jon entine 2
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">819 oops see 2</font><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">see pollinators
</font><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">gmail 8 23</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); padding: 0px 6px 0px 0px;">P<a href="https://www.google.com/url?rct=j&sa=t&url=https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2023/08/02/protecting-honeybees-and-wild-bees-from-neonicotinoid-pesticides-as-environmentalists-and-politicians-lobby-for-bans-science-takes-a-backseat/&ct=ga&cd=CAEYACoUMTI2NTcwMDY4MzY0MTIwNDY2NTUyGmJmMDQ5MDY3NTg3MTRlOTA6Y29tOmVuOlVT&usg=AOvVaw3n4aE1kPZOqyLm10FKaJ7U" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?rct%3Dj%26sa%3Dt%26url%3Dhttps://geneticliteracyproject.org/2023/08/02/protecting-honeybees-and-wild-bees-from-neonicotinoid-pesticides-as-environmentalists-and-politicians-lobby-for-bans-science-takes-a-backseat/%26ct%3Dga%26cd%3DCAEYACoUMTI2NTcwMDY4MzY0MTIwNDY2NTUyGmJmMDQ5MDY3NTg3MTRlOTA6Y29tOmVuOlVT%26usg%3DAOvVaw3n4aE1kPZOqyLm10FKaJ7U&source=gmail&ust=1691258570695000&usg=AOvVaw3LOFndI_Pv7T378W0mgh1l" style="display: inline; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: 20px;">rotecting honeybees and wild bees from neonicotinoid pesticides? As ... - Genetic Literacy Project</a></span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /></font><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div style="padding: 2px 0px 8px;"><div style=""><a><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Genetic Literacy Project</font></a></div><div style="padding: 2px 0px 0px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As environmentalists and politicians lobby for bans, science takes a backseat. Andrew Porterfield, Jon <b>Entine</b> | August 2, 2023.</font></div></div></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">gmail 7 23</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Investigative report reveals undue influence by toxic tort industry over WHO-related cancer org</span></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">EIN News</span></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">GLP Editor, Jon Entine, reviews the anticipated formal release of competing assessments by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) .</span></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</span></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</span></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Aspartame spins the $25 billion Wheel of Mis-Fortune: How the environmental activist—tort ...</span></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Genetic Literacy Project</span></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">... activist—tort lawyer money machine manipulates journalists, misleads policymakers and scares the public. Jon Entine | July 14, 2023.</span></font></div></div><div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">= </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-problem-with-honey-bees/" >https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-problem-with-honey-bees/ not good for nature</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" /><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">US beekeepers continue to report high colony loss rates, no ...</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></div><div>
</div><div>Auburn University</div><div>https://ocm.auburn.edu › ... › 2021 › June</div><div><b>Jun 24, 2021 — Beekeepers across the United States lost 45.5% of their managed honey bee colonies from April 2020 to April 2021,</b> according to preliminary ...</div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> mailto:jlw0067@auburn.edu</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> Beekeepers across the United States lost 45.5% of their managed honey bee colonies from April 2020 to April 2021, according to preliminary results of the 15th annual nationwide survey conducted by the nonprofit</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> PUBLISHED 9:33 PM CT<b> Dec. 29, 2022</b></font><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; box-sizing: border-box;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">AUSTIN, Texas — Bees aren’t just for making honey, these insects are among the most lucrative workers in the United States, contributing at least $15 billion to the economy annually, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; box-sizing: border-box;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">However, honeybee populations have been drastically declining for years.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; box-sizing: border-box;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; box-sizing: border-box;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">What You Need To Know</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; box-sizing: border-box;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Honeybees contribute at least $15 billion dollars to the U.S. economy annually</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; box-sizing: border-box;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Preliminary reports show beekeepers lost about 39% of their honeybee colonies in the last year</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; box-sizing: border-box;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Texas is not one of the worst states for honeybee colony loss, but it’s not the best either</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; box-sizing: border-box;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Small beekeepers in Texas say 2022 has been one of the worst years on record for colony loss</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; box-sizing: border-box;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The U.S. Department of Agriculture says honey bee populations have been declining in the United States since the 1940s, going from a population of around 6 million to about 2.5 million today.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; box-sizing: border-box;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; box-sizing: border-box;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Lawmakers and environmental groups are drafting a bill to make Texas’ landscape more plant pollinator friendly.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; box-sizing: border-box;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">For beekeepers like Tanya Phillips, help can’t come soon enough. Phillips is the queen bee of the Texas Honey Bee Farm in Austin. When she heard all the buzz about bees dying out, she wanted to do something about it.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; box-sizing: border-box;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">“We started thinking, we have to save the bees, we have to educate people, we need to make better beekeepers, we need to help the scientists,” Phillips said.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; box-sizing: border-box;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Twelve years later, Phillips has gone from conservation hobbyist to owning a full-blown business with around 80-150 colonies. But, Phillips says, after all these years working with these petite pollinators, her bee populations haven’t gotten better.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; box-sizing: border-box;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">“This year has been the worst year probably,” she said.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" /></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">She says severe cold and drought have killed off hundreds of colonies in her area in the past four months....</font></font></font></p></div></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></font></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></font></font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></font></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">6 23 gmail</font></font></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></font></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" /></font></font><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">many lnx grf pix</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></div><div>Viewpoint: Is the predicted ‘Silent Earth insect armageddon’ the inevitable result of using farm chemicals — or is it alarmist activist propaganda? Insect scientists challenge the doomsayers</div><div>Jon Entine | June 9, 2023</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>For years, journalists and environmental bloggers have been churning out story after story claiming that insects are vanishing, in the United States and globally. There is no question that insects are in decline which lends credence to reasonable concerns as insects are crucial components of many ecosystems. More interesting and of scientific value and far less clear is ‘why’, how severe is the decline, and whether the drop-off portends, as many environmentalists claim, environmental armageddon.</div><div>
</div><div>Some but not all environmental activists have seized on this issue, framing it in catastrophic terms, with predictions of a near-inevitable and imminent ecological collapse that would undermine global biodiversity, destroy harvests and trigger widespread starvation. Many of the solutions they are advocating would require a dramatic retooling of many aspects of modern life, from urbanization to agriculture.</div><div>
</div><div>Considering the disruptive economic and social trade-offs being demanded by some who embrace the crisis hypothesis, it’s prudent to separate documentable threats from agenda-driven hyperbole. How ecologically threatening are insect declines? Should we be in ‘catastrophic crisis’ mode? What can and should we as a collective society responsibly do? </div><div>
</div><div><b>Glyphosate tort extravaganza:</b> recent roots of the crisis narrative</div><div>The hyper-focus on disappearing insects traces back to a 2017 study conducted by an obscure German entomological society that claimed that flying insects in German nature reserves had decreased by 76 percent over just 26 years. Most entomologists viewed the study warily. It focused on a small, protected areas, most of which had been encroached upon by urbanization. Many questions were raised about the areas chosen for study, time of year chosen to set out traps to collect insects, the focus on protected areas that were being encroached upon by expanding urban centers, and numbers other subjective decisions by the study authors. If this issue had not already been controversial, the study would have been seen for what it was: a sliver of information about a small geographic locations on the global map that should be weighed along with dozens of other more robust studies in much larger, insect-rich regions. Instead, with the aggressive support of European activist groups it helped crate a global a cause célèbre.</div><div>
</div><div>The study, co-authored by twelve scientists, lit a fire in advocacy circles committed to making a case that modern agriculture and its use of crop protection chemicals was bringing Earth close to an environmental reckoning. This framing of the paper was circulated through the loosely coordinated anti-biotechnology movement. Its influence was in decline as genetic modification and an exciting new tool called CRISPR to precisely gene edit crops was gradually being embraced by the general public, even in risk averse Europe. Looking for a way to revive their fading influence, campaigners turned to a proxy: switch the controversy from a losing focus on genetic engineering itself to what they believed is the central sin of modern agriculture: the use of crop protection chemicals, some used in tandem with GM seeds.</div><div>
</div><div>pesticide danger cancer</div><div>Credit: Challenge Advisory</div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The ‘chemophobia strategy’ was birthed in 2015 after a then publicly obscure UN sub-agency, the International Association for Research on Cancer, issued a ‘hazard’ study claiming that there was “sufficient evidence” glyphosate causes cancer in animals and “limited evidence” it can do so in humans.</span> IARC placed glyphosate in its catch-all hazard category “2A”: “probably carcinogenic to humans” — the same category occupied by drinking hot beverages, eating red meat, or going to a barber or hairdresser. It was judged far less hazardous than eating bacon or salted fish, taking oral contraceptives — or drinking the red wine served at IARC’s announcement.</div><div>
</div><div>Not surprisingly anti-GM campaigners spun IARC’s modest conclusion into a global fear campaign — and has largely been successful. Reuters later discovered that days before the release of its final report the IARC panel evaluating glyphosate had edited out the conclusion that glyphosate was non-carcinogenic. The change came, it was later learned, a the urging of scientist Christopher Portier, who had urged IARC to examine glyphosate. Within days after the IARC decision, Portier signed a lucrative contract to be a litigation consultant for two law firms; the point firm represented the Church of Scientology, which foresaw that glyphosate litigation was a multi-billion dollar tort extravaganza — they were right.</div><div>
</div><div>Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.</div><div>SIGN UP]</div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Twenty-two other independent ‘risk’ agencies around the world before and since have concluded, as IARC originally did, that glyphosate was not carcinogenic —including the UN World Health Organization itself and two other affiliate agencies — outright rejected IARC’s globally-contested last-minute reversal.</span></div><div>
</div><div>screenshot at pm</div><div>
</div><div>[The Genetic Literacy Project has compiled the findings of the world’s top regulatory and chemical research organizations including IARC’s. They are illustrated in this infographic. [Click here for a downloadable pdf version]</div><div>
</div><div><b>Widely recognized at the time as the most effective and safest herbicide, glyphosate became the global proxy to attack ‘Big Ag’ and crop biotechnology. </b>Now they saw an opportunity to expand their campaign by targeting all crop chemicals, and warning that they were driving a global environmental collapse. And they had the agent privateer to execute this grand strategy: Dr. David Goulson</div><div>
</div><div>The controversial German insect paper and the role of the New York Times</div><div>
</div><div>Environmental activist NGOs around the world, many tied to tort lawyers who often funded their campaigns, help circulate the German study. It became the sixth-most-discussed scientific paper of 2017. Headlines around the world predicted that impending mass insect deaths would lead to an “ecological Armageddon” — a turn of phrase from by one of the co-authors, Dave Goulson. Then a relatively obscure English biology professor, Goulson rapidly became the public face of the crisis narrative. Although there was immediate and widespread skepticism in the entomology community, for the most part journalists embraced the ‘end of world’ narrative.</div><div>
</div><div>The New York Times Magazine’s Brooke Jarvis christened the study’s legitimacy, headlining its 2018 feature: ”The Insect Apocalypse Is Here” and promoting it with a visually stunning, and frightening, cover illustration.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>The lengthy feature was filled with speculation about the imminent “complete” disappearance of insects, using descriptors such as “chaos”, “collapse”, “ecological dark age” and “Armageddon”. Compounding the imminent catastrophe, our most despised pests, from cockroaches to house flies, would largely be spared, booming out of control as beneficial insects vanished. The Times’ summary conclusion? The world is facing a loss of biodiversity, what it called the “sixth extinction”. And it will get worse; the insect declines were the canary in the ecological mine. What is to blame? Agricultural synthetic chemicals.</div><div>
</div><div>Goulson, a professor at the University of Sussex, was the featured scientist in the piece. The Times quoted him as choking up in grief as he shared his poignant, ‘end-of-life-as-we-know-it’ crisis scenario: </div><div>
</div><div>“If we lose insects, life on earth will. …” He trailed off, pausing for what felt like a long time.</div><div>
</div><div>In talking with reporters, Goulson refocuses almost every discussion about threats to insects into an attack on synthetic chemicals. As he told The Guardian at the time of the publication of his co-authored 2017 study, “[The insect deaths could be caused by] exposure to chemical pesticides,” even though the German study sampled populations from nature reserves and its purpose wasn’t to detect causes of declines.</div><div>
</div><div>Goulson reignited the controversy in 2021, transforming the supposed “bee-pocalypse” into a global apocalypse for all insects, and potentially all life on Earth. In “Silent Earth: Awaiting the Insect Apocalypse”, he blames modern agriculture, agricultural chemicals, “greedy corporations,” and capitalism. The New York Times chose not to review the book, but hundreds of other news outlets did, including London’s Sunday Times and The Telegraph. both which named it one of its books of the year.</div><div>
</div><div>dave wesbite width</div><div>
</div><div>Seeing himself as following in the footsteps of Rachel Carson, and in his now familiar understated style, Goulson claimed that developed countries are committing environmental suicide with what he calls their “chemical onslaught on nature … akin to genocide,” and the “fragile web of life on our planet is beginning to tear apart.” The culprits: Agricultural corporations such as Syngenta, Bayer and Corteva, among others. As one popular horticulturist wrote admiringly, “Author, Dave Goulson has written Silent Earth as a call to arms, raising awareness of the perils of using many of the products that have become common place in our homes and gardens, towns, cities, farms, and countryside.” Almost unanimously praised by non-scientists, the science community was less enthusiastic. Physician and molecular biologist Henry Miller wrote:</div><div>
</div><div>[M]uch of Goulson’s evidence is purely anecdotal — such as fewer bugs splattering on the windshields of European cars now compared to the past — and the few studies of global insect populations he does consider are deeply flawed or mischaracterized in his account.</div><div>The tsunami of crisis articles served as a wake-up call. But to what? What are the facts?</div><div>
</div><div>Insectageddon is a great read. But what are the facts?</div><div>
</div><div>A number of studies suggest that insect populations are declining in some areas of the world (but not in others) or that certain kinds of insects (taxa) may in decline in those regions (even as others are increasing). But Armageddon? Such catastrophic framing and the policy implications that would inevitably flow from that conclusion are significant. If Goulson is accurate in his assessment, we need to dramatically reshape agriculture, and quickly.</div><div>
</div><div>What is the consensus view? <b>Manu Sanders </b>is a prominent entomologist, recipient of the Office of Environment & Heritage/Ecological Society of Australia Award for Outstanding Science Outreach. She and colleagues Jasmine Janes and James O’Hanlon outlined the science-based perspective in 2019 in BioScience, where they examined the headline-grabbing apocalypse studies that had appeared to that date. They presented their conclusions in a post for Ecology Is Not a Dirty Word, a highly respected<b> blog</b> that Saunders oversees:</div><div>
</div><div>We summarise the major flaws in the pop culture ‘insect apocalypse’ narrative and argue that focusing on a hyped global apocalypse narrative<b> distracts us from the more important insect conservation issues that we can tackle right now.</b> Promoting this narrative as fact also sends the wrong message about how science works, and could have huge impacts on public understanding of science. … And, frankly, it’s just depressing.</div><div>
</div><div>Of one of the major studies used to promote the apocalypse narrative (“Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers”, by Sanchez-Bayo and Wychkhuys, discussed below), Sanders noted an appallingly selective and apparently willful misrepresentation and manipulation of the data in the original 2017 paper from which Goulson cites as the most compelling data in support of his narrative:</div><div>
</div><div>From a scientific perspective, there is so much wrong with the paper, it really shouldn’t have been published in its current form: the biased search method, the cherry-picked studies, the absence of any real quantitative data to back up the bizarre 40% extinction rate that appears in the abstract (we don’t even have population data for 40% of the world’s insect species), and the errors in the reference list. And it was presented as a ‘comprehensive review’ and a ‘meta-analysis’, even though it is neither.</div><div>
</div><div>Reflecting broad concerns among ecologists, Saunders also worried about the failure of prominent news organizations like the New York Times and the Times of London to treat alarmist claims with proper skepticism. She argued that ideological group-think had captured the credulous media:</div><div>
</div><div>Most journalists I spoke to have been great, and really understand the importance of getting the facts straight. But a few seemed confused when they realized I wasn’t agreeing with the apocalyptic narrative – ‘other scientists are confirming this, so why aren’t you?’</div><div>
</div><div><b>Professor Sanders has written a stunning 4-part series on what she sees as the crisis manipulation by scare-promoting journalists and scientists </b>[see: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4].</div><div>
</div><div>Early roots of the crisis narrative</div><div>It’s important to understand how we got from the consensus —‘there is fragmentary but concerning evidence’ of insect declines — to ‘the world faces imminent collapse’. The insect crisis narrative dates back more than a decade, and was originally focused on alarming reports beginning in 2006 of a surge in honeybee mortality. </div><div>
</div><div>The die-offs, concentrated mostly along the west coast of the US, were dubbed Colony Collapse Disorder. CCD is an enigmatic condition that causes bees to vanish without a clear explanation. At the time, many environmental activists claimed it was the early signs of a ‘bee-apocalypse’, blamed insecticides as the root cause, a conclusion widely circulated by the media. </div><div>
</div><div>Then as now, the mainstream entomology community (and even a special task force set up by President Obama’s USDA) tried to push back on the crisis narrative. Incidents similar to CCD (previously known as ‘disappearing disease’) had occurred in the 1800s and 1900s, long before synthetic pesticides were invented. This iteration of CCD had largely ended by the early 2010s, experts say. </div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Honey bee colony levels have remained stable despite elevated loss rates.</div><div>But that’s not the story that dominated headlines. The ‘media crisis’ persisted for years, cresting in an article by Time, which proclaimed in a 2013 cover story: “A World Without Bees: The Price We’ll Pay If We Don’t Figure Out What’s Killing the Honeybee”. But by then, unbeknownst to journalists and scientists, the crisis was fast fading; honeybee populations had begun to stabilize by 2011, and by 2015, they hit a 20 year high in the US. This trend was even more pronounced globally: honeybee populations have increased 30 percent worldwide since 2000. </div><div>
</div><div>By 2018, almost every major news organization, from the Washington Post (‘’Believe it or not, the bees are doing just fine”) to Slate (‘The Bees are Alright”) and including many environmental publications such as Grist (“Why the bee crisis isn’t as bad as you think’) were sheepishly acknowledging there never was an imminent worldwide honeybee catastrophe. Conspicuously, the New York Times was one of the few news outlets to not reconsider its crisis narrative.</div><div>
</div><div>How healthy are bees? As the GLP has previously reported (here, here and here), dire predictions of an impending insect extinction rest on studies that suffer from flawed methodologies and fragmentary and mostly regional data. While honeybees face health challenges, that’s mostly because they are “pack animals” trucked around from one region to another to pollinate crops. Their ongoing health problems are primarily linked to the spread of disease-carrying Varroa mites. The mites are virtually absent in certain parts of the world, such as Australia, which has seen steady growth of honeybees for decades.</div><div>
</div><div>Even the hardline Sierra Club was forced (briefly) to do an about face after 8 years of near-hysterical claims about an escalating honeybee disaster. In 2016 (well after other news organizations had revised their crisis narrative), the group’s “save the bees” fund raising campaign mailer was still dominated by media-hyped hysteria:</div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Bees had a devastating year. 44% of colonies killed…and Bayer and Syngenta are still flooding your land with bee-killing toxic ‘neonic’ pesticides—now among the most widely used crop sprays in the country.</span></div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Challenged by the GLP, and as the tide of mainstream environmentalists turned against the bee apocalypse narrative, Sierra Club, with no mea culpa or even an explanation, suddenly reversed itself in 2018, posting a far different message on its blog:</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Honeybees are at no risk of dying off. While diseases, parasites and other threats are certainly real problems for beekeepers, the total number of managed honeybees worldwide has risen 45% over the last half century.</span></div><div>
</div><div>What about wild bees?</div><div>There is fragmentary but real evidence of health challenges facing wild bees. The data is hard to interpret however, because wild bees are notoriously hard to evaluate. But a worldwide pollinator crisis caused by insecticide overuse, as Goulson and others claim? The most comprehensive recent study, released in May 2021, found few of the 250 bumblebee species from around the world were in peril, challenging the apocalypse narrative. “If you look at all the species, on average, there is no decline,” concludes ecologist Laura Melissa Guzman at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia.</div><div>
</div><div>Even as claims of a honey beepocalypse faded in the science community, many environmental groups, often citing Goulson (an ardent early promoter of the honeybee catastrophe false narrative), gish-galloped to claims that wild bees, then birds, and now all of the insect world face extinction.</div><div>
</div><div>That’s what happened at the Sierra Club in 2016, looking for a way to distract from years of misreporting. For much of a decade, claiming honeybees were dying was a sure fire way to raise money. Within months of its reversal on honeybees, it brazenly launched yet another campaign asking for more contributions — again, to protect bees. The once venerable environmental group turned to touting Goulson’s broader insect Armageddon claims, again fingering “pesticides” as the driving culprit.</div><div>
</div><div>Goulson imitators</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Goulson is not alone in his myopic focus. In 2019, in a meta-analysis of insect population trends around the world, Australian environmental scientist Francisco Sánchez-Bayo, a Goulson ally, claimed that all insects will disappear from the Earth in a century. </span>(I’ve previously discussed the study in depth here). In an interview with The Guardian, Sánchez-Bayo commented:</div><div>
</div><div>The 2.5% rate of annual loss over the last 25-30 years is ‘shocking’, Sánchez-Bayo told the Guardian: ‘It is very rapid. In 10 years you will have a quarter less, in 50 years only half left and in 100 years you will have none.’ One of the biggest impacts of insect loss is on the many birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish that eat insects. ‘If this food source is taken away, all these animals starve to death.’</div><div>
</div><div>Sánchez-Bayo argued this frightening prospect was due to “industrial-scale, intensive agriculture.” But that conclusion was not supported by the evidence in his paper and was criticized by the entomology community. While some of the studies included in the meta-analysis were related to agriculture, and some speculated pesticides were responsible for declines, that was his personal opinion, voiced without any data — yet it was cited by many reporters as the main ‘take away’ from the study.</div><div>
</div><div>As Manu Sanders noted in American Scientist, the Sánchez-Bayo study was beset by numerous methodological errors. The authors only included studies that specifically mentioned the phrase” insect declines,” thus biasing the results, as some reports of stable or rising populations were excluded from the analysis. </div><div>
</div><div>While Sánchez-Bayo claimed that “almost half of the [world’s insect] species are rapidly declining, his team’s data documented declines for only about 2,900 species, a tiny fraction, less than 1/10th of 1%) of the insect species on Earth. As Sanders and others noted, while about 900,000 species of insects have been identified globally, studies of Latin American forest canopies have suggested there may be upwards of 30 million insect species.</div><div>
</div><div>Sánchez-Bayo et al. also claimed that their research was based on a “worldwide” assessment, but nearly all of the data were drawn from the US and Europe. There could be as many as 200,000 insect species in Australia alone, but data from that country focused solely on managed honeybees. The statistics from Asia (excluding Japan) only included managed beehives and there were no studies from Central Africa and almost none from South America, a global insect population epicenter.</div><div>
</div><div>Scientists say that excluding data from some of the most ecologically diverse regions on the planet, along with studies on increasing or stable insect populations, biased the study so severely that its results cannot be used to draw any conclusions on changes in insect populations worldwide.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Geographic location of the 73 reports studied on the world map. Columns show the relative proportion of surveys for each taxa as indicated by different colors in the legend. Data for China and Queensland (Australia) refer to managed honeybees only.</div><div>What do mainstream insect experts conclude?</div><div>The silver lining from the recent spate of advocacy-focused studies news is that entomologists are doing a deeper dive into the reasons behind the global declines. Goulson’s upcoming media blitz notwithstanding, the most thorough studies to date on insects in North America challenges the catastrophe narrative (although you may not have heard about them as they have been almost ignored by the media), and even offers some reassuring news. </div><div>
</div><div>A 2020 study by German researchers led by Dr. Roel van Klink represented the largest and most definitive study on global insect populations at the time of its publication. The meta-analysis of 166 studies found that insects are declining much less rapidly (3- to 6-fold less) than previously reported, and freshwater insects are actually increasing. Other major findings: </div><div>
</div><div>The only correlation with insect declines was habitat, specifically urbanization</div><div>Cropland was correlated with insect abundance</div><div>Insect declines in North America ended by the year 2000</div><div>While comprehensive, the report wasn’t flawless. The primary issue, shared with Sánchez-Bayo, was that nearly all data came from Europe and North America. As the below map shows, there were only a few studies from South America and Africa, and none from South Asia, making it impossible to declare whether insects are declining or increasing in those regions.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>While threats to certain species do exist in certain locations, that doesn’t support claims that we face a broad, global population collapse among insects. </div><div>
</div><div>North American insect populations are stable</div><div>The deficiencies of the studies by Goulson and his acolytes encouraged a team of 12 researchers led by Michael Moran at Hendrix College in Arkansas to examine the “insect crisis” in North America. As the authors noted, “much evidence for what has been dubbed the ‘insect apocalypse’ comes from Europe, where humans have intensively managed landscapes for centuries and human population densities are particularly high.” They wondered if examining the extensive data collected on the geographically and ecologically diverse North American continent would yield the same or a different conclusion.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Students from Moran’s laboratory oat Hendrix College sampling insects at a prairie in Arkansas using a suction machine.</div><div>The Moran study, published in August 2020, examined four to 36 years of data on arthropods (insects and other invertebrates) collected from US Long-Term Ecological Research sites located in ecoregions throughout the country. The finding: “There is no evidence of precipitous and widespread insect abundance declines in North America akin to those reported from some sites in Europe.” </div><div>
</div><div>The data show that while some taxa declined, others increased, and the vast majority had stable numbers. The overall trend, they concluded, is “generally indistinguishable from zero.” Neither could the authors attribute population changes to any specific cause, including insecticides. The study compared the data on insect populations to “human footprint index data” which includes factors such as pesticides, light pollution, and urbanization. </div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Credit: Sharon Dowdy, University of Georgia</div><div><b>In the press release announcing the study — “Insect Apocalypse May Not be Happening in the US” — University of Georgia </b>postdoctoral researcher Matthew Crossley stated, “No matter what factor we looked at, nothing could explain the trends in a satisfactory way.” With headlines relentlessly heralding impending doom for insects, it’s unsurprising the results left the authors “perplexed.” As Moran later wrote:</div><div>
</div><div>At first, we thought we were missing something. We tried comparing different taxonomic groups, such as beetles and butterflies, and different types of feeding, such as herbivores and carnivores. We tried comparing urban, agricultural and relatively undisturbed areas. We tried comparing different habitats and different periods of time.</div><div>
</div><div>But the answer remained the same: no change. We had to conclude that at the sites we examined, there were no signs of an insect apocalypse and, in reality, no broad declines at all.</div><div>
</div><div>The robustness of the Moran study data suggests the insect population story is much more complicated — and less dire — than many headlines suggest. If a thorough examination of the data on one continent can lead to such a dramatically different and more hopeful conclusion, broad trends in the vast, highly diverse and relatively unstudied continents of Asia, Africa, Latin America and Australia cannot be characterized through extrapolation with any assurance.</div><div>
</div><div>Cycle of bias?</div><div>The overall paucity of data on insect numbers globally has provided an opening for alarmists to speculate, and Goulson and others have taken advantage of that. But why is the data so fragmentary? Moran and co-authors attributed the lack of corroborating studies supporting the consensus view that insect populations are mostly stable to what he calls “publication bias … more dramatic results are more publishable. Reviewers and journals are more likely to be interested in species that are disappearing than in species that show no change over time,” he wrote in the Washington Post. </div><div>
</div><div>It’s a reinforcing feedback loop, with journalists playing a key role in this disinformation cycle. Scientific publications are more likely to publish reports of declining species. Then, when researchers search for data, “declines are what they find. ”The media often seizes on incomplete or even biased conclusions to build a compelling narrative — an insect apocalypse or insectageddon or zombie-like resurrections of debunked reports of birdpocalypses and beepocalypses. </div><div>
</div><div>The result is that enormously complex issues often are portrayed in cartoon terms. Conventional farmers, who use targeted, synthetic chemicals, are cast as the ‘black hats’ who dare to use advanced tools of biotechnology and targeted synthetic chemicals; they are harshly contrasted with crusading ‘white hat’ scientists and advocacy journalists cast as partners with the Earth and Nature. Independent scientists are increasingly frustrated. As professors Sanders, James and O’Hanlon have written, there are consequences to simplistic frames:</div><div>
</div><div>We disagree with the catastrophic decline narrative, not the concept of population declines or that individual studies have shown declines in some places. Declines are probably happening elsewhere too, but we have no data to prove it. Yet other insects are not declining, and some are increasing in population size or range distribution. New species are being named every year, most of which we still know nothing about. </div><div>
</div><div>Presenting the global decline narrative as consensus or fact is simply misrepresentation of science. By continuing to promote the narrative, we may suffer from confirmation bias, potentially encouraging scientists to look for evidence of declines in their data where they may be none.</div><div>
</div><div>It is perhaps too much to hope that journalists would have learned their lesson after chasing so many ‘verge of extinction’ tales over the past 15 years that proved false. That’s why more independent studies like Moran et al. are needed to break the cycle of bias. And maybe a little restraint from pack journalists. </div><div>
</div><div>“Let’s move on from the decline narrative,” Manu Sanders and her colleagues plead. “We need less hype and more evidence-based action on the priorities we can address right now.”</div><div>
</div><div>Jon Entine is the founder and executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project, author of 7 books and winner of 19 major journalism awards, including two Emmys. Twitter: @JonEntine</div></div><div><p><b><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> =</font></b></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b><a href="https://www.desmog.com/2022/12/09/pesticide-industry-science-denial-monsanto-glyphosate-cancer/">https://www.desmog.com/2022/12/09/pesticide-industry-science-denial-monsanto-glyphosate-cancer/</a></b></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">As regulators in the United States and European Union prepare to review and <a href="https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/eu-agencies-push-back-glyphosate-assessment-to-mid-2023/" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">potentially reauthorize</a> the controversial weedkiller glyphosate, a<a href="https://foe.org/news/merchants-of-poison/" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;"> new report reveals</a> the stealth tactics and narrative spin deployed by the chemical’s manufacturer to discredit inconvenient science and protect profits.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The <a href="https://foe.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Merchants_of_Poison_Report_final_113022.pdf" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">report</a>, published by Friends of the Earth and nonprofit investigative organization U.S. Right to Know, uses the case study of Monsanto (now owned by Bayer) and its widely used glyphosate-based product Roundup to illustrate the pesticide industry’s<b> deceptive tactics and communications strategies — which mirror those of the tobacco and fossil fuel industries. </b></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The pesticide industry is not just following in the footsteps of Big Tobacco and Big Oil, they co-wrote the playbook,” Stacy Malkan, lead report author and co-founder of U.S. Right to Know, <a href="https://foe.org/news/merchants-of-poison/" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">said</a>. </font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">The pesticide industry used this PR strategy, which involves tactics like distorting science and disseminating misleading messaging through third party allies, to convince regulators and the public that its products were safe and necessary, the report explains.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“This case study provides an important window into how one company worked with many partners across the pesticide and processed food industries, academia, PR firms, and various front groups to sell the world on a toxic pesticide,”<a href="https://foe.org/news/merchants-of-poison/" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;"> said</a> author and advocate Anna Lappé, who contributed to the report<span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 600;">. </span>“These disinformation tactics are critical to understand because they have been used to push the entwined myths that we need pesticides to ‘feed the world’ and that they are totally safe.”</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Despite mounting scientific evidence of their harms to human health and the environment, pesticides have proliferated, with<a href="https://www.pan-europe.info/sites/pan-europe.info/files/public/resources/reports/PesticideAtlas2022_Web_20221010.pdf" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;"> global usage up by about 80 percent since 1990</a>. The most widely used pesticide in the world is Roundup, which is alleged to have caused cancers. <a href="https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/roundup-mdl-judge-question-10-billion-settlement-proposal.html" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">Litigation</a> over this cancer link is ongoing, spurred by a 2015 <a href="https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/MonographVolume112-1.pdf" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">finding</a> from the World Health Organization’s cancer research arm classifying the chemical as a probable human carcinogen.</font></p><figure class="wp-block-embed is-type-rich is-provider-twitter wp-block-embed-twitter" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1em; overflow-wrap: break-word; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="wp-block-embedwrapper" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative;"><div class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; max-width: 550px; width: 550px; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;" /></div></figure><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[twt]</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">the report, released December 5, brings together internal corporate documents revealed through this litigation, as well as documents obtained through public records requests filed by U.S. Right to Know, to illuminate the extensive campaign by one of the world’s leading pesticide manufacturers — Monsanto, acquired by Bayer in 2018 — to disseminate disinformation and manipulate science regarding the health and environmental impacts of glyphosate. </font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">These strategies have been “used by the pesticide industry for decades now and [their] impact on public health is enormous,” Nathan Donley, PhD, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, told DeSmog via email. </font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Litigation concerning the health hazards of various pesticides, including glyphosate, stems from companies hijacking the regulatory process, he explained. “This can happen multiple ways, from pressuring decision makers at the EPA to producing enormous amounts of biased data that guide the actions of regulators. It’s been very effective unfortunately.”</b></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">For example, as noted in the report, under pressure from Monsanto in 1986, EPA overturned its own decision made the previous year to classify glyphosate as a possible human carcinogen</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">. To this day, EPA maintains the position that glyphosate is not carcinogenic and does not pose human health risks if used according to its label. However, the agency is planning to conduct a new review of the chemical after a federal appeals court</span><a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Ninth-Circuit-glyphosate.pdf" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;"> struck down</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> EPA’s previous designation of glyphosate as benign. </span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The report found that over a five-year period, seven front groups with links to Monsanto spent $76 million “to push corporate disinformation, including attacks on scientists.” During that same period, six industry trade associations that appear in Monsanto PR papers spent $1.3 billion, including on lobbying and PR around glyphosate regulation.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It also argues that the pesticide industry’s current business model “would not be possible if pesticide products were subject to rigorous, independent research and if there were widespread public understanding of the harms and risks of many of these products.”</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“It’s clear from this report and all the work that’s been done in this field that corporate influence in science-based decision-making is way too common,” said Genna Reed, director of policy analysis in the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, and lead author of a<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8651604/" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;"> 2021 study</a> exploring ways to protect scientific integrity from the corporate “disinformation playbook.”</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“This isn’t just a wonky policy problem,” Reed added. “This is a massive institutional rot that needs to be fixed to protect public health.”</font></p><h2 id="h-fossil-fuel-and-pesticide-industry-parallels" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; line-height: 1.2; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fossil Fuel and Pesticide Industry Parallels</font></span></h2><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In addition to pressuring regulators, Monsanto deployed other strategies to discredit evidence of health and environmental harms of its glyphosate-based product. The report found that Monsanto undermined or even shaped the science, attacked public health experts, bought influence at academic institutions, and used third party messengers to pollute the public discourse. These are the same strategies — and in some instances involved the same actors — that the tobacco and fossil fuel industries used to generate doubt and to deceive the public about the harmful consequences of their products.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">According to the report, Monsanto covertly contributed to the scientific literature examining the health risks of glyphosate, ghostwriting papers in toxicology journals, including an influential paper published in April 2000 that concluded that glyphosate-based Roundup “does not pose a health risk to humans.”</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Internal company emails reveal that Monsanto employees played critical roles in data collection, drafting, editing, and relationship-building with the paper’s authors. In the wake of the 2015 glyphosate classification from the World Health Organization’s cancer research agency, Monsanto ghostwrote scientific manuscripts published in a prestigious journal as an “independent review” on the science of glyphosate. The company also </span><a href="https://theintercept.com/2019/08/23/monsanto-republicans-cancer-research/" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">orchestrated a campaign to intimidate</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> cancer researchers and enlist Republican lawmakers to try to defund the World Health Organization’s cancer research arm. </span></font></p><figure class="wp-block-embed is-type-rich is-provider-twitter wp-block-embed-twitter" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1em; overflow-wrap: break-word; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="wp-block-embedwrapper" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative;"><div class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; max-width: 550px; width: 550px; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;" /></div></figure><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[twt]</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>monsanto’s influence extended to academia. </b>The report details how the company funded academics and universities to promote educational messaging supportive of pesticides and genetically engineered organisms (GMOs) — seed traits designed to resist toxic chemicals. Emails obtained from records requests reveal that the University of Florida, for example, “had plans for ‘educating the masses’ about GMOs and pesticides with messaging that was ‘harmonious’ with Monsanto’s,” Malkan explained. </font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">This co-opting of academia was part of a larger pro-pesticide PR strategy. As the report explains, PR firms that helped Monsanto defend glyphosate and promote GMOs have worked with other polluting industries, including tobacco and fossil fuels. For example,</span><a href="https://www.desmog.com/fti-consulting/" data-wpel-link="internal" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;"> <b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">FTI Consulting</b></a><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">, </b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">which has worked extensively with the oil and gas industry, </span><a href="https://www.desmog.com/2021/08/03/monsanto-fti-consulting-overlapping-corporate-disinformation-campaigns-science-denial/" data-wpel-link="internal" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">has also worked closely</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> with Monsanto/Bayer to discredit the science on glyphosate.</span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 102, 0);">Furthermore, as the report details, one industry front group that worked to attack cancer scientists and dispute the evidence linking glyphosate to cancer was the <b style="">Genetic Literacy Project. Its founder Jon Entine</b> has worked in defense of chemicals, plastics, fracking, and oil companies, and the group’s funding sources “trace back to some of the largest, most consistent funders of climate science denial</font><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">.” These include foundations like <b><a href="https://www.desmog.com/who-donors-trust/" data-wpel-link="internal" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">Donors Trust</a>, Scaife Foundation, and <a href="https://www.desmog.com/koch-family-foundations/" data-wpel-link="internal" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">Charles Koch Foundation</a>. Other institutions that engaged in climate denial — including <a href="https://www.desmog.com/competitive-enterprise-institute/" data-wpel-link="internal" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">Competitive Enterprise Institute</a>,<a href="https://www.desmog.com/heartland-institute/" data-wpel-link="internal" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;"> Heartland Institute</a>,<a href="https://www.desmog.com/cato-institute/" data-wpel-link="internal" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;"> Cato Institute</a>, and<a href="https://www.desmog.com/committee-constructive-tomorrow/" data-wpel-link="internal" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;"> Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow</a> (CFACT</b>) —</font><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);"> also attacked scientists who raised concerns over glyphosate</font><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">, according to the report.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“This is not surprising since nearly all agricultural chemicals are derived from fossil fuels,” Malkan said, adding that both industries are continuing to mislead the public in portraying their business or products as essential to climate and sustainability solutions.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Just like Big Oil, pesticide companies are using disinformation tactics to push false solutions for the climate crisis, and stalling action on real solutions,” Malkan added. A<a href="https://www.desmog.com/2020/11/18/pesticides-industry-climate-change-marketing-pr/" data-wpel-link="internal" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;"> DeSmog investigation</a> published in November 2020 described how pesticide companies are now marketing themselves as climate-friendly.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Pesticide companies are desperately trying to, and in many instances are successfully greenwashing the poisons they make billions of dollars selling,” Lori Ann Burd, senior attorney and environmental health program director at Center for Biological Diversity, said via email. She added that many U.S. government officials have adopted the pesticides industry’s position that their products are necessary.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>“USDA, EPA and many members of Congress have largely bought in to industry rhetoric that dangerous pesticides are essential tools for feeding Americans, i</b>gnoring the reality that many countries, including Brazil, China and nations within the E.U. continue to eat despite having <a href="https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/united-states-uses-85-pesticides-outlawed-in-other-countries-2019-06-06/" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">banned dangerous pesticides that are still widely used in the U.S.</a>,” she explained. UN human rights experts have also <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/07/un-experts-denounce-myth-pesticides-are-necessary-to-feed-the-world" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">pushed back</a> against the claim that pesticides are necessary to feed the world.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Bayer did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the report.</font></p><h2 id="h-countering-the-disinformation-playbook" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; line-height: 1.2; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Countering the Disinformation Playbook</font></span></h2><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The report concludes with some recommendations and steps to take to counter the pesticide industry disinformation playbook. According to this advice, which is aligned with that of other experts in fighting disinformation, exposing the tactics and strategies and enforcing strong disclosure and accountability rules are important steps to mitigate undue industry influence.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“We need to continue to shine a light on these practices and actively work on policies that can serve as firewalls,” Reed of the Union of Concerned Scientists said. </font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Other recommendations include challenging corporate influence in academia and holding PR firms accountable. Just as there are now <a href="https://cleancreatives.org/" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">campaigns</a> to do just that <a href="https://fossilfreeresearch.com/" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">for fossil fuels</a>, the report calls for similar action and pressure for combatting pesticide industry influence and enablers. </font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“While the propaganda tactics of Big Oil and Big Tobacco are well-documented and their grave impacts well understood, the pesticide industry’s similar role in widespread disinformation, and its extensive scope and impact, has not been as well documented or publicly understood. We hope this report, and the chorus of recent reporting, will change that,” the report states.</font></p><p><b><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></b></p></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">12 22 gmail </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">local tv/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" /><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">We're in the biotech era': Learn how UC Davis is looking to make cattle and dairy production more sustainable</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></div><div>According to Pew Research: 48% of Americans say genetically modified foods are unsafe to eat, while a much smaller median of 13% say gm foods are safe.</div><div>
</div><div>Author: Van Tieu (ABC10)</div><div>Published: 1:11 PM PST November 30, 2022</div><div>Updated: 7:46 PM PST November 30, 2022</div><div>Facebook Twitter</div><div>DAVIS, Calif. — With rising temperatures and worsening drought, scientists are dreaming up ways to ensure farming and agriculture can be better for the environment and more efficient. And they’re making their dreams come true — with genetics. </div><div>
</div><div>This fall, President Joe Biden issued an executive order to advance biotechnology and biomanufacturing in the United States: it covers many things from medicine and energy to agriculture.</div><div>
</div><div>The idea is to remain competitive with countries like China. </div><div>
</div><div>To look at what’s possible, ABC10 zeroed in on research being done right here in Northern California to make cattle and dairy production more sustainable.</div><div>
</div><div>“We've inactivated a gene that contributes to fertility,“ said a researcher.</div><div>
</div><div>Researchers at UC Davis have a hypothesis that the particular gene they’ve knocked out will make one of their cows sterile. If correct: that identification will help them in long-term efforts to breed cattle with the best genetics. </div><div>
</div><div>This has been Professor Alison Van Eenennaam’s work for more than 20 years.</div><div>
</div><div>“Genetics is a huge component of sustainability," said Van Eenennaam. "So, if we can have disease resistance, adaptable animals that are able to withstand heat, then we could actually produce more product with less animals and that's really what breeders have been striving towards, for whatever ever since animal breeding began.” </div><div>
</div><div>Frodo’s, one of the cows at UC Davis, genes were manipulated using the CRISPR method, a breakthrough technology that won the Noble Prize in 2020.</div><div>
</div><div>Other UC Davis projects using the CRISPR method include gene-editing dairy cows so they don’t grow horns. </div><div>
</div><div>A majority of cattle are dehorned to prevent injuries between animals and handlers.</div><div>
</div><div>De-horning cattle is a concerning practice when it comes to animal rights and welfare. Van Eenennaam says cross-breeding alone could eliminate horns but the resulting calf, "it's not really a dairy animal. it's not really a beef animal, and it won't have the ideal characteristics for either industry.” </div><div>
</div><div>She says it would take decades to breed the cows to dairy production standards — while those standards continue to climb. </div><div>
</div><div>“You'll never catch up that what's called genetic lag," said Van Eenennaam. </div><div>
</div><div>She hopes targeted gene editing can produce cows without horns and without the time commitments needed in conventional cross-breeding. </div><div>
</div><div>According to Pew Research: 48% of Americans say genetically modified foods are unsafe to eat, while a much smaller median of 13% say gm foods are safe.</div><div>
</div><div>This is at odds with a clear scientific consensus that genetically modified foods are safe. </div><div>
</div><div>Only one gene-edited food product has gone to market in the United States: the AquaAdvantage salmon.</div><div>
</div><div>And just this year, the FDA cleared slick-coat cattle for use in the United States. They're beef cattle that have been gene-edited to have short hair, a trait that allows them to withstand high heat, as the climate continues to warm. </div><div>
</div><div>The FDA determined the edits were equivalent to natural mutations. </div><div>
</div><div>"We're in the biotech era, and it's literally influencing and revolutionizing agriculture, medicine, everyday life, creation of everyday products, and synthetic biology. so it's revolutionary," said Jon Entine, founder of the genetic literacy project.</div><div>
</div><div>Entine says bio-science needs public buy-in to be successful — which is why addressing public concerns is important.</div><div>
</div><div>“There are challenges ahead and we have to be respectful," said Entine.</div><div>
</div><div>Many of the critiques of GMOs involve monopolization of technology, unintended consequences, ethics — and safety. </div><div>
</div><div>Signaling a possible pathway to more acceptance. </div><div>
</div><div>As previously mentioned, President Biden issued an executive order to push more government dollars to the U.S. Biotechnology industry — drawing parallels to former President John F. Kennedy’s 1961 race to land a man on the moon before the end of the decade.</div><div>
</div><div>Entine and Van Eenennaam say Biden's executive order cracks open the door for more innovation, but are cautiously optimistic.</div><div>
</div><div>"I've also had 20 years of watching how slowly the wheels turn in DC sometimes, but any effort by the president or Washington to try to improve the process is welcome," said Van Eenennaam.</div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">7 22 gmail mofo</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2022/07/15/beepocalypse-myth-handbook-dissecting-claims-of-pollinator-collapse/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><span style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Beepocalypse Myth Handbook: Assessing claims of pollinator collapse</font></span></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">m<span style="background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247);">yths and truths about bees: There is no ‘catastrophic decline’ in the global honeybee population and the use of pesticides is not driving health problems challenging wild bees, as many environmental groups continue to claim. In fact, honeybee hive populations are rising in North America and globally, and they have been growing in number for years. The companion claim </span><span style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-weight: 700; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247);"><i style="box-sizing: border-box;">—</i></span><span style="background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247);"> that a class of pesticides known as neonicotinoids (or neonics for short) are fostering a global honeybee pollinator crisis is also not accurate. However, honeybees and perhaps bumble bees (whose wild nature make them difficult to catalogue) do face a range of health threats that are serious cause for worry, and those issues need to be addressed.</span></font></div><p style="border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247);" /><p style="border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">What are the facts?</font></p><p style="border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247);"><span style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">colony Collapse Disorder</font></span></p><p style="border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The honeybee population did face what appeared to be a crisis in the mid-2000s when some United States’ beekeepers, mostly in California, began discovering that their honeybees had mysteriously abandoned many of their colonies, leaving behind the queen bee, attended by too few, immature worker bees to sustain the colony, yet with ample viable brood and stored food. The first report classified as CCD was in mid-November 2006 by a Pennsylvania beekeeper overwintering in Florida.<span id="cite_ref-Prelim_3-2" class="reference" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; height: 0px; line-height: 0; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; bottom: 1ex; box-sizing: border-box;"> By February 2007, large commercial migratory beekeepers wintering in California, Florida, Oklahoma, and Texas had reported heavy losses associated with CCD, with losses ranging from 30% to 90% of their bee colonies. This phenomenon was dubbed <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_collapse_disorder" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: transparent; transition: color 0.1s ease-in-out 0s, background-color 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;">Colony Collapse Disorder</a> (CCD). What made CCD’s appearance in the United States stunning and alarming was that episodes were being reported from widely separated states across the continent.</span></font></p><p style="border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[poster] At first, genetically modified crops and later neonicotinoid pesticides were fingered by environmental groups and some entomologists as the presumed causal agents. But when the bee colonies were examined, the CCD diagnosis emerged, scientists quickly dispensed of the GMO argument, as each GM crop is different and there is no plausible explanation why a phenomenon noted in one region of the US would not also show up in other regions or countries using similar modified crops.</font></p><p style="border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Did the use of pesticides or neonics in particular cause or contribute to CCD in 2006? The scientific consensus now firmly says ‘no.’ CCD is a historically common occurrence that predated the introduction of genetically modified crops and modern pesticides. Upon further investigation, CCD was shown to be a centuries-old, periodic phenomenon that, by other names, has <a href="http://ento.psu.edu/pollinators/publications/underwood" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: transparent; transition: color 0.1s ease-in-out 0s, background-color 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;">occurred</a> periodically for centuries. in specific locales. Limited occurrences resembling CCD were fully documented as early as 1869 and on the Isle of Wight in the UK in 2006, and also in other parts of Europe and in Egypt. There were reports of similar bee behavior in hives in the US in 1918 and 1919, and thereafter. It eventually became more widely known as “disappearing disease.”</font></p><p style="border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The focus on neonicotinoids as a contributing factor is more complicated. Neonics are a class of systemic pesticide introduced in the early 1990s and popular in the US, Australia, Europe and elsewhere to protect corn, soy, cotton and canola farmers.<b> They have been embraced as a less toxic replacement of <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/clusters/fallon/organophosfaq.htm" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: transparent; transition: color 0.1s ease-in-out 0s, background-color 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;">organophosphate pesticides</a> (which can be either natural of synthetic),</b> which are known to kill bees and wildlife, and have been linked to health problems in workers. Applied to the soil, sprayed on the crop or, most commonly, used as a seed treatment, neonics are absorbed into the plant, which is ingested by insects, discouraging pests from wreaking havoc on crops. The seed treatment lowers the amount of the neonic used 10- to 20- fold, decreasing the need for open spraying of the plant, a genuine sustainability benefit.</font></p><p style="border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Many in the media and activist critical of conventional agriculture often conflate bee health problems linked to CCD with the health issues encountered by the wild honeybee population. From 1972 to 2006, serous reductions in hives were documented among <a title="Feral" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: transparent; transition: color 0.1s ease-in-out 0s, background-color 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;">feral</a> honey bees in the US, and recent studies, though fragmentary, appear to show scattered declines among wild bees.</font></p><p style="border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The precise causes of the most recent CCD incident remains undetermined. Most likely, the <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070906140803.htm" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: transparent; transition: color 0.1s ease-in-out 0s, background-color 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;">combinations</a> of <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070906140803.htm" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: transparent; transition: color 0.1s ease-in-out 0s, background-color 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;">factors</a> that affect honeybee colony health more generally (discussed below) are involved. But CCD has now come and gone, as it has many times over the centuries. According to the University of Maryland’s Dennis van Engelsdorp (who was part of the team that <a href="http://www.beekeeping.com/articles/us/ccd.pdf" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: transparent; transition: color 0.1s ease-in-out 0s, background-color 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;">coined</a> the modern term “CCD”), <a href="https://www.wired.com/2016/08/jerry-hayes-how-to-save-the-bees-monsanto/" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: transparent; transition: color 0.1s ease-in-out 0s, background-color 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;">no case of CCD</a> has been reported from the field for the last eight years.</font></p><h3 style="border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 0px; font-weight: 400; line-height: 1.2em; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Are honeybees in decline?</font></h3><p style="border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247);">Said simply: Honeybees are not on the verge of extinction or irreversible decline and the world will not face mass starvation. </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">That’s scare rhetoric. As the <u style="box-sizing: border-box;">Washington Post</u> reported in two separate features in 2015 — ‘<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/07/23/call-off-the-bee-pocalypse-u-s-honeybee-colonies-hit-a-20-year-high/" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.1s ease-in-out 0s, background-color 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;">Call Off the Bee-pocalypse: U.S. Honeybee Colonies Hit a 20-Year High’</a> and ‘<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/10/believe-it-or-not-the-bees-are-doing-just-fine" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.1s ease-in-out 0s, background-color 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;">Believe It of Not, the Bees Are Doing Just Fine</a>’ —</span><span style="background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247);"> advocacy group claims amplified in thousands of news stories, but not all, are wrong. But the direction of the media narrative, like the path of a 250,000 ton ocean liner, was established in the late 2000s, and does not turn that around easily, particularly when the it serves an ideological conclusion that conveniently helps in fundraising for those who promote it. Despite claims to the contrary, according to the independent Bee Informed Partnership, overseen by van Englesdorp, overwinter mortality of honeybees has steadily declined since the 2006 CCD peak.</span></font></p><p style="border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""><b style="background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247);">In fact, honeybee populations aren’t declining anywhere in the world, despite many media headlines; they’re rising.</b><span style="background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247);"> According to statistics kept by the US Department of Agriculture, Statistics Canada and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, honeybee populations in the </span><a href="http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1191" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.1s ease-in-out 0s, background-color 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;">United States</a><span style="background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247);">, </span><a href="http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26?lang=eng&retrLang=eng&id=0010007&paSer=&pattern=&stByVal=1&1&p2=31&tabMode=dataTable&csid" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.1s ease-in-out 0s, background-color 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;">Canada</a><span style="background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247);"> and </span><a href="http://faostat3.fao.org/download/Q/QA/E" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.1s ease-in-out 0s, background-color 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;">Europe</a><span style="background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247);"> have been stable or growing for the two decades</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> neonics </span><span style="background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247);">have been on the market. Furthermore, the </span><a href="http://faostat3.fao.org/download/Q/QA/E" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.1s ease-in-out 0s, background-color 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;">worldwide trajectory</a><span style="background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247);"> for bee colonies has been on an upward trajectory for over half a century. Here are a few charts that illustrate the upward global trends that overlap the introduction and use since the mid 1990s of neonics, the central target of anti-chemical environmental groups....[chart of HIVES]...</span></font></p><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" /><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">assorted BS popular</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></div><div>MOST POPULAR</div><div>The Guardian and Carey Gillam join long list of activists who misrepresent the science of glyphosate and exaggerate the risk of pesticides</div><div>3-D printed breast implants? This alternative to silicon regrows breast tissue and degrades without a trace</div><div>Glyphosate detected in 80% of urine? Reason for alarm or deceptive data distortion?</div><div>Viewpoint: When do politicians sometimes act like bacteria? When it comes to enacting necessary but politically risky policies to control the latest COVID surge</div><div>maxresdefaultAnatomy of the demon Demogorgon from ‘Stranger Things’: Is there a real-life counterpart?</div><div>Infographic: Did you know the human body is made up of zinc, copper and cobalt? Here are the chemicals that make up who we are</div><div>Viewpoint: Sri Lankan organic farming disaster foreshadows what could unfold if Europe moves ahead with Green Deal Farm to Fork plan</div><div>Viewpoint: Shining future promised by gene therapy blocked by researchers who refuse to share data</div><div>a cdd bHow Freddie Mercury got his voice: It wasn’t his teeth</div><div>tiger bee faceBeepocalypse Myth Handbook: Assessing claims of pollinator collapse</div><div>
</div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">gmail</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); padding: 0px 6px 0px 0px;">p<a href="https://www.google.com/url?rct=j&sa=t&url=https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2022/03/29/part-iv-why-its-so-critical-to-move-beyond-liberal-rejectionism-of-human-biodiversity/&ct=ga&cd=CAEYACoTOTY5MzM4MzQxMzY0Mzg4OTU1MzIaYmYwNDkwNjc1ODcxNGU5MDpjb206ZW46VVM&usg=AFQjCNFWTFLKtKdylfgJ6uNXEMeIOfxK0A" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?rct%3Dj%26sa%3Dt%26url%3Dhttps://geneticliteracyproject.org/2022/03/29/part-iv-why-its-so-critical-to-move-beyond-liberal-rejectionism-of-human-biodiversity/%26ct%3Dga%26cd%3DCAEYACoTOTY5MzM4MzQxMzY0Mzg4OTU1MzIaYmYwNDkwNjc1ODcxNGU5MDpjb206ZW46VVM%26usg%3DAFQjCNFWTFLKtKdylfgJ6uNXEMeIOfxK0A&source=gmail&ust=1648750479613000&usg=AOvVaw1TwqTBhbaqyvOui-mZsfLR" style="display: inline; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: 20px;">art IV: Why it's so critical to move beyond liberal rejectionism of human biodiversity</a></span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div style="padding: 2px 0px 8px;"><div style=""><a>Genetic Literacy Project</a></div><div style="padding: 2px 0px 0px; line-height: 18px;">For Henrich, this is a process of nature via nurture, in which culture changes behavior, which then feeds back into culture—what Jon <b>Entine</b> in Taboo ...</div></div></div></span></font></div><div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" /><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx doc 2x?</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></div><div>
</div><div><a href="https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/american-council-on-science-and-health/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/american-council-on-science-and-health/</a></div><div>
</div><div>The American Council on Science and Health is a Corporate Front Group</div><div>
</div><div>Posted on August 12, 2018 by Gary Ruskin</div><div>Updated in July 2019</div><div>
</div><div>The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) calls itself a “pro-science consumer advocacy organization” and media outlets often quote the group as an independent science source; however, documents described in this fact sheet establish that ACSH is corporate front group that solicits money from tobacco, chemical, cosmetic, pharmaceutical and other companies in exchange for defending and promoting their products. The group does not disclose its funding.</div><div>
</div><div>Key documents:</div><div>
</div><div>Emails from 2015 released via discovery reveal that Monsanto funded ACSH and asked the group to help defend glyphosate.</div><div>Leaked financial documents from 2012 establish that ACSH solicits money from corporations for product defense campaigns. Donors include a wide array of companies and industry groups.</div><div>Emails from 2009 show that ACSH solicited $100,000 from Syngenta to write a paper and book about Syngenta’s pesticide atrazine. In 2011, ACSH released a book by Jon Entine similar to the project described in the email.</div><div>Syngenta and Monsanto have been regular contributors to ACSH over the years, the emails show.</div><div>Monsanto funds ACSH to defend Monsanto products</div><div>Emails released in April 2019 reveal that Monsanto agreed to fund ACSH in 2015 and asked the group to help defend glyphosate from cancer concerns raised by the International Agency for Research. ACSH agreed to do so, and later attacked the cancer report as a “scientific fraud.” The emails illuminate ACSH’s reliance on corporate funding and efforts to please its funders. ACSH’s former acting director Gil Ross (who spent time in jail for Medicaid fraud) wrote to a Monsanto executive, “Each and every day, we work hard to prove our worth to companies such as Monsanto.” Ross wrote:</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Emails also show that Monsanto executives paid ACSH despite their discomfort with the group. Monsanto’s senior science lead Daniel Goldstein championed ACSH to his colleagues, and sent them links to 53 ACSH articles, two books and a pesticide review he described as as “EXTREMELY USEFUL.” Goldstein wrote:</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Key player in Monsanto’s propaganda network</div><div>An award-winning investigation by Le Monde into Monsanto’s “war on science” to defend glyphosate named the American Council on Science and Health among the “well known propaganda websites” that played a key role in attacking the scientists who raised cancer concerns. In May 2017, plaintiffs’ attorneys suing Monsanto over glyphosate cancer concerns stated in a brief: “Monsanto quietly funnels money to ‘think tanks’ such as the ‘Genetic Literacy Project’ and the ‘American Council on Science and Health,’ organizations intended to shame scientists and highlight information helpful to Monsanto and other chemical producers.”</div><div>
</div><div>Emails obtained by U.S. Right to Know reveal that Monsanto initially chose ACSH to publish a series of pro-GMO papers that were assigned to professors by Monsanto and “merchandized” by a PR firm to heavily promote them as independent. Monsanto executive Eric Sachs wrote to the professors: “To ensure that the papers have the greatest impact, the American Council for Science and Health is partnering with CMA Consulting to drive the project. The completed policy briefs will be offered on the ACSH website … CMA and ACSH also will merchandize the policy briefs, including the development of media specific materials, such as op-eds, blog postings, speaking engagements, events, webinars, etc.” The papers were eventually published by Genetic Literacy Project with no disclosure of Monsanto’s role.</div><div>
</div><div>In a report from the U.S. House of Representatives, congressional investigators stated that Monsanto uses “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.”</div><div>
</div><div>Leaked ACSH docs reveal corporate-defense funding strategy</div><div>A leaked 2012 ACSH financial summary reported by Mother Jones revealed that ACSH has received funding from a large number of corporations and industry groups with a financial stake in the science messaging ACSH promotes — and showed how ACSH solicits corporate donations for quid pro quo product-defense campaigns. For example, the document outlines:</div><div>
</div><div>Plans to pitch the Vinyl Institute which “previously supported chlorine and health report”</div><div>Plans to pitch food companies for a messaging campaign to oppose GMO labeling</div><div>Plans to pitch cosmetic companies to counter “reformulation pressures” from the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics</div><div>Efforts to court tobacco and e-cigarette companies</div><div>Mother Jones reported, “ACSH’s donors and the potential backers the group has been targeting comprise a who’s-who of energy, agriculture, cosmetics, food, soda, chemical, pharmaceutical, and tobacco corporations.” Funding details:</div><div>
</div><div>ACSH donors in the second half of 2012 included Chevron, Coca-Cola, the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation, Dr. Pepper/Snapple, Bayer Cropscience, Procter and Gamble, Syngenta, 3M, McDonald’s, and tobacco conglomerate Altria. ACSH also pursued financial support from Pepsi, Monsanto, British American Tobacco, DowAgro, ExxonMobil Foundation, Philip Morris International, Reynolds American, the Koch family-controlled Claude R. Lambe Foundation, the Dow-linked Gerstacker Foundation, the Bradley Foundation and Searle Freedom Trust.</div><div>Reynolds American and Phillip Morris International were the two largest donors listed in the documents.</div><div>Syngenta funding, Syngenta defense</div><div>In 2011, ACSH published a book about “chemophobia” written by Jon Entine, who is now the executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project, another front group that works with Monsanto. Entine’s ACSH book defended atrazine, a pesticide manufactured by Syngenta, which was funding ACSH.</div><div>
</div><div>A 2012 Mother Jones article describes the circumstances leading up to the book. The article by Tom Philpott, based in part on internal company documents obtained by the Center for Media and Democracy, describes Syngenta’s PR efforts to get third-party allies to spin media coverage of atrazine.</div><div>
</div><div>In one email from 2009, ACSH staff asked Syngenta for an additional $100,000 – “separate and distinct from general operating support Syngenta has been so generously providing over the years” – to produce an atrazine-friendly paper and “consumer-friendly booklet” to help educate media and scientists.</div><div>
</div><div>Email from ASCH staffer Gil Ross to Syngenta about proposed atrazine project:</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>A year and a half later, ACSH published Entine’s book with a press release that sounds similar to the project Ross described in his solicitation email to Syngenta: “The American Council on Science and Health is pleased to announce a new book and companion friendly, abbreviated position paper” in response to the “irrational fear of chemicals.” Author Jon Entine denied any relationship with Syngenta and told Philpott he had “no idea” Syngenta was funding ACSH.</div><div>
</div><div>ACSH personnel</div><div>ACSH’s longtime “Medical/Executive Director” Dr. Gilbert Ross was convicted in a scheme to defraud the Medicaid system prior to joining ACSH. See court documents about Dr. Ross’ multiple fraud convictions and sentencing, and article in Mother Jones “Paging Dr. Ross” (2005). Dr. Ross was found to be a “highly untrustworthy individual” by a judge who sustained the exclusion of Dr. Ross from Medicaid for 10 years (see additional references and court document).</div><div>In June 2015, Hank Campbell took over ACSH leadership from acting president (and convicted felon) Dr. Gilbert Ross. Campbell worked for software development companies before starting the website Science 2.0 in 2006. In his 2012 book with Alex Berezow, “Science Left Behind: Feel Good Fallacies and the Rise of the Anti Science Left,” Campbell describes his background: “six years ago… I decided I wanted to write science on the Internet … with nothing but enthusiasm and a concept, I approached world famous people about helping me reshape how science could be done, and they did it for free.” Campbell left suddenly under unknown circumstances in December 2018. Read more about Campbell here.</div><div>Campbell’s book co-author, Alex Berezow, is now vice president of scientific affairs at ACSH. He is a founding editor of Real Clear Science and is on the USA Today editorial board of contributors but USA Today does not disclose Berezow’s ACSH affiliation or ACSH’s corporate funding despite repeated complaints (more info below).</div><div>Leaders and advisors: tobacco ties and climate science denial </div><div>The ACSH board of trustees includes Fred L. Smith Jr., founder of the Competitive Enterprises Institute, a leading promoter of climate science denial and a group that has received millions of dollars from Exxon Mobile and dark money funding vehicle Donors Trust. Smith and CEI also have a history of fighting against tobacco regulations and soliciting money from the tobacco industry, according to documents from the UCSF Truth Tobacco Industry Documents archive. </div><div>
</div><div>James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat, two epidemiologists who took money from tobacco companies and wrote studies defending tobacco products, also have ACSH ties. Dr. Enstrom is a member of the ACSH board of trustees and Dr. Kabat serves on the “health board of scientific advisors“. Both scientists have “long standing financial and other working relationships with the tobacco industry,” according to a paper in BMJ Tobacco Control.</div><div>
</div><div>In a widely cited 2003 paper in BMJ, Kabat and Enstrom concluded that secondhand smoke does not increase the risk of lung cancer and heart disease. The study was sponsored in part by the Center for Indoor Air Research (CIAR), a tobacco industry group. Although that funding was disclosed, a follow-up analysis in BMJ Tobacco Control found that the disclosures by Enstrom and Kabat “did not provide the reader with a full picture of the tobacco industry’s involvement with the study authors.” The paper details numerous financial ties between Enstrom and the tobacco industry.</div><div>
</div><div>Enstrom countered these claims in a 2007 article in Epidemiological Perspectives and Innovation, arguing that his funding and competing interests were clearly and accurately described in the 2003 BMJ paper, and that tobacco industry funding did not impact his research. “To date, no impropriety, bias or omission has been identified in the review process and no error in the results has been identified in the paper,” Enstrom said.</div><div>
</div><div>Emails from 2014 feature Dr. Enstrom discussing with famous climate science denier Fred Singer ideas to attack and discredit two scientists who were involved in the film “Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming,” and whether to try to stop the release of the film with a lawsuit. For more information, see DeSmog blog, “Tobacco Gun for Hire James Enstrom, Willie Soon and the Climate Deniers Attack on Merchants of Doubt” (March 2015).</div><div>
</div><div>Dr. Kabat is also on the board of directors of the parent organization of the Genetic Literacy Project, a front group that works with Monsanto on PR projects while claiming to be independent. Read more about his work in our fact sheet, Geoffrey Kabat’s Ties to Tobacco and Chemical Industry Groups</div><div>
</div><div>Incorrect statements about science </div><div>American Council on Science and Health has claimed:</div><div>
</div><div>“There is no evidence that exposure to secondhand smoke involves heart attacks or cardiac arrest.” Winston-Salem Journal, 2012</div><div>“there is no scientific consensus concerning global warming.” ACSH, 1998 (Greenpeace has described ACSH a “Koch Industries climate denial front group”)</div><div>fracking “doesn’t pollute water or air.” Daily Caller, 2013</div><div>“There has never been a case of ill health linked to the regulated, approved use of pesticides in this country.” Tobacco Documents Library, UCSF, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition document page 9, 1995</div><div>“There is no evidence that BPA [bisphenol A] in consumer products of any type, including cash register receipts, are harmful to health.” ACSH, 2012</div><div>exposure to mercury, a potent neurotoxin, “in conventional seafood causes no harm in humans.” ACSH, 2010.</div><div>Recent ACSH messaging continues in the same theme, denying risk from products that are important to the chemical, tobacco and other industries, and making frequent attacks on scientists, journalists and others who raise concerns.</div><div>
</div><div>A 2016 “top junk science” post by ACSH denies that chemicals can cause endocrine disruption; defends e-cigarettes, vaping and soda; and attacks journalists and the Journal of the American Medical Association.</div><div>USA Today gives ACSH a platform </div><div>USA Today continues to publish columns by ACSH staffers Hank Campbell and Alex Berezow without disclosing their funding ties to corporations whose interests they defend. In February 2017, 30 health, environmental, labor and public interest groups wrote to the editors of USA Today asking the paper to stop providing a platform of legitimacy to ACSH or at least provide full disclosures about who funds the group.</div><div>
</div><div>The letter states:</div><div>
</div><div>“We are writing to express our concern that USA Today continues to publish columns written by members of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), a corporate-funded group with a long history of promoting corporate agendas that are at odds with mainstream science. USA Today should not be helping this group promote its false identity as a credible, independent source on science. Your readers deserve accurate information about what and whom this group represents, as they reflect on the content of the columns.”</div><div>“These are no idle allegations. Many of the undersigned health, environmental, labor and public interest groups have been tracking ACSH’s work over the years. We have documented instances in which the group has worked to undermine climate change science, and deny the health threats associated with various products, including second-hand smoke, fracking, pesticides and industrial chemicals – all without being transparent about its corporate backers.”</div><div>We note that financial documents obtained by Mother Jones show that ACSH has received funding from tobacco, chemical, pharmaceutical and oil corporations. Public interest groups have reported that ACSH received funding from the Koch Foundations between 2005-2011, and released internal documents showing that ACSH solicited $100,000 from Syngenta in 2009 to write favorably about its product atrazine – a donation that was to be “separate and distinct from general operating support Syngenta has been so generously providing over the years.”</div><div>“At a time when the public is questioning the legitimacy of the news media, we believe it is vital for publications such as USA Today to follow the highest standards of journalistic ethics and serve the public with as much truth and transparency as possible. We respectfully ask you to refrain from publishing further columns authored by members of the American Council on Science and Health, or at the very least require that the individuals identify the organization accurately as a corporate-funded advocacy group.”</div><div>As of December 2017, USA Today editorial page editor Bill Sternberg has declined to stop publishing ACSH columns and the paper has repeatedly provided inaccurate or incomplete disclosures for the columns, and failed to notify its readers about ACSH’s funding from corporations whose agenda they promote.</div><div>
</div><div> Food For Thought, Hall of Shame, Our Investigations 3M, ACSH, Alex Berezow, Altria, American Council on Science and Health, American Enterprise Institute, Bayer CropScience, Bill Sternberg, Bradley Foundation, Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation, British American Tobacco, Chemophobia, Chevron, Claude R. Lambe Foundation, CMA Consulting, Coca-Cola, DowAgroSciences, Dr. Gil Ross, Dr. Pepper/Snapple, Elizabeth Whelan, Eric Sachs, ExxonMobil Foundation, Genetic Literacy Project, Geoffrey Kabat, Gerstacker Foundation, Gil Ross, Hank Campbell, James Enstrom, Jon Entine, McDonalds, Monsanto, Pepsi, Philip Morris International, Procter & Gamble, Reynolds American, Science 2.0, Searle Freedom Trust, Syngenta, USA Today</div></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1021</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">a<a href="https://www.google.com/url?rct=j&sa=t&url=https://seedworld.com/are-gmos-sustainable-can-organic-feed-the-world-theres-no-one-size-fits-all/&ct=ga&cd=CAEYACoUMTE0NTYxMzQyOTQzODk5ODYyMDIyGmJmMDQ5MDY3NTg3MTRlOTA6Y29tOmVuOlVT&usg=AFQjCNESIFvxVcTVk79cRayfPsE9ABzG2w" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?rct%3Dj%26sa%3Dt%26url%3Dhttps://seedworld.com/are-gmos-sustainable-can-organic-feed-the-world-theres-no-one-size-fits-all/%26ct%3Dga%26cd%3DCAEYACoUMTE0NTYxMzQyOTQzODk5ODYyMDIyGmJmMDQ5MDY3NTg3MTRlOTA6Y29tOmVuOlVT%26usg%3DAFQjCNESIFvxVcTVk79cRayfPsE9ABzG2w&source=gmail&ust=1633549927010000&usg=AFQjCNEz3JocOGzalBnfutZOU-JSYoAOWg" style="display: inline; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: 20px;">re GMOs Sustainable? Can Organic Feed the World? There's No One-Size-Fits-All - Seed World</a></font></div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" /><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman" /></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font><div style="padding: 2px 0px 8px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman" /></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font><div style=""><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><a>Seed World</a></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></div><div style="padding: 2px 0px 0px; line-height: 18px;">Seed Speaks recently spoke with experts Dr. Robb Fraley, Jon <b>Entine</b> and Mac Ehrhardt. Each discussed how GMOs and organic agriculture can come together....</div></div></div><div>=</div><div>"transparency" doc? purpose/ triggered by?</div><div>
</div><div><a href="https://geneticliteracyproject.org/our-team/#advisory">https://geneticliteracyproject.org/our-team/#advisory</a></div><div>
</div><div><div>no lnx pix</div><div>staff 8/21</div><div>on Entine, Executive Director</div><div>Jon’s interest in genetics arose from a family history of breast and ovarian cancer, which led to the writing of two books on population genetics: Abraham’s Children: Race, Identity and the DNA of the Chosen People (2007) and Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We’re Afraid to Talk About It (2001). He’s also written on the politics of food and farming: Let Them Eat Precaution: How Politics is Undermining the Genetic Revolution in Agriculture (2005) and Crop Chemophobia: Will Precaution Kill the Green Revolution? (2006); and on science and risk: Scared to Death: How Chemophobia Threatens Public Health. Jon has been a contributing columnist at hundreds of media outlets around the world. He spoke before the National Academy of Sciences and the Australian National Press Club on GMO safety. Before becoming a print journalist, Jon was a producer and executive for 20 years at NBC News and ABC News, winning 20 journalism honors, including a National Press Club Consumer Journalism Award and Emmys for specials on the reform movements in China and the former Soviet Union. He was head of documentaries and Tom Brokaw’s long-time producer at NBC News. He studied philosophy in college and received a National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowship at the University of Michigan.</div><div>swathi chakravarthy</div><div>Swathi Chakravarthy, Social Media Manager</div><div>Swathi supports GLP functions through promotional social media content. She earned her master’s degree in bioengineering from San Diego State University and worked as a scientist in a biotech company. She is also a certified digital marketer who aspires to become a full-time content creator.</div><div>leah garden image</div><div>Leah Garden, Editor and Director of Sustainability</div><div>Leah oversees oversees our sustainability coverage and also serves as an articles editor. She is the 2021 Environment Fellow at Young Professionals in Foreign Policy Project. She previously was the Dairy Greenhouse Gas Impact intern at World Wildlife Fund, Sustainability Communications intern at the Can Manufacturers Institute, and account coordinator at the consulting firm Schultz & Williams. She holds an M.S. in Sustainability Management from American University’s Kogod School of Business and a B.S.B.A. from Bucknell University.</div><div>allison j getker kennedy</div><div>Allison J. Getker Kennedy, Researcher</div><div>Ally is a University of Florida graduate involved in<b> neuroscience</b> research, with plans to attend medical school and become a specialist in treating infectious disease. She anchors and appears on podcasts dedicated to science accessibility and communications and runs a website where she writes articles on<b> COVID-19 and infectious disease</b>.</div><div>brian muia x</div><div>Brian Muia, Director of Finance</div><div>Brian is Director of Finance at the GLP and serves as a strategic partner and advisor to the full Board. He is shareholder and CPA at Jones and Kolb in Atlanta, GA. He also provides general consulting, audit and accounting and tax services to individuals and privately-held entities in a variety of industries, including real estate, not-for-profits, employee benefit plans and others. In addition to working directly with clients, Brian presents on entrepreneurial and accounting subjects and serves on various boards. He is a graduate of the University of Georgia, where he earned a Bachelor of Business Administration in Accounting. He is a member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accounts and the Georgia Society of Certified Public Accountants.</div><div>
</div><div>Anne Nesathurai, Editorial Director, Daily Content and Social Media</div><div>Anne oversees the site, GLP Daily Digests and social media implementation to make complex science topics accessible to everyone. She is also a New York State Emergency Medical Technician. A graduate of Vassar College, she anticipates going to medical school to fulfill her interests in science education and primary care.</div><div>kayleen x</div><div>Kayleen Schreiber, Infographics and Data Visualization Specialist</div><div>Kayleen communicates complex concepts through animation, infographics, data visualization and writing. She earned her PhD in neuroscience from the University of Iowa in 2017, preceded by a BA in neuroscience from Vanderbilt University, and focuses on designing and communicating challenging scientific concepts to the public through engaging visuals.</div><div>GLP Contributors</div><div>marc brazeau x</div><div>Marc Brazeau, Senior Contributing Columnist</div><div>Marc writes about food politics, sustainable agriculture and nutrition at the Food and Farm Discussion Lab. The lab is a micro-think tank approaching food system issues from an evidence-based, agromodernist perspective. One of the central projects of FAFDL is fostering an online community providing respectful, evidence-based discussion on all matters related to food and farming. Marc has a long history with food. He picked cucumbers while in junior high and did orchard work in high school. He was a union organizer and a chef before his work as a food policy writer. Follow him on Twitter @eatcookwrite.</div><div>steve e cerier x</div><div>Steve E. Cerier, Contributing Columnist</div><div>Steve has worked as an international economist, global financial markets analyst and strategist and currency analyst for financial institutions in New York City and in the capacity of a freelance consultant. In addition, he has been involved in writing reports on economic, financial transparency and governance issues for developed, developing and low income countries to assess country risk. He is a graduate of Queens College of the City University of New York and has a Masters’ degree in Business Administration from New York University’s Graduate School of Business Administration.</div><div>angela dowden x</div><div>Angela Dowden, Contributing Columnist</div><div>Angela has a BSc in food science from the University of Nottingham and is listed on the Association for Nutrition-governed UK Voluntary Register of Nutritionists — a list of nutrition practitioners who meet rigorously applied training, competence and professional practice criteria. She became a freelance journalist following a period working as a nutritionist in industry and over the years has written extensively for many UK and global publications including the <b>Daily Mail</b>, Daily Express, <b>American Council for Science and Health </b>and Lovefood.com. When she’s not working she’s often out riding the hills on her road bike.</div><div>cameron english x</div><div>Cameron J. English, Senior Contributor, Facts & Fallacies Podcast</div><div>Cameron is a science writer, editor and co-host of GLP’s Science Facts and Fallacies podcast. Before the GLP, Cameron was the editor at Deniers for Hire, a project of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) dedicated to countering misinformation around genetic engineering. <b>He is a Young Scientists in America Research Fellow at ACSH.</b> His work has been published by Forbes, RealClearScience, Priorities Magazine, Science 2.0 and Mic. Cameron’s writing has also been featured in textbooks published by McGraw-Hill and Pearson Education to teach critical thinking skills to high school students. He attended Folsom Lake College. www.cameronjenglish.net; Twitter @camjenglish</div><div>kevin folta x</div><div><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">Kevin M. Folta, Senior Contributor, Facts & Fallacies Podcast</font></div><div>Kevin is a professor in the Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Florida. His research explores the biochemical basis of fruit flavors, how light affects plant traits, and small molecule discovery for next-generation herbicides and antibiotics. He was recognized with the prestigious CAST <b>Borlaug Award</b> in Agricultural Communications in 2016 for teaching scientists and farmers how to communicate with the public. Follow Kevin on Twitter @kevinfolta and visit his website.</div><div>ricki lewis x</div><div>Ricki Lewis, Senior Contributing Columnist</div><div>Ricki is a science writer with a PhD in genetics. She is the author of the only popular book on gene therapy, The Forever Fix: Gene Therapy and the Boy Who Saved It (St. Martin’s Press, 2013); Human Genetics: Concepts and Applications (McGraw-Hill, 2018); Human Genetics: The Basics (Routledge Press, 2017); and has also published an intro biology book, two human anatomy and physiology books, an essay collection, and a novel about stem cells. She writes the DNA Science blog at PLOS and contributes regularly to Medscape Medical News. Ricki is an adjunct professor at the Alden March Bioethics Institute at Albany Medical College and is a genetic counselor. She is a frequent public speaker and has published thousands of articles, mostly about biotechnology and medical genetics, since 1982. www.rickilewis.com @rickilewis</div><div>samuel moxon x</div><div>Samuel Moxon, Contributing Columnist</div><div>Samuel is a biomedical engineer with expertise in regenerative medicine. He is a research fellow at the University of Manchester in the U.K. and holds an undergraduate degree in medical genetics and a PhD in tissue engineering. Sam frequently delivers lectures on his work and has published studies in prestigious journals. He has worked in the field for eight years and has been involved in science communication since 2016. When he is not working, Sam likes to spend time walking in the English Lake District with his family.</div><div>andrew porterfield x</div><div>Andrew Porterfield, Senior Contributing Columnist and Editor</div><div>Andrew has been a writer and editor for more than 20 years, and has worked as a public information officer for the<b> Salk Institute and the University of California-Irvine.</b> His articles haves appeared in ScienceNOW, Entomology Today, American Association of Pharmaceutical Science, Newsday, CBS News and San Francisco Chronicle. He has a BA in anthropology from the University of Pennsylvania and a MS in biotechnology from the University of Maryland. Andrew has also worked with a number of biotechnology and device firms, ranging from startups to<b> Pfizer</b>.</div><div>luis ventura x</div><div>Luis A. Ventura-Martinez, Contributing Columnist</div><div>Luis is a biologist with expertise in biosafety, biotechnology and science communication. He holds a degree from the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) and an academic stay at the National Polytechnic Institute in Mexico (IPN). He is a fellow at Cornell University’s Alliance for Science and a member of the International Platform of Genetic Resources (PGRIP) hosted by the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research (Mistra).</div><div>patrick michael whittle x</div><div>Patrick Michael Whittle, Contributing Columnist</div><div>Patrick is a New Zealand-based writer with a particular interest in the ethical and political implications of genetic technology and evolutionary biology. As well as writing popular science and opinion pieces for print and online publications, he has also worked in such exotic locations as Oman, the UAE, Kazakhstan, southern China, and Oswaldtwistle in Northern England. Academically, Patrick has graduate and post-graduate qualifications in linguistics, education, journalism, and philosophy, and has published in a number of academic journals in addition to co-authoring the academic text on ethics, conservation and genetics, ‘Resurrecting Extinct Species’. Patrick’s Website</div></div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>prolly 2x</div><div>
</div><div><h1 class="page__title title" id="page-title" style="line-height: 1.4em; margin: 10px 0px 10px 10px; padding: 0px; word-spacing: 3.6px;">Syngenta's Paid Third Party Pundits Spin the "News" on Atrazine</h1><article class="node-11276 node node-news-article view-mode-full clearfix" style="padding: 0px 16.1875px 16.1875px; word-spacing: 3.6px;"><header><p class="submitted" style="margin: 1.5em 0px;">Submitted by <a href="https://www.prwatch.org/users/35298/sara-jerving" title="View user profile." class="username" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">Sara Jerving</a> on <time pubdate="" datetime="2012-02-07T09:40:26-06:00">February 7, 2012 - 9:40am</time></p></header><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px;">Documents obtained by the Center for Media and Democracy, recently unsealed as part of a major lawsuit against Syngenta, reveal that the global chemical company's PR team had a multi-million dollar budget to pay surrogates and others who helped advance its messages about the weed-killer "atrazine." This story is part two of a series about Syngenta's PR campaign to influence the media, potential jurors, potential plaintiffs, farmers, politicians, scientists, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the midst of reviews of the weed-killer's potential to act as an endocrine disruptor.</p><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px;">These documents reveal a string of money going from Syngenta to pundits, economists, scientists, and others. Below is a sample of some of the "third party" surrogates who have been financially supported by Syngenta.</p><h2 style="line-height: 2em; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em;">ACSH's Elizabeth Whelan: "A Great Weapon"</h2><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px;"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Elizabeth_Whelan" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">Elizabeth Whelan</a> is founder and President of the <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Council_on_Science_and_Health" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">American Council on Science and Health</a>(ACSH). ACSH is a network of scientists whose stated mission to "ensure that the coverage of health issues is based on scientific facts – not hyperbole, emotion and ideology." Whelan has used hyperbole to advance her agenda, for example, calling the <em>New York Times</em> reporting on atrazine "All the news that's fit to scare."</p><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px;">Some of ACSH's published materials have a disclaimer saying it accepts corporate donations but it "does not accept support from individual corporations for specific research projects." <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/images/5/55/Syn_email_ACSH_Whelan_Say_Syngenta_Is_Financial_Lifeblood.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">Documents obtained by CMD show</a> (PDF) that Syngenta has been a long-term financial supporter of ACSH and that in the midst of reports about spikes in atrazine levels reported by the <em>New York Times</em>, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Huffington Post Investigative Fund, ACSH sought an additional $100,000 to produce more materials about atrazine in addition to seeking increased funding in general by Syngenta.</p><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px;" /><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px;">Whelan has <a href="http://www.prw.com/subscriber/headlines2.html?cat=1&id=1295433897" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">crafted the word "chemophobia"</a>, a term for what she tells the public is the "unfounded" fear of chemicals. Her <a href="http://www.acsh.org/news/newsID.183/news_detail.asp" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">mantra</a> is that the public shouldn't be alarmed by the presence of chemicals at "low" levels, a claim that flies in the face of <a href="https://www.prwatch.org/node/11263/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">new scientific studies</a> that indicate potential health risks from exposure to atrazine. (Even very small amounts of some man-made substances like BPA have been shown to potentially disrupt the human body's sensitive endocrine system.)</p><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px;">In a 2009 <em>MSNBC</em> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwCqWrGVT20" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">interview</a>, Whelan responded to a <em>New York Times</em> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/us/23water.html?pagewanted=all" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">piece</a> that questioned the safety of atrazine levels in drinking water, calling the claim a "bogus risk." "Atrazine has been used for 50 years, it's very, very tightly regulated," she asserted.</p><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px;">In response to that media appearance by Whelan, Syngenta's Vice President of Corporate Affairs Jessica Adelman <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/images/e/e9/Syn_email_ACSH_Is_Great_Weapon.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">called Whelan a "great weapon,"</a>(PDF) according to documents obtained by CMD. A weapon for which the global corporation has paid a significant fee over time. The ACSH proposal unsealed by the court shows Whelan telling Syngenta's "Stewardship Manager," that Syngenta's regular financial support "<a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/images/5/55/Syn_email_ACSH_Whelan_Say_Syngenta_Is_Financial_Lifeblood.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">is the lifeblood</a>"(PDF) of an organization the size of ACSH and "is both deeply appreciated and much needed." Whelan's group has annual income of about $2 million a year, and she is paid over $350,000 in compensation from this non-profit group funded by Syngenta and other global corporations. ACSH does not reveal the amounts received by corporations, and Whelan did not tell viewers of her claims about atrazine that she receives major funding from the global corporation that makes the weed-killer.</p><h2 style="line-height: 2em; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em;">Steven Milloy: "You Have Some Atrazine Talking Points For Me?"</h2><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px;"><img alt="Steven Milloy's book which discusses atrazine." src="https://www.prwatch.org/files/images/Steven%20Milloy%20JPEG.jpg" style="border: 0px; max-width: 100%; height: 200px; width: 134px; float: left; margin: 5px;" /><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Steven_Milloy" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">Steven Milloy</a> is a commentator for FOX News who runs the website called "<a href="http://junkscience.com/what-is-junk-science/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">JunkScience.com</a>," which claims to debunk "faulty scientific data and analysis used to advance special interests and hidden agendas." But Milloy himself has been funded by special interests. Milloy, directly or through his organizational alter egos, formerly the <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Free_Enterprise_Education_Institute" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">Free Enterprise Education Institute</a> of the Cato Institute and the "Free Enterprise Project" of the <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/National_Center_for_Public_Policy_Research" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">National Center for Public Policy Research</a>, <a href="http://www.tnr.com/article/pundit-hire" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">reportedly</a> received payments from <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Philip_Morris" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">Philip Morris</a> and <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/ExxonMobil" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">ExxonMobil</a>, among others. When the story broke a few years ago that he had received over $180,000 from Big Tobacco, Fox News said it was unaware of Milloy's connection with Philip Morris. Any affiliation he had should have been disclosed.</p><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px;">Documents obtained by CMD show that Milloy has also received <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/images/8/88/Syn_Email_Milloy_Asking_for_Grants.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">an unknown number of checks for $25,000 each from Syngenta</a> (PDF) to amplify its talking points on atrazine. In one e-mail to Syngenta he asks if it is too soon to ask for another $25,000 and another email notes he was receiving payments in $15,000 increments. His projects at the time were about the "free enterprise" system. His most recent payment from Syngenta and the total amount he has received from corporation is not known.</p><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px;">When it comes to atrazine, Milloy has helped target UC-Berkeley integrative biology professor Tyrone Hayes. The professor is a leading independent scientist investigating the potential damage to health from atrazine exposure. He has spent over a decade researching atrazine and has reported findings that the weed-killer causes gender abnormalities in frogs -- even among frogs that were exposed to the weed-killer in doses smaller than the EPA sets as the limit for the annual average amount in drinking water.</p><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px;">Milloy has called Hayes a "<a href="http://junkscience.com/2011/11/09/syngenta-atrazine-benefits-u-s-consumers-by-up-to-4-8-billion-annually/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">Berserkeley atrazine-hater</a>" and has repeatedly attacked Hayes' scientific findings publicly. The Fox blogger has even gone so far as to accuse Hayes of lying about how he conducted the experiments: "We can't even be sure the concentrations of atrazine in the lab tanks are what Hayes' claims. After all, it's a lot easier to say the solution is 0.1 ppb of atrazine than it is to actually verify the assertion."</p><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px;">In the same blog post, called "<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,69497,00.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">Freaky-Frog Fraud</a>," Milloy asserts that "Hayes seems to be determined to scare the public about atrazine." Milloy seems determined to do the opposite. Documents obtained by CMD include an <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/images/0/09/Syn_email_Talking_Points_for_Milloy.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">2008 email from Milloy to Sherry Duvall Ford</a>(PDF), head of external communications for Syngenta, which reads, "Beth Carroll said that you had some Atrazine talking points for me. Would love to see them. Thanks, Steve." Milloy has not mentioned his payments from Syngenta in his tv appearances.</p><h2 style="line-height: 2em; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em;">Alex Avery: Debunking Independent Science; Paid by Syngenta</h2><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px;"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Alex_Avery" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">Alex Avery</a> is director of research and education with the <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Center_for_Global_Food_Issues" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">Center for Global Food Issues</a>(CGFI) at the <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Hudson_Institute" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">Hudson Institute</a>. The Hudson Institute receives funding from big agribusiness interests, including <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Monsanto" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">Monsanto</a>, <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Dow_AgroSciences" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">Dow AgroSciences</a>, and Syngenta. According to documents obtained by CMD, the Hudson Institute has received <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/images/a/a7/Syn_Spreadsheet_HudsonInstitute_Avery_Payments.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">at least $68,550</a> (PDF) from Syngenta.</p><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px;" /><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px;">Avery has been a crusader against organic food and for "debunking" science showing the harm of chemicals to humans, including efforts to discredit science on the effects of nitrate in water. When it comes to atrazine, Avery also choses to target Dr. Hayes. In a self-made video posted by CGFI, Avery says "the problem is that while Dr. Hayes, whose latest research paper is based on a whopping 80 frogs -- only 40 of which were treated with atrazine -- is up against a large body of research showing that atrazine has no impact on amphibian development." He claims that science comes from "independent researchers, who don't work for chemical companies." However, documents obtained by CMD show that at least one of the researchers cited, Dr. Werner Kloas, Professor of Endocrinology at Humboldt University in Berlin, was in fact <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/images/2/26/Syn_Q_A_Kloas_SAP_Contract.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">contracted by Syngenta</a> (PDF) to conduct EPA-mandated studies on atrazine's effects on frogs.</p><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px;">Other documents obtained by CMD show that Avery and Milloy were <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/images/a/a3/Atrazine_Strategy_SAP_June_2003.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">included in a Syngenta list of "select media"</a> (PDF), chosen because they "demonstrated a balanced approach in covering the frog issue." Avery was included in a list of Syngenta consultants in a document unsealed by the court.</p><h2 style="line-height: 2em; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em;">Don Coursey: Crunching the Numbers for Syngenta</h2><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px;"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Don_Coursey" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;" /></p><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px;"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Don_Coursey" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">Don Coursey, an Ameritech-endowed Professor in the Harris School of Public Policy Studies at the University of Chicago, has written analysis touted by Syngenta on the economic cost of banning atrazine. Documents obtained by CMD reveal that Coursey is on Syngenta's "benefits" panel, a group of scientists and academics that the corporation has paid to extol the "benefits" and "value" of atrazine and who have attacked effort to increase regulation of the weed-killer.</a></p><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px;"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Don_Coursey" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">In a 2010 </a><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47GRrONivUc" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">briefing sponsored</a> by the Triazine Network at the National Press Club in Washington, Coursey discusses his research on what a ban would mean to farmers. (The Triazine Network is a coalition of agribusiness groups formed in 1995 that documents obtained by CMD show has <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/images/0/0f/Syn_JTA_Q_A_Draft_Triazine_Funding.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">received funding from Syngenta</a>.) He forecasts that a ban would be "devastating" and that farmers would be faced with two options: using a more expensive herbicide or switching to GMO crops. He claims that farmers would lose $26-$58 dollars per acre if atrazine were banned. Dr. Frank Ackerman, an economist at the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University, has <a href="http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/EconAtrazine.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">written a report</a> debunking some of the faulty conclusions Coursey has presented over the years.</p><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px;">Documents obtained by CMD reveal that Coursey <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/images/a/ab/Syn_email_Coursey_Fee_35000.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">received $35,000</a> (PDF) from Syngenta for just one of his reports on the economic impact of an atrazine ban. That paper indicates that it was "prepared for" Syngenta, but subsequent videos and press quotes do not mention that.</p><h2 style="line-height: 2em; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em;">Richard Fawcett: Atrazine Helps Farmers "Help the Environment"</h2><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px;" /><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px;">Documents obtained by CMD show that Richard Fawcett, the president of Fawcett Consulting firm, is also on Syngentas's "benefits panel." Fawcett has performed studies for the Triazine Network and has publicly touted the economic and environmental "benefits" of atrazine.</p><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px;">On a 2011 "Atrazine Research Webcast" that was "<a href="http://agritalk.com/atrazine/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">brought to you from Syngenta</a>," Fawcett exalted the herbicide, stating that "atrazine helps farmers by helping them help the environment." Later in the talk, he dismissed Hayes' research on the adverse effects of the weed-killer on amphibians. He also attempted to extrapolate on the benefits of atrazine in nature: "Wildlife habitat has been greatly improved -- things like conservation tillage that atrazine plays a big role in actually creating wildlife habitat.... When I was a kid growing up on a farm in Eastern Iowa, I wouldn't have dreamed to see coyotes or otters or wild turkeys or even deer on our farm. Today, wildlife is back and farmers all know that we've seen this tremendous change, and its because we've changed the management on our farms."</p><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px;">Documents obtained by CMD show that Fawcett's firm has been paid at least $500,000 between 1995 and 2011 for his work that promotes atrazine.</p><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px;">Other members of Syngenta's team who serve on the atrazine "benefits panel" are Dr. Paul Mitchell, an agricultural economist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Dr. Mike Owen, a weed specialist at Iowa State University, and Dr. David Bridges, president of the Abraham Baldwin College of Agriculture. The incomplete set of documents unsealed by the court do not indicate any payments they have received from Syngenta.</p><hr style="box-sizing: content-box; height: 0px; border-style: solid; border-color: rgb(102, 102, 102); border-image: initial; margin: 1.5em 0px;" /><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px;"><strong>About the Author and article:</strong> Sara Jerving is a writer and researcher for the Center for Media and Democracy.</p><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px;"><strong>About this Project:</strong> Documents obtained by CMD, recently unsealed as part of a major lawsuit against Syngenta, reveal how the global chemical company's PR team investigated the press and spent millions to spin news coverage and public perceptions in the face of growing concerns about potential health risks from the widely used weed-killer atrazine. This story is part three of a series about Syngenta's PR campaign to influence the media, potential jurors, potential plaintiffs, farmers, politicians, scientists, and the EPA in the midst of reviews of the weed-killer's potential to act as an endocrine disruptor and concerns about the persistence of the chemical and its metabolytes in drinking water.</p><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px;"><strong>For More Information:</strong> The U.S. Geological Survey is one resource for citizens to look at the levels of atrazine in water. <a href="http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/warp/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">Click here</a> for an interactive map. To see a list of products containing atrazine, <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Atrazine#Products_Containing_Atrazine" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">click here</a>. To see the documents released as part of this investigative series, <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Portal:Atrazine_Exposed" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">click here</a>.</p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-13 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden" style="background-image: url(" sites="sites" all="all" themes="themes" prw="prw" images="images" tag_blue.png="tag_blue.png" background-position="background-position" left="left" background-size="background-size" initial="initial" background-repeat="background-repeat" no-repeat="no-repeat" background-attachment="background-attachment" scroll="scroll" background-origin="background-origin" background-clip="background-clip" line-height="line-height" em="em" margin="margin" px="px" padding="padding"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" style="display: inline-block; padding-right: 1em;"><a href="https://www.prwatch.org/topics/atrazine-exposed" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Atrazine Exposed</a></div><div class="field-item odd" style="display: inline-block; padding-right: 1em;"><a href="https://www.prwatch.org/topics/corporations" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Corporations</a></div><div class="field-item even" style="display: inline-block; padding-right: 1em;"><a href="https://www.prwatch.org/topics/environment" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Environment</a></div><div class="field-item odd" style="display: inline-block; padding-right: 1em;"><a href="https://www.prwatch.org/topics/health" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Health</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-12 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden" style="background-image: url(" sites="sites" all="all" themes="themes" prw="prw" images="images" tag_red.png="tag_red.png" background-position="background-position" left="left" background-size="background-size" initial="initial" background-repeat="background-repeat" no-repeat="no-repeat" background-attachment="background-attachment" scroll="scroll" background-origin="background-origin" background-clip="background-clip" line-height="line-height" em="em" margin="margin" px="px" padding="padding"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" style="display: inline-block; padding-right: 1em;"><a href="https://www.prwatch.org/news-types/news" style="text-decoration-line: none;">News</a></div></div></div><div class="view view-related-articles view-id-related_articles view-display-id-entity_view_1 view-dom-id-5e6da326c8506fd1e9456009ba8b40b1" style="margin: 0em 0px 1em; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(34, 81, 128); float: left; padding-bottom: 1em; width: 777.625px;"><div class="view-header" style="float: left; font-weight: bold; width: 777.625px;"><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px;">MORE LIKE THIS:</p></div><div class="view-content"><div class="item-list"><ul style="margin: 1.5em 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 30px;"><li class="views-row views-row-1 views-row-odd views-row-first" style="background-image: url(" sites="sites" all="all" themes="themes" prw="prw" images="images" arrow-view.png="arrow-view.png" background-position="background-position" px="px" background-size="background-size" initial="initial" background-repeat="background-repeat" no-repeat="no-repeat" background-attachment="background-attachment" scroll="scroll" background-origin="background-origin" background-clip="background-clip" font-weight="font-weight" line-height="line-height" margin="margin" padding="padding" em="em" list-style="list-style" none="none" float="float" left="left" width="width"><div class="views-field views-field-title" style="line-height: 1.6;"><span class="field-content"><a href="https://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/09/12585/oregon-residents-challenge-states-right-farm-law" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Oregon Residents Challenge the State "Right-to-Farm" Law</a></span></div></li><li class="views-row views-row-2 views-row-even" style="background-image: url(" sites="sites" all="all" themes="themes" prw="prw" images="images" arrow-view.png="arrow-view.png" background-position="background-position" px="px" background-size="background-size" initial="initial" background-repeat="background-repeat" no-repeat="no-repeat" background-attachment="background-attachment" scroll="scroll" background-origin="background-origin" background-clip="background-clip" font-weight="font-weight" line-height="line-height" margin="margin" padding="padding" em="em" list-style="list-style" none="none" float="float" left="left" width="width"><div class="views-field views-field-title" style="line-height: 1.6;"><span class="field-content"><a href="https://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/06/12514/contamination-natural-kauai" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Contamination of Natural Kaua'i: Rare Plants and Wildlife at Risk</a></span></div></li><li class="views-row views-row-3 views-row-odd" style="background-image: url(" sites="sites" all="all" themes="themes" prw="prw" images="images" arrow-view.png="arrow-view.png" background-position="background-position" px="px" background-size="background-size" initial="initial" background-repeat="background-repeat" no-repeat="no-repeat" background-attachment="background-attachment" scroll="scroll" background-origin="background-origin" background-clip="background-clip" font-weight="font-weight" line-height="line-height" margin="margin" padding="padding" em="em" list-style="list-style" none="none" float="float" left="left" width="width"><div class="views-field views-field-title" style="line-height: 1.6;"><span class="field-content"><a href="https://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/04/12456/spinning-science-atrazine" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Spinning the Science on Atrazine</a></span></div></li><li class="views-row views-row-4 views-row-even" style="background-image: url(" sites="sites" all="all" themes="themes" prw="prw" images="images" arrow-view.png="arrow-view.png" background-position="background-position" px="px" background-size="background-size" initial="initial" background-repeat="background-repeat" no-repeat="no-repeat" background-attachment="background-attachment" scroll="scroll" background-origin="background-origin" background-clip="background-clip" font-weight="font-weight" line-height="line-height" margin="margin" padding="padding" em="em" list-style="list-style" none="none" float="float" left="left" width="width"><div class="views-field views-field-title" style="line-height: 1.6;"><span class="field-content"><a href="https://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/05/11506/syngenta-hired-guns-attack-new-documentary" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Syngenta Hired Guns Attack New Documentary</a></span></div></li><li class="views-row views-row-5 views-row-odd views-row-last" style="background-image: url(" sites="sites" all="all" themes="themes" prw="prw" images="images" arrow-view.png="arrow-view.png" background-position="background-position" px="px" background-size="background-size" initial="initial" background-repeat="background-repeat" no-repeat="no-repeat" background-attachment="background-attachment" scroll="scroll" background-origin="background-origin" background-clip="background-clip" font-weight="font-weight" line-height="line-height" margin="margin" padding="padding" em="em" list-style="list-style" none="none" float="float" left="left" width="width"><div class="views-field views-field-title" style="line-height: 1.6;"><span class="field-content"><a href="https://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/05/11492/syngenta-celebrates-earth-day-ladling-pesticides" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Syngenta Celebrates Earth Day by Ladling on the Pesticides</a></span></div></li></ul></div></div></div></article></div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div></div><div><a href="http://www.chicagonow.com/high-gloss-and-sauce/2013/08/forbes-atrazine-jon-etine-082013/">http://www.chicagonow.com/high-gloss-and-sauce/2013/08/forbes-atrazine-jon-etine-082013/</a></div><div>
</div><div><h2 class="post-title" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 43px; float: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Atrazine: Forbes publishes false info about public health, Atrazine</h2><div class="post-meta" style="margin: 10px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; width: 536px;"><div class="share-utils" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 5px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><div style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; float: left; clear: both;"><div class="from" style="margin: 12px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 16px; clear: left;"><i style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">By </i><span class="author-name" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-style: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: bold;">Jenna Karvunidis</span><i style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">,</i><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> August 20, 2013 </span></div></div><div class="post-content" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px -5px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 5px; border: 0px; line-height: 23px; clear: both; overflow: hidden; width: 536px;"><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">There was a time when I respected big name journalism, including Forbes, but after the clearly false information Forbes published yesterday on the <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/08/19/1577/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">"safety" of the "benign" chemical Atrazine</a> in a direct assault on public health, I'm not so sure. Jon Entine, a Forbes writer who claims to approach science with a "skeptical eye" seems to turn a blind one on the clear dangers of Atrazine. Forbes now has a credibility problem. Let's break the article down bit by bit to see why. Grab your hats!</p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">The Forbes article begins with a premise that the Berkley researcher Dr. Tyrone Hayes, who first proved Atrazine's adverse effects on amphibians, was bested by a later independent study:</p><blockquote style="background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245); margin: 0px; padding: 0px 24px; border-width: 1px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(221, 221, 221); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; background-image: -webkit-gradient(linear, 0% 0%, 0% 100%, from(rgb(245, 245, 245)), to(rgb(245, 245, 245)), color-stop(0.5, white));"><p style="margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">Hayes set off a firestorm despite the fact that a much larger independent study released at the very same time found no meaningful link between atrazine exposure and abnormalities.</p></blockquote><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">The problem here is two-fold. First, the reason <a href="http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/atrazine/atrazine_update.htm#amphibian" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">the EPA-recognized study on the effects of Atrazine on frogs</a> claimed to not be able to refute or confirm that hypothesis, is "mainly because of the limitations of the study designs and uncertainties in the data." It was a problem with the EPA's own processes. When they solicited help from a third party, FIFRA SAP, they merely concluded "atrazine does not produce consistent, reproducible effects". <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">Consistent</em>. Not "none", not "all the frogs were healthy" but they couldn't reproduce <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">consistent</em> results. True, not everyone who drinks contaminated water will be subject to the health problems either. Where is the full report with all the frogs' outcomes?</p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">This is a tame example of Forbes' mishandling of the truth about Atrazine. Since the full notes on the EPA experiment are not available, we'll have to take the summary at face value. Fair enough. Let's give Jon Entine that one. What next?</p><blockquote style="background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245); margin: 0px; padding: 0px 24px; border-width: 1px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(221, 221, 221); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; background-image: -webkit-gradient(linear, 0% 0%, 0% 100%, from(rgb(245, 245, 245)), to(rgb(245, 245, 245)), color-stop(0.5, white));"><p style="margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">[Atrazine is] considered so comparatively gentle that it can be applied even after a crop’s first shoots appear above the ground.</p></blockquote><p style="margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">This is misleading because the way Atrazine harms human health is not by way of the crop itself, rather by contaminating the ground water via runoff. The EPA is so aware of this and eager to dodge upsetting Syngenta, the makers of Atrazine (as well as avoid upsetting the public and showing their incompetence) that for the 2</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">013 report on Atrazine, the EPA took the groundwater measurement in January, when toxin levels are typically low. (Atrazine is applied to farm crops in Spring.)</span></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">Here, let's let the EPA's own words tell the problem with Atrazine:</p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><a href="http://www.epa.gov/teach/chem_summ/Atrazine_summary.pdf" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">"Atrazine is a commonly reported groundwater contaminant,"</a></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">"Drinking water from a contaminated groundwater or surface water source can be a significant medium of exposure for children."</p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">"Exposure to children can occur primarily from ingestion of contaminated drinking water, and from dermal contact or ingestion following agricultural and lawn applications"</p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><b>"Atrazine is the most commonly detected pesticide in U.S. surface waters, particularly in the U.S. Midwest Corn Belt region."</b></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">In fact, <a href="http://www.chicagonow.com/high-gloss-and-sauce/2013/07/tax-on-the-midwest-epa-issues-a-report-urging-us-not-to-drink-tap-water/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">the EPA has urged midwesterners not to drink municipal tap water</a>.</p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">The biggest problem with Jon Entine's Forbes article, however, is this paragraph:</p><blockquote style="background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245); margin: 0px; padding: 0px 24px; border-width: 1px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(221, 221, 221); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; background-image: -webkit-gradient(linear, 0% 0%, 0% 100%, from(rgb(245, 245, 245)), to(rgb(245, 245, 245)), color-stop(0.5, white));"><p style="margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">The EPA’s assessment reflects the consensus by many scientific bodies around the world, including the World Health Organization and regulatory agencies in Australia, Canada the European Union’s safety review: atrazine has a short half-life, does not bio-accumulate in organisms,<b> is not carcinogenic</b> and study after study has shown it does not cause abnormalities and deformities at levels occurring in groundwater.</p></blockquote><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">1. Regulatory agencies in the European Union do not agree Atrazine is safe. Atrazine has been banned in Europe since 2004.</p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">2. The problem is not that it bio-accumulates in organisms, the problem is that exposure around the time of ovulation can cause adverse effects on embryos including <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14991755" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">chromosome aberrations</a> (to quote the EPA, <a href="http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/atrazine/atrazine_update.htm" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">"Reproductive effects are the most sensitive effects observed in atrazine toxicity tests" also, "Change in hormone levels is the most sensitive health effect observed in an extensive battery of atrazine toxicity tests"</a>).</p><p style="margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">3. The Center for Disease Control mentions </span><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17560200" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">Atrazine and birth defects,</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"Gastroschisis and omphalocele are </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">congenital abdominal wall defects (AWD)</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">. Atrazine and nitrates are common agricultural fertilizers" and concluded, "Indiana has significantly higher rates of AWD [abdominal wall defects] compared with national rates. Increased atrazine levels correlate with increased incidence of AWD."</span></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">Also, prolonged exposure can cause human health problems, which brings us to . . .</p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">4. Atrazine is associated with cancer. <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16291529" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">Here's a study!</a></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">Do Forbes writers even bother to research before writing articles or has the pursuit of money completely eclipsed concern for human health and journalistic integrity? It's like we're lost in a J. J. Abrams series. I hope <a href="http://www.chicagonow.com/high-gloss-and-sauce/2013/06/atrazine-birth-defects-atrazine-water-supply-the-eu-banned-chemical-in-your-body-right-now-06212013/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">my child's life</a> was worth it, jerks!</p></div></div><div>
</div><div></div><div>2x?</div><div>
</div><div><header class="entry-header" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246);"><h1 class="entry-title" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 30px; line-height: 1.1;">Jon Entine’s Genetic Literacy Project: PR Messengers for Monsanto, Bayer and the Chemical Industry</h1><div class="entry-meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 20px;"><span class="posted-on" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Posted on <a href="https://usrtk.org/food-for-thought/jon-entine-the-chemical-industrys-master-messenger/" title="10:00 am" rel="bookmark" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;"><time class="entry-date published" datetime="2018-10-07T10:00:38+00:00" style="box-sizing: border-box;">October 7, 2018</time></a></span><span class="byline" style="box-sizing: border-box;"> by <span class="author vcard" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a class="url fn n" href="https://usrtk.org/author/usrtk/" title="View all posts by Gary Ruskin" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Gary Ruskin</a></span></span></div></header><div class="entry-content" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246);"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">Jon Entine is the founder and executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project, a key partner in Monsanto’s public relations efforts to protect and defend agrichemical products. Entine portrays himself as an objective authority on science, but the evidence described in this fact sheet indicates that he is a longtime PR operative with deep ties to the chemical industry and <a href="https://usrtk.org/food-for-thought/jon-entine-the-chemical-industrys-master-messenger/#funding" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">undisclosed industry funding</a>.</p><h3 style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 20px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">Genetic Literacy Project origins: a Monsanto PR firm and a nonprofit with tobacco ties</span></h3><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">Entine is also the founder and <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Esg-Mediametrics-DB-Duns-Market-Identifiers-Plus-US.pdf" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">principal of ESG MediaMetrics</a>, a public relations firm that had <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Monsanto-client-ESG-Media-Metrics-2013.png" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Monsanto as a client in 2011</a> when the firm <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/ICANN-WHOIS_geneticliteracyproject.org.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">registered the GeneticLiteracyProject.org domain name</a>.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">Entine was at that time employed by Statistical Assessment Services (STATS), a nonprofit group that journalists have described as a “<a href="https://www.statnews.com/2018/01/30/pharmaceutical-industry-fake-news-tobacco/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">disinformation campaign</a>” that is “<a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/11/15/how-self-appointed-guardians-of-sound-science-tip-the-scales-toward-industry/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">known to take positions that buck scientific consensus or dismiss emerging evidence of harm</a>.” Genetic Literacy Project was developed as a “cross disciplinary program with STATS,” according to <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20110724151339/http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">web archives.</a> In 2015, Genetic Literacy Project moved under the umbrella of a new group, the Science Literacy Project, which inherited the STATS <a href="https://pdf.guidestar.org/PDF_Images/2016/521/844/2016-521844456-0ddae559-9.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">tax ID number</a>.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">An investigation by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel found that STATS was a “<a href="http://archive.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">major player in the public relations campaign to discredit concerns about bisphenol A</a>” and that its parent organization, the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA), “was <a href="https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=hhyh0062" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">paid in the 1990s by Philip Morris</a>, the tobacco company, to pick apart stories critical of smoking.” Entine was a director of the CMPA in fiscal year 2014/2015, according <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/CMPA2014-.pdf" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">to tax forms</a>.</p><h4 style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">Monsanto was a client of Entine’s PR firm when it registered the domain for Genetic Literacy Project.</span></h4><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><font style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;"><a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/entine-client-monsanto.jpg" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">[</a>screenshot]</font></p><h3 style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 20px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">Partners with Monsanto on PR projects / attacks on scientists </span></h3><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">Documents obtained by <a href="https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">U.S. Right to Know</a> and from <a href="https://usrtk.org/pesticides/mdl-monsanto-glyphosate-cancer-case-key-documents-analysis/" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">litigation against Monsanto</a> show that Entine and the Genetic Literacy Project partner with Monsanto to promote and defend GMOs and pesticides, without disclosing their collaborations:</p><ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li class="li1" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span class="s1" style="box-sizing: border-box;">A 2015 Monsanto PR plan</span> identified Genetic Literacy Project as one of the <a href="https://usrtk.org/gmo/monsanto-relied-on-these-partners-to-attack-top-cancer-scientists/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">“industry partners”</a> Monsanto planned to engage in its efforts to “orchestrate outcry” about a <a href="https://www.iarc.fr/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">cancer report</a> from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), in order to “protect the reputation” of Roundup. GLP has posted <a href="https://geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-library/?search_bar=IARC" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">over 200 articles</a> about IARC, several of them <a href="https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/11/02/whos-iarc-cancer-agency-partly-funded-us-outlived-usefulness/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">attacking</a> <a href="https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/05/08/viewpoint-north-american-scientists-iarc-officials-conspired-to-misrepresent-glyphosate-health-risks/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">the scientists</a> who found glyphosate carcinogenic as <a href="https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/03/13/viewpoint-congress-reign-iarc-cancer-agencys-corruption-distortion-fraud/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">frauds</a> and <a href="https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/01/22/viewpoint-6-ways-iarc-director-christopher-wild-lied-congress-cancer-agencys-glyphosate-debacle/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">liars</a> who are <a href="https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2019/03/01/predatort-part-ii-how-predatory-lawyers-activist-scientists-hijacked-iarc-international-agency-for-research-on-cancer-for-personal-profit-and-ideological-vanity/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">driven by profit and vanity</a>.</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;"><a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Genetic-Literacy-Project-attacks-on-scientists.png" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;"><img class="wp-image-12393 alignright" src="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Genetic-Literacy-Project-attacks-on-scientists.png" alt="" width="543" height="499" srcset="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Genetic-Literacy-Project-attacks-on-scientists.png 978w, https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Genetic-Literacy-Project-attacks-on-scientists-300x276.png 300w, https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Genetic-Literacy-Project-attacks-on-scientists-768x706.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 543px) 100vw, 543px" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 0px; vertical-align: middle; float: right; width: 275.625px; margin-top: 0px; display: block; margin-left: 1.5em; border-radius: 5px; max-width: 100%; height: auto;" /></a>An award-winning <a href="https://www.europeanpressprize.com/article/monsanto-papers/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Le Monde investigation</a> about the “Monsanto Papers” described Genetic Literacy Project as a “well-known propaganda website” that is “fed by PR people linked to the pesticides and biotechnology industries,” and played a key role in Monsanto’s efforts “to destroy the United Nations cancer agency by any means possible.”</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;"><a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MDLLetNothingGomotion.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">In a 2017 court filing</a>, plaintiffs’ attorneys suing Monsanto over glyphosate cancer concerns described Genetic Literacy Project and the American Council on Science and Health as “organizations intended to shame scientists and highlight information helpful to Monsanto and other chemical producers.”</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">In 2014 and 2015, Genetic Literacy Project worked with Monsanto and their PR firm to publish and promote a series of pro-GMO papers written by professors with no disclosure of the corporation’s role. See Boston Globe report, “<a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/10/01/harvard-professor-failed-disclose-monsanto-connection-paper-touting-gmos/lLJipJQmI5WKS6RAgQbnrN/story.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Harvard professor failed to disclose Monsanto connection</a>.”</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;"><a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/urgentrequest.pdf" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">According to a Sept. 2014 email,</a> Monsanto executives chose Genetic Literacy Project as the “the primary outlet” to publish the professors’ papers, and to build a “merchandising plan” with the PR firm CMA to promote the papers.</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">The PR firm CMA, which has since been renamed Look East, is directed by Charlie Arnot, who also runs the <a href="https://usrtk.org/gmo/center-for-food-integrity-partners-with-monsanto/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Center for Food Integrity</a>, a nonprofit that receives funding from Monsanto — and also <a href="https://geneticliteracyproject.org/mission-financials-governorship/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">donates to</a> Genetic Literacy Project.</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">In 2014 and 2015, Genetic Literacy Project partnered with <a href="https://usrtk.org/gmo/academics-review-the-making-of-a-monsanto-front-group/" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Academics Review, a Monsanto front group,</a> to organize <a href="https://usrtk.org/gmo/academics-review-the-making-of-a-monsanto-front-group/#BLPbootcamps" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">industry-funded conferences</a> at the University of Florida and UC Davis “to train scientists and journalists to frame the debate over GMOs and the toxicity of glyphosate,” as <a href="https://progressive.org/magazine/how-the-biotech-industry-cultivates-positive-media/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Paul Thacker reported in The Progressive</a>.</li></ul><h3 style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 20px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">Ties to Syngenta / American Council on Science and Health</span></h3><div id="attachment_2984" class="wp-caption alignright" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: right; width: 287px; margin-top: 0px; display: inline; margin-left: 1.5em; border: none; margin-bottom: 1.5em; max-width: 100%;"><p class="wp-caption-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.8075em 0px; text-align: center;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">Syngenta was funding ACSH when it published Entine’s book defending Syngenta’s pesticide.</span></span></p></div><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">Jon Entine is closely tied in with the <a href="http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">American Council on Science and Health</a> (ACSH), a corporate front group that <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/ACSH-email.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">receives funding from Monsanto</a> and other chemical companies. ACSH published Entine’s 2011 book, which defends atrazine, a pesticide manufactured by Syngenta. Reporting by Tom Philpott in Mother Jones and the Center for Media and Democracy establish that Syngenta was funding ACSH at the time, and that ACSH had asked Syngenta to provide extra funding for a project that included a book that sounds like Entine’ book.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/02/atrazine-syngengta-tyrone-hayes-jon-entine" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Philpott’s article in Mother Jones</a> described the circumstances leading up to the publication of Entine’s book, based on documents obtained by <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/node/11277" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">the Center for Media and Democracy</a> that describe Syngenta’s PR campaign to get <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/02/11276/syngentas-paid-third-party-pundits-spin-news-atrazine" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">third-party allies to defend atrazine</a>.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">In 2009, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/5/55/Syn_email_ACSH_Whelan_Say_Syngenta_Is_Financial_Lifeblood.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">ACSH staff asked Syngenta</a> for a $100,000 grant — “separate and distinct from general operating support Syngenta has been so generously providing over the years” — to produce a paper and “consumer-friendly booklet” about atrazine. In 2011, <a href="http://acsh.org/news/2011/01/18/scared-to-death" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">ACSH announced</a> Entine’s new book along with a “companion friendly, abbreviated position paper,” both defending atrazine. Entine told Philpott he had “no idea” Syngenta was funding ACSH.</p><h3 style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 20px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">Key theme: attacks on scientists and journalists</span></h3><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">A key theme in Entine’s work is attacking scientists and journalists who report critically about the chemical industry, the oil industry or health problems associated with them. Some examples:</p><ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;"><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/03/10/did-the-new-yorker-botch-puff-piece-on-frog-scientist-tyrone-hayes-turning-rogue-into-beleaguered-hero/#55511efc4ca3" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Attacked</a> <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">New Yorker</em> reporter Rachel Aviv in attempt to discredit her <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/02/10/a-valuable-reputation" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">reporting about internal Syngenta documents</a> that reveal how the chemical company tried to destroy the reputation of UC Berkeley Professor Tyrone Hayes due to his research connecting the herbicide atrazine to birth defects in frogs. Entine’s chief source was Bruce Chassy, a professor who was <a href="https://www.wbez.org/shows/wbez-news/why-didnt-an-illinois-professor-have-to-disclose-gmo-funding/eb99bdd2-683d-4108-9528-de1375c3e9fb" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">quietly receiving money</a> from Monsanto and helped start a <a href="https://usrtk.org/gmo/academics-review-the-making-of-a-monsanto-front-group/" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Monsanto front group</a> to attack industry critics.</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;"><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_10952_b_9111688.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Attacked</a> Harvard Professor Naomi Oreskes, co-author of <a href="http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Merchants of Doubt</a>, as “a populist Luddite, the intellectual Rottweiler of in-your-face, environmentalism, unduly wary of modern technology.”</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;"><a href="http://nypost.com/2016/03/01/how-the-columbia-journalism-school-smeared-exxon/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Accused</a> Columbia Journalism School Dean Steve Coll and journalist Susanne Rust of “smearing Exxon” for reporting that Exxon knew for years that climate change was real but hid the science to keep revenues flowing.</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">In a <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20170619042859/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/when-a-journalist-crosses-from-science-to-ideology_us_5904e070e4b05279d4edbc8e" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">follow-up attack</a> (since removed from the <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Huffington Post</em> website), Entine accused Rust of ethics violations for her reporting in an award-winning series on BPA that was <a href="http://businessjournalism.org/2010/06/susanne-rust-on-investigating-bpa-and-other-chemical-stories/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">short-listed for a Pulitzer Prize;</a> Entine did not disclose that her reporting identified his former employer STATS as a <a href="http://archive.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">major player in industry’s PR efforts</a>.</li></ul><h3 id="funding" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 20px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">The Murky Funding Trail to Entine and the Genetic Literacy Project</span></h3><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">Entine’s funding history is complex and opaque, but tax documents and his own disclosures reveal a pattern of funding from anonymous sources and right-wing foundations that <a href="https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/climate-science-denial-network-funds-toxic-chemical-propaganda/" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">push deregulation and climate science denial</a>, as well as undisclosed funding from the biotechnology industry.</p><h4 style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">Inaccurate, ever-changing “transparency” note</span></h4><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">The “financial transparency” note on the Genetic Literacy Project website is inaccurate, changes often and at times contradicts itself. For 2017 and 2018, the Genetic Literacy Project <a href="https://geneticliteracyproject.org/mission-financials-governorship/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">claimed it received funding</a> from a handful of foundations including the Templeton and Searle foundations, which are <a href="https://drexel.edu/now/archive/2013/december/climate-change/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">leading funders of climate science denial efforts</a>. GLP also notes funding from the Center for Food Integrity, a <a href="https://usrtk.org/gmo/center-for-food-integrity-partners-with-monsanto/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">food-industry front group</a> that receives money from Monsanto and also partners with Monsanto and Genetic Literacy Project to promote agrichemical industry PR.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">In <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160909002518/https://geneticliteracyproject.org/mission-financials-governorship/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">September 2016, the “disclosure”</a> note said GLP received no funding from corporations, but disclosed a $27,500 “pass through” from “Academics Review Charitable Association,” which appears not to exist. That group is apparently <a href="http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2015/453/561/2015-453561010-0d3812d3-9.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">AcademicsReview.org</a>, a <a href="https://usrtk.org/gmo/academics-review-the-making-of-a-monsanto-front-group/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">front group that received its funding from the agrichemical industry</a> trade group.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">In <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160329103705/https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/mission/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">March 2016, GLP made no financial disclosures</a> and Entine tried to distance GLP from his former employer STATS, claiming that STATS provided accounting services only and that the groups weren’t involved with each other’s activities. But in 2012, GLP said it was “<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20110724151339/http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">developed as a cross disciplinary program with STATS</a>.”</p><h4 style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">Center for Media and Public Affairs/George Mason University</span></h4><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">For the fiscal year <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/CMPA2014-.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">2014/2015</a>, according to tax records, Entine received $173,100 for his work as “director” at Center for Media and Public Affairs, a group based at George Mason University and founded by GMU Professor <a href="http://wjmc.gmu.edu/advisory-board/dr-robert-lichter/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Robert Lichter</a>. CMPA <a href="https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=ytgn0061" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">was paid by Phillip Morris</a> in the 1990s to deflect concerns about tobacco, <a href="https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=tzfg0038" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">according to documents in the UCSF Tobacco Industry Library</a>.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">CMPA does not disclose its funders but has received funding from George Mason University Foundation, the <a href="http://polluterwatch.org/charles-koch-university-funding-database" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">leading recipient</a> of donations affiliated with Charles Koch and Koch Industries. GMUF also received $5.3 million from Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund between 2011-13, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/09/secretive-donors-gave-us-climate-denial-groups-125m-over-three-years" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">according to the Guardian</a>. These funds channel money from anonymous donors including corporations to campaigns and academics who push industry interests, as Greenpeace demonstrated in an <a href="https://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/12/08/exposed-academics-for-hire/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">undercover investigation</a>.</p><h4 style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">STATS Payments and Loans</span></h4><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">CMPA’s sister group, also founded by Lichter and based at GMU, was Statistical Assessment Services (STATS), a nonprofit group that played a key role in chemical industry PR efforts to defend toxic products, according to reporting in <a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/11/15/how-self-appointed-guardians-of-sound-science-tip-the-scales-toward-industry/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">The Intercept</a>, <a href="http://archive.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Milwaukee Journal Sentinel</a>, <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/09/how-lobbyists-are-spinning-weak-science-to-defend-bpa/245657/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">The Atlantic</a> and <a href="http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2009/11/industry-reacts-to-consumer-reports-bpa-report/index.htm" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Consumer Reports</a>.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">According to IRS forms:</p><ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">STATS paid Entine $140,600 in <a href="https://www.usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/SAS2012.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">2012/2013</a> and $152,500 in <a href="https://www.usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/SAS2013.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">2013/2014</a> as a “research consultant”</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">STATS and Center for Media and Public Affairs both listed Entine as Director in <a href="https://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2015/521/844/2015-521844456-0c54cc09-9.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">2014/2015</a> with compensation of $173,100. Tax records for both groups also listed President Trevor Butterworth for $95,512 and Director Tracey Brown with no compensation. Tracey Brown is director of Sense About Science, a group that also <a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/11/15/how-self-appointed-guardians-of-sound-science-tip-the-scales-toward-industry/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">spins science to defend chemical industry interests</a>; Butterworth <a href="https://usrtk.org/food-for-thought/trevor-butterworth-spins-science-for-industry/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">founded Sense About Science USA</a> in 2014 and merged STATS into that group.</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">Science Literacy Project took over the tax ID of STATS in <a href="https://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2016/521/844/2016-521844456-0ddae559-9.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">2015</a> and listed Entine as Executive Director with compensation of $188,800.</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">In 2018, ESG MediaMetrics, Entine’s PR firm, <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Esg-Mediametrics-DB-Duns-Market-Identifiers-Plus-US.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">reported $176,420 in income.</a></li></ul><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">The Center for Media and Public Affairs has also loaned money to STATS, which “due to inadequate funding” has “not been reimbursed.” George Mason University Foundation, which does not disclose its funding, gave CMPA grants in those years. Tax records show:</p><ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">CMPA loaned STATS $203,611 in <a href="http://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/CMPA-2012.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">2012/2013</a> and $163,914 loan in <a href="https://usrtk.org/sas2013-2/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">2013/2014</a></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">George Mason University Foundation granted $220,900 in <a href="http://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/GMUF2012.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">2012/2013</a> and $75,670 in <a href="http://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/GMUF2013.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">2013/2014</a> to CMPA.</li></ul><h4 style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">Biotechnology industry funding to train scientists and journalists</span></h4><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">In 2014 and 2015, the Council for Biotechnology Information, which is funded by BASF, Bayer, DowDuPont and Monsanto Company, spent over $300,000 on two events organized by Genetic Literacy Project and the front group Academics Review to “<a href="https://progressive.org/magazine/how-the-biotech-industry-cultivates-positive-media/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">train scientists and journalists to frame the debate over GMOs and the toxicity of glyphosate</a>,” according to tax records and reporting in <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">The Progressive</em>. The events, called the <a href="https://usrtk.org/gmo/academics-review-the-making-of-a-monsanto-front-group/#BLPbootcamps" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Biotech Literacy Project boot camps</a>, were held at the <a href="https://www.usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/TamarHaspel1.pdf" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">University of Florida in 2014</a> and <a href="https://www.usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/BLP2015.pdf" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">UC Davis in 2015</a>. The agendas describe the events as “communication skills training” for scientists and journalists to help reframe the food safety and GMO debate, and promised to provide scientists with the “tools and support resources necessary to effectively engage the media and appear as experts in legislative and local government hearings, and other policy making and related outreach opportunities.”</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">Faculty at the first <a href="http://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/TamarHaspel1.pdf" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">first boot camp</a> included representatives from the agrichemical industry, food industry front groups and trade groups, and pro-GMO academics including University of Florida Professor <a href="https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/kevin-folta/" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Kevin Folta</a>, and University of Illinois Professor Emeritus <a href="https://www.wbez.org/shows/wbez-news/why-didnt-an-illinois-professor-have-to-disclose-gmo-funding/eb99bdd2-683d-4108-9528-de1375c3e9fb" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Bruce Chassy</a>, both of whom have accepted undisclosed funding from Monsanto and promote the GMOs and pesticides that Monsanto sales rely upon. <a href="https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/how-tamar-haspel-misleads-readers-of-the-washington-post/" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;"><em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Washington Post</em> food columnist Tamar Haspel</a>, who also <a href="http://fair.org/home/buckraking-on-the-food-beat-when-is-it-a-conflict-of-interest/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">accepts money from agribusiness interests</a>, was the journalist on faculty.</p><h4 style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">Climate science denier funders</span></h4><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">Major financial supporters of Entine’s former employer STATS and his current group Genetic Literacy Project include right-wing foundations – primarily Scaife Foundation, Searle Freedom Trust and Templeton Foundation – that are leading funders of climate science denial, according to a <a href="http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2013/december/climate-change/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">2013 Drexel University study</a>. See USRTK investigation: <a href="https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/climate-science-denial-network-funds-toxic-chemical-propaganda/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Climate Science Denial Network Funds Toxic Chemical Propaganda.</a></p><h3 style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 20px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">Chemical industry defense guy</span></h3><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">For many years, Entine has been a prominent defender of chemical industry interests, following the industry playbook: he defends the chemicals as safe; argues against regulation; and attacks science, scientists journalists and others raising concerns.</p><h4 style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">Defending neonicotinoids</span></h4><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">Growing <a href="http://www.beyondpesticides.org/programs/bee-protective-pollinators-and-pesticides/what-the-science-shows" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">scientific evidence suggests</a> that neonicotinoids, the most widely used class of pesticides, are a key factor in bee die-offs. The European Union has restricted neonics due to concerns about impact on bees.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">Entine:</p><ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">Argues that neonics are not key driver of bee deaths (<a href="https://www.aei.org/publication/neonics-not-key-driver-of-bee-deaths-usda-study-may-clash-with-white-house-poised-to-restrict-pesticide/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">American Enterprise Institute</a>).</li></ul><ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">Attacked a Harvard professor’s study on bee Colony Collapse Disorder (<a href="https://www.aei.org/publication/bee-deaths-colony-collapse-disorder-chensheng-lu-flawed-harvard-study-endangers-bees/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">American Enterprise Institute</a>).</li></ul><ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">Claimed neonics may actually help bee health (<a href="https://www.aei.org/publication/bee-deaths-mystery-solved-neonicotinoids-neonics-may-actually-help-bee-health/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">American Enterprise Institute</a> and <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/04/11/science-collapse-disorder-the-real-story-behind-neonics-and-mass-bee-deaths/#2715e4857a0b1bc76777591e" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Forbes</a>).</li></ul><ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">Accused European politicians of trying to kill bees by restricting neonics (<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/09/24/while-global-bee-colonies-recover-european-politicians-seem-determined-to-kill-them-off/#2715e4857a0b72d31f1f6b3d" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Forbes</a>).</li></ul><h4 style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">Defending phthalates</span></h4><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">In August of 2012, Entine defended vinyl plastic backpacks that were found to be exposing children to phthalates.</p><ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;"> “Few chemicals on the market today have undergone as much scientific scrutiny as phthalate esters,” Entine wrote (<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/08/30/anti-chemical-alarmism-spreads-to-your-school-dora-the-explorer-will-kill-your-kid/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Forbes</a>). He didn’t mention that a <a href="http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/02/Dec02/120502/02d-0325-c000018-02-vol1.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">significant body</a> of <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1280383/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">scientific evidence</a> compiled over two decades links phthalate exposures to <a href="http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-10-02-Boy-genitals_N.htm" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">abnormal reproductive development</a> in <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/plastic-chemical-linked-to-changes-in-baby-boys-genitals/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">baby boys</a>.</li></ul><ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">Entine criticized an NBC reporter for “shoddy journalism” for raising questions about the safety of phthalates (<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/04/18/national-resources-defense-council-nrdc-champions-shoddy-journalism-on-endocrine-active-chemicals/#2245c7d1698c" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Forbes</a>).</li></ul><ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130311195234/http:/www.esgmediametrics.com/founder.htm" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Entine’s communications firm</a>, ESG MediaMetrics, did PR for the <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130310232320/http:/www.esgmediametrics.com/clients.htm" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Vinyl Institute</a>. However, Entine did not disclose that in his Forbes articles on phthalates.</li></ul><h4 style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">Defending fracking</span></h4><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">Entine defends hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”), the pumping of high-pressure chemical-laced water into the ground to crack shale and extract natural gas. As in his many other messaging campaigns, Entine blasts science and scientists who raise concerns, framing them as “activists,” while making sweeping and indefensible statements about “scrupulous” science conducted over many years that defend its safety.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">For example, Entine claimed: “From a scientific perspective, no reason exists to even <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">suspect</em> unknown health or environmental issues will turn up” from fracking (<a href="http://nypost.com/2012/06/15/fear-trumps-science/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">New York Post</a>).</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">Entine also:</p><ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">Accused New York Times reporters of misleading children about the potential environmental dangers of fracking (<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/10/03/new-york-times-blunders-into-advocacy-role-on-the-fracking-debate-children-are-the-victims/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Forbes</a>).</li></ul><ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">Attacked two Cornell University scientists for their study suggesting that fracking operations leak methane (<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/09/18/university-of-texas-environmental-defense-fund-shale-gas-study-unmasks-politics-of-anti-fracking-activist-cornell-scientists/#2715e4857a0b23a3fb0e7880" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Forbes</a>).</li></ul><ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">Attacked the Park Foundation, claiming that it has “almost single-handedly derailed shale-gas development in methane-rich New York State, and put its imprint on public opinion and policy decisions around the country.” (<a href="http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/excellence_in_philanthropy/gas_heat" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Philanthropy Roundtable</a>)</li></ul><h4 style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">Defending BPA</span></h4><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">Entine writes in defense of the chemical bisphenol A (BPA), despite a large body of scientific evidence raising concerns about its endocrine disrupting potential and other health problems associated with it. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/14/world/americas/14bpa.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Canada declared the chemical to be toxic</a> in 2010, and the EU<a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11843820" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">banned BPA in baby bottles</a> in 2011.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">Entine:</p><ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">Attacked “a small but determined group of university researchers, activist NGOs and journalists” raising concerns about BPA (<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/10/31/bisphenol-a-bpa-found-not-harmful-yet-again-so-why-did-so-many-reporters-and-ngos-botch-coverage-yet-again/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Forbes</a>).</li></ul><ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">Tells women who can’t get pregnant not to blame it on plastics (<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/11/14/cant-get-pregnant-blame-it-on-plastics-well-not-if-science-matters/#2715e4857a0b5391ed5690df" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Forbes</a>).</li></ul><ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">Challenged scientists linking BPA to heart disease (<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/12/06/in-reversal-bedrock-studies-linking-bisphenol-a-bpa-to-heart-disease-challenged/#2715e4857a0b42ab2277da18" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Forbes</a>).</li></ul><h4 style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">Defending Nuclear Power</span></h4><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">Entine also defends the nuclear power industry; he has claimed that nuclear power plants are<a href="http://www.jonentine.com/ethical_corporation/2003_07_nuclear_option.htm" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;"> environmentally benign</a> and that “nothing as bad as Chernobyl is likely to occur in the West.” He accused Harvard Professor Naomi Oreskes of <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160204083629/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_10952_b_9111688.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">science “denialism,”</a> for, among other things, pointing out the economic and environmental risks of nuclear power.</p><h3 style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 20px; margin-bottom: 10px;">Fellowships</h3><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">Entine was an unpaid fellow at the Center for Health and Risk Communication at George Mason University (GMU) from 2011-2014.Entine is also a former senior fellow at the UC Davis World Food Center’s Institute for Food and Agricultural Literacy, which does not disclose its donors, and a <a href="http://www.aei.org/scholar/jon-entine/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">visiting fellow</a> at the American Enterprise Institute, a DC think tank funded in part by <a href="https://www.aei.org/about/annual-report/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">corporate</a> and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/09/secretive-donors-gave-us-climate-denial-groups-125m-over-three-years" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">dark money</a> contributions.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">See also,</span> Greenpeace Polluter Watch page on Jon Entine and “<a href="http://polluterwatch.com/jon-entine" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">the hidden story of the Genetic Literacy Project</a>.”</p><h3 style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 20px; margin-bottom: 10px;">Related groups and people</h3><h4 style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><a href="https://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">American Council on Science and Health</a><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><a href="https://usrtk.org/pesticides/geoffrey-kabats-ties-to-tobacco-and-chemical-industry-groups/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Geoffrey Kabat</a><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><a href="https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/jay-byrne-meet-the-man-behind-the-monsanto-pr-machine/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Jay Byrne</a><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><a href="https://usrtk.org/gmo/academics-review-the-making-of-a-monsanto-front-group/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Academics Review</a></h4><h4 style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><div class="clearfix" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><footer class="entry-meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 20px; background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246);"><div class="entry-meta-category-tag" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="cat-links" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="categories-icon glyphicon glyphicon-th-list" title="Posted in" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 1px; display: inline-block; line-height: 1; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased;"> <a href="https://usrtk.org/category/food-for-thought/" rel="category tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Food For Thought</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/category/hall-of-shame/" rel="category tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Hall of Shame</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/category/our-investigations/" rel="category tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Our Investigations</a> </span><span class="tags-links" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="tags-icon glyphicon glyphicon-tags" title="Tagged" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 1px; display: inline-block; line-height: 1; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased;"> <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/academics-review/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Academics Review</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/academicsreview-org/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">AcademicsReview.org</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/american-council-on-science-and-health/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">American Council on Science and Health</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/american-enterprise-institute/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">American Enterprise Institute</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/amy-harmon/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Amy Harmon</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/biotechnology-literacy-project-boot-camps/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Biotechnology Literacy Project Boot Camps</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/bruce-chassy/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Bruce Chassy</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/center-for-food-integrity/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Center for Food Integrity</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/center-for-health-and-risk-communication-at-gmu/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Center for Health and Risk Communication at GMU</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/center-for-media-and-public-affairs/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Center for Media and Public Affairs</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/charles-koch/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Charles Koch</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/chemophobia/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Chemophobia</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/cma/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">CMA</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/donors-capital-fund/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Donors Capital Fund</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/donors-trust/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Donors Trust</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/eric-sachs/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Eric Sachs</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/esg-mediametrics/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">ESG MediaMetrics</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/genetic-literacy-project/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Genetic Literacy Project</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/george-mason-university/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">George Mason University</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/george-mason-university-foundation/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">George Mason University Foundation</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/john-templeton-foundation/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">John Templeton Foundation</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/jon-entine/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Jon Entine</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/keith-kloor/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Keith Kloor</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/kevin-folta/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Kevin Folta</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/koch-industries/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Koch Industries</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/monsanto/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Monsanto</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/robert-lichter/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Robert Lichter</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/scaife-foundation/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Scaife Foundation</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/science-literacy-project/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Science Literacy Project</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/searle-freedom-trust/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Searle Freedom Trust</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/statistical-assessment-service/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Statistical Assessment Service</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/syngenta/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Syngenta</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/tamar-haspel/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Tamar Haspel</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/uc-davis-world-food-centers-institute-for-food-and-agricultural-literacy/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">UC Davis World Food Center’s Institute for Food and Agricultural Literacy</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/university-of-florida/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">University of Florida</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/university-of-illinois/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">University of Illinois</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/vinyl-institute/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Vinyl Institute</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/winkler-family-foundation/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Winkler Family Foundation</a></span></span></span></div></footer></div></h4></div><div></div><div><a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/03/10/did-the-new-yorker-botch-puff-piece-on-frog-scientist-tyrone-hayes-turning-rogue-into-beleaguered-hero/">https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/03/10/did-the-new-yorker-botch-puff-piece-on-frog-scientist-tyrone-hayes-turning-rogue-into-beleaguered-hero/</a></div><div>
</div><div>D</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(252, 252, 252); font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large">id The New Yorker Botch Puff Piece On Frog Scientist Tyrone Hayes, Turning Rogue into Beleaguered Hero?</span></div><article-header _ngcontent-c10="" _nghost-c12="" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block; width: 554.953px; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; background-color: rgb(252, 252, 252);"><div _ngcontent-c12="" class="header-content-container" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div _ngcontent-c12="" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; background-color: rgb(252, 252, 252);"><div _ngcontent-c10="" class="top-authors" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(169, 169, 169); font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; background-color: rgb(252, 252, 252);"><contrib-block _ngcontent-c10="" class="top-contrib-block" _nghost-c13="" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block; width: 554.953px;"><div _ngcontent-c13="" class="contrib-container top-contrib" style="box-sizing: border-box; align-items: center; display: flex; padding: 16px 0px;"><contrib-byline _ngcontent-c13="" _nghost-c24="" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block; line-height: 1; position: relative; width: 472.953px;">
<div _ngcontent-c24="" class="contrib-byline" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-direction: column; height: 54px; justify-content: center;"><div _ngcontent-c24="" class="fs-author-wrapper" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-direction: column; width: 472.953px;"><div _ngcontent-c24="" class="fs-author-name contrib-byline-author speakable-author" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: 600; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 16px; position: relative;"><a _ngcontent-c24="" href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/" data-ga-track="contrib block byline" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); float: left; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 16px; margin-right: 6px;">Jon Entine</a><span _ngcontent-c24="" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: left;"><span _ngcontent-c24="" class="contrib-byline-type" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 400; height: 16px; line-height: 16px;"><span _ngcontent-c24="" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span _ngcontent-c24="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Contributor</span> </span></span><span _ngcontent-c24="" class="disclaimer" style="box-sizing: border-box; align-self: center; height: 14px; position: relative;"><span _ngcontent-c24="" class="button-disclaimer" tabindex="0" data-ga-track="U18 - Info Icon" style="box-sizing: border-box; pointer-events: none;"><svg class="fs-icon fs-icon--info" viewbox="0 0 60 60" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"><path fill="#010101" d="M28.3 38.4h3.3v-10h-3.3v10zM30 13.3c-9.2 0-16.7 7.5-16.7 16.7S20.8 46.7 30 46.7 46.7 39.2 46.7 30 39.2 13.3 30 13.3zm0 30.1c-7.4 0-13.4-6-13.4-13.4s6-13.4 13.4-13.4 13.4 6 13.4 13.4-6 13.4-13.4 13.4zM28.3 25h3.3v-3.3h-3.3V25z" /></svg></span></span></span></div></div><a _ngcontent-c24="" class="channel-name" href="https://www.forbes.com/science-technology" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); line-height: 14px; margin: 4px auto 0px 0px;">Science & Technology</a><div _ngcontent-c24="" class="short-bio" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 4px;"><span style="font-style: italic;">I </span>write skeptically about science, public policy, media and NGOs.</div></div></contrib-byline></div></contrib-block></div><article-body-container _ngcontent-c10="" _nghost-c15="" class="article-body fs-article fs-responsive-text current-article" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 30px; max-width: initial; display: block; margin-top: 16px; position: relative; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures;"><div _ngcontent-c15="" class="article-container color-body font-body" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex;"><sharing _ngcontent-c15="" _nghost-c25="" style="background-color: rgb(252, 252, 252); box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block; position: absolute; left: -50px;"><div>=</div></sharing></div></article-body-container><div></div><div>
</div><div>BAK</div><div>
</div><div><p style="font-variant-ligatures: normal;">12/15</p><div style="font-variant-ligatures: normal;">see main and tag</div><div style="font-variant-ligatures: normal;">bak 819</div><div style="font-variant-ligatures: normal;">
</div><div style="font-variant-ligatures: normal;"></div><div style="font-variant-ligatures: normal;"><a href="http://www.chicagonow.com/high-gloss-and-sauce/2013/08/forbes-atrazine-jon-etine-082013/">http://www.chicagonow.com/high-gloss-and-sauce/2013/08/forbes-atrazine-jon-etine-082013/</a></div><div style="font-variant-ligatures: normal;"></div><div style="font-variant-ligatures: normal;">le monde</div><div style="font-variant-ligatures: normal;"><div class="article-text" style="line-height: 1.6; margin: 0px auto; padding: 3rem 0px;"><h6 style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 3rem 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.2;">Rants and recriminations</h6><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px;"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“Critics,” wrote Reuters, “argue that IARC shouldn’t have allowed him to be involved in the assessment of glyphosate.”<b>Remarkable detail</b>: the news agency—which declined to respond to Le Monde— meanwhile quoted three scientists who castigate the institution, without ever mentioning that all three are widely known to be industry consultants. But who are these nameless “critics”? In reality, the criticism of IARC can be traced back to the blog of David Zaruk, a former lobbyist for the chemical industry, who has worked at some point for the public relations firm Burson-Marsteller.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px;">In Brusssels, where he is based, Zaruk is infamous for his penchant for insults (the authors of this article have been his targets several times). He was the first to protest against Portier’s conflicts of interest, which he considers undermine IARC’s opinion. And he has persistently flayed the American scientist in the course of no less than twenty long posts around the topic of glyphosate – not to mention his tweets.</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px;">Related: <a href="http://www.ehn.org/monsanto-glyphosate-cancer-smear-campaign-2509710888.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">The Monsanto Papers, Part 1—Operation: Intoxication</a></p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px;">Professor Portier is described successively as an “activist”, a “rat”, a “demon”, a “weed”, a “mercenary”, and even a “little shit”, who “wormed his way” into the fruit that is IARC. To him, the agency is like a “scab”, and “the more” he “pick[s] at it”, “the more pus [he sees] coming out” because IARC is “infected by its hubris,” and “infected by politicised activist science” and “infected by anti-industry bias.”</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px;">Zaruk says he has had “three contacts” with Monsanto but denies he has been remunerated for his writing. “I did not receive a penny for my blogs on glyphosate,” he stated in an email to Le Monde. In April 2017, he published again a diatribe against NGOs, Christopher Portier and several journalists, which he illustrated with a photograph of Nazis burning books on the Opernplatz in Berlin in 1933.</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px;"><b>Zaruk’s ramblings could have been easily checked and invalidated. But the prestigious guarantee of a Reuters’ article gave the go-ahead to their wide dissemination</b>. Within a few weeks, the accusations of conflicts of interest were transmitted and quoted in The Times of London, the daily The Australian, and in the U.S. in National Review and The Hill under the signature of Bruce Chassy, an emeritus professor of the University of Illinois funded by Monsanto—as confidential documents obtained by the association US Right to Know (USRTK) in September 2015 have shown.</p><h6 style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 3rem 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.2;">Conflicts of interests</h6><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px;"><b>Zaruk’s “work” was also cited in Forbes magazine in an op-ed signed by a biologist affiliated with the Hoover Institution, a think tank close to the Republican party</b>. His name appears in declassified archives of the tobacco industry. At that time, this man would offer to write columns or land media appearances to “communicat[e on] risks and science”. Rates between $5,000 and $15,000.</p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px;"><b><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);">The attacks of the Brussels blogger were also echoed by well-known propaganda websites, such as the American Council on Science and Health and the </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">Genetic Literacy Project.</span><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);"> </span></b><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);">Fed by PR people linked to the pesticides and biotechnology industries, the latter published an article about Christopher Portier and IARC signed by Andrew Porterfield, who </span><a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/351688010/Andrew-Porterfield-LinkedIn-Mai-2017" style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">describes himself</a><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);"> quite simply as a “communications consultant for the biotechnology industry.”</span></p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px;">And what about the suggestion that Portier faces conflicts of interest? Did the Environmental Defense Fund—through him—weigh in in favor of IARC’s decision to classify glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen”? “Because he had a link to this organization, Portier had the status of ‘invited specialist’,” explains Kathryn Guyton, IARC’s scientist in charge of Monograph 112. This means that he was consulted by the working group but didn’t contribute to the decision to classify the chemical in one category or the other. Real conflicts of interest however exist—but elsewhere.</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px;">In May 2016, while the press and the blogosphere were all out in relaying suspicions of malpractice at IARC, it was the turn of another group of UN experts to release their opinion. The <b>Joint Meeting on Pesticides Residues (JMPR)</b>, a joint WHO and UN Food and Agriculture (FAO) organization group that rules on risks related to food (and not to exposure via inhalation, skin contact, etc) cleared glyphosate.</p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px;"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Almost one year earlier, a coalition of NGOs had warned WHO about conflicts of interest in the JMPR. Three of its members collaborate with the International Life Science Institute (ILSI), a scientific lobby organization financed by major agribusiness, biotechnologies and chemical industries—from Mars to Bayer and from Kellogg to Monsanto.</font></p><h6 style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 3rem 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.2;">Serious allegations</h6><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px;">Toxicologist Alan Boobis (Imperial College, United Kingdom) was serving as copresident of JMPR but also chair of ILSI’s board of trustees. Angelo Moretto (University of Milano, Italy) was rapporteur in the JMPR while acting as an industry consultant and member of the board of trustees of a structure created by ILSI. Vicky Dellarco, also a member of JMPR, was an industry consultant and a member of various ILSI working groups.</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px;">JMPR experts are supposedly subjected to the same independence rules—among the strictest in the world—as those applied at IARC, namely the WHO rules. Because it can alter the credibility of the institution and its decisions, an apparent conflict of interest is as serious as an actual conflict of interest. However, questioned by Le Monde, the WHO confirms that “no expert was deemed to have had a conflict of interest preventing their participation in the JMPR.”</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px;">This answer left Hilal Elver and Baskut Tuncak dissatisfied; they are respectively the <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Environment/ToxicWastes/Pages/BaskutTuncak.aspx" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Special UN Rapporteur on right to food</a> and the<a href="http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Environment/ToxicWastes/Pages/BaskutTuncak.aspx" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;"> Special UN Rapporteur</a> on hazardous substances and wastes.</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px;">“We respectfully call upon WHO to explain how exactly it came to the conclusion that the experts’ ties to industry did not present an apparent or potential conflict of interest under its own rules” is how these two experts reacted when questioned by Le Monde. “Strong, clear and transparent processes for conflicts of interest are essential for the integrity of the system” they said before “encouraging” the organizations of the United Nations to “review” them.</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px;">These two experts wrote in their report on the right to food that some “serious claims” exist “of scientists being ‘bought’ to re-state industry talking points.” The report, which was handed over to the United Nations Human Rights Council in March 2017, also underlined that: “The pesticide industry’s efforts… have obstructed reforms and paralyzed global pesticide restrictions globally.” Throwing discredit on IARC, its working group experts and the quality of the scientific work accomplished—these “efforts” are of strategic importance, even vital necessity, to Monsanto.</p><h6 style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 3rem 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.2;">Court cases underway in the United States</h6><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px;">Close on Monsanto’s heels are several U.S. law firms representing victims or relatives of victims who have died of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), a rare cancer that affects white blood cells which they attribute to exposure to glyphosate. For their lawyers, IARC’s Monograph 112 constitutes an essential piece of evidence. For Monsanto, Monograph 112 could weigh heavily on the final verdicts. According to legal documents, the amount of damages and other payments in the U.S. could well amount to billions of dollars for the 800 plaintiffs—a number that will “probably” rise to 2,000 by the end of the year, according to Timothy Litzenburg, a lawyer at The Miller
Firm. Confidential memos, spreadsheets and internal briefs: all in all, ten million pages taken from the boxes in Monsanto’s archives and from entrails of its PCs. This is the amount of documents that the company has been forced to hand over to the court to date. In the U.S., a procedure called “discovery” allows this kind of raid on the adversary’s paperwork.</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px;">From the mass of scanned documents, released drip by drip, that are the “Monsanto Papers”, the multinational’s response plan emerges. Take this “confidential” PowerPoint document dated March 11, 2015, with slides that develop a strategy of influence in the form of “Scientific Projects.” Among other ideas, a “comprehensive evaluation of carcinogenic potential” of glyphosate by “credible scientists,” and “possibly via Expert Panel Concept” is mentioned. That will be done.</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px;">In September 2016, a series of six articles appeared in the <b>scientific journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology. They exonerated glyphosate. But, as the publication was openly “sponsored and supported” by Monsanto</b>, would anything other than this have been possible?</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px;">The authors were <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/351691109/Panel-d-experts-Glyphosate-de-Monsanto" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">the sixteen members of the “glyphosate experts panel”</a> to whom Monsanto confided the task to “review the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) monograph on glyphosate.”</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px;">Their recruitment was delegated to<b> Intertek, a consultancy specialized in the production of scientific material for companies facing regulatory or legal difficulties related to their products.</b> Monsanto and its allies also called on the services of Exponent and Gradient, two other firms engaged in the business of “product defense.”</p><h6 style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 3rem 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.2;">“Glyphosate task force”</h6><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px;">The crisis management PowerPoint also envisaged the publication of an article about IARC itself: “How it was formed, how it functions, hasn’t evolved over time, they are archaic and not needed now.” The scientist who was suggested as a possible author has published nothing on the issue so far.</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px;">However, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230016303038" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">an article</a> that perfectly matches the hostile specifications was published in a minor journal in October 2016. IARC’s system of classification has “become outmoded” and “serve[s] neither science nor society,” wrote the 10 authors. “This is how eating processed meat can fall into the same category as sulfur mustard gas.” IARC’s approach, they said, is at the origin of “health scares, unnecessary economic costs, loss of beneficial products, adoption of strategies with greater health costs, and the diversion of public funds into unnecessary research.”</p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);">It was a very unusual tone for a scientific journal. This is perhaps because </span><b style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);">Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology is a special kind of publication</b><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);">.</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Not only does its editorial board include numerous industry players and consultants but also its editor in chief, Gio Gori, is a well-known figure in the history of the tobacco industry.</span></p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px;"><b>Owned by the powerful scientific publishing group Elsevier, this is the official journal of a supposedly scholarly society, the International Society of Regulatory Toxicology & Pharmacology (ISRTP).</b> No significant information about the society is available on its website and neither Gori nor ISRTP nor Elsevier responded to questions from Le Monde. It has therefore not even been possible to identify anyone in charge – let alone its sources of funding. However, last time ISRTP published its sponsors, in 2008, the list of six included Monsanto.</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px;"><b>As to the 10 authors of the article, some of them have worked or are currently working for the Swiss group Syngenta,</b> a member of the “glyphosate task force” of the industrial players selling glyphosate products. Some are private consultants. Others are academic scientists and take part in the activities of the scientific lobbying organization, ILSI. Among them are Samuel Cohen, professor of oncology at the university of Nebraska, Alan Boobis, co-president of JMPR, and Angelo Moretto, rapporteur of the same JMPR.</p><h6 style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 3rem 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.2;">“Shock tactics”</h6><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px;"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">These three scientists pursued the trail. A few months later, they published on the propaganda website called the</font><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);"> <b>Genetic Literacy Project</b></span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">, which had relayed the personal attacks against Christopher Portier, a text claiming that </span><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">IARC “should be abolished.”</b></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px;"><b><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);">The agency was accused of fuelling “</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">chemophobia”</span><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);"> among the public. If it is not reformed, they wrote, IARC “should be relegated to the regulatory museum where it belongs, along with other historical artifacts, such as the Model T Ford, the biplane, and the rotary dial telephone.”</span></b></p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px;">In scientific circles, convention holds that the author of the first draft of a text takes responsibility for any modifications up until the very last corrections. Which one of the authors wrote these two texts—published by the scientific journal and on the Genetic Literacy Project website? “I can’t remember,” replied Alan Boobis when asked by Le Monde, explaining “it was a whole process,” and that the writing had “undergone quite a lot of refinement over the year.”</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px;">This is “a bit of shock tactic,” acknowledged Boobis. Asked why the article was published on this website, Boobis admitted that the Genetic Literacy Project was not famous for its rigour, but explained that the text was refused by a scientific journal. Their arguments are identical to those of Monsanto and their allies. “This is a very odd position that we’ve reached that any association with industry whatsoever is regarded immediately as an indication of bias, corruption, confounding, distortion or whatever,” answered Boobis.</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding: 0px;">Is the “abolition” of IARC what Monsanto wants? The corporation did not wish to answer Le Monde’s questions.</p></div><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></p></div><div style="font-variant-ligatures: normal;">
</div><div style="font-variant-ligatures: normal;"></div><div style="font-variant-ligatures: normal;"><a href="https://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/jon-entine-the-chemical-industrys-master-messenger/">https://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/jon-entine-the-chemical-industrys-master-messenger/</a></div><div style="font-variant-ligatures: normal;">
</div><div style="font-variant-ligatures: normal;">see 2016 version below:</div><div style="font-variant-ligatures: normal;">
</div><div style="font-variant-ligatures: normal;"><header class="entry-header" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="entry-meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 20px;"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><span class="posted-on" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Posted on <a href="https://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/jon-entine-the-chemical-industrys-master-messenger/" title="10:20 am" rel="bookmark" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;"><time class="entry-date published" datetime="2017-07-18T10:20:38+00:00" style="box-sizing: border-box;">July 18, 2017</time></a></span><span class="byline" style="box-sizing: border-box;"> by <span class="author vcard" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a class="url fn n" href="https://usrtk.org/author/usrtk/" title="View all posts by Gary Ruskin" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">Gary Ruskin</a></span></span></font></div></header><div class="entry-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">Jon Entine, executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project, is a central player in Monsanto and the agrichemical industry’s public relations efforts to promote genetically engineered foods and pesticides and discredit critics. Entine portrays himself as a science journalist and an objective authority on issues important to the chemical industry. But the evidence shows that he is actually a longtime public relations operative with deep ties to the chemical industry, including undisclosed industry funding. His work features the defense of GMOs, pesticides, industrial chemicals, the oil industry, fracking and nuclear power.</p><h3 style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 20px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">Ties to Monsanto</span></h3><div id="attachment_2975" class="wp-caption alignright" style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; float: right; width: 310px; margin-top: 0px; display: inline; margin-left: 1.5em; border: none; margin-bottom: 1.5em; max-width: 310px;"><p class="wp-caption-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.8075em 0px; text-align: center;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;"><em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Entine’s former PR firm promised to “address an unfilled frustration voiced by corporations.”</em></span></p></div><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">Entine <a target="blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120516134340/http:/www.esgmediametrics.com/founder.htm" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">founded ESG MediaMetrics</a>, a communications firm whose <a target="blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120516134259/http:/www.esgmediametrics.com/clients.htm" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">clients included Monsanto and the Vinyl </a><a target="blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120516134259/http:/www.esgmediametrics.com/clients.htm" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Institute</a>.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">A Le Monde investigation into Monsanto’s “<a target="blank" href="http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2017/06/01/monsanto-operation-intoxication_5136915_3244.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">war on science</a>” in June 2017 describes the Genetic Literacy Project as “<a target="blank" href="http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2017/06/02/monsanto-les-moissons-du-fiel_5137487_3244.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">a propaganda site</a>” and a key player in <a target="blank" href="http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/visuel/2017/06/01/operation-intoxication-les-reseaux-de-monsanto_5136945_3244.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">Monsanto’s communication and lobbying networks</a>.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">Plaintiffs’ attorneys suing Monsanto over glyphosate cancer concerns <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MDLLetNothingGomotion.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">stated in a May 2017 brief that</a>:</p><p class="indent-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px 40px;"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“Monsanto quietly funnels money to ‘think tanks’ such as the “Genetic Literacy Project” and the “American Council on Science and Health,” organizations intended to shame scientists and highlight information helpful to Monsanto and other chemical producers.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">The evidence suggests that Genetic Literacy Project and Entine work closely with the agrichemical industry in hidden collaborations, and sometimes in ways that involve undisclosed funding.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">According to emails obtained by US Right to Know, GLP published a series of pro-GMO papers written by professors that were assigned and promoted by Monsanto, with no disclosure of the corporation’s role:</font></p><ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The <a target="blank" href="http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/10/01/harvard-professor-failed-disclose-monsanto-connection-paper-touting-gmos/lLJipJQmI5WKS6RAgQbnrN/story.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">Boston Globe reported</a>, Monsanto suggested the topic and headline for a professor’s paper “then connected the professor with a marketing company to pump it out over the Internet as part of Monsanto’s strategy to win over the public and lawmakers.”</font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/urgentrequest.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">a September 2014 email</a>, Monsanto executive Eric Sachs wrote to a professor with “proposed edits on your brief on the costs of regulations,” and told him “the primary outlet” for publishing the papers and “building a merchandising plan” with the public relations firm CMA would be Entine’s Genetic Literacy Project.</font></li></ul><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In 2014 and 2015, Genetic Literacy Project partnered with a <a target="blank" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stacy-malkan/monsanto-fingerprints-fou_b_10757524.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">Monsanto-backed group</a>, <a href="http://usrtk.org/gmo/following-an-email-trail-how-a-public-university-professor-collaborated-on-a-corporate-pr-campaign/" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://usrtk.org/gmo/following-an-email-trail-how-a-public-university-professor-collaborated-on-a-corporate-pr-campaign/&source=gmail&ust=1500499545809000&usg=AFQjCNHZ_z_j3SBTWlLhJ8CYwaymO8d0Zg" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">Academics Review</a>, to sponsor the Biotechnology Literacy Project <a href="https://www.usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/TamarHaspel1.pdf" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">“Boot Camps,”</a> a series of conferences designed to teach scientists how to “best engage the GMO debate with a skeptical public.”</span><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246);"> Reporters </span><a target="blank" href="http://www.popsci.com/on-science-journalism-and-conflicts-interest" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">were told</a><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246);"> the funding for the 2015 BLP </span><a target="blank" href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0ahUKEwinyYHD55PVAhXkqVQKHbXKAfIQFghGMAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Frwjms.umdnj.edu%2Feducation%2Fgsbs%2Fdocuments%2F2-12-015BLPProspectus_000.doc&usg=AFQjCNHkM3msg1T7VEXR3bMRXmWL2ZxknA" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">Boot Camp at UC Davis</a><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246);"> came from </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>UC Davis, USDA, state money, and the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) </b></span><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246);">— in fact, the industry group appears to have provided all the funding, as </span><a target="blank" href="http://progressive.org/magazine/how-the-biotech-industry-cultivates-positive-media/" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">Paul Thacker reported in 2017.</a><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246);"> </span><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">(See section on <a href="https://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/jon-entine-the-chemical-industrys-master-messenger#funding" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Entine’s funding</a> for more.)</span></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Entine was also linked to <a href="http://usrtk.org/gmo/a-short-report-on-journalists-mentioned-in-our-foias/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">three pro-GMO journalists</a> – Keith Kloor, Washington Post food columnist Tamar Haspel and New York Times reporter Amy Harmon – in FOIA documents obtained by U.S. Right to Know.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">In a <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/movie.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">December 2013 email</a>, Entine offered to take the lead on setting up a conference call with Monsanto and PR surrogates to discuss a documentary film idea.</p><h3 style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 20px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">Ties to Syngenta</span></h3><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">The <a href="http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">American Council on Science and Health</a> (ACSH), a <a target="blank" href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/american-council-science-health-leaked-documents-fundraising" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">corporate front group</a> funded in part by the agrichemical company Syngenta, published Entine’s 2011 book, “<a href="http://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/ScaredtoDeath.pdf" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Scared to Death: How Chemophobia Threatens Public Health</a>.” The book defends atrazine, a pesticide manufactured by Syngenta.</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">A 2012 <a target="blank" href="http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/02/atrazine-syngengta-tyrone-hayes-jon-entine" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Mother Jones article about Entine</a> describes the circumstances leading up to the publication of the book. The article, by Tom Philpott, is based in part on internal company documents, obtained by <a target="blank" href="http://www.prwatch.org/node/11277" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">the Center for Media and Democracy</a>, describing Syngenta’s PR efforts to get <a target="blank" href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/02/11276/syngentas-paid-third-party-pundits-spin-news-atrazine" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">third-party allies to spin media coverage</a>of atrazine.</p><div id="attachment_2984" class="wp-caption alignright" style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; float: right; width: 287px; margin-top: 0px; display: inline; margin-left: 1.5em; border: none; margin-bottom: 1.5em; max-width: 287px;"><p class="wp-caption-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.8075em 0px; text-align: center;"><em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">.</span></em></p></div><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">In one <a target="blank" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/5/55/Syn_email_ACSH_Whelan_Say_Syngenta_Is_Financial_Lifeblood.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">email from 2009</a>, ACSH staff asked Syngenta for an additional $100,000 – “separate and distinct from general operating support Syngenta has been so generously providing over the years” – to produce an atrazine-friendly paper and “consumer-friendly booklet” to help educate media and scientists.</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><a target="blank" href="http://acsh.org/news/2011/01/18/scared-to-death" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">ACSH’s announcement</a> for Entine’s book:</p><p class="indent-text" style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px 40px;">“The American Council on Science and Health is pleased to announce a new book and companion friendly, abbreviated position paper … authored by Jon Entine, a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute and highly regarded science journalist … ACSH compiled this resource book and position to educate legislators, industry, media, consumers and parents on the actual risks of chemical exposure and use in everyday products.”</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Entine denied any relationship with Syngenta and told Philpott he had “no idea” Syngenta was funding ACSH.</b></p><h3 style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 20px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">Attacks on Syngenta Critics </span></h3><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In a 2014 <a target="blank" href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/02/10/a-valuable-reputation" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">New Yorker article</a>, based on internal Syngenta documents, Rachel Aviv revealed how Syngenta’s public relations team plotted to “discredit” UC Berkeley Professor Tyrone Hayes</span><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246);">, whose research suggests that the herbicide atrazine is associated with birth defects. In emails, Syngenta employees discussed a psychological profile of Hayes and searched for ways to “exploit Hayes’ faults/problems.”</span></p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">A month later, Entine <a target="blank" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/03/10/did-the-new-yorker-botch-puff-piece-on-frog-scientist-tyrone-hayes-turning-rogue-into-beleaguered-hero/#55511efc4ca3" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">wrote an attack piece in Forbes</a> describing Aviv’s story as a “botch puff piece” and calling Hayes “almost completely discredited.” Entine’s primary source was a “summary analysis” by University of Illinois Professor Emeritus Bruce Chassy, posted on <a target="blank" href="http://academicsreview.org/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Academics Review</a>. Academics Review, which also partners with Entine to promote GMOs, claimed to be an independent group started by independent scientists, <a target="blank" id="funding" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;">but emails </a><a href="http://usrtk.org/gmo/new-documents-uncover-monsantos-secret-role-in-illinois-professor-bruce-chassys-academics-review-website/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">obtained by USRTK</a> establish that Academics Review was set up <a target="blank" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stacy-malkan/monsanto-fingerprints-fou_b_10757524.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">with the help of Monsanto</a> as a front group to attack people and groups who raise concerns about GMOs and pesticides.</p><h3 id="funding" style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 20px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">The Murky Funding Trail to Entine and the Genetic Literacy Project</span></h3><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">Entine’s funding history is complex and opaque, but tax documents and his own disclosures reveal a pattern of funding from anonymous sources and right-wing foundations that push deregulation and climate science denial, as well as undisclosed funding from the biotechnology industry.</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">Inaccurate, ever-changing “transparency” note </span></p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">The “financial transparency” note on the Genetic Literacy Project website is inaccurate, changes often and at times contradicts itself.</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">As of July 18, 2017, the <a target="blank" href="https://geneticliteracyproject.org/mission-financials-governorship/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">funding note</a> claimed Genetic Literacy Project was housed under a nonprofit called Science Literacy Project, and received funding from the Templeton, Searle and Winkler foundations and the Center for Food Integrity (a <a target="blank" href="http://webiva-downton.s3.amazonaws.com/877/fe/a/6001/FOE_Top11FrontGroups_1.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">food industry front-group</a> with ties to Monsanto).</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">Three months earlier, in <a target="blank" href="https://waybackmachine.org/web/20170315002639/https://geneticliteracyproject.org/mission-financials-governorship/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">March 2017,</a> GLP disclosed a $5,000 “pass through” for the Biotech Literacy Boot Camp from “Academics Review Charitable Association,” which appears not to exist. That group is apparently <a target="blank" href="http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2015/453/561/2015-453561010-0d3812d3-9.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">AcademicsReview.org</a>, a <a target="blank" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stacy-malkan/monsanto-fingerprints-fou_b_10757524.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">front group</a> closely affiliated with Monsanto. The disclosure said the money came from BIO, the biotechnology industry trade association. A <a target="blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160909002518/https://geneticliteracyproject.org/mission-financials-governorship/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">September 2016</a> disclosure note reported $27,000 in “pass through” funds from Academics Review Charitable Association for the boot camps, but did not mention BIO.</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">The Academics Review partnership was removed from the GLP disclosure altogether after <a target="blank" href="http://progressive.org/magazine/how-the-biotech-industry-cultivates-positive-media/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Paul Thacker reported</a> on July 11 2017, that BIO had paid Academics Review over $300,000 for boot camps in 2014 and 2015 at UC Davis and the University of Florida that were co-sponsored by GLP. Industry appeared to be the only funder but Entine and his partner told journalists and scientists that the boot camps were partly funded by university and government sources.</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">The new funding note also misleadingly describes GLP as independent of the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) and GMU, and does not disclose that STATS and its sister group CMPA paid Entine over a half million dollars between 2012-2016. In 2012, Entine claimed that he derived the bulk of his income from the Genetic Literacy Project, according to <a target="blank" href="http://www.motherjones.com/food/2012/02/atrazine-syngengta-tyrone-hayes-jon-entine/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">reporting by Tom Philpott.</a></p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">In <a target="blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160329103705/https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/mission/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">March 2016</a>, Genetic Literacy Project made no financial disclosures at all and tried to distance itself from STATS. <a target="blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20121025120211/http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org:80/mission/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">In 2012</a>, the Genetic Literacy Project claimed it was affiliated with STATS.</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">Center for Media and Public Affairs/George Mason University</span></p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">For the year ending <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/CMPA2014-.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">June 2016</a>, according to tax records, Entine received $173,100 for his work as “director” at Center for Media and Public Affairs, a group based at George Mason University and founded by GMU Professor <a target="blank" href="http://wjmc.gmu.edu/advisory-board/dr-robert-lichter/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Robert Lichter</a>.</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">CMPA <a target="blank" href="https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=ytgn0061" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">was paid by Phillip Morris</a> in the 1990s to deflect concerns about tobacco, <a target="blank" href="https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=tzfg0038" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">according to documents in the UCSF Tobacco Industry Library</a>.</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">CMPA does not disclose its funders but has received funding from George Mason University Foundation — the <a target="blank" href="http://polluterwatch.org/charles-koch-university-funding-database" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">leading recipient</a> of donations affiliated with Charles Koch and Koch Industries. GMUF also received $5.3 million from Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund between 2011-13, <a target="blank" href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/09/secretive-donors-gave-us-climate-denial-groups-125m-over-three-years" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">according to the Guardian</a>. These funds channel money from anonymous donors including corporations to campaigns and academics who push industry interests, as Greenpeace demonstrated in an <a target="blank" href="https://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/12/08/exposed-academics-for-hire/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">undercover investigation</a>.</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">STATS – key player in chemical industry defense efforts </span></p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">CMPA’s sister group, also founded by Lichter and based at GMU, is Statistical Assessment Services (STATS). According to its IRS forms, STATS paid Entine <a href="https://www.usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/SAS2012.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">$140,600</a> in 2012/2013 and <a href="https://www.usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/SAS2013.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">$152,500</a> in 2013/2014 for his work as a “research consultant,” and <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/STATS-2015-IRS-990-2.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">$173,100</a> as “director” for the year ending June 2015. The tax records show that Entine received a total of $639,300 from STATS or CMPA between 2012-2016</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">CMPA has loaned money to STATS – a <a href="http://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/CMPA-2012.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">$203,611 loan</a> in 2012 and a <a href="https://usrtk.org/sas2013-2/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">$163,914 loan</a> in 2013, which “due to inadequate funding” has “not been reimbursed.” In those years, George Mason University Foundation gave CMPA grants in the amount of <a href="http://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/GMUF2012.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">$220,900</a> in 2012 and <a href="http://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/GMUF2013.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">$75,670</a> in 2013. GMU Foundation does not disclose the source of its funds.</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">Reporting in <a target="blank" href="https://theintercept.com/2016/11/15/how-self-appointed-guardians-of-sound-science-tip-the-scales-toward-industry/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">The Intercept</a>, <a target="blank" href="http://archive.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Milwaukee Journal Sentinel</a>, <a target="blank" href="http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/09/how-lobbyists-are-spinning-weak-science-to-defend-bpa/245657/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">The Atlantic</a> and <a target="blank" href="http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2009/11/industry-reacts-to-consumer-reports-bpa-report/index.htm" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Consumer Reports</a> portray STATS as a key player in the chemical industry’s PR efforts to defend its toxic products.</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">Biotechnology industry funding</span></p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">The GMO-industry trade group, BIO, paid a total of <a target="blank" href="http://progressive.org/magazine/how-the-biotech-industry-cultivates-positive-media/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">$340,000 to fund</a> Biotech Literacy Boot Camps at the <a href="https://www.usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/TamarHaspel1.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">University of Florida in 2014</a> and <a href="https://www.usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/BLP2015.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">UC Davis in 2015</a> that were co-sponsored by the Genetic Literacy Project and Academics Review, which boot camp materials described as “an independent nonprofit organization.” In fact, Academics Review was set up as a front group <a target="blank" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stacy-malkan/monsanto-fingerprints-fou_b_10757524.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">with the help of a Monsanto</a> executive who promised to find funding for Academics Review “while keeping Monsanto in the background so as not to harm the credibility of the information,” according to emails <a href="http://usrtk.org/gmo/new-documents-uncover-monsantos-secret-role-in-illinois-professor-bruce-chassys-academics-review-website/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">obtained by</a> US Right to Know.</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">The BLP Boot Camps were <a href="https://www.usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/BLP2015.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">described as</a> a “communication skills training” for scientists and journalists to help reframe the food safety and GMO debate, and promised to provide scientists with the “tools and support resources necessary to effectively engage the media and appear as experts in legislative and local government hearings, and other policy making and related outreach opportunities.”</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">Faculty at the first <a href="http://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/TamarHaspel1.pdf" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">first boot camp</a> included representatives from the agrichemical industry, food industry front groups and trade groups, and pro-GMO academics including University of Florida Professor <a target="blank" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in-gmo-lobbying-war-emails-show.html?mcubz=0" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Kevin Folta</a>, and University of Illinois Professor Emeritus <a target="blank" href="https://www.wbez.org/shows/wbez-news/why-didnt-an-illinois-professor-have-to-disclose-gmo-funding/eb99bdd2-683d-4108-9528-de1375c3e9fb" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Bruce Chassy</a>, both of whom have accepted undisclosed funding from Monsanto and promote the GMOs and pesticides that Monsanto sales rely upon. Washington Post food columnist Tamar Haspel, who also <a target="blank" href="http://fair.org/home/buckraking-on-the-food-beat-when-is-it-a-conflict-of-interest/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">accepts money from agribusiness interests</a>, was the journalist on faculty.</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">Climate science denier funders </span></p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">Major supporters of STATS and Entine’s group Genetic Literacy Project also include right-wing foundations – primarily Scaife Foundation, Searle Freedom Trust and Templeton Foundation – that are leading funders of climate science denial, according to a <a target="blank" href="http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2013/december/climate-change/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">2013 Drexel University study</a>.</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">See USRTK investigation: <a href="https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/climate-science-denial-network-funds-toxic-chemical-propaganda/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Climate Science Denial Network Funds Toxic Chemical Propaganda.</a></p><h3 style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 20px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">Attacks on Critics of ExxonMobil</span></h3><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><a target="blank" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_10952_b_9111688.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Entine attacked Harvard professor Naomi Oreskes</a>, co-author of <a target="blank" href="http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Merchants of Doubt</a>, as “a populist Luddite, the intellectual Rottweiler of in-your-face, environmentalism, unduly wary of modern technology.”</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><a target="blank" href="http://nypost.com/2016/03/01/how-the-columbia-journalism-school-smeared-exxon/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Entine attacked Columbia Journalism School Dean Steve Coll</a> and journalist Susanne Rust for their series reporting that Exxon knew for years that climate change was real but hid the science to keep revenues flowing.</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">In a follow-up attack, <a target="blank" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/when-a-journalist-crosses-from-science-to-ideology_us_5904e070e4b05279d4edbc8e" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Entine accused Rust</a> of having a “journalistic history” that raises “ethical and science questions.” He cited as evidence Rust’s award-winning investigative series on BPA that was <a target="blank" href="http://businessjournalism.org/2010/06/susanne-rust-on-investigating-bpa-and-other-chemical-stories/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">short-listed for a Pulitzer Prize</a>. The BPA reporting, he wrote, was “dead wrong.” He didn’t mention that the series outed <a target="blank" href="http://archive.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">his former group STATS</a> as a “major player in the public relations effort to discredit concerns about BPA.”</p><h3 style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 20px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">Chemical Industry Defense Guy</span></h3><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">For many years, Entine has been a prominent defender of chemical industry interests, following the industry playbook: he defends the chemicals as safe; argues against regulation; and attacks science, scientists journalists and others raising concerns.</p><h4 style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">Defending Neonicotinoids</span></h4><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">Growing <a target="blank" href="http://www.beyondpesticides.org/programs/bee-protective-pollinators-and-pesticides/what-the-science-shows" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">scientific evidence suggests</a> that neonicotinoids, the most widely used class of pesticides, are a key factor in bee die-offs. The European Union has restricted neonics due to concerns about impact on bees.</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">Entine:</p><ul style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">Argues that neonics are not key driver of bee deaths (<a target="blank" href="https://www.aei.org/publication/neonics-not-key-driver-of-bee-deaths-usda-study-may-clash-with-white-house-poised-to-restrict-pesticide/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">American Enterprise Institute</a>).</li></ul><ul style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">Attacked a Harvard professor’s study on bee Colony Collapse Disorder (<a target="blank" href="https://www.aei.org/publication/bee-deaths-colony-collapse-disorder-chensheng-lu-flawed-harvard-study-endangers-bees/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">American Enterprise Institute</a>).</li></ul><ul style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">Claimed neonics may actually help bee health (<a target="blank" href="https://www.aei.org/publication/bee-deaths-mystery-solved-neonicotinoids-neonics-may-actually-help-bee-health/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">American Enterprise Institute</a> and <a target="blank" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/04/11/science-collapse-disorder-the-real-story-behind-neonics-and-mass-bee-deaths/#2715e4857a0b1bc76777591e" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Forbes</a>).</li></ul><ul style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">Accused European politicians of trying to kill bees by restricting neonics (<a target="blank" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/09/24/while-global-bee-colonies-recover-european-politicians-seem-determined-to-kill-them-off/#2715e4857a0b72d31f1f6b3d" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Forbes</a>).</li></ul><h4 style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">Defending Phthalates</span></h4><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">In August of 2012, Entine defended vinyl plastic backpacks that were found to be exposing children to phthalates.</p><ul style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">Entine wrote: “Few chemicals on the market today have undergone as much scientific scrutiny as phthalate esters” (<a target="blank" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/08/30/anti-chemical-alarmism-spreads-to-your-school-dora-the-explorer-will-kill-your-kid/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Forbes</a>). He didn’t mention that a <a target="blank" href="http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/02/Dec02/120502/02d-0325-c000018-02-vol1.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">significant body</a> of <a target="blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1280383/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">scientific evidence</a> compiled over two decades links phthalate exposures to <a target="blank" href="http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-10-02-Boy-genitals_N.htm" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">abnormal reproductive development</a> in <a target="blank" href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/plastic-chemical-linked-to-changes-in-baby-boys-genitals/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">baby boys</a>.</li></ul><ul style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">Entine criticized an NBC reporter for “shoddy journalism” for raising questions about the safety of phthalates (<a target="blank" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/04/18/national-resources-defense-council-nrdc-champions-shoddy-journalism-on-endocrine-active-chemicals/#2245c7d1698c" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Forbes</a>).</li></ul><ul style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;"><a target="blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130311195234/http:/www.esgmediametrics.com/founder.htm" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Entine’s communications firm</a>, ESG MediaMetrics, had the <a target="blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130310232320/http:/www.esgmediametrics.com/clients.htm" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Vinyl Institute as a client</a>. However, Entine did not disclose that in his Forbes articles on phthalates.</li></ul><h4 style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">Defending Fracking</span></h4><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">Entine defends hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”), the pumping of high-pressure chemical-laced water into the ground to crack shale and extract natural gas. As in his many other messaging campaigns, Entine blasts science and scientists who raise concerns, framing them as “activists,” while making sweeping and indefensible statements about “scrupulous” science conducted over many years that defend its safety.</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">For example, Entine claimed: “From a scientific perspective, no reason exists to even <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">suspect</em> unknown health or environmental issues will turn up” from fracking (<a target="blank" href="http://nypost.com/2012/06/15/fear-trumps-science/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">New York Post</a>).</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">Entine also:</p><ul style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">Accused New York Times reporters of misleading children about the potential environmental dangers of fracking (<a target="blank" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/10/03/new-york-times-blunders-into-advocacy-role-on-the-fracking-debate-children-are-the-victims/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Forbes</a>).</li></ul><ul style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">Attacked two Cornell University scientists for their study suggesting that fracking operations leak methane (<a target="blank" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/09/18/university-of-texas-environmental-defense-fund-shale-gas-study-unmasks-politics-of-anti-fracking-activist-cornell-scientists/#2715e4857a0b23a3fb0e7880" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Forbes</a>).</li></ul><ul style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">Attacked the Park Foundation, claiming that it has “almost single-handedly derailed shale-gas development in methane-rich New York State, and put its imprint on public opinion and policy decisions around the country.” (<a target="blank" href="http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/excellence_in_philanthropy/gas_heat" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Philanthropy Roundtable</a>)</li></ul><h4 style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">Defending BPA</span></h4><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">Entine writes in defense of the chemical bisphenol A (BPA), despite a large body of scientific evidence raising concerns about its endocrine disrupting potential and other health problems associated with it. <a target="blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/14/world/americas/14bpa.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Canada declared the chemical to be toxic</a> in 2010, and the EU <a target="blank" href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11843820" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">banned BPA in baby bottles</a> in 2011.</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">Entine:</p><ul style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">Attacked “a small but determined group of university researchers, activist NGOs and journalists” raising concerns about BPA (<a target="blank" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/10/31/bisphenol-a-bpa-found-not-harmful-yet-again-so-why-did-so-many-reporters-and-ngos-botch-coverage-yet-again/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Forbes</a>).</li></ul><ul style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">Tells women who can’t get pregnant not to blame it on plastics (<a target="blank" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/11/14/cant-get-pregnant-blame-it-on-plastics-well-not-if-science-matters/#2715e4857a0b5391ed5690df" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Forbes</a>).</li></ul><ul style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">Challenged scientists linking BPA to heart disease (<a target="blank" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/12/06/in-reversal-bedrock-studies-linking-bisphenol-a-bpa-to-heart-disease-challenged/#2715e4857a0b42ab2277da18" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Forbes</a>).</li></ul><h3 style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 20px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">Defending Nuclear Power</span></h3><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">Entine:</p><ul style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">Criticized Harvard Professor Naomi Oreskes for pointing out the economic and environmental risks of nuclear power (<a target="blank" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_10952_b_9111688.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Huffington Post</a>).</li></ul><ul style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">Claims that nuclear power plants are environmentally benign and that “Nothing as bad as Chernobyl is likely to occur in the West” (<a target="blank" href="http://www.jonentine.com/ethical_corporation/2003_07_nuclear_option.htm" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Jon Entine</a>).</li></ul><ul style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">Argued that Germany is “taking a gamble” by transitioning away from nuclear power (<a target="blank" href="http://www.ethicalcorp.com/environment/power-generation-will-germany-win-its-post-nuclear-bet" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Ethical Corporation</a>)</li></ul><h3 style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 20px; margin-bottom: 10px;">Fellowships</h3><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;">Entine was an unpaid fellow at the Center for Health and Risk Communication at George Mason University (GMU) from 2011-2014. Entine is also a former senior fellow at the UC Davis World Food Center’s Institute for Food and Agricultural Literacy, which does not disclose its donors, and a <a target="blank" href="http://www.aei.org/scholar/jon-entine/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">visiting fellow</a> at the American Enterprise Institute, a DC think tank funded in part by <a target="blank" href="https://www.aei.org/about/annual-report/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">corporate</a> and <a target="blank" href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/09/secretive-donors-gave-us-climate-denial-groups-125m-over-three-years" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">dark money</a> contributions.</p><p style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">See also,</span> Greenpeace Polluter Watch page on Jon Entine and “<a target="blank" href="http://polluterwatch.com/jon-entine" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">the hidden story of the Genetic Literacy Project</a>.”</p><div class="clearfix" style="background-color: rgb(248, 247, 246); box-sizing: border-box;"><footer class="entry-meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 20px;"><div class="entry-meta-category-tag" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="cat-links" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="categories-icon glyphicon glyphicon-th-list" title="Posted in" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 1px; display: inline-block; line-height: 1; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased;"> <a href="https://usrtk.org/category/food-for-thought/" rel="category tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Food For Thought</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/category/hall-of-shame/" rel="category tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Hall of Shame</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/category/our-investigations/" rel="category tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Our Investigations</a> </span><span class="tags-links" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="tags-icon glyphicon glyphicon-tags" title="Tagged" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 1px; display: inline-block; line-height: 1; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased;"> <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/amy-harmon/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Amy Harmon</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/bruce-chassy/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Bruce Chassy</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/chemophobia/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Chemophobia</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/genetic-literacy-project/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Genetic Literacy Project</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/jon-entine/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Jon Entine</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/keith-kloor/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Keith Kloor</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/kevin-folta/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Kevin Folta</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/monsanto/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Monsanto</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/syngenta/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Syngenta</a>, <a href="https://usrtk.org/tag/tamar-haspel/" rel="tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Tamar Haspel</a></span></span></span></div></footer></div><div style=""></div><div style=""><a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MDLLetNothingGomotion.pdf">
</a></div><div style=""><a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MDLLetNothingGomotion.pdf">https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MDLLetNothingGomotion.pdf</a></div><div style="">
</div><div style=""><div>Monsanto’s claimed concerns for this litigation leaving the bounds of this</div><div>courtroom are belied by its own activities day in, day out. This Motion was prompted by</div><div>Monsanto waiving its own confidentiality designations to place Dr. Heydens’ litigationdeposition-transcript</div><div>quotes on its own public-consumption website. </div><div>
</div><div>A careful look at</div><div>even the documents attached to motions practice thus far in this case so far elucidates</div><div>the Monsanto tort defense strategy; work furiously outside the courtroom to produce</div><div>carefully-timed “literature” and regulatory decisions that might aid in litigation defense.</div><div>Monsanto even started the aptly-named <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“Let Nothing Go” program to leave nothing, not</span></div><div><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">even facebook comments, unanswered; through a series of third parties, it employs</font></div><div><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">individuals who appear to have no connection to the industry, who in turn post positive</font></div><div><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">comments on news articles and Facebook posts, defending Monsanto, its chemicals, and</font></div><div><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">GMOs.</font></div><div>1</div><div><b>Monsanto quietly funnels money to “think tanks” such as the “Genetic Literacy</b></div><div><b>Project” and the “American Council on Science and Health,”</b> organizations intended to</div><div>shame scientists and highlight information helpful to Monsanto and other chemical</div><div>producers. Recent headlines from the GLP include:</div><div>
</div><div>? “WHO’s IARC cancer hazard agency: Can it be reformed or should it be</div><div>abolished?” (April 18, 2017);</div><div>
</div><div>1 This topic is covered at length in the David Heering deposition; Plaintiffs will not clog the Court’s workload with</div><div>collaterally-related transcripts – Monsanto also insists that almost that entire deposition is “confidential,” but will</div><div>gladly provide to the Court on request.</div><div>Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 246-2 Filed 04/20/17 Page 2 of 5</div><div>? “Is the US Unwittingly Funding Anti-Agriculture and anti-Monsanto</div><div>Conspiracy Theories?” (April 13, 2017), and, richly, in the context of recent</div><div>motions and controversy:</div><div>? “EPA Deserves Some Respect.” (March 27, 2017)</div><div>Recent articles from the ironically-named “American Council on Science and Health”</div><div>include:</div><div>? “Glyphosate: NYT’s Danny Hakim is Lying to You.” (March 15, 2017)</div><div>? “IARC has Threatened us” (April 26, 2017)</div><div>? “IARC’s Ruling on Glyphosate Ignores the Science” (March 23, 2015)</div><div>
</div><div>The Court, and certainly the attorneys here, will recall similar “institutes” and “academies”</div><div>funded by the tobacco industry in the past. Neither GLP nor ACSH list Monsanto as</div><div>donors/supporters; but Monsanto cannot deny it funds them.</div><div>
</div><div> More to the point of the instant litigation, phased discovery, and experts in this</div><div>case, Christopher Portier, disclosed consulting expert for the Plaintiffs in this litigation,</div><div>“invited specialist” to the IARC working group on glyphosate, and featured speaker at this</div><div>Court’s recent Science Day, is already the target of a Monsanto “hatchet job”, again run</div><div>through several intermediaries. See Exhibit 1,</div></div><div style=""></div><div style=""><a href="https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/06/29/built-success-nigerian-football-players-benefit-vastly-genes-culture-brains/">https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/06/29/built-success-nigerian-football-players-benefit-vastly-genes-culture-brains/</a></div><div style="">
</div><div style="">=</div><div style="">https://joanconrow.net/about/</div><div style="">
</div><div style=""><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; border: 0px; outline: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">I have more than 35 years of experience in journalism and multimedia communications, covering agriculture, politics, land use planning, conservation, native species protection, natural resource management, environmental law, Hawaiian culture, and travel, among many other topics. I have reported in India, the Western Pacific, and the US, with nearly three decades in Hawaii. I currently am a Visiting Fellow and managing editor at the <a href="http://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/" style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; border: 0px; outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">Cornell Alliance for Science</a>.</p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; border: 0px; outline: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">My professional services include all kinds of writing, reporting, interviewing, editing, scripting, video production, communications project management, blog and website content development, and multimedia asset planning. I specialize in international agriculture and crop/livestock biotechnology.</p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; border: 0px; outline: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; border: 0px; outline: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">--</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Cornell Alliance for Science is an initiative based at Cornell University, a non-profit institution.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Cornell Alliance for Science has no affiliation with any biotechnology industry organizations. In the interest of transparency, all of the funding organizations, along with the total amounts accepted, are listed below and is updated regularly:</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b>The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation $5.6 M</b></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Winkler Family Foundation $10,000</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">American Endowment Foundation $5,000</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Ian Gazard $5,000</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Mr. John Hilliard $3,000</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Triad Foundation $2,500</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">John Hilliard $2,000</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">John Crary $1,000</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Peter Davies $1000</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Surveillant LLC / John Friedrich Behringer $1,000</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Professor Larry P. Walker $1,000</p></div><div style=""></div><div style="">2/17 bs</div><div style=""><ul open="Open" sans="Sans" arial="Arial" helvetica="Helvetica" neue="Neue" sans-serif="sans-serif" style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px none; margin: 0px 0px 10px 10px; outline: none 0px; padding: 4px; vertical-align: baseline; list-style: square outside none;"><li style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent; border: 0px none; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; margin-bottom: 5px !important;"><a class="title" href="https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/?p=345058" rel="bookmark" style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent; border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none;">GLP's Jon Entine: Rules on human germline gene editing must be flexible to encourage innovation</a></li><li style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent; border: 0px none; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; margin-bottom: 5px !important;"><a class="title" href="https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/?p=339449" rel="bookmark" style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent; border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none;">Will Biotechnology Regulations Squelch Food and Farming Innovation?</a></li><li style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent; border: 0px none; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; margin-bottom: 5px !important;"><a class="title" href="https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/?p=339747" rel="bookmark" style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent; border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none;">'Gold standard' assessing neonicotinoids: Field bee hive studies find pesticides not major source of health issues</a></li><li style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent; border: 0px none; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; margin-bottom: 5px !important;"><a class="title" href="https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/?p=301516" rel="bookmark" style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent; border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none;">Scientist for hire? Does anti-neonic activist David Goulson produce pre-determined 'research' for funders?</a></li><li style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent; border: 0px none; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; margin-bottom: 5px !important;"><a class="title" href="https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/?p=301388" rel="bookmark" style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent; border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none;">Real story of anti-GMO sensation Rachel Parent: Idealist or pawn of 'natural' marketers?</a></li><li style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent; border: 0px none; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; margin-bottom: 5px !important;"><a class="title" href="https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/?p=301061" rel="bookmark" style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent; border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none;">Jon Entine breaks taboos on sports and 'race', and the future of human genetic research</a></li></ul></div><div style="">
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/03/01/bias-new-york-times-truth-hard-reporting-bees-neonicotinoid-pesticides/</div><div style="">
</div><div style="">...</div><div style=""><p droid="Droid" serif="serif" line-height="line-height" px="px" style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px none; margin: 0px 0px 1em; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">It’s a powerful message, one that the public and the media should reflect upon—including the leadership at the <span style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent; border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Times</span><span style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent; border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"> itself. Whether a journalist presents a story in good faith but wrongly can be a matter of healthy debate. But increasingly, a more troubling ethical line is being crossed: some writers choose to arrange facts, or even invent them, in ways that erase nuances to advance a storyline arrived at before independent reporting even commences. That leaves editors as the public’s last bastion of integrity. But to fulfill their responsibility, editors need to be aware of their own biases, or they risk crossing over from being guardians of the truth to creators of biased or even fake news.</span></p><p droid="Droid" serif="serif" line-height="line-height" px="px" style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px none; margin: 0px 0px 1em; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent; border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Which brings us to the</span><span style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent; border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"> New York Times</span><span style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent; border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">’ coverage of food and farming issues, most recently its reporting of what has come to be known in recent years as “beemageddon”— concerns that one of nature’s most important pollinators, the bee, faces a precarious future.</span></p><p droid="Droid" serif="serif" line-height="line-height" px="px" style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px none; margin: 0px 0px 1em; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent; border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Are bees facing extinction as many environmental advocacy groups and some scientists claim? Are neonicotinoid pesticides the key reason behind their health problems, as many activists, and the </span><i style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent; border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Times</i><span style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent; border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">, suggest?</span></p><p droid="Droid" serif="serif" line-height="line-height" px="px" style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px none; margin: 0px 0px 1em; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><b style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent; border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><em style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent; border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Times</em>’ Michael Pollan on presenting only one side of complex issues</b></p><p droid="Droid" serif="serif" line-height="line-height" px="px" style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px none; margin: 0px 0px 1em; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent; border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Covering food and modern farming has not been the </span><span style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent; border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Times</span><span style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent; border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"> strong point. </span>Journalist and foodie MIchael Pollan’s articles on the virtues of organic food a<span style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent; border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">nd the dangers of ‘industrialized agriculture’ have been a Times’ staple since the early 2000s. In 2013, he </span><a href="https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/22/michael-pollan-brags-about-twisting-facts-to-support-anti-gmo-activism-and-duping-credulous-new-york-times/" target="blank" style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent; border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none;">bragged in a video interview</a><span style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent; border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"> with a fellow activist that he long has exploited the willingness of his editors to forego traditional vetting because they share his anti-industry perspective. View the video here:</span></p><p droid="Droid" serif="serif" line-height="line-height" px="px" style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px none; margin: 0px 0px 1em; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent; border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">...</span></p><p><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></font></p><p><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">BS? punked?
</font> </p><p><a href="http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/gary-ruskin-and-jon-entine-tangle-over-the-gmo-corporate-connection/"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/gary-ruskin-and-jon-entine-tangle-over-the-gmo-corporate-connection/</font></a></p><p><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">4/16
</font> </p><p>
Corporate Crime Reporter,
please give us a call at 202.468.8868 or write to us at:</p><p>russellmokhiber@gmail.com</p><p>or at:</p><p>Corporate Crime Reporter
1209 National Press Building
Washington, D.C. 20045</p><p>Jon Entine is senior fellow at the University of California Davis Institute for Food and Agricultural Literacy.</p><p>
</p><p>Entine is also a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.</p><p>He runs the Genetic Literacy Project — which is a project of a non profit he heads called the Science Literacy Project.</p><p>Now comes Gary Ruskin of US Right to Know in Oakland, California.</p><p>Ruskin says that Entine has a long history of defending corporate interests — chemical, nuclear, pesticides, GMO and fracking.</p><p><b>In March 2015, Ruskin filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with UC Davis asking for any correspondence between Entine and a string of corporate interests, including Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, BASF,Dow, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association.</b></p><p><b>UC Davis has yet to produce the documents Ruskin requested.</b></p><p> </p><p>Ruskin’s lawyer, Jessica Krupke of Sandler Reiff in Washington, D.C., sent a letter to UC Davis calling the year long delay “unreasonable.”</p><p>“Our client has instructed us that, if your office continues to disregard the requirements of the law by failing to provide an estimate of the date of production and by unreasonably delaying the production itself, we are to pursue all available legal remedies to obtain the disclosure of public records to which our client is entitled,” Krupke wrote.</p><p>Ruskin wrote earlier this month to UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi asking her “reveal the sources of UC Davis funding for Jon Entine, the Genetic Literacy Project, the UC Davis Institute for Food and Agricultural Literacy, and its parent unit, the UC Davis World Food Center.”</p><p>“We are concerned that UC Davis may be acting as a financial conduit to enable corporations to direct third-party public relations attacks against targeted academics, individuals and institutions.” Ruskin wrote. “There is a significant body of evidence that Entine acts as a chemical industry public relations operative. Perhaps you are aware that he has written dozens of articles defending corporate interests, and attacking a range of targets whose work criticizes or detracts from the profit interests of the chemical and fossil fuel industries. Most recently, the Columbia Journalism School, as well as academics at Harvard and UC Berkeley, were his focus for attack. Alongside his role as senior fellow at the UC Davis Institute for Food and Agricultural Literacy, Entine is also executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project, which regularly attacks activists, journalists and scientists who raise concerns about the health and environmental risks of genetically engineered foods and pesticides.”</p><p>Entine says Ruskin is engaged in a “juvenile witch hunt.”</p><p>“The irony is that the Genetic Literacy Project receives 97% of its funding — the rest via the Internet/PayPay — from non partisan, independent foundations with no connection to the debate over GMOs, while <b>Gary Ruskin’s US Right to Know gets $274,500 from the Organic Consumers Association, a fringe, anti-science group</b>with huge influence in the organic community and throughout the web which benefits directly from scaring people about food and farming,” Entine told <em>Corporate Crime Reporter</em> in an interview last week. “So while the Science Literacy Project/GLP is 100% funded by non-partisan 501(c)(3) foundations and individuals, Ruskin is a paid arm of one of the most extremist anti-science organizations in the US whose members directly benefit from the scare he can create around independent science.”</p><p>“And here’s the Alice in Wonderland world we live in,” Entine said. “We have a dramatic new technology called genetic engineering. It’s not risk free because nothing is. Research is expensive so governments are not in a position to take the lead on it, plus they are crappy at doing that anyway. Corporations pursue research in this, costing hundreds of millions in investments.”</p><p>“Reasonable regulations in place start getting distorted by anti-technology activists even though thirty years of research has shown an almost perfect record of safety and compliance. New tighter restrictions are put in place. Smaller corporations drop out of development because it’s too expensive. Now anti-technology activists complain GE has been taken over by large corporations, which are bad, so must be opposed, because they could control food supply. Governments begin developing smaller projects such as GE eggplant and wilt resistant banana and vitamin enhanced rice, with no corporate connections. They are condemned as Trojan Horses for Big Biotech. The food researchers develop inexpensive ways to tweak individual genes to stop browning in potatoes, apples and mushrooms. They are condemned as tools of the devil. Then a small company develops a sterile mosquito which would help prevent a Zika crisis, including in the US, and the same brainiacs believe it should be stopped, because it’s part of a larger plot of corporate takeover of the world.”</p><p>When did Entine start the Genetic Literacy Project?</p><p>“In 2011,” Entine says. “But I couldn’t get money directly. I had to go through a receiving foundation. I went through the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) and asked if they would act as the receiving foundation for the money for it. They said — if you pay us eight percent or ten percent for operational costs, I forget what it was. I said — sure. So, that’s what I did. STATS doesn’t exist anymore, by the way.”</p><p>“Now it’s the Science Literacy Project — that’s the 501(c)(3). Under that is the Genetic Literacy Project and the Genetic Expert News Service.”</p><p>Who funds the Science Literacy Project?</p><p>“Money came in last year from the Templeton Foundation, the Searle Freedom Trust, and the Winkler Family Trust.”</p><p>You have pro-GMO groups like yourself —</p><p><b>“I’m not a pro-GMO group,” Entine says. “How could you look at my site and even pretend to use those words? Sixty percent of what we talk about is human genetics.</b> Why would you call that a pro-GMO group? Anyone who looks at it and comes to the conclusion that it’s a pro-GMO group can’t even add one plus one. We spent sixty percent of our resources or more on human genetic related issues. That’s been a large part of our focus and the focus of two of my books.”</p><p>“It’s a website about human genetics that does exactly what it says it does. It tries to look at human and agricultural genetics from a science point of view. It’s not a pro-GMO group. If bad things happen with GMOs — which I don’t believe exist as as concept — we write about it. We will carry articles by Gary Ruskin. It’s not like Gary Ruskin carries articles by me.”</p><p>You have posted articles by Gary Ruskin on your web site?</p><p>“We have printed articles by plenty of people who are pro-GMO on our web site. If Gary Ruskin could get an article in a major publication other than his own vanity site, we would print it. We do not print people from their vanity sites. And we do not print from NGO activist sites. If he is going to write an attack from an organic funded organization like USRTK, no I’m not going to print it. But if he has an article in Time magazine — we put up articles by Terry Gillam — who now works for Gary Ruskin — we have articles by her all the time.”</p><p>In his letter to UC Davis, Ruskin says that “there is a significant body of evidence that Entine acts as a chemical industry public relations operative.”</p><p>“There is no body of evidence,” Entine says.</p><p>Ruskin says Entine “has written dozens of articles defending corporate interests and attacking a range of targets.”</p><p>“I don’t believe that’s an accurate description of what we do. We report on the news. If a genetically modified mushroom happens to be safe and we report it — in Gary Ruskin’s eyes, that’s pro-GMO propaganda. In 98 percent of the world’s eyes, that’s science.”</p><p><b>You wrote a column March 1 in the <em>New York Post</em> that attacked the Columbia Journalism School. You argued that the school “smeared Exxon.”</b></p><p>“I’ll stand by the words that I wrote.”</p><p>Ruskin goes to public universities and seeks emails of people he considers to be corporate advocates and seeks their connections to corporations.</p><p>“I know exactly what Ruskin wants to do. His very first FOIA was directed at me. I know exactly what he wants to do.”</p><p>Is he going to find any evidence of UC Davis connections to corporate interests?<b> Ruskin is saying that he is “concerned that UC Davis may be acting as a financial conduit to enable corporations to direct third-party public relations attacks against targeted academics, individuals and institutions.”</b></p><p>“He can say that all he wants, but there is no evidence to support it,” Entine said.</p><p>There have been other universities where he has found connections between the academics and the corporations.</p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“Gary Ruskin has a pathetically jaded view of what it means to have an interconnected world where corporations and universities and journalists act together. All I can say is that I don’t take any corporate money. The Genetic Literacy Project doesn’t take any corporate money. <b>Our records are open. </b>UC Davis got no corporate money funnelled from them to me. Ruskin has gone after me for a year and a half and done hundreds of Freedom of Information requests. And he hasn’t laid a hand on me. There is not one scintilla of evidence. It is all innuendo.”</span></p><p><b>Are you paid by UC Davis?</b></p><p><b>“No.”</b></p><p>What if there are corporate connections with the UC Davis Institute for Food and Agricultural Literacy and the UC Davis World Food Center. Let’s say Ruskin uncovers corporate money going to those entities.</p><p><b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“Corporations have a right</span> to be involved,” Entine said. “We are talking about land grant universities, universities required by the state constitution to be involved with the organization that improves agriculture. UC Davis and Oklahoma State and Iowa and Nebraska and others would be violating state law if they were not involved in many ways, financially and others, with corporations.</b> They are required to be involved. That’s all I’ll say about it. This is silly. This sounds like a juvenile witch hunt by someone who is obsessed with corporations. Corporations do good things and corporations do bad things. Gary Ruskin does good things and bad things.”</p><p>“There is no there there.”</p><p>Have you debated anti-GMO people in public debates?</p><p>“Yes, at a New York Times food conference last October. I debated a guy from a natural products company.”</p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">You are willing to debate someone like Michael Hansen of Consumers Union?</span></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“Yes. He’s an ideologue. He’s not a serious person.”</span></p><p>You say they are ideologues. They say you are a corporate —</p><p>“They have no evidence of that. They are creating that out of the people I support.”</p><p>“I’m a science journalist. I have no corporate ties. GLP has no corporate funding. No one has found any. There is none. They can make all these accusations they want. They can say I’m bought and sold. They don’t have the evidence. It’s not there. We stand by the science. I’ve offered space on the GLP site.”</p><p>You have never taken money from corporate funders?</p><p>“When I give a speech, I do.”</p><p>Funding of your groups?</p><p>“No.”</p><p>Give me some recent speeches you have given and how much they have paid you?</p><p>“No. I’ve been paid at modest levels. I’ve spoken at the Australian National Press Club.”</p><p>What about corporate speeches?</p><p>“I have never given a speech for a corporation.”</p><p>What about industry groups?</p><p>“I have given speeches for various industries.”</p><p>Give us one example?</p><p>“I’m not playing that game with you.”</p><p>“I’m a skeptical guy who doesn’t take anybody at face value. I’ve been involved in trying to change the world in a positive way. <b>I see people like Gary Ruskin and Michael Hansen as dangerous people.</b> They are on the wrong side of goodness. They will hurt people. People will look back and see them as the ultra-reactionary right of this period of time, the ones who are so ideological and paranoid about technological progress that they are willing to subvert potential innovations purely on the speculation that corporations are somehow poised to take over the world.”</p><p><em>[For the complete q/a format Interview with Jon Entine, see 30 Corporate Crime Reporter 17(12), April 25, 2016, <a href="http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/subscribe/">print edition only</a>.]</em></p><p><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></font></p>
entine ny post
Gov. Cuomo’s rumored retreat on fracking shows just how powerful an anti-science, fear-based campaign can be. If reports are right, Cuomo will restrict fracking to a few counties in which...
Lame frack attack by one sloppy hack
March 31, 2012 | 4:00am
New York Times natural-gas reporter Ian Urbina last week launched another salvo in his crusade against the shale-gas industry and the “fracking” method that’s opened up new vistas of gas...
Killing drilling with farcical ‘science’
January 24, 2012 | 5:00am
The academic face of the anti-fracking movement — Cornell marine ecologist Robert Howarth — increasingly looks like he’s willing to turn science into farce. Last spring, the once-obscure professor became...
NY greens’ anti-drilling baloney
January 3, 2012 | 5:00am
Not long ago, environmental groups were heralding natural gas as a “bridge fuel to a more climate-friendly energy supply.” Today, New York “progressives” are leading the charge to demonize it...
=
<p>---</p><p>TABLOID
</p><p>http://nypost.com/2016/03/01/how-the-columbia-journalism-school-smeared-exxon/</p><p><b>When the Columbia Journalism School set up a project in 2014 to generate articles on energy and the environment, <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">was its real agenda to exploit ExxonMobil’s reputation as a climate-change villain?</span></b></p><p>The fellowship project culminated last fall in an LA Times series that accused the world’s largest oil company of downplaying the risks of climate change. InsideClimateNews, an aggressive online site known for its doomsday environmentalism, posted a nearly identical article, tapping Columbia’s research.</p><p>The stories paint a dark picture of the oil-industry icon, charging it with a cover-up that echoes the tobacco industry’s denial of health problems from cigarettes.</p><p>“Exxon,” the authors say, “made a strategic decision . . . to publicly emphasize doubt and uncertainty regarding climate change science even as its internal research embraced the growing scientific consensus.”</p><p><b>Exxon, the series claimed, had known for years that climate change was real — but hid the science to keep revenues flowing.</b></p><p><b>The Columbia fellows drew blood. In New York, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman </b>— citing the reports — announced a probe into whether Exxon misled shareholders. Just last week, state Comptroller Tom DiNapoli demanded the Securities and Exchange Commission force the company to provide “an annual assessment of the impact on its business of public climate change policies.”</p><p>In DC, too, some Democratic congressmen asked the Justice Department to launch a probe into a possible “conspiracy between Shell, ExxonMobil and potentially other companies in the fossil fuel industry.”</p><p><b>Yet the team’s approach appears to be biased and unprofessional. For one thing, it started with the preconceived belief that oil companies are malfeasant for not embracing costly, scientifically dubious amelioration policies. </b></p><p><b>Columbia’s swerve into advocacy journalism may have its roots in the 2013 appointment of Steve Coll as journalism-school dean. Coll is known for his polemic, “Private Empire: ExxonMobil and Power,” which led to his appointment. Months later, Columbia bestowed a Pulitzer on InsideClimateNews. Coll soon hatched the Energy and Environmental Reporting Project, partnering with the Exxon-loathing group. </b></p><p><b>He also recruited Susanne Rust, a decorated but controversial reporter known for journalism advocacy, most recently with California Watch. Columbia hid the source of the project’s funding: a number of ideologically oriented foundations.</b></p><p><b>In December, Exxon fired off a letter to Columbia President Lee Bollinger, noting that the fellows had “cherry-picked — and distorted</b> — statements attributed to various company employees to wrongly suggest definitive conclusions about the risk of climate change were reached decades ago by company researchers.”</p><p><b>CJR itself questioned the project’s ethics: Schools are “increasingly producing professional journalism projects, often drawing funds from outside groups to help support the work,” wrote CJR. It challenged the “balance in what subjects get reported, as well as<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> appropriate disclosure of the outside funders and their political leanings.”</span></b></p><p> </p><p><b>The funders? A Who’s Who of anti-fossil-fuel groups: Energy Foundation, Open Society Foundations, <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Rockefeller</span> Family Fund, Lorana Sullivan Foundation, Tellus Mater Foundation and Rockefeller Brothers Fund, which also supports the J-school. </b></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Is ExxonMobil a climate-denier — as the series insinuated? Not at all. The company has publicly acknowledged that human-induced climate change is real. In 2007 Chief Executive Rex Tillerson stated: “The risks to society and ecosystems from climate change could prove to be significant.” </span></p><p>But while consensus exists on warming, there is no consensus on how to address it. In a 2004 newspaper <b>advertorial, </b>Exxon said: “Scientific uncertainties continue to limit our ability to make objective, quantitative determinations regarding the human role in recent climate change or the degree and consequences of future change.”</p><p><b>That’s mainstream: Opinions are mixed as to whether humans can meaningfully slow climate trends, and whether diverting trillions is worth the trade-offs. </b></p><p><b>The Columbia project serves as a warning: A premier university hires an <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">activist </span>to run its J-school.</b> It partners with an activist online Web site to target an energy company previously savaged by its new dean in his book. The effort is funded by foundations whose role as fossil-fuel critics was hidden from readers. In the end, the journalists themselves wind up playing defense.</p><p><b>The series is a finalist for Harvard’s Goldsmith award and is a favorite for a Columbia-awarded Pulitzer. Such prizes would tarnish those schools and the journalism profession that relies on them as ethical barometers.</b></p><em>Jon Entine, founder of the Genetic Literacy Project, is a <b>senior fellow at the University of California-Davis.</b></em><p>
</p>
bloomberg:
<b>
Monsanto Co.’s undisclosed recruitment of scientists from Harvard University, Cornell University and three other schools to write about the benefits of plant biotechnology is drawing fire from opponents.</b><p>The company’s role isn’t noted in the <a itemscope="itemscope" itemprop="StoryLink" href="http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/tag/gmo-beyond-the-science/" title="Link to Articles" target="blank" data-tracker-action="click" data-tracker-category="nav" data-tracker-label="inline_link.01">series of articles</a> published in December by the Genetic Literacy Project, a nonprofit group that says its mission is “to disentangle science from ideology.” The group said that such a disclosure isn’t necessary because the the company didn’t pay the authors and wasn’t involved in writing or editing the articles.</p><p>Monsanto says it’s in regular contact with public-sector scientists as it tries to “elevate” public dialog on genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. U.S. Right to Know, a nonprofit group funded by the Organic Consumers Association that obtained e-mails under the Freedom of Information Act, says correspondence revealing Monsanto’s actions shows the “corporate control of science and how compliant some academics are.”</p><p>The articles have become the latest flashpoint in an information war being waged over plant biotechnology by its supporters, who sometimes have corporate funding, and its opponents, some of whom are funded by the fast-growing organic food industry. The challenge for the pro-GMO lobby is the yawning gulf between scientific consensus and public perception. A Pew Research Center <a itemscope="itemscope" itemprop="StoryLink" href="http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/" title="Link to Pew Poll Results" target="blank" data-tracker-action="click" data-tracker-category="nav" data-tracker-label="inline_link.02">poll</a> in January found 88 percent of scientists believed GMOs to be “generally safe” versus 37 percent of U.S. adults. That gap was the widest among 13 questions asked by Pew, surpassing divides on climate change and evolution.</p><h3>Monsanto E-mail</h3><p>The articles in question appeared on the Genetic Literacy Project’s website in a series called “GMO - Beyond the Science.”<b> Eric Sachs, who leads Monsanto’s scientific outreach, wrote to eight scientists to pen a series of briefs aimed at influencing “public policy, GM crop regulation and consumer acceptance.” Five of them obliged.</b></p><p> </p><p>“I need to step aside so I don’t compromise the project,” Sachs said in an Aug. 8, 2013, e-mail obtained by U.S. Right to Know. He suggested specific topics for each scientist before turning the project over to<b> CMA Consulting, a public relations firm paid by Monsanto.</b></p><p>“I am keenly aware that your independence and reputations must be protected,” Sachs wrote.</p><h3>Political Lobbying</h3><p>“It says something that Monsanto can’t defend the safety of their own products, that they have to resort to hiring a PR consultant and get academics to spin the science,” said Scott Faber, a Washington-based lobbyist at the<b> Environmental Working Group and executive director of Just Label It,</b> which advocates for mandatory labels identifying GMO foods.</p><p>St. Louis-based Monsanto has been at the center of the GMO debate ever since it first commercialized modified crop seeds in 1996. The company operates a sophisticated public relations operation, and while it carries out behind-the-scenes political lobbying, it also responds to critics on its website and on blogs. Chief Technology Officer Robb Fraley has defended GMOs both on <a itemscope="itemscope" itemprop="StoryLink" href="https://twitter.com/RobbFraley?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor" title="Link to Twitter Feed" target="blank" data-tracker-action="click" data-tracker-category="nav" data-tracker-label="inline_link.03">Twitter</a> and in public debates.</p><p>Monsanto routinely <a itemscope="itemscope" itemprop="StoryLink" href="http://www.monsanto.com/improvingagriculture/pages/collaborating-with-academics-and-universities.aspx" title="Link to Monsanto's " collaborating="Collaborating" with="With" academics="Academics" and="and" universities="Universities" target="blank" data-tracker-action="click" data-tracker-category="nav" data-tracker-label="inline_link.04">exchanges information</a> with dozens of public-sector scientists and flags ideas, said Charla Lord, a company spokeswoman. While the scientists sometimes co-operate, Monsanto’s suggestions often are ignored or rejected, she said.</p><h3>Public Dialog</h3><p>“Our goal is to elevate the public dialog and public policy discussion from its over-emphasis on perceived risks toward a broader understanding of the societal benefits of GM crops and needed improvement in policies,” Lord said in an e-mail. “There is a lot of misinformation generated by groups who are opposed to agriculture and biotechnology.”</p><p>Once the topic of the articles was identified, the academics alone were responsible for the content, said Jim Fallon, a vice president at CMA, the PR firm working with Monsanto. John Entine, the executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project, also defended the handling of the articles.</p><h3>Sharing Knowledge</h3><p>“I got independent articles written by independent professors,” Entine said Tuesday by phone. “I ended up working with the professors to edit their pieces and I had total control over the final product. There is nothing to disclose.”</p><p><b>Two of the authors, Peter W.B. Phillips, a professor at the University of Saskatchewan, and David Shaw, chief research officer at Mississippi State University,</b>didn’t immediately respond to messages seeking comment.</p><p><b><a itemscope="itemscope" itemprop="StoryLink" href="http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/experts/231/calestous_juma.html" title="Link to Harvard Webpage" target="blank" data-tracker-action="click" data-tracker-category="nav" data-tracker-label="inline_link.05">Calestous Juma</a>, a professor at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government,</b> said in an interview he contributed a paper entitled “<a itemscope="itemscope" itemprop="StoryLink" href="http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/12/09/global-risks-of-rejecting-agricultural-biotechnology/" title="Link to Article" target="blank" data-tracker-action="click" data-tracker-category="nav" data-tracker-label="inline_link.06">Global Risks of Rejecting Agricultural Biotechnology</a>” to the project because it’s a topic he’s studied, written about and spoken on for <a itemscope="itemscope" itemprop="StoryLink" href="http://www.technologyandpolicy.org/2015/09/30/statement-on-agricultural-biotechnology/#.Vg2FjMtVhBf" title="Link to Juma's statement" target="blank" data-tracker-action="click" data-tracker-category="nav" data-tracker-label="inline_link.07">decades</a>. Juma said his main requirement is that the publications he writes for must be freely available to the public. Disclosing Monsanto’s role is a matter for the publication, he said. Juma’s Monsanto connection was previously reported by the Boston Globe.</p><p>“It’s part of my mission as a public scholar to share knowledge,” Juma said in an interview, a point also made by another two authors of the series articles. <b>Anthony Shelton, an entomologist and professor at Cornell, </b>said he stands by and takes full ownership of what he wrote. “I strongly support openness and transparency,” he said in an e-mail.</p><h3>‘Rabid Activism’</h3><p><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">University of Florida Professor Kevin Folta said he agreed to write “<a itemscope="itemscope" itemprop="StoryLink" href="http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/12/04/anti-gmo-activism-and-its-impact-on-food-security/" title="Link to Article" target="blank" data-tracker-action="click" data-tracker-category="nav" data-tracker-label="inline_link.08">Anti-GMO Activism and Its Impact on Food Security</a>” </span>because communicating science to the public is his job. Folta said he has no problem were the Genetic Literacy Project to disclose Monsanto’s role in the series. And he lamented what he called the “rabid activism and religion” of an organic movement that vilifies scientists who support plant biotechnology.</p><p>Folta has faced public criticism since the New York Times, citing other e-mails provided by U.S. Right to Know, <a itemscope="itemscope" itemprop="StoryLink" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in-gmo-lobbying-war-emails-show.html?r=0" title="Link to Report" target="blank" data-tracker-action="click" data-tracker-category="nav" data-tracker-label="inline_link.09">reported</a> last month about his communications with Monsanto and a $25,000 donation to the science communication program he runs. Folta said in an interview he wasn’t the recipient of the money and didn’t benefit financially. The university donated the $25,000 to charity following the Times story, he said.</p><p>“It makes me really sad because I just want technology to help people,” Folta said. “I don’t even care about these companies. I want people to understand the science.”</p>
played up nyer gmo michael specter
2/16 overview
http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/jon-entine-the-chemical-industrys-master-messenger/
Entine is highly active in current chemical industry policy debates. He portrays himself as a science journalist, an objective authority on issues important to the chemical industry. But the evidence shows that he is actually a longtime public relations operative with deep ties to the chemical industry. His work features the defense of GMOs, pesticides, industrial chemicals, fracking and nuclear power.<h2>Ties to Monsanto </h2><p>Entine <a target="blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120516134340/http:/www.esgmediametrics.com/founder.htm">founded ESG MediaMetrics</a>, a “<a target="blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130330014419/http:/www.esgmediametrics.com/sustain.htm">sustainability</a>” communications firm whose <a target="blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120516134259/http:/www.esgmediametrics.com/clients.htm">clients included Monsanto and the Vinyl Institute</a>.</p><p>Entine is executive director of <a target="blank" href="https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/mission/">Genetic Literacy Project</a> (GLP), which promotes GMOs and pesticides. It states that it is “funded by grants from non-partisan foundations” but does not disclose which ones, nor whether it receives funding from corporations, trade associations or other agrichemical industry interests.</p><p>In 2014, Entine and the Genetic Literacy Project partnered with a <a target="blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in-gmo-lobbying-war-emails-show.html">Monsanto-backed group</a>, <a href="http://usrtk.org/gmo/following-an-email-trail-how-a-public-university-professor-collaborated-on-a-corporate-pr-campaign/" target="blank">Academics Review</a>, to sponsor the <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Biotechnology Literacy Project “boot camp”</span>to teach scientists how to “best engage the GMO debate with a skeptical public.”</p><p>Faculty at the <a href="http://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/TamarHaspel1.pdf" target="blank">first boot camp</a> included representatives from GMO manufacturers, food industry front groups and trade groups, and pro-GMO academics including University of Florida Professor Kevin Folta, and University of Illinois Professor Emeritus Bruce Chassy, both of whom have accepted undisclosed funding from Monsanto and promote the GMOs and pesticides that Monsanto sales rely upon.</p><p>The boot camp’s agenda notes that “independent scientists, who the public holds in great esteem, can play a unique role in reframing the food safety and GMO debate” and that the camp will provide scientists with the “tools and support resources necessary to effectively engage the media and appear as experts in legislative and local government hearings, and other policy making and related outreach opportunities.”</p><p>Entine conducted a similar boot camp to reframe the GMO debate for <a href="http://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/BLP2015.pdf" target="blank">journalists and scientists in 2015</a>.</p><h2>Ties to Syngenta</h2><p>The <a href="http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/" target="blank">American Council on Science and Health</a> (ACSH), a <a target="blank" href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/american-council-science-health-leaked-documents-fundraising">corporate front group</a> funded in part by the agrichemical company Syngenta, published Entine’s 2011 book, “<a href="http://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/ScaredtoDeath.pdf" target="blank">Scared to Death: How Chemophobia Threatens Public Health</a>.” The book defends atrazine, a pesticide manufactured by Syngenta.</p><p>A 2012 <a target="blank" href="http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/02/atrazine-syngengta-tyrone-hayes-jon-entine">Mother Jones article about Entine</a> describes the circumstances leading up to the publication of the book. The article, by Tom Philpott, is based in part on internal company documents, obtained by <a target="blank" href="http://www.prwatch.org/node/11277">the Center for Media and Democracy</a>, describing Syngenta’s PR efforts to get <a target="blank" href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/02/11276/syngentas-paid-third-party-pundits-spin-news-atrazine">third-party allies to spin media coverage</a> of atrazine.</p><p>In one <a target="blank" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/5/55/Syn_email_ACSH_Whelan_Say_Syngenta_Is_Financial_Lifeblood.pdf">email from 2009</a>, ACSH staff asked Syngenta for an additional $100,000 – “separate and distinct from general operating support Syngenta has been so generously providing over the years” – to produce an atrazine-friendly paper and “consumer-friendly booklet” to help educate media and scientists.</p><p>From a <a target="blank" href="http://acsh.org/2011/01/18/scared-to-death/">2011 ACSH press release</a> announcing Entine’s book:</p><p class="indent-text">“The American Council on Science and Health is pleased to announce a new book and companion friendly, abbreviated position paper … authored by Jon Entine, a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute and highly regarded science journalist … ACSH compiled this resource book and position to educate legislators, industry, media, consumers and parents on the actual risks of chemical exposure and use in everyday products.”</p><p>Entine denied any relationship with Syngenta and told Philpott he had “no idea” Syngenta was funding ACSH.</p><h2>Attacks on Syngenta Critics </h2><p>In a 2014 <a target="blank" href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/02/10/a-valuable-reputation">New Yorker article</a>, based on internal Syngenta documents, Rachel Aviv revealed how Syngenta’s public relations team plotted to “discredit” UC Berkeley Professor Tyrone Hayes, whose research suggests that the herbicide atrazine is associated with birth defects. In emails, Syngenta employees discussed a psychological profile of Hayes and searched for ways to “exploit Hayes’ faults/problems.”</p><p>A month later, Entine <a target="blank" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/03/10/did-the-new-yorker-botch-puff-piece-on-frog-scientist-tyrone-hayes-turning-rogue-into-beleaguered-hero/#55511efc4ca3">wrote an attack piece in Forbes</a> describing Aviv’s story as a “botch puff piece” and calling Hayes “almost completely discredited.” Entine’s primary source was a “summary analysis” by University of Illinois Professor Emeritus Bruce Chassy, posted on <a target="blank" href="http://academicsreview.org/">Academics Review</a>, which claims to be an independent website started by independent scientists.</p><p><a href="http://usrtk.org/gmo/new-documents-uncover-monsantos-secret-role-in-illinois-professor-bruce-chassys-academics-review-website/" target="blank">Emails obtained by U.S. Right to Know</a> reveal that <a target="blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in-gmo-lobbying-war-emails-show.html">Monsanto and a former Monsanto public relations executive helped Chassy to establish Academics Review as a website</a>and platform to criticize individuals, organizations and others who raise questions about GMOs or pesticides.</p><p>A year before the New Yorker story, Entine <a target="blank" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/08/19/1577/#1a585b82589c">used his Forbes platform to attack</a> Hayes and defend Syngenta. Entine described “competing narratives” about why Hayes lost funding to continue researching atrazine. Entine’s narrative casts Hayes as the “activist scientist with a long history of discredited studies” against “one of the most scrutinized chemicals in history” that was unjustly banned in Europe. Hayes is, in fact, a <a target="blank" href="https://ib.berkeley.edu/hayest">full professor in the integrative biology department of UC Berkeley</a>, one of the most prestigious public universities in the world.</p><h2>The Murky Funding Trail to Entine and the Genetic Literacy Project</h2><p><a target="blank" href="http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/02/atrazine-syngengta-tyrone-hayes-jon-entine">According to an email he sent to Philpott in 2012</a>, Entine derives the bulk of his income from the Genetic Literacy Project:</p><p class="indent-text">“To hear Entine tell it, his defenses of atrazine and other pesticides are entirely pro bono and driven by his own initiative. He told me he gets “almost all” of his income from the Genetic Literacy Project, which, he added, is funded by what he called the Templeton and Searle foundations. The project is housed at the Statistical Assessment Service program at George Mason University, where Entine is a fellow. Though Entine would not specify which Searle trust funded the GLP, the Searle Freedom Trust’s 2010 tax form lists a $154,000 grant to STATS for a “Gene Policy and Science Literacy Project,” which sounds an awful lot like Entine’s.”</p><p>The <a target="blank" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Statistical_Assessment_Service">Statistical Assessment Service</a> (STATS), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, disclosed in its IRS annual form 990s that it paid Entine for his work as a “research consultant” <a href="http://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/SAS2012.pdf" target="blank">$140,600 in 2012</a>, and <a href="http://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/SAS2013.pdf" target="blank">$152,500 in 2013</a>.</p><p>STATS is “<a target="blank" href="http://www.stats.org/about/">funded by a grant from the Searle Freedom Trust and a donation from the American Statistical Association</a>,” according to its website. STATS declares on its <a href="http://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/SAS2013.pdf" target="blank">IRS form 990</a> that it is a sister organization of the <a target="blank" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Center_for_Media_and_Public_Affairs">Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA)</a>, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that is not transparent about its funding. According to its most recent (2012) IRS Form 990, <a href="http://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/CMPA-2012.pdf" target="blank">CMPA gave a $203,611 loan to STATS</a>, which “due to inadequate funding” has “not been reimbursed.”</p><p>In a 2009 <a target="blank" href="http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195297.html">Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article</a> about chemical industry lobbying<b> Suzanne Rust </b>and Meg Kissinger described STATS:</p><p>“STATS claims to be independent and nonpartisan. But a review of its financial reports shows it is a branch of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. That group was paid by the tobacco industry to monitor news <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">stories about the dangers of tobacco.”</span></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The Center for Media and Public Affairs also receives grants from the George Mason University Foundation. For example, the GMU Foundation disclosed in its IRS form 990s that it gave to CMPA a <a href="http://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/GMUF2013.pdf" target="blank">$75,670 grant in 2013</a>, and a <a href="http://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/GMUF2012.pdf" target="blank">$220,900 grant in 2012</a>.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Charles Koch is a major funder of various GMU projects, according to a <a target="blank" href="http://polluterwatch.org/charles-koch-university-funding-database">recent Greenpeace analysis</a> of IRS filings from Koch’s nonprofit foundations.</span> Koch spent $109.7 million on 361 campuses from 2005-2014. The <a target="blank" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/connor-gibson/to-charles-koch-professor_b_9100904.html">GMU Foundation was the top recipient</a> with $45.5 million, followed by two other GMU programs.</p><p><a target="blank" href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2015/04/12795/unkochmycampus-article#sthash.QgVEQfTI.dpuf">According to PR Watch</a>, despite repeated attempts by students to obtain information about the grants, George Mason University refuses to comply because it has housed the grants under the private GMU Foundation instead of the university itself to prevent disclosures about their source.</p><p>According to the Guardian, from 2011-13, the <a target="blank" href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/09/secretive-donors-gave-us-climate-denial-groups-125m-over-three-years">GMU Foundation received $5.3 million from Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund</a> – two groups that Mother Jones called the “<a target="blank" href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/donors-trust-donor-capital-fund-dark-money-koch-bradley-devos">dark-money ATM of the conservative movement</a>.”</p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Entine is a <a target="blank" href="http://chrc.gmu.edu/scholars.html">senior research fellow</a> at GMU’s Center for Health & Risk Communication, and a <a target="blank" href="http://www.aei.org/scholar/jon-entine/">visiting fellow</a> at the American Enterprise Institute, a DC think tank funded in part by <a target="blank" href="https://www.aei.org/about/annual-report/">corporate</a> and <a target="blank" href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/09/secretive-donors-gave-us-climate-denial-groups-125m-over-three-years">dark money</a> contributions.</span></p><p>Entine is a <a target="blank" href="http://worldfoodcenter.ucdavis.edu/What_We_Do/IFAL.html">senior fellow</a> at the UC Davis World Food Center’s Institute for Food and Agricultural Literacy (IFAL). Donations to the World Food Center are not publicly disclosed.<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> The World Food Center’s founding director is <a target="blank" href="http://worldfoodcenter.ucdavis.edu/expertise/">Roger Beachy</a>, who was also founding president of the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in St. Louis, MO, which has <a target="blank" href="http://grist.org/industrial-agriculture/2011-04-29-monsanto-tied-scientist-abruptly-quits-key-usda-research-post/">close ties to Monsanto</a>, and offices <a target="blank" href="http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/danforth-plant-science-center-announces-million-expansion/article_869d61ff-3792-5994-82fb-b05226117e5e.html">across the street from Monsanto</a>.</span></p><h2>Public Relations for the Agrichemical Industry</h2><p>Entine is a central figure in agrichemical industry public relations efforts. The Genetic Literacy Project cross-promotes many industry-affiliated pro-GMO messengers and regularly attacks organizations and people who raise concerns about the health and environmental risks of GMOs and pesticides.</p><p>In 2014, GLP published a series of pro-GMO papers that were assigned to professors by a Monsanto executive. The Monsanto connection was not disclosed in the papers but was revealed in <a href="http://usrtk.org/gmo/our-investigation-of-big-food-and-its-front-groups/" target="blank">emails obtained via state Freedom of Information Act request</a> by U.S. Right to Know.</p><p>In one case, <a target="blank" href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/10/01/harvard-professor-failed-disclose-monsanto-connection-paper-touting-gmos/lLJipJQmI5WKS6RAgQbnrN/story.html">reported in the Boston Globe</a>, the Monsanto executive suggested to Harvard Professor Calestous Juma that he write a paper about how GMOs are needed to feed Africa:</p><p class="indent-text">“Monsanto not only suggested the topic to professor Calestous Juma. It went so far as to provide a summary of what the paper could say and a suggested headline. The company then connected the professor with a marketing company to pump it out over the Internet as part of Monsanto’s strategy to win over the public and lawmakers, according to e-mails obtained through a public records request.”</p><p>GLP published Professor Juma’s paper along with five other pro-GMO papers written by professors and assigned by Monsanto.</p><p>Entine <a target="blank" href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-02/how-monsanto-mobilized-academics-to-pen-articles-supporting-gmos">told a Bloomberg reporter</a> that he worked with the professors to edit their papers. “I had total control over the final product,” Entine said.</p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Entine was also linked to <a href="http://usrtk.org/gmo/a-short-report-on-journalists-mentioned-in-our-foias/" target="blank">three pro-GMO journalists</a> – Keith Kloor, Washington Post food columnist Tamar Haspel and New York Times reporter Amy Harmon — whose names turned up in FOIA documents obtained by U.S. Right to Know.</span></p><h2>Chemical Industry Defense Guy </h2><p>Entine has been a prominent defender of chemical industry interests, following the industry playbook: he defends the chemicals as safe; argues against regulation; and attacks science, scientists and others raising concerns.</p><h2>Defending Neonicotinoids</h2><p>Growing <a target="blank" href="http://www.beyondpesticides.org/programs/bee-protective-pollinators-and-pesticides/what-the-science-shows">scientific evidence suggests</a> that neonicotinoids, the most widely used class of pesticides, are a key factor in bee die-offs. The European Union has restricted neonics due to concerns about impact on bees.</p><p>Entine:</p><ul><li>Argues that neonics are not key driver of bee deaths (<a target="blank" href="https://www.aei.org/publication/neonics-not-key-driver-of-bee-deaths-usda-study-may-clash-with-white-house-poised-to-restrict-pesticide/">American Enterprise Institute</a>).</li></ul><ul><li>Attacked a Harvard professor’s study on bee Colony Collapse Disorder (<a target="blank" href="https://www.aei.org/publication/bee-deaths-colony-collapse-disorder-chensheng-lu-flawed-harvard-study-endangers-bees/">American Enterprise Institute</a>).</li></ul><ul><li>Claimed neonics may actually help bee health (<a target="blank" href="https://www.aei.org/publication/bee-deaths-mystery-solved-neonicotinoids-neonics-may-actually-help-bee-health/">American Enterprise Institute</a> and <a target="blank" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/04/11/science-collapse-disorder-the-real-story-behind-neonics-and-mass-bee-deaths/#2715e4857a0b1bc76777591e">Forbes</a>).</li></ul><ul><li>Accused European politicians of trying to kill bees by restricting neonics (<a target="blank" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/09/24/while-global-bee-colonies-recover-european-politicians-seem-determined-to-kill-them-off/#2715e4857a0b72d31f1f6b3d">Forbes</a>).</li></ul><h2>Defending Phthalates </h2><p>In August of 2012, Entine defended vinyl plastic backpacks that were found to be exposing children to phthalates.</p><ul><li>Entine wrote: “Few chemicals on the market today have undergone as much scientific scrutiny as phthalate esters” (<a target="blank" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/08/30/anti-chemical-alarmism-spreads-to-your-school-dora-the-explorer-will-kill-your-kid/">Forbes</a>). He didn’t mention that a <a target="blank" href="http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/02/Dec02/120502/02d-0325-c000018-02-vol1.pdf">significant body</a>of <a target="blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1280383/">scientific evidence</a> compiled over two decades links phthalate exposures to <a target="blank" href="http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-10-02-Boy-genitals_N.htm">abnormal reproductive development</a> in <a target="blank" href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/plastic-chemical-linked-to-changes-in-baby-boys-genitals/">baby boys</a>.</li></ul><ul><li>Entine criticized an NBC reporter for “shoddy journalism” for raising questions about the safety of phthalates (<a target="blank" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/04/18/national-resources-defense-council-nrdc-champions-shoddy-journalism-on-endocrine-active-chemicals/#2245c7d1698c">Forbes</a>).</li></ul><ul><li><a target="blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130311195234/http:/www.esgmediametrics.com/founder.htm">Entine’s communications firm</a>, ESG MediaMetrics, had the <a target="blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130310232320/http:/www.esgmediametrics.com/clients.htm">Vinyl Institute as a client</a>. However, Entine did not disclose that in his Forbes articles on phthalates.</li></ul><h2>Defending Fracking</h2><p>Entine defends hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”), the pumping of high-pressure chemical-laced water into the ground to crack shale and extract natural gas. As in his many other messaging campaigns, Entine blasts science and scientists who raise concerns, framing them as “activists,” while making sweeping and indefensible statements about “scrupulous” science conducted over many years that defend its safety.</p><p>For example, Entine claimed: “From a scientific perspective, no reason exists to even <em>suspect</em> unknown health or environmental issues will turn up” from fracking (<a target="blank" href="http://nypost.com/2012/06/15/fear-trumps-science/">New York Post</a>).</p><p>Entine also:</p><ul><li>Accused New York Times reporters of misleading children about the potential environmental dangers of fracking (<a target="blank" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/10/03/new-york-times-blunders-into-advocacy-role-on-the-fracking-debate-children-are-the-victims/">Forbes</a>).</li></ul><ul><li>Attacked two Cornell University scientists for their study suggesting that fracking operations leak methane (<a target="blank" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/09/18/university-of-texas-environmental-defense-fund-shale-gas-study-unmasks-politics-of-anti-fracking-activist-cornell-scientists/#2715e4857a0b23a3fb0e7880">Forbes</a>).</li></ul><ul><li>Attacked the Park Foundation, claiming that it has “almost single-handedly derailed shale-gas development in methane-rich New York State, and put its imprint on public opinion and policy decisions around the country.” (<a target="blank" href="http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/excellence_in_philanthropy/gas_heat">Philanthropy Roundtable</a>)</li></ul><h2>Defending BPA </h2><p>Entine writes in defense of the chemical bisphenol A (BPA), despite a large body of scientific evidence raising concerns about its endocrine disrupting potential and other health problems associated with it. <a target="blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/14/world/americas/14bpa.html">Canada declared the chemical to be toxic</a> in 2010, and the European Union <a target="blank" href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11843820">banned BPA in baby bottles</a> in 2011.</p><p>Entine:</p><ul><li>Attacked “a small but determined group of university researchers, activist NGOs and journalists” raising concerns about BPA (<a target="blank" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/10/31/bisphenol-a-bpa-found-not-harmful-yet-again-so-why-did-so-many-reporters-and-ngos-botch-coverage-yet-again/">Forbes</a>).</li></ul><ul><li>Tells women who can’t get pregnant not to blame it on plastics (<a target="blank" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/11/14/cant-get-pregnant-blame-it-on-plastics-well-not-if-science-matters/#2715e4857a0b5391ed5690df">Forbes</a>).</li></ul><ul><li>Challenged scientists linking BPA to heart disease (<a target="blank" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/12/06/in-reversal-bedrock-studies-linking-bisphenol-a-bpa-to-heart-disease-challenged/#2715e4857a0b42ab2277da18">Forbes</a>).</li></ul><h2>Defending Nuclear Power</h2><p>Entine:</p><ul><li>Criticized Harvard Professor Naomi Oreskes for pointing out the economic and environmental risks of nuclear power (<a target="blank" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_10952_b_9111688.html">Huffington Post</a>).</li></ul><ul><li>Claims that nuclear power plants are environmentally benign and that “Nothing as bad as Chernobyl is likely to occur in the West” (<a target="blank" href="http://www.jonentine.com/ethical_corporation/2003_07_nuclear_option.htm">Jon Entine</a>).</li></ul><ul><li>Argued that Germany is “taking a gamble” by transitioning away from nuclear power (<a target="blank" href="http://www.ethicalcorp.com/environment/power-generation-will-germany-win-its-post-nuclear-bet">Ethical Corporation</a>).</li></ul><div class="entry-meta-category-tag"><span class="cat-links"><span class="categories-icon glyphicon glyphicon-th-list" title="Posted in"><a href="http://usrtk.org/category/food-for-thought/" rel="category tag">Food For Thought</a>, <a href="http://usrtk.org/category/hall-of-shame/" rel="category tag">Hall of Shame</a>, <a href="http://usrtk.org/category/our-investigations/" rel="category tag">Our Investigations</a></span></span></div>
RTK:
<p>Jon Entine, a leading chemical industry PR operative who has <a href="http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/jon-entine-the-chemical-industrys-master-messenger/" target="blank">written dozens of articles defending corporate interests</a>, today attacked the <a target="blank" href="http://nypost.com/2016/03/01/how-the-columbia-journalism-school-smeared-exxon/">Columbia University’s Journalism School</a>, stating that it “smeared Exxon,” engaged in “advocacy journalism,” and hired “an activist” to run the Journalism School.</p><p>In response, consumer group U.S. Right to Know called on Entine to reveal in full detail his funding and ties to the industries <a target="blank" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/">he defends</a> in <a target="blank" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/#42c5f40e3ba1">his writing</a>.</p><p>“Who is funding Jon Entine and the Genetic Literacy Project?” asked Gary Ruskin, co-director of U.S. Right to Know. “Will Jon Entine disclose his funders? If not, what is he hiding?”</p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In his New York Post article today, Entine attacks <a target="blank" href="http://cironline.org/person/susanne-rust">award-winning</a> journalist Susanne Rust, who is an investigative editor at the Columbia Journalism School. Entine fails to mention that Rust and co-author Meg Kissinger exposed undisclosed industry ties of Entine’s group STATS in a <a target="blank" href="http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195297.html">2009 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article</a>, which reported that “STATS claims to be independent and nonpartisan. But a review of its financial reports shows it is a branch of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. That group was paid by the tobacco industry to monitor news stories about the dangers of tobacco.”</span></p><p>The Genetic Literacy Project <a target="blank" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130705224411/http:/www.geneticliteracyproject.org/mission/">previously declared that</a> it is “affiliated with the non-profit Statistical Assessment Service (STATS).” However, the Genetic Literacy Project <a target="blank" href="https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/mission/">has removed the reference to STATS</a> from its website. Entine’s New York Post byline previously referred to him as “<a target="blank" href="http://nypost.com/2012/03/31/lame-frack-attack-by-one-sloppy-hack/">a senior fellow at STATS</a>,” and Entine has referred to STATS as “<a target="blank" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/milwaukee-journal-sentine_b_853981.html">the organization that houses the Genetic Literacy Project</a>, where I work.”</p><p>Entine is executive director of the agrichemical industry front group <a target="blank" href="http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/">Genetic Literacy Project</a>, a group with unknown funding that regularly attacks activists, journalists and scientists who raise concerns about the health and environmental risks of genetically engineered foods and pesticides.</p><p>Entine’s New York Post article is his second recent foray into the arena of climate politics, defending oil companies and attacking climate change heroes. On February 1, Entine <a target="blank" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_10952_b_9111688.html">penned an attack on Harvard Professor Naomi Oreskes</a>, co-author of <a target="blank" href="http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/">Merchants of Doubt</a>: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.</p><p>Entine is an influential spokesman for the agrichemical industry. <a href="http://usrtk.org/gmo/a-short-report-on-journalists-mentioned-in-our-foias/" target="blank">FOIA requests by U.S. Right to Know</a> revealed Entine’s ties to New York Times reporter Amy Harmon, Washington Post food columnist <a target="blank" href="http://fair.org/home/buckraking-on-the-food-beat-when-is-it-a-conflict-of-interest/">Tamar</a> <a target="blank" href="http://fair.org/home/washington-posts-food-columnist-goes-to-bat-for-monsanto-again/">Haspel</a>, and pro-GMO journalist <a target="blank" href="http://www.polluterwatch.com/keith-kloor">Keith Kloor</a>.</p><p>In 2012, <a target="blank" href="http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/02/atrazine-syngengta-tyrone-hayes-jon-entine">Entine claimed he had “no idea” that Syngenta</a> was funding the organization (<a href="http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/" target="blank">American Council on Science and Health</a>) that published his book defending Syngenta’s herbicide, atrazine, according to reporting by Tom Philpott in Mother Jones.</p><p>Entine has <a href="http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/jon-entine-the-chemical-industrys-master-messenger/" target="blank">made a career of defending</a> the chemical, pesticide, fossil fuel and nuclear power industries. For more background on Jon Entine, read <a href="http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/jon-entine-the-chemical-industrys-master-messenger/" target="blank">U.S. Right to Know’s fact sheet</a> about him.</p><p><a href="http://usrtk.org/" target="blank">U.S. Right to Know</a> is a nonprofit organization that investigates the risks associated with the corporate food system, and the food industry’s practices and influence on public policy. We promote the free market principle of transparency – in the marketplace and in politics – as crucial to building a better, healthier food system.</p>
Consumer Group USRTK Calls on Jon Entine to Reveal Funding, Ties to Industries He Defends
Posted on March 2, 2016 by Gary Ruskin
News Release
For Immediate Release: Wednesday, March 2, 2016
For More Information Contact: Gary Ruskin (415) 944-7350
<b>Jon Entine, a leading chemical industry PR operative who has written dozens of articles defending corporate interests, today attacked the Columbia University’s Journalism School, stating that it “smeared Exxon,” engaged in “advocacy journalism,” and hired “an activist” to run the Journalism School.</b>
In response, consumer group U.S. Right to Know called on Entine to reveal in full detail his funding and ties to the industries he defends in his writing.
“Who is funding Jon Entine and the Genetic Literacy Project?” asked Gary Ruskin, co-director of U.S. Right to Know. “Will Jon Entine disclose his funders? If not, what is he hiding?”
<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In his New York Post article today, Entine attacks award-winning journalist Susanne Rust, who is an investigative editor at the Columbia Journalism School. Entine fails to mention that Rust and co-author Meg Kissinger exposed undisclosed industry ties of Entine’s group STATS in a 2009 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article, which reported that “STATS claims to be independent and nonpartisan. But a review of its financial reports shows it is a branch of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. That group was paid by the tobacco industry to monitor news stories about the dangers of tobacco.”</span>
<b>The Genetic Literacy Project previously declared that it is “affiliated with the non-profit Statistical Assessment Service (STATS).” However, the Genetic Literacy Project has removed the reference to STATS from its website.</b> Entine’s New York Post byline previously referred to him as “a senior fellow at STATS,” and Entine has referred to STATS as “the organization that houses the Genetic Literacy Project, where I work.”
Entine is executive director of the agrichemical industry front group Genetic Literacy Project, a group with unknown funding that regularly attacks activists, journalists and scientists who raise concerns about the health and environmental risks of genetically engineered foods and pesticides.
Entine’s New York Post article is his second recent foray into the arena of climate politics, defending oil companies and attacking climate change heroes. On February 1, Entine penned an attack on Harvard Professor Naomi Oreskes, co-author of Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.
Entine is an influential spokesman for the agrichemical industry<b>. FOIA requests by U.S. Right to Know revealed Entine’s ties to New York Times reporter Amy Harmon, Washington Post food columnist Tamar Haspel, and pro-GMO journalist Keith Kloor.</b>
<b>In 2012, Entine claimed he had “no idea” that Syngenta was funding the organization (American Council on Science and Health) that published his book defending Syngenta’s herbicide, atrazine, according to reporting by Tom Philpott in Mother Jones.</b>
Entine has made a career of defending the chemical, pesticide, fossil fuel and nuclear power industries. For more background on Jon Entine, read U.S. Right to Know’s fact sheet about him.
U.S. Right to Know is a nonprofit organization that investigates the risks associated with the corporate food system, and the food industry’s practices and influence on public policy. We promote the free market principle of transparency – in the marketplace and in politics – as crucial to building a better, healthier food system.
-30-
News Releases, Our Investigations
=
</div></div></div></div></span></div></div></article-header></div></div></div></span><div style=""><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">uses ucd in his huffpo sci col:
Genetic Literacy Project (GLP) has been accused of unethical journalistic practices after it published personal information about individuals opposed to <a href="http://ecowatch.com/news/food-agriculture/gmo-genetically-modified-organism/">genetically modified food</a> and changed the text of an article without the author’s permission.</font><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">GLP is an organization that heavily promotes genetic engineering of foods and attacks critics of the technology.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/unethical_750.jpg"><span class="image-container alignnone size-full wp-image-376957" style="max-width: 750px; max-height: 416px;">http://ecowatch.com/2016/02/05/genetic-literacy-project-crosses-ethical-line/
</span></a> </font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><strong>Posting Personal Information “Way Below” Ethical Line</strong></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">GLP has posted phone numbers, email and home addresses and other personal information about GMO critics.</span> According to David Murphy, executive director of <a href="http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/">Food Democracy Now</a>, GLP posted the phone number and email and home addresses of Don Huber, Emeritus Professor of Plant Pathology at Purdue University. Murphy contacted GLP asking them to remove the information, which they did, but shortly after GLP posted Murphy’s cell phone number and home address.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">“It’s one thing to have a public disagreement with highly trained scientists and activists on a controversial subject like GMO safety, but publishing personal information, home addresses and cell phone numbers, is a new low, even for <a href="http://ecowatch.com/?s=monsanto">Monsanto</a>’s smear merchant,” Murphy said. “Does Monsanto really want us publishing their CEO and top scientists like Robb Fraley’s home addresses? One wonders what they really have to hide if they’re willing to employ such slimeball tactics against their critics.”</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">GLP has also posted personal information about other GMO critics such as Mike Adams, publisher of Natural News; Vani Hari, a.k.a. the Food Babe; Henry Rowlands, publisher of Sustainable Pulse; Jeffrey Smith, executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology; and others. GLP even went so far as to post information about the value of Smith’s house.</span></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Carey Gillam, research director at U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) and a former veteran senior journalist with Reuters news service, said the practice of publishing personal identifying information such as phone numbers and addresses, was clearly an unethical practice.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">“We here at USRTK are intentionally not posting the emails we’ve obtained that include that kind of information because we think it is below the ethical bar. Way below,” Gillam said.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><strong>Crossed an Ethical Line</strong></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In November, pro-GMO journalist Keith Kloor accused GLP of altering his article, “The Story Behind the Story,” without his permission. The article, which was posted on his website, <a href="http://www.keithkloor.com/" target="blank">www.keithkloor.com</a>, focuses on science writer Brooke Borel’s Buzzfeed profile of University of Florida scientist Kevin Folta, who was hosting a podcast using a fake identity.</span></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">GLP reposted a segment of Kloor’s article on their website with a different headline, “Did Brooke Borel cross ethical line in criticizing Kevin Folta GMO parody site?”</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>Kloor objected to GLP’s posting the article without his permission and changing the headline and text</b>. In a blog, Kloor wrote: “It’s bad enough that a website built on the aggregated work of journalists takes something that belongs to you without asking for permission. It’s outrageous when the website truncates your text in ways that change the meaning of what you wrote, which is also what Genetic Literacy is guilty of doing with respect to my post. It’s infuriating and unforgivable when the person who stole your text puts his own flatly wrong headline above it … That’s crossing an ethical line.”</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">On a personal note, GLP has also changed the headlines of articles I’ve written that they’ve posted on their website. One headline they changed contained text that was meant to be derogatory to me.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Other authors also criticized GLP’s journalistic practices on Twitter. These included Borel, Helena Bottemiller Evich, a journalist with Politico, <b>Anastasia Bodnar,</b> policy director at the pro-GMO website <a href="http://www.biofortified.org/" target="blank">Biofortified.org</a> and Julie Kelly, a pro-GMO food writer, among others. The authors objected to GLP changing the headlines and text of articles, listing authors as GLP contributing writers when they aren’t and putting author bylines with paraphrased articles.</span></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">On Twitter, GLP Executive Director Jon Entine tried to assure the authors that GLP has been responsive “to every concern.” But Kloor responded sarcastically to that claim, asking Entine if he really wrote that “with a straight face.”</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><strong>YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE</strong></font></p><p class="title"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a class="black-to-green" href="http://ecowatch.com/2016/02/03/syngenta-merger/">Syngenta Megamerger Must Be Blocked</a></font></p><p class="title"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a class="black-to-green" href="http://ecowatch.com/2016/02/02/monsanto-shareholder-meeting/">These 3 Women Attend Monsanto’s Annual Shareholder Meeting Demanding Answers</a></font></p><p class="title"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a class="black-to-green" href="http://ecowatch.com/2016/02/02/monsantos-glyphosate-most-heavily-used/">Monsanto’s Glyphosate Most Heavily Used Weed Killer in History</a></font></p><p class="title"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a class="black-to-green" href="http://ecowatch.com/2016/02/01/cancer-prevention-moonshot/">Cancer Prevention Needs Attention Too: What if We Weren’t Exposed to 80,000 Toxic Chemicals Every Day?</a></font></p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div style=""><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div style=""><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>The Real Cost Of Mandatory GMO Labeling</b></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Posted: 12/23/2015 9:55 am EST Updated: 12/23/2015 9:59 am EST</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Co-authored by Bruce Chassy and <b>Jon Entine</b></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">This is Part II of a III part series. Part I: "Although Some GMO Sympathizers Embrace Mandatory Labeling, It's A Disaster In Waiting", is readable here.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Proponents of mandatory labeling often claim that it's a no brainer.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Jon Entine is founder and director of the independent grant-funded Genetic Literacy Project, and a senior fellow at the World Food Center Institute for Food and Agricultural Literacy at the University of California-Davis. He has been a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute since 2002.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Entine writes for academic and popular publications around the world and is a frequent television and radio commentator on business issues, including CNN, MSNBC, Al Jazeera, Fox Business, NPR, and BBC. He has written and edited seven books, including two on population genetics and two on agriculture.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Before launching his consulting and writing career, Entine spent 19 years as a network television news producer, winning more than twenty awards including Emmys for specials on the reform movements in China and the Soviet Union. He has produced news magazine programs at ABC News and CBS News, an entertainment special for NBC on the Miss America Pageant, and was Tom Brokaw’s long-time producer at NBC News, where he was also the executive-in-charge of documentaries.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">In 1989, Brokaw and Entine collaborated to write and produce Black Athletes: Fact and Fiction, named Best International Sports Film of 1989). It led to his best-selling book, Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We are Afraid to Talk About It (Public Affairs, 2000), which was reissued in 2007. </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Entine graduated from Trinity College (Hartford) in 1974 with a degree in philosophy and earned a National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowship in Journalism at the University of Michigan in 1981-1982. He is on the board of Sense About Science-US and the Jewish Community Relations Council in Cincinnati, where he resides.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Show full bio</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Entries by Jon Entine</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Chipotle's Sustainability Hypocrisy Could Eclipse Its Food Poisoning Fiasco</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">(0) Comments | Posted December 23, 2015<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>| 9:56 AM</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Add Pennsylvania to the list of Chipotle poisoning outbreak states.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Co-author: Andrew Porterfield</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The number of recent food poisoning cases linked to the fast-food restaurant soared this week to more than 500 with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announcing 6 additional cases in four more...</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Read Post</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The Real Cost Of Mandatory GMO Labeling</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">(29) Comments | Posted December 23, 2015<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>| 9:55 AM</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Co-authored by Bruce Chassy and Jon Entine</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">This is Part II of a III part series. Part I: "Although Some GMO Sympathizers Embrace Mandatory Labeling, It's A Disaster In Waiting", is readable here.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Proponents of mandatory labeling often claim that it's a no brainer.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Read Post</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Although Some GMO Sympathizers Embrace Mandatory Labeling, It's A Disaster In Waiting</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">(11) Comments | Posted December 22, 2015<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>| 4:19 PM</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Co-authored by Bruce Chassy and Jon Entine</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">GMO labeling issue will be coming to a head in 2016 on a number of fronts:</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Vermont's mandatory labeling bill, which is being appealed, is set to go into effect in July.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Congress is debating whether to supercede the Vermont law...</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Anti-GMO Groups Pledge Legal Action to Block FDA Approval of GMO Salmon</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">(3) Comments | Posted November 19, 2015<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>| 3:59 PM</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The first genetically engineered animal approved for consumption could be on your dinner table within two years if anti-GMO groups do not succeed in their attempts to block it.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">After languishing in regulatory purgatory for almost 20 years, an Atlantic salmon whose genes have been tweaked to grow twice as...</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Read Post</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">As Gary Hirshberg Emerges as Face of Anti-GMO Labeling Movement, Science Takes a Hit</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">(21) Comments | Posted July 30, 2015<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>| 5:01 PM</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Co-Author: Bruce Chassy, professor Emeritus of Food Safety and Nutritional Sciences from the Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">For years, the leadership faces of the anti-GMO community and the mandatory labeling movement--and make no mistake they are one and...</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Read Post</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Will Über-Athletes Undermine the Future of Sports?</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">(1) Comments | Posted July 15, 2015<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>| 4:43 PM</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Could athletic enhancement revolutionize--or undermine--competitive athletics?</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">It is sport's doomsday scenario: a new generation of bioengineered performance-enhancing agents that can transform also-rans into gold medalists. Imagine athletes injecting artificial genes right into their muscles--a virtually undetectable act that would give them the sinewy muscles of a cougar, or endurance like...</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Read Post</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The Story of the Birds and the Bees: The Neonic Catastrophe That Never Was</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">(12) Comments | Posted July 15, 2015<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>| 2:57 PM</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Like the fictional parents in the edgy comedy show South Park who blame Canada for all of their woes, environmentals often coalesce around an issue and then come up with a simple but sometimes simplistic narrative to anchor their advocacy.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">We've seen that with fracking, which is often blamed for...</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Read Post</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Anatomy Of A Smear Attack on GMO Supporting Scientists</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">(40) Comments | Posted April 1, 2015<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>| 1:59 PM</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">This post was co-written with Val Giddings</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Recently on the Huffington Post we came across a disturbing article - an attack by Jeffrey Smith on two respected university professors who apply a critical eye to the claims made by various advocates alleging dangers to human health linked to...</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Read Post</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Were Ancient Mystics Onto Something? Review Of Norman Doidge's "The Brain's Way of Healing"</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">(1) Comments | Posted April 1, 2015<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>| 12:49 PM</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Review by Judith Glaser and Jon Entine of Norman Doidge's The Brain's Way of Healing: Remarkable Discoveries and Recoveries from the Frontiers of Neuroplasticity</font></div></div><div style=""><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div style=""><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div style=""><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" style="">=</font></div></div>