EU:n ”myrkyttömyystarkastusraportti” oli koottu valmistaja Monsaton mainoksista
Suomalainen meedia lensi päätä pahkaa lankaan: mitä ”tieteellisempi” sitä ”komeammin” (”TIEDE”-hölynpölylehden ex-päätoimittaja tyylinäyte):
http://www.hs.fi/paakirjoitukset/art-2000005366244.htm
The European food safety authority (Efsa) based a recommendation that a chemical linked to cancer was safe for public use on an EU report that copied and pasted analyses from a Monsanto study, the Guardian can reveal.
Glyphosate is the core ingredient in Monsanto’s $4.75bn (£3.5bn) a year RoundUp weedkiller brand and a battle over its relicensing has split EU countries, with a final decision on its authorisation expected in early November.
That decision will largely be informed by an Efsa opinion, which is based on a 4,300-page renewal assessment report (RAR) published in 2015.
In June, Efsa said that where the RAR was concerned, “every scientific study is scrutinised for relevance and reliability by EU risk assessors based on the evidence contained within the study”.
But dozens of pages of the paper are identical to passages in an application submitted by Monsanto on behalf of the Glyphosate Task Force (GTF), an industry body led by the company.
These sections analyse peer-reviewed studies into links between glyphosate and genotoxicity (how likely it is to cause cell mutations), carcinogenicity and reproductive damage.
Franziska Achterberg, Greenpeace EU’s food policy director, said: “Whether this is a question of negligence or intent, it is completely unacceptable.
“It calls into question the entire EU pesticide approval process. If regulators rely on the industry’s evaluation of the science without doing their own assessment, the decision whether pesticides are deemed safe or not is effectively in the industry’s hands.”
Efsa insists that it has a “robust, well-balanced independence policy” and that it views the RAR as separate from the authority’s conclusion which follows it. The RAR is prepared by an EU state’s regulator – in this case Germany’s BfR – rather than Efsa itself.
An Efsa spokesperson said: “It is important to stress that these are extracts from and references to publicly available studies submitted by the applicant as part of their obligation under the pesticide legislation to carry out a literature search. In other words, these are not Glyphosate Task Force studies but rather studies available in the public scientific literature.”
Even so, the Efsa paper repeats descriptions – and analyses – verbatim from the 2012 GTF review. One of these, by former and current Monsanto employees John Acquavella and Donna Farmer, challenges the results of a study which found an association between pesticide use and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
It says: “The major limitations of this study were: the reliance on reported pesticide use (not documented exposure) information, the small number of subjects who repor-ted use of specific pesticides, the possibility of recall bias, the reliance on secondary sources (next-of-kin interviews) for approximately 43% of the pesticide use informa-tion, and the difficulty in controlling for potential confounding factors, given the small number of exposed subjects.”
Some other sections are differentiated from the GTF paper by additions of text and reference numbers, different marking of headings and tables, capitalisations, changes from US to British spelling and some text cuts.
Most paragraphs dealing with peer-reviewed papers, though, are copied word for word. A Monsanto spokesperson said that Efsa allowed renewal reports to be written this way because of the large volume of toxicological studies submitted.
“There was an explanation by Efsa that direct passages from the industry application were included,” the spokesperson said. “This should by no means be understood as Efsa’s conclusion on glyphosate.”
The row over glyphosate’s safety has pitted scientists against each other – and regu-lators – with one branch of the World Health Organisation assessing that the substance was unlikely to be carcinogenic, while another ruled that it probably was. ”
TUOLLAISIA EU-HUIJARIVIRASTOJA EMME TARVITSE SUOMEEN!!!
PITÄKÖÖT MUUALLA LÄÄKEVIRASTONSA, JOKU JOUTUU BREXITIN TAKIA LÄHTEMÄÄN LONTOOSTA! BARCELONAAN SITÄ TUSKIN ANNETAAN KATALONIAN EROAMISHANKKEIDEN TAKIA ESPANJASTA.
MENKÖÖN VAIKKA – TALLINNAAN!!!!
Katalonia ja EU:n lääkevirasto
EU declared Monsanto weedkiller safe after intervention from controversial US official
Exclusive: European Food Safety Authority dismissed a study linking glyphosate to cancer following counsel with an EPA official allegedly linked to the company and who figures in more than 20 lawsuits
The European Food Safety Authority dismissed a study linking a Monsanto weed-killer to cancer after counsel from a US Environmental Protection Agency officer allegedly linked to the company.
Jess Rowlands, the former head of the EPA’s cancer assessment review committee (CARC), who figures in more than 20 lawsuits and had previously told Monsanto he would try to block a US government inquiry into the issue, according to court documents.
The core ingredient of Monsanto’s RoundUp brand is a chemical called glyphosate, for which the European commission last week proposed a new 10-year license.
Doubts about its regulatory passage have been stirred by unsealed documents in an ongoing US lawsuit against Monsanto by sufferers of non-hodgkins lymphoma, who claim they contracted the illness from exposure to RoundUp.
“If I can kill this, I should get a medal,” Rowlands allegedly told a Monsanto official, Dan Jenkins, in an email about a US government inquiry into glyphosate in April 2015.
In a separate internal email of that time, Jenkins, a regulatory affairs manager, said that Rowlands was about to retire and “could be useful as we move forward with [the] ongoing glyphosate defense”.
Documents seen by the Guardian show that Rowlands took part in a teleconference with Efsa as an observer in September 2015.
Six weeks later, Efsa adopted an argument Rowlands had used to reject a key 2001 study which found a causal link between exposure to glyphosate and increased tumour incidence in mice.
Rowlands’ intervention was revealed in a letter sent by the head of Efsa’s pesticides unit, Jose Tarazona, to Peter Clausing, an industry toxicologist turned green campaigner.
In the missive, Tarazona said that “the observer from the US-EPA [Rowlands] informed participants during the teleconference about potential flaws in the Kumar (2001) study related to viral infections.”
Efsa’s subsequent report said that the Kumar study “was reconsidered during the second experts’ teleconference as not acceptable due to viral infections”.
Greenpeace said that news of an Efsa-Rowlands connection made a public inquiry vital. “Any meddling by Monsanto in regulatory safety assessments would be wholly unacceptable,” said spokeswoman Franziska Achterberg. “We urgently need a tho-rough investigation into the Efsa assessment before glyphosate can be considered for re-approval in Europe.”
Socialist MEPs last week said that they too would call for an inquiry unless outstanding questions about the relicensing were cleared up.
A reply to Tarazona’s letter from Clausing, seen by the Guardian, also says: “In the light of Jess Rowland’s role in the assessment of carcinogenicity of glyphosate in the US as reflected by the internal Monsanto documents, I have serious concerns that he might have influenced the decision by providing wrong information which has not been scrutinised by Efsa and its experts.”
A Monsanto spokesman said: “Plucking a single email out of context doesn’t change the fact that the US EPA and regulators around the world, as well as a branch of the World Health Organization (WHO) that analysed pesticide residues, have concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans.”
The WHO’s pesticides panel ruled last May that glyphosate was probably not carcinogenic to humans through diet, a year after the WHO’s cancer arm came to the opposite conclusion.
Efsa though remains bullish about the probity of its assessment of the most heavily used weedkiller in human history.
Tarazona declined to comment on Rowlands’ contribution to the Efsa study but said that Kumar’s paper had been compromised by the use of Swiss albino mice.
“The issue of ‘high background incidence’ is something common to all studies that use that strain of mouse,” he said. “There was [also] the fact that the effect was observed only at a very high dose level.”
Other toxicologists, such as Prof Ivan Rusyn, who contributed to a WHO assessment of glyphosate, contend that where sample sizes are limited, “the most informative animal studies are those conducted with sufficiently high doses”.
Clausing said that there was “almost no difference” between malignant lymphomas in Kumar’s control group, compared to others. ”
Lääketeollisuuden metkut tulivat rikkaruohmyrkkyihinkin!
http://www.hs.fi/talous/art-2000002920817.html
Lääkevalmistaja Bayer ostaa kiistellyn kasvien biotekniikkayhtiö Monsanton
Bayer maksaa 66 miljardia dollaria Monsantosta, joka tunnetaan arvostelua herättäneistä muuntogeenisistä eli GMO-tuotteista.
Saksalaisen Bayer-yhtiön liikevaihto vuonna 2015 oli 46,3 miljardia euroa. Kasvin-viljelyyn liittyvien tuotteiden osuus liikevaihdosta oli 22 prosenttia. (KUVA: Marco Bello Reuters)
Juhana Rossi HS
Julkaistu: 14.9.2016 16:04
Perinteikäs saksalainen lääkevalmistaja Bayer ilmoitti keskiviikkona allekirjoitta-neensa sopimuksen, jossa se ostaa amerikkalainen kasvien biotekniikkayhtiö Monsanton yhteensä 66 miljardin dollarin eli vajaan 60 miljardin euron arvoisessa kaupassa.
Viestimien tietojen mukaan vireillä oleva kauppa on lajissaan kuluvan vuoden suurin maailmassa. Kauppa on myös suurin Bayerin historiassa.
Bayer maksaa koko kauppahinnan käteisellä. Yhtiön tavoite on laajentaa omaa liiketoimintaansa. Monsanton kasvinjalostus ja kasvinsuojeluaineiden valmistus ovat periaatteessa lupaavia kasvualoja, sillä tulevaisuudessa kasvinviljelyn satoisuuden pitää tehostua, jotta maailman kasvavan väestön ruokahuolto voidaan turvata.
Uutistoimisto Reutersin mukaan kaupassa syntyvän uuden yhtiön osuus maailman viljelykasvien siemenistä ja kasvinsuojeluaineista olisi yli 25 prosenttia.
Bayerin ja Monsanton hallitukset ovat jo hyväksyneet kaupan. Kauppa vaatii vielä kilpailuviranomaisten sekä Monsanton yhtiökokouksen hyväksynnän.
Monsanto saa Bayerilta kahden miljardin dollarin korvauksen, mikäli kauppa peruuntuu sen takia, että se ei saa viranomaisten hyväksyntää.
Bayer tunnetaan Aspirin-särkylääkkeen valmistajana. Nykyisin sen 46,3 miljardin euron liikevaihdosta vuonna 2015 vajaa puolet tuli terveydenhuollon tuotteista. Kasvinviljelyyn liittyvien toimintojen osuus liikevaihdosta oli 22 prosenttia.
Monsanto tunnetaan muuntogeenisten eli GMO-kasvilajikkeiden kehitystyöstä ja tuotannosta. Yhtiön liiketoiminta on herättänyt arvostelua eri puolilla maailmaa. ”
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-9880691
Viljelijän epäillään yrittäneen vauhdittaa viljan kypsymistä kielletyllä glyfosaatilla
Rikkakasvien torjunta-aine glyfosaattia on käytetty sääntöjen vastaisesti viljan tuleennuttamiseen.
12.10.2017 klo 20:20
Turvallisuus- ja kemikaalivirasto Tukes on varmistanut, että suomalaistilalla on nopeutettu vehnän kypsymistä puintikuntoon glyfosaatilla. ELY-keskukseen tulleen ilmiannon perusteella tehdyssä tarkastuksessa vehnänäytteestä on löytynyt glyfosaattia.
Torjunta-aineen käyttö varmistui tänään.
Glyfosaatin löytyminen viljasta tässä vaiheessa syksyä tarkoittaa sitä, että peltoa on käsitelty sääntöjen vastaisesti. Suomessa on kielletty glyfosaatin käyttö viljan pakkotuleennuttamiseen, vaikka tämä on sallittua muualla Euroopassa.
Tavoitteena on Suomessa, ettei leipäviljaan päätyisi kasvinsuojeluaineita. Sadon käyttäminen elintarvikkeeksi tai rehuksi kielletään, jos siitä aiheutuu vaaraa ihmisten tai eläinten terveydelle.
Turvallisuus- ja kemikaaliviraston tietoon on tullut tapauksia, joissa viljapeltoon on saatettu ruiskuttaa glyfosaattia ennen puimista.
Tukesin ylitarkastaja Lotta Kailan mukaan maatilatukitarkastukset kyseisellä tilalla ovat vielä kesken. Torjunta-aineen määräysten vastainen käyttö johtanee kuitenkin sanktioihin. Tämä tarkoittaa 3–5 prosentin leikkauksia tilan saamiin tukiin.
Viljelijällä on vielä mahdollisuus antaa vastineensa tutkimustulokseen.
Kiistelty glyfosaatti
Glyfosaatti on tehoaine, jota käytetään rikkakasvien torjuntaan tarkoitetuissa valmisteissa. Euroopan unionissa sen käyttö on sallittua tämän vuoden loppuun asti. Jatkokäytön luvallisuudesta ei vielä ole tehty päätöstä.
Tukes muistutti [url=http://tiedotteessaan]tiedotteessaan
syyskuun lopussa, että tiettyjen glyfosaattia sisältävien valmisteiden käyttö on sallittu juolavehnän torjuntaan tuleentuneista ohra- ja kaurakasvustoista, jos viljan jyvän kosteus on alle 30 prosenttia ja sato käytetään eläinten rehuksi.
https://yournewswire.com/37-million-bees-dead-after-gmo-seeds-planted-nearby/
Anonhq.com reports:
According to reports, Schuit and other local beekeepers believe neonicotinoids, or “neonics” are to blame for the influx of bee deaths.
Around 37 million bees at a farm in Canada have died after GMO corn was planted in the nearby area, according to a local beekeeper.
Dave Schuit, a beekeeper who produces honey in Elmwood, Canada, claims that since GMO corn was planted in the nearby area, his farm has lost around 37 million bees (approximately 600 hives). According to reports, Schuit and other local bee-keepers believe neonicotinoids, or “neonics” are to blame for the influx of bee deaths.
Imidacloprid and Clothianidin, two of Bayer CropScience’s most widely used pesti-cide, both contain neonics and have been linked with many large-scale bee ‘die-offs’ in both European and U.S. countries. However, despite the dangers associated with the use of this chemical, the pesticides are still regularly used and sold on the market.
Despite their size,the impact bees have on the environment is almost unparalleled. In fact, bees are responsible for pollinating about one-sixth of the flowering plant species worldwide and approximately 400 different agricultural types of plant.
In 2010, bees helped provide over $19 billion worth of agricultural crops in the U.S alone – estimated to be roughly one third of the food we eat. As a result, it is not hard to see that bees are needed to sustain our modern food system.
However, despite their obvious importance in our ecosystem, bee populations have been rapidly dropping over the past few decades. In fact, 44 percent of honeybee colonies in the United States died off last year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported last month.
In the past,scientists have tried to conclude why bee populations are in rapid decline. While it is not been proven that pesticides directly kill the bees that come into contact with the chemical, many scientists believe there is a strong link between the use of the pesticide and a phenomenon they refer to as “colony collapse disorder” (CCD).
“We believe that some subtle interactions between nutrition, pesticide exposure and other stressors are converging to kill colonies,” said Jeffery Pettis, of the ARS’s bee research laboratory.
While the cause of CCD is still widely debated, some believe that “the neonicotinoid pesticides are coating corn seeds, and with the use of new air seeders, are blowing pesticide dust into the air when planted.”
However, according to a new study published in the Journal Proceedings of the Na-tional Academy of Sciences, neonicotinoid pesticides kill honeybees by damaging their immune system and making them unable to fight diseases and bacteria.
Although we are unable to definitively determine what is causing the terminal decline of bee populations around the world, using all the scientific evidence that is currently available, it is clear that pesticides are having a significantly negative effect on bee populations.
In fact, it seems more and more countries are also beginning to accept this idea. Canada has banned the use of Imadacloprid on sunflower and corn fields; France has rejected Bayer’s application for Clothianidin; Italy has now banned certain neonicotinoids; and the European Union has banned multiple pesticides.
At this moment in time, EU scientists are reviewing the EU-wide ban on three neoni-cotinoid pesticides. By the end of January 2017, the EU scientist will finish their risk evaluation and determine the status of the chemical.
Although the United States have yet to follow suit, several states – including Califor-nia, Alaska, New York, and Massachusetts – are currently considering legislation that would ban neonicotinoids. In fact, just last month Maryland came the first state to pass a neonic-restricting bill; Maryland’s Pollinator Protection Act has eliminated consumer use of neonicotinoids in the state.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/02/monsanto-manipulates-journalists-academics
How Monsanto manipulates journalists and academics
Monsanto’s weedkiller Roundup, one of the world’s most popular herbicides, may cause cancer. Photograph: Mike Blake/Reuters
Over the past year, evidence of Monsanto’s deceptive efforts to defend the safety of its top-selling Roundup herbicide have been laid bare for all to see. Through three civil trials, the public release of internal corporate communications has revealed conduct that all three juries have found so unethical as to warrant punishing punitive damage awards.
Much attention has been paid to Monsanto conversations in which company scien-tists casually discuss ghostwriting scientific papers and suppressing science that conflicts with corporate assertions of Roundup’s safety. There has also been public outrage over internal records illustrating cozy relationships with friendly regulators which border on – and possibly cross into – collusion.
But these once-confidential Monsanto documents demonstrate that the deception has gone much deeper. In addition to the manipulation of science and of regulators, the company’s most insidious deceit may be its strategic manipulation of the media, according to the records.
We recently learned that a young woman falsely posing as a freelance BBC reporter at one of the Roundup cancer trials was in fact a “reputation management” consultant for FTI Consulting, whose clients include Monsanto. The woman spent time with jour-nalists who were covering the Hardeman v Monsanto trial in San Francisco, preten-ding to do reporting while also suggesting to the real reporters certain storylines or points that favored Monsanto.
Lawyer Tim Litzenburg, who represents several plaintiffs suing Monsanto over claims Roundup causes cancer, told me that he has traced what he calls a “dark money project” by Monsanto aimed at winning favorable public opinion. The project includes planting helpful news articles in traditional news outlets; discrediting and harassing journalists who refused to parrot the company’s propaganda; and secretly funding front groups to amplify pro-Monsanto messaging across social media platforms.
“We now know they had pet journalists who pushed Monsanto propaganda under the guise of ‘objective reporting,’” Litzenburg, a partner with the firm Kincheloe, Litzen-burg & Pendleton, told me. “At the same time,the chemical company sought to amass dossiers to discredit those journalists who were brave enough to speak out against them.”
According to the internal Monsanto documents Litzenburg has received through dis-covery,pro-Monsanto narratives are disseminated by individuals and groups that pro- mote the work of journalists who follow Monsanto’s desired storylines while seeking to smear and discredit journalists whose work threatens Monsanto.
For me, a career journalist who spent 17 years covering Monsanto for the internatio-nal news agency Reuters, the revelations are not surprising. In 2014, an organization called Academics Review published two scathing articles about my work at Reuters writing about Monsanto’s genetically engineered crops and its Roundup herbicide business. Monsanto had been unhappy with some of my stories, complaining that I should not be including the views of company critics. Academics Review amplified those complaints under the guise of being an independent association.
Internal Monsanto documents have revealed, however, that Academics Review was and is anything but independent. The organization was the brainchild of Monsanto, designed as a vehicle for responding to “scientific concerns and allegations” while “keeping Monsanto in the background so as not to harm the credibility of the informa-tion,” as one November 2010 email from Monsanto executive Eric Sachs stated.
According to a March 11, 2010 email chain, Academics Review was established with the help of a former director of corporate communications at Monsanto who set up his own public relations shop and a former vice president of a biotech industry trade association of which Monsanto was a member.
Other internal documents show Monsanto’s money and marching orders behind the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH),an organization that purports to be independent of industry while publishing articles attacking journalists and scientists whose work contradicts Monsanto’s agenda. Articles written by ACSH associates have appeared in USA Today, the Wall Street Journal and Forbes.
ACSH has published several articles aimed at discrediting not just me but also Pulit-zer-prize-winning New York Times reporter Eric Lipton, who ACSH calls a “science birther”, and former New York Times reporter Stephanie Strom, who ACSH accused of “irresponsible journalism” shortly before she left the paper. Both reporters had writ-ten articles exposing concerns about Monsanto. The New York Times’ Danny Hakim has also been targeted by ACSH for writing about Monsanto. “Danny Hakim Is Lying To You,” reads one of several posts by ACSH about Hakim.
Internal Monsanto emails show ACSH seeking and receiving financial commitments from Monsanto. One email string from 2015 between the company and ACSH details the “unrestricted” financial support ACSH desires while laying out the “impacts” across social media ACSH is achieving. “Each and every day we work hard to prove our worth to companies like Monsanto…” the ACSH email states. A separate email chain among Monsanto executives states “You WILL NOT GET A BETTER VALUE FOR YOUR DOLLAR than ACSH.”
Tom Philpott, a longtime journalist with Mother Jones magazine who has written critically about genetically modified crops for several years, has also felt the sting of industry harassment.
“These are vicious and utterly unfounded attacks on a journalist’s credibility, well designed to undercut him with his employer,” he told me.
While harassing reporters whose coverage it deems negative, Monsanto has also found ways to cultivate certain journalists to carry its messaging. Monsanto’s internal documents show that when the company wanted to discredit the International Agen-cy for Research on Cancer (IARC) after the group classified Monsanto’s glyphosate weed killer as a probable carcinogen, Monsanto turned to a London-based Reuters reporter with specific story suggestions.
The emails show that a controversial story published in June 2017 by Reuters, rai-sing questions about the integrity of the IARC’s review of glyphosate,was secretly fed to the news agency by Monsanto executive Sam Murphey.Murphey gave the reporter documents that had not yet been filed publicly in court along with a desired story nar-rative and a slide deck of suggested points to make in the story. The story, which did not disclose Monsanto as the initial source,closely followed Monsanto’s suggestions, the emails show.
Another newly released email details how Monsanto’s fingerprints were on at least two other Reuters stories about the IARC. A 1 March 2016 email speaks of the in-volvement of Monsanto’s “Red Flag” campaign in a Reuters story critical of IARC and Monsanto’s desire to influence a second, similar story Reuters was planning. Red Flag is a Dublin-based PR and lobbying firm. According to the email, “following engagement by Red Flag a number of months ago, the first piece was quite critical of IARC.” The email goes on: “You may also be aware that Red Flag is in touch with Reuters regarding the second report in the series…”
A little over a month later, Reuters published a story headlined “Special Report: How the World Health Organization’s cancer agency confuses consumers.”
The stories in question were shared by ACSH, the American Chemistry Council, Monsanto and others
In Europe, French prosecutors are now probing Monsanto’s campaign to manipulate journalists and others, including secret files on influential individuals compiled by Monsanto public relations firm FleishmanHillard. Bayer AG, the German company that acquired Monsanto last June, has admitted that FleishmanHillard created lists of people in France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom on behalf of Monsanto. The company has apologized for the secret files and said it is hiring an external law firm to investigate the matter.
In the United States, Raymond Kerins, Bayer’s head of communications, told me that the company “stands for openness and fair dealings, with all of our audiences, including the news media.”
The comment rings hollow as the character attack pieces on me and other journalists continue to circulate and Monsanto’s history of harassment and media manipulation seems to be growing – just as the number of plaintiffs alleging Roundup causes cancer also grows.
It’s time for the dishonesty to end.
-
Carey Gillam is a journalist and author, and a public interest researcher for US Right to Know, a not-for-profit food industry research group
"The Shocking Email From Monsanto: Why I am submitting a FOIA request
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…
“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, 2/11/2015Kevin 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“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.” — Folta’s Blog, Food Babe Visits My University, 10/21/2014
Well, NOT ANYMORE.
This week an unprecedented major investigative report was published in the NY Times 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 U.S. Right To Know.
Why would Monsanto work with a public scientist in the first place?
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?
Newly discovered emails reveal that Folta received a $25,000 unrestricted grant from Monsanto, and even wrote to a Monsanto executive, “I’m glad to sign on to whatever you like, or write whatever you like,” and “I promise a solid return on investment.”
However, Folta previously denied ties to Monsanto, here are 9 different examples:
- “But he denies financial ties.”
- He has “no formal connection to Monsanto.”
- “David [Oppenheimer] and I have no research or personal funding from ‘Big Ag’ – only in our dreams.”
- “Certainly Monsanto (and others) have funded work at my university. Not my work.”
- “I have no financial ties to any of the BigAg companies that make transgenic crops, including Monsanto.”
- “I have nothing to do wth MON“
- “I’m an independent scientist. Not Monsanto.”
- “I am one of thousands of independent, public scientists worldwide…”
- “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.”
Monsanto sells Roundup, the chemical that is sprayed on the majority of GMO seeds. The main ingredient in Roundup was recently classified as a probable carcinogen. They are in panic mode trying to repair their image and will do anything to confuse the public.
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.
Monsanto thanks Folta for attending my talk at The University of Florida
One of the emails discovered by USRTK.org 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 – Here’s the photographic evidence of the long line of teachers and students that I answered questions from.) 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.
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.
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?
This investigation finally begins to explain that.
Why I am also submitting a FOIA request
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.
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.
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?
Xo,
Vani
Quotes from Kevin Folta:
Folta calls me a crackpot, accuses me of food terrorism, blackmail, villifying farmers and compares me to a dog.
“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.” – The Atlantic, 2/11/2015
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.” (Her fee was $6,000.) 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 New York Times, 3/15/2015
“She really conflates the science. If anything, she’s created more confusion about food, more confusion about the role of chemicals and additives.” – NPR, 12/4/2014
“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.” – The Atlantic, 2/11/2015
“Vani Hari would be spreading her corrupt message of bogus science and abject food terrorism here at the University of Florida. Oh joy”. – Food Babe Visits My University, 10/21/2014
“Responding to the Food Babe is like telling a funny joke to my dog at a party. Everyone there gets it– except for the dog. She just tilts her head to one side and looks at me like I’m stupid.” – Response to the Food Babe. This is Boring, 3/19/2015
“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.” — Food Babe Visits My University, 10/21/2014
“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 Oz candy at best.”- Food Babe Visits My University, 10/21/2014
“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.” – The Value of Vani, 12/12/2014
“Her discussion was a narcissistic, self-appointed 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.” – Food Babe Visits My University, 10/21/2014
“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.” – Food Babe Visits My University, 10/21/2014
“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.”- Food Babe Visits My University, 10/21/2014
“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.” – Food Babe Visits My University, 10/21/2014
“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 Letter To Support My Claims Against the Food Babe, 11/16/2014
“She did not take questions from the audience. The event ended and the audience left”.- A Letter To Support My Claims Against the Food Babe, 11/16/2014
“She was paid $6000 for over an hour’s time to promote her brand and spread her filth. Now scientists and educators have to fix it.” – A Letter To Support My Claims Against the Food Babe, 11/16/2014
Folta discredits Food Babe campaigns to remove controversial chemicals from the food supply:
Additional Evidence: Folta denies any ties to Monsanto on his blog:
“In another thread she encourages those curious to call the university, because “a certain professor who promotes Monsanto… has spread a lot of nonsense”. 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’?”- A Letter To Support My Claims Against the Food Babe, 11/16/2014
“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. Here are two clear falsehoods that Hari stands by. Why anyone would take any advice from her, ever, is beyond me.”- A Letter To Support My Claims Against the Food Babe, 11/16/2014
“I work as an independent, public scientist. Companies have no control of my research, my results or my opinions.”
“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. Yes, I answer questions on GMO Answers. I am not paid, I’m grateful for the forum, and if you gave me a page on Food Babe.com to answer questions the answers would be exactly the same.”
Kommentit