publishing science columns by the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), or at least provide full disclosures about who funds the group.

Leaked financial documents reveal that ACSH solicits money from corporations to defend and promote their products; for example, ACSH spins science on fracking, e-cigarettes, toxic cosmetics and agrichemical industry products, and solicits funding from those industries in exchange. Recent reporting establishes that ACSH works with Monsanto on messaging campaigns.

“USA Today should not be helping this group promote its false identity as a credible, independent source on science,” the two dozen groups wrote to the editors. “Your readers deserve accurate information about what and whom this group represents, as they reflect on the content of the columns.”

USA Today: Call junk science by its rightful name: Fake news

An ironic headline (USA Today, 7/21/18) for a piece written by a representative of a corporate front group.

Nearly a year later, USA Today is still publishing columns by ACSH staff and still failing to notify its readers about ACSH’s funding from corporations whose agenda they promote.

In an email response dated March 1, 2017, USA Today editorial page editor Bill Sternberg explained:

To the best of our knowledge, all of the columns in question were authored or co-authored by Alex Berezow, a longtime member of USA Today’s Board of Contributors. Mr. Berezow has written some 25 op-eds for us since 2011, and we consider him to be a credible voice on scientific issues. He holds a PhD in microbiology from the University of Washington, was the founding editor of RealClearScience and has contributed to a number of mainstream outlets.

Berezow is now a senior fellow at ACSH, and his “@USAToday contributor” status appears in his bio on Twitter, where he frequently attacks critics of the pesticide industry, for example in this recent vile tweet featuring a sexually graphic illustration of a nurse giving a patient a coffee enema.

Does USA Today really want to be associated with this type of science communication?

Integrity and Transparency in Science Reporting

News outlets can do better than these examples at Newsweek and USA Today, and they must do better. They can start by refusing to publish columns by corporate front groups and PR surrogates who pose as independent science thinkers.

They can implement clear and strong policies that require all columnists and journalists to disclose potential conflicts of interest for themselves and the sources they cite in their work.

At a time when the public is questioning the legitimacy of the news media, it is more important than ever for all publications to follow the highest standards of journalistic ethics and serve the public with as much truth and transparency as possible.

This article originally appeared on the website of US Right to Know (1/31/18), where Stacy Malkanis co-founder and co-director.

===

---

https://dailycaller.com/2018/07/19/how-russia-and-ngos-collude-to-damage-american-exceptionalism/

no lnx many graf

OPINION

HENRY I. MILLER AND JON ENTINE

PROFESSOR, DIRECTOR OF THE GENETIC LITERACY PROJECT

July 19, 2018

Modern genetic engineering techniques applied to agriculture are making stunning advances. This year, after decades in (gratuitous) regulatory limbo, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Health Canada and Food Standards Australia New Zealand gave the green light to domestic import and consumption of Golden Rice, which has been genetically modified to produce provitamin-A.

Every year, about half a million children become blind as a result of Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) and 70 percent die within a year of losing their sight. In developing countries, 200 — 300 million children of preschool age are at risk of VAD, which increases their susceptibility to infections such as measles and diarrheal diseases.

Yet this revolutionary rice, now being grown in test plots in many countries, has still not been greenlighted for public consumption in the two countries where it would do the most good: Bangladesh and the Philippines.

How could that be? No serious concerns have ever been raised about its safety, and human feeding trials in China have shown that Golden Rice can prevent this scourge. The reason is the strident, relentless opposition from anti-biotechnology non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Greenpeace in particular, that regard any genetic engineering success as a kind of Trojan Horse that could sway public opinion.

Golden Riceis one of many humanitarian breakthroughs being developed by universities and developing countries that remain stalled, including disease-resistant bananas and cassava; climate-adaptive plants; and new corn varieties that are more efficient at photosynthesis, able to fix carbon from atmospheric CO2 and convert it into sugar. The last of these advances reportedly results in a mid-single-digit or higher percentage increase in yield, which would be an extraordinary advance, especially in less-developed countries where corn is a subsistence crop.

There’s an old saying that no good deed goes unpunished, and the anti-genetic engineering machine, largely funded by the organic and natural products industries, continues to hum along, attacking not only companies that produce breakthroughs but also academics and ordinary citizens who preach the kind of science-driven public policy that will promote more advances.

That paid advocacy is particularly vile because it has taken such a personal turn—viciously assailing not only the technology but the scientists and science communicators who advocate for a level playing field that asks only that the technology be allowed to succeed or fail on its merits in the farm and food marketplace.

These activists regularly trot out a litany of false accusations about their targets, with university professors as frequent victims. The most notorious of these “hit groups” is U.S. Right to Know, or USRTK, which pretends to be part of a grassroots movement, but is actually mostly funded by the pernicious Organic Consumers Association. OCA is not a mainstream organic trade group but a rump organization of science deniers known for their rejection of medical vaccines (They cause autism!), support for homeopathy and believing that Zika virus outbreaks are a conspiracy perpetrated by the world’s chemical companies.

USRTK has filed harassing Freedom of Information requests for emails and documents of at least a hundred public university faculty and staff members, hoping to find snippets which, when cherry-picked from hundreds of thousands of emails and taken out-of-context, might imply conflicts of interest. Their efforts to undermine scientists and public policy scholars whose work threatens organic agriculture—as genetic engineering continually widens the already-large productivity gap between conventional and organic practices–follow a familiar pattern.

In the words of University of Florida plant biologist Kevin Folta, who has been excoriated repeatedly by USRTK for supposedly being a Monsanto sock puppet, the activists “develop a narrative that suggests industry collusion or undue influence, especially with any attempt to connect the faculty member to Monsanto, a company that is the bogeyman favorite of activists.” Professor Folta’s supposedly “egregious” pay-for-play violation: His university accepted $25,000, since returned, to help cover costs on an outreach project on genetic engineering.

USRTK has also targeted scientists in Canada, which has similar freedom-of-information laws. One prominent victim there was Peter Phillips, Distinguished Professor of Public Policy at the University of Saskatchewan, whose alleged sin was (surprise!) too close a relationship with Monsanto and allowing the company to influence what he said and wrote. The evidence? None.

Exposing emails to scrutiny may seem harmless or even important to protect the public’s right to have information. But even liberal advocacy groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists have weighed in with their opinion that it’s a tool easily abused, resulting in suppression of the free exchange of ideas through intimidation. Consider that every page of the millions of every email requested by USRTK must be examined by attorneys to ascertain whether they are releasable. Professor Folta estimates that the USRTK fishing expedition may have cost his university as much as a million dollars of taxpayers’ money.

Other eminent academics, such as University of Illinois Professor (Emeritus) Bruce Chassyand University of Oklahoma Law Professor (Emeritus) Drew Kershen and investigative science writer and Genetic Literacy Project founder Jon Entine, co-author of this piece, have also been targeted. Folta, Entine and public supporters of agricultural biotechnology such as Neal de Grasse Tyson, Bill Nye and Bill Gates have also been victimized with misleading hatchet-job “profiles” by USRTK and natural-product wackos like Mike Adams, founder of Natural News.

Dr. Henry Miller, co-author of this article, has been on the USRTK hit-list since he emerged as a prominent opponent of an unscientific, unwise and probably unconstitutional 2012 California referendum issue that would have required labeling of genetically engineered food. USRTK were proponents of the measure. Paid pro-referendum activists lied effusively about him in the campaign, and some of their more flagrant falsehoods were regurgitated by the New York Times’ food columnist, Mark Bittman, apparently without any fact-checking.

Dr. Miller’s most controversial transgression, according to USRTK? Fast forward to 2015, when a U.N.-based agency erroneously categorized glyphosate (a generic herbicide which Monsanto markets as Roundup) as a “probable carcinogen.” Although Monsanto and Dr. Miller had a long history of mutual antagonism (see this and this, for example), a scientist acquaintance at the company emailed him and asked if that was something he might write about. He responded that although it was a worthy subject he was overwhelmed with various projects but that they should send him a “high-quality draft.” It was a poor choice of words by which he meant background material – other government agencies’ evaluations and scientific studies, as well as the company’s view of the decision. Eventually, Monsanto sent all of that.

When those emails were later released as part of a lawsuit in 2017, a New York Times reporter whom Dr. Miller (along with many in the scientific community) had criticized repeatedly for biased and inaccurate reporting, implied in an article that the op-ed that resulted from the exchange was “ghostwritten.”

The Times article was incomplete and misleading. In a phone conversation – which, of course, is not reflected in the emails – Dr. Miller had told a Monsanto staffer exactly what arguments and points he wanted to make, and his acquaintance sent back a rough draft that consisted almost entirely of what had been outlined. Dr. Miller then modified it and published it as an op-ed. In the end, the ideas, opinions and words were his own. Moreover, the article was in every respect accurate and, for once, reflected the views of both the academic community and industry.

The University of Florida’s Kevin Folta has characterized the activists’ goal as leaving “these trusted professors, dietitians and physicians ‘Google Dead’ — a state where their online reputation will always drag the anchor of activist derision.” He describes how these character-assassination campaigns work:

In the case of [University of Saskatchewan Professor] Phillips, US-RTK acquired emails and used Jason Warick from CBC News as a complicit pipeline to media. This way it is not simply [USRTK co-director] Gary Ruskin and his band of industry-financed lackeys slandering scientists on activist websites. Instead, it takes [on] the patina of legitimate research, hard-core gumshoe reporting. It really is a reporter doing the bidding of US-RTK, who is doing the bidding of a handful of organizations, companies, and undisclosed donors paying for the hit.

USRTK and its fellow travelers are not only going after academics and science journalists. One of the most unlikely and undeserving targets is Stephan Neidenbach, a Maryland middle-school teacher and science communicator who blogs about science and technology. The trolls and character assassins tried unsuccessfully to get him fired and conducted a campaign of harassment and intimidation against him. Read his chilling account here. Here is some of the online smear campaign:

The character-assassination campaigns present an exquisite irony: USRTK and its ilk accuse their targets of being shills – paid agents of the agribusiness industry who have a conflict of interest—but it is they who are the shills, bought and paid for by the organic and “natural products” industries.

Many of these NGOs are paid by extremist supporters of organic farming and even some mainstream companies and executives, such as Gary Hirshberg, chairman of Stonyfield Organic and founder of Just Label It, an activist group notorious for spreading misinformation about conventional—that is, non-organic—agriculture.

And in an odd and disturbing irony, many anti-biotechnology “green groups” have palpable links to Russia’s prodigious propaganda machine, as two researchers at Iowa State University have shown. Russian state news organizations, mainly Russia Today (RT) and Sputnik, were the sources of more than half of all 2016 stories using the term “GMO,” with RT producing 34 percent of articles and Sputnik 19 percent. Who promoted these Russian propaganda outbursts most aggressively? USRTK, of course.

Gary Ruskin

@garyruskin

#Monsanto accused of hiring army of trolls to silence online dissent – court papers.  http://bit.ly/2quAeq1  Via @RT_com

In addition, Organic Consumers Association head Ronnie Cummins has appeared on RT to spread his anti-genetic engineering message.

What’s the benefit for Russia? Moscow is trying to position itself as a major non-genetic engineering agricultural supplier, so demonizing U.S.-dominated advances in agriculture and associating them with MonSatan and imaginary hazards of genetic engineering directly serves their interests—and undermines American farming and farmers.

The Russians are not amateurs at this. According to April Glaser, who writes on technology for Slate, “The Internet Research Agency is based in St. Petersburg, Russia, and has been at work since at least 2013 churning out memes, YouTube videos, Facebook posts, and Twitter accounts; pretending to be activist groups; and even organizing grassroots events in an attempt to sway with political campaigns and conversations around the world.”

Worst of all, the fake-news-based disinformation campaigns, many with Russian links and launched on issues from agricultural chemicals and genetic engineering to nuclear energy and fracking, erode the ability of the public to judge what is true and what is not with respect to complex public policy issues. And it is distressing for those of us being attacked, to say nothing of our friends and families.

Henry Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He was the founding director of the Office of Biotechnology at the FDA. Please follow him on Twitter at @henryimiller. Jon Entine, founder and executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project, is an Emmy-winning investigative reporter, former TV news producer and author of seven books, including three on genetics. Please follow him on Twitter at @JonEntine.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller.

==

==

ref he claims prov ~ monsanto

lords of harvest bk, very short para on time t FDA

https://books.google.com/books?id=5QWfw--CGF8C

---

https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt0299_113?foxtrotcallback=true

The real curse of Frankenfood

Nature Biotechnologyvolume 17, page113 (1999)

---

==

https://science.house.gov//imo/media/doc/02.06.18%20-%20Spinning%20Science%20and%20Silencing%20Scientists_0.pdf?1

2/18 house

key Players. The individuals listed below are some of the key players mentioned in the internal Monsanto emails and records cited in this report. Brief descriptions of their affiliation with Monsanto and their activities surrounding glyphosate are summarized below.  John Acquavella: Former Monsanto Company Scientist, Paid Monsanto Consultant. Currently works as a Consultant/Professor Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University.  Bruce Chassy: Professor Emeritus at the University of Illinois Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition and Monsanto grant recipient. Chassy helped organize writing campaigns to scientific journals criticizing studies on glyphosate at Monsanto’s request and runs a nonprofit called Academics Review that Monsanto reportedly helped to establish to provide an “independent” voice supporting glyphosate and other issues of interest to Monsanto.  Donna R. Farmer: Monsanto’s lead toxicologist and a Monsanto employee since 1991.  A. Wallace (“Wally”) Hayes: Former Editor-in-Chief for Vision and Strategy at Food and Chemical Toxicology journal, which, during his tenure, published and retracted the Seralini rat study. Reportedly was paid $16,000 by Monsanto in a consulting contract.  William F. Heydens: Currently Monsanto’s Product Safety Assessment Strategy Lead.  Larry Kier: Former Monsanto toxicologist. Authored, “Review of genotoxicity studies of glyphosate and glyphosate-based formulations,” which found glyphosate posed no risk to humans.  David J. Kirkland: Monsanto contractor who was a co-author with Larry Kier on the study “Review of genotoxicity studies of glyphosate and glyphosate-based formulations.” 

Henry Miller: Stanford Hoover Institution fellow and former contributor to Forbes. In 2015, Miller published a Forbes article critical of IARC that was solicited–and largely ghostwritten –by Monsanto. Forbes cut ties with Miller and retracted his articles when they discovered his failure to disclose ties with Monsanto.  

Dr. James Parry was a Geneticist at Swansea University in the United Kingdom who was hired by Monsanto in 1999 to evaluate the genotoxicity of glyphosate. Monsanto refused to conduct additional tests at his request and attempted to “move him from his position.”  Eric Sachs: Monsanto Science and Policy lead since 2005; botanist and plant geneticist.  David A. Saltmiras: Former Monsanto Company Toxicology Manager and author on the socalled Greim Study that refuted animal data indicating glyphosate’s carcinogenicity.  Gilles-Éric Séralini. French molecular biologist who conducted a study that found rats fed glyphosate-tolerant corn treated with Roundup had an increased risk of developing tumors. The study, published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, was retracted by journal editor and Monsanto contractor A. Wallace Hayes.

...

By February 2015, a battle plan to confront what they suspected would be bad news for glyphosate was already underway.6 “We should assume and prepare for the outcome of a 2B rating (possible human carcinogen); a 2A rating (probable human carcinogen) is possible but less likely.” Glyphosate received the 2A rating by IARC. According to several key records unsealed in the multi-district litigation against Monsanto, including the company’s “Preparedness and Engagement Plan for IARC Carcinogen Rating of Glyphosate,” dated February 17, 2015, Monsanto was ready for a fullborne defense of glyphosate when IARC released its Monograph on glyphosate in March 2015.7 The Monsanto attack plan included efforts to “amplify” their message that glyphosate was safe pointing to industry-sponsored studies and industry-placed news stories. They sought to generate industry “outrage” over what they thought would be a 2B rating. They had plans to address these “new allegations” regarding the potential hazard of glyphosate and to “neutralize” the impact.

They also sought to “amplify” the “positive” message about glyphosate’s safety via social media platforms including Twitter and Facebook. They turned to industry trade groups, such as CropLife and industry front groups, such as Genetic Literacy Project and Academics Review as platforms of support for industry spokespersons. They also sought third-party experts to “blog, op/ed, tweet and/or link, repost, retweet, etc.” They were planning an onslaught of actions to help undermine IARC and to embolden their justifications to dismiss IARC’s scientific findings. They have carried out that battle plan in a consistent and very aggressive manner ever since. Separately from Monsanto’s attacks on IARC they have also tried to wield their influence at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as well. In some instances, they have objected to key scientists sitting on EPA science panels reviewing glyphosate’s safety. There have also been questions about other tactics. In May 2017 the EPA’s Office of Inspector General opened “an investigation into reports that an EPA employee may have colluded with Monsanto to conduct a biased review of glyphosate,” according to the IG’s letter announcing the investigation.8 

Hiring journalists to discredit IARC.

In Monsanto’s effort to discredit IARC, they sought to recruit writers to publish pieces echoing their criticisms of IARC’s process. In February 2015, one month before IARC published their glyphosate monograph that found glyphosate to be a “probable human carcinogen,” Monsanto scientist Eric Sachs reached out to Henry Miller, a Forbes contributor and a Medical Doctor and Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University’s Hoover Institute, a conservative think tank. Sachs prompted Miller on the desired content of the article, writing, “Ideally, your article would precede the IARC decision. Why not set the table with the weight of scientific evidence before IARC convenes? Then, regardless of what they do, your article will set the state for a science-based response.”18 Miller agreed – and, after a follow-up email, requested a “high quality draft” from Monsanto. 19

Officials at the company quickly got to work and provided Miller with a draft that was posted on the Forbes website largely unchanged. The article was published onMarch 17, 2015, with the title: “March Madness from the United Nations.”20 When this ghostwriting was discovered, Miller was fired by Forbes. In a statement to Retraction Watch, a Forbes representative said: “All contributors to Forbes.com sign a contract requiring them to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and only publish content that is their own original writing. When it came to our attention that Mr. Miller violated these terms, we removed all of his posts from Forbes.com and ended our relationship with him.”21 ...

==

---

http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-henry-miller-on-gmos/

Henry I. Miller is perhaps the most prolific and best-known apologist for genetically engineered food and crops. He is the “the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at the Hoover Institution.”[[1]](http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-henry-miller-on-gmos/#_ftn1) He was the founding director of the FDA’s Office of Biotechnology. He has written numerous articles and op-eds in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Forbes and other news outlets in support of genetically engineered food, and against the labeling of it.[[2]](http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-henry-miller-on-gmos/#_ftn2) He was even featured in TV advertisements against Proposition 37, a ballot initiative for labeling of genetically engineered food in the State of California.[[3]](http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-henry-miller-on-gmos/#_ftn3)

Miller’s bio on the Forbes website proclaims: “I debunk junk science and flawed public policy.”[[4]](http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-henry-miller-on-gmos/#_ftn4) However, during the course of his life, Miller himself has often presented an agile defense of junk science and flawed public policy.

Defending the tobacco industry

Denying climate change

Defending the pesticide industry

Defending exposure to radiation from nuclear power plants

Defending the plastics industry

Henry Miller’s other activities

Excerpted from Seedy Business: What Big Food is Hiding With Its Slick PR Campaign on GMOs

Sources

[[1]](http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-henry-miller-on-gmos/#_ftnref1) Hoover Institution, Henry Miller bio.

[[2]](http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-henry-miller-on-gmos/#_ftnref2) See, for example, Jayson Lusk and Henry I. Miller, “We Need G.M.O. Wheat.” New York Times, February 2, 2014. Henry I. Miller and Gregory Conko, “General Mills Has a Soggy Idea for Cheerios.” Wall Street Journal, January 20, 2014. Henry I. Miller, “India’s GM Food Hypocrisy.” Wall Street Journal, November 28, 2012. Henry I. Miller, “Organic Farming Is Not Sustainable.” Wall Street Journal, May 15, 2014. Henry I. Miller, “More Crop for the Drop.” Project Syndicate, August 7, 2014. Henry Miller, “California’s Anti-GMO Hysteria.” National Review, March 31, 2014. Henry I. Miller, “Genetic Engineering and the Fight Against Ebola.” Wall Street Journal, August 25, 2014. Henry I. Miller, “Salmon Label Bill Should Be Thrown Back.” Orange County Register, April 4, 2011. Henry I. Miller, “GE Labels Mean Higher Costs.” San Francisco Chronicle, September 7, 2012. Gregory Conko and Henry Miller, “Labeling Of Genetically Engineered Foods Is a Losing Proposition.” Forbes, September 12, 2012. Gregory Conko and Henry I. Miller, “A Losing Proposition on Food Labeling.” Orange County Register, October 11, 2012. Henry I. Miller and Bruce Chassy, “Scientists Smell A Rat In Fraudulent Genetic Engineering Study.” Forbes, September 25, 2012. Jay Byrne and Henry I. Miller, “The Roots of the Anti-Genetic Engineering Movement? Follow the Money!” Forbes, October 22, 2012.

[[3]](http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-henry-miller-on-gmos/#_ftnref3) See, for example, Marc Lifsher, “TV Ad Against Food Labeling Initiative Proposition 37 Is Pulled.” Los Angeles Times, October 4, 2012. Eric Van Susteren, “Stanford Demands Anti-Prop. 37 Ad Be Changed.” Palo Alto Weekly, October 17, 2012.

[[4]](http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-henry-miller-on-gmos/#_ftnref4) Forbes, Henry Miller bio and articles page.

[[5]](http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-henry-miller-on-gmos/#_ftnref5) Memorandum from Tom Hockaday and Neal Cohen of Apco Associates Inc. to Matt Winokur, “Thoughts on TASSC Europe.” March 25, 1994. Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, University of California, San Francisco. Bates No. 2024233595-2024233602.

[[6]](http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-henry-miller-on-gmos/#_ftnref6) Henry I. Miller and Jeff Stier, “The Cigarette Smokescreen.” Defining Ideas, March 21, 2012.

[[7]](http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-henry-miller-on-gmos/#_ftnref7) Competitive Enterprise Institute, Henry Miller bio.

[[8]](http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-henry-miller-on-gmos/#_ftnref8) See, for example, the profile of the George C. Marshall Institute in DeSmogBlog.

[[9]](http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-henry-miller-on-gmos/#_ftnref9) Henry I. Miller, “Why the Buzz About a Bee-pocalypse Is a Honey Trap.” Wall Street Journal, July 22, 2014.

[[10]](http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-henry-miller-on-gmos/#_ftnref10) Henry I. Miller, “Re-Booting DDT.” Project Syndicate, May 5, 2010. Henry I. Miller, “Rachel Carson’s Deadly Fantasies.” Forbes, September 5, 2012.

[[11]](http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-henry-miller-on-gmos/#_ftnref11) Henry I. Miller, “Can Tiny Amounts Of Poison Actually Be Good For You?” Forbes, December 21, 2011.

[[12]](http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-henry-miller-on-gmos/#_ftnref12) Henry I. Miller, “Can Radiation Be Good For You?” Project Syndicate, April 8, 2011.

[[13]](http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-henry-miller-on-gmos/#_ftnref13) Henry I. Miller, “BPA Is A-OK, Says FDA.” Forbes, March 12, 2014.

[[14]](http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-henry-miller-on-gmos/#_ftnref14) “The Buzz About a Bee-pocalyse Is a Honey Trap.” American Council on Science and Health, July 23, 2014.

 Hall of Shame

---

Our Investigations, Pesticides   American Chemistry Council, American Council on Science and Health, APCO Associates, Bruce Chassy, Charles Koch Foundation, DDT, Donors Trust, Eric Sachs, Exxon Mobile, George C. Marshall Institute, ghostwriting, Gregory Conko, Henry I. Miller, Hoover Institution, Jayson Lusk, Julie Kelly, Kavin Senapathy, Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Monsanto, Sarah Scaife Foundation, Searle Freedom Trust, tobacco industry

==

Although Byrne appeared to be the campaign's chief architect, its principal conduit was the lobby group AgBioWorld, overseen by the GM scientist CS Prakash.  The "ipetition"on Seralini contains no information as to who sponsored it, but its first signatory is CS Prakash. Prakash also seems to have set up an earlier more primitive version of the petition, which clearly identifies him as its sponsor. 

Some time after GMWatch flagged upthe likely role of Prakash and AgBioWorld in the ipetition, the organisation acknowledged its authorship in a press releasewhich asserted that "the petitioning scientists are calling on the publishing journal editors to retract the Seralini study" if he failed to give in to their demand that he hand over all his data. 

The AgBioWorld press release contained a quote by Bruce Chassy, who was also the first signatory of the earlier Seralini petition. Chassy was alsothe co-author of the Forbes pieceaccusing Seralini of fraud. 

The article's other author was Henry Miller, a darling of the rightwing press who operates out of the Hoover Institution, among other industry backed lobby groups. Miller, like Chassy, has long been associated with Prakash's AgBioWorld. Miller recently co-authored another vitriolic piece on GM for Forbes, denouncing the "fear profiteers" of the anti-GM "protest industry".Miller's co-author on that occasion was none other than former Monsanto PR boss Jay Byrne of v-Fluence. Tellingly,Michael Pollan, the renowned New York Times food writer and professor of journalism at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, described the piece by Byrne and Miller as a breathtaking example of "the Big Lie".

==

==

Ammann  co author prakash

http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Klaus_Ammann

==

On GMOs, New York Times foodie Mark Bittman is a dark cloud in the brightening sky of reason | Genetic Literacy Project 3/4

Bittman’s views on mandatory labeling are self­destructive and annoying. More consequential, and even dangerous, is his eagerness to spread the central myths about genetically engineered foods—that GE foods remain relatively untested and have not proven to be “beneficial to society at large.” He floated these standard stump speech themes once again in a recent disingenuous diatribe in the Times: It’s smart to prudently explore the possible benefits and uses of genetically engineered materials in agriculture, and to deploy them if and when they’re proven to be a) safe (otherwise, no) and b) beneficial to society at large (otherwise, why bother?). I don’t believe that any G.E. materials have so far been proven to be either of these things, and therefore we should proceed cautiously. … Genetic engineering, or, more properly, transgenic engineering – in which a gene, usually from another species of plant, bacterium or animal, is inserted into a plant in the hope of positively changing its nature – has been disappointing. What parallel universe does Bittman inhabit? As Henry Miller noted in Forbes.com, because GE crops require less chemical pesticide, from 1996 to 2010, the amount of pesticide that was sprayed on crops worldwide fell by an estimated 443 million kilograms – 1.5 times the total amount of pesticide applied annually to crops in the European Union.

:{Moreover, GE crops’ higher yields and lower production costs have reduced global commodity prices (corn, soybeans, and derivatives), resulting in higher farm income, enhanced supplies of food and feed products, and more readily available high­quality calories. Like a climate­denying archconservative, Bittman and hasn’t altered his views for years even as science has long since passed him by. :{As Keith Kloor, one of the world’s sharpest commentators on the politics of agricultural biotechnology journalism, }:recently noted in a response to Bittman’s latest, he couches his nutty views in reasonable­sounding verbiage that disguises the reality that his opinions are almost fact­ and science­free. “Bittman’s entire piece is disingenuous artistry,” Kloor wrote. “He starts off by saying: ‘Genetic engineering in agriculture has disappointed many people who once had hopes for it.’ Really? Who are these people?” Kloor responded with a quote from professor Ronald, one of the world’s leading advocates of sustainable agriculture. “After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops,” she is quoted as writing, citing an NRC study.

In fact, even theFrench Supreme Court threw out France’s banon a GMO because the government couldn’t produce any credible evidence that GMOs were a threat to the environment or human health. There have been hundreds of independent medical studies on the health and safety of genetically modified foods. The World Health Organization, the National Academy of Sciences, the European Commission and many other groups—these are science based groups, not gourmands—have reached the identical determination that foods made using GM 12/21/2015 On GMOs, New York Times foodie Mark Bittman is a dark cloud in the brightening sky of reason | Genetic Literacy Project 4/4 ingredients are safe and “substantially equivalent” to conventional alternatives. Last fall, facing down intense pressure from the “antis”, the American Medical Association reaffirmed its prior statement that “there is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods.” Added Kloor: “I think if Bittman bothered to talk to someone like Ronald, he’d learn that it is scientists who are disappointed that that the demonization of biotech by activists has been so successful.

Their toxic rhetoric and campaigning has poisoned the well, which Bittman continues to drink from. And that disappoints many people who perhaps had high hopes that he would elevate the GMO dialogue. Instead, he continues to muddy it. What a shame.” Stanford’s Miller, who otherwise shares few political views with Kloor, was equally disgusted at Bittman. “He and other cynical, anti­social activists who have opposed and obstructed agbiotech relentlessly for years now have the gall to complain about the hype and over­selling of its benefits — rather like the teenager convicted of murdering his parents who pleads for mercy from the judge because he’s an orphan.” Bittman and his ilk may score points at foodie dinner parties, but increasingly they are becoming the butt of jokes in science circles. Even worse, their shrill but influential voices are making it increasingly challenging for federal and state regulatory agencies to follow the science when it comes to promoting good nutrition and public health.}:

==

:{:{What drives the critics? Financial or professional ties to the biotech industry don't seem to be the impetus. Such ties do exist — like many people researching biotech crops, some have received research grants from industry or have other interactions with it — but in interviews they say that these are not the major driving force. Rather, many of them feel strongly that transgenic crops are safe and beneficial to the environment and society, and that the image and regulation of these crops has been too harsh. Many of the critics have been studying biotech crops since they were developed commercially in the late 1980s, and some were involved with the first regulatory approvals.

They have specific ideas about how the risks of these crops should be scientifically assessed. And they worry that papers that fall short of high standards will give anti-GMO activists ammunition to influence policy, just as the monarch-butterfly study did. "When bad science is used to justify bad public policies, we all lose," says McHughen, who says he is on a "campaign to make academic scientists a little less politically naive and a bit more careful in their scientific work". Milleradds that "agricultural biotech has been so horrendously, unscientifically regulated and so over-regulated and so inhibited over the past 30 years that to have these pseudo-controversies stirred up unnecessarily does a disservice to everyone and everything".}:}:

Ammann points to the example of golden rice, a variety engineered in the late 1990s to contain more vitamin A. Regulations have delayed the rice's development, he says, although more than 250,000 children a year go blind from vitamin-A deficiency. "We have to get emotional," says Ammann. "I can't agree with the cool scientists' perspective — only dealing with the facts. We live in the real world." In 2006, Ammann formed a rebuttal team called ASK-FORCE to challenge reports about biosafety of GM crops. On one online site, Ammann criticizes 20 reports — none of them positive toward biotech crops — that he considers biased or bad science. In July, he was revising a critique of a paper that appeared in The Lancet ten years ago. "I'm working nearly day and night on these things," says Ammann.

==

Another individual on the ACSH board of trustees is pro-GMO advocate Henry Miller, who also founded the FDA Office of Biotechnology.7 His deceptive PR tactics during the California GMO labeling campaign have been discussed in previous articles.

Miller also supported the now defunct Advancement of Sound Science Coalition,8 which was formed to support the tobacco industry by discrediting claims that smoke is harmful. The group also advanced other industry-friendly positions on a wide range of topics, including global warming, phthalates, and pesticides.

---

co author chassy monsanto:

==

http://ecowatch.com/2015/11/28/sources-funded-monsanto

Following a Columbia Journalism Review articleon whether science journalists should accept money from corporate interests and whether there is adequate disclosure of sources’ corporate ties and conflicts of interest, U.S. Right to Know reviewed recent articles to assess how often journalists and columnists quote academic sources without stating that they are funded by the agrichemical giant Monsanto.

Our review found 27 articles quoting (or authored by) university professors after they received Monsanto funding, but without disclosing that funding.

This is a collapse of journalistic standards. When reporters quote sources about food issues such as GMOs or organic food, readers deserve to know if the sources have been funded by Monsanto or have other conflicts of interest.

The principal effect of failing to reveal these conflicts of interest is to unfairly enhance the credibility of Monsanto-funded academics and their support of GMOs and criticism of organic food, while detracting from the credibility of consumer advocates.

Our review found that many top media outlets quoted either University of Florida Professor Kevin Folta or University of Illinois Professor Emeritus Bruce Chassy without disclosing that the professors received funding from Monsanto. According to documents published by the New York Times, Professor Folta received Monsanto funding in August 2014 and Professor Chassy in October 2011, if not before.

Many of these journalistic failuresoccurred at influential news outlets: newspapers such as the New York Times, Washington Post and Chicago Tribune; science publications such as Nature, Science Insider and Discover; magazines such as the New Yorker, Wired and The Atlantic; as well as broadcast outlets like ABC andNPR.

Following is a list of news articles quoting (or authored by) Professors Folta and Chassy—after they received their Monsanto funding—but failing to disclose that they had received the Monsanto funding.

  1. New York Times: “Taking on the Food Industry, One Blog Post at a Time.” By Courtney Rubin, March 13. (Also ran in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune).
  2. New York Times: “Foes of Modified Corn Find Support in a Study.” By Andrew Pollack, Sept. 19, 2012.
  3. Washington Post: “Kraft Mac & Cheese Just Got Duller. You Can Thank (OrBlame) ‘The Food Babe](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/21/kraft-mac-cheese-just-got-duller-you-can-thank-or-blame-the-food-babe/)[’.” By Michael E. Miller, April 21. (Also ran in the Chicago Tribune).
  4. Washington Post: “Proof He’s the Science Guy: Bill Nye Is Changing His Mind About GMOs.” By Puneet Kollipara, March 3.
  5. Nature: “GM-Crop Opponents Expand Probe Into Ties Between Scientists and Industry.” By Keith Kloor, Aug. 6.
  6. NPR: “Is The Food Babe A Fearmonger? Scientists Are Speaking Out.” By Maria Godoy, Feb. 10.
  7. New Yorker:“The Operator.” By Michael Specter, Feb. 4, 2013.
  8. The Atlantic: “The Food Babe: Enemy of Chemicals.” By James Hamblin, Feb. 11.
  9. Wired: “Anti-GMO Activist Seeks to Expose Scientists Emails with Big Ag.” By Alan Levinovitz, Feb. 23.
  10. ABC News: “Scientists Developing Hypo-Allergenic Apples.” By Gillian Mohney, March 22, 2013.
  11. Science Insider:“Agricultural Researchers Rattled by Demands for Documents from Group Opposed to GM Foods.” By Keith Kloor, Feb. 11.
  12. Columbia Journalism Review: “Why Scientists Often Hate Records Requests.” By Anna Clark, Feb. 25.
  13. Discover:“Open Letter toBill Nyefrom a Plant Scientist.” By Keith Kloor, Nov. 10, 2014.
  14. Discover: “How to Balance Transparency with Academic Freedom?“ By Keith Kloor, Feb. 27.
  15. Discover:“Anti-GMO Group Seeks Emails from University Scientists.” By Keith Kloor, Feb. 11.
  16. Forbes: “Zombie Retracted Séralini GMO Maize Rat Study Republished To Hostile Scientist Reactions.” By Jon Entine, June 24, 2014.
  17. Forbes: “Did The New Yorker Botch Puff Piece On Frog Scientist Tyrone Hayes, Turning Rogue into Beleaguered Hero?“ By Jon Entine, March 10, 2014.
  18. Forbes: “You Can Put Lipstick On A Pig (Study), But It Still Stinks.” By Bruce M. Chassy and Henry I. Miller, July 17, 2013.
  19. Forbes:“Anti-GMO Scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini, Activist Jeffrey Smith Withdraw from Food Biotech Debate.” By Jon Entine, May 29, 2013.
  20. Forbes: “Malpractice On Dr. Oz: Pop Health Expert Hosts Anti-GM Food Rant; Scientists Push Back.” By Jon Entine, Oct. 19, 2012.
  21. Forbes: “Scientists Smell a Rat In Fraudulent Genetic Engineering Study.” By Henry I. Miller and Bruce Chassy, Sept. 25, 2012.
  22. Forbes: “The Science of Things That Aren’t So.” By Bruce Chassy and Henry I. Miller, Feb. 22, 2012.
  23. Des Moines Register: “Consumers Are Misled About Organic Safety.” By John Block, Oct. 10, 2014.
  24. Gainesville Sun:“Genetically Modified Foods Face Hurdles.” By Jeff Schweers, June 29, 2014.
  25. Peoria Journal Star:“Hybrid Crops That Used to Offer Resistance to Rootworm No Match for Mother Nature.” By Steve Tarter, June 21, 2014.
  26. Gawker: “The ‘Food Babe’ Blogger Is Full of Shit.” By Yvette d’Entremont, April 6.
  27. Louis Post-Dispatch: “California Labeling Fight May Raise Food Prices for All of Us.”By David Nicklaus, Aug. 19, 2012.

This is merely one example of two professors who were not identified as received funding from Monsanto and yet these two professors received major traction in the media as “independent” experts on GMOs and organics. The only reason the professors admitted to receiving Monsanto funding was due to emails uncovered by Freedom of Information Act requests filed by U.S. Right to Know, a consumer group.

How often does it happen that journalists present other academics funded by food or agrichemical companies as “independent” sources and without disclosing their corporate funding?

One remedy for this problem is that when journalists write about food, that they carefully ask their sources whether they have any conflicts of interest, where they get their funding from and whether they receive any funding from food or agrichemical companies like Monsanto or their PR front groups.

That, however, may not be enough. Professor Kevin Folta received Monsanto funding, yet repeatedly denied ties to or funding from Monsanto. Reporters—and readers—should be aware that such deceit by Monsanto-funded academics has recently occurred and be on their guard against it.

==

http://www.alternet.org/environment/gmo-labeling-undermined-bogus-legal-analysis

an op-ed published by Forbes last week,

http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2015/09/16/supreme-court-free-speech-decision-clobbers-gmo-food-labeling-advocates-but-they-dont-know-it/

a pro-biotechnology mouthpiece who used to work for the tobacco industry wrote a provocative piece arguing that a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision imperiled the constitutionality of mandatory genetically engineered food labeling. The claim is flat out wrong and shows no understanding of constitutional law or the issue of labeling of genetically engineered foods. Before rebutting it, some context is helpful.....

==

Supreme Court Free-Speech Decision Clobbers GMO Food-Labeling Activists

Henry I. Miller

CONTRIBUTOR

I debunk junk science and flawed public policy..

FOLLOW ON FORBES (219)

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

John J. Cohrssen, Drew L. Kershen and Henry I. Miller

Controversy continues to rage over whether foods from genetically engineered plants should have to be labeled as such. The battle has been fought in the media, in state legislatures, through referendum issues and in federal courts. Most mandatory-labeling proposals have failed, and none is in effect.

Yet even though such selective mandatory labeling has no scientific basis and is expensive to consumers, those who believe that genetically engineered food is unsafe and those with a financial stake in disparaging genetically engineered foods—primarily the organic and “natural products” industries–soldier on.

Well, the pro-labeling militia is about to get clobbered.

A seemingly unrelated recent Supreme Court decision (which concerned the constitutionality of certain standards for or restrictions on signage in a town in Arizona) gives the agriculture and biotechnology communities increased confidence that process-specific food-labeling initiatives are likely to be deemed unconstitutional by the federal courts. That decision would have a wide ripple effect.

The June 18, 2015 Supreme Court decision in Reed v. the Town of Gilbert has cleared a judicial path for challenging the constitutionality of special labeling to identify foods that contain “genetically engineered” (sometimes called “genetically modified,” or “GM”) ingredients. Information that is required on labels is considered to be “compelled commercial speech” and thus must follow the speech requirements of the First Amendment. The essence of the Reed case is the expansion of the range of regulations subject to “strict scrutiny,” the most rigorous standard of review for constitutionality, to include special labeling laws.

As lawyer and New York Times Supreme Court correspondent Adam Liptak observed, Reed v. Town of Gilbert “marks an important shift toward treating countless laws that regulate speech with exceptional skepticism.” He quotes First Amendment expert Floyd Abrams, who said, “When a court applies strict scrutiny in determining whether a law is consistent with the First Amendment, only the rarest statute survives the examination.”

==

http://powerbase.info/index.php/Henry_I._Miller

Henry I. Miller M.D. is a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution which champions the free market and limited government.

Miller was able to put these principles into practice as an official at the Food and Drug Administration from 1979-1994 during which time he served in a number of posts involved with biotechnology. According to his Hoover Institution home page, "He was the medical reviewer for the first genetically engineered drugs evaluated by the FDA and was instrumental in the rapid licensing of human insulin and human growth hormone."(emphasis added)[1] The rapid approval of human insulin is even claimed as "an FDA record at the time".[2][ka-ching!]

Miller served at both the Center for Drug Evaluation and Review (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Review (CBER). Dr. Miller later served as Special Assistant to the FDA Commissioner, with responsibility for biotechnology issues (1984-89); and from 1989-94, he was the founding director of the FDA's Office of Biotechnology. He served in several posts, including "special assistant to the FDA commissioner, with responsibility for biotechnology issues". From 1989 to 1994, he was the "founding director of the FDA's Office of Biotechnology".[3][4]

Pro-Biotechnology

Miller was short-listed in 2006 by the editors of Nature Biotechnology as one of the personalities who had made the "most significant contributions" to biotechnology during the previous 10 years.[5]

Miller is a member of the UN's Codex Alimentarius committee on GM foods. He is also a key figure in the network of right-wing pro-biotech lobby groups in the U.S. He is an 'adjunct scholar' at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a director of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) and a director of Consumer Alert. He was also part of the pro-GM/anti-organic 'No More Scares' group with Michael Fumento, Steven Milloy and ACSH's Elizabeth Whelan.

Miller has blamed the industry itself for the public mistrust of biotechnology, "In this area, the U.S. government agencies have done exactly what big agribusiness has asked them to do and told them to do," he told the New York Times.[6].

It has been suggested that for Miller bringing a product to market quickly is more important than ensuring its safety. Miller counters with the claim that genetic engineering is a particularly safe and precise process and that genetically engineered products are therefore being unnecessarily over-regulated, something that is limiting the true potential of the technology. He told the New York Times, "Food biotech is dead... The potential now is an infinitesimal fraction of what most observers had hoped it would be."[7]

Publications

Miller has authored a number of articles and monographs on GM foods. He has also co-authored a number of articles with Greg Conko of the Competitive Enterprise Institute which suggest that concerns about the safety of GM food are really due to "trade protectionism" and "anti-science fearmongering" and that GMOs require, if anything, less regulation, not more.[8]

His books and monographs include:[9]

Defending Industrial Chemicals

Miller has also taken to defending the use of industrial chemicals. He wrote an article entitled 'Greens' War Against All Chemicals Will Do Little To Reduce Our Risks' for Investor's Business Daily:

Many of the alarms raised recently about chemicals, from those in rubber duckies and plastic bottles to pesticides used in agriculture, are completely bogus, while most of the others represent only negligible risks.Pseudo-scares and the wrongheaded (and often very costly) responses to them — as in these latest recommendations from the governor's panel — are wasteful, if not actually harmful.[10]

In the article Miller promotes the American Council on Science and Health website with its "Riskometer" which compares health risks: "The data on the ACSH Riskometer show that many of the hyped 'threats' that we hear and read about daily occur very far down on the list."[11]

Attacking Corporate Social Responsibility

Miller not only points to the damage done by regulation but to the evils done by the whole concept of Corporate Social Responsibility which he sees as "the political doctrine du jour of the leftist ninnies" and "a 21st century Trojan horse designed to destroy free enterprise from within."[12] Fortunately, argues Miller in an article he co-authored with Nick Nichols of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, "some corporate warriors still understand that businesses don't have social responsibilities" - that's something best left to individual conscience. The sole responsibility of CEOs is to pursue their employers' ­interests, which are essentially to make as much money as possible, "while conforming to the laws, regulations and ethical norms of society." Anything else evades the CEO's critical responsibility to maximise returns to shareholders.[13]

Notes

  1. ↑ "Henry I. Miller", Hoover Institution, accessed 7 February 2009.
  2. ↑ "Bonner Cohen, et al., ed.,The Fear Profiteers", National Center for Public Policy and Junkscience.com, February 2002, p73.
  3. ↑ "Henry I. Miller", Hoover Institution, accessed 7 February 2009.
  4. ↑ Henry I. Miller, Research Fellow, Hoover Institution website, accessed 17 Mar 2010
  5. ↑ Henry I. Miller, Hoover Institution website, accessed 17 Mar 2010
  6. ↑ Kurt Eichenwald, "Redesigning Nature: Hard Lessons Learned; Biotechnology Food: From the Lab to a Debacle", New York Times, 25 January 2001.
  7. ↑ Ibid
  8. ↑ See for example, Henry I. Miller and Gregory Conko, "Cloudy Horizons In A Brave New World", Monsanto, UK, 7 March 2000, accessed 7 February 2009.
  9. ↑ "Henry I. Miller", Hoover Institution, accessed 7 February 2009.
  10. ↑ Henry I. Miller, "Pseudo-scares and the wrongheaded (and often very costly) responses to them Greens' War Against All Chemicals Will Do Little To Reduce Our Risks", Investor's Business Daily, 26 January 2009.
  11. ↑ Henry I. Miller, "Pseudo-scares and the wrongheaded (and often very costly) responses to them Greens' War Against All Chemicals Will Do Little To Reduce Our Risks", Investor's Business Daily, 26 January 2009.
  12. ↑ Henry I. Miller and Nick Nichols, "CEOs should mind their own business", Investors Business Daily, 27 December 2005.
  13. ↑ Henry I. Miller and Nick Nichols, "CEOs should mind their own business", Investors Business Daily, 27 December 2005.

Categories: 

==

truthwiki

A former medical researcher of fifteen years at the FDA, Henry I. Miller became a columnist and one of Stanford University’s “think tank” fellows for scientific philosophy via the Hoover Institution. Educated at MIT and Harvard, Miller has studied gene expression in the laboratory at NIH, the National Institute of Health. Miller medically reviewed the first genetically engineered drugs and has been involved in rapid licensing of other GE projects with hormones and insulin. In the early 1990s, he was the founding director of the Office of Biotechnology (GMO in Chemical Agriculture) at the FDA. Miller helped found the tobacco industry front group“The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, which is now defunct. From the 1930s to the late 1960s, thousands of doctors in the U.S. endorsed cigarettes as healthy and even recommended their favorite brands in advertisements published in prestigious medical journals and magazines like JAMA. Miller was also the director of ACSH, American Council on Science and Health, a controversial organization that’s been called a biotech industry front group, where other members (writers) have been caught in scandals, domestic violence cases, and purporting unfounded and unproven theories about GMO as being facts that are science based. (1)

In fact, ACSH receives massive support from pharmaceutical, chemical and biotechnology companies, and writers for ACSH regularly attack natural health solutions to almost any food, fertilizer, seed or farming method that competes with GMO. Recently, Miller was a main instigator of a political maneuver to ruin the reputation of Dr. Oz after Oz ran a show on the dangers of glyphosate, a main toxic ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide that has been labeled as “probable” cancer-causing agent for humans by the World Health Organization (WHO). Miller helped draft a letter in response to the Dr. Oz show going viral in the health community, in a “character assassination” attempt to remove Oz from his prestigious position as Professor of Surgery at Columbia University. This letter was auspiciously signed, sealed and delivered by several physicians who were up in arms about Dr. Oz questioning the safety of the world’s top-selling GMO crop chemical. (2)

Miller drafts character assassination letter about Dr. Oz – tries to get him fired fromColumbia UniversityProfessor of Surgery position

In the spring of 2015, and within weeks of Dr. Oz airing his show about the dangers of glyphosate and Roundup, one Dr. Henry Miller coordinated a letter from a group of physicians written to the attention of Columbia University outright demanding that the College of Physicians and Surgeons remove Dr. Mehmet Oz as a professor of surgery, claiming in the letter that Oz has “shown disdain for science and for evidence-based medicine … for personal financial gain.” Of course the letter did not mention glyphosate, but Dr. Oz did not take any position regarding glyphosate on his show either, rather Oz presented intense research conducted by WHO that does not support the Biotech declared stance on GMO that says everything ever created GMO is perfectly safe for humans and the environment, and that biotechnology will save the world. Signatories to the letter Miller drafted to Columbia include one Gilbert Ross, acting president and director of ASCH, an organization that defends the fracking industry and also has the mission of keeping GMO labels off of food in the state of California. Dr. Ross is a convicted criminal and Medicaid fraud artist who was “convicted of racketeering, mail fraud and conspiracy,” and was “sentenced to 47 months in jail, $40,000 in forfeiture, and restitution of $612,855” in a scheme to defraud the Medicaid system, reports the U.S. Right to Know campaign in a page describing ACSH practices. Keeping consumers in the dark about GMO is at the top of the agenda for Miller and his constituents; however, all attempts to discredit Dr. Oz failed miserably and the whole “letter to Columbia” affair was discredited and dismantled.

Monsanto’s “Mafia” Revealed by Alternative News Media

This was well-covered by alternative health media and continues to show example of the biotech backlash that comes with helping people find health and medical freedom. In the grand scheme, Miller continually attempts to distort truth about GMOs, genetically modified organisms that have taken over most of America’s staple food, like corn, soy, cottonseed, canola, potato, tomato, sugar beets and more. Doctor Oz’s show on glyphosate went viral on Youtube after the failed attempt to get him fired from Columbia Medical, as alternative news media covered the character assassination attempt and made the obvious link to the glyphosate show and the letter was identified by the world health community as a vicious and malicious “retort.”

Miller argues for no regulations for biotech industry

Henry Miller also writes for Forbes.com science and technology section and tries to work out public policy issues that surround pharmaceutical development and infectious disease. He discredits Ebola as a viable public concern and attacks anyone and anything that doesn’t support genetic engineering as being “anti-business, anti-technology and anti-American.” (3) Miller wants zero regulation on agricultural science and works as a consultant for companies dealing with regulatory problems, vying for regulatory reform that benefits huge corporations who sew the genes of foreign organisms into food as pesticides for killing weeds and bugs, but the “science” is not “in” on the true dangers of mixing carcinogenic crop chemicals and insect DNA into human food for regular consumption.

Miller Writes Op-Ed for Monsanto Frankenfood and Campaigns to keep GMO unlabeled in California

Henry Miller has written an op-ed piece for the New York Times saying America needs GMO wheat, and that Monsanto has made significant progress in the development of herbicide-tolerant wheat in its laboratories. GM wheat is illegal to plant on US soil, but has been discovered growing in at least 16 states, some invading organic farms and ruining organic farmer’s profits and purity of soil. Monsanto’s so called drought-resistant crops have never been proven fruitful. The theory that GM crops require less water has also never been proven, but Miller would have the public believe otherwise. In fact, the environmental advocacy group “Food and Water Watch” reported in 2013 thatSuperweeds have developed resistance to GM herbicides that were crafted for the opposite effect and are not drought resistant, so the danger of GMO does NOT bring rewards at all, not for farmers, the environment or consumers, to say the least.

Miller has repeatedly tried to dismantle Monsanto’s “Frankenfood” stigma that’s been attached to everything GMO, referring to anyone who chooses not to consume chemical pesticides (or who has cancer or fears getting cancer from pesticide consumption) as anti-science, fear-mongering and anti-American. He calls any criticism of GMO “imaginary risks” and vies for zero safety testing of anything GMO based on his purported theories alone. He argues against the adoption of the precautionary principle (PP), which would insist on safety testing of GM foods before release, on the grounds that “this erects an almost insurmountable barrier against new products because nothing can be proved totally safe – at least, not to the standard demanded by anti-technology extremists.” Yet he has not identified or sourced any of these “anti-technology extremists.” Miller has created a straw man and is knocking him down as part of his propaganda to support his financial interests in the rogue vaccine industry.

This message Miller communicates is spread through the Heartland Institute, a corporate-funded network affiliate out of Chicago. He is quoted as once saying, “A large number of people in poor nations have food allergies,” (milk, wheat, and nuts) “Biotechnology can remove the allergens … so people in developing countries can enjoy some of these foods.”

The irony of this dumbfounded statement by Miller is that vaccines contains massive allergens, including carcinogens like mercury, formaldehyde, monosodium glutamate, and PEANUT OIL (which they are brewed in, just like egg embryo). Plus, biotechnology means the insertion of foreign DNA (genes) that work as pesticides, grouped together, and inserted into the genes/seeds of the plants, so this creates new allergies, it does not “remove” them from the food equation. Many children have allergies to dairy because vaccines are often made with casein, including the DtaP vaccine. (4) Miller has contorted the facts to suit his own agenda and meanwhile refers to any resistance as anti-science or quack. In fact, Miller was a prominent spokesperson for the recent campaign against GMO labeling in California.

In 2012, Monsanto was part of a pesticide corporation collective (6) that raised massive funding to defeat the California ballot referendum that would have labeled all GMO food as such. That dynasty (6-headed monopoly) of chemical agriculture firms includes the likes of Bayer, Dow Chemical, Dupont, BASF, Syngentaand Monsanto. This is how op-ed pieces Miller writes come into question. A professional who pushes vaccines and chemical agriculture as posing no danger to human health is ignoring science, not defending it. Losing credibility in the media are many industry-funded “junk science” proponents, as people like Dr. Oz expose the truth on worldwide television.

Sources:

(1) http://www.naturalnews.com/047666_jon_entine_child_abuse_court_documents.html

(2) http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/21/roundup-cancer-who-glyphosate-

(3) http://www.naturalnews.com/049395_doctor_oz_monsanto_mafia_glyphosate_toxicity.html

(4) http://community.babycenter.com/post/a28734455/dtap_vaccine_and_milk_allergy

(5) http://www.naturalnews.com/047668_jon_entine_biotech_front_man_corporate_propaganda.html

(6) http://www.naturalnews.com/049408_doctor_oz_monsanto_discredit_bureau_mainstream_media_fail.html

---

DDT

High-level officials of the United Nations are not known for their perspicacity, competence, or scientific acumen, but the head of the World Health Organization (WHO), Margaret Chan, is a particular embarrassment. With so much attention focused on the Ebola-virus outbreak in Africa, her exaggerations and petty scolding have made her a high-profile liability. In a speech at a regional conference in Benin last month, she warned that the Ebola outbreak “is the most severe acute public-health emergency seen in modern times” and bashed pharmaceutical companies for not developing Ebola vaccines — products that could not possibly be profitable. “A profit-driven industry does not invest in products for markets that cannot pay,” she said — a truism if there ever was one. “WHO has been trying to make this issue visible for ages. Now people can see for themselves.”

refs

A Big Step Forward towards a DDT-Free World

Countries move toward more sustainable ways to roll back malaria ahead of Millennium Development Goals

4th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the UNEP-Linked Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants

Geneva/Nairobi/Washington DC, 6 May 2009 - The United Nations Environment Programme and the World Health Organization, in partnership with the Global Environment Facility, today announced a rejuvenated international effort to combat malaria with an incremental reduction of reliance on the synthetic pesticide DDT.

Ten projects, all part of the global programme "Demonstrating and Scaling-up of sustainable Alternatives to DDT in Vector Management", involving some 40 countries in Africa, the Eastern Mediterranean and Central Asia are set to test non-chemical methods ranging from eliminating potential mosquito breeding sites and securing homes with mesh screens to deploying mosquito-repellent trees and fish that eat mosquito larvae.

The new projects follow a successful demonstration of alternatives to DDT in Mexico and Central America. Here pesticide-free techniques and management regimes have helped cut cases of malaria by over 60 per cent.

The success of the five year-long pilot indicates that sustainable alternatives to Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane (DDT) are emerging as cost effective solutions that may be applicable regionally and globally....

[bugs dev resitance and chem persists]

http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=585&ArticleID=6148&l=en

==

featured in prop 37 ads that killed it; stanford made him remove their name, just b/c violated policy, not that they disagreed/cared/

does in fact have md but never practiced/ gmo in FDA (why quit?)

---

aljazeera

A letter by “10 prominent doctors” calling on Columbia University to remove physician-turned-TV-celebrity **Dr. Mehmet Oz from its medical faculty has garnered numerous headlines today.

“'A fake and a charlatan': Doctors call for Dr. Oz to be dismissed from Columbia surgery faculty over alleged quack science,” cries the New York Daily News. “Physicians urge Columbia University to cut its ties with Dr. Oz,” trumpets the Washington Post. “Group Of Doctors Want To See Dr. Oz Kicked Off Columbia Faculty,” declares CBS.

“I am writing to you on behalf of myself and the undersigned colleagues below, all of whom are distinguished physicians,” starts the email letter, which was authored by Dr. Henry I. Miller of Stanford’s Hoover Institution. “We are surprised and dismayed that Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons would permit Dr. Mehmet Oz to occupy a faculty appointment, let alone a senior administrative position in the Department of Surgery,” Miller wrote.

The focus of most media stories is that the doctors’ letter springs from allegations that Oz’s advocacy for “questionable weight loss schemes” damages the reputation of the university’s medical school, where Oz, a cardio-thoracic surgeon, is vice-chairman of the surgery department.

Indeed, Oz has come under heavy scrutiny, in the popular media and on Capitol Hill, for his association with a so-called “miracle diet.” In June 2014, Oz was called before a Senate panel investigating false claims associated with weight-loss products. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, made a special point of blasting Oz’s endorsements.

But the dodgy diet plans are not actually the lead in the Miller letter.

“As described here and here, as well as in other publications, Dr. Oz has repeatedly shown disdain for science and for evidence-based medicine, as well as baseless and relentless opposition to the genetic engineering of food crops,” reads the start of very next paragraph after the intro quoted above.

The “here and here” are links to two 2011 articles — one penned by Miller and one quoting him — both of which strongly question Dr. Oz’s warnings about the presence of arsenic in commercial apple juice. There is no link for the “other publications” mentioned.

The next sentence in the letter criticized Oz for his “egregious lack of integrity” and for “promoting quack treatments and cures in the interest of personal financial gain.” But the direct mention of the Columbia surgeon’s “relentless opposition to the genetic engineering of food crops” is neither academic nor accidental.

It is important for physicians who invoke their medical degrees while endorsing products to make their allegiances and financial ties very transparent — and Dr. Oz deserves to be held to this standard. But by that standard, Dr. Miller and other self-described “distinguished physicians” on this letter also have some explaining to do.

Miller, whose employer, the Hoover Institution, is often described as a “Republican-leaning” or “conservative” think tank, has interests of his own. A molecular biologist by training, Miller spent 15 years at the FDA before his fellowship at Hoover; throughout both jobs, he has been a consistent and ardent promoter of genetically engineered foods (or GMOs — the “O” standing for “organism”).

And in his advocacy, Miller is positively prolific. A quick web search reveals dozens upon dozens of articles and opinion columns touting the benefits of GMOs to consumers, developing economies and agribusiness — and a seemingly equal number attacking those that warn about the possible risks of what are sometimes called “Frankenfoods.”

Miller was a leading voice in opposition to California’s Prop. 37, the 2012 ballot initiative seeking clear labeling of products containing GMOs, and, in the 1990s, was an equally prominent voice in a tobacco industry-backed campaign to discredit the science linking cigarette use and cancer.

Miller also had a connection to the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), whose acting president and executive director, Dr. Gilbert Ross, is also a signatory to the Oz complaint and is prominently quoted in some news accounts of the letter.

ACSH is billed in its own literature as an independent research organization out to debunk “junk science.” The group has publicly battled with health advocates and environmentalists on a host of subjects, with ACSH “wading into public health debates to defend fracking, to fight New York City's attempt to ban big sugary sodas, and to dismiss concerns about the potential harms of the chemical bisphenol-A (better known at BPA) and the pesticide atrazine,” according to Mother Jones.

And, as detailed in financial documents obtained by Mother Jones in 2013, the bulk of the Council’s funding comes from industries and private foundations with a direct interest in the positions ACSH advocates. Donors and backers include “a who's-who of energy, agriculture, cosmetics, food, soda, chemical, pharmaceutical, and tobacco corporations,” according to the magazine, but of special interest to the subject at hand, companies likeMonsanto, DowAgro, and agribusiness giant Syngenta.

While the physicians’ email about Oz makes reference to “outrageous conflicts of interest or flawed judgments [sic] about what constitutes appropriate medical treatments,” the letter neither specifically mentions any of the supposed conflicts by name nor does it disclose the possible, if not probable, conflicts of interest for some of the prominent signees.

And it is also important to note that the letter never specifically mentions any of the diet products that most news articles recount as the reason behind the protest. “Quack treatments” is about as close as the letter gets. However, as noted above, the missive directly complains about Oz’s opposition to GMOs.

Maybe Dr. Oz’s support for green coffee extract, raspberry ketones and garcnia cambogia does represent an “egregious lack of integrity” on his part, but spinning an attack on an opponent of genetically modified foods as a story about the doctor’s diet claims exhibits shaky ethics, itself.

And, on the part of many media outlets, shabby reporting.

==

truthwiki nat news hmmish

A former medical researcher of fifteen years at the FDA, Henry I. Miller became a columnist and one of Stanford University’s “think tank” fellows for scientific philosophy via the Hoover Institution. Educated at MIT and Harvard, Miller has studied gene expression in the laboratory at NIH, the National Institute of Health. Miller medically reviewed the first genetically engineered drugs and has been involved in rapid licensing of other GE projects with hormones and insulin. In the early 1990s, he was the founding director of the Office of Biotechnology (GMO in Chemical Agriculture) at the FDA. Miller helped found the tobacco industry front group“The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, which is now defunct. From the 1930s to the late 1960s, thousands of doctors in the U.S. endorsed cigarettes as healthy and even recommended their favorite brands in advertisements published in prestigious medical journals and magazines like JAMA. Miller was also the director of ACSH, American Council on Science and Health, a controversial organization that’s been called a biotech industry front group, where other members (writers) have been caught in scandals, domestic violence cases, and purporting unfounded and unproven theories about GMO as being facts that are science based. (1)

In fact, ACSHreceives massive support from pharmaceutical, chemical and biotechnology companies, and writers for ACSH regularly attack natural health solutions to almost any food, fertilizer, seed or farming method that competes with GMO. Recently, Miller was a main instigator of a political maneuver to ruin the reputation of Dr. Oz after Oz ran a show on the dangers of glyphosate, a main toxic ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide that has been labeled as “probable” cancer-causing agent for humans by the World Health Organization (WHO). Miller helped draft a letter in response to the Dr. Oz show going viral in the health community, in a “character assassination” attempt to remove Oz from his prestigious position as Professor of Surgery at Columbia University. This letter was auspiciously signed, sealed and delivered by several physicians who were up in arms about Dr. Oz questioning the safety of the world’s top-selling GMO crop chemical. (2)

Miller drafts character assassination letter about Dr. Oz – tries to get him fired fromColumbia UniversityProfessor of Surgery position

In the spring of 2015, and within weeks of Dr. Oz airing his show about the dangers of glyphosate and Roundup, one Dr. Henry Miller coordinated a letter from a group of physicians written to the attention of Columbia University outright demanding that the College of Physicians and Surgeons remove Dr. Mehmet Oz as a professor of surgery, claiming in the letter that Oz has “shown disdain for science and for evidence-based medicine … for personal financial gain.” Of course the letter did not mention glyphosate, but Dr. Oz did not take any position regarding glyphosate on his show either, rather Oz presented intense research conducted by WHO that does not support the Biotech declared stance on GMO that says everything ever created GMO is perfectly safe for humans and the environment, and that biotechnology will save the world. Signatories to the letter Miller drafted to Columbia include one Gilbert Ross, acting president and director of ASCH, an organization that defends the fracking industry and also has the mission of keeping GMO labels off of food in the state of California. Dr. Ross is a convicted criminal and Medicaid fraud artist who was “convicted of racketeering, mail fraud and conspiracy,” and was “sentenced to 47 months in jail, $40,000 in forfeiture, and restitution of $612,855” in a scheme to defraud the Medicaid system, reports the U.S. Right to Know campaign in a page describing ACSH practices. Keeping consumers in the dark about GMO is at the top of the agenda for Miller and his constituents; however, all attempts to discredit Dr. Oz failed miserably and the whole “letter to Columbia” affair was discredited and dismantled.

Monsanto’s “Mafia” Revealed by Alternative News Media

This was well-covered by alternative health media and continues to show example of the biotech backlash that comes with helping people find health and medical freedom. In the grand scheme, Miller continually attempts to distort truth about GMOs, genetically modified organisms that have taken over most of America’s staple food, like corn, soy, cottonseed, canola, potato, tomato, sugar beets and more. Doctor Oz’s show on glyphosate went viral on Youtube after the failed attempt to get him fired from Columbia Medical, as alternative news media covered the character assassination attempt and made the obvious link to the glyphosate show and the letter was identified by the world health community as a vicious and malicious “retort.”

Miller argues for no regulations for biotech industry

Henry Miller also writes for Forbes.com science and technology section and tries to work out public policy issues that surround pharmaceutical development and infectious disease. He discredits Ebola as a viable public concern and attacks anyone and anything that doesn’t support genetic engineering as being “anti-business, anti-technology and anti-American.” (3) Miller wants zero regulation on agricultural science and works as a consultant for companies dealing with regulatory problems, vying for regulatory reform that benefits huge corporations who sew the genes of foreign organisms into food as pesticides for killing weeds and bugs, but the “science” is not “in” on the true dangers of mixing carcinogenic crop chemicals and insect DNA into human food for regular consumption.

Miller Writes Op-Ed for Monsanto Frankenfood and Campaigns to keep GMO unlabeled in California

Henry Miller has written an op-ed piece for the New York Times saying America needs GMO wheat, and that Monsanto has made significant progress in the development of herbicide-tolerant wheat in its laboratories. GM wheat is illegal to plant on US soil, but has been discovered growing in at least 16 states, some invading organic farms and ruining organic farmer’s profits and purity of soil. Monsanto’s so called drought-resistant crops have never been proven fruitful. The theory that GM crops require less water has also never been proven, but Miller would have the public believe otherwise. In fact, the environmental advocacy group “Food and Water Watch” reported in 2013 that Superweeds have developed resistance to GM herbicides that were crafted for the opposite effect and are not drought resistant, so the danger of GMO does NOT bring rewards at all, not for farmers, the environment or consumers, to say the least.

Miller has repeatedly tried to dismantle Monsanto’s “Frankenfood” stigma that’s been attached to everything GMO, referring to anyone who chooses not to consume chemical pesticides (or who has cancer or fears getting cancer from pesticide consumption) as anti-science, fear-mongering and anti-American. He calls any criticism of GMO “imaginary risks” and vies for zero safety testing of anything GMO based on his purported theories alone. He argues against the adoption of the precautionary principle (PP), which would insist on safety testing of GM foods before release, on the grounds that “this erects an almost insurmountable barrier against new products because nothing can be proved totally safe – at least, not to the standard demanded by anti-technology extremists.” Yet he has not identified or sourced any of these “anti-technology extremists.” Miller has created a straw man and is knocking him down as part of his propaganda to support his financial interests in the rogue vaccine industry.

This message Miller communicates is spread through the HeartlandInstitute, a corporate-funded network affiliate out of Chicago. He is quoted as once saying, *“A large number of people in poor nations have food allergies,” (milk, wheat, and nuts) “Biotechnology can remove the allergens … so people in developing countries can enjoy some of these foods.”

The irony of this dumbfounded statement by Miller is that vaccines contains massive allergens, including carcinogens like mercury, formaldehyde, monosodium glutamate, and PEANUT OIL (which they are brewed in, just like egg embryo). Plus, biotechnology means the insertion of foreign DNA (genes) that work as pesticides, grouped together, and inserted into the genes/seeds of the plants, so this creates new allergies, it does not “remove” them from the food equation. Many children have allergies to dairy because vaccines are often made with casein, including the DtaP vaccine. (4) Miller has contorted the facts to suit his own agenda and meanwhile refers to any resistance as anti-science or quack. In fact, Miller was a prominent spokesperson for the recentcampaign against GMO labeling in California.

In 2012, Monsanto was part of a pesticide corporation collective (6) that raised massive funding to defeat the California ballot referendum that would have labeled all GMO food as such. That dynasty (6-headed monopoly) of chemical agriculture firms includes the likes of Bayer, Dow Chemical, Dupont, BASF, Syngentaand Monsanto. This is how op-ed pieces Miller writes come into question. A professional who pushes vaccines and chemical agriculture as posing no danger to human health is ignoring science, not defending it. Losing credibility in the media are many industry-funded “junk science” proponents, as people like Dr. Oz expose the truth on worldwide television.

Sources:

(1) http://www.naturalnews.com/047666_jon_entine_child_abuse_court_documents.html

(2) http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/21/roundup-cancer-who-glyphosate-

(3) http://www.naturalnews.com/049395_doctor_oz_monsanto_mafia_glyphosate_toxicity.html

(4) http://community.babycenter.com/post/a28734455/dtap_vaccine_and_milk_allergy

(5) http://www.naturalnews.com/047668_jon_entine_biotech_front_man_corporate_propaganda.html

(6) http://www.naturalnews.com/049408_doctor_oz_monsanto_discredit_bureau_mainstream_media_fail.html

---

alternet

Miller is the primary face and voice of the “No on Prop 37” campaign in California.  At this very moment, Monsanto and other pesticide companies are spending more than $1 million a day to convince California voters that it’s not in their best interest to know whether the food they eat is genetically engineered.  And Henry I. Miller is their guy.

If you live in California today, he’s hard to miss.  You see him in TV ads, hear him in radio spots, and his face is all over the expensive fliers that keep showing up uninvited in your mail box.  Initially, the ads presented Miller as a Stanford doctor.  But he isn’t.  He’s a research fellow at a conservative think tank (the Hoover Institute) that has offices on the Stanford campus.  When this deceptive tactic came to light, the ads were pulled and then redone.  But they still feature Miller trying to convince the public that Prop 37 “makes no sense,” and that it’s a “food-labeling scheme written by trial lawyers who hope for a windfall if it becomes law.”

Actually, Prop 37 makes all the sense in the world if you want to know what’s in the food you eat.  It was written by public health advocates, and provides no economic incentives for filing lawsuits.

Who, then, is Henry I. Miller, and why should we believe him when he tells us that genetically engineered foods are perfectly safe?

Does it matter that this same Henry Miller is an ardent proponent of DDT and other toxic pesticides? Does it matter that the “No on Prop 37” ads are primarily funded by pesticide companies, the very same companies that told us DDT and Agent Orange were safe?

I find it hard to avoid the impression that Henry Miller is a premier corporate flack.  He was a founding member of the Philip Morris backed front group that tried to discredit the links between tobacco products and cancer.  After the nuclear meltdown in Fukushima, he argued that exposure to radiation from the disaster could actually provide health benefits.  He argues that drug companies, not the FDA, should be responsible for testing new drugs.  And he is a board member of the George C. Marshall Institute which, funded by oil and gas companies, is notorious for its denial of climate change.

Now he’s telling us that we should vote No on 37 because, he says, the labeling law contains exemptions included “for special interests.”  As if the corporations he fronts for weren’t the biggest “special interests” of all.  And by the way, the exemptions in Prop 37 conform to those found in GMO labeling laws in the 61 other nations around the world, including the European Union, that already require labeling for foods that are genetically engineered.

Miller and the No on 37 campaign say that labeling would increase family food bills by hundreds of dollars per year.  Interestingly, the study they cite to justify this claim was paid for by the No on 37 campaign itself.  It was the work of a Maine public relations firm, Northbridge Consulting, that has no economic expertise, but has worked on behalf of Coke and Pepsi against laws that would require the recycling of soda pop bottles.

Would the passing of Prop 37 actually raise the price consumers pay for food? Henry Miller adamantly proclaims that it would.  But according to the only fully independent economic analysis of Prop 37, prepared by researchers at Emory University School of Law, “Consumers will likely see no increase in prices as a result of the relabeling” required by the bill.

Somehow I keep getting the feeling that Henry Miller may not be the man you want to listen to when your health is at stake.  But Monsanto and its allies are seeing to it that this man’s face and beliefs are everywhere in California today.  One television viewer in San Francisco reported seeing ads featuring Miller no less than 12 times in a single day.

Other “No on 37” ads feature a physician, Ronald Kleinman, dressed of course in the obligatory white coat.  Though the ads don’t mention it, Dr. Kleinman’s ethical principles don’t seem to hamper him from being a highly paid voice for the interests of the junk food companies.  While working forCoca-Cola, he advocated for “the safety…of sugar, artificial colors and nonnutritive sweeteners in children’s diets.”

Not content with misrepresenting Stanford University (three times), the pesticide and junk food companies behind No on 37 have also:

1.    Misled voters in the state voter guide by claiming falsely that the world’s largest organization of food and nutrition professionals, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, believes GMO foods are safe.

2.    Illegally affixed the official US FDA seal to their campaign propaganda, and attributed a fabricated quote to the FDA, falsely implying that the FDA has taken a position against Prop 37.

Regrettably, this deluge of deception seems to be having an impact.  Although polls originally showed that more than 80% of the California public want genetically modified food to be labeled, more recent polls are showing a virtual dead heat on Prop 37, with the advertising deluge only increasing in intensity.

Some daily newspapers in California are contributing to this unhappy trend by coming out against Prop 37, with editorials that use entire paragraphs directly from the “No on 37” press releases.  Might this have anything to do with the fact that processed foods companies are the primary source of advertising revenue for newspapers today?  And that the lobby for the processed food companies, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, has called the defeat of Prop 37 its single highest priority for the year?

The famed food author Michael Pollan wrote recently that Proposition 37 is the litmus test for whether or not there is actually a food movement in this country.  Public health activist Stacy Malkan adds that it also may be the litmus test for whether there is democracy left in this country.

These are good points.  There is no food movement if Monsanto has its way with us.  And there is no democracy without an informed citizenry.

The question now is whether we are going to allow special interests to dictate what we are allowed to know about the food they sell us.

In this case, ignorance is not bliss.  It’s subservience to the agenda of Monsanto and the other pesticide companies.  Without labeling, we are eating in the dark, with potentially disastrous consequences.

==

lat

...

 second No on 37 spot that began airing Tuesday featured an academic, identified on screen as “Dr. Henry I. Miller M.D., Stanford University, founding dir. FDA Office of Technology.” He is standing in an ornately vaulted campus walkway.

Miller contended that the ballot measure “makes no sense at all” because it mandates that some foods be labeled while others are exempted by the proposed law. “It just gives an indication of the arbitrary and completely illogical nature of this ill conceived proposition,” Miller says.

Lawyers for the Proposition 37 campaign complained to Stanford’s general counsel, noting that the Stanford ID on the screen appeared to violate the university’s policy against use of the Stanford name by consultants.

What’s more, Miller is not a Stanford professor but, rather, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank housed on the Stanford campus, the letter said.

Stanford agreed. The university, spokeswoman Lisa Lapin said, “doesn’t take any positions on candidates or ballot measures, and we do not allow political filming on campus.” The filmmakers also are removing “the campus from the background of the video," she said.

The ad was taken down and is being edited to identify Miller as a "fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University," said No on 37 spokeswoman Kathy Fairbanks. It is expected to go back on the air Thursday.

“Nothing is changing in the content or what he’s saying, Fairbanks stressed.

Stanford’s request to edit the Miller video "is proof positive of the lack of credibility and lack of integrity of the No on 37 campaign,” said Yes on 37 spokeswoman Stacy Malkan.

==

forbes, cited by vitter billion rept:

EPA's New Overseer Of 'Scientific Integrity': The Blind Leading The Blind

hit on?] Francesca Grifo

If you needed to hire a person to head the financial integrity division of the Securities and Exchange Commission, how about someone who had held that position in Bernie Madoff’s investment firm? In effect, that’s what EPA has done by choosing Francesca Grifo as its “scientific integrity official.” Grifo previously oversaw the scientific integrity program at the Union of Concerned Scientists – an oxymoron if there ever was one. UCS is well known for exploiting every opportunity to distort science to further its radical, anti­technology agendas. In particular, the organization’s “experts” have been consistent, irresponsible and mendacious critics of genetic engineering and nuclear power, among other technologies; and they have been advocates for the kinds of shifts to “renewable energy” that would send energy costs to consumers and companies into the stratosphere. UCS’ view of genetic engineering applied to agriculture is especially indefensible and hypocritical: “Genetic engineering in agriculture has failed to deliver on many of its promised benefits, and has produced some serious unintended consequences.”

The facts argue otherwise. Because of its advantages – higher yields, less spraying of chemical pesticides, and greater food security and an improved bottom line for farmers — genetic engineering has been hugely successful and the most rapidly adopted agricultural technology in history. The major factor preventing the realization of even more of the “promised benefits” is the overregulation and

Henry I. Miller Contributor I debunk junk science and flawed public policy.. Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own. 8/7/2015 EPA's New Overseer Of 'Scientific Integrity': The Blind Leading The Blind ­ Forbes http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2013/12/04/epas­new­overseer­of­scientific­integrity­the­blind­leading­the­blind/print/ 2/5

nuisance lawsuits promoted by UCS and similar groups! UCS’s carping about lackluster progress is reminiscent of the story about the man who kills his parents and then begs the court for mercy because he’s an orphan. Serious unintended consequences of genetic engineering? Please. Even after the cultivation of more than 3 billion acres of genetically engineered crops (by more than 17 million farmers in 28 countries) worldwide and the consumption of more than 3 trillion servings of food that contains genetically engineered ingredients by inhabitants of North America alone, there has not been a single ecosystem disrupted or a single confirmed tummy ache or zit. Grifo’s appointment is especially inopportune at an agency in desperate need of an overhaul of its integrity, scientific and otherwise. Its waste, fraud, and abuse in scientific and regulatory programs are legendary.

With a research budget in excess of $800 million, EPA has long appeared to be more concerned with public relations than public or environmental health.A scheme was exposed several years that would have diverted EPA “research” funds to pay outside public relations consultants up to $5 million over five years to improve the website of the Office of Research and Development, conduct focus groups on how to polish the office’s image, and produce ghostwritten articles praising the agency “for publication in scholarly journals and magazines.” This payola scheme is similar to the agency’s longstanding practice of buying influence by doling out hundreds of millions of dollars each year to certain favored nonprofit organizations — money that, according to the inspector general and Government Accountability Office, is dispersed with no public notice, competition, or accountability.

The GAO investigators documented systematic malfeasance by regulators, including: (1) making grants to grantees who were unable to fulfill the terms of the grants; (2) favoring an exclusive clique of grantees without opening the grants to competition; (3) funding “environmental” grants for activities that lack any apparent environmental benefit; and (4) failing to ensure that grantees performed the objectives identified in the grants. I saw evidence of this while I was an official at the FDA. For some reason I was favored with periodic reports of the research funded by the EPA. The overwhelming majority of it was shoddy, irrelevant, and unpublishable. It is understandable that EPA needs to resort to such chicanery to whitewash its shortcomings. Science is routinely regarded there as a tool to further its anti­technology and anti­industry agendas, even if it means torturing the intent of statutes and affronting common sense. 8/7/2015 EPA's New Overseer Of 'Scientific Integrity': The Blind Leading The Blind ­ Forbes

The EPA is the prototype of agencies that spend more and more to address smaller and smaller risks. In one analysis by the Office of Management and Budget, of the 30 least cost­effective regulations throughout the government, the EPA had imposed no fewer than 17. For example, the agency’s restrictions on the disposal of land that contains certain wastes prevent 0.59 cancer cases per year – about three cases every five years – and avoid $20 million in property damage, at an annual cost of $194 to $219 million. In his excellent book Breaking the Vicious Circle, written shortly before he became a U.S. Supreme Court justice, Stephen Breyer cited another, similar example of expensive, non­cost­effective regulation by the EPA: a ban on asbestos pipe, shingles, coating, and paper, which the most optimistic estimates suggested would prevent seven or eight premature deaths over 13 years – at a cost of approximately a quarter of a billion dollars. Breyer observed that such a vast expenditure would cause more deaths than it would prevent from the asbestos exposure, simply by reducing the resources available for other public amenities. And perversely, the very act of removing asbestos from existing structures poses greater risk from asbestos than simply leaving it where it is: During removal, long­dormant asbestos fibers are spread into the ambient air, where they expose workers and bystanders to heightened risk.

When the EPA banned asbestos in 1989, it was already an old product whose risks and benefits were well understood. Nevertheless, political pressures from environmental activists pushed the EPA into making a decision that turned out to increase the risk to individuals and society. Another example of flawed decision­making at the EPA is the imposition of overly stringent ambient air standards under the Clean Air Act. Clean air is desirable, of course, but an EPA rule finalized in February 2012 that created new emissions standards for coal­ and oil­fired electric utilities was illconceived. According to an analysis by Diane Katz and James Gattuso of the Heritage Foundation, “The benefits are highly questionable, with the vast majority being unrelated to the emissions targeted by the regulation. The costs, however, are certain: an estimated $9.6 billion annually. The regulations will produce a significant loss of electricity generating capacity, which [will] undermine energy reliability and raise energy costs across the entire economy.” Stung repeatedly by such benefit­cost calculations, EPA has begun more frequently to manipulate the benefit side by invoking so­called “non­use benefits” of regulations, such as “the value one places on knowing that an aquatic ecosystem is healthy” or secondary and tertiary ecosystem impacts.” The problem with such supposed benefits is that estimating them is highly prone to wishful thinking. (Read: plucking numbers from the air.)

For example, regulators might “calculate” that a significant 8/7/2015 EPA's New Overseer Of 'Scientific Integrity': The Blind Leading The Blind ­ Forbes http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2013/12/04/epas­new­overseer­of­scientific­integrity­the­blind­leading­the­blind/print/ 4/5 improvement in water quality in the Mississippi could be a source of benefit to people throughout the nation, not just those who use the river or who live near it, because the river is nationally symbolic. Perhaps not coincidentally related to Grifo’s appointment, the regulation of products made with modern genetic engineering techniques has been a bête noir of both the Union of Concerned Scientists and EPA.

The EPA has long regulated field tests and the commercial use of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). In 2001, the EPA issued final rules for the regulation of genetically engineered plants and concocted a new concept — “plant­incorporated protectants,” or PIPs, defined as “pesticidal substances produced and used by living plants.” But the EPA regulatory net captures pest­resistant plants only if the “protectant” has been introduced or enhanced by the most precise and predictable techniques of genetic engineering. The registration process is excessively complex and burdensome. The submission required for regulatory review includes copious data on the parental plant, the genetic construction, the behavior of the test plant and so on — requirements that could not be met for any plant modified with older, cruder techniques, which are exempt from the FIFRA rules. EPA then conducts a series of redundant case­by­case reviews — before the initial trial; when trials are scaled up or tested on additional sites; and again if even minor changes have been made in the genetic construct. Those reviews are then repeated when the sponsor is ready to cultivate the plants at commercial scale. This approach, which has been condemned repeatedly by the scientific community over many years, has discouraged innovation and provided incentives for the developers of new plant varieties to use inferior but unregulated techniques. Grifo said recently that government scientists are currently working on “safe food” and a “safe environment” using the “best available science,” and that “the most important thing as we move forward is to increase the transparency of the federal government.” She is wrong on both counts. EPA’s science is shoddy, and its scientists and administrators routinely manipulate it to fit their radical policy agendas. Moreover, transparency is less important in government regulation than the content of decisions. Putting it another way, transparency is desirable, but arriving at the right decisions about public health and environmental protection is what is paramount. The EPA has long been intellectually, scientifically and ethically bankrupt. Francesca Grifo will fit right in...

---

Meet the Man Monsanto and Friends Hired to Lie to You ...

www.alternet.org/.../meet-man-monsanto-and-friends-hired-lie-y...

-

AlterNet

:{Oct 23, 2012 - You may have never heard of Henry I. Miller, but right now he is attempting to determine the future of food in this country. And he has enormous ...===[:{ ...You may have never heard of Henry I. Miller, but right now he is attempting to determine the future of food in this country.  And he has enormous financial backing.}:

](https://www.google.com/search?es_sm=122&q=related:www.alternet.org/food/meet-man-monsanto-and-friends-hired-lie-you-about-your-food+henry+i+miller+monsanto&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=0CCIQHzAAahUKEwi7-dnjyvzHAhUQLYgKHWYSAnQ)}:

Mr. Miller is the primary face and voice of the “No on Prop 37” campaign in California.  At this very moment, Monsanto and other pesticide companies are spending more than $1 million a day to convince California voters that it’s not in their best interest to know whether the food they eat is genetically engineered.  And Henry I. Miller is their guy.

If you live in California today, he’s hard to miss.  You see him in TV ads, hear him in radio spots, and his face is all over the expensive fliers that keep showing up uninvited in your mail box.  Initially, the ads presented Miller as a Stanford doctor.  But he isn’t.  He’s a research fellow at a conservative think tank (the Hoover Institute) that has offices on the Stanford campus.  When this deceptive tactic came to light, the ads were pulled and then redone.  But they still feature Miller trying to convince the public that Prop 37 “makes no sense,” and that it’s a “food-labeling scheme written by trial lawyers who hope for a windfall if it becomes law.”

Actually, Prop 37 makes all the sense in the world if you want to know what’s in the food you eat.  It was written by public health advocates, and provides no economic incentives for filing lawsuits.

Who, then, is Henry I. Miller, and why should we believe him when he tells us that genetically engineered foods are perfectly safe?

Does it matter that this same Henry Miller isan ardent proponent of DDT and other toxic pesticides? Does it matter that the “No on Prop 37” ads are primarily funded by pesticide companies, the very same companies that told us DDT and Agent Orange were safe?

I find it hard to avoid the impression that Henry Miller is a premier corporate flack.  He was a founding member of the Philip Morris backed front group that tried to discredit the links between tobacco products and cancer.  After the nuclear meltdown in Fukushima, he argued that exposure to radiation from the disaster could actually provide health benefits.  He argues that drug companies, not the FDA, should be responsible for testing new drugs.  And he is a board member of the George C. Marshall Institute which, funded by oil and gas companies, is notorious for its denial of climate change.

Now he’s telling us that we should vote No on 37 because, he says, the labeling law contains exemptions included “for special interests.”  As if the corporations he fronts for weren’t the biggest “special interests” of all.  And by the way, the exemptions in Prop 37 conform to those found in GMO labeling laws in the 61 other nations around the world, including the European Union, that already require labeling for foods that are genetically engineered.

Miller and the No on 37 campaign say that labeling would increase family food bills by hundreds of dollars per year.  Interestingly, the study they cite to justify this claim was paid for by the No on 37 campaign itself.  It was the work of a Maine public relations firm, Northbridge Consulting, that has no economic expertise, but has worked on behalf of Coke and Pepsi against laws that would require the recycling of soda pop bottles.

Would the passing of Prop 37 actually raise the price consumers pay for food? Henry Miller adamantly proclaims that it would.  But according to the only fully independent economic analysis of Prop 37, prepared by researchers at Emory University School of Law, “Consumers will likely see no increase in prices as a result of the relabeling” required by the bill.

Somehow I keep getting the feeling that Henry Miller may not be the man you want to listen to when your health is at stake.  But Monsanto and its allies are seeing to it that this man’s face and beliefs are everywhere in California today.  One television viewer in San Francisco reported seeing ads featuring Miller no less than 12 times in a single day.

Other “No on 37” ads feature a physician, Ronald Kleinman, dressed of course in the obligatory white coat.  Though the ads don’t mention it, Dr. Kleinman’s ethical principles don’t seem to hamper him from being a highly paid voice for the interests of the junk food companies.  While working for Coca-Cola, he advocated for“the safety…of sugar, artificial colors and nonnutritive sweeteners in children’s diets.”

Not content with misrepresenting Stanford University (three times), the pesticide and junk food companies behind No on 37 have also:

1.    Misled voters in the state voter guide by claiming falsely that the world’s largest organization of food and nutrition professionals, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, believes GMO foods are safe.

2.    Illegally affixed the official US FDA seal to their campaign propaganda, and attributed a fabricated quote to the FDA, falsely implying that the FDA has taken a position against Prop 37.

Regrettably, this deluge of deception seems to be having an impact.  Although polls originally showed that more than 80% of the California public want genetically modified food to be labeled, more recent polls are showing a virtual dead heat on Prop 37, with the advertising deluge only increasing in intensity.

Some daily newspapers in California are contributing to this unhappy trend by coming out against Prop 37, with editorials that use entire paragraphs directly from the “No on 37” press releases.  Might this have anything to do with the fact that processed foods companies are the primary source of advertising revenue for newspapers today?  And that the lobby for the processed food companies, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, has called the defeat of Prop 37 its single highest priority for the year?

The famed food author Michael Pollan wrote recently that Proposition 37 is the litmus test for whether or not there is actually a food movement in this country.  Public health activist Stacy Malkan adds that it also may be the litmus test for whether there is democracy left in this country.

These are good points.  There is no food movement if Monsanto has its way with us.  And there is no democracy without an informed citizenry.

The question now is whether we are going to allow special interests to dictate what we are allowed to know about the food they sell us.

In this case, ignorance is not bliss.  It’s subservience to the agenda of Monsanto and the other pesticide companies.  Without labeling, we are eating in the dark, with potentially disastrous consequences.

==

Henry I. Miller - SourceWatch

www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Henry_I._Miller

-

Apr 23, 2015 - Henry I. Miller is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and ... "Monsanto recently said that it had made significant progress in the ...

Attack on Dr. Mehmet Oz Over ... - ‎Miller on GMOs - ‎Defense of Tobacco Industry

Henry I. Miller - TruthWiki

www.truthwiki.org/henry-i-miller/

-

Aug 30, 2015 - Henry Miller has written an op-ed piece for the New York Times saying America needs GMO wheat, and that Monsanto has made significant ...

Henry I. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Henry**_I._Miller

-

Wikipedia

Henry I. Miller is an American medical researcher and columnist, formerly with the FDA, since 1994 the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and ...

Meet the Scientific “Experts” Claiming GMO Foods are Safe ...

www.eatdrinkpolitics.com/.../meet-the-scientific-experts-claiming-gmo-f...

-

Sep 12, 2012 - When corporations such as Philip Morris or Monsanto don't have actual ... Enter Henry Miller, a physician and molecular biologist who recently ...

Doctors behind anti-Oz letter have own 'conflicts of interest'

america.aljazeera.com/.../doctors-behind-anti-oz-letter-have-o...

-

Al Jazeera

Apr 17, 2015 - ... was authored by Dr. Henry I. Miller of Stanford's Hoover Institution. ... but of special interest to the subject at hand, companies like Monsanto, ...

The Monsanto Deception | Food Democracy Now

www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2012/oct/5/the_monsanto_deception

-

Oct 5, 2012 - Chip in today to help us to take on Monsanto and Giant Food ... In what seems to be no coincidence, Henry I. Miller also happens to be the ...

Lies, Damn Lies And Genetic Engineering - Forbes

www.forbes.com/.../henrymiller/.../lies-damn-lies-and-genetic-eng...

-

Forbes

Nov 5, 2014 - Henry I. Miller , .... molecular techniques of genetic engineering to agriculture (the exemplar of which was, and is, Monsanto) wanted, and got, ...

Myth Makers - M - GM Watch

gmwatch.org/myth-makers-m

-

Former Monsanto PR man who helped PR firm Lexington Communications with its work for the the biotech industry lobby group, the Agricultural ... Henry I. Miller

Henry I. Miller - Project Syndicate

www.project-syndicate.org/columnist/henry-i--miller

-

Project Syndicate:{:(style="border-width:4px 4px 0px;border-style:solid;width:0px;height:0px;top:8.5px;position:absolute;margin-left:6px;margin-top:-3px;border-color:#aaaaaa;"):}:

:{:{Henry I. Miller:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, a physician and molecular biologist, is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University's Hoover ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

[professor Drew Kershen, who joined the OU law faculty in 1971, teaches courses on

agricultural law, legal history, professional responsibility, and water rights. In recent
years, Professor Kershen has focused his teaching, research, and lecturing on
agricultural biotechnology law and policy. 

After receiving his juris doctorate in 1968, he joined a private practice in Atlanta. In
1973, he was named a fellow in law and humanities at Harvard University. He has held
visiting professorships at the universities of Kansas, Illinois, and Arkansas Little
Rock. During the summer terms and semester intersessions, he has taught at the University
of Arkansas-Fayetteville, Oklahoma City University, the University of Texas, and Texas
Tech. 

Kershen is coauthor of Farm Products Financing and Filing Service, written in 1990 with
J. Thomas Hardin. He has authored more than 40 other book chapters, grant reports, and
law review articles. 

Admitted to the Georgia Bar in 1969 (inactive) and the Oklahoma Bar in 1972, Kershen is a
member of the Oklahoma Water Law Advisory Commission and the Order of the Coif. Kershen
is a past member of the Board of Directors and past president of the American
Agricultural Law Association. He served as a trustee to the Rocky Mountain Mineral Law
Foundation from 1991-1995. Additionally, Professor Kershen was a Fulbright Teaching
Scholar to Honduras in 1999, and served as the Co-Reporter for the UCC Article 7 Revision
Committee from 2000-2003.

Agricultural Biotechnology Law and Policy

 Link

The Colossal Hoax Of Organic Agriculture (with Henry I. Miller), Forbes (2015)

 Link

Fanaticism, Pragmatism And Organic Agriculture (with Henry I. Miller), Forbes (2015)

 PDF

Regulatory Paradigms for Modern Breeding (with Wayne A. Parrott), NABC Report (2015)

Modern breeding, based upon molecular biology using genetic information, has made rapid advances. Breeders using...

 Link

Give Genetic Engineering Some Breathing Room (with Henry I. Miller), Slate (2015)

 Link

Give Genetic Engineering Some Breathing Room (with Henry I. Miller), Issues in Science and Technology (2015)

==

hoover:

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Vandana Shiva advocates policies that will inflict widespread poverty, malnutrition, and death** on the very people she claims to champion. And she’s no friend of the environment, either.

Politics and the Poor Man's Plate

by Henry I. Miller, Drew L. Kershenvia Defining Ideas

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Bureaucrats and activists deny nourishment to the world's needy.

Is Opposition to Genetic Engineering Moral?

by Henry I. Miller, Drew L. Kershenvia**National Review Online

Monday, November 26, 2012

Europe Versus Scientific Consensus

by Henry I. Miller, Drew L. Kershenvia American Magazine (American Enterprise Institute)

Thursday, October 18, 2012

A label we don't need

by Henry I. Miller, Drew L. Kershenvia Nature Biotechnology

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

The United Nations agency that sets food standards—the Codex Alimentarius—recently reached an impasse on the labeling of food containing products derived from recombinant DNA technology...

Innovation Arrested By The Law Of Unintended Consequences

by Henry I. Miller, Drew L. Kershenvia Forbes.com Blogs

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Wrong-headed regulation often has unintended consequences. A good example is governments’ approach to “genetically engineered” crops...

Why spurning food biotech has become a liability

by Henry I. Miller, Gregory Conko, Drew L. Kershenvia Nature Biotechnology

Friday, September 1, 2006

In the lat:{e 1990s, a singular phenomenon swept the world..}:

==

  1. Henry I. Miller is a **Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy** and Public Policy at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, a conservative public policy think tank in the United States.Wikipedia
  3. Education: University of California, San Diego
  4. Books: The Frankenfood Myth: How Protest and Politics Threaten the Biotech Revolution, More
  5. People also search for: J. Gordon Edwards, Robert H. Burris, Ellen V. Sigal, Frank Edward Young, J. Scott Turner

==

:{:{}:

}:

Another Obama Cabinet Member Falls Short

agr sec V  http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2014/07/02/policies-retrieved-from-a-bureaucratic-compost-heap-are-likely-to-stink/

sugar http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2014/06/18/3426/

---

2x, see links below

---

Prop 37 GMO Labeling Law Defeated By Corporate Dollars And Deception, Proponents Say

Posted: 11/07/2012 8:42 pm EST Updated: 11/07/2012 9:28 pm EST

Proponents of Proposition 37, the California ballot measure that would have required labeling of genetically engineered foods, are attributing Tuesday's narrow defeat to corporate dollars and deception, but are also pledging to persist in a battle that they see as key to the health of Americans.

"I think this election was largely a story of money. We didn't have the funds to compete," Stacy Malkan, media director of Yes on 37, said on a Wednesday press call. "Ultimately, we were not able to get the truth out to voters."

The "No on 37" campaign, funded primarily by agro-chemical giants including Monsanto and DuPont, outspent the "Yes on 37" campaign five-to-one. Prior to the opposition's $46 million push, proponents had held a consistent two-fold lead in the polls. But they lost on Tuesday, with voters rejecting the measure 53.1 to 46.9 percent.

"California voters clearly saw through Prop 37," Dr. Henry I. Miller of the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank at Stanford University, said in a statement on Wednesday. "Food labeling policy should be based on logic and science, not fear. Leading scientific organizations have all agreed that foods containing genetically engineered ingredients are safe and are not materially different from their traditional counterparts."

Malkan highlights Miller's lead role in the opposition's campaign as part of the "lies, deceit and trickery" that, she said, her campaign was unable to publicly correct. The known supporter of oil and tobacco companies and climate change skeptic was misrepresented as a Stanford doctor in a television campaign ad until the university ordered it re-shot. She also pointed to the opposition's distribution of deceptive mailers and its misrepresentation of the positions of scientific organizations and government agencies such as the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Directly above the official FDA seal, a campaign mailer read that the agency "says a labeling policy like Prop 37 would be 'inherently misleading.'" A FDA spokeswoman later denied that the agency had made "such statements with respect to Prop 37."

As for Miller's point that genetically engineered ingredients are safe, even some proponents of labeling so-called GMOs generally agree.

"A GMO crop, in theory, is not something to be afraid of," said Laura Vandenberg, a biologist at Tufts University and co-author of an editorial published last week in favor of labeling efforts. "The problem is how they are actually used in the real world. It's like talking about guns vs. gun control. Guns don't hurt people, people hurt people."

Most GMO crops in use in the U.S. have been engineered to resist herbicides, which allows growers to spray the chemicals without concern about harming their corn, rice or soy harvest. But as The Huffington Post previously reported, growing resistance among weeds is leading farmers to apply larger quantities of chemicals to achieve the same level of control.

In fact, contrary to biotech industry claims of a reduction in the use of pesticides and herbicides, a recent study estimated that GMO crops have resulted in an additional 404 million pounds of toxic pesticides doused on U.S. fields between 1996 -- when they were first introduced as farm crops -- and 2011. That's about a 7 percent increase.

"This means we're being exposed to a lot more of these chemicals," Vandenberg said. "Some of these chemicals we know very little about in terms of safety. But there are ones we know are endocrine disruptors."

---

omg;

Anti-GMO activist @Vandanashiva earns $40,000/speech advocating policies hurting poor http://bit.ly/1stltBi  @:(style="background-color:#ffffffff"):}::{GeneticLiteracy @NONGMOProject

8:49 AM - 17 Jul 2014

  1. 9:04 AM - 17 Jul 2014 · Details

" data-mentions="JonEntine vandanashiva GeneticLiteracy NonGMOProject" data-component-context="replies" data-you-follow="false" data-you-block="false" style="position: relative; min-height: 54px; padding: 9px 40px 9px 98px; border-bottom-width: 0px; cursor: pointer;">

**Voice of tReason** ‏@V_of_tReason 4h

@JonEntine @vandanashiva @GeneticLiteracy @NonGMOProject Ironic that she should be such a voice for #firstworldproblems

---

bitly

Anti-GMO activist Vandana Shiva earns $40,000 per speech advocating policies harming poor

Henry Miller | July 17, 2014 | Forbes

Vandana Shiva, the Indian activist who opposes modern agriculture and modern science — and well, modernity in general — is a popular guest lecturer on American campuses. Last spring, she held the Weissberg Chair in International Studies (2013-2014) at Beloit College and this fall is scheduled to lecture at Arizona State and Wake Forest universities.

Although she gets good press from left-wing and environmental publications, Shiva is widely considered by the scientific community to be unbalanced (in both senses of the word) for advocating unsound, anti-social policies and promulgating disproven theories about agriculture. One hopes her remarks to university students are placed in perspective by someone who knows better.

Shiva claims that the cultivation of genetically engineered, pest-resistant cotton is not only ineffective but has been the cause of hundreds of thousands of farmer suicides in India. But Shiva’s statistics are cherry-picked, largely irrelevant and often wrong, and her argument relies on a fallacy of logic known as post hoc, ergo propter hoc–after the fact, therefore because of the fact. In other words, she confuses correlation with causation, the kind of “logic” that leads one to believe that autism is caused by organic food because of graphs like this one.

Eminent Berkeley agricultural economist David Zilberman sums up India’s experience with genetic engineering this way: “India [has] gained from adopting [genetic engineering applied to] cotton but has lost from not adopting it with other crops. The US, Brazil and Argentina adopted [genetic engineering] in corn and soybean, which led to increases in output and gains from exporting these extra crops. India and the rest of the world have also indirectly enjoyed benefits from the increased global supply of corn because of [genetic engineering].

While this upper-caste Indian gets little right about science, she is clearly adept at extracting money from sponsors on the lecture circuit. According to her speakers’ agency, the Evil Twin Booking Agency (we are not making this up), Shiva’s usual fee for an American university appearance is $40,000 plus a business class round-trip ticket from New Delhi. Thus, we infer that Beloit, Wake Forest and Arizona State have probably paid Dr. Shiva close to $50,000 each for exposing their students to her mendacious, baseless attacks on modern agriculture and science.

Read the full, original article: Wealthy activist Vandana Shiva is a poor advocate for the poor

---

http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2014/07/16/a-wealthy-activist-is-a-poor-advocate-for-the-poor/

no links

Vandana Shiva advocates policies that will inflict widespread poverty, malnutrition, and death on the very people she claims to champion. And she’s no friend of the environment, either.

Henry I. Miller and Drew L. Kershen

Vandana Shiva, the Indian activist who opposes modern agriculture and modern science–and well, modernity in general–is a popular guest lecturer on American campuses. Last spring, she held the Weissberg Chair in International Studies (2013-2014) at Beloit College and this fall is scheduled to lecture at Arizona State and Wake Forest universities. Although she gets good press from left-wing and environmental publications, Shiva is widely considered by the scientific community to be unbalanced (in both senses of the word) for advocating unsound, anti-social policies and promulgating disproven theories about agriculture. One hopes her remarks to university students are placed in perspective by someone who knows better.

English: Golden Rice grain compared to white rice grain in screenhouse of Golden Rice plants. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As science writer Jon Entine and Dr. Cami Ryanof the University of Saskatchewan discussed in a Forbes.com article earlier this year, many of Shiva’s hobby horses have proven to be exceedingly lame. Some prominent examples

– The “Green Revolution.” The new varieties and practices of the Green Revolution introduced in the second half of the 20th century provided greater food security to hundreds of millions of people in developing countries on much of the planet;they made available high-yielding varieties of wheat and also new agronomic and management practices that transformed the ability of Mexico, India, Pakistan, China, and parts of South America to feed their populations. From 1950 to 1992, the world’s grain output rose from 692 million tons produced on 1.70 billion acres of cropland to 1.9 billion tons on 1.73 billion acres of cropland—an extraordinary increase in yield per acre of more than 150 percent.

India is an excellent case in point. In 1963 wheat grew there in sparse, irregular strands, was harvested by hand, and was highly susceptible to rust disease. The maximum yield was 800 lb per acre. By 1968 the wheat grew densely packed, was resistant to rust, and the maximum yield had risen to 6000 lb per acre. Without high-yield agriculture, either millions would have starved or increases in food output would have been realized only through drastic expansion of land under cultivation—with losses of pristine wilderness far greater than all the losses to urban, suburban and commercial expansion.

And yet, from her perch in a parallel universe, Shiva contends that the Green Revolution actually caused hunger. Here, as elsewhere, she employs the propaganda technique known as the Big Lie, a phrase coined by Adolf Hitler in his 1925 book Mein Kampf. Shiva promulgates lies so “colossal” (as Hitler put it) that it would be inconceivable for someone to “have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.” Read on.

– Golden Rice.  These are genetically engineered varieties that are biofortified, or enriched, by genes that produce beta-carotene, the precursor of vitamin A. They could be a monumental public health breakthrough, because vitamin A deficiency is epidemic among poor people whose diet is composed largely of rice, which contains no beta-carotene or vitamin A. In developing countries, 200 million-300 million children of preschool age are at risk of vitamin A deficiency, which increases their susceptibility to illnesses including measles and diarrheal diseases. Every year, about half a million children become blind as a result of vitamin A deficiency and 70% of those die within a year.

Inexplicably, Shiva is opposed to it: “By focusing on only one crop, rice, which by itself does not provide all the nutrients, including higher quantities of Vitamin A than Golden Rice, the Golden Rice pushers are in fact worsening the crisis of hunger and malnutrition.” “Promoters of Golden Rice are blind to diversity, and hence are promoters of blindness, both metaphorically and nutritionally,” she adds. Shiva has dismissed Golden Rice as a hoax and a myth–which are the vilest sort of lies, not unlike those of the pernicious charlatans who condemn childhood vaccination to prevent infectious diseases.

As Entine and Ryan wrote: “Shiva’s alternate proposed solution for promoting a ‘diversity of diet’ has not worked for the very poor who cannot afford to buy vegetables or fruits, or cannot devote the land on their subsistence farm to grow more of them.” The hoax is Shiva’s unworkable alternative, not the proven capabilities of genetic engineering.

– Genetically engineered, pest-resistant cotton (Bt-cotton, so-called because it contains a protein from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis that kills certain insects). Shiva claims that the cultivation of these seeds is not only ineffective but has been the cause of hundreds of thousands of farmer suicides in India.[note no cite] But Shiva’s statistics are cherry-picked, largely irrelevant and often wrong, and her argument relies on a fallacy of logic known as post hoc, ergo propter hoc–after the fact, therefore because of the fact. In other words, she confuses correlation with causation, the kind of “logic” that leads one to believe that autism is caused by organic food because of graphs like this one.

In an article last year in the journal Nature, agricultural socio-economist Dominic Glover observed, “It is nonsense to attribute farmer suicides solely to Bt cotton,” and moreover, “Although financial hardship is a driving factor in suicide among Indian farmers, there has been essentially no change in the suicide rate for farmers since the introduction of Bt cotton.”

Reinforcing Glover’s observations, a definitive, comprehensive study of Bt-cotton in India published in 2011 concluded: “Bt cotton is accused of being responsible for an increase of farmer suicides in India. . . Available data show no evidence of a ‘resurgence’ of farmer suicides. Moreover, Bt cotton technology has been very effective overall in India. Nevertheless, in specific districts and years, Bt cotton may have indirectly contributed to farmer indebtedness, leading to suicides, but its failure was mainly the result of the context or environment in which it was planted.”

In addition, a 2006 study of four of India’s major cotton-producing states found that Bt-cotton gave rise to yield gains of approximately 31% and a 39% decrease in number of insecticide sprays, which led to an 88% increase in profitability, equivalent to about $250 per hectare.

Eminent Berkeley agricultural economist David Zilberman sums up India’s experience with genetic engineering this way: “India [has] gained from adopting [genetic engineering applied to] cotton but has lost from not adopting it with other crops. The US, Brazil and Argentina adopted [genetic engineering] in corn and soybean, which led to increases in output and gains from exporting these extra crops. India and the rest of the world have also indirectly enjoyed benefits from the increased global supply of corn because of [genetic engineering]

We endorse shopping in the marketplace of ideas, but not when is is polluted by toxic goods. Recall Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s observation that everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts. Shiva is a seemingly endless font of bogus, made-up facts–that is to say, lies–and bizarre reasoning.

Even the way Shiva represents herself to the public at large and to potential sponsors for her lectures–variously as a “scientist,” “nuclear physicist,” or “quantum physicist”–is dishonest. She earned her doctorate not in physics, but in philosophy. Ironically, Shiva’s connection with physics illustrates not her expertise in the discipline, but her wrong-headedness. Her dissertation in the philosophy of science (not in physics) at the University of Western Ontario focused on the debate over a central notion in physics known as Bell’s Theorem, which is concerned with “testing whether or not particles connected through quantum entanglement communicate information faster than the speed of light,” and which has been called the “most profound theory in science.” The abstract of Shiva’s dissertation states, in part: “It has been taken for granted that Bell’s [theorem] is based on a locality condition which is physically motivated, and thus his proof therefore falls into a class by itself. We show that both the above claims are mistaken” [emphasis added].

Contrary to Shiva’s conclusion, however, Bell’s theorem has been proven scientifically correct. As Entine [another philos, but BA] and Ryan wrote, “The main thesis of quantum mechanics that she challenged has since been confirmed by experimental physics, meaning that her thesis stands at odds with factual reality.” But factual reality has never been Shiva’s forte.

While this upper-caste Indian gets little right about science, she is clearly adept at extracting money from sponsors on the lecture circuit. According to her speakers’ agency, the Evil Twin Booking Agency (we are not making this up), Shiva’s usual fee for an American university appearance is $40,000 plus a business class round-trip ticket from New Delhi. Thus, we infer that Beloit, Wake Forest and Arizona State have probably paid Dr. Shiva close to $50,000 each for exposing their students to her mendacious, baseless attacks on modern agriculture and science.

As for the substance of Shiva’s presentations at universities, we can only imagine. . . After all, she is the author of “In Praise of Cowdung”–a paean to peasant agriculture and an attack on improved seeds and modern fertilizers in Indian agriculture. That essay and her other writings remind us of an old Peanuts cartoon in which the character Lucy van Pelt is about to embark on a writing assignment. “Write about something you know well,” the teacher instructs. Lucy begins typing, “The air hung heavy with stupidity…”

Henry I. Miller, a physician, is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He was the founding director of the Office of Biotechnology at the FDA. Drew L. Kershen is the Earl Sneed Centennial Professor of Law (Emeritus), University of Oklahoma College of Law, in Norman, Okla.

---

---

Follow the Money: "Big 6" GMO Companies Buy Big Ads

Among the campaign's largest funders are the "Big 6" GMO and pesticide corporations: BASF, Bayer, Dupont, Dow Chemical Company, Syngenta, and Monsanto (see the chart below this article). These six corporations dominate the world's seed, pesticide and genetic engineering (GE) industries. Collectively they have contributed more than $20 million to oppose the labeling measure.

The most effective ad run by the opposition campaign, according to "Yes on 37" spokesperson Stacy Malkan, features Henry I. Miller telling voters that Prop 37 "doesn't make sense." It misleads voters by spinning the law's logical labeling exemptions into "arbitrary" "special interest" loopholes that allegedly result in an "illogical" and "ill-conceived" law. For instance, the ad discusses exemptions for animal products, but currently there are no genetically modified cows, pigs, or chickens on the market.

According to the Earth Island Journal, spinning the law's exemptions into a major issue makes "a snazzy sound bite, ... no doubt informed by the No campaign's polling and focus group findings that show this is a wedge issue. But it's a strawman argument and fundamentally misleading." The article points out "the holes in the loophole argument" one by one.

Who is Henry Miller?

The ad originally listed campaign spokesperson Miller as "M.D., Stanford" and showed Stanford University buildings in the background. The campaign had to pull that version off the air at the request of Stanford University and re-do it because "the Stanford ID on the screen appeared to violate the university's policy against use of the Stanford name by consultants," according to the Los Angeles Times.

Henry I. Miller (screenshot from "No on 37" ad)

Miller is a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank housed on the Stanford campus. Prior to joining Hoover, Miller worked for 15 years at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), where he was an outspoken advocate of agricultural biotechnology, including GMOs. Miller was the founding director of the FDA Office of Biotechnology, from 1989-1994.

What Miller is most notorious for are his unusual public positions. In 2003, Miller penned an op-ed for the New York Times defending DDT and arguing for its resurrection. This prompted a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) response pointing out the estimated "increase in infant deaths that might result from DDT spraying."

Miller was also a founding member scientist of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, a now-defunct, tobacco industry-funded public relations front group run by the APCO Worldwide PR firm that worked to discredit the links between cigarettes and cancer.

Perhaps most outrageously, Miller wrote in a 2011 op-ed for Forbes that some of those exposed to radiation after the damage to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant "could have actually benefitted from it."

So it is unsurprising that Miller penned a Forbes op-ed on GMO labeling this week suggesting that it is the supporters of GMO labeling who are engaged in "no-holds-barred advocacy ... to disparage farming methods and promulgate fraudulent health claims about the foods we eat."

---

SourceWatch

Henry I. Miller is senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank. Prior to joining the Hoover Institution, Miller worked for 15 years at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration where he was an outspoken advocate of agricultural biotechnology, including genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Miller was the founding director of the FDA Office of Biotechnology (from 1989-1994).

Contents

1 Miller on Biotechnology

2 Tobacco industry document information

3 Background

4 Affiliations

5 Books

6 Articles and resources

6.1 Related SourceWatcharticles

6.2 References

6.3 External articles

7 Articles by Miller

Miller on Biotechnology

With Gregory Conko he wrote in an article for the European Science and Environment Forum website which suggests that concerns about the safety of GM food are only because of "trade protectionism" and "anti-science fearmongering". In his book, The Frankenfood myth: how protest and politics threaten the biotech revolution (co-authored with Conko), Miller explains criticism of biotech as follows:

"Demands were made for governmental protection against unseen, unlikely, and often largely imaginary risks. The products of the new biotechnology often were regarded as though they were mysterious and alien substances transported here from another galaxy, instead of the result of precise and well-understood scientific processes."[1]

In the same book, Miller refers to biotechnology as "the closest thing to a free lunch in the technological firmament."

Miller and Conko argue against the adoption of the precautionary principle (PP), which would insist on safety testing of GM foods before they are released, on the grounds that "this erects an almost insurmountable barrier against new products because nothing can be proved totally safe - at least, not to the standard demanded by anti-technology extremists."

Miller spreads his message through the Heartland Institute, a Chicago based corporate funded think tank.

The 2004 article "Science Debunks Precautionary Principle"[2] quotes Miller as saying: "A large number of people in poor nations have food allergies," (milk, wheat, and nuts) "Biotechnology can remove the allergens ... so people in developing countries can enjoy some of these foods."

Tobaccoindustry document information

A 1994 memo written by the Apco Associates PR firm (now called Apco Worldwide) for Philip Morris (PM) discusses plans to create a European branch of the PM-backed "junk science" front group The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. The memo states,

Specifically, we recommend that a European TASSC be formulated to do the following:

Preempt unilateral action against industry.

Associate anti-industry "scientific"studies with broader questions about government research and regulations • Link the tobacco issue with other more "politically correct" products.

Have non-industry messengers provide reasons for legislators, business executives and media to view policies drawn from unreliable scientific studies with extreme caution.

The memo specifically cites Henry I. Miller as a "key supporter" who might be willing to assist in the execution of the project:

For example, Dr. Henry I. Miller, Visiting Fellow and Visiting Scholar of the Institute of International Studies of the Hoover Institute of Stanford University, is one example of a key supporter with strong academic and international credentials who might assist us in this project.

[2][Italicized emphasis added.]

An undated TASSC newsletter (called "The Catalyst") contains an article stating that TASSC member-scientist Dr. Henry Miller, ("a visiting scholar from the Hoover Institution)," helped draft the 5 Guiding Principles of TASSC. Listed along with Miller as another TASSC member who helped draft the Guiding Principles is James E. Enstrom, a scientist whose work was cited in The U.S. Government's racketeering case against Big Tobacco as having assisted the tobacco industry in perpetrating fraud and deception upon the American public.

Background

According to a a biographical profile in a 2003 report he co-authored, Miller's research "focuses on the relationship between science and regulation, theoften-excessive costs of government regulation,models for regulatory reform, and federal and international oversight of genetically engineered products. As a consultant, he advises defendants' and plaintiffs' counsel and companies on a wide spectrum of regulatory strategies and problems."[3]

According to the profile Miller "is a prominent academic researcher, author and regulatory consultant. He graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with a Bachelor of Science degree in Life Sciences and attended the University of California, San Diego, receiving the M.S. and M.D. degrees.

:{:{}:

}:

 After completing training in internal medicine as a Clinical Fellow in Medicine at Harvard Medical School, Dr. Miller spent several years as a Research Associate at theNational Institutes of Health, helping to refine and employing the recombinant DNA ("gene-splicing") techniques that were then emerging".

"Dr. Miller joined the FDA in 1979 and served in a number of posts involved with the new biotechnology. He was the medical reviewer for the early recombinant DNA-derived drugs evaluated by the FDA and was instrumental in the rapid approvals of human insulin and human growth hormone (the marketing approval of the former in five months was an FDA record at the time)," his profile states.

"He served at both the Center for Drug Evaluation and Review (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Review (CBER). Dr. Miller later served as Special Assistant to the FDA Commissioner, with responsibility for biotechnology issues (1984-89); and from 1989-94, he was the founding director of the FDA's Office of Biotechnology. During his government service, Dr. Miller wrote and lectured frequently on the regulatory requirements for biotechnology products, and participated frequently on various expert and policy panels as a representative of the FDA or the US government. As the FDA's contact person for the Securities and Exchange Commission, he reviewed the accuracy of claims made by companies in their prospectuses about the likelihood and timing of drug approvals," his profile states.

"Dr. Miller's primary contributions have been in four areas: as a federal official, crafting and implementing science-based regulation of the new biotechnology, and explaining these policies to regulated industry, the scientific community, and the public; as a member of international panels and experts' groups, moving consensus toward the scientific view of risk and its regulation; making science and technology and their regulation more widely understood, via articles in newspapers and magazines; and performing research on and analyses of various issues related to science and technology," his profile states.

Affiliations

Miller is:

a director of Consumer Alert BERMAN

a director of American Council on Science and Health

an Adjunct Scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute; and a

scientific advisor to the George C. Marshall Institute

Books

He has written a number of books including:

Policy Controversy in Biotechnology: An Insider's View', R.G. Landes Co. and Academic Press, 1997;

To America's Health: A Proposal to Reform the Food and Drug Administration, Hoover Institution Press, 2000.

The Frankenfood Myth: How Protest and Politics Threaten the Biotech Revolution, Henry Miller and Gregory Conko, Praeger, 2004.

Articles and resources

Related SourceWatch articles

Agricultural Biotechnology Policy in the Clinton Administration

Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology

Think tanks

References

? Henry I. Miller and Gregory P. Conko, The Frankenfood myth: how protest and politics threaten the biotech revolution, Praeger, 2004.

? [1]

? Bonner Cohen, John Carlisle, Michael Fumento, Michael Gough, Henry Miller, Steven Milloy, Kenneth Smith and Elizabeth Whelan (eds), Fear Profiteers: Do ‘Socially Responsible’ Businesses Sow Health Scares to Reap Monetary Rewards?, , [[National Center for Public Policy[[ and Junkscience.com, undated but approx 2000, pages 82-83.

:{:{}:

}:

External articles

Articles by Miller

Henry I. Miller, "Is there a Place forDDT?",New York Times, August 5, 2003.

Henry I. Miller and Gregory Conko, "We are Too Safe for our Own Good", Los Angeles Times, June 21, 2001.

"The Perils of Precaution", Policy Review, Hoover Institution, June-July 2001. (Republished in July 2005 co-authored with Gregory Conko as a booklet ISBN B0008I5FHM).

Bonner Cohen, et al., ed., "The Fear Profiteers: Do 'Socially Responsible' Businesses Sow Health Scares to Reap Monetary Rewards?", February 2002.

Henry Miller and Gregory Conko, "Cloudy horizons in a brave new world", Financial Times, March 7, 2000.

Henry I. Miller and Nick Nichols, "CEOs Should Mind Their Own Business", Investors Business Daily", December 28, 2005.

Henry I. Miller "Better Science Means Safer Food", Genetic engineering and biotechnology news, Volume 27, No. 1, January 1, 2007.

Henry I. Miller, "Crackpot Legislation", New York Times, June, 17, 2007.

Henry I. Miller "Don't Cry Over rBST Milk", New York Times Friday, June 29, 2007 - Advocates injecting cows with the hormone rBST.

"Bioengineered Milk? No Thanks (7 Letters)", New York Times, July 5, 2007.

Henry I.Miller, Piero Morandini and Klaus Ammann "Is Biotechnology A Victim of Anti-Science Bias in Scientific Journals?", Trends in Biotechnology , pp 122-125;, March, 2008.

Categories:

Tobaccowiki

Think tanks/personnel

United States

Genetic engineering

Tobacco documents biographies

Junk science

GMO Proponents

---

2x, w links

Prop 37 GMO Labeling Law Defeated By Corporate Dollars And Deception, Proponents Say

Posted: 11/07/2012 8:42 pm EST Updated: 11/07/2012 9:28 pm EST

Proponents of Proposition 37, the California ballot measure that would have required labeling of genetically engineered foods, are attributing Tuesday's narrow defeat to corporate dollars and deception, but are also pledging to persist in a battle that they see as key to the health of Americans.

"I think this election was largely a story of money. We didn't have the funds to compete," Stacy Malkan, media director of Yes on 37, said on a Wednesday press call. "Ultimately, we were not able to get the truth out to voters."

The "No on 37" campaign, funded primarily by agro-chemical giants including Monsanto and DuPont, outspent the "Yes on 37" campaign five-to-one. Prior to the opposition's $46 million push, proponents had held a consistent two-fold lead in the polls. But they lost on Tuesday, with voters rejecting the measure 53.1 to 46.9 percent.

"California voters clearly saw through Prop 37," Dr. Henry I. Miller of the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank at Stanford University, said in a statement on Wednesday. "Food labeling policy should be based on logic and science, not fear. Leading scientific organizations have all agreed that foods containing genetically engineered ingredients are safe and are not materially different from their traditional counterparts."

Malkan highlights Miller's lead role in the opposition's campaign as part of the "lies, deceit and trickery" that, she said, her campaign was unable to publicly correct. The known supporter of oil and tobacco companies and climate change skeptic was misrepresented as a Stanford doctor in a television campaign ad until the university ordered it re-shot. She also pointed to the opposition's distribution of deceptive mailers and its misrepresentation of the positions of scientific organizations and government agencies such as the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Directly above the official FDA seal, a campaign mailer read that the agency "says a labeling policy like Prop 37 would be 'inherently misleading.'" A FDA spokeswoman later denied that the agency had made "such statements with respect to Prop 37."

As for Miller's point that genetically engineered ingredients are safe, even some proponents of labeling so-called GMOs generally agree.

"A GMO crop, in theory, is not something to be afraid of," said Laura Vandenberg, a biologist at Tufts University and co-author of an editorial published last week in favor of labeling efforts. "The problem is how they are actually used in the real world. It's like talking about guns vs. gun control. Guns don't hurt people, people hurt people."

Most GMO crops in use in the U.S. have been engineered to resist herbicides, which allows growers to spray the chemicals without concern about harming their corn, rice or soy harvest. But as The Huffington Post previously reported, growing resistance among weeds is leading farmers to apply larger quantities of chemicals to achieve the same level of control.

In fact, contrary to biotech industry claims of a reduction in the use of pesticides and herbicides, a recent study estimated that GMO crops have resulted in an additional 404 million pounds of toxic pesticides doused on U.S. fields between 1996 -- when they were first introduced as farm crops -- and 2011. That's about a 7 percent increase.

"This means we're being exposed to a lot more of these chemicals," Vandenberg said. "Some of these chemicals we know very little about in terms of safety. But there are ones we know are endocrine disruptors."

---

Follow the Money: "Big 6" GMO Companies Buy Big Ads

Among the campaign's largest funders are the "Big 6" GMO and pesticide corporations: BASF, Bayer, Dupont, Dow Chemical Company, Syngenta, and Monsanto (see the chart below this article). These six corporations dominate the world's seed, pesticide and genetic engineering (GE) industries. Collectively they have contributed more than $20 million to oppose the labeling measure.

The most effective ad run by the opposition campaign, according to "Yes on 37" spokesperson Stacy Malkan, features Henry I. Miller telling voters that Prop 37 "doesn't make sense." It misleads voters by spinning the law's logical labeling exemptions into "arbitrary" "special interest" loopholes that allegedly result in an "illogical" and "ill-conceived" law. For instance, the ad discusses exemptions for animal products, but currently there are no genetically modified cows, pigs, or chickens on the market. According to the Earth Island Journal, spinning the law's exemptions into a major issue makes "a snazzy sound bite, ... no doubt informed by the No campaign's polling and focus group findings that show this is a wedge issue. But it's a strawman argument and fundamentally misleading." The article points out "the holes in the loophole argument" one by one.

Who is Henry Miller?

The ad originally listed campaign spokesperson Miller as "M.D., Stanford" and showed Stanford University buildings in the background. The campaign had to pull that version off the air at the request of Stanford University and re-do it because "the Stanford ID on the screen appeared to violate the university's policy against use of the Stanford name by consultants," according to the Los Angeles Times.

Henry I. Miller (screenshot from "No on 37" ad)Miller is a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank housed on the Stanford campus. Prior to joining Hoover, Miller worked for 15 years at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), where he was an outspoken advocate of agricultural biotechnology, including GMOs. Miller was the founding director of the FDA Office of Biotechnology, from 1989-1994.

What Miller is most notorious for are his unusual public positions. In 2003, Miller penned an op-ed for the New York Times defending DDT and arguing for its resurrection. This prompted a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) response pointing out the estimated "increase in infant deaths that might result from DDT spraying."

Miller was also a founding member scientist of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, a now-defunct, tobacco industry-funded public relations front group run by the APCO Worldwide PR firm that worked to discredit the links between cigarettes and cancer.

Perhaps most outrageously, Miller wrote in a 2011 op-ed for Forbes that some of those exposed to radiation after the damage to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant "could have actually benefitted from it."

So it is unsurprising that Miller penned a Forbes op-ed on GMO labeling this week suggesting that it is the supporters of GMO labeling who are engaged in "no-holds-barred advocacy ... to disparage farming methods and promulgate fraudulent health claims about the foods we eat."

---

Henry I. Miller is senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank. Prior to joining the Hoover Institution, Miller worked for 15 years at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration where he was an outspoken advocate of agricultural biotechnology, including genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Miller was the founding director of the FDA Office of Biotechnology (from 1989-1994).

Contents [hide]

Miller on Biotechnology

With Gregory Conko he wrote in an article for the European Science and Environment Forum website which suggests that concerns about the safety of GM food are only because of "trade protectionism" and "anti-science fearmongering". In his book, The Frankenfood myth: how protest and politics threaten the biotech revolution (co-authored with Conko), Miller explains criticism of biotech as follows:

"Demands were made for governmental protection against unseen, unlikely, and often largely imaginary risks. The products of the new biotechnology often were regarded as though they were mysterious and alien substances transported here from another galaxy, instead of the result of precise and well-understood scientific processes."[1]

In the same book, Miller refers to biotechnology as "the closest thing to a free lunch in the technological firmament."

Miller and Conko argue against the adoption of the precautionary principle (PP), which would insist on safety testing of GM foods before they are released, on the grounds that "this erects an almost insurmountable barrier against new products because nothing can be proved totally safe - at least, not to the standard demanded by anti-technology extremists."

Miller spreads his message through the Heartland Institute, a Chicago based corporate funded think tank.

The 2004 article "Science Debunks Precautionary Principle"[2] quotes Miller as saying: "A large number of people in poor nations have food allergies," (milk, wheat, and nuts) "Biotechnology can remove the allergens ... so people in developing countries can enjoy some of these foods."

Tobacco industry document information

A 1994 memo written by the Apco Associates PR firm (now called Apco Worldwide) for Philip Morris (PM) discusses plans to create a European branch of the PM-backed "junk science" front group The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. The memo states,

Specifically, we recommend that a European TASSC be formulated to do the following:

  • Preempt unilateral action against industry.
  • Associate anti-industry "scientific"studies with broader questions about government research and regulations • Link the tobacco issue with other more "politically correct" products.
  • Have non-industry messengers provide reasons for legislators, business executives and media to view policies drawn from unreliable scientific studies with extreme caution.

The memo specifically cites Henry I. Miller as a "key supporter" who might be willing to assist in the execution of the project:

For example, Dr. Henry I. Miller, Visiting Fellow and Visiting Scholar of the Institute of International Studies of the Hoover Institute of Stanford University, is one example of a key supporter with strong academic and international credentials who might assist us in this project.

[2][Italicized emphasis added.]

An undated TASSC newsletter (called "The Catalyst") contains an article stating that TASSC member-scientist Dr. Henry Miller, ("a visiting scholar from the Hoover Institution)," helped draft the 5 Guiding Principles of TASSC. Listed along with Miller as another TASSC member who helped draft the Guiding Principles is James E. Enstrom, a scientist whose work was cited in The U.S. Government's racketeering case against Big Tobacco as having assisted the tobacco industry in perpetrating fraud and deception upon the American public.

Background

According to a a biographical profile in a 2003 report he co-authored, Miller's research "focuses on the relationship between science and regulation, the often-excessive costs of government regulation, models for regulatory reform, and federal and international oversight of genetically engineered products. As a consultant, he advises defendants' and plaintiffs' counsel and companies on a wide spectrum of regulatory strategies and problems."[3]

According to the profile Miller "is a prominent academic researcher, author and regulatory consultant. He graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with a Bachelor of Science degree in Life Sciences and attended the University of California, San Diego, receiving the M.S. and M.D. degrees. After completing training in internal medicine as a Clinical Fellow in Medicine at Harvard Medical School, Dr. Miller spent several years as a Research Associate at the National Institutes of Health, helping to refine and employing the recombinant DNA ("gene-splicing") techniques that were then emerging".

"Dr. Miller joined the FDA in 1979 and served in a number of posts involved with the new biotechnology. He was the medical reviewer for the early recombinant DNA-derived drugs evaluated by the FDA and was instrumental in the rapid approvals of human insulin and human growth hormone (the marketing approval of the former in five months was an FDA record at the time)," his profile states.

"He served at both the Center for Drug Evaluation and Review (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Review (CBER). Dr. Miller later served as Special Assistant to the FDA Commissioner, with responsibility for biotechnology issues (1984-89); and from 1989-94, he was the founding director of the FDA's Office of Biotechnology. During his government service, Dr. Miller wrote and lectured frequently on the regulatory requirements for biotechnology products, and participated frequently on various expert and policy panels as a representative of the FDA or the US government. As the FDA's contact person for the Securities and Exchange Commission, he reviewed the accuracy of claims made by companies in their prospectuses about the likelihood and timing of drug approvals," his profile states.

"Dr. Miller's primary contributions have been in four areas: as a federal official, crafting and implementing science-based regulation of the new biotechnology, and explaining these policies to regulated industry, the scientific community, and the public; as a member of international panels and experts' groups, moving consensus toward the scientific view of risk and its regulation; making science and technology and their regulation more widely understood, via articles in newspapers and magazines; and performing research on and analyses of various issues related to science and technology," his profile states.

Affiliations

Miller is:

Books

He has written a number of books including:

Articles and resources

Related SourceWatch articles

References

  1. ↑ Henry I. Miller and Gregory P. Conko, The Frankenfood myth: how protest and politics threaten the biotech revolution, Praeger, 2004.
  2. ↑ [1]
  3. ↑ Bonner Cohen, John Carlisle, Michael Fumento, Michael Gough, Henry Miller, Steven Milloy, Kenneth Smith and Elizabeth Whelan (eds), *Fear Profiteers: Do ‘Socially Responsible’ Businesses Sow Health Scares to Reap Monetary Rewards?*, , [National Center for Public Policy[[ and [Junkscience.com, undated bu approx 2000, pages 82-83.

External articles

Articles by Miller

Categories: