by Carey Gillam
When IARC’s classification of glyphosate’s probable carcinogenicity hit the news, Folta was cited by GMO Answers as an “expert” on the issue, with a column under his name declaring glyphosate as “amazingly non-toxic to humans or any other animals.” In all, Folta was cited as an expert on the corporate-run website more than seventy times from 2013 through 2015—all of this while he ostensibly was working for a taxpayer-funded public university.
The agrochemical and seed industry players were also paying for Folta to travel, make speeches, and give industry-friendly presentations. In August 2014, Monsanto agreed to provide an “unrestricted grant” of $25,000 for Folta to travel to several universities to “train” faculty, staff, and students about GMO agriculture. But again, keeping the ties a secret was part of the plan. Folta suggested that Monsanto send its money to a program within the nonprofit University of Florida Foundation that would allow the funding to be hidden from public scrutiny. The program was known as Special Help for Agricultural Research and Education, or SHARE. “If funded directly to the program as a SHARE contribution (essentially unrestricted funds) it is not … in a ’conflict-of-interest’ account. In other words, SHARE contributions are not publicly noted,” Folta told Monsanto. “This eliminates the potential concern of the funding organization influencing the message.”36
After the New York Times revealed Folta’s arrangements with Monsanto, the university and Folta came under heavy public criticism and the university announced that the $25,000 was “re-allocated” to a Florida food pantry. Folta defended his work with Monsanto, saying the controversy was built on “manufactured” narratives. “I had an established, effective program that a company wanted to support,” Folta said in a statement posted by the university. “Science can benefit from corporate partnerships to foster efforts of scientific literacy, and that helps all of us.”
Folta continues to be an active advocate for Monsanto and its products, including glyphosate, and routinely makes written attacks on journalists, scientists, and others who point to research that doesn’t align with industry interests. He’s criticized me on social media forums and in blog posts, writing that I am a “hideous human” and “disgusting.” In one of a series of e-mails Folta wrote to me, he said that I was a “liar and manipulator.” He also told me that he made disclosures about his ties to industry “to the level required” and says he “acknowledged it when it was relevant.”
Even though he asserts he has done nothing wrong, Folta says that being caught in the public spotlight the way he was has taken a toll on his professional and emotional well-being. Folta said he has lost numerous opportunities because of the reports about his industry ties. “My hair started going grey and I aged a decade…. My breathing is slow and shallow, I don’t sleep well. I’m forgetful. The toll has been harsh. My eyes swell with tears when I even think about what I have been through,” he wrote on his website.37
The agricultural industry has cheered him on, awarding him the Borlaug CAST Communication Award in 2016—a designation to recognize those who “demonstrate a passionate interest in communicating the importance of agriculture to policymakers, the news media, and the public.”38
Gary Ruskin, codirector of U.S. Right to Know, said that the pattern of corporate influence over American academics discovered by his nonprofit group is alarming because the hidden collaborations are aimed at papering over the health risks of products such as glyphosate. “Supposedly unbiased scientists have been degraded into corporate PR flaks,” he said.39
Another favored strategy for the chemical industry has been to stake out spaces on social media, a vast Internet-based landscape where virtually anyone can blog or tweet or comment on any topic under the sun. Who would think that glyphosate would have its own Twitter account, for instance? But it does, with a long stream of positive messages about the agrochemical (with no disclosure as to who the account belongs to). Glyphosate is perhaps the world’s first pesticide to have over 1,900 “followers” on a mainstream social media platform, where politicians, celebrities, and anyone else with a message to share can meet. Glyphosate’s Twitter account was established in March 2015, the month IARC made its carcinogenic classification.
PR experts inside and outside Monsanto have also sought out bloggers to post articles that support GMOs and glyphosate on different consumer and health websites, including the popular WebMD, where readers turn for information on a range of health and nutrition topics.40 “Mommy bloggers,” women who write about parenting or related topics, are among the social media players Monsanto and its PR teams have recruited for positive commentary on agrochemical industry interests such as glyphosate and GMOs. Monsanto has ties to social media groups such as #Moms4GMOs and Science Moms, for instance. These groups post favorable industry information on an array of websites while appearing to be independent of industry influence.
Academics were also asked to write favorable blogs on WebMD without mentioning a Monsanto connection. Monsanto government affairs lead Lisa Drake laid it out for Folta in a January 2015 e-mail exchange. After wishing him a “Happy New Year,” Drake asked Folta to submit a blog on the “safety and health of biotech to WebMD.” She provided him with instructions on how to submit an article and asked him to be sure to “insert the word ‘labeling’ somewhere in the content in order to get search algorithms to pick it up.” She underscored how hard Monsanto was working to get favorable content published: “Over the past six months, we have worked hard through third parties to insert fresh and current material on Web MD’s website.” Folta replied within a few minutes, “Can do! My pleasure.”41
Anna Lappé, cofounder of the nonprofit Small Planet Institute, calls the tactics “stealth marketing techniques” that work “surreptitiously to shape public opinion.” In an opinion piece she authored on the topic, Lappé said this:
Sure, PR is an old game, but Big Ag is giving the age-old techniques of shaping public opinion a new, sneakier spin. Much of today’s marketing happens behind the scenes and off the printed page—on the Web pages of blogs, on Twitter feeds and Facebook pages, through sponsored content and industry-funded webisodes and on the stages of big-ideas festivals.42
There are in fact small armies of industry promoters spread across social media, trolling for negative commentary and responding to any they find with fast retorts that back industry interests. Sometimes the connections between these social media players and certain corporations are clear-cut, sometimes not. But the social media circles have been growing in power and influence. Court documents state that one such strategy by Monsanto, called “Let nothing go,” is designed to monitor social media postings and respond to any critical comments or articles about industry interests.43
The Center for Food Safety found out just how powerful the social media strategy could be when the organization scheduled a presentation in Honolulu, Hawaii, by author, activist, and Monsanto critic Vani Hari, who markets herself as Food Babe. Event organizers slated the presentation for September 2016 and offered free tickets to the public but asked that people who wanted to attend RSVP so they could be guaranteed a seat. In an effort to sabotage the event, a pro-Monsanto group that refers to itself as March Against Myths About Modification put out a social media call for help. The group asked Facebook followers to make large numbers of fake reservations so the event would appear sold out but would actually leave Hari speaking to a nearly empty hall. Leaders encouraged people to use fake names and create “disposable” e-mail addresses, even providing instructions on how to do so, to reserve the seats. More than 1,500 tickets were reserved this way under names like Harriett Tubman, Fraud Babe, and Susi Creamcheese. Facebook postings showed scores of people from around the world making fake reservations and joking about the deceit.44 Organizers uncovered the scheme the day before the event and were able to cancel many of the fake reservations, opening up seats for valid reservations.
Hari said the events were jarring. “I choose to put my focus and energy on the willing—the people w
ho want to hear about what’s really in their food and how they can make healthy changes to their lifestyle. On the other hand, there are some serious detractors that do not want the truth about our food to be heard. They are working as agents for the biotech and chemical industry to prevent information about the risks of using chemicals like glyphosate that are coupled with GMOs to come to light.”45
The March Against Myths group is just one of various organizations created, funded, or otherwise backed by agribusiness to tout its messages. In some cases, the links to industry are clear, while in other cases, they are harder to see. These front groups act essentially as echo chambers, citing each other as sources that reinforce industry positions with the veneer of expertise and impartiality. Their names often sound impressive and authoritative. Take, for instance, the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), the group Monsanto positioned to help it promote the policy briefs by Folta, Juma, and the other academics. The ACSH was founded in 1978 and bills itself as a national nonprofit education organization that supports “evidence-based science and medicine.” It does not publicly disclose the range of corporate funding it relies on, but records obtained by journalists in 2013 reveal a money trail that leads to a number of chemical companies as well as prominent food and tobacco companies.46 The group has been a vocal supporter of glyphosate, calling questions about its safety “ridiculous fearmongering.”47 The ACSH, not coincidentally, uses its website to promote the March Against Myths group, which tried to sabotage Hari’s speech, and to attack people who raise questions about glyphosate’s safety. The group wrote and featured a piece on its website accusing a New York Times reporter of “lying” when he authored an article about glyphosate concerns.48
Folta and other industry supporters similarly interfered with a speech planned for early 2016 in Houston by Thierry Vrain, a Canadian molecular biologist who has raised concerns about glyphosate and GMOs. Vrain was to deliver a lecture at the Houston Museum of Natural Science titled “The Poison in Our Food Supply.” A few days beforehand, a storm of e-mails, phone calls, and social media messages, along with a blog piece written by Folta, assailed the museum for hosting the event, claiming Vrain lacked credibility. Many accused Vrain of practicing “junk science” and threatened to cancel their museum membership if it didn’t ax the lecture. The museum president succumbed to the pressure and canceled the event. Organizers were able to find an alternative venue nearby and the evening lecture was held anyway, but the power of the industry cheerleaders was clear.49
In fact, there are many industry-backed organizations that often coordinate with the companies and their public relations arms to try to sway public opinion and push for favorable public policies. And, like the ACSH, they sound quite impressive. There is the International Life Sciences Institute, the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance, and the Alliance to Feed the Future. Records show the organizations all have received funding from Monsanto and numerous other food or chemical companies or corporate-funded trade groups. Monsanto created a group called America’s Farmers out of whole cloth, and it formed and funded a group of dietitians specifically “to communicate with consumers who have questions about food and agriculture.” Called Leaders Engaged in Advancing Dialogue (LEAD), the organization is made up of registered dietitians around the country who receive talking points from Monsanto and participate in events the company lines up. They are active both on the ground and across social media, protecting industry interests.
And in a very targeted move, a group called Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research was launched in early 2017 specifically to tear down the credibility of IARC for having classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic. The group, which called itself an “education and outreach initiative,” declared its first mission was to “reform” IARC and “bring to light the deficiencies, misinformation and consequences” of IARC’s findings.50 And just who was behind this new group that aims to “promote credible, unbiased, and transparent science”? None other than the American Chemistry Council, whose membership includes the agro-chemical industry heavyweights Monsanto, Dow, DuPont, and Bayer.
The industry hides behind such friendly sounding organizations, according to public health attorney Michele Simon, who wrote a detailed report in 2013 on industry front group activity. “The idea is to fool the media, policymakers, and general public into trusting these sources, despite their corporate-funded PR agenda,” Simon said. “Industry spin is becoming more prevalent and aggressive.”51
Glyphosate is such a critical moneymaker for the agrochemical industry that there are organizations devoted solely to the chemical. The Glyphosate Task Force, formed in Europe by a consortium of chemical companies including Monsanto, has significant influence as a provider of research data to regulators. It does not seek to appear independent of industry, nor does its counterpart in North America, the Joint Glyphosate Task Force. Still, the depths of their influence on regulators is often murky. When IARC made the glyphosate classification, both organizations decried IARC and sought to direct attention instead to a “Renewal Assessment Report,” or RAR, produced by the German government in 2013 that concluded glyphosate was unlikely to pose a cancer risk to humans. That RAR recommended that the acceptable daily intake for glyphosate actually be increased by 67 percent because glyphosate was so safe. And because it was released by a government entity, the RAR appeared authoritative enough to counter IARC’s findings. But few knew that RAR actually relied heavily on a dossier put together by the Glyphosate Task Force.52 Though Monsanto’s own work helped direct the findings, the company pointed to the RAR as independent and authoritative backing for glyphosate safety. And the public was none the wiser.
A group of six scientists and academic professors penned a letter in April 2017 calling for an end to the spin and the secrecy surrounding Monsanto’s herbicide. “It is clear from the amount of time, effort, and money that the agrochemical industry has spent on trying to counter efforts to restrict the use of glyphosate, that they are quite concerned about lost profits from the sales of these products. Rather than cynically attempting to squeeze the last few dollars of profits from sales of chemicals that have been demonstrated to cause adverse health effects, the agrochemical industry should exert some corporate responsibility and open their concealed testing data regarding the safety of chemicals for public evaluation,” the group wrote.53
CHAPTER 7
A Poisoned Paradise
The Hawaiian Islands have long been a draw for tourists from around the world. But the year-round climate of warm winds, sunshine, and ample moisture has also made the islands a hot spot for multinational agrochemical and seed companies, which see the tropical environment as an ideal testing ground for a range of new seeds and the chemicals used on them. Corn is the big seed crop, in high demand around the globe. And with the introduction of genetic engineering of corn and other seeds in the mid-1990s has come a broad expansion by the seed and chemical companies across Hawaiian farmland and broad use of glyphosate herbicides.
Monsanto Company, Dow Agrosciences, DuPont, Syngenta, and others snapped up leases for large swaths of property over the past several decades and transformed areas known for sugar and pineapple production into experimental field sites. By 2014, the chemical companies controlled more than 13,500 acres on the island of Kauai alone. Across the state, including on the islands of Maui, Molokai, and Oahu, the companies occupied about 25,000 of the state’s 280,000 acres of agricultural land. With the year-round intensive crop work have come heavy applications of not just glyphosate but a range of pesticides, many with dangers that are better documented than those associated with glyphosate. The experiences of island residents illustrate how hard it can be to challenge chemically intensive agriculture and the powerful business interests behind it.
In addition to glyphosate, one pesticide of top concern is a bug-killing chemical called chlorpyrifos, which has been banned for residential use in the United States since the year 2000 because of its dangers. It is known to
be highly toxic to fish and other aquatic life, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) warns that it can over-stimulate the human nervous system and can kill people at very high exposures. Even more worrisome, research by the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health found that children who had greater pre- and postnatal exposure to chlorpyrifos were more likely to have altered brain development and experience early childhood developmental delays, lower IQ scores, and a host of serious neurodevelopmental problems. The researchers said the findings suggest that neurotoxic effects of chlorpyrifos are “long term” and have important public health implications because of the fact that “widespread agricultural use … continues unabated.”1 And a review of the scientific literature published in February 2014 in the British journal Lancet Neurology cited chlorpyrifos among several commonly used chemicals that injure the developing brains of children.2
Still, chlorpyrifos has remained a key tool in agriculture, especially in production of corn, soybeans, fruit, and many types of vegetables, such as broccoli, cauliflower, and brussels sprouts. It’s been used regularly by the chemical companies on the Hawaiian Islands, and the companies have fought mightily to keep using it despite the research on its dangers to children and others. The EPA proposed in October 2015 revoking all tolerances for chlorpyrifos, essentially banning it for any agricultural use, but only after being sued by environmentalists who argued the chemical is highly dangerous to both people and wildlife.3 Despite the evidence of harm, Dow and others in the chemical industry protested the EPA moves, and the chemical remains on the market as a restricted use pesticide, or RUP, as of this writing.