Cornell

---

AN 10 26

Right-wingers rejuvenated by new cause — but it 'reeks of desperation'

-=-=

2024 RAPE CASE KETAMINE

AOC 2 EXPELL 5WROTE ESSAY

//

-=-=

AI OverviewGGL 626

Leonard Leo, a 1989 graduate of Cornell Law School, founded the school’s Federalist Society student chapter in the fall of 1986. While at Cornell, he laid the foundational roots for his later career as the co-chairman of the Federalist Society and a central figure in reshaping the conservative federal judiciary. [1, 2,, 4]

Throughout the conservative legal movement, organizations and initiatives closely linked to Leo have drawn financial support and institutional backing from foundations and advocacy networks associated with Charles Koch, such as the Charles Koch Foundation. [1,]

The Cornell Connection

• Chapter Founding: Leonard Leo started the ⁠Cornell University Federalist Society as a law student in the 1980s. He then went on to join the national organization in 1991, playing a major role in its explosive growth and its prominent position as a pipeline for conservative judicial nominations. [1, 2, 3, 4]

• Historical Origins: The national Federalist Society was originally founded in 1982 by law students at Yale and the University of Chicago as a forum to promote limited government and constitutional originalism. [1]

The Koch Connection

• Judiciary Funding: Networks and institutes associated with Charles Koch have heavily funded conservative legal groups and academic centers. These efforts have been instrumental in the rise of conservative legal networks and judicial pipeline programs. [1,, 3]

• Broader Influence: The Charles Koch Foundation is a prominent backer of free-market legal advocacy groups and has poured tens of millions of dollars into various university law programs to promote constitutional principles and reduce federal regulation. [1,]

For a deeper dive into how this network has reshaped the American legal system, you can explore the insights detailed by ⁠ProPublica and the ⁠Yale Daily News. [1, 2]

---

no lnx in orfig (monsanto tag]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/oct/10/monsantos-triumph-over-junk-science/

LAW_CRIME

MONSANTO

Illustration on resisting junk science by Linas Garsys/The Washington Times

COMMENTARY

By Tiger Joyce - - Monday, October 10, 2022

OPINION:[note no cya caveats]

One of the country’s most vilified companies prevailed in a recent jury trial against sympathetic witnesses in the “judicial hellhole®” that is the 21st Judicial District of Missouri. The story of how the truth won out over an elaborate scheme cooked up by junk scientists and the trial bar is worth exploring.

All 10 jurors in that St. Louis courtroom sided with Monsanto after a month of testimony that opened with plaintiffs brought to tears as they recalled the horror of learning of their diagnosis of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a severe form of cancer. Expert witnesses testified that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s signature Roundup weedkiller, was to blame for triggering the disease.

The trial bar successfully monetized the same argument in June 2020, to the tune of over $10 billion in settlements and verdicts. Yet more trials are underway, featuring a long list of victims of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma who were attracted by a $60 million advertising campaign holding out the hope of “substantial compensation.”

But the St. Louis case fell apart under cross-examination as their expert witnesses proved less than credible.

One of those expert witnesses, William Sawyer, advertised on his LinkedIn resume that he was a “board-certified toxicologist.” But when confronted on the stand, was forced to admit he was unable to obtain certification from the American Board of Toxicology after twice failing the required exam. Mr. Sawyer then turned to Robert O’Block, founder of the American College of Forensic Examiners, who supplied an appropriate diploma. However, Mr. O’Block was so willing to certify any paying customers thatsome reports say he once certified a cat.

Mr. Sawyer’s “career” as a full-time expert witness in glyphosate product liability trials has made him a millionaire. Billing $785 an hour, he’s collected $2.5 million from his testimony in four Roundup trials.

But at least Mr. Sawyer had academic training in toxicology. By contrast, fellow expert witness Charles Benbrook testified about glyphosate’s health effects despite having no training in medicine, chemistry or epidemiology. Mr. Benbrook, an economist, took a physics course in college — that’s the sum of his formal education in the sciences.

Mr. Benbrook runs the Heartland Health Research Alliance (HHRA), which produces studies linking cancer to herbicides such as Roundup, as well as competing herbicides like dicamba and 2,4-D. His studies are likely laying the groundwork for a future lawsuit against those products.

The trial bar values Mr. Benbrook’s endeavors, rewarding him $1.3 million for his testimony in addition to his $220,000 salary. The trial bar not only provides funding to Mr. Benbrook’s nonprofit, scientific research organization, but it also provides management direction. HHRA’s vice chair, Robin Greenwald, is a partner at Weitz & Luxenberg — one of the many firms suing Monsanto.

Trial lawyers funding and managing the organization producing “scientific” studies cited as evidence in a trial is a clear conflict of interest. But conflicts of interest aren’t new to Mr. Benbrook. A few years ago, he was caught coordinating his academic work with outside interests, forcing the New England Journal of Medicine to update a paper it published to reveal Mr. Benbrook’s previously undisclosed funding from litigators and the organic food industry. In April, Cornell University microbiologist Kathleen Hefferon pointed out that another scientific journal article co-authored by Mr. Benbrook violated clear ethical standards for peer review.

There’s a reason the trial bar turned to individuals with dubious credentials and a loose appreciation of ethical norms — the truth simply isn’t on their side.

Environmental safety agencies in the U.S., Canada, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the European Union have spent decades reviewing the health impacts of glyphosate. All agree that no credible evidence exists linking glyphosate to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

But one outlier organization says otherwise. An advisory group of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) deemed glyphosate a “probable human carcinogen.” In 2017, a senior scientist on that IARC panel testified critical evidence favorable to glyphosate had been withheld and would likely have changed IARC’s conclusion. The panel, however, was run by Christopher Portier, a scientist who received $160,000 from litigators and worked under the direct supervision of Ms. Greenwald.

It seems that most evidence against Monsanto was produced by individuals under the direct financial sway of litigators.

It’s a tribute to the resilience of our judicial system that a set of brave jurors stood for the truth in this instance, but it’s also a warning. Judges and state legislatures across the country must implement reforms to align expert evidence standards with those set forth by the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Supreme Court. This will ensure jurors hear only evidence reflecting the true consensus of the scientific community and not unproven conclusions of paid litigation “experts.” Ultimately, the onus falls on individual judges to prevent lawsuit abuse and junk science in their courtrooms.

Tiger Joyce is president of the American Tort Reform Association. note no coi disclosures]

---

---

https://usrtk.org/tag/pamela-ronald/

CORNELL ALLIANCE FOR SCIENCE IS A PR CAMPAIGN FOR THE AGRICHEMICAL INDUSTRY

Posted on September 23, 2020 by Stacy Malkan

The Cornell Alliance for Science (CAS)is a public relations campaign funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to train fellows around the world, especially in Africa, to promote and defend genetically engineered crops and agrichemicals in their home countries. The group based at Cornell uses its academic-sounding name and affiliation with an Ivy League Institution to try to gain credibility, but CAS has a long history of spreading inaccurate and misleading information.

The Gates Foundation has spent $22 million since 2014 funding this PR effort. This fact sheet documents inaccuracies, deceptive tactics and corporate partnerships of CAS and people affiliated with the group.  The examples described here provide evidence that CAS is using Cornell’s name, reputation and authority to advance the PR and political agenda of the world’s largest chemical and seed corporations.

INDUSTRY-ALIGNED MISSION AND MESSAGING

CAS launched in 2014 with a $5.6 million Gates Foundation grant and promises to “depolarize” the debate around GMOs. The group says its mission is to “promote access” to GMO crops and foods by training “science allies” around the world to educate their communities about the benefits of agricultural biotechnology.

Pesticide industry group promotes CAS

A key part of the CAS strategy is to recruit and train Global Leadership Fellows in communications and promotional tactics, focusing on regions where there is public opposition to the biotech industry, particularly African countries that have resisted GMO crops.

The CAS mission is strikingly similar to the Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI), a pesticide-industry funded public relations initiative that has partnered with CAS. The industry group worked to build alliances across the food chain and train third-parties, particularly academics and farmers, to persuade the public to accept GMOs.

CAS messaging aligns closely with pesticide industry PR: a myopic focus on  touting the possible future benefits of genetically engineered foods while downplaying, ignoring or denying risks and problems. Like industry PR efforts, CAS also focuses heavily on attacking and trying to discredit critics of agrichemical products, including scientists and journalists who raise health or environmental concerns.

WIDESPREAD CRITICISM

CAS and its writers have drawn criticism from academics, farmers, students, community groups and food sovereignty movements who say the group promotes inaccurate and misleading messaging and uses unethical tactics. See for example:

Experts in agroecology withdraw from Cornell Alliance for Science Agroecology Webinar, citing bias — Community Alliance for Global Justice (9.30.20)

Messengers of Gates’ Agenda: A Case Study of the Cornell Alliance for Science Global Leadership Fellows Program, by AGRA Watch, Community Alliance for Global Justice (8.7.20)

Students Should Continue to Question the Ethics of the Cornell Alliance for Science, by Fern Anuenue, Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action, Cornell Daily Sun (11.19.19)

Mark Lynas slammed for exploiting African farmers’ images to promote GMOs, African Centre for Biodiversity press release (2018)

Mark Lynas’ unauthorized use of farmer’s images in misleading and unethical tactics to promote GM crops in Tanzania, report by Eugenio Tisselli, PhD, and Angelika Hilbeck, PhD. (2018)

Seeds Of Neo-Colonialism: Why The GMO Promoters Get It So Wrong About Africa, statement by the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (2018)

6 ways this Ivy League university is acting like a PR firm for junk food, GMOs and pesticides, by Sophia Johnson, Salon (2017)

New York Farmers Call for Cornell to Evict the ‘Alliance for Science,’ Bioscience Resource Project press release (2016)

The GMO Debate: One Student’s Experience of Pro-GMO Propaganda at Cornell University, by Robert Schooler, Independent Science News (2016)

Gates-funded Cornell Group Misfires in Protest of Vandana Shiva, USRTK (2016)

Why is Cornell University hosting a GMO propaganda campaign? by Stacy Malkan, The Ecologist (2016)

Gates Foundation Backed Pro-GMO Cornell Alliance for Science On the Attack, Corporate Crime Reporter (2015)

The War on Genetically Modified Food Critics, by Timothy Wise, Food Tank (2015)

EXAMPLES OF MISLEADING MESSAGING

Experts in genetic engineering, biology, agroecology and food policy have documented many examples of inaccurate claims made by Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at Cornell who has written dozens of articles defending agrichemical products in the name of CAS; see for example his many articles promoted by the Genetic Literacy Project, a PR group that works with Monsanto. Lynas’ 2018 book argues for African countries to accept GMOs, and devotes a chapter to defending Monsanto.

Inaccurate claims about GMOs

Numerous scientists have criticized Lynas for making false statements, “unscientific, illogical and absurd” arguments, promoting dogma over data and research on GMOs, rehashing industry talking points, and making inaccurate claims about pesticides that “display a deep scientific ignorance, or an active effort to manufacture doubt.”

“The laundry list of what Mark Lynas got wrong about both GMOs and science is extensive, and has been refuted point by point by some of the world’s leading agroecologists and biologists,” wrote Eric Holt-Giménez, executive director of Food First, in April 2013 (Lynas joined Cornell as a visiting fellow later that year).

“disingenuous and untruthful”

Africa-based groups have critiqued Lynas at length. The Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa, a coalition of more than 40 food and farming groups across Africa, has described Lynas as a “fly-in pundit” whose “contempt for African people, custom and tradition is unmistakable.” Million Belay, director of AFSA, described Lynas as “a racist who is pushing a narrative that only industrial agriculture can save Africa.”

In a 2018 press release, the South Africa-based African Centre for Biodiversity described unethical tactics Lynas has used to promote the biotech lobby agenda in Tanzania. “There is an issue definitely about accountability and [need for] reigning the Cornell Alliance for Science in, because of the misinformation and the way that they are extremely disingenuous and untruthful,” Mariam Mayet, executive director of the African Centre for Biodiversity, said in a July 2020 webinar.

For detailed critiques of Lynas’ work, see articles at the end of this post and our Mark Lynas fact sheet.

Attacking agroecology

A recent example of inaccurate messaging is a widely panned article on the CAS website by Lynas claiming, “agro-ecology risks harming the poor.” Academics described the article as a “demagogic and non-scientific interpretation of a scientific paper,” “deeply unserious,” “pure ideology” and “an embarrassment for someone who wants to claim to be scientific,” a “really flawed analysis“ that makes “sweeping generalizations“ and “wild conclusions.” Some critics called for a retraction.

A 2019 article by CAS fellow Nassib Mugwanya provides another example of misleading content on the topic of agroecology. The article, “Why traditional agricultural practices can’t transform African agriculture,” reflects the typical messaging pattern in CAS materials: presenting GMO crops as the “pro-science” position while painting “alternative forms of agricultural development as ‘anti-science,’ groundless and harmful,” according to an analysis by the Seattle-based Community Alliance for Global Justice.

“Particularly notable in the article are strong usages of metaphors (e.g., agroecology likened to handcuffs), generalizations, omissions of information and a number of factual inaccuracies,” the group said.

Using Monsanto playbook to defend pesticides

Another example of misleading industry-aligned CAS messaging can be found in the group’s defense of glyphosate-based Roundup. The herbicides are a key component of GMO crops with 90% of corn and soy grown in the United States genetically engineered to tolerate Roundup. In 2015, after the World Health Organization’s cancer research panel said glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen, Monsanto organized allies to “orchestrate outcry” against the independent science panel to “protect the reputation” of Roundup, according to internal Monsanto documents.

Monsanto’s PR playbook: attacking cancer experts as ‘activists’

Mark Lynas used the CAS platform to amplify the Monsanto messaging, describing the cancer report as a “witch hunt” orchestrated by “anti-Monsanto activists” who “abused science” and committed “an obvious perversion of both science and natural justice” by reporting a cancer risk for glyphosate. Lynas used the same flawed arguments and industry sources as the American Council on Science and Health, a front group Monsanto paid to help spin the cancer report.

While claiming to be on the side of science, Lynas ignored ample evidence from Monsanto documents, widely reported in the press, that Monsanto interfered with scientific research, manipulated regulatory agencies and used other heavy-handed tactics to manipulate the scientific process in order to protect Roundup. In 2018, a jury found the that Monsanto “acted with malice, oppression or fraud” in covering up the cancer risk of Roundup.

LOBBYING FOR PESTICIDES AND GMOS

Although its main geographical focus is Africa, CAS also aids pesticide industry efforts to defend pesticides and discredit public health advocates in Hawaii. The Hawaiian Islands are an important testing ground for GMO crops and also an area that reports high exposures to pesticides and concerns about pesticide-related health problems, including birth defects, cancer and asthma. These problems led residents to organize a years-long fight to pass stronger regulations to reduce pesticide exposures and improve disclosure of the chemicals used on agricultural fields.

“launched vicious attacks”

As these efforts gained traction, CAS engaged in a “massive public relations disinformation campaign designed to silence community concerns” about the health risks of pesticides, according to Fern Anuenue Holland, a community organizer for Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action. In the Cornell Daily Sun, Holland described how “paid Cornell Alliance for Science fellows — under the guise of scientific expertise — launched vicious attacks. They used social media and wrote dozens of blog posts condemning impacted community members and other leaders who had the courage to speak up.”

Holland said she and other members of her organization were subjected to “character assassinations, misrepresentations and attacks on personal and professional credibility” by CAS affiliates. “I have personally witnessed families and lifelong friendships torn apart,” she wrote.

OPPOSING THE PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO KNOW

CAS Director Sarah Evanega, PhD, has said her group is independent of industry: “We do not write for industry, and we do not advocate or promote industry-owned products. As our website clearly and fully discloses, we receive no resources from industry.” However, dozens of emails obtained by U.S. Right to Know, now posted in the UCSF chemical industry documents library, show CAS and Evanega coordinating closely with the pesticide industry and its front groups on public relations initiatives. Examples include:

CAS played a key role in trying to discredit a public records investigation by U.S. Right to Know to obtain information about the pesticide industry’s partnerships with academics. According to Monsanto documents released in 2019, Monsanto was deeply worried about the USRTK investigation and planned to try to discredit it as an attack on “scientific freedom” — the same messaging CAS used in a in a public petition opposing the investigation.

CAS partnered on the petition with Biofortified, a group that lobbied against pesticide regulations in Hawaii at the behest of a pesticide industry trade group, while claiming to be independent.

The Monsanto PR plan to counter the USRTK investigation suggested having a Monsanto executive reach out to Rob Horsch at the Gates Foundation to ask for assistance with the effort.

CAS Director Sarah Evanega was a Trustee in 2017 of the International Food Information Council, a food and chemical industry-funded PR group that defends sugar, food additives, GMOs and pesticides.

More examples of CAS partnerships with industry groups are described at the bottom of this fact sheet.

ELEVATING FRONT GROUPS, UNRELIABLE MESSENGERS

In its efforts to promote GMOs as a “science-based” solution for agriculture, Cornell Alliance for Science has lent its platform to industry front groups and even a notorious climate science skeptic.

Trevor Butterworth and Sense About Science/STATS: CAS partners with Sense About Science/STATS to offer “statistical consultation for journalists” and gave a fellowship to the group’s director Trevor Butterworth, who built his career defending products important to the chemical, fracking, junk food and drug industries. Butterworth is founding director of Sense About Science USA, which he merged with his former platform, Statistical Assessment Service (STATS).

Journalists have described STATs and Butterworth as key players in chemical and pharmaceutical industry product defense campaigns (see Stat News, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The Intercept and The Atlantic).  Monsanto documents identify Sense About Science among the “industry partner” it counted on to defend Roundup against cancer concerns.

Climate science skeptic Owen Paterson: In 2015, CAS hosted Owen Paterson, a British Conservative Party politician and well-known climate science skeptic who slashed funding for global warming mitigation efforts during his stint as UK Environment Minister. Paterson used the Cornell stage to claim that environmental groups raising concerns about GMOs “allow millions to die.” Pesticide industry groups used similar messaging 50 years ago to try to discredit Rachel Carson for raising concerns about DDT.

Lynas and Sense About Science:Lynas of CAS is also affiliated with Sense About Scienceas a longtime advisory board member. In 2015, Lynas partnered with climate science skeptic Owen Paterson Paterson also Sense About Science Director Tracey Brown to launch what he called the “ecomodernism movement,” a corporate-aligned, anti-regulation strain of “environmentalism.”

INDUSTRY DEFENSE IN HAWAII

In 2016, CAS launched an affiliate group called the Hawaii Alliance for Science, which said its purpose was to “support evidence-based decision-making and agricultural innovation in the Islands.” Its messengers include:

Sarah Thompson, a former employee of Dow AgroSciences, coordinated the Hawaii Alliance for Science, which described itself as a “communications-based non-profit grassroots organization associated with the Cornell Alliance for Science.” (The website no longer appears active, but the group maintains a Facebook page.)

Social media posts from the Hawaii Alliance for Science and its coordinator Thompson have described critics of the agrichemical industry as arrogant and ignorant people, celebrated corn and soy mono-crops and defended neonicotinoid pesticides which many studies and scientists say are harming bees.

Joan Conrow, Managing Editor of CAS, writes articles on her personal website, her “Kauai Eclectic” blog and for the industry front group Genetic Literacy Project trying to discredit health professionals, community groups and politicians in Hawaii who advocate for stronger pesticide protections, and journalists who write about pesticide concerns. Conrow has accused environmental groups of tax evasion and compared a food safety group to the KKK.

Conrow has not always disclosed her Cornell affiliation. Hawaii’s Civil Beat newspaper criticized Conrow for her lack of transparency and cited her in 2016 as an example of why the paper was changing its commenting policies. Conrow “often argued the pro-GMO perspective without explicitly mentioning her occupation as a GMO sympathist,” wrote journalism professor Brett Oppegaard. “Conrow also has lost her journalistic independence (and credibility) to report fairly about GMO issues, because of the tone of her work on these issues.”

Joni Kamiya, a 2015 CAS Global Leadership Fellow argues against pesticide regulations on her website Hawaii Farmer’s Daughter, in the media and also for the industry front group Genetic Literacy Project. She is an “ambassador expert” for the agrichemical industry-funded marketing website GMO Answers. Like Conrow, Kamiya claims pesticide exposures in Hawaii aren’t a problem, and tries to discredit elected officials and “environmental extremists” who want to regulate pesticides.

STAFFERS, ADVISORS

CAS describes itself as “an initiative based at Cornell University, a non-profit institution.” The group does not disclose its budget, expenditures or staff salaries, and Cornell University does not disclose any information about CAS in its tax filings.

The website lists 20 staff members, including Director Sarah Evanega, PhD, and Managing Editor Joan Conrow (it does not list Mark Lynas or other fellows who may also receive compensation). Other notable staff members listed on the website include:

Gregory Jaffe, Associate Director of Legal Affairs of CAS, is also the Director of Biotechnology for Center for Science in the Public Interest where he draws a $143,000 salary plus benefits. CSPI opposes GMO labeling and Jaffe argues that “Americans should embrace” the current crop of genetically engineered foods.

Jayson Merkley, one of 10 members of the CAS training team, worked as a social media consultant for March Against Myths Against Modification, a project of the industry partner group Biofortified. For an example of misleading messaging involving Merkley, see 2016 post, Gates-funded Cornell group misfires in protest against Vandana Shiva.

The CAS advisory board includes academics who regularly assist the agrichemical industry with their PR efforts.

Pamela Ronald, a geneticist at UC Davis, has ties to chemical industry front groups and PR efforts that claim to be independent; she co-founded and served on the board of Biofortified, and set up the industry-tied Genetic Literacy Project and its founder Jon Entine with a platform at UC Davis. Ronald receives industry payments for speaking engagements; see $10,000 invoice to Bayer and $3,000 invoice to Monsanto.

Alison Van Eenennaam, a cooperative extension specialist at UC Davis, argues for deregulating genetically engineered animals she is developing. She is a key outside spokesperson who has worked with the agrichemical industry on various PR efforts to oppose regulations and transparency.

Cornell Professor Tony Shelton was one of several professors recruited by Monsanto to write pro-GMO papers that were published by the industry front group Genetic Literacy Project with no disclosure about Monsanto’s role. Shelton created a controversy when he asked his students to taste a pesticide, ostensibly as a stunt to promote GMOs.

GATES FOUNDATION CRITIQUES  ...

---

https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2018/06/european-studies-disprove-seralinis-gmo-maize-tumor-claims/

june 2018

Three European studies have disproved Gilles-Éric Séralini’s widely circulated claims that genetically modified maize (corn) induces tumors in rats.

Séralini, a professor at the University of Caen, published his sensational claims in Food and Chemical Toxicology in September 2012, and used them to call for long-term GMO feeding studies. Though the publication later retracted his study, anti-GMO groups have continued to circulate Séralini’s conclusions in a bid to stoke fears about the safety of GM foods.

Now three studies — GRACE and G-TwYST, funded by the European Union, and GMO90+ in France — have refuted Séralini’s main conclusions about the toxicity of herbicide-tolerant (Roundup Ready) maize.The research — conducted to address concerns raised by the Seralini study and provide the EU with guidance on the need for long-term studies — identified no potential risk from the product.

“European consumers must be informed of the results of these studies, [which] should reassure them on the quality for their health of genetically modified plants authorized for commercialization and on the European evaluation procedure, already the most rigorous in the world,” theFrench Association of Plant Biotechnology (AFBV) stated. “In addition, these new studies contradict Seralini’s proposal on the need to carry out long-term studies.”

The EU requires applicants to conduct a 90-day feeding assessment study on whole GMO food/feed before it can be placed on the market. The original assessment conducted for herbicide-tolerant maize identified no potential risk to humans.

“The G-TwYST (GM Plant Two Year Safety Testing) data from 90-day and long-term rodent feeding studies did not identify potential risks as well, and therefore support the results from the initial analyses,” according to the study’s conclusions and recommendation’s document, which was presented at an[UNNAMED?]  April 29, 2018 conference in Bratislava, Slovaki.

“It was concluded that there were no adverse effects related to the administration of the GM maize NK603 cultivated with or without Roundup,” the report stated.

The research included a combined chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity study, and “no toxicologically relevant effects related to the GM maize NK603 or the GM maize NK603 treated with Roundup were observed,” the report stated.

The GRACE (GMO Risk Assessment and Communication of Evidence) study conducted two 90-day feeding trials on rats using two different varieties of maize genetically modified to resist insect pests and tolerate glyphosate. “The results showed that the two GM maize varieties tested did not trigger any negative effects in the trial animals,” according to a report on the findings.

Additionally, data showed the GM maize did not affect the immune functions tested in both of the 90-day studies.

The GRACE study was published in Archives of Toxicology.

The GMO90+ study also assessed the Bt maize, using a 180-day feeding trial, and found no negative effects on the rodents.

In addition to addressing concerns raised by the Séralini study, the research was intended to provide the EU with guidance whether it’s necessary to conduct a two-year carcinogenicity feeding trial on rats with whole food/feed. “The necessity to perform a feeding trial with whole food/feed should be carefully evaluated given the high number of animals needed,” the G-TwYST report concluded.

Due to the controversial nature of the research, “substantial efforts were made to ensure stakeholder engagement, transparency and data accessibility,” the G-TwYST report stated. “These included stakeholder engagement in both project plans and results; making available draft research plans and preliminary research results (all data produced) for stakeholder scrutiny; a procedure for discussing, systematically considering and responding to all stakeholder comments as well as tracking how the comments were considered in the project; detailed documentation and transparency of all steps; open access publications, and an open access repository for raw data to be available following academic publication of the results. The approach received high praising from the majority of stakeholder participants.”

The report further noted: “These challenges and the considerable resources and efforts needed do not suggest this approach to be used on a routine basis. Yet, in case of highly contested scientific-technical issues and polarized views, the approach remains an interesting option to improve the quality and social robustness of research.”

The results from the experiments are now published on envision.com.

==

https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18310-eu-funded-rat-feeding-studies-do-not-refute-seralini-study

9/18

Pro-GMO lobby groups have been caught misrepresenting EU studies to claim they "disprove" the findings of harm in the Séralini study

Two pro-GMO lobby groups, the Alliance for Science and the AFBV (l’Association Française des Biotechnologies Végétales) in France, are frantically busy trying to spin the results of EU-funded rat feeding studies with GM crops. These groups claim that the EU studies' findings disprove the findings of the Séralini study that the GM maize NK603 and the glyphosate-based Roundup herbicide it is engineered to tolerate caused adverse health impacts in rats. The Alliance's headline was "European studies disprove Séralini’s GMO maize tumor claims", while the AFBV's was "Three studies disprove the results of the Séralini study on GM maize".

The AFBV declared that the EU studies "refute the main conclusions drawn from the Séralini studies [sic.] on the toxicity of the analyzed GMO maize: no potential risk has been identified. In addition, these new studies contradict Séralini's proposal on the need to carry out long-term studies."

The lobbying efforts concern the EU-funded feeding study programmes known as GRACE and G-TwYST, as well as the GMO90+ study arranged by the French government.

However, both lobby groups are making false statements and misleading claims, with the apparent aim of pulling the wool over the eyes of the public and regulators.

The studies

The three EU research programmes mentioned in the AFBV press release are known as G-TwYST, GRACE, and GMO90+. These inter-related programmes include the following rat feeding studies:

* G-TwYST – 90-day subchronic and 2-year combined chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity studies on Roundup-tolerant GM maize NK603

* GRACE – 90-day and 1-year studies on Bt maize MON810

* GMO90+ – 6-month (180 days) studies on MON810 and NK603 maize, looking at biomarkers of health effects.

The holes in the GMO lobby's arguments

Below is a rundown of the gaping holes in the pro-GMO lobbyists' arguments. To the shame of science, the lobbyists are being supported in their misrepresentations and falsehoods by the researchers themselves.

1. Lobbyists are passing judgement on a study before it's published

The AFBV and the Alliance for Science are passing judgement on the findings of the G-TwYST 2-year carcinogenicity experiment on GM NK603 maize before they have been published in a peer-reviewed journal. We don't yet know if this study uncovered any real or potential risks that are being downplayed by the lobbyists and potentially even the researchers themselves.

All that is publicly known about the results of G-TwYST 2-year experiment is what was said at a press conference. Without supplying any detail, the researchers claimed that the results of this experiment and the shorter 90-day one on the same GMO "did not identify potential risks" from NK603 maize.

The public would be well advised to take this claim with a pinch of salt until the full results are published. Several EU-funded studies on GMO health effects have been misrepresented and lied about in order to pretend that GMOs are safe. The truth about the findings of these studies is not to be found in press conferences or summaries but deep within the detail of the published study.

As an example, we need look no further than the 90-day GRACE study invoked by the AFBV as proof of GMO safety. In this instance, the researchers themselves appeared to be chiefly responsible for the deception. They claimed that no adverse effects were seen in the GM-fed animals. But closer examination of the published study revealed that the rats fed MON810 maize showed a decrease in total serum protein concentration and pancreas weight and an increase in blood glucose levels, even at the lowest dose.

Surprisingly, the authors did not discuss these changes in conjunction, in spite of the well-known role of the pancreas in the regulation of blood glucose levels. Instead the discussion remained silent on the statistically significant and dose-dependent decrease of the relative pancreas weight and dismissed the significant increase in blood glucose because it was seen only in males of Trial A, conducted with one line of MON810 maize. However, the pancreas weight was not only decreased in males of Trial A, but also in males of Trial B, conducted with a second line of GM maize, although this change was not statistically significant. In the experiment as a whole, no "safe" level for this GM maize was found. Nonetheless the researchers dismissed all these findings as not toxicologically relevant, without a valid scientific justification.

In another historical example, a previous series of EU-funded 90-day rat feeding studies on GM rice was claimed by an EU Commissioner and various pro-GMO lobbyists to provide evidence of GMO food safety. But a close reading of the published studies revealed that all found changes in the GM-fed animals, which in some cases were statistically significant. The changes, including differences in organ weights and immune responses, were almost certainly adverse. None of the studies was able to conclude on the safety of the GM food tested, let alone of GM foods in general.

It seems that the pro-GMO lobbyists were banking on the assumption that people wouldn't actually read the studies but would just believe the soundbites they supplied in press releases, summaries, and quotes to the press.

False claims of "no effect" in a GMO feeding study are easier to get away with if they are made before the study appears in print, as no one can check if the claims are true.

This brings us to a revealing double standard in operation regarding GMO safety studies. It appears that it is a cardinal scientific sin to go public with such claims prior to peer-reviewed publication – but only if the message is that the GMO causes harm. If the message is that the GMO is safe, there's no problem with jumping the gun and going public with claims before the study has been published.

For example, in the 1990s, Dr Arpad Pusztai was condemned by the pro-GMO scientific establishment for going public with his study findings of adverse health effects in rats fed GMO potatoes before the data were peer-reviewed and published. But the same standard does not seem to apply to the G-TwYST researchers. They have not been challenged for announcing their non-peer-reviewed conclusions that the GMOs they tested were safe. Instead they claimed the moral high ground by suggesting that their approach exemplified "stakeholder engagement" and "transparency".

Why would the G-TwYST researchers agree to go public before their results are properly published and universally available, if it were not to collude in the attempt to spin them to the advantage of the pro-GMO lobby? Such a motivation would explain why they interpreted their study findings at their press conference to challenge the EU requirement for animal feeding studies on GMOs to be carried out prior to commercialisation. This theme has been enthusiastically taken up by pro-GMO lobbyists: the AFBV claimed that the results of the EU studies contradict Séralini's demand for long-term studies on GMOs; and the Julius Kühn-Institut, a federal research institution of the German Ministry of Agriculture, recommendedthat in light of the study results, the EU animal feeding trial requirement should be discontinued.

Indeed, people involved in the GRACE and G-TwYST studies have conflicts of interest with the agricultural GMO industry. The GRACE project coordinator isJoachim Schiemann, who is also the director of the biotechnology department at the Julius Kühn-Institut. According to a Testbiotech report, Schiemann is at the centre of a network of industry agencies and international organisations with strong ties to the GMO industry, which systematically influence research and federal agencies.

2. Lobbyists are comparing apples to oranges

The EU-funded studies are very different from the Séralini study in design and methodology and are therefore not comparable.

The Séralini study was a two-year general toxicology study investigating the effects of Roundup-tolerant GM maize and its associated herbicide, Roundup, tested together and alone. The effects of Roundup were not tested in any of the EU studies (see also point 3 below).

The main finding of the Séralini experiment was that a very low dose of Roundup herbicide, lower than that allowed in drinking water in the EU, caused liver and kidney damage. The liver damage finding was later confirmed by separate experiments at a different institution, using "omics" molecular profiling techniques. The results showed that the rats dosed with this so-called "safe" level of Roundup suffered from non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

The two GRACE studies tested a different type of GM maize than Séralini – MON810 Bt insecticidal maize, as against NK603 Roundup-tolerant maize in the Séralini study. At 90 days and 1 year in duration, the GRACE studies wereshorterand thus not able to detect long-term effects of the type found in the Séralini study.

The 2-year G-TwYST study was as long as the Séralini study but had a narrowly focused and different aim: to assess carcinogenicity. However, unlike the Séralini study, it did not measure the chronological development of tumours into cancer. In addition, its study of general toxicology (with urine and regular blood tests) did not exceed one year, as compared with 2 years in the Séralini study.

As for the GMO90+ study, despite the implementation of "omics" techniques, it was limited to 6 months and addressed a different question.

Crucially, the GRACE studies and the G-TwYST studies used a different strain of rat than Séralini – the Wistar as opposed to the Sprague-Dawley. Their sensitivity is different, especially with regard to mammary tumours such as fibroadenomas, which were observed to increase in some treatment groups in the Séralini study.

The Sprague-Dawley strain is recommended by the US Toxicology Program for carcinogenicity studies and is a standard strain used in industry carcinogenicity studies performed for regulatory purposes. Monsanto used it in many of its carcinogenicity studies on glyphosate (the active ingredient of Roundup), as well as in its 90-day study on NK603 maize.

Therefore in their published study, the EU researchers should justify why they chose to use a potentially less sensitive strain.

Due to all these factors, the EU studies are in no way comparable to the Séralini study and thus are not able to "disprove" his findings.

3. The GMO maize tested in the EU studies is not representative of what's being grown and eaten

According to an analysis by Testbiotech, the maize cultivated in Canada and used for the G-TwYST carcinogenicity study is not representative of NK603 that has been grown under real farming conditions. The maize was only sprayed once with glyphosate with a dosage of 1.35 kg/hectare about one month after sowing. As the feed analysis shows, the residues from spraying with glyphosate were present at a very low level, below 0.5 mg/kg. Under real farming conditions, glyphosate-tolerant maize is often sprayed with Roundup more than once and with higher dosages per hectare. The application of Roundup can influence the level of residues and the composition of biologically active substances in the plants. Therefore this particular maize cultivation is not relevant for assessing the potential adverse health effects triggered by consumption of NK603 maize as it is usually grown.

4. Long-term effects of Roundup were not examined in the EU studies

The important shortcoming of the EU studies on GMOs is that the pesticide component of the Séralini study – measuring the long-term effects of Roundup herbicide – was not included in any of these studies. Séralini's experiment remains the only feeding study to have evaluated the effects of long-term consumption of low, realistic doses of a pesticide in its commercial formulation. These results remain in the scientific literature and have never been refuted.

Once again, in the wake of the EU studies, pro-GMO lobbyists are trying to divert the debate about the serious public health risks of a product that regularly contaminates our food supply and environment – and our bodies.

Séralini's attackers not credible sources

The AFBV's latest desperate attacks on the Séralini study are not surprising, given its record. The AFBV and its then president Marc Fellous previously resorted to personal attacks on Séralini after failing to argue the case against his study on a scientific basis. They were subsequently found guilty of libel in a lawsuit brought by Séraliniand his research group at the University of Caen together with CRIIGEN, the French research institute with which Séralini is affiliated.

Fellous presents himself as an independent scientist but in the court case it was revealed that he owns patents through a company based in Israel. This company in turn sells patents to corporations such as Aventis.

According to a press release from Séralini and the University of Caen, several members of the AFBV participated in the French commission for the evaluation of agricultural GMOs and thus would have approved GM crops as safe. So in effect, in attacking the Séralini study, they are defending their own previous opinions on GMOs.

As for the Alliance for Science, it purports to be a science-based organisation but presents only one side of the GMO debate – the pro-GMO side. It made an unsubstantiated claim to the BBC that an experimental GM plant, Bt brinjal (eggplant) had been a 90% success in Bangladesh. When challenged, it could not produce any evidence for the claim.

Stacy Malkan of the transparency group US Right to Know has accused the Alliance of abandoning scientific objectivity and instead operating as a "a global hub for the promotion of GM crops and food" and a "public relations arm for the agrichemical industry".

In contrast to the unscientific approach of these two lobby groups, GMWatch will await the full publication of the G-TwYST results before giving its opinion on what they say about the risks of the GM foods tested.

Report: Claire Robinson

---

==

hackademic

The fall of a prominent food and marketing researcher may be a cautionary tale for scientists who are tempted to manipulate data and chase headlines.

Brian Wansink, the head of the Food and Brand Lab at Cornell University, announced last week that he would retire from the university at the end of the academic year. Less than 48 hours earlier, JAMA, a journal published by the American Medical Association, had retracted six of Wansink's studies, after Cornell told the journal's editors that Wansink had not kept the original data and the university could not vouch for the validity of his studies.

In an internal review spurred by a wide range of allegations of research misconduct, a Cornell faculty committee reported a litany of faults with Wansink's work, including "misreporting of research data, problematic statistical techniques, failure to properly document and preserve research results, and inappropriate authorship." Cornell apologized for Wansink's "academic misconduct," removed him from his teaching and research posts, and obligated him to spend the remainder of his time there "cooperating with the university in its ongoing review of his prior research."

It was a stunning fall from grace for Wansink, who had become famous for producing pithy, palatable studies that connected people's eating habits with cues from their environment. Among his many well-known findings: People eat more when they're served in large bowls, and when they're watching an action movie, and when they sit close to the buffet at an all-you-can-eat restaurant. His work was cited in national news outlets, including NPR, and he had a hand in developing the new U.S. dietary guidelines in 2010.

The Salt

Why A Journalist Scammed The Media Into Spreading Bad Chocolate Science

Wansink's perch at the top of his field began to wobble in early 2017. That's when Tim van der Zee, a doctoral student in educational psychology at Leiden University in the Netherlands, went public with the results of an investigation that began when he stumbled across a blog post Wansink had written on his personal website the year prior.

The post, since removed from Wansink's site but accessible today as a cached version, was aimed at aspiring academics. The most promising postdoctoral students, Wansink wrote, "unhesitatingly say 'Yes'" to research projects, "even if they are not exactly sure how they'll do it."

But van der Zee was more interested in Wansink's description of the work he was assigning to his postdocs. Those descriptions, van der Zee says, appeared to contain a "strange admission" of "highly questionable research practices."...

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/09/26/651849441/cornell-food-researchers-downfall-raises-larger-questions-for-science

==

historical irony: Bernay:

Born 1891 in Vienna to Jewish parents, Bernays was a double nephew of psychoanalysis pioneer Sigmund Freud. His mother was Sigmund's sister Anna and his father was Ely Bernays, brother of Freud's wife Martha Bernays. In 1892 his family moved to New York City, where he attended DeWitt Clinton High School.^[4] In 1912 he graduated from Cornell University with a degree in agriculture, but chose journalism as his first career. He married Doris E. Fleischman in 1922.^[5]^

==

food evolution doc

https://usrtk.org/tag/cornell-alliance-for-science/

---

http://www.alternet.org/food/6-ways-cornell-university-acts-pr-firm-junk-food-gmos-and-pesticides

If a scientist has a relationship with a large company, how can the public fully trust the statements they are making about that company’s products? When these relationships aren’t made public, things get even murkier.

But that's exactly what's happening in the U.S. food industry, where large corporations enlist university academics to provide their imprimatur on a host of consumer products—some of which may actually be unhealthy and even unsafe.

Like so much else, it comes down to money: Big agriculture and food companies like Monsanto and Coca-Cola are able to procure influence among academics by providing research funding—and sometimes even research topics. The danger is that the resulting "research" could amount to little more than corporate-funded marketing that, to the unwitting public, has the stamp of approval from a prestigious university.

In particular, relationships between food companies and academia has caused professors to take sides on controversial issues, swaying the “science” on issues that matter to Big Food and Ag—like junk food, GMOs and pesticides—issues that also have the potential to have a profound, and possibly negative impact on human health.

Laura Schmidt, professor of health policy at the school of medicine at the University of California San Francisco, said monetary relationships between academics and food corporations, like sugary beverage and junk food companies, are destructive to both the credibility of science and public health.

“I would go as far as to say that it is immoral,” said Schmidt, whose research focuses on addiction, poverty, obesity-related metabolic disease. “We’re talking people getting sick. And the idea that scientists are allowing themselves to be purchased by corporations … is a big problem.”

One repeat offender is Cornell University, several of whose professors have been lured into the propaganda machines of Big Ag and Big Food. One professor, Brian Wansink, the director of the university’s Food and Brand Lab, is facing allegations of self-plagiarism and possible data misrepresentation in multiple papers and studies. The Journal of Sensory Studies even retracted one of Wansink’s studies because it contained a “major overlap” with another study he published.

Cornell is a prestigious Ivy League school. So when their professors support junk food, pesticides and GMOs, it can have a damaging and potentially lasting impact worldwide.

Here are six ways Cornell has become a PR agency for Big Food and Big Ag.

1. Cornell professor Tony Shelton followed a Monsanto executive’s suggestion to write a pro-GMO paper.

Anthony Shelton, professor in the Department of Entomology at Cornell, co-wrote a paper published on a pro-GMO site, the Genetic Literacy Project, about the sustainability benefits of herbicide and insect tolerant plants as a part of a special report titled “Beyond the Science.”

It was later revealed through emails obtained through FOIA requests by U.S. Right To Know, a nonprofit that advocates for transparency in the food system, that Eric Sachs, a Monsanto Outreach Lead, had contacted eight academics, including Shelton, to author the papers in this pro-GMO series. Though the professors weren’t paid to write these papers, the email provided the researchers specific topics with suggested backgrounds to keep in mind while authoring their work.

The email stated that the paper topics were chosen based upon their impact on consumer acceptance and public policy—and that the goal was to increase the public’s understanding of the benefits of GMO crops.

However, Michael Hansen, senior staff scientist at the Consumers Union, a consumer advocacy nonprofit, said that because the U.S. does not require safety assessments of foods before they go on the market, there’s simply no way to say all GMOs are safe. He said that companies can participate in a voluntary safety consultation with the FDA, but no conclusions are made.In the paper, Shelton and his co-author David Shaw, the vice president for Research and Economic Development at Mississippi State University, write that "GM crop technology provides farmers with advanced integrated pest management (IPM) tools to ensure a productive and safe crop."

“The FDA will often say we have no questions, but we remind the company that it is up to them to determine safety,” he said. “That is not a conclusion of the FDA of saying these things are safe.”

2. The Cornell Alliance for Science is a PR front for the agrichemical industry.

According to its website, the Cornell Alliance for Science is a nonprofit that aims to restore science within decision making. The nonprofit was launched in 2014 with the intention to “depolarize the GMO debate,” as stated by its director Sarah Evanega Davidson. Davidson failed to respond to comment for this article.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which funds CAS, is pro-GMO and Gates himself has even bought millions of dollars worth of shares in Monsanto stock.

Despite this, Davidson wrote in a blog post that CAS has no relationship with the industry. The Alliance often paints a one-sided story of GMOs, speaking only about positive aspects, ignoring issues such as GMOs have increased herbicide use, especially of glyphosate, an herbicide declared “probably carcinogenic” by the World Health Organization. (Other scientists are debating this declaration.)

In response to U.S. Right to Know’s obtaining of emails between academics and Monsanto through FOIA requests, the CAS called on the public to “stand with science” to protect scientific freedom. The CAS asked the public to sign a letterthat referred to the request for these emails as “anti-science bullying.”

The CAS features a variety of pro-GMO speakers including many journalists, like Tamar Haspel, a columnist for The Washington Post who often writes pro-gmo columns, and who admitted being paid by the industry she reports on. This activity is called "buckraking,” which TruthWiki defines as “the practice of accepting large sums of money for speaking to special interest or business groups, especially when viewed as compromising the objectivity of journalists.”

CAS also offers fellowships for journalists to promote what they euphemistically call “contextualized reporting” on biotechnology and other food security issues.

Paul Thacker, an environmental journalist who reports on GMO-related issues, said he does not understand why any journalist would want to associate with the Alliance.

“What I find most troubling about the Alliance for Science is that they're pushing to rebrand FOIA as some sort of bullying technique,” Thacker said. “Why any journalist would want to speak in front of such an organization is beyond my comprehension.”

Jonathan Latham, co-founder of the Bioscience Resource Project, a group that studies the safety of genetic engineering, said Cornell is allowing the industry to advertise in a space that appears to be independent, but in reality is not.

“So, what Cornell University is basically doing is hosting an institution that can do PR for the biotech industry,” Latham said.

3. Cornell professor David Just testified that he worries GMO labels will falsely alarm and mislead consumers.

There is no scientific consensus on GMO safety, according to a report signed by over 300 independent researchers written to challenge reports of this said consensus. While the report does not say that GMOs have been proven to be unsafe, it was made clear that the science has not yet been settled.

Yet in 2015, at a senate hearing on whether or not states can mandate labeling on GMO products, applied economics professor David R. Just said the GMO labels could. "mislead consumers into being afraid of something we know to be safe."

Just said in a later conversation that he’s not opposed to all GMO labeling, but thinks it could be misleading especially because not all production processes are required to be listed. Just also said he believes it’s not important whether or not a food contains a GMO, but why the GMO is present.

Rob Lustig, professor of pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology at the University of California at San Francisco, said that because the science on GMOs is still unsettled, it would be important to for scientists to know what products contained GMOs if problems arise in the future.

“I’m for labeling because labeling will be able to provide us the information to populate the database if it turns out there is a problem, but that’s not what the food industry wants clearly because they don’t want to find a problem.”

4. Cornell professors Brian Wansink and David Just also oppose bans on large-size sodas.

Wansink, the professor facing allegations of academic misconduct, and Just, have also spoken against bans on larger sized sodas.

The two professors wrote an article in response to a proposed ban on sodas larger than 16 ounces in New York City. The article stated bans on large sized sodas are ineffective because consumers who want larger sized sodas will always find a way to get them. The article also suggests that bans like these would disproportionately affect the less affluent.

However, alternative research suggests that large-sized soda bans would actually be effective in targeting people who are overweight and not the poor. A study headed by Columbia health policy and management professor Y. Claire Yang tracked data from over 19,000 people across the U.S. and found that the soda ban would affect the same percentage of people across all income levels.

In an interview, Just said he felt at the time people were overstating the possible impact of a soda ban, and said while it likely could reduce obesity for small, specific numbers of people, it would not have a dramatic impact of reducing obesity. He said because of this, especially in areas where the ban faced pushback, it would be harder to implement a more effective bill in the future.

In 2013, the soda ban was rejected by New York State’s highest court.

5. Cornell received $4.8 million to support a GMO eggplant.

In 2016, the U.S. Agency for International Development, a government agency aimed to end global poverty, gave Cornell University almost a $5 million grant to incorporate BT Brinjal, a GMO eggplant, in Bangladesh. This implementation project is run by Shelton.

This grant was aimed to improve food security in Bangladesh by reducing yield losses, and therefore improve livelihoods by providing a stable income for farmers.

However, the grant was given to Cornell despite reports by Bangladeshi development policy research group UBINIG of major BT Brinjal crop failures in years prior. The press release Cornell University put out about the grant stated that the crop had actually increased yields, and reduced pesticides and pest infestation.

UBINIG reported officials from the Bangladeshi Department of Agriculture primarily took care of the crops during their short lives. They also reportedheavy use of pesticides, even banned pesticides, on the failing crop, despite claims that the crops would require none at all. Seventy-four percent of the farmers that grew BT Brinjal in this trial said they would never grow it again. UBINIG has also reported recent failures with the crop.

Hansen, who has been to Bangladesh and worked with UBINIG, said Cornell officials are spreading propaganda about the success of BT Brinjal.

6. Three Cornell academics write for the agrichemical industry PR site GMO Answers.

Peter Davies, professor emeritus at Cornell’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences; Xiaohua Yang, postdoctoral associate in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences; and Shelton all write for GMO Answers. On the site, users ask questions about GMOs and hundreds of experts, including academics and officials for corporate agriculture companies, answer.

The website is funded by the Council for Biotechnology Information, whose members include Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont, Bayer, Dow AgroSciences and BASF.

The website is run by U.S. Public Relations company Ketchum, the same company that represented the Honduran government amid a potential human rights crisis and which also represented Russia. There are also allegations that Ketchum committed espionage acts against non-profits like Greenpeace.

The website provides a one-sided view of GMOs, including saying GMOs caused a decrease in pesticides, when alternative studies say pesticide use has increased.

Davies said he has never been paid to answer questions on the website, and that his answers are put directly on the website unedited.

“So from that point of view, they do not influence what I say, and they do not censor what I say,” Davies said. “I write what I know and understand from the science.”

Yang declined to comment on the record for this article.

It is not made clear who owns or funds the website aside from its About Page, which discloses the seven agribusinesses that provide funding.

Schmidt said this lack of transparency is a problem.

“Think of the average person. Do they even know who Monsanto is and why they would care about GMOs,” Schmidt said. “Is it fair for members of the general public to be accessing information, not realizing that behind that information is a vested interest?”

Assault on academic freedom

T. Colin Campbell, professor emeritus at Cornell who formerly taught a course on plant-based eating at the university (which was abruptly canceled without his knowledge), said he is disappointed with the industry taking over academic interests at the college.

"Cornell is my home. I love the university. But in reality, what they've done is abhorrent, it's disgusting, and I'd like to label this an assault on academic freedom. That's really what it comes to."

Sophia Johnson is a writer based in Boston

---

entine glp:

https://joanconrow.net/about/

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 Cornell Alliance for Science.

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.

--

The Cornell Alliance for Science is an initiative based at Cornell University, a non-profit institution.

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:

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation $5.6 M

The Winkler Family Foundation $10,000

American Endowment Foundation $5,000

Ian Gazard $5,000

Mr. John Hilliard $3,000

The Triad Foundation $2,500

John Hilliard $2,000

John Crary $1,000

Peter Davies $1000

Surveillant LLC / John Friedrich Behringer $1,000

Professor Larry P. Walker $1,000

==

---

bigger in blogosphere fake news tahn harvard and stanford

https://medium.com/@d1gi/the-election2016-micro-propaganda-machine-383449cc1fba

==

“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. Anthony Shelton, an entomologist and professor at Cornell,said he stands by and takes full ownership of what he wrote. “I strongly support openness and transparency,” he said in an e-mail.  bloomberg

==

http://usrtk.org/gmo/gates-funded-cornell-group-protests-dr-vandana-shiva/

3/16

USRTK:

http://usrtk.org/gmo/what-bill-gates-isnt-saying-about-gmos/

Why is Cornell University hosting a GMO propaganda campaign? And why is Gates Foundation funding it?

or more on the Cornell Alliance for Science and the Gates Foundation: Why is Cornell University hosting a GMO propaganda campaign?What Bill Gates isn’t saying about GMOs

Protesting seems like an odd way to depolarize a debate. Yet the Cornell Alliance for Science, a group funded by the Gates Foundation to “depolarize the charged debate” about GMOs, participated in and promoted a recent protest at Willamette University to confront Indian scholar, author and environmentalist Vandana Shiva.

The self-described “science nerd” protesters from MAMyths, Vegan GMO and PDX Skeptics in the Pub – some of whom had practiced GMO communication strategies at a recent Alliance for Science course on Strategic Planning and Effective Grassroots Organizing in Mexico – were there to counter what they claimed was “misinformation” and “doublespeak” by Dr. Shiva and other critics of genetically engineered foods, according to a Jayson Merkley, a recent Cornell Alliance for Science fellow who co-founded Vegan GMO.

“We aimed to keep our message friendly, approachable, and positive,” Merkley wrote, “our slogans reflected a theme quite different from the fear-mongering we often see: ‘Don’t start a fight. Start a conversation.’”

The group misfired, however, by engaging in the same type of misinformation and doublespeak of which they accused Dr. Shiva.

For example, when a woman voiced concerns to Merkley about water quality and chemical exposures related to genetically engineered foods, he “smiled and nodded” and took the opportunity to explain that “GE innovations aren’t the problem” but rather part of the solution.

When Dr. Shiva walked past the protesters, her eyes remained “steadfast on the ground,” Merkley wrote, “that way, she could avoid locking eyes with anyone who might ask about the hundreds of thousands of children dying from preventable micronutrient deficiencies in India.”

What Merkley and the protesters left out: the relevant facts relating to these topics.

Despite a decade of trials, there is no GMO solution for nutrient deficiencies available to help dying children. Instead, most GMOs in the fields and on the way to market are herbicide resistant crops that are raising serious concerns about water quality and pesticide exposures in Hawaii, Argentina and Iowa.

These problems on the ground in three areas leading the world in GMO crop production are obviously relevant to science-based discussions about GMOs.

Unfortunately, the Cornell Alliance for Science relies on propaganda, not science, as a guide for its pro-GMO communication efforts. As I documented in The Ecologist, the Cornell group makes inaccurate statements about science and hypes up future possible benefits of genetic engineering, while ignoring documented problems and marginalizing critics – an approach sure to polarize no matter how friendly the protest slogans.

[This blog was updated to clarify that Cornell Alliance for Science didn’t organize the Vandana Shiva protest, though they promoted the protest and people trained by the Alliance participated in it.

Stacy Malkan is co-founder and co-director of the consumer group US Right to Know. She is author of the book, ‘Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry,’ (New Society Publishing, 2007) and also co-founded the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.]

Food For Thought, GMOs  Cornell Alliance for Science, Gates Foundation, GMO protest, Vandana Shiva

==

But perhaps the biggest of all revelations within these emails is the connivance of senior university administrators, especially at Cornell University. The NY Times article focuses on the misdeeds of Mississippi State University Vice President David Shaw. But, looped into one email string, along with the PR firm Ketchum and Jon Entine are various Cornell email addresses and names. These are ignored by Lipton, but the email addresses belong to very senior members of the Cornell administration. They include Ronnie Coffman (Director of Cornell’s College of Agriculture and Life Science) and Sarah Evanega Davidson (now director of the Gates-funded Cornell Alliance for Science).

The Alliance for Science is a PR project and international training center for academics and others who want to work with the biotech industry to promote GMOs. It is funded ($5.6 million) by the Gates Foundation. Its upcoming program of speakers at Cornell for September include Tamar Haspel (Washington Post reporter), Amy Harmon (New York Times reporter) and Prof. Dan Kahan (Yale Law School). These speakers are the exact ones mentioned in a proposal worked out between Kevin Folta and Monsanto in a series of email exchanges intended to enhance biotech outreach. These email exchanges also propose setting up “Ask Me Anything” events to be held at universities around the country with Kevin Folta as of the panelists.

On Sept 10th the Cornell Alliance for Science is hosting an event in downtown Ithaca (home town of Cornell). It is called “Ask Me Anything About GMOs” and Kevin Folta is a panelist. Somehow or other Davidson’s Cornell Alliance for Science read Monsanto’s lips, perfectly.

==

Cornell gets $5.6 million to "depolarize" GMO debate

Published: 30 August 2014

GMO industry and its supporters are behind the campaign

Cornell University is embarking on a campaign to “depolarize the charged debate” around GMO – supported by a $5.6 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and with the GMO industry as its partners.

Pro-GM campaigner Mark Lynas is a fellow of Cornell.

http://www.marklynas.org/about/

Cornell has given him a platform to promote his pro-GMO views.

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/bills-test/14961

1. Is Cornell the go-to university for industry science?

2. New Cornell Alliance for Science gets $5.6 million grant

1. Is Cornell the go-to university for industry science?

By Tim Schwab

Food & Water Watch, 28 Aug 2014

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/blogs/is-cornell-the-go-to-university-for-industry-science/

Cornell University announced last week that it is embarking on a multi-million dollar campaign to “depolarize the charged debate” around GMOs. Can you guess who’s behind this effort? The biotech industry and its supporters.

The website for this project, the Cornell Alliance for Science, is pretty sparse, but it does note its pro-GMO partners, including the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), which is funded by Monsanto, CropLife, and Bayer.

This use of surrogates is par for the course with the biotech industry. Sometimes called the soft lobby, corporations routinely engage neutral-appearing scientists and impartial-sounding front groups to help advance their political and economic agendas. Food & Water Watch detailed the enormous amount of industry research coming out of our public land-grant universities in our 2012 report, Public Research, Private Gain.

Cornell is no stranger to this science-for-sale approach. Earlier this year, Cornell economist William Lesser took money from a biotech front group to produce a questionable analysis showing that GMO labeling will be very costly for consumers. While he noted that the study reflected his personal opinions, not those of Cornell, GMO supporters began publicizing the findings of “the Cornell study” in their campaign to defeat state-labeling initiatives around the country. Independent studies, meanwhile, show that GMO labeling will not increase costs significantly — and perhaps not at all.

Cornell’s newest foray into the GMO debate, the “Alliance for Science,” will add to the confusion and distortion in the public discourse around GMOs. Rather than trying to promote a civil, honest, impartial dialogue about GMOs — as you would expect from a university like Cornell — the school has chosen to partner with some of the biotechnology industry’s most prominent supporters and defenders.

Incredibly, the Cornell Alliance strenuously asserts its impartiality, calling it a “radical collaboration” of proponents and opponents of GMOs dedicated to “promot[ing] equitable access to safe, nutritious, and sustainably produced food.” Though that quote sounds an awful lot like Food & Water Watch’s mission statement, it isn’t, and we won’t be joining the alliance’s “radical collaboration.”

The role of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in this effort should also be mentioned. Gates has awarded $5.6 million toward the Cornell Alliance, a mere drop in the ocean of the group’s pro-GMO “philanthropy”. The Foundation has tapped big names from the biotechnology industry to run its multi-billion-dollar agricultural development program, and, as Food & Water Watch showed in our report Biotech Ambassadors, Gates partners with biotech companies to develop GMOs for Africa — that African countries clearly do not want or need. The Gates Foundation has also invested tens of millions of dollars of its money into corporate agribusiness and biotech companies like Monsanto and Cargill.

At a time when the United States is clearly ready for a frank conversation about GMOs, evident in the state-level labeling ballot initiatives underway across the country, it is unfortunate that our most prominent philanthropists and universities would partner with industry to distort the public discourse. There is a vibrant scientific and public debate about the safety and necessity of GMOs in our food system that deserves a bigger public platform — sort of like what Gates and Cornell are trying to do, but without the obvious bias.

2. New Cornell Alliance for Science gets $5.6 million grant

By Stacey Shackford

Cornell Chronicle, 21 Aug 2014

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2014/08/new-cornell-alliance-science-gets-56-million-grant

A new international effort led by Cornell will seek to add a stronger voice for science and depolarize the charged debate around agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Supported by a $5.6 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Cornell Alliance for Science will help inform decision-makers and consumers through an online information portal and training programs to help researchers and stakeholders effectively communicate the potential impacts of agricultural technology and how such technology works.

The project will involve developing multimedia resources, including videos of farmers from around the world documenting their struggles to deal with pests, diseases, crop failure and the limited resources available in the face of poverty and climate change.

“Proponents and opponents alike speculate whether biotech crops are of benefit to farmers, but rarely are those farmers engaged in the biotech discourse or their voices heard,” said Sarah Evanega, senior associate director of International Programs in Cornell’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS), who will lead the project.

“Our goal is to depolarize the GMO debate and engage with potential partners who may share common values around poverty reduction and sustainable agriculture, but may not be well informed about the potential biotechnology has for solving major agricultural challenges,” Evanega said. “For instance, pro-biotech activists share a lot of the same anti-pesticide, low-input, sustainable-agriculture vision as the organic movement.”

Evanega and her team hope to help engage such potential partners and foster more constructive policies about biotechnology as a useful tool to address major agricultural challenges.

The grant will allow the Cornell Alliance for Science to host annual conferences, short courses and semester-long CALS certificate programs in biotechnology leadership, among other activities.

Evanega said the initial concept was informed by a February 2014 gathering at Cornell of 34 representatives from public sector and not-for-profit organizations in 12 countries that discussed a new vision for biotechnology communications.

“Like elsewhere in the world, African scientists still find it challenging to effectively inform the public about their work and its relevance to society,” said Barbara M. Zawedde, coordinator of the Uganda Biosciences Information Center at the National Agricultural Research Organization. “Our effective communication will enable African farmers and citizens to exercise their sovereign right of informed decisions on whether to adopt certain crops and technologies depending on their needs and priorities.”

In part because of its land-grant heritage, CALS regularly hosts forums and media events about various agricultural technologies and the role they could play in providing sustainable solutions to major global challenges.

“Biotechnology is a potential game-changer for farmers in less developed countries and an important tool in the toolbox for addressing global challenges, such as persistent poverty, a changing and erratic climate, and the challenge of feeding 9 billion people by 2050,” said Kathryn J. Boor, the Ronald P. Lynch Dean of CALS. “Improving agricultural biotechnology communications is a challenge that must be met if innovations developed in public sector institutions like Cornell are ever to reach farmers in their fields.”

Stacey Shackford is a writer for the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.

==