RTK

seems an orphan; originally deals only with chemicals?
see also  USRTK  org, ~ gmo, ACTUALLY USRTK

<div>see precautionary princ

</div><div>fenton dezenhall</div><div>
</div>

<div>could be expanded to food labelling?</div>

<div>

=<div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/08/documents-reveal-monsanto-surveilled-journalists-activists-even-musician-neil-young/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">https://www.alternet.org/2019/08/documents-reveal-monsanto-surveilled-journalists-activists-even-musician-neil-young/</a></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">cf DN</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Explosive new documents reveal the U.S. agribusiness giant Monsanto ran a “fusion center” to surveil and discredit journalists and activists who criticized or wrote damning reports about Monsanto, as well as legendary singer-songwriter Neil Young, who released an album in 2015 called “The Monsanto Years.” Monsanto monitored Young’s Twitter activity and even analyzed the lyrics of his album. The fusion center also surveilled journalist Carey Gillam, who has done extensive research and writing about Monsanto and its popular pesticide Roundup, which has been linked to cancer. The corporation also targeted the nonprofit research group U.S. Right to Know, which submitted Freedom of Information Act requests about the company. From Kansas City, Missouri, we speak to Carey Gillam, a veteran investigative journalist and author of “Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science,” and from Berkeley, California, Gary Ruskin, co-founder of U.S. Right to Know</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div>posted on usrtk<div></div><div><a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/usda-glyphosate-testing-2326808630.html">http://www.ecowatch.com/usda-glyphosate-testing-2326808630.html</a></div><div><div id="Post09000404" class="post-partial article__body" style="margin-bottom: 20px; line-height: 28px; overflow: visible !important;"><div class="article-body sm-mb-2 md-mb-4"><div class="article-description" style="margin-bottom: 40px;">The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has quietly dropped a plan to start testing food for residues of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate" style="text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word;">glyphosate</a>, the world's most widely used weed killer and key ingredient in <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/monsanto" style="text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word;">Monsanto's</a> branded <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/roundup" style="text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word;">Roundup herbicides</a>.The agency spent the last year coordinating with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in preparation to start testing samples of corn syrup for glyphosate residues on April 1, according to internal agency documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests. Documents show that at least since January 2016 into January of this year, the glyphosate testing plan was moving forward. But when asked about the plan this week, a USDA spokesman said no glyphosate residue testing would be done at all by USDA this year.The USDA's plan called for the collection and testing of 315 samples of corn syrup from around the U.S. from April through August, <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/USDAglytests.png" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word;">according to the documents</a>. Researchers were also supposed to test for the AMPA metabolite, the documents state. AMPA (aminomethylphosphonic acid) is created as glyphosate breaks down. Measuring residues that include those from AMPA is important because AMPA is not a benign byproduct but carries its own set of safety concerns, scientists believe.On Jan. 11, USDA's Diana Haynes, wrote to colleagues within USDA:"Based on recent conversations with EPA, we will begin testing corn syrup for glyphosate and its AMPA metabolite April 1, 2017 with collection ending August 31, 2017. This program change will need to be announced at the February PDP Conference Call."Haynes is director of a USDA Agricultural Marketing Service division that annually conducts the Pesticide Data Program (PDP), which tests thousands of foods for hundreds of different pesticide residues.</div></div></div></div>BS? punked?
<a href="http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/gary-ruskin-and-jon-entine-tangle-over-the-gmo-corporate-connection/">http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/gary-ruskin-and-jon-entine-tangle-over-the-gmo-corporate-connection/</a>4/16

Corporate Crime Reporter,

please give us a call at 202.468.8868 or write to us at:

russellmokhiber@gmail.com

or at:

Corporate Crime Reporter

1209 National Press Building

Washington, D.C. 20045Jon Entine is senior fellow at the University of California Davis Institute for Food and Agricultural Literacy.

Entine is also a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

He runs the Genetic Literacy Project — which is a project of a non profit he heads called the Science Literacy Project.

Now comes Gary Ruskin of US Right to Know in Oakland, California.

Ruskin says that Entine has a long history of defending corporate interests — chemical, nuclear, pesticides, GMO and fracking.

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.

UC Davis has yet to produce the documents Ruskin requested.

Ruskin’s lawyer, Jessica Krupke of Sandler Reiff in Washington, D.C.,

sent a letter to UC Davis calling the year long delay “unreasonable.”

“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.

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.”

“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.”

Entine says Ruskin is engaged in a “juvenile witch hunt.”

“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 Gary Ruskin’s US Right to Know gets $274,500 from the Organic

Consumers Association, a fringe, anti-science group with huge influence

in the organic community and throughout the web which benefits directly

from scaring people about food and farming,” Entine told Corporate Crime Reporter

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.”

“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.”

“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.”

When did Entine start the Genetic Literacy Project?

“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.”

“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.”

Who funds the Science Literacy Project?

“Money came in last year from the Templeton Foundation, the Searle Freedom Trust, and the Winkler Family Trust.”

You have pro-GMO groups like yourself —

“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. 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.”

“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.”

You have posted articles by Gary Ruskin on your web site?

“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.”

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.”

“There is no body of evidence,” Entine says.

Ruskin says Entine “has written dozens of articles defending corporate interests and attacking a range of targets.”

“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.”

You wrote a column March 1 in the New York Post that attacked the Columbia Journalism School. You argued that the school “smeared Exxon.”

“I’ll stand by the words that I wrote.”

Ruskin goes to public universities and seeks emails of people he

considers to be corporate advocates and seeks their connections to

corporations.

“I know exactly what Ruskin wants to do. His very first FOIA was directed at me. I know exactly what he wants to do.”

Is he going to find any evidence of UC Davis connections to corporate

interests? 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.”

“He can say that all he wants, but there is no evidence to support it,” Entine said.

There have been other universities where he has found connections between the academics and the corporations.

“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. Our records are open. 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.”

Are you paid by UC Davis?

“No.”

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.

“Corporations have a right 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. 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.”

“There is no there there.”

Have you debated anti-GMO people in public debates?

“Yes, at a New York Times food conference last October. I debated a guy from a natural products company.”

You are willing to debate someone like Michael Hansen of Consumers Union?

“Yes. He’s an ideologue. He’s not a serious person.”

You say they are ideologues. They say you are a corporate —

“They have no evidence of that. They are creating that out of the people I support.”

“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.”

You have never taken money from corporate funders?

“When I give a speech, I do.”

Funding of your groups?

“No.”

Give me some recent speeches you have given and how much they have paid you?

“No. I’ve been paid at modest levels. I’ve spoken at the Australian National Press Club.”

What about corporate speeches?

“I have never given a speech for a corporation.”

What about industry groups?

“I have given speeches for various industries.”

Give us one example?

“I’m not playing that game with you.”

“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. I see

people like Gary Ruskin and Michael Hansen as dangerous people. 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.”

[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>.]entine hit on rtk:
<p style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px 0px 1em; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 21px; background-image: none; background-attachment: scroll; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: repeat;">But that video would soon look like child’s play (pun intended). A far more vicious campaign to impugn the integrity of “pro” GMO scientists was launched, led by <a href="https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/us-right-to-know/" target="blank" style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: scroll; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: repeat;">U.S. Right to Know</a>. This group, funded by the Organic Consumers Association, filed FOIA requests at several universities, seeking the email correspondence of these scientists in order to find any communication with biotech companies like Monsanto. You can read the full story <a href="https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/us-right-to-know/" target="blank" style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: scroll; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: repeat;">here</a>. The end result was the character assassination of notable public scientists like Dr. Kevin Folta, who has now suspended his informative podcast and ceased communicating with people on social media. His experience has had a chilling effect: many scientists pledged to withdraw from science communication altogether for fear of having their personal and professional lives maligned.<p style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px 0px 1em; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 21px; background-image: none; background-attachment: scroll; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: repeat;">Earlier this month, the OCA was at it again, announcing at the COP21 event in Paris they would hold a “<a href="https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/12/11/anti-gmo-movement-on-shaky-ground/" target="blank" style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: scroll; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: repeat;">Monsanto Tribunal</a>” at The Hague next year. The mock trial, designed to look authentic, will accuse Monsanto of “ecocide.” OCA president Ronnie Cummins made clear the objectives of the faux tribunal: “Monsanto….we are going to show that you are trying to poison us all. And we are going to take down your business and the whole factory-farm industrial agriculture empire that goes with it.”<p style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px 0px 1em; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 21px; background-image: none; background-attachment: scroll; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: repeat;"><strong style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: none; background-attachment: scroll; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: repeat;">Pro-Science Moms rising<p style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px 0px 1em; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 21px; background-image: none; background-attachment: scroll; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: repeat;">It’s clear that the anti-GMO movement and their mommy foot soldiers have run the table over the last few years, commanding the public debate. This year changed that. A group of science-minded women (including many moms) met in Washington, DC in September to talk about how to advance our cause. It is an impressively diverse group: scientists, farmers, writers, activists representing a wide range of political affiliations. But our passion about promoting genetic engineering transcends any other differences. It’s a formidable group of highly-motivated women.<p style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px 0px 1em; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 21px; background-image: none; background-attachment: scroll; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: repeat;">Science writer Kavin Senapathy, whom I met at the <a href="https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/06/01/pro-gmo-marchers-shocked-at-unfocused-anger-of-march-against-monsanto-protestors/" target="blank" style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: scroll; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: repeat;">March Against Myths</a> that she helped organize in Chicago last May as a counter protest to the annual Millions Against Monsanto, authored a book this year entitled <em style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: none; background-attachment: scroll; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: repeat;"><a href="https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/10/20/fear-babe-new-book-dissects-the-scare-tactics-of-vani-hari/" target="blank" style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: scroll; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: repeat;">The Fear Babe</a>. The book carefully counters many of the pseudo-science claims of <a href="https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/vani-hari/" target="blank" style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: scroll; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: repeat;">The Food Babe</a> who helped save the world from pumpkin spice and yoga mat bread. We are joined by other mothers – Julie Gunlock, Amy Porterfield Levy, Jennie Splitter – who are taking on a decidedly assertive tone to push back with some great (and funny) columns. I expect more to come, and more like-minded women to join us, in 2016.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/20/fracking-public-land-rule_n_6910922.html

The Department of Interior <a href="http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Communications_Directorate/public_affairs/news_release_attachments.Par.6134.File.tmp/HF-Final-Agency-Draft.pdf" target="_hplink" sl-processed="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">released new rules</a> for hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas on public lands in the United States on Friday, the first significant update to the regulations in three decades.

"Decades-old regulations don't take into account current technology for hydraulic fracturing," said Interior Sec. Sally Jewell in a call with reporters Friday. The new rules will require companies drilling on public lands to disclose the chemicals they are using to the Bureau of Land Management, will set higher standards for the storage of wastewater from the fracking process, and will require validation of well integrity.

There are 100,000 oil and gas wells on public lands across the U.S., according to the department, and 90 percent of those in operation use hydraulic fracturing, a process that uses a high-pressure stream of water, sand and chemicals to tap into oil and gas reserves. Friday's final rule applies only to development on public lands, however, not to the much more prolific development of state and private land. The Bureau of Land Management oversees 756 million acres of public land across the country....

must disclose chems

<div class="col-md-9 col-article col-blog" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; min-height: 1px; padding-right: 60px; padding-left: 15px; float: left; width: 877.5px; padding-top: 20px; line-height: 22.8571px;"><main id="main" class="site-main" role="main" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><article id="post-927" class="post-927 post type-post status-publish format-standard has-post-thumbnail hentry category-hall-of-shame category-food-for-thought" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="entry-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;">The 55-point headline in <a target="blank" href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/04/17/dr_oz_letter_columbia_ten_physicians_call_tv_doc_unacceptable.html?wpsrc=slatest_newsletter&sid=5388f0e4dd52b818310005f1" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Slate</a> blares, “Letter from Prominent Doctors Implies Columbia Should Fire Dr. Oz for Being a Quack.” The story by Ben Mathis-Lilly is based on a letter by a group of doctors who want Columbia University to relieve Dr. Oz of his position as vice chair of the department of surgery at Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons.“Dr. Oz has repeatedly shown disdain for science and for evidence-based medicine, as well as baseless and relentless opposition to the genetic engineering of food crops,” states the letter, which was sent soon after Dr. Oz <a target="blank" href="http://www.doctoroz.com/episode/how-outsmart-identity-thieves-after-your-money-and-medical-data?video_id=4158724753001" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">aired a show</a> about glyphosate, the herbicide associated with most genetically engineered crops that was recently designated as a <a target="blank" href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-weed-killer-roundup-carcinogen-20150322-story.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">probable human carcinogen</a> by the World Health Organization.The complaint to Columbia was signed by Dr. Henry I. Miller and nine colleagues, “all of whom are distinguished physicians,” the letter claims.So who are these prominent distinguished physicians?Mathis-Lilly didn’t ask that question, nor did reporters who covered the letter for the Associated Press, Washington Post, USA Today, NPR, Vox or New York Daily News.If they had, they would have learned that not all the physicians on the letter are so distinguished. One was <a target="blank" href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/11/paging-dr-ross" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">stripped of his medical license in New York and sent to federal prison camp</a> for Medicaid fraud. Yet Dr. Gilbert Ross plays up his M.D. credentials in his role as acting president of the American Council for Science and Health (ACSH). Ross was joined on the Columbia letter by ACSH board member Dr. Jack Fisher.So what is ACSH? Though some reporters treat it as an independent science source, the group has been<a target="blank" href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/american-council-science-health-leaked-documents-fundraising" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">heavily funded by</a> oil, chemical and tobacco companies, and has a long history of making <a href="http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">inaccurate statements about science</a> that directly benefit those industries – for example claiming that secondhand smoke isn’t linked to heart attacks, fracking doesn’t pollute water, and there is no scientific consensus on global warming.Two other signatories of the letter – Miller and Dr. Scott Atlas – hail from the Hoover Institution, a<a target="blank" href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/hoover-institution" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">conservative think tank</a> based at Stanford University that has a special affinity for featuring the work of<a target="blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3787818/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">climate change deniers</a>.“In other words, it’s an institution whose commitment to science is highly questionable to nonexistent in one area, and it’s attacking Oz for pseudoscience?” pointed out Dr. David Gorski in his <a target="blank" href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/04/17/americas-quack-dissected-yet-again/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">blog</a> about the Columbia letter.Though an Oz critic himself, Gorski dismissed the Columbia letter as unlikely to yield anything but a brief media blip, and noted that Miller did “a half-assed job” getting credible signers. (Gorski describes ACSH as “a group that is pro-science when that science aligns with industry interests, particularly the pesticide industry.”)The obvious irony of Miller’s Hoover Institute association may be why he tends to downplay it in the press; for example, <a target="blank" href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/d7737df9c53d407cbcbb279155ac9a7c/physicians-want-dr-oz-gone-columbia-medical-faculty" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">AP</a> reported the Columbia letter was “led by Dr. Henry Miller of Stanford University.” But Miller has landed in hot water before for tying himself too closely to Stanford.In 2012, a TV ad imploring Californians to vote against GMO labeling was <a target="blank" href="http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/04/business/la-fi-mo-anti-proposition-37-ad-pulled-20121004" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">yanked off the air</a> because it identified Miller as an M.D. at Stanford and had him perched in front of the ornately vaulted campus walkway. Stanford demanded it be changed to reflect Miller’s true status at Hoover.Along with his “colleagues” at ACSH, Miller has a long history of <a href="http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-henry-miller-on-gmos/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">defending the indefensible</a> for polluting and dangerous industries. Nicotine is “not particularly bad for you in the amounts delivered by cigarettes,” he wrote in 2012. He has repeatedly argued to bring back the banned pesticide DDT. After the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster, Miller wrote that people exposed to low levels of radiation “could have actually benefitted from it.”Now, he’s fronting for the GMO industry. Miller has become one of the most prolific and best-known promoters of genetically engineered food and crops, with frequent articles in Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other outlets – most recently <a target="blank" href="http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/04/arctic_apple_safety_dr_oz_sows_seeds_of_mistrust_on_gmos.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">Slate,</a> where he attacked Oz for his coverage of GMOs. Among other industry talking points in the piece, Miller claims that glyphosate “has lower overall health impacts than white vinegar,” and fails to mention its <a target="blank" href="http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">recent listing</a> by the World Health Organization as a carcinogen.These facts are relevant in stories about scientific integrity. The scientific accuracy and motivations of the accusers matter when they are publicly challenging the scientific accuracy and motivations of somebody they are trying to get fired.We urge reporters and editors to take a closer look at the sources selling them story ideas, and to act as better watchdogs for the public interest.Also see: Mother Jones – <a target="blank" href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/11/paging-dr-ross" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">Paging Dr. Ross</a>: A doctor who defends corporations from “inconvenient” science has a secret of his ownMother Jones – <a target="blank" href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/american-council-science-health-leaked-documents-fundraising" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">Leaked Documents Reveal the Secret Finances of Pro-Industry Science Group</a>: The American Council on Science and Health defends fracking, BPA, and pesticides. Guess who their funders areUSRTK fact sheet – <a href="http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-henry-miller-on-gmos/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">Why You Can’t Trust Henry Miller</a>USRTK fact sheet – <a href="http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">Why You Can’t Trust the American Council on Science and Health</a><div class="clearfix" style="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="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="http://usrtk.org/category/hall-of-shame/" rel="category tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">Hall of Shame</a>, <a href="http://usrtk.org/category/food-for-thought/" rel="category tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">Food For Thought</a></div><div class="entry-meta-comment-tools" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a href="http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/how-the-media-fell-for-a-gmo-front-group-attack-on-dr-oz/#comments" class="btn btn-default btn-xs" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; display: inline-block; padding: 1px 5px; margin-bottom: 0px; line-height: 1.5; text-align: center; white-space: nowrap; vertical-align: middle; touch-action: manipulation; cursor: pointer; -webkit-user-select: none; border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); border-radius: 3px; text-shadow: rgb(255, 255, 255) 0px 1px 0px; box-shadow: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.14902) 0px 1px 0px inset, rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.0745098) 0px 1px 1px; background-image: linear-gradient(rgb(255, 255, 255) 0px, rgb(224, 224, 224) 100%); background-repeat: repeat-x;"><span class="comment-icon glyphicon glyphicon-comment" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 1px; display: inline-block; line-height: 1; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">1</a></div></footer></div></div></article></main></div><div class="col-sm-3" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; min-height: 1px; padding-right: 15px; padding-left: 15px; float: left; width: 292.5px; line-height: 22.8571px;">

</div>

</div>