Industry's shenanigans

also see nervous system effects/Parkinson's p.2, paraquat

Int’l Group of Scientists Calls for Restraints on Conflicts of Interest in Publications and Regulation     (Beyond Pesticides, December 15, 2023) Drawing on a recent gathering of international scientists, a group of 34 scientists published a call for much stricter scrutiny of researchers’ conflicts of interest by agencies that regulate and register chemicals, with recommendations for the newly formed Intergovernmental Science Policy Panel. The Environmental Science & Technology article cites an abundance of examples of chemical companies and their trade associations manufacturing doubt via an array of techniques, resulting in agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) dropping certain provisions from rulemaking, ignoring scientific consensus, and keeping chemicals on the market—and in the environment—that many scientists say should be entirely banned.        The problem of industry interference applies to almost every industrial chemical, including pesticides, pharmaceuticals, plastics, flame retardants, and asbestos. The tactics remain the same across fields, and are derived from the campaigns waged by climate deniers, tobacco companies, and fossil fuel companies as detailed in 2010 in Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway. The article documents lobbying costs, but also presents  at least 24 strategies industry uses to disguise its conflicts of interest and further its economic goals, according to Rebecca Goldberg and Laura Vandenberg, researchers at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. These include, the authors write, “‘revolving doors’ between a regulatory authority and the industry it is meant to regulate; reliance for safety data on unpublished industry documents while largely ignoring publications by independent scientists; and covert influence by the industry.” They also often threaten lawsuits against researchers whose work conflicts with their goals.

Syngenta’s “SWAT” Team – Internal Files Reveal Secret Strategies to Influence Science (Sustainable Pulse, 14 July 2023)    Paraquat has been shown in some research to increase the risk of Parkinson’s 150% and is cited in a 2020 book by four leading neurologists as a causal factor for the disease.  'The files reveal an array of tactics, including enlisting a prominent UK scientist and other outside researchers who authored scientific literature that did not disclose any involvement with Syngenta; misleading regulators about the existence of unfavorable research conducted by its own scientists; and engaging lawyers to review and suggest edits for scientific reports in ways that downplayed worrisome findings. The files also show that Syngenta created what officials called a 'PQ SWAT team' to be ready to respond to new independent scientific reports that could interfere with Syngenta’s 'freedom to sell' paraquat. The group, also referred to as Paraquat Communications Management Team,was to convene 'immediately on notification' of the publication of a new study, 'triage the situation,' and plan a response, including commissioning a “scientific critique.'   A key goal was to 'create an international scientific consensus against the hypothesis that paraquat is a risk factor for Parkinson’s disease,' the documents state.  In another example of a company tactic, an outside lawyer hired by Syngenta to work with its scientists was asked to review and suggest edits on internal meeting minutes regarding paraquat safety. The lawyer pushed scientists to alter 'problematic language' and scientific conclusions deemed 'unhelpful' to the corporate defense of paraquat. 'The New Lede and the Guardian made clear, among other things, that Syngenta had evidence 50 years ago that paraquat could accumulate in the human brain.     SNAPComment: nothing new under the sun. Just more evidence of already documented industry tactics. While paraquat is not currently registered in canada, 16 products used to be sold, many for domestic (consumer) use. PARAQUAT TECHNICAL's last Sale by Registrant : 2017-03-31 and last Sale by Retail : 2022-03-08on the last expiry date of registration. It likely has not yet disappeared from use in Canada.

Revealed: The secret push to bury a weedkiller’s link to Parkinson’s disease    Internal documents from chemical giant Syngenta reveal tactics to sponsor sympathetic scientific papers and mislead regulators about unfavorable research   (by Carey Gillam, The Guardian, 2 June 2023)     'Those documents showed that Syngenta was aware decades ago of evidence that exposure to paraquat could impair the central nervous system, triggering tremors and other symptoms in experimental animals similar to those suffered by people with Parkinson’s.    They also showed that Syngenta worked covertly to keep a highly regarded scientist studying causes of Parkinson’s from sitting on an advisory panel for the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the chief US regulator for paraquat and other pesticides. The new documents have emerged at a sensitive time for Syngenta. In less than six months, the Swiss chemical giant faces a first-ever trial in litigation brought by US farmers and others who allege the company’s paraquat weedkiller causes Parkinson’s.'

also see: Legal/Litigation/Canada, glyphosate

Documents show concerns about instructor's views on glyphosate ahead of firing   Cumberland's criticisms triggered emails between Natural Resources, college director, J.D. Irving  (Jacques Poitras, CBC News, Apr 03, 2022)  The college denies Cumberland was fired for his views on glyphosate, though his dismissal letter says his "undermining" of the conference was one of the reasons.   Cumberland's wrongful dismissal lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial April 4.  His lawyer Paul Champ obtained the 169 pages of documents and emails through the federal Access to Information Act and gave them to CBC News.     Cumberland emailed Prof. Van Lantz, the dean of forestry at the University of New Brunswick, on Jan. 16, 2019. He complained that the upcoming scientific conference hosted by UNB on vegetation management science was presenting "but one perspective" on glyphosate and should have relied on "a broader range of so-called 'experts.'"   He accused the forest industry of hiring "select scientists" to provide their opinions on the herbicide while ignoring "independent research" and "critical analysis" on the issue. Cumberland sent a similar note to all faculty and students at the college, who had been invited to the seminar.   Updates from Rob Cumberland: 'The entire trial was cancelled with the rationale that the judge tested positive for Covid 19.  The trial was re-scheduled for August 29-Sept 4, and Sept 12-14.' ( personal communication) Len Ritter (a well-known pesticide industry shill) was one of the presenters at the conference.   SNAP Comment: I understand that it is not unusual for industry groups to offer to sponsor a conference.The issue is usually that they get complete control of the agenda and choose ALL the speakers. I have seen it documented in the field of health as well (diabetes, multiple chemical sensitivities). This is not good for science as in only presents what seems like a 'unified view' while suppressing other evidence.

Bayer Coordinated with U.S. Government on Pressure Campaign to Stop Thailand from Banning Glyphosate  (Beyond Pesticides, September 23, 2020)  'In September and October 2019, Bayer’s Jim Travis asked the U.S. to act on its behalf in defense of the company’s glyphosate products. Emails reveal that Mr. Travis also collected intelligence on the personal motivations of Thailand’s deputy agriculture minister, including whether she was “a diehard advocate of organic food; and/or staunch environmentalist who eschews all synthetic chemical applications.”     Reports indicate that the U.S. government brought up the issue of glyphosate during trade talks in the context of considerations to revoke Thailand’s trade preferences. The White House specifically created talking points to refute any “concern that action related to Thailand has another cause.”

Monsanto’s Mind-Meld; Spin Machine in High Gear (Huffington Post, 31 January, 2017) Alternative facts, indeed. Less than two weeks into the presidency of Donald Trump it appears we are seeing the ushering in of a new era of twisted truths, fake news, and selective science. That should be good news to the corporate spin doctors who are deep into a campaign now to try to combat global concerns about the world’s favorite weed killer. The latest move, the formation of a group called “Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research”, (CAPHR) clearly promotes an agenda opposite to that which its name implies. Formed this month by the American Chemistry Council, whose membership includes Monsanto and other chemical industry titans, the group’s express purpose is to discredit the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a unit of the World Health Organization made up of independent scientists. With a well researched link to U.S. Right to Know investigation of the food and agrichemical industries, and the secrets they are hiding about our food. Findings so far – including tens of thousands of documents received via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) – offer a rare look behind the scenes at how the food and chemical corporations, their front groups, PR operatives and academics work together to promote industry propaganda.

Frightened by Donald Trump? You don’t know the half of it  (George Monbiot, opinion piece, The Guardian)  'I first encountered the machine when writing about climate change. The fury and loathing directed at climate scientists and campaigners seemed incomprehensible until I realised they were fake: the hatred had been paid for. The bloggers and institutes whipping up this anger were funded by oil and coal companies.'  The article proceeds to name well known 'think tanks' and their sources of funding. Worth a read. 

American Chemistry Council Attacks Independent Science Conducted by International Agency (Beyond Pesticides, January 30, 2016) The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the World Health Organization’s (WHO) cancer research branch, is again under attack. The most recent assault comes from the American Chemistry Council (ACC), which represents major U.S. chemical companies such as Bayer, Dow, Dupont and Monsanto and is calling on WHO to rein in IARC, claiming the agency of “dubious and misleading work” when classifying potential carcinogens. According to the ACC’s website, the Council launched the Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research this past Wednesday and it is unclear what steps it will take try to undercut the agency. The ACC is specifically criticizing IARC’s monograph program, claiming that the program “suffers from persistent scientific and process deficiencies.” see also : Monsanto’s Mind-Meld; Spin Machine in High Gear (Huffington Post, 31 January, 2017) SNAP Comment: Once more, using PR to invalidate good science. Beware of the green washing from this new group and understand their origin and goal. We are likely to see more and more letters to the editor in media or have their media releases disguised as news.

IARC Scientists Defend Glyphosate Cancer Link; Surprised by Industry Assault (Organic Consumers Association,October 30, 2016)  'Industry swagger is on full display in Washington where Monsanto and its friends at CropLife America are driving efforts to cut off U.S. funding for the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) after IARC scientists declared glyphosate a probable human carcinogen in March 2015. The industry is also demanding that the Environmental Protection Agency fully repudiate the IARC classification and green-light continued use of glyphosate herbicides, which spell billions of dollars in sales annually to Monsanto and the agrichemical brethren...But the industry, which deemed the meetings “unnecessary” and “inappropriate,” successfully derailed those Oct. 18-21 public meetings by challenging certain scientists appointed by EPA to an advisory panel. The EPA has “postponed” the meetings and has yet to reschedule.' “I definitely wasn’t expecting anything at all,” said Fritschi, who specializes in the occupational causes of cancer and holds the “distinguished professor” title at Curtin University in Australia. “We were independent and just looked at the science. We had strict rules on what was admissible and came to a conclusion based on that evidence. We made the right decision based on the evidence.”'Monsanto and other industry players can’t afford for that kind of talk to take root; which is exactly why we’re seeing these extraordinary efforts to undermine the scientists and push EPA to ignore cancer concerns. One letter in particular submitted by CropLife America to EPA this month shows the depths of the industry’s efforts to rein in EPA’s probe of glyphosate. CropLife told the EPA it was out of line for proclaiming a need for independent research on formulated glyphosate products - such as Roundup. The agency said in September it has been collaborating with the National Toxicology Program of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to develop a research plan to evaluate the role of glyphosate in product formulations and the differences in formulation toxicity. But apparently, it neglected to get industry permission. SNAP's Comment: Imagine how much more influential a Monsanto/Bayer merger would be....

The Last Roundup: How the world's best-selling pesticide is heading for a fall (National Observer, By Warren Bell in Opinion | July 4th 2016}  "Monsanto, like other large corporations, has had a special department established for this purpose (to ferociously attack any study, researcher or organization that threatens the corporation's products) for a long time." I always wondered how the scientific journal could retract the Seralinini study here it is ( with links): "By some as yet undisclosed means, a veteran Monsanto researcher, Richard E. Goodman – with a background in dairy science and immunology, but not plant science or pesticides – suddenly appeared out of nowhere on the senior editorial board of the journal that had published the Séralini paper, in a newly created position called “Associate Editor for biotechnology”." Very well researched and great links. Warren Bell is a family physician who is Past Founding President of Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. also filed under  glyphosate 

How the Media Fell for a GMO Front Group Attack on Dr. Oz (Organic Consumer Association, 20 April, 2015). The 55-point headline in Slate blares, “Letter from Prominent Doctors Implies Columbia Should Fire Dr. Oz for Being a Quack.” The story by Ben Mathis-Lilly is based on a letter by a group of doctors who want Columbia University to relieve Dr. Oz of his position as vice chair of the department of surgery at Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons. after Dr. Oz aired a show about glyphosate...It turns out that the 10 signatories and the various front groups they work for all have well known ties as industry spokespeople and one has even been striped of his medical license...These facts are relevant in stories about scientific integrity. The scientific accuracy and motivations of the accusers matter when they are publicly challenging the scientific accuracy and motivations of somebody they are trying to get fired.

Genetic Fallacy: How Pesticide Companies Silence Scientific Dissent (Mercola.com, February 15, 2014) includes 13 minutes video.

107 Nobel Laureate Attack on Greenpeace Traced Back to Biotech PR Operators (Global Justice Ecology Project) "senior research specialist on GMOs, Charlie Cray, accompanied by Tim Schwab, senior researcher from Food and Water Watch were both physically prevented from entering the Press Club." NOTE: More industry shenanigans. this time, media manipulation. and one wonders why the news can be so uninformative.

New Report Showcases Atrazine Manufacturer’s Efforts to Discredit Critics (Beyond Pesticides, June 21, 2013) Atrazine manufacturer, Syngenta Crop Protection, launched an aggressive multi-million dollar campaign in response to a class action lawsuit that threatened to remove the controversial herbicide atrazine from the market. The report reveals that the pesticide giant routinely paid “third-party allies” to appear to be independent supporters, purportedly hired a detective agency to investigate scientists on a federal advisory panel. The court documents show that the company conducted research into the vulnerabilities of a judge and Dr. Hayes’ personal life  Original story from 100Reporters, a nonprofit investigative journalism group. SNAP comment: when you can't fight the science, attack the person and process.

A perfect example of why lawn care companies have to be regulated!

SNAP’s answer to the Weed Man statement:

No chinch bugs in SK and 100% effective chemical-free treatment. 

‘That is rich considering that, to my knowledge, we have no chinch bugs in SK. When I gave SNAP's presentation to the city, I mentioned that some companies were selling services on false pretenses, leading to increased pesticide use, in this case a totally unneeded one.

Also, what alternative lawn companies do for chinch bugs in Halifax is vacuum the lawn with a wet vac: gets 100% of all stages while spraying may get 60%. 

AD:

Weed Man Regina/Moose Jaw

‘A single chinch bug will lay approximately 250 eggs, and it only takes 3 weeks for these pests to destroy a lawn if they don’t get properly treated.’  

Below the ad it says:' Environmentally Safe Pest Protection    Premium Lawn Care by Trained Professionals'

Link to the Weed Man Facebook ad: https://www.facebook.com/reginaweedman/posts/688151416663777  

also see kidney

Industry interferes with research in many ways starting with hiring scientists to do their bidding, unpublished negative effects and/or results, designing studies in a way that cannot reproduce critics's results, questionable interpretation of study results, suppressing funding, building up defamation and intimidation campaigns against scientists with findings that disturb the status quo (e.g.Tyrone Hayes on atrazine and the Defamation section on this page), creating false criticism of articles so they are pulled from peer-reviewed scientific journals (Seralini is a recent example). They have even managed to have tenure canceled for a U of C Berkeley campus professor. Fortunately, the professor was cleared and reinstated. The January 12, 2022 article adds another twist: 'after receiving the award, Bayer/Monsanto bullying caused AAAS to withdraw the prize and place the award under review. Ultimately, however, after a multi-month pause, AAAS decided to confirm the original award.'

Banned Pesticides in Well Water Linked to Declines in Kidney Function (Beyond Pesticides, January 12, 2022) Well water in agricultural regions of Sri Lanka is contaminated with highly hazardous insecticides and associated with a decline in kidney function, according to research published in npj Clean Water this month. Of the wells sampled, 68% were found to contain pesticides. Further, every well where pesticides were detected had at least one pesticide recorded above global drinking water guidelines. The chemicals found were also some of the most toxic pesticides to ever be sold, including the organochlorine insecticides DDT/DDE, propanil, and endosulfan, and the organophosphate diazinon. None of these chemicals are permitted for use in Europe or the United States, and some like endosulfan are being phased out globally through the Stockholm Convention. The study found that individuals reporting drinking well water during their lifetimes had glomerular filtration rate (a measurement of kidney health) that was significantly lower on average (6.7) than other individuals who never drank well water, after accounting for differences in age and sex. SNAP Comment: I don't know of many well water contamination studies in Canada. There are currently no PMRA registered products containing DDT/DDE (down from 55), propanil  (down from 7), endosulfan (down from 16) in Canada and 5 (down from 184)  diazinon products (2 commercial and 3 in ear tags). 

Quebec's ombudsman slams Agriculture Ministry for firing pesticide whistleblower   Louis Robert, who warned of private-sector meddling in study, offered his job back after ombudsman's report   (Benjamin Shingler · CBC News, Jun 13, 2019)    'But Radio-Canada later obtained the dismissal letter, which indicated Robert was let go for demonstrating a lack of loyalty by leaking documents to the media.' 

Documents Reveal that Interior Nominee Censored Endangered Species Assessment of Organophosphates (Beyond Pesticides, March 28, 2019) 'A set of documents obtained by the Center for Biological Diversity reveals that the Trump administration has known for over a year – and actively concealed – that the organophosphate insecticide chlorpyrifos jeopardizes the existence of 1,399 endangered species. Top officials at the U.S. Department of the Interior, including Acting Secretary David Bernhardt, were privy to and prevented the release of a “biological opinion,” completed by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in 2017, which contains a full analysis of the extensive environmental impacts wrought by three organophosphate insecticides'. Malathion and diazinon also jeopardize endangered species. The effects of all three are cumulative because they have the same mechanism of action. 'The FWS opinion, a compilation of nearly four years of rigorous scientific review, was not just a routine assessment; rather, it was the outcome of a legal settlement with CBD, which required EPA and FWS to make such assessments public by the end of 2017. In April of 2017, Dow AgroSciences directly requested that the agencies abandon the assessment.'.

Outcry grows over fired Agriculture Ministry whistleblower, as CAQ dodges questions   Quebec story (CBC News,  Feb 14, 2019)  'Pressure is increasing on the Coalition Avenir Québec government to reinstate a whistleblower fired from his job last month after exposing private-sector meddling in pesticide research...Radio-Canada reported that industry representatives were pressuring scientists to avoid publicizing findings that demonstrated neonicotinoids — a class of insecticides — are harmful to bees and other pollinating insects.'

AAAS "reassessing" award to public interest scientists (GMWatch, 08 February 2019)'The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) says it's "reassessing" its previous decision to give 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.'...'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 Twitter, "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." '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.'

Rigging the Science of GMO Ecotoxicity (by Jonathan Latham, PhD, Independent Science Newsfor Food and Agriculture,January 29, 2019)   'They report that these new “artificial diet systems” for raising non-target organisms contain surprisingly large amounts of antibiotics (Li et al., 2014; Ali et al., 2016a; and Ali et al. 2016b). The significance of this is that antibiotics are known to act as antidotes to Cry toxins (Broderick et al., 2006, Mason et al., 2011). By masking the harm caused by the toxin, antibiotics can give the unsuspecting reader a false impression of Cry harmlessness.'

Nutrition Research Is Deeply Biased by Food Companies. A New Book Explains Why. (Vox, by Julia Belluz, October 31, 2018)   'Food companies don’t want to fund studies that won’t help them sell products. So I consider this kind of research marketing, not science. People who do the studies say the conduct of their science is fine, and it well may be. But research on where the bias comes in says the real problem is in the design of the research question — the way the question gets asked — and the interpretation of results. That’s where the influence tends to show up.'  This article links to the book titled "Unsavory Truth   How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat"  SNAP COMMENT: The same type of bias exists about pesticide research when paid for by the pesticide industry. 

Scientific Reviews of Glyphosate’s Cancer Risk Fail to Fully Disclose Monsanto’s Role
Publisher Requests Corrections of Studies That Contradicted World Health Organization Findings  (Center for Biological Diversity 27 September 2018)   In an email sent yesterday to the Center, a representative from the publisher of the articles, Taylor and Francis, wrote: “We note that, despite requests for full disclosure, the original Acknowledgements and Declaration of Interest statements provided to the journal did not fully represent the involvement of Monsanto or its employees or contractors in the authorship of the articles.”

Retraction by corruption (GM Watch, 2 July 2018) about the Seralini study.   This article compares the study design of the Monsanto and Seralini studies. It  also documents that the Monsanto study had 'statistically significant differences between the GM-fed rats and the controls, but Dr Novotny explains that these were dismissed as being “not biologically meaningful” '. 'Since the republication of the Séralini study, subsequent developments include a research finding that most of the standard rodent diets tested that are used as the basis for the feed given to rats in laboratory trials are contaminated with pesticides and unlabelled GMOs. This contamination casts doubt on the reliability of all previous studies that used these diets yet failed to control for these elements. Other studies support aspects of Seralini’s work, including a molecular analysis of the body tissues of the rats fed the lowest dose of Roundup, which showed that they suffered from non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.''Dr Novotny's account of the events surrounding the Séralini study reveals the depths of deception and malpractice to which some scientists and corporations will resort in order to protect their products, even when they know or suspect that those products are harming the public. The journal that retracted the study, Food and Chemical Toxicology, no longer has Goodman and Hayes in place on its editorial board, but its publisher Elsevier should publish an apology to the Seralini team for its journal's role in the affair and the resulting damage to the reputations of the scientists involved.'

Original Study Designed to Disprove University Scientists Dispute Syngenta Study Conclusion that Pesticide Is Low Risk to Bees (Beyond Pesticides, January 24, 2017)  Syngenta concluded thathoney bees were not at risk from the widely used neonicotinoid insecticide thiamethoxam. The challenge to the Pilling et al 2013 study is important because while many experiments have been performed in the lab or semi-lab environment, this study was a field experiment developed to test pollinator exposure under normal agricultural conditions. The conclusions of such real-world experiments are weighed more heavily by regulators when making safety and use determinations. St. Andrews’ scientists focus in on the Pilling et al claim that because its study did not have high levels of replication, that it would have been misleading to perform formal statistical analysis. They respond that this would indeed be the case if Pilling et al had intended on finding statistical significance and concluded that there was no effect based on those tests...The authors of the St. Andrews’ study assert that Syngenta’s treatment of its data is “not just misleading in this case but also are unacceptable in principle, for if data are inadequate for a formal analysis (or only good enough to provide estimates with wide confidence intervals), then they are bound to be inadequate as a basis for reaching any sound conclusions.”..The scientists stated in conclusion, “Given that the data in this case are largely uninformative with respect to the treatment effect, any conclusions reached from such informal approaches can do little more than reflect the prior beliefs of those involved.” SNAP Comment: Experimental research designed to find no effects from a chemical is commonly  paid for by industry. see article below.

A great article describing how far the drug industry will go to falsify results in order to register drugs can be found at Snakes, Ladders, And Spin HARLOT plc: an amalgamation of the world's two oldest professions. BMJ 2003;327:1442 .

Scientists Loved and Loathed by an Agrochemical Giant With corporate funding of research, “There’s no scientist who comes out of this unscathed.”  (New York Times, By DANNY HAKIM, Dec 31, 2016)  Details relationships between pesticide companies and Universities, their researchers and governments. Three case studies. Confidentiality agreements, how industry shapes and influences research...

The Last Roundup: How the world's best-selling pesticide is heading for a fall (National Observer, By Warren Bell in Opinion | July 4th 2016}  "Monsanto, like other large corporations, has had a special department established for this purpose (to ferociously attack any study, researcher or organization that threatens the corporation's products) for a long time." I always wondered how the scientific journal could retract the Seralinini study here it is ( with links): "By some as yet undisclosed means, a veteran Monsanto researcher, Richard E. Goodman – with a background in dairy science and immunology, but not plant science or pesticides – suddenly appeared out of nowhere on the senior editorial board of the journal that had published the Séralini paper, in a newly created position called “Associate Editor for biotechnology”." Very well researched and great links. Warren Bell is a family physician who is Past Founding President of Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. also filed under  glyphosate 

Science for Sale Meet the ‘rented white coats’ who defend toxic chemicals How corporate-funded research is corrupting America’s courts and regulatory agencies  (By David Heath, The Center for Public Integrity, February 8, 2016) “This is not the way real science works. It doesn’t start with a lawyer coming up with a theory,” Poppe said...“In this article, there is nothing that is true,” vom Saal said. “It’s ridiculous. And that’s how they operate.”...Since then, however, Gradient scientists have taken a leading role in trying to cast doubt on the studies’ findings. Gradient has published 37 articles on different aspects of air pollution, funded by the American Petroleum Institute, Navistar and the International Carbon Black Association, whose members are subject to clean-air regulations...Relevant to pesticides. same stories. Even mention of pesticides here.

Greenpeace investigation finds academics for hire to promote fossil fuel interests (By Elizabeth McSheffrey in News, Energy | December 9th 2015) This article is about fossil fuels but similar pipeline and strategy exist on pesticides, gmos, chemical toxicity, etc

Triumph of digital toxicology: why the US won't regulate deadly chemicals Valerie Brown and Elizabeth Grossman. The Ecologist. 27th November 2015. A six-month investigation finds that the revolving door between government and the chemical industry has led the EPA to rely on easily manipulated toxicology research carried out entirely on computers - and this 'in silico' science often trumps both biology and epidemiology when it comes to regulatory action, or lack of it. The result? Toxic substances remain in everyday products.

The Puppetmasters of Academia (or What the NY Times Left out) September 8, 2015. by Jonathan Latham, PhD. Indepedent Science News.The emails published by the New York Times show '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...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.'

Muzzled by Monsanto New gmo research on the topic of gene silencing, the main function of so-called RNAi technology and how Monsanto is interfering with research that indicates what they don't want to hear. (April 3, 2014) "I didn't use to be an anti-GMO person and I didn't use to have strong feelings about Monsanto, but," she says, her voice trailing off.
But that was before the Chinese research, before the calls from Monsanto, before she couldn't get funding for work that she feels could change the way we treat cancer and other diseases. Her research put her at odds with one of the most powerful corporations in the world...In short, the medical world needs plant RNA to be assimilated by our bodies and tinker gene expression, and the agricultural world needs the opposite to occur. Worth a read. SNAP Feb 2017 update: Vicki S Vance Dietary delivery: A new avenue for microRNA therapeutics? Article in Trends in Biotechnology 33(8) · June 2015 DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2015.06.003 · Source: PubMed 

Other than manufacturing one-sided PR articles disguised as "truth" and often picked up by journalists who put their name to them without disclosing they are "infomercials", other industry tactics have included barring dissenters and concerned citizens from attending press events, intimidating journalists and media outlets, manuafcturing "consensus statements' vilifying groups or individuals, letters to the editor campaigns form paid "ghost writers". As investigative journalism dies a slow death, there are fewer and fewer journalists with the appropriate knowledge to sort out truth from propaganda...

I Was Lured Into Monsanto’s GMO Crusade. Here’s What I Learned.  (Kavin Senapathy, UNDark 27 June 2019)    Interesting article from a pro-GMO promoter who disagrees with Monsanto. I certainly don't agree with her view that opposition to GMOs is unscientific and baseless but I agree with her analysis of Monsanto and her conclusion that people have a ' legitimate desire for trustworthy behavior from the companies that dominate the agricultural marketplace.' 'Monsanto hired Crowe, a communications strategist, as their director of millennial engagement. As journalist Jessie Scott put it in a 2017 profile for Successful Farming, Crowe’s overarching goal was “to engage with millennials about the intersection of farming, food, and technology,” and push back against activists who “spread fear of modern agriculture.” ...Crowe preached a scientific gospel of GMOs that went something like this: If you’re pro-science, you must be pro-GMO. If you’re anti-Monsanto, then you’re anti-GMO. Therefore, if you’re anti-Monsanto, you’re anti-science. His objective, it seemed, was to render opposition to GMOs as ridiculous as belief in Bigfoot, and to amass a movement that could be counted on to shout that message from the rooftops.' 'But people, this millennial included, don’t necessarily want the world to look the way that Monsanto wants it to look. What was missing from Crowe’s battle for the hearts and minds of millennials were answers to big picture problems — about the health of our families, the environment, the food system, and the injustices that pervade all of these facets of life — that people on both sides of the GMO debate care about.'

Monsanto Spin Doctors Target Cancer Scientist In Flawed Reuters Story  (US right to Know, June 19, 2017 by Carey Gillam)   more industry shenanigans!      Pick and choose information, do not disclose your information sources and your ties with Monsanto and allies, disinform about sources, imply things that are not true, and get Reuters to publish this as independent information. A usual industy story!     

Flacking for GMOs: How the Biotech Industry Cultivates Positive Media—and Discourages Criticism(by Paul D. Thacker, The Progressive, July 11, 2017)  Starts with the story of a journalist harrassed for her articles exposing Monsanto payments to a University professor...Lawyers in one case told a judge that documents show Monsanto funnels money to the Genetic Literacy Project and the American Council on Science and Health in order to “shame scientists and highlight information helpful to Monsanto and other chemical producers.”...Industry has also secretly funded a series of conferences to train scientists and journalists to frame the debate over GMOs and the toxicity of glyphosate... An agreement signed by Entine states that the literacy bootcamp at UC-Davis anticipated having many expenses paid by the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO)...In short, the only traceable money source is the biotech industry. So, what did industry money buy? “Far too many journalists are sliding down the slippery slope of attending conferences that are sponsored by entities with financial interests,” he said. “This practice changes journalism into another form of pay-for-play.” Industry tars public health advocates and reporters as anti-science for raising issues the public needs to understand. That should worry us all. SNAP comment: could also have been filed under 'character assassination'.

Snopes Takes Money From Monsanto To ‘Debunk’ Cancer Claims  (YourNewsWire, May 26, 2017)  'It was brought to my attention that after Snopes first called our piece a “MIXTURE” of truth, Monsanto’s operative (aka Kevin Folta) swept in and started bullying the reporter at Snopes into changing his article to claim that the information we presented was “FALSE”'. SNAP COMMENT: An interesting account of the text and gist of Snope's assessment before and after correspondence with Folta. How removing a few words, the sin of omission, and small tweeks rewriting can change the meaning and understanding of an issue. 

Peeling Back the Curtain On Monsanto (Huffington Post, 10 May 2016) But in recent years, Gillam’s work has turned “controversial” in the eyes of some. Operating through sometimes murky social media channels, these critics have targeted Gillam along with others who raise question about GMO food, the chemicals used on them, and the companies that sell both..."If a story I wrote did not toe the line for the biotech industry, that created a phone call or an email to me or my editor. So I had to be extremely careful about the accuracy of every word. They couldn’t get at the facts, so they countered with this idea of “false balance.” They couldn’t say that things were wrong, so they would complain that I should not be presenting both sides."

How the Media Fell for a GMO Front Group Attack on Dr. Oz (Organic Consumer Association, 20 April, 2015). The 55-point headline in Slate blares, “Letter from Prominent Doctors Implies Columbia Should Fire Dr. Oz for Being a Quack.” The story by Ben Mathis-Lilly is based on a letter by a group of doctors who want Columbia University to relieve Dr. Oz of his position as vice chair of the department of surgery at Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons. after Dr. Oz aired a show about glyphosate...It turns out that the 10 signatories and the various front groups they work for all have well known ties as industry spokespeople and one has even been striped of his medical license...These facts are relevant in stories about scientific integrity. The scientific accuracy and motivations of the accusers matter when they are publicly challenging the scientific accuracy and motivations of somebody they are trying to get fired.

107 Nobel Laureate Attack on Greenpeace Traced Back to Biotech PR Operators (Global Justice Ecology Project) "senior research specialist on GMOs, Charlie Cray, accompanied by Tim Schwab, senior researcher from Food and Water Watch were both physically prevented from entering the Press Club." NOTE: More industry shenanigans. this time, media manipulation. and one wonders why the news can be so uninformative.

Global warming deniers get more desperate by the day (David Suzuki Foundation blog, August 7, 2014) Describes the role of the Heartland Institute in climate change denial. "... the gathering place for most deniers, the Heartland Institute, has compared those who accept the evidence for human-caused climate change to terrorists." The "Environmental Policy Alliance, a front group set up by PR firm Berman and Company... has attacked environmentalists, labour-rights advocates, health organizations — even Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the Humane Society — on behalf of funders and clients including Monsanto, Wendy's and tobacco giant Phillip Morris." SNAP Comment: One must 'wonder' how a spokesperson from the Heartland Institute came to be interviewed on the Gormley Show about pesticide bylaws when the issue was discussed in Saskatoon. In my view, the language and inferences used were close to libelous, and they kept cutting off Allison from the Saskatchewan Environmental Society whenever she tried to ask a question or make a comment.

The Assault on Organics Ignoring science to make the case for chemical farming By Kari Hamerschlag and Stacy Malkan, July 1, 2014. One-sided reviews, spin and media influence.

also see glyphosate

How the ghouls of Monsanto influenced science and the media   (GM Watch, 04 May 2022)   Last week, the award-winning investigative journalist Paul Thacker gave a presentation at Carleton University on Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence both science and media, detailing Monsanto’s ghostwriting campaign which kicked off in 2015 to attack the World Health Organization’s cancer agency, after it found glyphosate was a “probable carcinogen.”   A year after Monsanto began plotting their 2015 attack on IARC, the journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology (CRT) published a special issue titled “An Independent Review of the Carcinogenic Potential of Glyphosate.” But emails show Monsanto directed and edited the studies... In 2015, Monsanto secretly recruited scientists from Harvard, Cornell University and three other schools to write about the benefits of GMO technology. In the case of Harvard’s Calestous Juma, Monsanto suggested the topic and provided a summary and headline.' and a lot more with links.

Family farm documentary was part of pesticide lobby's campaign to change how you think (By Carl Meyer, National Observer, March 27th 2019)  SNAP Comment: In other words, this is an 'infomercial', only giving one side of the story, the one CropLife wants you to hear. 'The goal of the marketing efforts is to create more "shareworthy content" that would build public support for the use of pesticides and genetically modified organisms, according to the leaked presentation. It is coming to light at a time when the industry is under scrutiny over public health concerns that could prompt governments to impose tougher regulations that cut into profits.'   'The proposal was part of a larger presentation by CropLife Canada, an industry group representing corporations like Bayer, Syngenta, Nufarm, BASF — and Corteva, which tweeted about the Englots using herbicides, a type of pesticide.'

Monsanto witness admits calculations were wildly wrong  (GM Watch, 10 August 2018)  'The correct controls for any experiment are those within the experiment itself, since all variables except the test substance are controlled for. Diet and environmental conditions are the same in test and control groups and the only variable is the addition in the test groups of the particular substance under test.' 'But industry instead uses the unscientific ruse of comparing the results in the test groups with so-called "historical control data" – control animal data from numerous historical experiments, often unpublished and thus unverifiable, which were conducted in widely differing conditions.'...About the main Monsanto witness in the Dwayne Johnson trial: 'Foster, a professor at McMaster University in Ontario, has Ph.Ds in “medical sciences” and veterinary sciences. He admitted under cross that he never studied glyphosate nor its carcinogenicity before Monsanto paid him to testify.' ...'Foster hailed from Ontario and worked for Environment Canada (Canada’s EPA)'  Monsanto’s key witness on the animal studies admitted his earlier calculations on background rates of cancer were all wildly wrong. These calculations were used to indicate that "the exposed mice developed tumors at lower rates than historical background levels". Recalculated, the background level, was in fact lower than the experimental animals showed. This article also illustrates several more industry shenanigans. 

Julie Kelly Cooks Up Propaganda for the Agrichemical Industry (Organic Consumers Association, February 13, 2017) Connect the dots on the chemical and junk food industries’ PR campaigns to manufacture doubt about science, promote risky products and dismantle environmental health protections. Also lists other articles in this series.Julie Kelly’s writings since 2015 have followed typical tobacco-industry style PR tactics deployed by the chemical industry — manufacturing doubt about science; attacking academics, reporters and transparency advocates; and calling for deregulation of polluting industries...Julie Kelly’s husband, John Kelly Jr., is a lobbyist for the agribusiness giant ADM, among other corporate clients including Blackstone and CVS; and government clients including DuPage County where Julie Kelly formerly worked as a policy consultant to county board chairman Dan Cronin. SNAP's comments: Learn the names of industry advocates so you can safely discount their one-sided writings.

Monsanto’s Mind-Meld; Spin Machine in High Gear (Huffington Post, 31 January, 2017) Alternative facts, indeed. Less than two weeks into the presidency of Donald Trump it appears we are seeing the ushering in of a new era of twisted truths, fake news, and selective science. That should be good news to the corporate spin doctors who are deep into a campaign now to try to combat global concerns about the world’s favorite weed killer. The latest move, the formation of a group called “Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research”, (CAPHR) clearly promotes an agenda opposite to that which its name implies. Formed this month by the American Chemistry Council, whose membership includes Monsanto and other chemical industry titans, the group’s express purpose is to discredit the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a unit of the World Health Organization made up of independent scientists. With a well researched link to U.S. Right to Know investigation of the food and agrichemical industries, and the secrets they are hiding about our food. Findings so far – including tens of thousands of documents received via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) – offer a rare look behind the scenes at how the food and chemical corporations, their front groups, PR operatives and academics work together to promote industry propaganda.

Frightened by Donald Trump? You don’t know the half of it  (George Monbiot, opinion piece, The Guardian)  'I first encountered the machine when writing about climate change. The fury and loathing directed at climate scientists and campaigners seemed incomprehensible until I realised they were fake: the hatred had been paid for. The bloggers and institutes whipping up this anger were funded by oil and coal companies.'  The article proceeds to name well known 'think tanks' and their sources of funding. Worth a read. 

Trump's Top Environmental Adviser Says Pesticides Aren't Bad for You (Tom Philpott, Mother Jones, Nov. 16, 2016)   To lead the transition of the Environmental Protection Agency, President-elect Donald Trump settled on notorious climate change denier Myron Ebell.Ebell directs the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The group runs a website, SafeChemicalPolicy.org, that exists to downplay the health and ecological impacts of chemicals. SNAP Comment: What could be worse than industry running the show?

U.S. coal giant owed money to Canadian climate change deniers (By Charles Mandel in News, Energy | June 16th 2016) NOTE: One more example of industry shenanigans.This example is not about pesticides, but the same happens there. '"Peabody's funding of groups like Friends of Science and others like CFACT shows a clear intent by the company to intervene in the climate public policy debate by casting doubt on the science. They know full well that science is the engine that drives environmental policy; derail the science and you stop the train."'

Science for Sale Meet the ‘rented white coats’ who defend toxic chemicals How corporate-funded research is corrupting America’s courts and regulatory agencies  (By David Heath, The Center for Public Integrity, February 8, 2016) “This is not the way real science works. It doesn’t start with a lawyer coming up with a theory,” Poppe said...“In this article, there is nothing that is true,” vom Saal said. “It’s ridiculous. And that’s how they operate.”...Since then, however, Gradient scientists have taken a leading role in trying to cast doubt on the studies’ findings. Gradient has published 37 articles on different aspects of air pollution, funded by the American Petroleum Institute, Navistar and the International Carbon Black Association, whose members are subject to clean-air regulations...Relevant to pesticides. same stories. Even mention of pesticides here.

The Puppetmasters of Academia (or What the NY Times Left out) September 8, 2015. by Jonathan Latham, PhD. Indepedent Science News.The emails published by the New York Times show '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...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.'

How the Media Fell for a GMO Front Group Attack on Dr. Oz (Organic Consumer Association, 20 April, 2015). The 55-point headline in Slate blares, “Letter from Prominent Doctors Implies Columbia Should Fire Dr. Oz for Being a Quack.” The story by Ben Mathis-Lilly is based on a letter by a group of doctors who want Columbia University to relieve Dr. Oz of his position as vice chair of the department of surgery at Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons. after Dr. Oz aired a show about glyphosate...It turns out that the 10 signatories and the various front groups they work for all have well known ties as industry spokespeople and one has even been stripped of his medical license...These facts are relevant in stories about scientific integrity. The scientific accuracy and motivations of the accusers matter when they are publicly challenging the scientific accuracy and motivations of somebody they are trying to get fired.

Shocking attempt to manipulate Canadians and manufacture support for dirty energy projects. This article is specific for the oil industry but the same tactic has been widely used by the pesticide industry. For instance, when Toronto was considering a pesticide bylaw, the pesticide industry formed a fake non-profit with initials close the TEA (Toronto Environmental Alliance- a genuine environmental group) to spew out anti-bylaw propaganda an make it look like nvironmntal groups did not support a bylaw.There are many more documented instances of such behavior. It's just 'the way to do business' these days.

Greenpeace investigation finds academics for hire to promote fossil fuel interests By Elizabeth McSheffrey in News, Energy | December 9th 2015. This article is about fossil fuels but similar pipeline and strategy exist on pesticides, gmos, chemical toxicity, etc

Industry Campaign and Congressional Hearing Mislead on Bee Decline (Beyond Pesticides, April 30, 2014) The report, Follow the Honey: 7 Ways Pesticide Companies Are Spinning the Bee Crisis to Protect Profits, uncovers the deceptive public relations tactics used by industry giants Bayer, Syngenta and Monsanto, to deflect blame from their products’ contributions to bee declines.

Global warming deniers get more desperate by the day (David Suzuki Foundation blog, August 7, 2014) Describes the role of the Heartland Institute in climate change denial. "... the gathering place for most deniers, the Heartland Institute, has compared those who accept the evidence for human-caused climate change to terrorists." The "Environmental Policy Alliance, a front group set up by PR firm Berman and Company... has attacked environmentalists, labour-rights advocates, health organizations — even Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the Humane Society — on behalf of funders and clients including Monsanto, Wendy's and tobacco giant Phillip Morris." SNAP Comment: One must 'wonder' how a spokesperson from the Heartland Institute came to be interviewed on the Gormley Show about pesticide bylaws when the issue was discussed in Saskatoon. In my view, the language and inferences used were close to libelous, and they kept cutting off Allison from the Saskatchewan Environmental Society whenever she tried to ask a question or make a comment.

The Assault on Organics Ignoring science to make the case for chemical farming By Kari Hamerschlag and Stacy Malkan, July 1, 2014. One-sided reviews, spin and media influence.

Industry Campaign and Congressional Hearing Mislead on Bee Decline (Beyond Pesticides, April 30, 2014) The report, Follow the Honey: 7 Ways Pesticide Companies Are Spinning the Bee Crisis to Protect Profits, uncovers the deceptive public relations tactics used by industry giants Bayer, Syngenta and Monsanto, to deflect blame from their products’ contributions to bee declines.

Also see pets, food, glyphosate 2

Preemption laws are another way industry prevents any criticism of their products or processes. Divestment of industry responsability with government participation is another. 

Syngenta's Capture of Health Canada: abamectin (Safe Foods Matter, 29 September 2024) Regulatory capture is when a regulatory agency, like Health Canada, is captured by a particular group, like Syngenta, and serves the interests of that group instead of the public interest.     This is the story of how Syngenta captured the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) of Health Canada in its assessment of the pesticide abamectin.     Abamectin damages the brains of the young. It is toxic to the developing young and/or the reproductive system, and suspected of damaging fertility or the unborn child. It is fatal if inhaled, and considered a highly hazardous pesticide.  PMRA intends to re-register this toxic pesticide and increase or expand the legal limits for residues allowed on many foods: including crops like tea, almonds, apples, blueberries, carrots, cherries, chives, corn, cranberries, eggplant, grapes, grapefruits, kiwi, oranges, lemons, pineapple, papaya, peaches, pear, pecans, peppers, plums, strawberries and tomatoes.      In Europe, abamectin was recently restricted to use in closed greenhouses to prevent release into the environment, and even this is being challenged. In Canada and the US, there is no such restriction.

Bayer push to block lawsuits (The New Lede, 11 July 2024)    'In an effort to block further litigation, the chemical giant has turned its focus to getting federal and state legislation passed to block Roundup users from suing the company for damages. According to a recent Washington Post article, Bayer helped draft language for a legislative measure that would limit the types of lawsuits brought by the Roundup users. That measure is included in the US House of Representatives version of the 2024 Farm Bill, which is slated to be finalized later this year. The company has also been pushing lawmakers in several states to pass similar measures.      Key to Bayer’s messaging to legislators is that, because glyphosate is EPA-approved, research showing its harms should be rejected. But the process by which the EPA approved glyphosate decades ago has never been reassuring to independent scientists such as myself. EPA scientists conducting initial assessments of glyphosate in the 1980’s discovered several mice dosed with the pesticide developed rare kidney tumors, prompting the scientists to confirm the pesticide’s link to cancer.     Then the EPA’s pesticides office did what it often does: It ignored the troubling research and the recommendation of its own scientists and approved the pesticide without acknowledging its documented link to cancer.      Even the EPA’s subsequent assessments and reapprovals of the pesticide, required every 15 years, have been plagued by questionable science. In 2022 a federal appeals court ruled that the agency’s finding that glyphosate has no link to cancer violated its own Cancer Guidelines and “was not supported by substantial evidence.”       SNAP Comment:  I find the conclusion 'The disturbing revelation that consumers simply cannot trust that a pesticide is safe simply because it gets the EPA’s stamp of approval.' is made by someone who does not know the history. It used to be a stated part of regulatory agencies policy (including the Canadian PMRA) that registration was not equivalent to safety because pesticides were designed to kill... The regulatory approach has been to reduce concentration and rate  or frequenccy of application and set up some type of safety factor rather than ban a substance. None of these approaches have been showln to be sufficient to reduce risk. That is why many pesticides have finally been banned. 

New report: Corporate influence at FAO (PANNA, 6 June 2022)  'Corporations are gaining increasing influence at the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), at the expense of states, small scale food producers, Indigenous Peoples and civil society. But far from resisting this corporate capture, the FAO appears to be actively embracing it. The corporate takeover of UN institutions like the FAO threatens the democratic governance of our food systems.    A new report published June 7, Corporate Capture of FAO: Industry's Deepening Influence on Global Food Governance, exposes the extent of FAO’s engagement with the corporate sector and its negative impact on global decision-making at a time of worsening food crises.'

Coverup of Dog Deaths at EPA, According to Internal Emails on Seresto Flea and Tick Collars     (Beyond Pesticides, April 1, 2022) According to reporting by E&E’s Greenwire, internal emails at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) show that career scientists at the agency expressed worry about pesticide-laced pet collars, such as the notorious Seresto flea and tick collars, but that EPA managers “instructed them to avoid documenting those worries in publicly accessible records.” The emails were released pursuant to a 2021 FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) lawsuit, brought by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), that sought records of internal communications. 

Pesticide Trade Group Wrote U.S. Government Policy to Undermine International Efforts to Combat Antibiotic Resistance   (Beyond Pesticides, October 6, 2020) Despite the rapid rise of antibiotic resistance in the United States and throughout the world, new documents find the Trump Administration worked on behalf of a chemical industry trade group to weaken international guidelines aimed at slowing the crisis.

In Cahoots with Pesticide Industry, Former U.S. Officials Try to Stop Mexico from Banning Glyphosate, But Fail  (Beyond Pesticides, February 17, 2021) New details are emerging around the pressure campaign Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and his administration withstood as the country moved towards banning Bayer/Monsanto’s glyphosate (Roundup) herbicide. According to documents obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request and published in the Guardian, U.S. Trade Representative, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) worked in coordination with Bayer/Monsanto and the agrichemical industry umbrella group Croplife America to stop the Mexican government from embracing a precautionary approach to pesticide regulation. While the Trump administration and its collaborators were successful in a similar campaign against Thailand, there are no indications that Mexico will rescind its final decision to ban glyphosate, made at the end of last year. 

Regulatory Capture: USDA’s Organic Governance Board Dominated by Affiliates of Industry’s Corporate Lobby   (Beyond Pesticides, January 24, 2019)  'Continuing a trend well established by prior Republican and Democratic administrations, the five new members recently appointed by USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue to the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) all have a current or past relationship with the industry’s major lobby group, the Organic Trade Association (OTA).   Over the past decade, Big Food has consolidated ownership of most of the largest and best-known organic brands. At the same time, many have criticized USDA for “stacking” the board, which is charged with guiding the regulatory oversight of organic farming and food production, with members from, or friendly to, corporate agribusiness interests.  “After serving five years on the National Organic Standards Board myself,” said Jay Feldman, Executive Director of Beyond Pesticides, “I have witnessed how cards are stacked against independent voices. OrganicEye’s research is designed to empower industry stakeholders, so we can put pressure on our governmental officials and on brands that betray true organic values in the marketplace.”'

Internal emails reveal how the chemical lobby fights regulation (The Guardian, 22 May 2019)'Chemicals experts outside the industry say the lobbying efforts on TCE demonstrate the strategies that companies with toxic products have used for decades: sowing doubt about toxicology science, stalling regulation and wielding influence with political officials through campaign donations..."The playbook repeats itself over and over,” said Sonya Lunder, a senior toxics adviser at the Sierra Club....The US has long allowed companies to use thousands of chemicals with little or no data on whether they are safe. A 2016 update to US chemical laws is meant to require more testing, but critics say Trump’s EPA is using the new process to undermine ongoing reviews. The EPA says the changes to how it assesses chemicals will let the agency “expeditiously” regulate dangerous ones.'

Emails Show EPA let Monsanto Write the Rules on its Toxic, Drift-prone Herbicide (Beyond Pesticides, August 3, 2018)  'This was part of the discovery process initiated by a lawsuit against EPA’s approval of its new dicamba product, called “XtendiMax with Vapor Grip Technology”. Emails released (start at p. 147) show Monsanto line-editing regulations first proposed by EPA. This is only the latest in a long string of instances where EPA has worked hand in glove with the agrichemical industry it is charged with overseeing...In EPA’s original announcement of the new regulations, the agency quoted former Administrator Scott Pruitt as saying, “Today’s actions are the result of intensive, collaborative efforts, working side by side with the states and university scientists from across the nation who have first-hand knowledge of the problem and workable solutions.” However, from the documents released, it is evident that EPA’s collaboration focused primarily with industry, rather than states and university scientists.' 

Federal Bill Benefits Monsanto/Bayer, Overriding Labeling of Roundup/Glyphosate as a Carcinogen under California Law   (Beyond Pesticides, July 16, 2018)  'Legislative Sneak Attacks Continue. Yet another bill has been introduced in Congress to remove accountability from Monsanto/Bayer for its glyphosate herbicide Roundup.™ The so-called “Accurate Labels Act” (S.3019/H.R.6022) would repeal most, if not all, existing labeling and information disclosure laws adopted by state or local governments, including California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Prop 65), which has been responsible for the removal of hundreds of dangerous toxic chemicals, including lead, cadmium, and mercury, from commercial and consumer products nationwide. California listed Roundup as a probable carcinogen in 2015, requiring a label warning in the state, and California’s Fifth District Court of Appeal upheld the decision in April of this year, rejecting Monsanto’s challenge to the listing.'

Scotts-Monsanto Genetically Engineered Experimental Bentgrass Threatens Oregon Environment, Waterways, and Seed Industry  Experimental, genetically engineered, glyphosate tolerant bentgrass escaped into the wild.  (Beyond Pesticides, July 19, 2018) 'A variety of bentgrass, genetically engineered by Scotts Miracle-Gro and Monsanto to tolerate the glyphosate herbicide Roundup, escaped from an experimental field planting in Eastern Oregon 15 years ago, and continues to plague area farmers...Yet the company has been allowed to escape ultimate responsibility by a number of USDA (United States Dairy Association) decisions in recent years that absolve Scotts and Monsanto from the responsibility to fund clean-up efforts (to the tune of $250,000 annually) in exchange for an agreement not to commercialize GE bentgrass. This, according to Mr. Erstrom, leaves the burden of annual routing of the plant to county and state governments, and to local growers.' (also filed under gmos/crops) 

Scant oversight, corporate secrecy preceded U.S. weed killer crisis  (Emily Flitter, Reuters, 8 aug. 2017)   Monsanto employee Boyd Carey, an agronomist, laid out the company's rationale for blocking the independent research at a hearing of the Arkansas Plant Board's Pesticide Committee in the summer of 2016. A meeting summary by the Arkansas Legislature's Joint Budget Committee described Carey’s testimony as follows: "Boyd Carey is on record on Aug. 8 stating that the University of Arkansas nor any other university was given the opportunity to test VaporGrip in fear that the results may jeopardize the federal label."  After the EPA signed off, Monsanto sought approval from individual states, which determine whether agricultural products are suitable for their climates and geographies. To help them do that, Monsanto shared its XtendiMax testing results with state regulators. But it only supplied that data in finished form, Monsanto’s Carey told the Arkansas Plant Board meeting, meaning it withheld underlying data that could be analyzed independently by the regulators.   Snap Comment: and Monsanto is still trusted? if anyone I know treted me with such contempt, I would quickly severe the link.

Suppressed EPA toxicologist: 'it is essentially certain that glyphosate causes cancer' (The Ecologist, Carey Gillam,14 February 2017) Letters from an EPA toxicologist to the EPA official in charge of assessing whether glyphosate, the active ingredient of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, causes cancer, reveal accusations of 'staff intimidation' and 'political conniving games with the science' to favour pesticide corporations...The communication, if authentic, could be an explosive development in the snowballing multi-district litigation that now comprises more than 60 plaintiffs from around the United States accusing Monsanto of covering up evidence that Roundup herbicide could cause cancer...Lawyers for the plaintiffs want the federal judge in the case to lift a seal on documents that detail Monsanto's interactions with Rowland regarding the EPA's safety assessment of glyphosate...The article also mentions that, in a separate filing made on Feb. 8, Monsanto submitted a court brief arguing that the IARC classification of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen is not relevant to the question of whether or not Roundup caused the plaintiffs' cancers. SNAP's Comment: Political games are far from new in the regulatory field. A revolving door between industry and the regulatory agency regulating them has been documented for years. In Canada, the case for the hormone BGH to be injected to cows to increase milk production brought the whole thing to light after three (recently vindicated) scientists were fired because they would not play political games and approve it. The burden of proof placed on plaintiffs already makes it almost impossible to prove harm. The new court brief by Monsanto is a political game played in court. A new legislation preventing class action suits is a political game played at highest levels of government.

Class Action Cases Against Monsanto Move Ahead, Charging Cancer Effects of Roundup (Beyond Pesticides, February 15, 2017) SNAP comment: I guess when one's position becomes indefensible, let's prevent anyone from attacking us so we don't have to defend. Question: If you prevent people from getting justice from the courts, what other recourses will they have? "Ms. Gillam, Research Director for U.S. Right to Know, uncovers more to the story, pointing out that, as the evidence against Monsanto continues to mount, Congress may be stepping in to curtail class action lawsuits. Just last week, legislation was introduced by House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) to limit the ability of individuals to challenge powerful corporations in court with the stated goal of “diminishing abuses in class action and mass tort litigation.” Entitled the “Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017,” the bill will apply to pending as well as future class action lawsuits."

Poison Fruit    Dow Chemical Wants Farmers to Keep Using a Pesticide Linked to Autism and ADHD (The Intercept, 14 January 2017) A fascinating article reviewing the history of the organophosphate chlorpyrifos regulation in the United States. Reviews the research directly linking it to autism and several other disorders, the need for suing the US EPA to get action and Dow's constant efforts to keep chlorpyrifos on the market.SNAP comment: Here we have it from the mouth of industry: there is currently no process “for acceptance of epidemiologic studies in human health risk assessment.” That is why it is so easy for regulatory agencies to ignore or set aside epidemiological studies in their pesticide re-evaluations, especially when the committees consist of several 'regulatory' scientists or others deriving their income from the pesticide industry. I don't believe there is much of a mechanism or standard for regulatory agencies to evaluate anything but the studies mandated for registration. As of 16 January 2017, there are still 29 chlorpyrifos products registered for use in Canada.

Trump's Top Environmental Adviser Says Pesticides Aren't Bad for You (Tom Philpott, Mother Jones, Nov. 16, 2016)   To lead the transition of the Environmental Protection Agency, President-elect Donald Trump settled on notorious climate change denier Myron Ebell.Ebell directs the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The group runs a website, SafeChemicalPolicy.org, that exists to downplay the health and ecological impacts of chemicals. SNAP Comment: What could be worse than industry running the show? 

Report Details Industry Efforts to Derail Pollinator Protections (Beyond Pesticides, June 17, 2016)  The pesticide industry has weakened and delayed pesticide reforms and is shaping new state pollinator “protection” plans nationwide that do little to protect bees, according to a new Friends of the Earth report...The investigation, Buzz Kill: How the Pesticide Industry is Clipping the Wings of Bee Protection Efforts Across the U.S., reveals an array of pesticide industry tactics to slow urgently needed pollinator protection measures at federal and state levels. The report details how new state pollinator protection plans, many still unfinished, have been heavily influenced by pesticide industry interests. According to the report, industry is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on lobbying to delay state and federal action on the chemicals they manufacture.

Triumph of digital toxicology: why the US won't regulate deadly chemicals Valerie Brown and Elizabeth Grossman. The Ecologist. 27th November 2015. A six-month investigation finds that the revolving door between government and the chemical industry has led the EPA to rely on easily manipulated toxicology research carried out entirely on computers - and this 'in silico' science often trumps both biology and epidemiology when it comes to regulatory action, or lack of it. The result? Toxic substances remain in everyday products.

Industry Celebrates 25 Years of Undermining Public Health (Beyond Pesticides, October 21, 2015) Last week, Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE), an umbrella group representing pesticide manufacturers, celebrated its 25th year anniversary, touting its efforts to roll back critical protections from pesticide use in the U.S. The group emphasizes its role in quashing local government’s right to restrict pesticide use within its jurisdiction after the Supreme Court, in Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Ralph Mortier (1991), upheld local authority under federal pesticide law. Read about their past and present strategies.

Toxic Influence: How a Chemical Industry Trade Group You've Never Heard of Threatens Your Health.(Huffington Post.10/19/2015)  An article about the American Chemistry Council and how it exerts its influence to weaken and prevent regulations, in this case regarding formaldehyde. Several pesticide manufacturers are members. 

Meeting Records Expose Industry’s Influence in UK’s Neonic Emergency Use Decision (Beyond Pesticides, July 31, 2015) New information has surfaced regarding the role of agrochemical giants Bayer and Syngenta in the United Kingdom (UK)’s recent decision to temporarily allow the use of neonicotinoid seed treatment on oilseed rape crop. A record of the meeting, involving the UK government’s expert committee on pesticides (ECP) and industry representatives, had previously been suppressed. The newly released record of the meeting shows that Bayer and Syngenta were the only external representatives asked to answer the ECP’s questions.  By only getting advice from those who benefit from the exemption, the committee is showing a remarkably closed-minded attitude, or do they think that Bayer and Syngenta are the only stakeholders in this issue?

NOSB Voting Scorecard: Influence Peddlers Eroding Organic Standards (The Cornucopia Institute, August 2014) One example of industry appointments to be able to control decisions at higher levels, in this case on a board for the purpose of lowering organic standards.