folta, kevin
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">ctr attack</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font><div style="font-size: medium;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="https://kfolta.blogspot.com/2019/02/what-am-i-missing.html?m=1">https://kfolta.blogspot.com/2019/02/what-am-i-missing.html?m=1</a></font></div><div style="font-size: medium;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div style="font-size: medium;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" /><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></font></font></font></div><div>no lnx pix of him smile in lab w/ baby plants</div><div>
</div><div>Monday, February 4, 2019</div><div>What Am I Missing?</div><div>I humbly ask this question. What am I missing? </div><div>
</div><div>Tonight I read the press release for the AAAS about the 2019 Scientific Freedom and Responsibility Award, going to two Sri Lankan physicians / researchers that apparently confirmed a deadly causal connection between a kidney disease (Chronic Kidney Disease of Unknown Origin; CKDu) and the herbicide glyphosate. Congrats, congrats!</div><div>
</div><div>Wow, I must have missed this. Certainly a concrete link would be big news, and if AAAS is awarding someone for this research it must have been a prominent publication. But I scan the literature almost daily and never saw this. </div><div>
</div><div><b>The names of the awardees seemed strangely familiar. Then it hit me... this was the 2014 paper where they looked at hard water consumption in Sri Lanka and then suggested a tie between CKDu, heavy metals and glyphosate. The paper presented a hypothesis. There were no data. There were no experiments. It was a decent hypothesis that could be tested. </b></div><div>
</div><div><b>At the time the anti-ag-chemistry world lit up in celebration. Finally they had the smoking gun. I remember this vividly-- only there was no smoke, there was no gun. It was a hypothesis to test. These folks don't actually read the papers. </b></div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">This paper, presenting a hypothesis only, was sufficient to spark a ban of glyphosate in 2015, a move that drew criticism because the ban occurred in the absence of data. Later, reputable scientists would add that the ban threatened food security as farmers were stripped of a helpful agricultural tool, based on a hunch.</span></div><div>
</div><div>The Sri Lankan National Academy of Science made clear statements on the associations, stating that the "research is not conclusive" and "We are not aware of any scientific evidence form studies in Sri Lanka or abroad showing that CKDu is caused by glyphosate." </div><div>
</div><div>The same organization also notes no association between CKDu and cancer, which we'd expect if the herbicide was causing both diseases as some claim. </div><div>[pix]</div><div>
</div><div>Lethal herbicides? I'm not aware of evidence that supports this conclusion. What's up AAAS?</div><div>
</div><div>The researchers are obviously passionate about identifying the source of the problem in this region. An examination of their later work shows a dedicated inquiry into heavy metals and pesticides that occur in drinking water in agricultural areas, and their association with CKDu. They also look at the flip side and how access to clean water improves health outcomes. That alone is deserving of some recognition. I also think they would agree with me that the AAAS website was not accurately representing their conclusions. </div><div>
</div><div>Many researchers, including these authors, have examined the connections to <b>heavy metals, particularly arsenic and cadmium (including this work that shows cadmium dose-response), which are present in high levels in CKDu endemic areas, and arise from application of fertilizers and pesticides. </b> </div><div>
</div><div>Their follow up paper added a correlation to the hypothesis by actually examining heavy metals and glyphosate in the urine of a relatively small number of subjects (10 ill, 10 asymptomatic, 10 from another area). Their conclusion was, "Although we could not localize a single nephrotoxin as the culprit for SAN (Sri Lankan Agricultural Nephropathy), multiple heavy metals and glyphosate may play a role in pathogenesis." </div><div>
</div><div>A case-control study (self-reported health factors) by the same authors in a CKDu-endemic hospital also found statistical associations with application of several different herbicides and insecticides. There also was association with exposure to a variety of heavy metals in drinking water, especially from abandoned wells. The authors note that the majority of those answering questions were farmers who don't use personal protective equipment when spraying pesticides. I'm not surprised that they'd have higher levels in their urine. Again, the authors were correct in noting the limitations of the study.</div><div>
</div><div>Across all work, these authors rely on statistical associations between agricultural inputs, heavy metals, and CKDu, and a hypothetical "Compound X" that could bind heavy metals and transport them to the kidneys. They suggested that glyphosate would fit the bill and build survey data that support that association. Cool. Again, a great hypothesis to test, but we have to be careful with interpretations.</div><div>
</div><div>The caption says "deadly herbicide called glyphosate" -- again, what am I missing here?</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>This where AAAS oversteps the data, referring to the herbicide as lethal and deadly. C'mon AAAS. If this was Natural News, Green Med Info, The Food Babe, or any other kooky khemistree website then I might understand. They've been searching to vilify ag chemistries for decades. </div><div><b>
</b></div><div><b>But this is AAAS. I'm a member. </b>I'm always in awe at the awardees for their much deserved recognition. </div><div>
</div><div>These authors see a problem in these agricultural regions and are searching for a cause. Certainly publishing such a hypothesis could bring lots of criticism to the researchers, as well as derision from farmers that rely on agricultural chemistry. However, I'm not sure how this situation jumps from a statistical association to hard conclusions that rewrite agricultural policy and toxicology-- especially when so many heavy metals levels are also high and associate with the disease (in the same authors' findings).</div><div>
</div><div><b>How does the Sri Lanka situation fit into the wider picture? We have to remember that Sri Lanka is not the only place that uses glyphosate and there is no reputable mention of CKDu in other populations studied. There also is the incongruence between this report and other reports on the herbicide's potential as a physiologically relevant heavy metal shuttle at levels found in drinking water. Other analyses of CKDu do not support their hypothesis. </b></div><div>
</div><div>CKDu sufferers are not reported to also be stricken with Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">which a jury of my peers says should be the case. </span></div><div>
</div><div>Despite all of the questions and shortcomings, we really need to object to the AAAS conclusions of "lethal" and "deadly". </div><div>
</div><div>Or they must have some information I don't have. </div><div>
</div><div>Or does the emperor wear no clothes? </div><div>
</div><div>The bottom line is that the associations are not clear, the experiments to demonstrate strong links are difficult to do, and the multi-factorial nature and genetic/environmental overlays will make such conclusions difficult to discern. That has been the conclusion of others as well. </div><div>
</div><div>This will be a very interesting discussion. I'm glad to stand corrected here. But I'm afraid that our most esteemed scientific organization just elevated a testable hypothesis to "fact" and I'll spend a lot of time over the next year explaining that the data are just not there (at least at this point) to support that conclusion. </div><div>at February 04, 2019 </div><div>Email This</div><div>BlogThis!</div><div>Share to Twitter</div><div>Share to Facebook</div><div>Share to Pinterest</div><div>
</div><div>Newer PostOlder PostHome</div><div>Hey Goofballs, Science is Not a Popularity Contest</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div><b>Allegations of Threats</b></div><div><b> Over the last week the trolls are back, and polluting social media with more anti-Folta nonsense</b>. I won't even touch on it. Nobody ha...</div><div>
</div><div>no lnx</div><div>
</div><div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>"It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness" -</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Sunday, <b>May 23, 2021</b></div><div>Allegations of Threats</div><div> Over the last week the trolls are back, and polluting social media with more anti-Folta nonsense. </div><div>
</div><div>I won't even touch on it. Nobody has looked at it, nobody really cares. It gets few likes, retweets, etc., and those that do show some love to the filth are in the defamation network. It's dead.</div><div>
</div><div>But sadly I need to always play defense. Now that these allegations are forever placed in findable space, I must reluctantly respond. I teach students, I work with kids, I lead community initiatives, and when someone claims that I'm issuing "threats" I unfortunately have to provide my perspective.</div><div>
</div><div>First, Carey Gillam. She tweeted this, this week:</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div><b>Carey is one of very few people on my "do not Heimlich" list. She is one person that I believe is truly evil, and takes pleasure in harming others.</b> When I begged her to leave my family out of some online slander, she doubled down and went after someone very close to me. I appealed to her as a mother and a human being to please just stop-- but she dialed it up. She is a monster. </div><div>
</div><div><b>Over the last decade she has trashed my work, made false claims about me and my motivations, and has been generally horrible. She is paid by USRTK, the organization sponsored by industry to endlessly harass me, so she gets a paycheck to post defamation like the above. That's her job. </b></div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">If she had "bizarre and oddly threatening emails" from me she would have posted them, or paraded them around the internet. </span></div><div>
</div><div>And if I would have made threats, they would have been very much deserved. </div><div>
</div><div>Threat Capacity</div><div>
</div><div>I'm not one to make threats. I'm a diplomat. We work things out. However, I am one to describe the constellation of outcomes if a given path is taken. Big difference. By talking about "here's what happens if..." is an important point for me to present to others. </div><div>
</div><div>I make no threats, and nothing I say could ever be remotely construed as a personal threat-- like physical harm or unfair retribution. I don't have that gear. Frankly, I wish the trolls would leave me alone, and I ignore them for the most part. </div><div>
</div><div>Where It Started</div><div>
</div><div><b>This week a story emerged online about how Karl Haro Von Mogel claimed that I threatened him in a 39-page psycho complaint to my University's Dean for Teaching. </b> </div><div>
</div><div>Think about this. If someone were to threaten you in a non-work related context, legitimately, would you run crying to their employer? </div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);">Karl does this because he knows that there are no legitimate threats from an ethical or legal perspective, and people that know me, and know him, understand that I don't operate that way. They see what he has done to cause me personal and professional harm, along with stark personal betrayal, and understand that I probably am justified in feeling a little prickly towards him. I just ignored him until his wild complaint package surfaced.</span></div><div>
</div><div>But universities are extremely risk averse and must take all claims very seriously. That means universities can be exploited to do your dirty work, and trash the reputation of your target academic from within their institution. </div><div>
</div><div>At the same time my University Administration knows me better than anyone, and also knows the praise I receive for good work in teaching, service, research and outreach. They know a troll when they smell one. </div><div>
</div><div>The other major problem here is that the alleged threats were not communicated through a university email account or in my role as a professor at the university. I was a private citizen protecting my privacy and reputation, and discussions with Karl were personal and through non-work channels. Now von Mogel took it upon himself to drag in my employer and make his claims public, making my personal, private emails public without my knowledge or permission, or the courtesy a carbon copy. Shame.</div><div>
</div><div>He produced an email from me that contained this excerpt, interpreting it as a threat: </div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div><b>At the time, my personal property and files were being distributed to the internet, including the ever-hostile GM Watch for malicious and incorrect re-interpretation<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">.</span></b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> I wanted to know how that material was getting out of my home and file cabinet, and I suspected he may be part of that pipeline. I already knew that he broke my confidentiality on some highly-sensitive work I was doing with a law firm and was meddling in my divorce by providing false statements to my ex-wife's attorney. </span></div><div>
</div><div>I simply told him, we can discuss this privately, or make it public, you pick. That's not a threat. This is me kindly offering to work it out together privately, rather than having it blow up publicly and have to explain it, like is happening here. I don't want to wreck the guy's future like he wants to wreck mine. </div><div>
</div><div>Keep in mind that this was several years ago. I just learned of this complaint last week (5/2021) when it went public, and if it didn't go internet-wide I would never have said anything publicly. They guy has enough problems and could still sort it out and be a good contributor. </div><div>
</div><div>But to accuse me of threats is something I must directly address. </div><div>
</div><div>He continues: </div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div> If it is false, then we can talk about it and sort it out. It was his refusal to discuss this important issue, and my need to get to the bottom of it that prompted my response. It was not "social blackmail", as proven by the fact that he did not discuss it with me and I kept quiet-- I never made it public until now, when his complaint became public. </div><div>
</div><div>The next "double down" on "threats" was:</div><div>[x]</div><div>
</div><div>This was after Karl reported me to a professional conference for violating the Code of Conduct, simply because I requested a meeting with him on how we were going to complete a project that was crowdfunded with >$13,000 of public money, where he dropped the ball and my name was attached to it. I had every right to be angry, and I wasn't. I just wanted to formulate a plan out of the mess, together. </div><div>
</div><div>My reputation was on the line and I wanted a resolution. I either wanted a plan forward or was going to disconnect from the work very publicly in an act of self-preservation. </div><div>
</div><div>Luckily he kicked me off of the project, along with lots of other people that did the analysis on my end, and did so very publicly, so I didn't have to do anything. </div><div>
</div><div>Is it a Threat? </div><div>
</div><div>The point is simple. These are not threats-- these are IF/THEN statements where I spelled out our options to completing a project or resolving a difference. I always was gracious in offering to do things the easy way first, and avoiding escalation that does nobody any good. </div><div>
</div><div>That statement is shown to be true with time, as I did not receive a satisfactory solution that I asked for, and still never took the situation public. I didn't want to affect his career and possibilities like he wanted to do to me. I just let it disappear. </div><div>
</div><div><b>Until now. If the 39-page complaint didn't surface, then I would not have to state my explanation of the situation. He knows about FOIA and public records requests, he used that system anonymously to gather confidential documents of mine and distribute them. He absolutely knew that he was planting a seed that would be discovered later and play a critical role in his malicious targeting. </b></div><div>
</div><div>Again</div><div>
</div><div>If you have questions, ask me. The situation is super unfortunate and my guess is that the other parties involved wish they had a do-over. It makes them look amazingly sad and petty. Rather than accepting an invitation in a private email (these were from my personal account, not subject to FOIA, and had nothing to do with university business) to resolve a difference with me personally, they run to conferences and my university administration and claim "threats". </div><div>
</div><div>And now this long-forgotten annoyance has become very public, not by me, I'm busy working and teaching science. </div><div>
</div><div>And I want to keep doing that. These kinds of accusations do nothing to help me teach others as they are designed to harm my reputation. </div><div>
</div><div>Which means I now need to work even harder at producing good media and better outreach. Good. I needed a little fire to refocus my efforts in positive ways. </div><div>
</div><div>I hope he finds his. </div></div><div>----</div><div>
</div><div>Dissecting the Dr. Dan Stock Video</div><div>One of the saddest parts of the pandemic is the number of trained physicians that have divorced themselves from their training and exploit t...</div><div>
</div><div>Global News, Rachel Parent, and a Deliberate Hit Piece</div><div> I remember going back to Chicago to visit my father just before Christmas in 2015. The previous months had been brutal, and I was finally ...</div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div></div></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div style="font-size: medium;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div style="font-size: medium;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18757-aaas-reassessing-award-to-public-interest-scientists"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18757-aaas-reassessing-award-to-public-interest-scientists</font></a></div><div style="font-size: medium;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-size: medium;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">p<span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">ress release announcing award to Sri Lankan researchers is suppressed</span></font></div><p style="font-size: medium; margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) says it's "<a href="https://twitter.com/aaas/status/1093145382677286912" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">reassessing</a>" its previous decision to <a href="https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18748" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">give</a> the 2019 Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility to two Sri Lankan scientists who uncovered an association between glyphosate herbicide exposure and chronic kidney disease in farmers in areas with hard water.<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /> <br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />In a <a href="http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/2/2125" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">series</a> of peer-reviewed <a href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2369/16/103/abstract" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">papers</a>, Drs Sarath Gunatilake and Channa Jayasumana <a href="http://www.ehjournal.net/content/14/1/6/abstract" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">presented</a> their hypothesis that glyphosate, marketed mostly by Monsanto as Roundup, was transporting arsenic, cadmium and other heavy metals to the kidneys of those drinking contaminated water, causing chronic kidney disease.<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /> <br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />Just a few days ago, on 4 February, the AAAS <a href="https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18748" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">announced</a> it was giving the award to Drs Gunatilake and Jayasumana, whom it characterised as "Two public health researchers who battled powerful corporate interests to uncover the deadly effects of industrial herbicides, solving a medical mystery and protecting the health of farming communities across the world".<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /> <br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />The AAAS press release <a href="https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18748" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">continued</a>, "Drs. Sarath Gunatilake and Channa Jayasuman<b>a faced death threats and claims of research misconduct</b> while working to determine the cause of a kidney disease epidemic that has claimed tens of thousands of lives in their home country of Sri Lanka and around the world. Ultimately, their advocacy led to the culprit, a herbicide called glyphosate, being banned in several affected countries."<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /> <br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />In a strange reversal, by 6 February, the AAAS had removed its press release from the Internet – but not before GMWatch republished it. You can read it <a href="https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18748" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">here</a>.<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />In response to a Twitter storm from defenders and foes of glyphosate, the AAAS <a href="https://twitter.com/aaas/status/1093145382677286912" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">tweeted</a>, "We are taking steps to reassess the 2019 Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility, after concerns were voiced by scientists and members. This award will not be presented next week as originally planned while we further evaluate the award selection."<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /> <br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">Who exactly were the people who voiced these "concerns"? We know who one of them was: Kevin Folta, the University of Florida promoter of GMOs and pesticides, and a member of the AAAS. On 5 February<b> Folta wrote a <a href="http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2019/02/what-am-i-missing.html?m=1" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">blog post</a> which was republished on the website of the <a href="https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18507" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">Genetic Literacy Project</a>,</b> under the heading, <a href="https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2019/02/05/aaas-fumble-prestigious-scientists-organization-endorses-data-less-study-suggesting-links-between-glyphosate-and-kidney-disease-in-sri-lanka/" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">AAAS fumble? Prestigious scientists’ organization endorses ‘data-less’ study suggesting links between glyphosate and kidney disease in Sri Lanka</a>.</span><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /> <br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><b>Citing the Sri Lankan authors' first paper, Folta wrote, "The paper presented a hypothesis. There were no data. There were no experiments. It was a semi-well-crafted hypothesis that could be tested."<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /> <br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></b><b>However, Folta's claim that there are "no data" in the paper is false. </b>There are plenty of data in this and the authors' follow-up papers – from epidemiological and case-control studies, as well as geographical surveys – that support the idea that glyphosate herbicides should be withdrawn from use as a precautionary measure until they can be proven safe.<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /> <br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><b>Are these data conclusive? No. They point to an association. It's true that the link between glyphosate exposure and chronic kidney disease will always remain a "hypothesis" until it is proven in controlled long-term animal feeding studies.</b> <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Such studies would count as the "experiments" that Folta complains haven't been done. The truth is that they are unlikely to be done, due to the massive expense and the unwillingness of industry and governments to fund studies that could show that they were responsible for exposing people to poisons over many years</span>.<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /> <br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />Drs Sarath Gunatilake and Channa Jayasumana, as<b> Folta admits, have in no way overstated their case. They are conservative and careful in forming their conclusions.</b><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> <br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />The AAAS's press release likely overstated things in <a href="https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18748-researchers-who-uncovered-glyphosate-herbicide-link-with-kidney-disease-honoured-by-aaas" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">calling</a> glyphosate herbicides "deadly" and "lethal", as such words tend to imply acute toxicants that kill with immediate effect. It would be more accurate to call them slow poisons, though there is little doubt that the end result of exposures can be "<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/10/monsanto-trial-cancer-dewayne-johnson-ruling" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">deadly</a>".</span><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /> <br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />But a less than ideal choice of words on the part of the author of a press release is an argument for modifying the press release, not reconsidering an award given to honest public interest researchers, particularly ones who have already been the victims of industry-linked intimidation.</font></p><p style="font-size: medium; margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">And in the case of this particular award, the conclusiveness of the researchers' findings on glyphosate is irrelevant. As Prof Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury, New Zealand, said on <a href="https://twitter.com/Jack_Heinemann/status/1093929931413819392" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">Twitter</a>, "Whether or not the link between glyphosate (or formulation) and kidney disease is right misses the point. A scientific freedom award is given for persecution. If you only give it for proven science, it would be delayed decades and it would only benefit those who persecute."</font></p><h3 style="margin: 0.5em 0px; padding: 0px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.5em; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Folta's record</font></h3><p style="font-size: medium; margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">Now let's look at the record of their accuser. Kevin Folta took a $25,000 <a href="https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/16340" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">grant</a> from Monsanto to promote GMOs and took steps to avoid <a href="https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/16408" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">disclosing</a> it to the public, while all the time falsely telling the public that he had "nothing to do with Monsanto".</span><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /> <br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><b>Folta has <a href="https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/kevin-folta/" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">allowed</a></b><b> an agrochemical industry PR firm to ghostwrite for him, but then denied it. </b>The PR firm ghostwrote answers to questions on GMOs, which were then published on the industry's public relations website, GMO Answers, under Folta's name.<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /> <br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">He had to stand down as Chair of his university department after his then wife accused him of violent <a href="https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18303-kevin-folta-s-wife-goes-public-says-abuse-allegations-are-true" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">abuse</a>. She also <a href="https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18232" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">accused</a> him of taking money for<b> consulting for Bayer. </b>He was <a href="https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18293" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">deserted</a> by several of his former close associates after that turned out to be <a href="https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18476" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">true</a>. He has also publicly <a href="https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18297" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">defended</a> drunk driving and published advice on how to get away with it.</span><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /> <br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><b>Finally, although Folta has no known medical or toxicology background, he regularly pontificates on food and chemical safety as if he were an <a href="https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/15949" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">expert</a>, often <a href="https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/16374" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">inaccurately</a>. And in his defence of Monsanto's glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup, Folta has not only made a series of false <a href="https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/16435" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">claims, </a>but irresponsibly, has even drunk it <a href="https://gmwatch.org/en/gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16340" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">publicly</a></b><b>, supposedly to demonstrate its "harmlessness”</b>.</font></p><h3 style="margin: 0.5em 0px; padding: 0px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.5em; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The AAAS's record</font></h3><p style="font-size: medium; margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Let's hope the AAAS stands up to the likes of Folta – and stands by its decision to honour the Sri Lankan scientists, who have endured too much victimisation already for their brave work.<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /> <br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />The AAAS has a mixed record when it comes to public interest issues. In 2013 the AAAS's board of directors <a href="https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18711" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">issued</a> a statement opposing the labelling of GM foods in the US. The statement argued that such labelling “can only serve to mislead and falsely alarm consumers”. The AAAS was at the time chaired by Nina Fedoroff, who has close ties to the GMO <a href="https://usrtk.org/gmo-science-is-for-sale-2/" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">industry</a>.<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /> <br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />But in an incident that showed that the AAAS is not monolithic but contains scientists who do not toe the GMO lobby's line, a group of scientists and physicians that <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">included many long-standing AAAS members <a href="https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18711" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">condemned</a> the AAAS board of directors’ statement as “an Orwellian argument that violates the right of consumers to make informed decisions”. They pointed to evidence showing that Roundup, the herbicide used on most GM crops, could pose risks that consumers might reasonably want to avoid.</span><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /> <br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />Sadly, the AAAS board seems more likely than its membership to have the power to decide on the fate of the award that was to be given to the Sri Lankan scientists. Whatever they decide, the row kicked up by the antics of the likes of Folta has served to bring the risks of glyphosate herbicides to the notice of a wider public.<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /> <br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />If the AAAS does decide to withdraw its award to the Sri Lankan scientists, that will send a clear message to the public about the suppression of science. Ironically, of course, it was the now-suppressed AAAS press release which noted that jeopardizing the profits of the glyphosate industry has come with serious “consequences” for Drs Gunatilake and Jayasumana.</font></p><div style="font-size: medium;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div style="font-size: medium;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div style="font-size: medium;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">gmwatch</font></div><div style="font-size: medium;"><i><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></i></div><div style="font-size: medium;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">a<span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">ward goes ahead despite industry backlash</span></font></div><p style="font-size: medium; margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has stood firm against industry pressure and <a href="https://t.co/cpgxQtRPOP?amp=1" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">confirmed</a> that it is giving the 2019 Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility to two Sri Lankan scientists, Sarath Gunatilake and Channa Jayasumana, who hypothesized a connection between glyphosate herbicide exposure and chronic kidney disease.</font></p><p style="font-size: medium; margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">The AAAS had first announced its intention to give the award to Drs Gunatilake and Jayasumana at the beginning of this year. But its announcement <a href="https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18757-aaas-reassessing-award-to-public-interest-scientists" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">unleashed</a> a furious backlash from defenders of glyphosate. These <a href="https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18757" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">included</a> the GMO and pesticide promoter <a href="https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18959" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">Kevin Folta</a>, who falsely claimed that "there were no data" presented in the scientists' published papers.</font></p><p style="font-size: medium; margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In response, the AAAS announced in February that it would review its decision on the award. As a result of that review, it has upheld the award as fully merited while <a href="https://t.co/cpgxQtRPOP?amp=1" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">acknowledging</a> there were problems with how the AAAS <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190204211020/https://www.aaas.org/news/global-fight-against-lethal-herbicides-earns-2019-aaas-scientific-freedom-and-responsibility" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">announced</a> the award: "The AAAS communication announcing the 2019 award earlier this year included misleading statements about a causal connection between glyphosate and chronic kidney disease. An association has been suggested by the researchers, but a causal connection is not conclusive to date."</font></p><p style="font-size: medium; margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It is much to AAAS's credit that it has decided to uphold its initial decision to honour Drs Gunatilake and Jayasumana, although it is a shame that it took it nine months to conduct its review.</font></p><p style="font-size: medium; margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>As GMWatch <a href="https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18757" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">said</a> at the time the review was announced, the problem was not with the research itself: "Drs Sarath Gunatilake and Channa Jayasumana… have in no way overstated their case.</b> They are conservative and careful in forming their conclusions. The AAAS's press release likely overstated things... But a less than ideal choice of words on the part of the author of a press release is an argument for modifying the press release, not reconsidering an award given to honest public interest researchers, particularly ones who have already been the victims of industry-linked intimidation."</font></p><p style="font-size: medium; margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Gunatilake and Jayasumana investigated a kidney disease epidemic that has claimed tens of thousands of lives in their home country of Sri Lanka and around the world. Their research pointed to an association between glyphosate herbicide exposure and chronic kidney disease in farmers in areas with hard water. And in a series of peer-reviewed papers, they presented their hypothesis that glyphosate was transporting arsenic, cadmium and other heavy metals to the kidneys of those drinking contaminated water, causing chronic kidney disease. As a result of their work, Sri Lanka has introduced a partial ban on glyphosate herbicides on a precautionary basis. But the researchers themselves have been subjected to a campaign of vilification and even suffered death threats.</font></p><p style="font-size: medium; margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b><a href="https://twitter.com/mbalter/status/1191667434673123329?s=20" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">Commenting</a> on AAAS's decision, the veteran science journalist Michael Balter</b> said that he was very glad to see the award to Drs Gunatilake and Jayasumana going ahead: "Their hypothesis is reasonable and their research is suggestive of such a link. It certainly indicates that further study is necessary rather than industry-sponsored dismissal and obfuscation."</font></p><div style="font-size: medium;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div></div><div style="font-size: small;"><div style=""><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Jon Entine and Genetic Literacy Project are Monsanto Trolls</b></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>
</b></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As the founder and executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project (GLP), Jon Entine bills himself as an objective authority on science even though his contribution to the field centers on attacking scientists, journalists, and others at the behest of the corporations that pay him.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Demonstrative of this cozy relationship is a 2015 Monsanto PR plan that identified Genetic Literacy Project as one of its “industry partners.” Monsanto planned to engage GLP and numerous other similarly affiliated “independent” third parties to “protect the reputation” of Roundup and “orchestrate outcry” about the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) conclusions about glyphosate. In 2015, IARC performed an exhaustive scientific review on glyphosate and concluded the chemical is a “probable human carcinogen.”</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As of today, GLP has posted over 280 articles about IARC. Some of these articles include personal attacks concerning the scientists who served on the IARC Working Group tasked with evaluating glyphosate, calling them “frauds,”“liars,” and “greed-driven.”</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Tax records show that the Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI), a chemical industry trade group, paid Ketchum public relations firm more than $11 million from 2013-2016 to run GMO Answers, a website where consumers purportedly get straight answers from “independent experts” about genetically engineered foods.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style=""><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">A CBI / Ketchum document unearthed in the Roundup litigation lists Jon Entine, Bruce Chassy, Kevin Folta </b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">and others as“target authors.” Entine was to rebut the review, ‘GMO Myths and Truths’ by Dr. Michael Antoniou, which asserted, “Roundup has never been tested or assessed for long-term safety for regulatory purposes but independent studies show it is highly toxic to animals and humans.”</span></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Monsanto (now Bayer) was and is a member of CBI and provides funding to GMO Answers. According to the website, the independent experts on GMO Answers “are not paid by GMO Answers to answer questions.”</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>The notion that “experts” like Entine were not paid for their contributions to GMO Answers runs counter to an internal email from Monsanto’s Eric Sachs</b>. Sachs worked on a plan for Monsanto and other companies to support an “Academic Review” (a similar website where pro-industry academic Bruce Chassy and others could respond to and attack the work of those critical of GMOs). In the email, Sachs wrote: “From my perspective, the problem is one of expert engagement and that could be solved by paying some experts to provide responses…The key will be keeping Monsanto in the background so as not to harm the credibility of the information.”</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2014 and 2015, Entine partnered with Chassy and Folta to organize industry-funded conferences at the University of Florida and <b>UC Davis “to train scientists and journalists to frame the debate over GMOs and the toxicity of glyphosate,” as Paul Thacker reported in The Progressive.</b></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Paul D. Thacker</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">@thackerpd</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">1/6 Emails on behind the scenes maneuvering by #Monsanto consultants and third party groups. First, @KarlHvM of @biofortified emails Agbiochatter complaining about @tomphilpott of @MotherJones and #FOIA https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6382789-Karl-Von-Mogel-Complaining.html</span> …</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">View image on Twitter</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">10</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">3:38 AM <b>- Sep 10, 2019</b></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Twitter Ads info and privacy</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">See Paul D. Thacker's other Tweets</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Litigation documents show that Chassy and other pro-industry experts like him aren’t known for pulling any punches in the framing of the GMO / glyphosate debate. To the contrary, his inflammatory language discussing the pro-industry side of the debate is downright abusive.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In one document, Chassy likens reporting from a journalist discussing health risks associated with GMOs to “playing Whack-a-mole at the carnival.” He tells Daniel Goldstein, a Monsanto executive, “[w]e’ll be working on this too. Isn’t freedom of speech wonderful?”</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In another email, Chassy discusses the Open Letter to Monsanto from Moms Across America, a non-profit organization critical of Monsanto and Roundup. “That’s your enemy,” Chassy says to another academic and Goldstein. “Beat the shit out of them and put them on the defensive and you won’t have this problem.”</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>By Baum Hedlund|</b>September 10th, 2019|Blog, Monsanto Roundup News</font></div></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://dailycaller.com/2018/07/19/how-russia-and-ngos-collude-to-damage-american-exceptionalism/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://dailycaller.com/2018/07/19/how-russia-and-ngos-collude-to-damage-american-exceptionalism/</font></a></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-size: small;"><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx many graf</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">OPINION</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>HENRY I. MILLER AND JON ENTINE</b></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">PROFESSOR</span>, DIRECTOR OF THE GENETIC LITERACY PROJECT</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>July 19, 2018</b></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">6:19 PM ET</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Modern genetic engineering techniques applied to agriculture are making stunning advances. This year, after decades in (gratuitous) regulatory limbo, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Health Canada and Food Standards Australia New Zealand gave the green light to domestic import and consumption of Golden Rice, which has been genetically modified to produce provitamin-A.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Every year, about half a million children become blind as a result of Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) and 70 percent die within a year of losing their sight. In developing countries, 200 — 300 million children of preschool age are at risk of VAD, which increases their susceptibility to infections such as measles and diarrheal diseases.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Yet this revolutionary rice, now being grown in test plots in many countries, has still not been greenlighted for public consumption in the two countries where it would do the most good: Bangladesh and the Philippines.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">How could that be? No serious concerns have ever been raised about its safety, and human feeding trials in China have shown that Golden Rice can prevent this scourge. The reason is the strident, relentless opposition from anti-biotechnology non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Greenpeace in particular, that regard any genetic engineering success as a kind of Trojan Horse that could sway public opinion.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Golden Rice </b>is one of many humanitarian breakthroughs being developed by universities and developing countries that remain stalled, including disease-resistant bananas and cassava; climate-adaptive plants; and new corn varieties that are more efficient at photosynthesis, able to fix carbon from atmospheric CO2 and convert it into sugar. The last of these advances reportedly results in a mid-single-digit or higher percentage increase in yield, which would be an extraordinary advance, especially in less-developed countries where corn is a subsistence crop.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">There’s an old saying that no good deed goes unpunished, and the anti-genetic engineering machine, largely funded by the organic and natural products industries, continues to hum along, attacking not only companies that produce breakthroughs but also academics and ordinary citizens who preach the kind of science-driven public policy that will promote more advances.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That paid advocacy is particularly vile because it has taken such a personal turn—viciously assailing not only the technology but the scientists and science communicators who advocate for a level playing field that asks only that the technology be allowed to succeed or fail on its merits in the farm and food marketplace.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>These activists regularly trot out a litany of false accusations about their targets, with university professors as frequent victims. The most notorious of these “hit groups” is U.S. Right to Know, or USRTK,</b> which pretends to be part of a grassroots movement, but is actually mostly funded by the pernicious Organic Consumers Association. OCA is not a mainstream organic trade group but a rump organization of science deniers known for their rejection of medical vaccines (They cause autism!), support for homeopathy and believing that Zika virus outbreaks are a conspiracy perpetrated by the world’s chemical companies.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">USRTK has filed harassing <b>Freedom of Information requests for emails and documents of at least a hundred public university faculty</b> and staff members, hoping to find snippets which, when cherry-picked from hundreds of thousands of emails and taken out-of-context, might imply conflicts of interest.</span> Their efforts to undermine scientists and public policy scholars whose work threatens organic agriculture—as genetic engineering continually widens the already-large productivity gap between conventional and organic practices–follow a familiar pattern.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style=""><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In the words of University of Florida plant biologist Kevin </span><b style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">Folta</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">,</span></b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> who has been excoriated repeatedly by USRTK for supposedly being a Monsanto sock puppet, the activists “develop a narrative that suggests industry collusion or undue influence, especially with any attempt to connect the faculty member to Monsanto, a company that is the bogeyman favorite of activists.” Professor Folta’s supposedly “egregious” pay-for-play violation: His university accepted $25,000, since returned, to help cover costs on an outreach project on genetic engineering.</span></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></div></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">latham</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">fla univ redirected 25K unrestricted $ to campus food bank PR spin? global news vid)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">dark side seralini link (found in rationalwiki) in frnch</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.agriculture-environnement.fr/a-la-une/la-part-d-ombre-du-professeur-seralini">
</a></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.agriculture-environnement.fr/a-la-une/la-part-d-ombre-du-professeur-seralini">https://www.agriculture-environnement.fr/a-la-une/la-part-d-ombre-du-professeur-seralini</a></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">unsigned</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2013/01/seralinis-connections-to-quack-science.html">
</a></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2013/01/seralinis-connections-to-quack-science.html">http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2013/01/seralinis-connections-to-quack-science.html</a></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">entine organized "gt debate" :</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.biofortified.org/2013/05/anti-gmo-leaders-withdraw-from-great-biotech-debate/">https://www.biofortified.org/2013/05/anti-gmo-leaders-withdraw-from-great-biotech-debate/</a>
==
Genetic Literacy Project (GLP) has been accused of unethical
journalistic practices after it published personal information about
individuals opposed to <a href="http://ecowatch.com/news/food-agriculture/gmo-genetically-modified-organism/">genetically modified food</a> and changed the text of an article without the author’s permission.
</font><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">GLP is an organization that heavily promotes genetic engineering of foods and attacks critics of the technology.</font>
<a href="http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/unethical_750.jpg"><span class="image-container alignnone size-full wp-image-376957" style="max-width:750px;max-height:416px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">http://ecowatch.com/2016/02/05/genetic-literacy-project-crosses-ethical-line/
</font></span></a>
<strong><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Posting Personal Information “Way Below” Ethical Line</font></strong>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">GLP has posted phone numbers, email and home addresses and other
personal information about GMO critics.</span> According to David Murphy,
executive director of <a href="http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/">Food Democracy Now</a>,
GLP posted the phone number and email and home addresses of Don Huber,
Emeritus Professor of Plant Pathology at Purdue University. Murphy
contacted GLP asking them to remove the information, which they did, but
shortly after GLP posted Murphy’s cell phone number and home address.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“It’s one thing to have a public disagreement with highly trained
scientists and activists on a controversial subject like GMO safety, but
publishing personal information, home addresses and cell phone numbers,
is a new low, even for <a href="http://ecowatch.com/?s=monsanto">Monsanto</a>’s
smear merchant,” Murphy said. “Does Monsanto really want us publishing
their CEO and top scientists like Robb Fraley’s home addresses? One
wonders what they really have to hide if they’re willing to employ such
slimeball tactics against their critics.”</font>
<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">GLP has also posted personal information about other GMO critics such
as Mike Adams, publisher of Natural News; Vani Hari, a.k.a. the Food
Babe; Henry Rowlands, publisher of Sustainable Pulse; Jeffrey Smith,
executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology; and
others. GLP even went so far as to post information about the value of
Smith’s house.</font></span>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Carey Gillam, research director at U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) and a
former veteran senior journalist with Reuters news service, said the
practice of publishing personal identifying information such as phone
numbers and addresses, was clearly an unethical practice.</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“We here at USRTK are intentionally not posting the emails we’ve
obtained that include that kind of information because we think it is
below the ethical bar. Way below,” Gillam said.</font>
<strong><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Crossed an Ethical Line</font></strong>
<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In November, pro-GMO journalist Keith Kloor accused GLP of altering
his article, “The Story Behind the Story,” without his permission. The
article, which was posted on his website, <a href="http://www.keithkloor.com" target="_blank">www.keithkloor.com</a>,
focuses on science writer Brooke Borel’s Buzzfeed profile of<b> University
of Florida scientist Kevin Folta,</b> who was hosting a podcast using a
fake identity.</font></span>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">GLP reposted a segment of Kloor’s article on their website with a
different headline, “Did Brooke Borel cross ethical line in criticizing
Kevin Folta GMO parody site?”</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Kloor objected to GLP’s posting the article without his permission
and changing the headline and text</b>. In a blog, Kloor wrote: “It’s bad
enough that a website built on the aggregated work of journalists takes
something that belongs to you without asking for permission. It’s
outrageous when the website truncates your text in ways that change the
meaning of what you wrote, which is also what Genetic Literacy is guilty
of doing with respect to my post. It’s infuriating and unforgivable
when the person who stole your text puts his own flatly wrong headline
above it … That’s crossing an ethical line.”</font>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On a personal note, GLP has also changed the headlines of articles
I’ve written that they’ve posted on their website. One headline they
changed contained text that was meant to be derogatory to me.</font>
<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Other authors also criticized GLP’s journalistic practices on
Twitter. These included Borel, Helena Bottemiller Evich, a journalist
with Politico, <b>Anastasia Bodnar,</b> policy director at the pro-GMO website <a href="http://www.biofortified.org/" target="_blank">Biofortified.org</a>
and Julie Kelly, a pro-GMO food writer, among others. The authors
objected to GLP changing the headlines and text of articles, listing
authors as GLP contributing writers when they aren’t and putting author
bylines with paraphrased articles.</font></span>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On Twitter, GLP Executive Director Jon Entine tried to assure the
authors that GLP has been responsive “to every concern.” But Kloor
responded sarcastically to that claim, asking Entine if he really wrote
that “with a straight face.”</font></p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://ecowatch.com/2015/12/24/rachel-parent-anti-gmo/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The U.S. agrichemical lobby targeted a Canadian teenager as part of its “increasingly nasty and divisive public relations war over GMOs,” according to <a href="http://globalnews.ca/news/2414720/documents-reveal-canadian-teenager-the-target-of-gmo-lobby/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">new reporting</a> from Global News.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://www.kidsrighttoknow.com/a-note-from-rachel/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Rachel Parent</a> was 14 years old when her activism around labeling <a href="http://ecowatch.com/news/food-agriculture/gmo-genetically-modified-organism/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">genetically modified organisms</a> (GMOs) in food caught the eye of pro-GMO corporations and lobby groups.</font></p><figure id="attachment_374709" aria-labelledby="figcaption_attachment_374709" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 3px; line-height: 25.2px; max-width: 760px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/parent_gmo_750.jpg" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;"><span class="image-container size-full wp-image-374709" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; z-index: 100; display: block; max-width: 750px; max-height: 393px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">
</font></span></a><figcaption id="figcaption_attachment_374709" class="wp-caption-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0.1875rem 0.4375rem 0.1875rem 0rem; line-height: 1.103rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Rachel Parent, founder of the not-for-profit organization Kids Right To Know, was reportedly targeted by the pro-GMO lobby. Photo credit: GlobalNews.ca / Screenshot</font></figcaption></figure><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">According to emails and thousands of other pages of documents released in a freedom of information request by U.S. Right to Know (USRTK), a non-profit advocacy group funded by the Organic Consumers Association, these industry forces conspired to think of ways to discredit Parent and counter her message.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“It’s mostly scientists that they attack, but Rachel is a standout,” Gary Ruskin, the co-director of USRTK, told Global News. “The agrichemical industry is plainly quite threatened by this teenage schoolgirl, so that’s why they’re after her.”</font></b></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 25.2px;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Among other things, the news outlet reports that University of Florida professor Kevin Folta—whom Ruskin describes as “one of the principal attack dogs of the agrichemical industry”—was hired by public relations firm Ketchum to make a video about Parent.</font></span></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">According to Global News:</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The video discussed Parent’s activism, her belief that all <a href="http://ecowatch.com/?s=label+gmo" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">GMO food products should be labeled</a> and addressed her apparent lack of scientific knowledge.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 25.2px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“So when I think about answering Rachel Parent, who’s the activist child—well, young woman—who’s running the website </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">‘Kids Right to Know’ … The things I just adore about Rachel is that she’s clearly very articulate, clearly intelligent,” Folta said in the video.</span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 25.2px;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The problem that I have is when Rachel starts to let non-scientific thinking really kind of cloud her final decision-making process.”</font></span></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Parent said she finds the tone of the video “almost degrading.”</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A <a href="http://www.consumerreports.org/food-safety/consumers-want-mandatory-labeling-for-gmo-foods" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">poll</a> commissioned by a coalition of consumer and environmental groups showed earlier this month that nearly <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/23/gmo-labeling-dark-act/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">90 percent of Americans</a> want mandatory labeling on GMO foods.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For more, see the Global News video below:</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE</font></strong></p><p class="title" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a class="black-to-green" href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/12/21/gmo-labeling-debate/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">5 Things Monsanto Doesn’t Want You to Know About the GMO Labeling Debate</font></a></span></p><div class="meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0em; padding: 0px 0px 0em; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><p class="title" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a class="black-to-green" href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/12/16/gmo-smart-label/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">10 Reasons Why GMO Smart Label Isn’t ‘Smart’ at All</font></a></span></p><p class="title" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a class="black-to-green" href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/12/23/sustainable-food-system/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">116 Organizations Creating a Sustainable Global Food System</font></a></span></p><p class="title" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a class="black-to-green" href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/12/16/anti-gmo-label-rider/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Congress Keeps Anti-GMO Labeling Rider Out of Spending Bill</font></a></span></p></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">9/11/15 sci 2.0</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" /><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></div><div>Kevin Folta</div><div>
</div><div><span style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">I’ve been a critic of the Food Babe for a long time. Actually, I’ve been the critic of anyone that attempts to manipulate the public perception of science, while presenting zero scientific evidence. Especially deplorable are those that use fear to force a message, and scare people about safe food while profiting in the process.</span><br style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">It’s an old story now, but when ‘Food Babe’ Vani Hari visited my university to sell her science-blind worldview I was not exactly thrilled. We professors are tasked to teach from evidence, with foundation in a scholarly literature. Why would we subject our students to the daft rants of a dim food activist that lines her pockets by frightening people away from safe food?</span><br style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><br style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">I have been an appropriate critic. I’ve addressed her specific points with evidence and even have been complimentary at times. She certainly is a gifted communicator, and can mobilize the drones that exploit social media to blackmail corporations into aggressive change, not based on science, but based on coercion. That is not a fair way to inspire change. </span><br style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><br style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Because I teach facts of a controversial public concern, I’m currently enduring multiple invasive, expensive public records requests. Three years of personal, private emails have been <b>confiscated</b> by US-Right To Know, an activist organization led by Gary Ruskin that <b>harasses public scientists</b> that teach the inconvenient truth about agricultural biotechnology. </span><br style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><br style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">For 15 years I’ve spoken about genetic engineering with the public, helping concerned citizens to understand this scientific tool. They’ve been trying to stop me for ages. FOIA laws are their new weapons. I complied without hesitation. I had nothing to hide. But as I anticipated, when you give 5000 pages of email to people paid well to silence you, they will find little nuggets of manufactured pseudo-guilt that they’ll parade in the interest of destroying credibility. I happily turned over my personal records, and activists started immediately misinterpreting them in public places<b>. Even Pulitzer Prize winners skillfully threaded sentences together to customize damaging false narratives which were more unethical than unfair.</b></span><br style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><br style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Not to be outdone, Vani Hari needed some of that attention. “What did that evil professor say about me?” Now the laws made to help dissolve barriers to resolve cases of malfeasance and wrongdoing were mobilized as an underhanded discovery tool, a way for a marginal celeb to try to regain some of her ill-gotten traction at the expense of a scientist that simply teaches science. This is FOIA abuse. She will cost my university tens of thousands of dollars to weed through my private correspondences one by one, making sure that the emails they provide to her do not contain student information. It is an arduous and expensive undertaking. Why? Well Vani likes Vani, and while she can’t point to anything I’ve done wrong, she wants the emails. Just like Ruskin.</span><br style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><br style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">I can hear it now from Food Babe headquarters, “He didn’t do anything wrong, so let’s find some things we can make look wrong—just need those emails!” More importantly, she wants to sift through my emails in a sick cyber voyeurism, a pathetic, vain and egocentric glimpse into a professor’s daily interactions. Just because she can. This inconsistent with the spirit and intent of these important laws. It is an unwarranted burden to taxpayers and a deliberate and unfair means to inflict harm on a decorated public servant. So what do the prying eyes need to see? Secrets to clandestine corporate collusion? Nah, Ruskin beat and buried that dead horse, extracting a few lame-o quotes, and funding to a science literacy effort was the puff of their smoking gun . Oh, the humanity. </span><br style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><br style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">What can Vani learn? Gosh, the things she cares about most – VANI ! Here’s your tax dollars at work. She wants: Well, Vani, a quick check of my account and you were not mentioned much at all. You are not relevant outside of Infowars and your adoring fans. Here is what she wants:</span><br style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><br style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><img src="http://content.science20.com/files/images/food_babe_graphic.gif" alt="" style="border: none; padding-right: 10px; max-width: 620px; line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><br style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><br style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><br style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">You will be glad to know that high-priced lawyers will search for “babe” as directed. Tax dollar will unearth a copy of my Amazon review of that crappy talking pig movie. </span><br style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><br style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">This is all pretty simple. Vani Hari is a self-consumed amateur that is determined to discredit her critics. Why? She sits atop a multi-million dollar empire of corporate slander and internet sales. Why would she possibly exploit expensive public records requests to delve into the emails of a professor dedicated to public education? </span><br style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><br style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Because he teaches facts, and more facts translate to fewer profits for Vani. </span><br style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><br style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">So instead of meeting him head-on about the science in a visible and public space, she uses a public records request to sneak a peek through his private correspondence in the hopes of… not sure what.</span><br style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><br style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In fact, I deliberated whether I should even write this. But it is not about me, not about Vani Hari—it is about abuse of a system to harm others that don’t share your malformed opinion. It brilliantly illuminates the trendy abuse of the FOIA system. Here, out of curiosity, out of vanity, Vani Hari ignites an expensive, invasive system designed to resolve criminal investigations--- to see if someone said something unbecoming about her. </span><br style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><br style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">I could have told her that stuff for free. Sorry Florida taxpayers! </span><br style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><br style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">It is a mockery of this important transparency system. Most of all, this exemplifies why these rules need immediate revision. Here a doomed food personality with no training and no scientific credibility bandwagons on to a popular trend of abusing rules to damage professorial reputations of reasonable scientific critics. When you can’t raise your own argument, find some sleazy loophole to tear down the credibility of others. </span><br style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><br style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">We have entered the era of vanity harassment and fact-twisted internet assassinations. </span><br style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><br style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><span style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">And who better to accelerate that trend than Vani Hari? </span></div><div>---</div><div>MORE ARTICLES</div><div>
</div><div><h2 style="margin: 2em 0px 10px; padding: 0px 0px 4px; text-transform: uppercase; border-top: 5px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">RELATED ARTICLES ON SCIENCE 2.0</h2><div id="relatedlinks-block-links" style="line-height: 22.236px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><ul style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px;"><li style="margin: 0px; list-style-type: none; list-style-image: none; line-height: 1em; padding: 0px 0px 0.5em 1.5em; background: url(" http="http" content.science20.com="content.science20.com" sites="sites" all="all" themes="themes" sbv2="sbv2" images="images" bullet-blue.png="bullet-blue.png" px="px" no-repeat="no-repeat" transparent="transparent"><a href="http://www.science20.com/science_20/plos_removed_its_hatchet_job_against_kevin_folta_but_the_problem_of_media_spin_remains-156918" style="">PLOS Removed Its Hatchet Job Against Kevin Folta - But The Problem Of Media Spin Remains</a></li><li style="margin: 0px; list-style-type: none; list-style-image: none; line-height: 1em; padding: 0px 0px 0.5em 1.5em; background: url(" http="http" content.science20.com="content.science20.com" sites="sites" all="all" themes="themes" sbv2="sbv2" images="images" bullet-blue.png="bullet-blue.png" px="px" no-repeat="no-repeat" transparent="transparent"><a href="http://www.science20.com/cool-links/vani_hari_the_food_babe_isnt_just_wrong_shes_a_hypocrite-156801" style="">Vani Hari, The Food Babe, Isn't Just Wrong - She's A Hypocrite</a></li><li style="margin: 0px; list-style-type: none; list-style-image: none; line-height: 1em; padding: 0px 0px 0.5em 1.5em; background: url(" http="http" content.science20.com="content.science20.com" sites="sites" all="all" themes="themes" sbv2="sbv2" images="images" bullet-blue.png="bullet-blue.png" px="px" no-repeat="no-repeat" transparent="transparent"><a href="http://www.science20.com/timberati/food_babe_learns_the_unlisted_controversial_ingredient_in_budweiser-138554" style="">Food Babe Learns The Unlisted Controversial Ingredient In Budweiser</a></li><li style="margin: 0px; list-style-type: none; list-style-image: none; line-height: 1em; padding: 0px 0px 0.5em 1.5em; background: url(" http="http" content.science20.com="content.science20.com" sites="sites" all="all" themes="themes" sbv2="sbv2" images="images" bullet-blue.png="bullet-blue.png" px="px" no-repeat="no-repeat" transparent="transparent"><a href="http://www.science20.com/kevin_folta/transparency_weaponized_against_scientists-156873" style="">Transparency Weaponized Against Scientists</a></li><li style="margin: 0px; list-style-type: none; list-style-image: none; line-height: 1em; padding: 0px 0px 0.5em 1.5em; background: url(" http="http" content.science20.com="content.science20.com" sites="sites" all="all" themes="themes" sbv2="sbv2" images="images" bullet-blue.png="bullet-blue.png" px="px" no-repeat="no-repeat" transparent="transparent"><a href="http://www.science20.com/cool-links/the_food_babe_took_down_her_goofy_microwave_oven_post_science_win-140892" style="">The Food Babe Took Down Her Goofy Microwave Oven Post - Science Win</a></li></ul></div></div><div>
</div><div>Testing The Internet's Food Claims With Citizen Science</div><div>Setting A New Standard For Science Transparency</div><div>The FOIA Babe, and the New Abuse of Vanity Harassment</div><div>All Articles</div><div>ABOUT</div><div>I'm proud to be a public scientist at a land-grant university with great interests in public education. I completed a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology...</div><div>View Profile</div><div>RELATED ARTICLES ON SCIENCE 2.0</div><div>
</div><div>PLOS Removed Its Hatchet Job Against Kevin Folta - But The Problem Of Media Spin Remains</div><div>Vani Hari, The Food Babe, Isn't Just Wrong - She's A Hypocrite</div><div>Food Babe Learns The Unlisted Controversial Ingredient In Budweiser</div><div>Transparency Weaponized Against Scientists</div><div>The Food Babe Took Down Her Goofy Microwave Oven Post - Science Win</div><div> by Taboola Sponsored Links YOU MAY ALSO LIKE</div><div>
</div><div>Hard-to-Believe, Amazing, Perfectly Timed Pix – Taken At Just The Right Moment!</div><div>Well TImed Photos</div><div>
</div><div>15 Outrageous Disney Movie Conspiracies You'll Find Believable</div><div>SkipAndGiggle</div><div>
</div><div>10 Little Known Political Ideologies</div><div>Rant Politcal</div><div>
</div><div>Top 10 Most Unbelievable Magic Tricks Ever</div><div>Share The Buzz</div><div>
</div><div>The Billionaire Wives Club: 15 Filthy Rich Wives</div><div>Your Daily Dish</div><div>
</div><div>Father And Son Take The Same Photo Every Year For 30 Years – DailyDoap</div><div>DailyDoap.com</div><div>
</div><div>The Most Commonly Selected Balance Transfer Card</div><div>LendingTree</div><div>
</div><div>I Never Thought I Would Get Metastatic Breast Cancer: ...</div><div>EmpowHER</div><div>COMMENTS</div><div>
</div><div>I am so sorry that this is happening to you. I wish there was a way to classify some of these FOI requests as the harassment that they really are.</div><div>
</div><div>Sullivanthepoop (not verified) | 09/11/15 | 14:28 PM</div><div>Link</div><div>I'm fascinated that she is so concerned about her critics' sources of support, but she gets paid by people who profit from her campaigns to discredit anything she sets her mind to. And the difference is what exactly?</div><div>
</div><div>Sorry you have to deal with this! More sorry that Florida taxpayers have to foot the bill...</div><div>
</div><div>Michelle Francl (not verified) | 09/11/15 | 14:45 PM</div><div>Link</div><div>Vani(ty) Hari(ssment). It works. Too bad it's working against you.</div><div>
</div><div>NitricAcid (not verified) | 09/11/15 | 15:05 PM</div><div>Link</div><div>Know that there is a large number of people who are appalled at this concerted attack on scientists. When you profit from people's lack of knowledge, the teacher becomes your enemy.</div><div>
</div><div>Sean Whitten (not verified) | 09/11/15 | 15:08 PM</div><div>Link</div><div> Josh Bloom She is Dr. Oz with breasts. The product of a rapidly growing anti-intellectual society that is far more concerned with good looks and celebrity than facts and ideas. Throw in a few scummy lawyers that the celebrity can afford and the rest of us can't, and there you go: We get Dumb and Dumber, and she gets Rich and Richer. Although her audience may be dumb, she is anything but. She knows what is "important" for becoming successful and has played it beautifully. I doubt you can win, but you are putting up a helluva good fight. </div><div>—</div><div>Josh Bloom</div><div>Josh Bloom | 09/11/15 | 16:08 PM</div><div>Link</div><div>Kevin, you say this:</div><div>
</div><div>She will cost my university tens of thousands of dollars to weed through my private correspondences one by one, making sure that the emails they provide to her do not contain student information.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>But it is my understanding that the person requesting FOIA have to actually pay. Groups have done this to the university I work at regarding monkeys. We send them tens of thousands of daily records.</div><div>brain2bewild (not verified) | 09/11/15 | 20:11 PM</div><div>Link</div><div> Iggy Brady Dr. Folta, You've mentioned in your posts that you don't have anything to hide, professionally or personally in the emails that are reviewed. I think that's great, so you might have one less thing to worry about. But what about the next guy who goes through this, who isn't squeaky clean? Personal issues or professional issues that don't look "right" to the people doing the investigating are going to cost good scientists their jobs.</div><div>
</div><div> We need to stick up for you, not because of the hassle, or expense, but because you have a reasonable expectation to privacy when you are not breaking the law. This is America, why are we letting this happen? I don't want to live in a world where I expect everyone to see my correspondence. Unless a person is running for public office and trying to lie publically about issues, we should demand better protection from unlawful search and seizure of our email.</div><div> </div><div>Also, it troubles me that you feel the need to justify the small alignments and relationships with industry players...when people agree, it's not wrong for them to work on things, even stragetize around bills. Again, that's not a crime. You are allowed to do this. In your field it's in the job description. </div><div>
</div><div>For perspective: I'm a prius driving lefty, who's never shot a gun, caught a fish, plowed a field or voted for a republican, living in a college town. And even I see this as outrageous. If I am getting this mad about your situation, we are in big trouble. </div><div>Somebody out there want to start a scientist legal defense fund? I will contribute!</div><div>Iggy</div><div>—</div><div>Iggy Brady</div><div>Ignatius Brady | 09/11/15 | 20:42 PM</div><div>Link</div><div>Vani finally got her day of reckoning when Yvette's 'Gawker' article was published. Up until that time, the scientific drum had been banging louder and louder with each day for a long time, but on that day in April, it was good to see the FB house came down with Yvette's article going viral. And it was good to read that Vani is admitting how her reputation was damaged as a consequence. </div><div>
</div><div>As is always the case with Vani, she needs to keep the media machine busy or everyone will stop talking about Vani and that would result in less page hits that would in turn result in less Amazon affiliate dollars, less ink in the news columns and less interviews. So the FOIA is 100% about self publicity for financial gain.</div><div>
</div><div>I really admire the work that Kevin and his peers do in a bid to keep the record straight.</div><div>
</div><div>Steve JR (not verified) | 09/12/15 | 05:37 AM</div><div>Link</div><div>The humorous/depressing thing about Food Babe is that at the same time she asks ""what are they trying ti to hide from us" she has staff who quickly ban anyone who posts anything even slightly negative or critical.</div><div>
</div><div>yetisoup (not verified) | 09/12/15 | 08:09 AM</div><div>Link</div><div>This is a really shocking state of affairs that our scientists are being harassed for essentially doing their job by people who are so clearly in it only for the money.</div><div>
</div><div>The modern world is a result of one scientific discovery layered on top of another. Without science we would be throwing spears and living in small clans as opposed to the spacefaring, advanced civilization we are becoming. To actively undermine the very people who are driving scientific progress in our era beggars belief. It's Luddite and downright malicious.</div><div>
</div><div>It's difficult to get an understanding of how threatening this anti-science movement is to the future of science. Left unattended, is their movement big enough to completely derail an important biotechnology or is this just a noisy minority? I find it truly depressing to read how Kevin Folta is being persecuted for being a science educator by empty vessels like Vani Hari who are driven by greed and ego</div><div>
</div><div>Mark Barnes (not verified) | 09/12/15 | 09:26 AM</div><div>Link</div><div>Kevin Folta can NEVER be trusted. He's DONE. His twisted obfuscation to evade being exposed for the obvious SHILL he is is obvious only to those who clearly understand how this process works.</div><div>
</div><div>For starters - Read the book "Science in the Private Interest" by Professor Krimsky of Purdue University. It goes well beyond GMO's! Money trumps science ethics big time. Universities troll for it and are part of the problem. Professors who speak out are censored!</div><div>
</div><div>Anyone still listening/reading anything this d-bag has to say needs his head examined.</div><div>
</div><div>Fake scientific consensus begins with a few paid scientists and pathetic scientific journals which will publish anything. Then the brainwashing begins and all other scientists have to get on board or be shunned by their peers and then it becomes extremely difficult for them to get or keep a job. Then the media is threatened to have commercials pulled if they don't continue the commercials during articles and news segments. Anyone who questions the corporate written stories are labeled crazy conspiracy theorists and anti-science.</div><div>
</div><div>Kevin Folta draws upon nothing but corporate funded science when addressing every question. When the crap hits the fan he has plausible deniability when innocent civilians end up with serious illness or death because of his promotion of this untested science. It's happened before, it's happening now and it MUST be stopped.</div><div>
</div><div>Go Food Babe!</div><div>
</div><div>Tim (not verified) | 09/12/15 | 17:49 PM</div><div>Link</div><div>he is is obvious only to those who clearly don't understand how this process works. There, partially fixed it for you.</div><div>
</div><div>Chris (not verified) | 09/13/15 | 06:54 AM</div><div>Link</div><div>Your inane rant ended exactly like it should have - "Go Food Babe!". That you bash a public scientist while cheering for a clueless foodie who feeds on scientific ignorance to pay for her vacations pretty much says it all.</div><div>
</div><div>Inti (not verified) | 09/14/15 | 17:33 PM</div><div>Link</div><div>Lmfao! What a wanker you are. Keep paying Vani(ty's) pool payment and organic grocery bill!! And, let's not forget the monthly vacations. Kevin Folta will be just fine!</div><div>
</div><div>Missy (not verified) | 09/16/15 | 06:29 AM</div><div>Link</div><div>The very fact that you wrote this long winded article makes me hate you and Monsanto even more. You don't have to be a Harvard graduate to know the only thing that should be in food is food and not chemicals you can't pronounce! Scientist totally suck ass if you spend even one second doing research for a food company. You don't belong in the food industry so stay the fuck out you ignorant heartless excuse of a human!!! The truth is coming out and people like you and Monsanto will suffer all the harm you have inflicted on people. FUCK YOU Kevin Folta you piece of shit!, how's that for a phd?</div><div>
</div><div>Anonymous (not verified) | 09/12/15 | 21:16 PM</div><div>Link</div><div>Dude, you do realize your Whole Foods have those so-called 'unpronounceable chemicals' in them, right? Did you know that there is 3-methylbutyraldehyde and dun dun dun E163 in BLUEBERRIES? Or Yellow-Brown E160a in BANANAS? </div><div>
</div><div>By the way, E163 is what makes Blueberries a superfood.</div><div>
</div><div>By your logic, the only thing you can eat is ice... even that is called "Dihydrogen Monoxide"</div><div>
</div><div>#EverythingIsChemicals</div><div>
</div><div>Intelligence_Enforcer (not verified) | 09/12/15 | 22:45 PM</div><div>Link</div><div>Wow "anonymous," that's super classy. Even more classy is remaining "anonymous" so you can be rude.</div><div>
</div><div>Meagan (not verified) | 09/13/15 | 18:46 PM</div><div>Link</div><div>what is gross is people follow her because she's a "hot chick" with lawyers who waste time and money</div><div>
</div><div>too bad Food Babe and Jenny McCarthy can't share a jail cell for the actual harm they have done to the medical fields and society as a whole</div><div>
</div><div>nina (not verified) | 09/12/15 | 22:07 PM</div><div>Link</div><div>Well anonymous what a rude person you are. And expletives dont advance your argument one whit.</div><div>And you have done us a favour by illustrating and actually proving Kevins point precisely.</div><div>You are obviously as ignorant of basic science as is the subject of the article.</div><div>EVERYTHING in food is chemical in nature. And everything in those chemicals is atomic in nature. Its called the universe.</div><div>Proteins are chemicals fats are chemical , even you are chemical.</div><div>And you belive that nothing in your food should contain a chemical you cant pronounce ?</div><div>
</div><div>Try pronouncing the one below..</div><div>2-oxo-L-threo-hexono-1,4-lactone-2,3-enediol or (R)-3,4-dihydroxy-5-((S)- 1,2-dihydroxyethyl)furan-2(5H)-one</div><div>
</div><div>Its a scary sounding chemical isnt it. Its found in oranges and other fruit. Its called Vitamin C..</div><div>
</div><div>Shane (not verified) | 09/12/15 | 22:28 PM</div><div>Link</div><div>As much as I despise the mercenary ignorance of Food Babe, your private emails are not subject to FOIA requests. This covers your work email on a taxpayer provided computer system.</div><div>
</div><div>Skepticism will not be served by curtailing disclosure of government activity.</div><div>
</div><div>Charles (not verified) | 09/13/15 | 03:03 AM</div><div>Link</div><div>Actually, if you've ever even once sent or received a public work related email from a personal account, then someone (usually a university lawyer) has to go through ALL of those emails too.</div><div>
</div><div>Anonymous (not verified) | 09/14/15 | 07:49 AM</div><div>Link</div><div>State FOI laws differ, and in many jurisdictions this is not settled. In any event, my advice to my colleagues is don't ask, don't tell.</div><div>
</div><div>Barbara Piper (not verified) | 09/15/15 | 11:00 AM</div><div>Link</div><div>Well said Kevin. Experience has taught me that you can judge someone's character or position by how they react when challenged, especially when you shine the light of truth on them. I think we can all predict how she would react when challenged to disclose where she receives her funding from. Of course she's not subject to the sort of legislation those of us in the public sector are but it would be honourable of her to do so. I don't deny her the right to make a living, but not at the expense of truth.</div><div>
</div><div>NigelBrunsdon (not verified) | 09/13/15 | 03:55 AM</div><div>Link</div><div>I'm pleased to see the comments by Tim and "Anonymous."</div><div>
</div><div>They really show how asinine the anti-GMO people are.</div><div>
</div><div>Mikeb (not verified) | 09/13/15 | 18:38 PM</div><div>Link</div><div>Deal with it. You work for a public university, which means you're open to FOIA. We assume since you're capable of organizing your email into folders, or using an email search function. And you don't just disagree or criticize people, you are condescending, arrogant, and pretty darn obnoxious. </div><div>
</div><div>I'm not a fan of Food Babe, but I know some very legitimate organizations that file FOIA with universities, and have found compelling evidence of collusion. So this isn't going to change. </div><div>
</div><div>Case in point:</div><div>
</div><div>http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier...</div><div>
</div><div>What should change is perhaps your level of angst, because no one is asking for your personal email (which is exempt, anyway). They want to see your professional connections to specific companies, in order to determine whether you're assertions are based on science, or greed. </div><div>
</div><div>As a scientist, you should applaud such transparency.</div><div>
</div><div>Shelley (not verified) | 09/14/15 | 07:48 AM</div><div>Link</div><div>Did you even read the post? Kevin is obviously in favor of FOIA for transparency; he's against using it for vanity and harassment. </div><div>
</div><div>Also, like I said above, if you've ever even once received a public work related email on a personal account, then someone (usually a university lawyer) needs to go through those too. It's a waste of money and abuse of an important and valuable system.</div><div>
</div><div>Anonymous (not verified) | 09/14/15 | 07:53 AM</div><div>Link</div><div>Doesn't work that way. You can't say, "Oh, I agree with FOIA when it suits my interests, but not when it doesn't". FOIA is neutral in that respect.</div><div>
</div><div>The University can deny a request if they feel it's being made to harass, and isn't for a legitimate purpose. The individual making the request can then decide if they want to take the University to court or not. That's the check and balance on the FOIA system. Anything else, undermines its integrity and utility. </div><div>
</div><div>I don't care for Food Babe, at all. But I read her argument justifying this request and from a purely FOIA perspective, it is a legitimate request. </div><div>
</div><div>Regardless, the University can choose to defend Folta's decision not to meet the request, or not. Folta can then trip his little fingers over to his email account and search on the relevant terms and return the results. Or not. </div><div>
</div><div>If there are a lot of emails, and a lot of redacting is necessary to meet privacy concerns, it might be the best interest of the University to hire someone to handle this type of functionality, and pass much of the cost along to the person making the request. Yes, you can charge for FOIA requests.</div><div>
</div><div>Shelley (not verified) | 09/14/15 | 08:51 AM</div><div>Link</div><div>PS If I were the University, I would push back at the request for "Babe", as being too generalized. They can then choose to answer the other, more specific, requests. Yes, this is something else the University can do.</div><div>
</div><div>Shelley (not verified) | 09/14/15 | 08:54 AM</div><div>Link</div><div>Here's a thought exercise for this group. </div><div>
</div><div>Where is Kevin Folta's action, energizing his fan base against Food Babe, any different than Food Babe energizing her fan base against him? He's somehow on the side of angels, while Food Babe is the devil?</div><div>
</div><div>FOIA is neutral, The check and balance on it is decided in court, the proper venue. Universities, the same as any other impacted organization, can choose not to provide documents, or provide a subset of documents, based on several exemptions. And they can pass (and often do) costs on to the requester. If the requester feels the response is inadequate, they can take the organization to court, and have the judge, a neutral third-party, decide on the response. It isn't a perfect system, but it's a remarkably accessible system. </div><div>
</div><div>And it is a system that is neutral: You can't pick and choose what is transparency vs what is harassment. All you can do is follow the law(s). </div><div>
</div><div>Marion Nestle (who I hope most people would credit with being scientific enough to garner at least some respect in this crowd), recently wrote about what happened at PLoS when a couple of folks did talk about the necessity of transparency. When some members of the PLoS audience complained, PLoS actually pulled the article. </div><div>
</div><div>http://www.foodpolitics.com/2015/09/should-scientists-with-financial-tie...</div><div>
</div><div>This action was a denial of everything open and honest and transparent. Every scientist everywhere, should be appalled at this action. Yet I imagine the sanctimonious head nodding of scientists, feeling vindicated because their belief system was upheld. I lost all my respect for PLoS for that one action. They were put to the ultimate test a publication can be put to, and failed. </div><div>
</div><div>FOIA, and hence transparency, is _neutral. It is not based on opinion or popularity or who has more followers on Twitter, or gets more signatures in Change.org. We may not like the requests, we may consider them to be harassment, but if we don't respect the concepts and follow the spirit of the FOIA and like laws, we might as well give up the battle for transparency, here and now. </div><div>
</div><div>And science is, above all, transparent. Or it isn't science.</div><div>
</div><div>Shelley Powers (not verified) | 09/14/15 | 12:05 PM</div><div>Link</div><div> Hank You make some good points but then get some basic facts wrong and that detracts from your argument. PLOS pulled the piece because it clearly had not been peer-reviewed, it was a blog post that was a character smear. It was agenda-driven. The co-founder of PLOS was against the post once he read it. That is hardly "some members of the PLoS audience." Science is in their name and that blog post had none of it. It didn't even have journalism.</div><div>
</div><div>In your comment, you are also creating a closed circle and introducing a contradiction - and that is the kind of bad logic that all of the biggest deniers of science engage in, from the Food Babe to Natural Resources Defense Council. "Science is transparent or it isn't science?" I have never seen a description of the scientific method that included such a bizarre statement. Folta publicly thanking Monsanto for funding his travel was not transparent enough so he is not a scientist? </div><div>
</div><div>And Folta can't do what Vani Hari or the partisans running USRTK do or he is not a scientist? His school got $25,000 from Monsanto while Chuck Benbrook's school got millions from organic companies so Folta can't protest his treatment? You then invoke Marion Nestle as some sort of trump card, and that is a mistake because she does not get respect in science. She has a degree in science but the world's foremost AIDS denier also has a degree. Mehmet Oz and Joe Mercola agree with Nestle about science, that should alarm her. And you.</div><div>Hank Campbell | 09/14/15 | 12:30 PM</div><div>Link</div><div>I've read the PLoS article. I never saw it as a character smear. In fact, the character you're probably thinking of, really didn't have much attention in the article until said character started a great deal of hand waving. For someone who teaches communication, has a real problem with it. </div><div>
</div><div>The points in that PLoS article were important enough to stand the criticism, with a possible follow-up counter article. Then we could have a good discussion...but it got shot down. PLoS made a mistake pulling that piece. I used to be a huge proponent, now, I just don't link it anymore. Well, except for an upcoming piece about all this fooflah I'm writing.</div><div>
</div><div>So I have to take what you've said and classify it as hyperbole. Unfortunately, it's the type of hyperbole that got the PLoS article pulled. </div><div>
</div><div>As for my "closed circle", you didn't provide any argument as to how this circle is formed. You kind of tossed out a couple of highly unrelated entities (NRDC and Food Babe...what?), in some refutation of science needing to be transparent. But the very fundamental nature of science is based on transparency: hypotheses must be tested, results must be verified, and above all, shared with the scientific community at large. These are all examples of transparency.</div><div>
</div><div>"Transparency and reproducibility are key ingredients of good science, and require that data and methods, including computer code, be made available."</div><div>
</div><div>http://www.nature.com/ngeo/focus/transparency-in-science/index.html</div><div>
</div><div>And yes, scientists who benefit, directly or indirectly, from corporate donations must disclose these contributions. They must. It doesn't matter if the money goes to fund travel, or fund one's home redecoration: the contribution has an influence on the scientist. The influence may be small, or even unconscious, but it is an influence. </div><div>
</div><div>Even day to day familiarity can, over time, cloud one's judgement. When the Deepwater Horizon blew up in the Gulf, we discovered that the government organization that was supposed to monitor it, let several safety factors go unchecked because of the closeness of the industry workers with the government inspectors. </div><div>
</div><div>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/16/deepwater-horizon-inspect_n_578...</div><div>
</div><div>Kevin was wrong not to disclose the Monsanto contribution, but not terribly wrong. More of an Oops, but he should have made the disclosure. Hopefully he will from now on. It's not that huge a deal, but it is a good time for him to reflect about how close he is to organizations like Monsanto, and maybe he needs to step back, just a little.</div><div>
</div><div>It was fair to take Benbrook to task for the money he received, while being a professor at WSU. But that doesn't make Kevin's actions somehow "good". There is a different degree associated with the action, but he should have disclosed what seems to be a relatively close affiliation with Monsanto and Monsanto employees. Especially Monsanto, because this company is not above using front groups to promote its agenda. </div><div>
</div><div>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Monsanto</div><div>
</div><div>Marion Nestle doesn't get respect? You don't know the food, nutrition, or food safety industries do you? That was an asinine statement to make.</div><div>
</div><div>Shelley Powers (not verified) | 09/14/15 | 15:36 PM</div><div>Link</div><div>Oh by the way, next time I really wouldn't recommend lumping NRDC and Food Babe together. Not if you want to be treated with any credibility.</div><div>
</div><div>Shelley Powers (not verified) | 09/14/15 | 15:38 PM</div><div>Link</div><div>Oh, and speaking of corporate front groups:</div><div>
</div><div>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Council_on_Science_and_Health</div><div>
</div><div>Shelley Powers (not verified) | 09/14/15 | 15:40 PM</div><div>Link</div><div> Hank You're just telling us all you are against science with stuff like this. NRDC and Marion Nestle are untouchable, but claims by a political front group about me must be legitimate. By calling me a corporate front group, you have shown you are a liar, plain and simple, and your goal is not to be a part of the discourse about a real issue, it is to advance an agenda. An agenda that probably matches the goals of NRDC and Nestle to undermine science.</div><div>
</div><div>Go back to blogging for your friends and leave this issue to adults.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Hank Campbell | 09/14/15 | 16:49 PM</div><div>Link</div><div>Another predictably mechanical response to criticism, any reference that questions your integrity is ideological warfare. Then on to the paranoia that any who speak against you must be from NRDC or Mother Jones. And finally deployment of the nuclear option of hyperbole "You're trying to undermine science!"</div><div>
</div><div>Anonymous (not verified) | 09/15/15 | 13:39 PM</div><div>Link</div><div> Hank You bounce into every article saying this same thing. When some crank throws out the Shill Gambit, including you, it's fine. If anyone responds, it is hyperbole. Want to be taken seriously? Stop being an anonymous coward. And grow up. NRDC has $300 million in soft money they don't disclose or launder through foundations, they can fight their own battles. Or they can do what the groups Sourcewatch criticizes do and disclose their funding and be sniped by anonymous nobodies as payback for transparency.</div><div>Hank Campbell | 09/15/15 | 14:58 PM</div><div>Link</div><div>The influence of money on debate can be subtle and far reaching; not just in what is said about a topic, but in fact what topics are discussed. For instance, you might say GMOs are not harmful when consumed, but if they are deluged with Touchdown which inevitably migrates offsite, does that not hasten the advent of glyphosate resistant weeds?</div><div>
</div><div>Further, how does a glyphosate centered regime compare against no till farming with more crop rotation and cover crops instead of leaving fields fallow? There are wide ranging benefits suggested for the latter, but we won't hear a discussion from you, because you receive funding from Syngenta. Of course anyone who points that out is instantly branded by you an ideological liar.</div><div>
</div><div>It's a bit like Mitch McConell's reaching out to foreign officials to undermine Obama's attempt to reach an international climate change agreement - anything to do with campaign contributions? You seem lukewarm to climate change yourself, and as we know you've received funding from Chevron and the Koch brothers.</div><div>
</div><div>BTW, why have the option to post anonymously if you're so against its use?</div><div>
</div><div>Anonymous (not verified) | 09/16/15 | 13:10 PM</div><div>Link</div><div>This is just despicable by that "chick".</div><div>Someone needs to educate her on the proper form of debate and of the scientific method.</div><div>Otherwise lets join together to create an appropriate answer for her.</div><div>Stood up against a wall, and publicly shot!</div><div>
</div><div>Oliver (not verified) | 09/15/15 | 04:22 AM</div><div>Link</div><div> Josh BloomSomeone needs to educate her on the proper form of debate and of the scientific method.</div><div>
</div><div>Uh, not trying to be rude here, but you will have better luck teaching a miniature poodle quantum mechanics. </div><div>—</div><div>Josh Bloom</div><div>Josh Bloom | 09/15/15 | 19:59 PM</div><div>Link</div><div>Ken, you are fighting the good fight, please keep it up. The fight against ignorance and feel-good pseudoscience is too important. It angers me that so much of your time and attention is being drained by this senseless tactic from a willfully scientifically ignorant militant who can not engage you or your work in honest, intellectual debate. That is too bad and this FOIA diversion reveals the weakness of her own position and capabilities to argue effectively.</div><div>
</div><div>I am all for transparency and accountability and believe FOIA is useful for an informed citizenry to monitor those entrusted in government to forward the public good and ensure they are performing their functions appropriately. But in my mind, Hari's request does not fit this intent. This is nothing but abuse of the law to forward a competing agenda. </div><div>
</div><div>Poor form, Vani! Boo!</div><div>
</div><div>Panoptes (not verified) | 09/15/15 | 07:06 AM</div><div>Link</div><div>Sorry, I did mean to address the actual author, Kevin. My mistake and lesson learned: don't try to write an email and a website comment at the same time.</div><div>
</div><div>Panoptes (not verified) | 09/15/15 | 07:22 AM</div><div>Link</div><div>Kevin: quit whining. Your article is intentionally deceitful. The request you quote is very limited and is quickly and easily responded to with a search of the email server and your email client (probably Outlook). That is 10 minutes of time for an IT tech. Moreover, the Florida Public Records Law (and FOIA to the limited extent that it is relevant) provides that the requesting party must reimburse the University for any extraordinary costs. You are simply unhappy that you are subject to the transparency that ensures that the public can monitor the activities of the governing entities of the State of Florida. You are lazy, arrogant or hiding something. Which is it?</div><div>
</div><div>Anonymous (not verified) | 09/15/15 | 08:11 AM</div><div>Link</div><div>Good for Food Babe!</div><div>
</div><div>Folta has a record of sliming her. He can't take what he dishes out.</div><div>
</div><div>Sage (not verified) | 09/16/15 | 17:22 PM</div><div>Link</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">KNOW SCIENCE AND WANT TO WRITE?</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Register Now To Get Your Own Column!</span></div><div>
</div><div>http://www.science20.com/kevin_folta/blog/the_foia_babe_and_the_new_abuse_of_vanity_harassment-157145</div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">infowars</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.infowars.com/food-babe-the-shocking-email-from-monsanto-why-i-am-submitting-a-foia-request/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><h5 style="box-sizing: inherit; clear: both; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 20px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">I’ve always said that food and chemical corporations work with public university scientists “behind closed doors” to manipulate the public—and now our movement has irrefutable PROOF. But first, let me start at the beginning…</font></h5><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When our movement got big companies to change, Dr. Kevin Folta, from University of Florida appeared on the scene. Every time we made headway on an important issue, Kevin Folta, who claimed to be an unbiased scientist, was there to refute our claims and throw some ad hominem attacks. Here are a few examples (<em style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">many more are documented at the end of this post</em>):</font></p><blockquote style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 20px 0px; quotes: none; padding: 30px 0px 20px; border-width: 5px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-bottom-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(213, 215, 219); border-bottom-color: rgb(213, 215, 219); font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; position: relative; clear: both;"><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The fact that she is able to mobilize this army of blind followers who reject science and follow her words, to smear and harm the reputations of companies that are doing nothing wrong.” – The Atlantic, 2/11/2015</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kevin M. Folta, the chairman of the horticultural sciences department at the University of Florida, described Ms. Hari’s lecture at the university last October as a “corrupt message of bogus science and abject food terrorism.” – quoted in New York Times, 3/15/2015</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“There’s something that dies inside when you are a faculty member that works hard to teach about food, farming and science, and your own university brings in a </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">crackpot</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> to unravel all of the information you have brought to students.” — Folta’s Blog, Food Babe Visits My University, 10/21/2014</span></font></p></blockquote><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">My intuition and common sense knew that this guy HAD to be connected to these corporations in some way, but he kept denying any connection. And I believed he was causing irreparable harm to our healthy food movement because the media believed that he was an unbiased scientist.</font></p><h5 style="box-sizing: inherit; clear: both; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 20px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Well, NOT ANYMORE.</font></h5><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This week an <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in-gmo-lobbying-war-emails-show.html?r=1" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent;">unprecedented major investigative report was published in the NY Times</a> about how the chemical and food industries work with public university scientists to advance their agendas to the public. Hundreds of emails have now been revealed between University of Florida Professor Dr. Kevin Folta, Monsanto, the biotech front groups, and their PR firm Ketchum after a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request was submitted by the nonprofit group <a href="http://usrtk.org/gmo/our-investigation-of-big-food-and-its-front-groups/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent;">U.S. Right To Know</a>.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[img]</font></p><h5 style="box-sizing: inherit; clear: both; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 20px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Why would Monsanto work with a public scientist in the first place?</font></h5><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Some powerful entities in the chemical and food industries have a financial incentive to try to discredit us in the work we have all done together and now we know how they are using public scientists like Dr. Kevin Folta as sock puppets to advance their message. We’ve come a long way in our food movement and things are finally starting to change – people are getting healthier and the food industry is responding to us, but why is someone like Dr. Kevin Folta on a mission to stop our progress?</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/06/us/document-folta.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent;">Newly discovered emails</a> reveal that Folta received a $25,000 unrestricted grant from Monsanto, and even wrote to a Monsanto executive, <a href="http://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/glad-to-sign-on.pdf" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent;">“I’m glad to sign on to whatever you like, or write whatever you like,”</a> and “<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2303691-kevin-folta-uoffloridadocs.html#document/p105/a238328" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent;">I promise a solid return on investment.”</a></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%;"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4" face="Times New Roman">However, Folta previously denied ties to Monsanto, here are 9 different examples:</font></p><ul style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; list-style: none; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 5px 0px 5px 24px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; list-style-type: disc;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/02/the-food-babe-enemy-of-c" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; outline: 0px !important; background-color: transparent;">But he denies financial ties</a>.”</font></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 5px 0px 5px 24px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; list-style-type: disc;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He has “<a href="http://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/No-formal-connection-to-Monsanto.png" target="blank" data-slb-active="1" data-slb-asset="1044708367" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; outline: 0px !important; background-color: transparent;">no formal connection to Monsanto</a>.”</font></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 5px 0px 5px 24px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; list-style-type: disc;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150901212046/http:/blog.aspb.org/2015/04/28/foias-chilling-a-scientific-dialog-your-call-to-communicate/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; outline: 0px !important; background-color: transparent;">David [Oppenheimer] and I have no research or personal funding from ‘Big Ag’ – only in our dreams.”</a></font></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 5px 0px 5px 24px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; list-style-type: disc;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“<a href="http://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Not-my-work.png" target="blank" data-slb-active="1" data-slb-asset="1112013109" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; outline: 0px !important; background-color: transparent;">Certainly Monsanto (and others) have funded work at my university. Not my work</a>.”</font></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 5px 0px 5px 24px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; list-style-type: disc;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“<a href="http://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Not-my-work.png" target="blank" data-slb-active="1" data-slb-asset="1112013109" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; outline: 0px !important; background-color: transparent;">I have no financial ties to any of the BigAg companies that make transgenic crops, including Monsanto</a>.”</font></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 5px 0px 5px 24px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; list-style-type: disc;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“<a href="http://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/I-have-nothing-to-do-with-MON.png" target="blank" data-slb-active="1" data-slb-asset="155069306" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; outline: 0px !important; background-color: transparent;">I have nothing to do with MON</a>“</font></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 5px 0px 5px 24px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; list-style-type: disc;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“<a href="http://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Im-an-independent-scientist-Not-Mosanto.png" target="blank" data-slb-active="1" data-slb-asset="116565403" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; outline: 0px !important; background-color: transparent;">I’m an independent scientist. Not Monsanto</a>.”</font></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 5px 0px 5px 24px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; list-style-type: disc;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“<a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691514000052" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; outline: 0px !important; background-color: transparent;">I am one of thousands of independent, public scientists worldwide…</a>”</font></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 5px 0px 5px 24px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; list-style-type: disc;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW8U8ZAhGW8&feature=youtu.be&t=3m5s" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; outline: 0px !important; background-color: transparent;"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I have nothing to do with Monsanto. I’m not, you know, I don’t work for them… I am not a shill (laughing)… I’m a public scientist.”</font></a></li></ul><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not only was Folta repeatedly dishonest about his ties to Monsanto, but on “several occasions” according to the NY Times, Folta took word for word answers and commentary from Monsanto’s PR firm Ketchum to use as his own words. Previously he <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/08/14/researcher-finds-himself-center-battle-over-gmos-and-corporate-support" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent;">claimed he never used the text written for him</a> by the PR firm Ketchum.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[ad]Monsanto sells Roundup, the chemical that is sprayed on the majority of GMO seeds. The main ingredient in Roundup was <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/health-agency-says-widely-used-herbicide-likely-carcinogenic-1426885547" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent;">recently classified as a probable carcinogen</a>. They are in panic mode trying to repair their image and will do anything to confuse the public.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Folta attempted to derail my speaking event at the University of Florida. He has also been interviewed by major media outlets such as The Atlantic, NPR, and the NY Times acting as an unbiased third party source, telling reporters he has no financial ties to Monsanto or the biotech industry all while acting as the ringleader and chief of my critics.</font></p><h5 style="box-sizing: inherit; clear: both; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 20px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Monsanto thanks Folta for attending my talk at The University of Florida</font></h5><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">One of the emails discovered by <a href="http://usrtk.org/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">USRTK.org</a> showed Lisa Drake, an executive at Monsanto cheering Dr. Folta on after he attended my talk at his University last fall. Dr. Folta wrote a blog post attempting to discredit my talk including a false accusation that I refused to answer questions from the audience. (FYI – <a href="http://foodbabe.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/UF.jpg" target="blank" data-slb-active="1" data-slb-asset="385369131" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">Here’s the photographic evidence of the long line of teachers and students that I answered questions from</a>.)</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> I still find it bizarre that if he wanted to ask me a question so bad that he didn’t stay to meet me face to face. Instead he spread dishonest information about my talk all over social media, in forums and on his blog, acting more like an online troll than a distinguished science professor.</span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[drake email ]</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Seeing this email sent shivers down my spine and left me with a lot of questions. First and foremost, my talk was not about the dangers of GMO foods, it was about the story of quitting my corporate career to become a food activist sharing examples of major food companies changing their policies. Who wrote that paragraph summarizing my talk that Lisa Drake referenced? Why was a Monsanto executive sending this message to Folta? Did they ask him to attend my talk? Are they paying him to attack activists like myself? At the time I had no idea why this professor was so aggressive towards me but now it’s starting to make sense.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">I’ve tried to explain to various reporters in the past that many of our critics are part of the larger entrenched food and chemical lobby that doesn’t agree with having more transparency (labeling GMOs) or doesn’t want to remove the controversial chemical additives from our food. The reporters have always said but what about the “public university scientists” that have no ties?</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This investigation finally begins to explain that.</font></p><h5 style="box-sizing: inherit; clear: both; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 20px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Why I am also submitting a FOIA request</font></h5><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In light of this email and the incredible amount of reputational damage Dr. Folta has waged on me personally and our healthy food movement (see a sampling of his public comments below), I am submitting a formal request to the University of Florida to have all documents and correspondence released to the public from Dr. Kevin Folta regarding my name Vani Hari and Food Babe.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">I believe obtaining these correspondences will serve the public in greater transparency on how the food industry uses “independent” third-party scientists and professors to control science and deliver their PR and lobbying messaging.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">I’ve often wondered why companies like Monsanto go through such great lengths to stop transparency about GMOs… If their food is safe, why don’t they want to label GMOs? Why would they pay public university scientists to advance their message?</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Xo,</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Vani</font></p><hr style="box-sizing: content-box; border: 0px; margin-bottom: 20px; height: 0px; line-height: 30px; background-color: rgb(204, 204, 204);" /><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Quotes from Kevin Folta:</font></p><h5 style="box-sizing: inherit; clear: both; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 20px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Folta calls me a crackpot, accuses me of food terrorism, blackmail, villifying farmers and compares me to a dog.</font></h5><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Vani is very good at marketing herself and telling people what they want to hear. She is very good at playing into the current popularity of vilifying farmers and large-scale agriculture. But really, she’s her own company, and she’s the spokesperson.” – <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/02/the-food-babe-enemy-of-c" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent;">The Atlantic, 2/11/2015</a></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Kevin M. Folta, the chairman of the horticultural sciences department at the University of Florida, described Ms. Hari’s lecture at the university last October as a</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> “corrupt message of bogus science and abject<b> food terrorism.</b>” (Her fee was $6,000.</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">) Dr. Folta added, “She found that a popular social media site was more powerful than science itself, more powerful than reason, more powerful than actually knowing what you’re talking about.”. – quoted in </span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/style/taking-on-the-food-industry-one-blog-post-at-a-time.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">New York Times, 3/15/2015</a></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“She really conflates the science. If anything, she’s created more confusion about food, more confusion about the role of chemicals and additives.” – <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/12/04/364745790/food-babe-or-fear-babe-as-activist-s-profile-grows-so-do-her-critics" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent;">NPR, 12/4/2014</a></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“To have someone like Hari go out and make up nonsense that only digs into public opinion against these technologies is really frustrating for us.” – <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/02/the-food-babe-enemy-of-c" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent;">The Atlantic, 2/11/2015</a></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“That’s not healthy activism or change based on science. That’s <b>coercion, fear mongering and (yes) terrorism</b> to achieve short-sighted political non-victories in the name of profit and self-promotion, ironically the same thing she accuses the companies of.” — <a href="http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2014/10/food-babe-visits-my-university.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent;">Food Babe Visits My University, 10/21/2014</a></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Luckily, Starbucks didn’t fold… Otherwise, Hari would have <b>blackmailed </b>them too.” – <a href="http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2014/10/food-babe-visits-my-university.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent;">Food Babe Visits My University, 10/21/2014</a></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Vani Hari would be spreading her corrupt message of bogus science and abject food terrorism here at the University of Florida. Oh joy”. – <a href="http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2014/10/food-babe-visits-my-university.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent;">Food Babe Visits My University, 10/21/2014</a></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“Responding to the Food Babe is like telling a funny joke to my dog at a party.</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Everyone there gets it– except for the dog. She just tilts her head to one side and looks at me like I’m stupid.” – </span><a href="http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2015/03/response-to-food-babe-this-is-boring.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">Response to the Food Babe. This is Boring, 3/19/2015</a></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“There’s something that dies inside when you are a faculty member that works hard to teach about food, farming and science, and your own university brings in a crackpot to unravel all of the information you have brought to students.” — <a href="http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2014/10/food-babe-visits-my-university.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent;">Food Babe Visits My University, 10/21/2014</a></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“If this is a charismatic leader of a new food movement it is quite a disaster. She’s uninformed, uneducated, trite and illogical. She’s afraid of science and intellectual engagement. She’s</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Oz candy</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> at best.”- </span><a href="http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2014/10/food-babe-visits-my-university.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">Food Babe Visits My University, 10/21/2014</a></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“What if Hari were to take a long look in the mirror and decide that while scaring people into boycotts and book buying pays the bills, the legacy associated with it is embarrassing. Time will frown on Hari, and it already is happening. While adored by internet fans, scientists, physicians, the food industry, farmers and science fans see her clearly as the empty information vessel she truly is.” – <a href="http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-value-of-vani.html?q=food+babe" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent;">The Value of Vani, 12/12/2014</a></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Her discussion was a <b>narcissistic, self-appointed</b> attack on food science and human nutrition. There is a vein in my head that pulses when I hear someone deliberately misrepresent science for personal celebrity, and it was pounding.” – <a href="http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2014/10/food-babe-visits-my-university.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent;">Food Babe Visits My University, 10/21/2014</a></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I was really proud to see that the student audience was not buying it. Throughout her presentation that was about Hari in the spotlight and “me-me-me”, students got up and left. She left gaping pregnant pauses where previous performances got applause– only to hear nothing. Not even crickets.” – <a href="http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2014/10/food-babe-visits-my-university.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent;">Food Babe Visits My University, 10/21/2014</a></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“While microphones stood ready in the audience to answer questions, there was no public Q&A period where a scientist that knows the research could publicly challenge her false assertions</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">.”- </span><a href="http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2014/10/food-babe-visits-my-university.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">Food Babe Visits My University, 10/21/2014</a></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I guess I’m just angry because I didn’t get to lock science horns with The Food Babe. I would have liked to have asked a few questions that she could never answer.” – <a href="http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2014/10/food-babe-visits-my-university.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent;">Food Babe Visits My University, 10/21/2014</a></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I listened to her talk about herself and provide lots of false information to my students, and waited for the opportunity to ask dismantling questions from one of the two microphones in the room”. – <a href="http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2014/11/a-letter-to-support-my-claims-against.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent;">A Letter To Support My Claims Against the Food Babe, 11/16/2014</a></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“She did not take questions from the audience. The event ended and the audience left”.- <a href="http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2014/11/a-letter-to-support-my-claims-against.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent;">A Letter To Support My Claims Against the Food Babe, 11/16/2014</a></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“She was paid $6000 for over an hour’s time to promote her brand and </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">spread her filth. </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Now scientists and educators have to fix it.” – </span><a href="http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2014/11/a-letter-to-support-my-claims-against.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">A Letter To Support My Claims Against the Food Babe, 11/16/2014</a></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“As we attempt to illuminate products, technology and method to feed a growing population, Hari’s shameful resistance to reality needs to be met. We’ve done that, and I’m proud of the push back…” – <a href="http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-value-of-vani.html?q=food+babe" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent;">The Value of Vani, 12/12/2014</a></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“Recently I’ve given a number of talks and interviews where I’ve been described as</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> the “guy that stood up to the Food Babe”.</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> While standing up for science is important, I’d rather be described as the guy that changed her mind because I took the time to teach the facts.” – </span><a href="http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-value-of-vani.html?q=food+babe" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">The Value of Vani, 12/12/2014</a></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I cannot think of someone so clueless that thinks she’s so clue-full. The bravado to manufacture completely wacky statements is beyond arrogance, and to criticize students who approach her from a scholarly evidence-based point shows she’s fully subscribed to her own deception.” – <a href="http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2015/01/vani-haris-kooky-response-to-critical.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent;">Vani Hari’s Kooky Response to Critical Students, 1/26/2015</a></font></p><h5 style="box-sizing: inherit; clear: both; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 20px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Folta discredits Food Babe campaigns to remove controversial chemicals from the food supply:</font></h5><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Bread is a foam. Even culinary experts will tell you. It was a perfectly safe food additive for years, until she came along and decided that Subway bread was essentially a yoga mat.” – <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/02/the-food-babe-enemy-of-c" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent;">The Atlantic, 2/11/2015</a></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The fact that she is able to mobilize this army of blind followers who reject science and follow her words, to smear and harm the reputations of companies that are doing nothing wrong.” – <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/02/the-food-babe-enemy-of-c" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent;">The Atlantic, 2/11/2015</a></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Safety always has to be the number one concern. And an understanding of safety is contingent on an understanding of the chemical in question. But she lacks the scientific prowess to be able to tell when something is truly a threat, and when something poses no threat.” – <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/02/the-food-babe-enemy-of-c" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent;">The Atlantic, 2/11/2015</a></font></p><h5 style="box-sizing: inherit; clear: both; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 20px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Additional Evidence: Folta denies any ties to Monsanto on his blog:</font></h5><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“In another thread she encourages those curious to call the university, because “</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">a certain professor who promotes Monsanto… has spread a lot of nonsense”. </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Again, she speaks from no evidence, leveling false allegations against a public scientist that only wants her to back her claims with science. How do I ‘support Monsanto’?”- </span><a href="http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2014/11/a-letter-to-support-my-claims-against.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">A Letter To Support My Claims Against the Food Babe, 11/16/2014</a></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“She also took the liberty of making a false association between a public scientist and university professor to a company that does not exist, purely to discredit him.</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Here are two clear falsehoods that Hari stands by. Why anyone would take any advice from her, ever, is beyond me.”- </span><a href="http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2014/11/a-letter-to-support-my-claims-against.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">A Letter To Support My Claims Against the Food Babe, 11/16/2014</a></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Of course, she ties me in with Monsanto. Blatantly false. But since when does she need evidence before making a claim?” – <a href="http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2014/12/vani-hari-food-babe-and-silencing.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent;">Vani Hari (Food Babe) and Silencing Critics, 12/7/2014</a></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Folta’s personal email to Food Babe (3/19/2015):</span><br style="box-sizing: inherit;" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“I work as an independent, public scientist. Companies have no control of my research, my results or my opinions.”</span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 30px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“You’ll also see from my publications that almost all of my funding comes from public sources, like USDA, NSF and NIH. I’m not a “Monsanto scientist” as you’ve suggested. My only “industry funding” is for strawberries– a strawberry industry of family farmers that grow a nutritious fruit.</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Yes, I answer questions on GMO Answers. I am not paid, I’m grateful for the forum,</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> and if you gave me a page on Food Babe.com to answer questions the answers would be exactly the same.”</span></font></p></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">march 2013</font></div><div><header style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 10px 0px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><h1 class="entry-title" itemprop="name headline" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 10px 0px; line-height: 35px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Only Seralini can Censor Seralini</font></h1><div class="subhead" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="postauthortop author vcard" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-right: 5px;"><span class="icon-user" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; line-height: 1;"> by <span itemprop="author" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a href="http://www.biofortified.org/community/user/kevin-folta/" class="fn" rel="author" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">Kevin Folta</a></span> |</span> <span class="postedintop" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 5px;"><span class="icon-folder-open" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; line-height: 1;"> posted in: <a href="http://www.biofortified.org/category/commentary/" rel="category tag" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">Commentary</a></span> <span class="kad-hidepostedin" style="box-sizing: border-box;">|</span> <span class="postcommentscount" data-disqus-identifier="13794 http://www.biofortified.org/?p=13794" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-left: 5px;"><span class="icon-comments-alt" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; line-height: 1;"> <span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="13794 http://www.biofortified.org/?p=13794" style="box-sizing: border-box;">9</span></span></span></span></span></font></div></header><div class="entry-content" itemprop="description articleBody" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><figure id="attachment_13796" class="thumbnail wp-caption alignright" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 10px 0px 10px 20px; float: right; text-align: center; max-width: 100%; width: 398px;"><figcaption class="caption wp-caption-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Supporters of Prof Seralini should stop complaining about being treated unfairly, and simply publish the work elsewhere. If the data truly support what they claim, the work will find many excellent alternative publication venues.</font></figcaption></figure><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The 2012 work by Seralini et al has <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">long been retracted</a>, and months later friends and admirers of Prof Seralini still are screaming foul and injustice, even leveling claims of censorship. In the recent online twitter rally over at <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/supportseralini" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">#SupportSeralini</a>, you can read claims about how Monsanto controls all scientific journals and their editors, effectively expunging any evidence of transgenic plant product harm from the scientific literature.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.5em;">However, </span><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700; line-height: 1.5em;"><i style="box-sizing: border-box;">there’s only one person controlling censorship</i></span><span style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.5em;"> at this point– Prof. Seralini himself!<span id="more-13794" style="box-sizing: border-box;" /></span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The way scientific publication works is that there are hundreds of journals, and all of them are eager to publish work that will raise their visibility and credibility as a scientific resource. If the claims of the retracted work were backed by solid methods, sufficient numbers, reproducible data, appropriate controls with appropriate interpretations, then there is <em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">no question</span></em> that the work would be worthy of publication in the finest journals.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The paper claims evidence that both insertion of a gene and the glyphosate herbicide are intensely tumorigenic. If sufficient evidence was provided, the work would have tremendous support in the scientific community and in publication. Approximately 70% of processed food products contain ingredients from a GM plant, and definitive data would be absolutely noteworthy and of broad interest.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Those that claim a conspiracy at <em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">Environmental and Chemical Toxicology</span></em> should refocus their charge. Instead of concocting wild associations between companies and journals, why not simply just find another journal to publish the work? As a publishing scientist, if I felt I was unfairly treated by one journal, I would simply move along to the next. Editorial Boards are hardly anonymous, and an author can easily request editorial support from independent scientists with zero ties to corporate ag.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Seralini 2012 work was retracted. Still today there exists a sharp rift between scientists that questioned the methods, numbers and interpretations from the beginning, and a section of the public that believes the data represent sufficient evidence of danger. What is correct? The answer is in publication. If the original work was scientifically rigorous, it will find a new home in the literature. More importantly, it will seed hundreds of new publications that will identify the mechanisms that connect an inserted gene or an herbicide to tumors.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A failure to re-publish is also quite telling.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">At this point efforts like #SupportSeralini need to change their focus from conspiratorial allegations to encouraging Prof. Seralini to publish the work with sufficient numbers and controls. If the story was real, it is something all of us need to know about ASAP, and there is no company that can somehow override hard, reproducible, statistically relevant data from well designed experiments.</font></p></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/11/28/sources-funded-monsanto">http://ecowatch.com/2015/11/28/sources-funded-monsanto</a></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Following a Columbia Journalism Review <a href="http://www.cjr.org/criticism/science_journalism_conflicts_of_interest.php" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">article </a>on whether science journalists should accept money from corporate interests and whether there is adequate disclosure of sources’ corporate ties and conflicts of interest, <a href="http://usrtk.org/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">U.S. Right to Know</a> reviewed recent articles to assess how often journalists and columnists quote academic sources without stating that they are funded by the agrichemical giant <a href="http://ecowatch.com/?s=monsanto" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Monsanto</a>.</font></p><figure id="attachment_373114" aria-labelledby="figcaption_attachment_373114" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 3px; line-height: 25.2px; max-width: 760px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><figcaption id="figcaption_attachment_373114" class="wp-caption-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0.1875rem 0.4375rem 0.1875rem 0rem; line-height: 1.103rem;" /></figure><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Our review found 27 articles quoting (or authored by) university professors after they received Monsanto funding, but without disclosing that funding.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This is a collapse of journalistic standards. When reporters quote sources about food issues such as <a href="http://ecowatch.com/news/food-agriculture/gmo-genetically-modified-organism/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">GMOs</a> or <a href="http://ecowatch.com/?s=organic" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">organic food</a>, readers deserve to know if the sources have been funded by Monsanto or have other conflicts of interest.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The principal effect of failing to reveal these conflicts of interest is to unfairly enhance the credibility of Monsanto-funded academics and their support of GMOs and criticism of organic food, while detracting from the credibility of consumer advocates.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Our review found that many top media outlets quoted either University of Florida Professor Kevin Folta or University of Illinois Professor Emeritus Bruce Chassy without disclosing that the professors received funding from Monsanto. According to documents <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in-gmo-lobbying-war-emails-show.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">published by the New York Times</a>, Professor Folta <a href="http://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Monsanto-grant-letter-to-Folta.pdf" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">received Monsanto funding</a> in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/06/us/document-folta.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">August 2014</a> and Professor Chassy<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/05/us/document-chassy.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">in October 2011</a>, if not before.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Many of these journalistic failures occurred at influential news outlets: newspapers such as the New York Times, Washington Post and Chicago Tribune; science publications such as Nature, Science Insider and Discover; magazines such as the New Yorker, Wired and The Atlantic; as well as broadcast outlets like ABC and NPR.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Following is a list of news articles quoting (or authored by) Professors Folta and Chassy—after they received their Monsanto funding—but failing to disclose that they had received the Monsanto funding.</font></p><ol style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.625em; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1.25em; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">New York Times:</strong> <em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/style/taking-on-the-food-industry-one-blog-post-at-a-time.html?r=0" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Taking on the Food Industry, One Blog Post at a Time</a>.”</em> By Courtney Rubin, March 13. (Also ran in the <em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Sarasota Herald-Tribune</em>).</font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">New York Times:</strong> <em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/business/energy-environment/disputed-study-links-modified-corn-to-greater-health-risks.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Foes of Modified Corn Find Support in a Study</a>.”</em> By Andrew Pollack, Sept. 19, 2012.</font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Washington Post:</strong> <em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/21/kraft-mac-cheese-just-got-duller-you-can-thank-or-blame-the-food-babe/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Kraft Mac & Cheese Just Got Duller. You Can Thank (Or Blame) ‘The Food Babe’</a></em>.” By Michael E. Miller, April 21. (Also ran in the <em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Chicago Tribune</em>).</font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Washington Post:</strong> “<em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/03/proof-hes-the-science-guy-bill-nye-is-changing-his-mind-about-gmos/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Proof He’s the Science Guy: Bill Nye Is Changing His Mind About GMOs</a>.</em>” By Puneet Kollipara, March 3.</font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Nature:</strong> “<em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://www.nature.com/news/gm-crop-opponents-expand-probe-into-ties-between-scientists-and-industry-1.18146" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">GM-Crop Opponents Expand Probe Into Ties Between Scientists and Industry</a>.</em>” By Keith Kloor, Aug. 6.</font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">NPR:</strong> “<em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/12/04/364745790/food-babe-or-fear-babe-as-activist-s-profile-grows-so-do-her-critics" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Is The Food Babe A Fearmonger? Scientists Are Speaking Out</a>.</em>” By Maria Godoy, Feb. 10.</font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">New Yorker: </strong><em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/02/04/the-operator" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">The Operator</a>.”</em> By Michael Specter, Feb. 4, 2013.</font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">The Atlantic:</strong> “<em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/02/the-food-babe-enemy-of-chemicals/385301/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">The Food Babe: Enemy of Chemicals</a>.</em>” By James Hamblin, Feb. 11.</font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Wired:</strong> <em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“<a href="http://www.wired.com/2015/02/anti-gmo-activist-seeks-expose-emails-food-scientists/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Anti-GMO Activist Seeks to Expose Scientists Emails with Big Ag</a>.”</em> By Alan Levinovitz, Feb. 23.</font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">ABC News:</strong> “<em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Health/scientists-developing-hypo-allergenic-apples/story?id=18782570" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Scientists Developing Hypo-Allergenic Apples</a>.</em>” By Gillian Mohney, March 22, 2013.</font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Science Insider: </strong><em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“<a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/scientific-community/2015/02/agricultural-researchers-rattled-demands-documents-group-opposed-gm" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Agricultural Researchers Rattled by Demands for Documents from Group Opposed to GM Foods</a>.”</em> By Keith Kloor, Feb. 11.</font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Columbia Journalism Review:</strong> <em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“<a href="http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/why_scientists_often_hate_reco.php" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Why Scientists Often Hate Records Requests</a>.”</em> By Anna Clark, Feb. 25.</font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Discover: </strong><em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“<a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2014/11/10/open-letter-bill-nye-plant-scientist/#.Vk4HuN-rSdg" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Open Letter to Bill Nye from a Plant Scientist</a>.”</em> By Keith Kloor, Nov. 10, 2014.</font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Discover:</strong> <em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“<a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2015/02/27/balance-transparency-academic-freedom/#.Vk5L8t-rTaQ" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">How to Balance Transparency with Academic Freedom?</a>“</em> By Keith Kloor, Feb. 27.</font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Discover: </strong><em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“<a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2015/02/11/anti-gmo-group-seeks-emails-university-scientists/#.Vk5Odt-rTaQ" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Anti-GMO Group Seeks Emails from University Scientists</a>.”</em> By Keith Kloor, Feb. 11.</font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Forbes:</strong> <em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/06/24/zombie-retracted-seralini-gmo-maize-rat-study-republished-to-hostile-scientist-reactions/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Zombie Retracted Séralini GMO Maize Rat Study Republished To Hostile Scientist Reactions</a>.</em>” By Jon Entine, June 24, 2014.</font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Forbes:</strong> <em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/03/10/did-the-new-yorker-botch-puff-piece-on-frog-scientist-tyrone-hayes-turning-rogue-into-beleaguered-hero/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Did The New Yorker Botch Puff Piece On Frog Scientist Tyrone Hayes, Turning Rogue into Beleaguered Hero?</a>“</em> By Jon Entine, March 10, 2014.</font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Forbes:</strong> “<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2013/07/17/you-can-put-lipstick-on-a-pig-study-but-it-still-stinks/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">You Can Put Lipstick On A Pig (Study), But It Still Stinks</a>.” By Bruce M. Chassy and Henry I. Miller, July 17, 2013.</font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Forbes: </strong><em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“<a href="http://anti-gmo%20scientist%20gilles-eric%20seralini%2C%20activist%20jeffrey%20smith%20withdraw%20from%20food%20biotech%20debate/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Anti-GMO Scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini, Activist Jeffrey Smith Withdraw from Food Biotech Debate</a>.”</em> By Jon Entine, May 29, 2013.</font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Forbes:</strong> <em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/10/19/malpractice-on-dr-oz-pop-health-expert-hosts-anti-gm-food-rant-scientists-push-back/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Malpractice On Dr. Oz: Pop Health Expert Hosts Anti-GM Food Rant; Scientists Push Back</a>.”</em> By Jon Entine, Oct. 19, 2012.</font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Forbes:</strong> <em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/09/25/scientists-smell-a-rat-in-fraudulent-genetic-engineering-study/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Scientists Smell a Rat In Fraudulent Genetic Engineering Study</a>.”</em> By Henry I. Miller and Bruce Chassy, Sept. 25, 2012.</font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Forbes:</strong> <em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/02/22/the-science-of-things-that-arent-so/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">The Science of Things That Aren’t So</a>.”</em> By Bruce Chassy and Henry I. Miller, Feb. 22, 2012.</font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Des Moines Register:</strong> <em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“<a href="http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/2014/10/07/john-block-consumers-misled-organic-food-safety/16840717/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Consumers Are Misled About Organic Safety</a>.”</em> By John Block, Oct. 10, 2014.</font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Gainesville Sun: </strong><em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“<a href="http://www.gainesville.com/article/20140629/articles/140629633?p=1&tc=pg" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Genetically Modified Foods Face Hurdles</a>.”</em> By Jeff Schweers, June 29, 2014.</font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Peoria Journal Star:</strong><em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"> “<a href="http://www.pjstar.com/article/20140621/Business/140629937/?Start=1" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Hybrid Crops That Used to Offer Resistance to Rootworm No Match for Mother Nature</a>.”</em> By Steve Tarter, June 21, 2014.</font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Gawker: </strong><em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“<a href="http://gawker.com/the-food-babe-blogger-is-full-of-shit-1694902226" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">The ‘Food Babe’ Blogger Is Full of Shit</a>.”</em> By Yvette d’Entremont, April 6.</font></li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Louis Post-Dispatch:</strong> <em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“<a href="http://www.stltoday.com/business/columns/david-nicklaus/california-labeling-fight-may-raise-food-prices-for-all-of/article_2202cd26-e89e-11e1-8a7f-0019bb30f31a.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">California Labeling Fight May Raise Food Prices for All of Us</a>.”</em>By David Nicklaus, Aug. 19, 2012.</font></li></ol><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This is merely one example of two professors who were not identified as received funding from Monsanto and yet these two professors received major traction in the media as “independent” experts on GMOs and organics. The only reason the professors admitted to receiving Monsanto funding was due to emails uncovered by Freedom of Information Act <a href="http://usrtk.org/gmo/our-investigation-of-big-food-and-its-front-groups/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">requests filed</a> by U.S. Right to Know, a consumer group.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">How often does it happen that journalists present other academics funded by food or agrichemical companies as “independent” sources and without disclosing their corporate funding?</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">One remedy for this problem is that when journalists write about food, that they carefully ask their sources whether they have any conflicts of interest, where they get their funding from and whether they receive any funding from food or agrichemical companies like Monsanto or their PR front groups.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That, however, may not be enough. Professor Kevin Folta <a href="http://usrtk.org/gmo/our-investigation-of-big-food-and-its-front-groups/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">r</a><a href="http://usrtk.org/gmo/our-investigation-of-big-food-and-its-front-groups/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">eceived Monsanto funding, yet repeatedly denied ties to or funding from Monsanto</a>. Reporters—and readers—should be aware that such <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150901212046/http:/blog.aspb.org/2015/04/28/foias-chilling-a-scientific-dialog-your-call-to-communicate/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">deceit</a> by Monsanto-funded academics has recently occurred and be on their guard against it.</font></p></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" /><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Puppetmasters of Academia (or What the NY Times Left out)</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">September 8, 2015 Biotechnology, Commentaries, Science Media 41 Comments</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b>by Jonathan Latham, PhD</b></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“Reading the emails make(s) me want to throw up” tweeted the Food Babe after reading a lengthy series of them posted online by the NY Times on Sept 5th. The emails in question result from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and are posted in the side bars of a front-page article by Times reporter Eric Lipton (“Food Industry Enlisted Academics in G.M.O. Lobbying War, Emails Show”). The article is highly disturbing, but, as the Food Babe implied, the Times buried the real story. The real scoop was not the perfidy and deceit of a handful of individual professors. Buried in the emails is proof positive of active collusion between the agribusiness and chemical industries, numerous and often prominent academics, PR companies, and key administrators of land grant universities for the purpose of promoting GMOs and pesticides. In particular, nowhere does the Times note that one of the chief colluders was none other than the President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">All this is omitted entirely, or buried in hard-to-notice side bars, which are anyway unavailable to print readers. So, here is the article Eric Lipton should have written.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">First, The Lipton Story</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Lipton article seems, at first sight, to be impressive reporting. Lipton describes how Kevin Folta, Chair of the Dept. of Horticulture at the University of Florida secretly took expenses and $25,000 of unrestricted money from Monsanto to promote GMO crops. On behalf of the biotech industry, or via the PR firm Ketchum, Folta wrote on websites and attended public events, trainings, lobbying efforts and special missions.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">FOOD INDUSTRY ENLISTED ACADEMICS</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Parts of this were already known, but Lipton digs up further damning evidence and quotes from Folta. They include an email to Monsanto that solidly contradicts Folta’s previous denials of a relationship with Monsanto and the biotech industry:<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> “I am grateful for this opportunity and promise a solid return on the investment,</span>” Folta wrote after receiving the $25,000 check, thereby showing both a clear understanding of his role and the purpose of the money. The article goes on to similarly expose Bruce <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Chassy (Prof Emeritus, University of Illinois) and David Shaw (Mississippi State University)</span>. It also discussses, presumably for <b>“balance”, agronomist and GMO critic Charles Benbrook, then at Washington State University, who unlike the others openly acknowledged his funding.</b></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">What Lipton Missed</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">But readers of the emails can find facts that are much more damaging to perceptions of academic independence than that contained in the main article.<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> For one thing, the money Folta received is insignificant besides the tens of millions his university was taking from Syngenta (>$10million), Monsanto(>$1million), Pioneer (>$10million), and BASF (>$1million)</span>. Money that it’s hard to believe did not have a role in protecting Kevin Folta as he roamed zealously (and often offensively) over the internet, via his twitter account, blog, podcast, and OpEds, squelching dissent and ridiculing GMO critics wherever he went.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Also missing from the main Times article is a sense of the extensive and intricate networking of a small army of academics furthering the interests of Monsanto and other parts of the chemical, agribusiness and biotech industries. Folta rarely acted alone. His networks are filled with economists, molecular biologists, plant pathologists, development specialists, and agronomists, many of them much more celebrated than Kevin Folta, but all of them in a knowing loop with industry and the PR firms. Their job was acknowledged openly in emails <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">(“We are all bad-ass shills for the truth. It’s a pleasure shilling with you.” Or, as Folta himself put it: “I’m glad to sign on to whatever you like, or write whatever you like.”</span>).<b> More generally, the group’s role was to initiate academic publications and other articles and to firefight legislative, media and scientific threats to the GMO and pesticide industries, all the while keeping their industry links hidden.</b></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The academics identified by these emails as cooperating with industry and PR firms include:</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Profs. Bruce Chassy (University of Illinois) and Alan McHughen (University of California, Riverside) who worked together to destroy the credibility of Russian scientist and GMO critic Irina Ermakova. They persuaded the journal Nature Biotechnology to interview Ermakova about her research and describe it. This interview was followed by a detailed critique of her research (about which none of the authors were expert). Ermakova was neither told of the critique nor given a chance to answer it. This whole elaborate <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">subterfuge required her to be sent a dummy proof of the article she thought she was publishing in the journal.</span></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Prof. Calestuous Juma (Harvard University) longtime advocate of GMOs for Africa.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Prof. Wayne<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Parrott (University of Georgia)</span> a serial intervener in academic GMO debates.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Prof. Roger Beachy (Danforth Center, formerly USAID). Beachy is the principal living exponent of a classic biotech strategy: to respond rapidly to a report or publication critical of some aspect of the technology with a multi-author “rebuttal” [Disclaimer: the inaugural report of the Bioscience Resource Project (on the genome damage caused by genetic engineering) was met, even before formal publication, with both barrels from 23 professors, including Roger Beachy (Altpeter et al 2005)].(2)</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Prof. Ron Herring (Cornell) who has helped to promote GMOs in India and fought to defuse the farmer suicide debate in India.</span></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Prof. CS Prakash (Tuskegee University) </span>is the convener of the influential listserv AgBioWorld. AgBioWorld was the all-important conduit for a petition signed by three thousand scientists calling for the retraction of a 2001 scientific paper showing <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">GMO contamination of Mexican corn (</span>Quist and Chapela 2001). As detailed in an article called <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The Fake Persuaders, the scientists who initiated the petition, and made inaccurate and inflammatory statements about the authors, were not real people. However, their emails could be traced back to servers belonging to Monsanto or Bivings, a PR company that was working with Monsanto at the time.</span></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Prof. Nina Fedoroff (Penn State) is the most prominent of all of the scientists looped into all of the Times emails. Nina Fedoroff was the 2011-2012 President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.</span> The AAAS is the foremost scientific body in the US. During her Presidency, Fedoroff, who is also a contributor to the NY Times, used her position to coordinate and sign a letter on behalf of 60 prominent scientists. This letter was sent to EPA as part of an effort to defeat a pesticide regulatory effort. The real coordinator was Monsanto but Fedoroff participated in phone conferences and email exchanges with them (including with the prominent lobbyist <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Stanley Abramson) </span>and gets credit in the emails for “moving the ball far down the field”. Yet Nina Fedoroff is not once named in the main article and nowhere at all is her position noted.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">So the story that academia’s most vocal GMO defenders, and some of its most prominent scientists, are copied into these emails is missing. The focus on individuals like Folta occludes a demonstration, for the first time ever, of long-suspected and intricate coordination and cooperation among them.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Also looped in to various of the emails are supposedly independent individuals and organisations who speak in favour of biotechnology, self-reportedly out of personal passion. These include Dr Steve Savage, <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Karl Haro von Mogel of Biofortified, Mischa Popoff (of the <b>Heartland Institute) and Jon Entine</b> </span>(then affiliated with George Mason University and now head of the Genetic Literacy Project and a Forbes Magazine columnist). All are revealed, by the emails but not the article, as biotech insiders.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Cooperation among academics is not a crime. But these emails show, as in the EPA letter example, that a company (usually Monsanto, but also Dow and Syngenta and a PR firm, often several of them, plus sometimes the biotech lobbyists BIO or CropLife America) were invariably looped in to these emails, and further, that initiatives usually began with one of these non-academic entities, and were shepherded by them. Only rarely is there even a suggestion from the emails that the various academics were out in front, though that was always the intended impression of the result.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">But perhaps the biggest of all revelations within these emails is the connivance of senior university administrators, especially at Cornell University.</span> 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<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Gates-funded Cornell <b>Alliance for Science).</b></span></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">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 <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">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.</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</span></div></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">9/14</font></div><div><p style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px 0px 1em; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.6px; background-image: none; background-attachment: scroll; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: repeat;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">At Discover blogger Keith Kloor’s invitation, University of Florida plant geneticist <b>Kevin Folta</b> wrote an <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2014/11/10/open-letter-bill-nye-plant-scientist/#.VGLfzpPF9Mk" 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;">open letter </a>to Bill Nye</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> after the pop science guru said he opposed genetically modified foods because the alleged ecological dangers they presented. The challenge has exploded across social media, in part because of Folta’s impeccable reputation for independence from industry on the GMO issue.</span></font></p><p style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px 0px 1em; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.6px; background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The GLP [ENTINE]posts some excerpts from the letter as it appeared on Kloor’s site, but urges the reader to review the entire letter and the fascinating debate it has engendered <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2014/11/10/open-letter-bill-nye-plant-scientist/#.VGLfzpPF9Mk" target="blank" style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent;">directly on the Discover site</a>.</font></p><blockquote style="border: 0px none rgb(243, 243, 243); margin: 0px 0px 1em 1em; outline: none 0px; padding: 1em 1em 0.5em; vertical-align: baseline; font-style: italic; line-height: 19.6px; background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll rgb(247, 247, 247);"><p style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px 0px 1em; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.6px; background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Last week you published a new book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Evolution-Creation-Bill-Nye/dp/1250007135" target="blank" style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent;">Undeniable</a>, again covering the harm of science denial with regard to evolution. <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2014/11/06/bill-nye-explains-gmo-skeptic/#.VGA1higwL18" target="blank" style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent;">But then in the same text, and in later comments on Reddit</a>, you expressed a <b style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent;">belief-based</b>criticism of agricultural biotechnology, or “GMO” technology. No evidence, just “here’s what I think” coupled to arguments from ignorance, and positions that lay perpendicular to the scientific consensus. Your logic and reasoning match the fallacies of climate and evolution deniers, the people you correctly criticize.</font></p><p style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px 0px 1em; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.6px; background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As a public scientist immersed in the biotech literature for 30 years, I am disheartened by your statements (so are many of my colleagues) as they do not reflect the current state of our scientific understanding. Let’s use public debate to articulate the science of this issue.</font></p></blockquote><p style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px 0px 1em; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.6px; background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent;">Read full, original blog</strong>: <a title="Permanent Link to Open Letter to Bill Nye from a Plant Scientist" href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2014/11/10/open-letter-bill-nye-plant-scientist/" target="blank" rel="bookmark" style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent;">Open Letter to Bill Nye from a Plant Scientist</a></font></p><p style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px 0px 1em; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.6px; background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Folta also <a href="http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2014/11/protecting-bill-nye-from-de-nye-al.html" target="blank" style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent;">addressed</a> the Nye debate controversy on his blog, Illumination.</font></p><blockquote style="border: 0px none rgb(243, 243, 243); margin: 0px 0px 1em 1em; outline: none 0px; padding: 1em 1em 0.5em; vertical-align: baseline; font-style: italic; line-height: 19.6px; background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll rgb(247, 247, 247);"><p style="border: 0px none; margin: 0px 0px 1em; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.6px; background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">I respect Bill Nye and his ability to connect science to people. It is something I wish I did better and something I am learning by watching experts like Nye. In a perfect world Bill Nye might seek some experts out in LA to sit down and help him understand why his comments were incorrect, and maybe how they have damaging effects. Maybe he’ll come out and clarify his remarks and change his position.</font></p></blockquote></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">sep 2015</font></div><div><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Monsanto and the GMO industry are copying Big Tobacco tactics, hiding behind the façade of public university scientists and hiring PR firms to promote GMOs and the toxic weedkiller glyphosate</font></em></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">EXCERPT: Independent scientist from public universities come with a major halo effect, something that Monsanto’s top lobbyists mention repeatedly in the recently released emails to public university scientists.<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />—</font></p><h3 style="margin: 0.5em 0px; padding: 0px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.5em; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">University scientists caught conspiring with Monsanto to manipulate public opinion on GMOs</font></h3><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dave Murphy<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />EcoWatch, September 12, 2015<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/12/scientists-conspire-monsanto-gmos/" rel="alternate" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/12/scientists-conspire-monsanto-gmos/</a></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">What happens when a private company with a long history of producing some of the most toxic chemicals on the planet and now produces our food starts facing public pressure from a growing national grassroots movement to label their products to conform with basic principles of democracy and transparency?</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Well, if the company in question is Monsanto, then you take a page out of Big Tobacco’s playbook and hatch a secret plan to enlist public university scientists to bury the potential harm of your genetically engineered crops by whitewashing negative studies and systematically demonizing your opponents in the media to mislead elected officials and the American public about the safety of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) and their accompanying toxic pesticides.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Here’s a little history lesson, in the 1940s, tobacco companies ran ads with doctors proclaiming smoking cigarettes were perfectly safe. In 1946, the RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company ran a now infamous campaign called “More Doctors” recommend Camels after “surveying” more than 113,597 doctors “from every branch of medicine.” In reality, the tobacco company’s advertising agency employees questioned doctors at medical conferences and their offices and used these fake results to deceive a generation of smokers.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Today, Monsanto and the biotech industry are copying the same tactics, this time hiding behind the façade of public university scientists and hiring major PR firms to promote GMOs and the toxic weedkiller glyphosate, the main chemical ingredient in Roundup, which some scientists are offering to drink on Twitter and in front of classrooms of students to “prove” its safety and hide the fact that it is harmful to humans and the environment.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px;"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4" face="Times New Roman">Last weekend, the New York Times released a stunning expose of how Monsanto and the biotech industry enlisted allegedly independent public university scientists in a deceptive campaign to lobby state legislators in Pennsylvania, interfere with ballot initiatives in Oregon and Colorado and paper over risks of high pesticide usage on the Hawaiian island of Kauai.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">According to New York Times investigative reporter Eric Lipton, as the GMO labeling debate was coming to a boil in America in the past three years, Monsanto and their “industry partners retooled their lobbying and public relations strategy to spotlight a rarefied group of advocates: academics, brought in for the gloss of impartiality and weight of authority that come with a professor’s pedigree”.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And why would Monsanto want to do this? Because independent scientist from public university come with a major halo effect, something that Monsanto’s top lobbyists mention repeatedly in the recently released emails to public university scientists.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-weight: 700;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Shining a Light on Monsanto and the Corruption of Public University Scientists</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Lipton’s story details how a University of Illinois professor and longtime GMO promoter </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Bruce Chassy</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> used his Monsanto connections to lobby the Environmental Protection Agency to abandon its efforts to tighten regulations on insecticidal GMO seeds. If you take a dive into the emails, you can see how Chassy enlisted the help of former advisor to George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton, Nina Federoff in his efforts to influence the EPA’s policies.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the emails, Chassy’s efforts to lobby the EPA for looser regulations were encouraged by a Monsanto lobbyist even as Chassy was negotiating the release of his grant from the company.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">For background on how this current story originally broke, you have to go back to Aug. 6, when the international </span><b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">science journal Nature reported that more than 4,600 pages of emails from University of Florida plant scientist Kevin </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Folta</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> “reveal his close ties to the agriculture giant Monsanto … and other biotechnology-industry interests”.</span></b></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Nature article set off a minor firestorm on social media, when University of Florida professor and Monsanto promoter Kevin Folta’s emails were </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">leaked to Nature’s Keith Kloor for damage control.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">While Folta has not yet been charged with scientific misconduct or wrongdoing, these emails reveal a close relationship and financial ties to Monsanto for the first time publicly. The new reports of financial ties and </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Folta’s regular communication with Monsanto executives and lobbyists contradict Folta’s previous repeated denials of any relationship or conflict of interest</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> with the St. Louis, Missouri based biotech seed and chemical giant responsible for mass producing such toxic cancer-causing chemicals as PCBs, Agent Orange, dioxin and now 80 percent of the genetically engineered crops that appear in our food supply.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“The documents show that Monsanto paid for Folta’s travel to speak to U.S. students, farmers, politicians, and the media,” according to Nature’s Keith Kloor. As reported</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">, Folta received a $25,000 “unrestricted” grant from Monsanto in 2014,</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> which a Monsanto representative stated could be used by Folta at his “discretion in support of your research and outreach projects”.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The information regarding Monsanto’s $25,000 donation only became public as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the public advocacy group <b>U.S. Right to Know</b>, who made the request after noticing Folta’s frequent responses on a pro-GMO industry run website, which is funded by the members of The Council for Biotechnology Information and includes BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto, and Syngenta.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">According to the emails released by the New York Times,</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Kevin Folta appears eager to please Monsanto’s executives, telling them, “I’m glad to sign on to whatever you like, or write whatever you like” and, in order to get his $25,000 check cleared Folta claims, “I am grateful for this opportunity and promise a solid return on the investment.” What kind of investment was Monsanto really making?</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Two days later, Monsanto confirmed payment to Kevin Folta in an official letter.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In addition, the emails reveal a</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> near constant communication between Kevin Folta, Monsanto’s top lobbyists, the crisis public relations firm Ketchum </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">and a handful of U.S. scientists working behind the scenes to manipulate public perception on the safety of GMOs and Monsanto’s flagship herbicide Roundup dating back to at least 2013.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The emails between Folta, Monsanto, and Ketchum PR are especially damning as they indicate that agents from the New York<b> crisis management PR firm</b> wrote answers specifically for Folta that he then cut and paste and posted on the GMO Answers website under his own name</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">. A quick search of Folta’s public responses on the industry run website show that he began responding to questions about GMO technology on the website in July of 2013.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">GMO Answers lists Folta as an “Independent Expert” and a professor and chairman of the Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Florida. One wonders what Professor Folta or the University of Florida would do if they caught Monsanto and Ketchum PR agents writing papers or scientific studies for their students which they submitted under their own names. In most cases this would result in plagiarism charges for the students and a potential dismissal from the university, but for Kevin Folta posting canned PR responses resulted in Monsanto writing a $25,000 check for what Folta claims is for his personal “science communication” fund.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px;"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4" face="Times New Roman">For the past several years, Kevin Folta has made repeated claims that he was not linked, in any way, to Monsanto and he has made vicious attacks on anyone who insinuated otherwise on social media. But the content of these emails reveals otherwise.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-weight: 700;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Folta’s Deceptive Claims of No Relationship with Monsanto Do Not Add Up</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In a recent June 4 interview with</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> actor/comedian Joe Rogan</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, Folta was so bold as to claim “I have nothing to do with Monsanto” and “I am not a shill” which produced a hearty chuckle from Rogan and a knowing grin from Folta himself.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By this time, Folta had been in close communication with Monsanto’s top lobbyists and executives for more than 3 years and had already started spending the $25,000 “unrestricted grant” from Monsanto. So why the cover-up?</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-weight: 700;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Why Monsanto’s Hidden Conflict of Interest with Public University Scientists Harms Science and Open Discourse</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">While Folta proclaims independence, his public comments exactly mirror Monsanto talking points. This past spring, when the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared glyphosate, the main chemical ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, to be “probably carcinogenic to humans”, Monsanto immediately called this new report “junk science”.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Rather than look at the new report objectively</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">, Kevin Folta sneeringly dismissed it and then offered to drink a pint of glyphosate in front of a class of students at Iowa State University that he was supposedly educating with his “science communication” skills. </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">As an Iowan, I’m pretty sure that the ISU students were too smart to fall for this stupid stunt.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">According to the British watchdog group GMWatch, which has documented Folta’s repeated attacks on GMO critics and false statements his claims about the safety of glyphosate are simply dead wrong.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This wouldn’t be such a big deal if Folta was just another self-promoting blowhard on the Internet, but with Monsanto’s backing and close ties to a PR firm like Ketchum, these compromised public university scientists now have big media access and are being used as pawns to promote the safety of Monsanto and the biotechnology industry’s products.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For the first time now, with these public records requests, Americans concerned about how their food is produced are getting a firsthand look at the secret tactics of how corporations like Monsanto use PR firms and public university scientists to put a deceptive spin on potential safety issues of GMOs and pesticides.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In reality, this recently revealed collusion between Monsanto and public university scientists poisons the public dialogue and puts the health and safety of the American public at risk by using tobacco industry tactics.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 1994, seven tobacco executives testified in front of Congress denying they manipulated their brand’s formula to make cigarettes addicting and mislead members of Congress about the scientific evidence linking their products to cancer. Exactly twenty years later, on December 10, 2014, a group of biotech industry apologists followed the same script while testifying in Congress to try to block reasonable and common sense GMO labeling laws, which more than 90 percent of Americans regularly support in public opinion polls.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Make no doubt about it, Monsanto’s current efforts to recruit public university scientists are not about communicating science, but to manipulate public opinion just like the tobacco industry.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The tragedy of this scenario is that taxpayers are indirectly helping fund a public disinformation campaign that is ultimately bent on denying them their basic right to know what’s in their food and derail the national movement to label genetically engineered foods. One wonders how much longer Big Tobacco would have been able to deceive Congress and the American public with a few more “independent scientists” like Chassy and Folta on hand.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />Dave Murphy is the founder and executive director of Food Democracy Now!, a grassroots movement of more than 650,000 American farmers and citizens dedicated to reforming policies relating to food, agriculture, and the environment.</font></p><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/15949-the-truth-according-to-kevin-folta</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The pro-GMO scientist Kevin Folta says he bases his statements on GMO safety on science – but some of his views look more like ideology. An expert in nutrition and public health weighs in with a commentary exclusive to GMWatch<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></font></em></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Kevin Folta is a scientist and a pro-GMO activist who vigorously goes after anyone that disagrees with his ideology. Folta claims – as though he is the arbiter of truth – that GMO opponents are </span><a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2013/04/26/when-media-uncritically-cover-pseudoscience/#.VN-f51byBg0" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">fearmongers</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> who spread </span><a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2013/07/25/the-crazy-seed-flowers-at-elle-magazine/#.VN-h51byBg0" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">misinformation</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">. </span><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">But let's take a look at Folta’s background and compare some of his claims to published research, the perspective of a prominent nutrition expert, and obvious fact.</span><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Folta is a molecular biologist with no known health background. On GMOanswers, a website</span><a href="http://kfolta.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/ketchum-and-me.html" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">run by the GMO industry</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, it </span><a href="http://gmoanswers.com/experts/kevin-folta" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">says</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, “Kevin Folta is a professor in and chairman of the Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Florida, Gainesville. He got his PhD in Molecular Biology from University of Illinois at Chicago in 1998, and he has worked at University of Wisconsin before settling in at University of Florida. Dr Folta researches the functional genomics of small fruit crops, the plant transformation, the genetic basis of flavors, and studies at photomorphogenesis and flowering. He has also written many publications and edited books, most recently was the 2011 Genetics, Genomics, and Breeding of Berries. Dr Folta received the NSF CAREER Award, an HHMI Mentoring Award and was recognized as "University of Florida Foundation Research Professor" in 2010.” </span><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">If you want to know about the genetic basis of flavours or the functional genomics of small fruit crops, Folta is your man. But how likely is it that Folta, a professor in the horticultural sciences department, will know and understand the impact of diet on human health? Is he a doctor, dietitian or nutritionist? Nope. Does he have a master’s degree in public health or PhD in a related field? Nope. Does he understand how we determine if something is safe for humans? Nope.</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> The bottom line is that he does not have the qualifications to weigh in on diet and human health. But does he? Yes, all the time. </span><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In a recent blog post he implied that food additives are safe, </span><a href="http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2015/01/vani-haris-kooky-response-to-critical.html" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">saying</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, “Food additives need FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approval, and that requires testing.” </span><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">However, a recent </span><a href="http://www.tufts.edu/skrimsky/PDF/GRAS%20COI.PDF" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">study</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> published in the Journal of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine found that between 1997 and 2012 all of the members on panels to determine if a food additive was safe had ties to the industry that created them, either as an employee or consultant. Additionally, the FDA allowed companies that created food products to determine whether or not a food additive was generally recognized as safe, also known as GRAS. In some cases, these companies did not even notify the FDA of this determination!</span><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Food politics guru Marion Nestle, PhD, who actually has a degree in nutrition, wrote a</span><a href="http://www.cornucopia.org/2013/08/conflicts-of-interest-in-the-regulation-of-food-safety/" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">commentary</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> on the study, saying, "How is it possible that the FDA permits manufacturers to decide for themselves whether their food additives are safe?" How indeed.</span><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Folta <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-sind0gP2anQbSOOtEu8d8MIF2JvbQaRYePuNU5c4/pub" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">says</a>, “After 17 years no epidemiological trends have been established between GM and health concerns.” But this is clearly a reflection of his lack of scientific understanding. To date, there is not a single human epidemiological study. To say there are no epidemiological trends between GMOs and health is actually impossible to confirm since GMOs are not labeled. And as Consumer Reports <a href="https://consumersunion.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/FAQs_About_GMOs_CR_0315.pdf" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">says</a>, “Saying there’s no evidence of harm isn’t the same as saying they’ve been proved safe.”</span><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Folta also </span><a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-sind0gP2anQbSOOtEu8d8MIF2JvbQaRYePuNU5c4/pub" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">says</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> that there is no “plausible mechanism” for harm from GMOs. When it comes to diet and health, we often have no idea why a particular substance causes harm, but that does not stop health professionals or health organizations from making recommendations. A case in point is sugar. NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) recently published</span><a href="http://www.drperlmutter.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Sugar-cv.pdf" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">research</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> that found a 38 per cent increased risk of heart disease for those who consumed 17 to 21 per cent of calories from sugar compared with those who consumed less. They also go on to say, “The biological mechanisms underlying the association between added sugar intake and CVD (cardiovascular disease) risk are not completely understood.” This highlights the well known fact that we often do not know the mechanism for harm for particular foods, such as sugar or red meat, but we do recommend limiting these foods since they are linked with negative health outcomes. </span><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In response to the claim that organic produce is higher in vitamins and minerals, Folta </span><a href="http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2015/01/vani-haris-kooky-response-to-critical.html" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">says</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, “notsomuch”. Yet his views are clearly out of accord with research. </span><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Organic fruits and vegetables are generally 5 to 15 per cent higher in nutrients, but they can be 30 to 100 per cent </span><a href="http://www.cspinet.org/nah/articles/going-organic.html" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">higher</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> in some cases. And they are much </span><a href="http://www.cspinet.org/nah/articles/going-organic.html" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">higher</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> in the health-enhancing phytochemicals that plants create to fight off pests. They also have a longer shelf life since they have more antibacterial phenolic acids under their skin, which helps prevent mold, bacterial growth, and thus spoilage. Additionally, organic foods have more </span><a href="http://www.cspinet.org/nah/articles/going-organic.html" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">microbial diversity,</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> with plenty of healthy bacteria. So if unhealthy bacteria are introduced, they may not be as likely to multiply and cause health problems for us.</span><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Organics also are lower in pesticides. Nestle </span><a href="http://www.foodpolitics.com/2011/10/what-to-do-about-food-chemicals-eaten-in-tiny-amounts/" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">says</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, “Research clearly demonstrates that pesticides harm farmworkers exposed to high doses. But recent studies report slightly lower IQ levels in children born to urban women with higher blood levels of pesticides. Although these studies did not control for socioeconomic and other variables that might influence IQ, they raise the possibility that even low levels might be harmful.” </span><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Her </span><a href="http://www.foodpolitics.com/2011/10/what-to-do-about-food-chemicals-eaten-in-tiny-amounts/" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">advice</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">? “Buy organic. Pesticides, invisible and unlabeled as they are, constitute a good reason to do so.” </span><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Folta does not support labeling of GMOs and <a href="http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2014/04/gmo-labeling-ill-agree-when.html" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">says</a>, “GMO labeling and GMO policy should be dictated strictly by science and evidence and not by manipulation of emotion.”</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Yet Nestle </span><a href="http://www.sfgate.com/food/article/Genetically-modified-labeling-is-topic-of-petition-3377887.php" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">says</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, “Labeling GM foods should be a no-brainer.” But Folta and the biotech industry are afraid consumers will reject GMOs. Nestle </span><a href="http://www.sfgate.com/food/article/Genetically-modified-labeling-is-topic-of-petition-3377887.php" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">continues</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, “If consumers distrust GM foods, the industry has nobody to blame but itself. It has done little to inspire trust. Labelling promotes trust. Not labelling is undemocratic; it does not allow choice.” In fact, the biotech industry has spent close to 100 million dollars to squelch GMO labeling. What are they trying to hide? And just think how many hungry mouths we could have fed or how much blindness from vitamin A deficiency we could have prevented with 100 million dollars. </span><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Folta says that people often accuse him of working for or being funded by Monsanto. But he<a href="http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2015/02/ketchum-and-me.html" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">replies</a>, “I have never received any financial compensation for my time,” implying that he does not have a conflict of interest with regards to his work around GMOs. However, he works for a university that receives <a href="http://www.uff.ufl.edu/FacultyEndowments/ProfessorshipInfo.asp?ProfessorshipFund=007489" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">funding</a> from the <a href="https://www.uff.ufl.edu/honorroll/Organizations.asp?LN=Gold" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">GMO industry</a>. So he stands to benefit if GMOs do well and could potentially lose his job if funding for GMO research wanes. </span><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Folta believes he is science-based and </span><a href="http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2015/02/ketchum-and-me.html" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">says</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> on GMOanswers, “My answers are 100% consistent with the peer-reviewed literature.” But the examples above cast doubt on these claims.</span><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">While Folta might be viewed as having a hard time getting his facts straight, he also misperceives his own behaviour. On his 25 October 2014 blog post, he </span><a href="http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2014/10/yes-on-92-deceiving-you-and-im-not-happy.html" target="_blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">said</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">: “Some recognize me for unending patience and softness, even in the presence of insults and idiocy.”</span><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">But Folta’s perception of himself is far from reality, as these tweets (right), a few of many, demonstrate.[img]</span><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Hmm, so much for softness and patience. </span><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Folta’s version of the truth appears to be a few notches short of reality. Please remember to take what he says with a very large grain of salt.</span></font></p></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==</font></div></div></div></div></div>