Tagged with "Monsanto"
Court Documents Reveal the Inner Workings of a Monsanto Smear Campaign | Corbett Report Tags: Corbett Report Monsanto

Court Documents Reveal the Inner Workings of a Monsanto Smear Campaign

by James Corbett
corbettreport.com
August 5, 2017

The case against Monsanto is the gift that keeps on giving.

Previously in these pages I discussed how the trial of Monsanto currently taking place in the California Northern District Court—technically known as "Multidistrict Litigation," with the formal title of "In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2741)"—is airing some of the agrichemical behemoth's dirtiest laundry. In my article "Monsatan On Trial For Roundup Cancer," I revealed how dozens of lawsuits filed against Monsanto for its role in causing the non-Hodgkin lymphoma of thousands of people across the US had been rolled into one dramatic court case, and how discovery from that case had yielded the remarkable deathbed testimony of EPA whistleblower Jess Rowland.

Then new documents emerged from the case confirming what many had long suspected: Monsanto has an entire internal corporate program (appropriately entitled "Let Nothing Go") employing an army of internet trolls who spam the company's propaganda on every social media post, forum and online comment board where its products and practices are being discussed.

Just this week, one of the law firms working on the trial released an equally explosive collection of "Monsanto's Secret Documents," proving another long-suspected claim against the world's most evil company: That it has in fact ghostwritten many of the key articles defending its products in the mainstream press—articles that were supposedly written by "independent" journalists. When the embarrassing details of the story came to light, including a suggested "draft" of an article written by Monsanto for Forbes "journalist" Henry Miller in 2015 that was exactly identical to the article that appeared under his name, Forbes pulled the piece from its website and ended Miller's employment. In a different leaked email exchange, former Monsanto consultant John Acquavella complained to a Monsanto executive, "I can’t be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication," adding, "We call that ghost writing and it is unethical."

But if all that weren't bad enough, the latest documents to emerge from the case also detail exactly how Monsanto attempted to smear the research of Gilles-Éric Séralini, the French scientist who published a groundbreaking study showing an increase in tumors among rats fed genetically modified corn and Monsanto's RoundUp herbicide.

The Séralini affair, as it has come to be known, is something that long-time Corbett Reporteers will be familiar with by now. For those who haven't seen my COUGHProjectCensoredAwardWinningCOUGH video on the subject, here it is again:

In a nutshell, a team of researchers led by Dr. Gilles-Eric Séralini of the University of Caen published a study called "Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize," in the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology in 2012. The study involved Séralini's team following 200 rats through a two-year feeding study. They divided the rats into 10 groups of 20 each (10 male rats and 10 female rats). Rats in three of the groups were fed Monsanto’s patented NK603 GMO corn alone. Rats in another three groups were fed the corn treated with Roundup herbicide. Rats in three other groups were fed Roundup-treated water but no GMO corn. And rats in the tenth group, a control group, were fed neither GMO corn nor Roundup herbicide. The team’s results indicated that the rats fed the Roundup or the GMO corn, either separately or combined, were more likely to experience a range of ill health effects than the non-GMO control group.

So far, so straightforward. But then the Monsanto PR machine™ kicked into action. Suddenly, the study was being pilloried as "unscientific" from all quarters. This is not to say that it had failed to apply the usual scientific standards and practices. Rather, it was "unscientific" because it had (correctly) applied the very standards and practices of all previous toxicity studies on glyphosate. The problem, according to the studies vocal critics, was that the Séralini’s team had observed the rats for their full two-year average lifespan, while previous industry-sponsored feeding studies had observed the rats for only three months. Tellingly, Séralini's team found that most of the adverse health effects documented in the study did not begin developing until the fourth month of the experiment.

Condemnations of the study, which had been carried out in near-total secrecy to avoid industry pressure, were swift in coming. For example, the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA)—the very same agency that in 2009 had recommended NK603 Roundup-tolerant maize for regulatory approval in the EU without any independent testing—issued a blistering 22-point press release defending its own assessment of the GM corn's safety. The EFSA concluded that Séralini's work "does not meet acceptable scientific standards and there is no need to re-examine previous safety evaluations of genetically modified maize NK603." What the press release neglected to mention was that the EFSA had not examined the safety of Monsanto's corn in the first place. That is, it had conducted no animal tests itself, instead relying on "information supplied by the applicant" (i.e., Monsanto).

Among the flurry of denunciations that poured in were numerous letters to the editor calling on the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology to repudiate the controversial paper. There was even an online petition calling on Séralini to voluntarily withdraw it. The editor, seemingly bowing to the whirlwind of pressure, made the unprecedented decision to retract the study. "Unprecedented" because the move went against the journal’s own express principles and guidelines.

As I pointed out at the time:

"The editor of the journal, Dr. A. Wallace Hayes, himself admits that the paper meets none of the journal's own criteria for retraction. In his own statement on the retraction, he admits that he 'found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data.' Yet still, the paper is being retracted because 'the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive,' apparently a new standard for article retraction that seems to apply especially to articles critical of the GMO industry in general and Monsanto products in particular."

What was known at the time was that, shortly after the Séralini paper was published, the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology created a brand new position specifically to edit biotechnology-related papers. The person chosen to fill this position, Richard E. Goodman of the University of Nebraska, just happened to be (who would have guessed it?) a former Monsanto employee.

In short, it was obvious that Monsanto had had undue influence over the journal and its ultimate retraction of the paper. Then along came another document leak, which served to show just how much influence it had.

Remember that flurry of angry letters demanding the journal pull the paper? Well, reveals Monsanto scientist David Salmitras boasting that he personally orchestrated that campaign on Monsanto's behalf.

And how about the lopsided, Monsanto-friendly coverage of the controversy that appeared in the popular press? Internal emails demonstrate that Eric Sachs, another Monsanto employee, had pressured Bruce Chassy, an "independent" professor of food safety, to join the campaign, and Chassy had capitulated by co-authoring a Forbes article parroting the Monsanto viewpoint.

Wait, it gets even better. Chassy's co-author on that Forbes article? None other than the aforementioned discredited (and unemployed) Monsanto ghostwriter extraordinaire, Henry Miller. (Like all of Miller's other articles, that one has now been memory-holed by Forbes.)

Another email exposes Monsanto employee Daniel Goldstein's private admission to a colleague that he was "uncomfortable even letting shareholders know" that the company was aware of the letters to the editor before they had been published. Had he shared that information, he knew it would prove that Monsanto was orchestrating the letter-writing campaign. As Goldstein put it, "[O]therwise[,] how do we have knowledge of it?"

But the most explosive revelation from the released court documents concerns A. Wallace Hayes, the journal editor who oversaw the paper's retraction. Specifically, among the documents is a letter detailing a consulting agreement that Hayes entered into with Monsanto in August of 2012, just weeks before the Séralini paper was published and the retraction campaign began.

That Hayes didn't acknowledge this relationship with Monsanto, let alone recuse himself, during the time that the Séralini paper was being reviewed by the very journal Hayes was editing is utterly outrageous. Hayes defended himself by telling The New York Times that the consulting agreement had expired at the time the paper was retracted, but, as GMWatch points out, "since it took the journal over a year to retract the study after the months-long second review, which Hayes oversaw, it’s clear that he had an undisclosed conflict of interest from the time he entered into the contract with Monsanto and during the review process."

In sum, the Séralini affair is a case study in how Monsanto squashes any hint of independent scientific inquiry into its products: First, it identifies a perceived problem. Then it brings its incredible corporate resources to bear, organizing and mounting a response through seemingly "independent" third-party proxies. In the process, it buys off key personnel in organizations that pose a potential threat. And it makes sure the rules for publishing inconvenient findings, already ridiculously bent in its favor, are completely broken. As we can see, in the end Monsanto always achieves its goal.

...Or does it? There is a strangely positive "ever after" to this story. The Séralini team ultimately won their battle against Monsanto’s smear attempts. First in 2014 when they had their study republished in another journal; then in 2015, when. Then in 2015, Séralini won two separate court cases defending his work. And finally in 2016, when a new investigation by Le Monde confirmed that Richard E. Goodman, the former Monsanto employee who was parachuted in to fill the specially-created biotechnology editor post, was in fact still on Monsanto's payroll and receiving talking points directly from Monsanto at the time he was supposedly acting as an independent arbitrator of the Séralini paper. And now, with this latest release of court documents, the story of Monsanto's carefully orchestrated smear campaign against Séralini is confirmed once again in black and white.

So, it seems there really is something to the old adage that “the truth will out.” The only question left is: Will the truth win its day in court?

 

Bayer Accidentally Funds Study Showing Its Pesticide is Killing Bees, Promptly Denies Conclusions
Category: BEYOND ILLUSION
Tags: Bayer Monsanto Pesticides Bees

Bayer Accidentally Funds Study Showing Its Pesticide is Killing Bees, Promptly Denies Conclusions

Bayer reminded the world that it won’t hesitate to deny scientific conclusions from a study—even if the study is one that was funded by Bayer.

A large-scale study on neonicotinoid pesticides is adding to the growing body of evidence that these agricultural chemicals are indeed harming bee populations. Carried out at 33 sites in the United Kingdom, Germany and Hungary, the study found that exposure to neonicotinoids “left honeybee hives less likely to survive over winter, while bumblebees and solitary bees produced fewer queens.”

Bayer and Syngenta, makers of “neonic” pesticides who stand to reap massive profits if Europe lifts the neonic ban, promptly disputed the researchers’ conclusions—even though they partially funded the study.

The authors note that this is the first real-world experiment demonstrating direct causation between neonics and reduced bee populations, and is consistent with other findings.

According to the study abstract:

Winter-sown oilseed rape was grown commercially with either seed coatings containing neonicotinoids (clothianidin or thiamethoxam) or no seed treatment (control). For honey bees, we found both negative (Hungary and United Kingdom) and positive (Germany) effects during crop flowering. In Hungary, negative effects on honey bees (associated with clothianidin) persisted over winter and resulted in smaller colonies in the following spring (24% declines). In wild bees (Bombus terrestris and Osmia bicornis), reproduction was negatively correlated with neonicotinoid residues. These findings point to neonicotinoids causing a reduced capacity of bee species to establish new populations in the year following exposure.

Negative effects on bumblebees and solitary bees were observed in all three countries, where higher concentrations of neonicotinoid residues in nests resulted in fewer queens. Harmful effects were found on honeybees in the U.K. and Hungary, which is consistent with observations of high hive mortality in the U.K. and a 24 percent decrease in colonies in Hungary.

However, no harmful effects were found on overwintering honeybees in Germany. This relatively small subset of the study’s findings was pounced on by Bayer and Syngenta to claim that their products are safe for bees, or the results are inconclusive. The two companies make the neonic pesticides used in the study.

We do not share the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology’s interpretation that adverse effects of the seed treatments can be concluded from this study, and we remain confident that neonicotinoids are safe when used and applied responsibly,” said Dr. Richard Schmuck, environmental science director at Bayer.

It should come as no surprise that the makers of an agricultural pesticide worth billions of dollars would seize on the smaller part of a study to push doubt in the public mind. The scientists who actually performed the study provide a different interpretation—one based on the entire body of evidence.

Our findings are a cause for serious concern,” said study author Richard Pywell of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Oxfordshire. “We’ve shown for the first time negative effects of neonicotinoid-coated seed dressings on honeybees and we’ve also shown similar negative effects on wild bees. This is important because many crops globally are insect pollinated and without pollinators we would struggle to produce some foods.

The data will be studied as part of an assessment due in November to the EU, which will decide whether to keep the neonic ban in place. The BBC reports that the EU is “working on new draft proposals to extend the ban on neonicotinoids.”

To illustrate the complex nature of the problem, as neonics have been banned since 2013, some European farmers are spraying larger quantities of other pesticides such as pyrthroids, which may be doing its own harm to bees and beneficial insects.

There certainly is a need for pest management in agriculture, but what cost is the chemical approach exacting on the natural environment and honeybees that pollinate our food crops? The evidence on neonics says bees are highly sensitive to these chemicals, but farmers also need alternative solutions.

To address the issue, we must consider how we got here. Pests have been introduced all around the world by hitching rides on human ships and other vehicles. Pests often find their new locations devoid of natural predators that would normally keep them under control.

Agricultural practices aggressively pushed by chemical manufacturers and GMO companies have also increased pest problems. The corporate, patent-driven agricultural model involves monoculture crops dependent on high chemical inputs. This creates a positive feedback loop where pest plants and insects become resistant to herbicides and pesticides, prompting companies to make other, more toxic chemicals.

This ever-growing dependence on chemicals, which threatens natural ecosystems and human health, is highly profitable to companies like Bayer and Monsanto.

The chemical approach completely ignores thousands of years of human learning. The concept now know as Integrated Pest Management (IPM)—involving practices such as polyculture, crop rotation, soil enrichment and native shrub borders—is an effective alternative to the chemical approach.

Holistic, non-toxic solutions face stiff odds against billion-dollar interests of corporations like Bayer who won’t hesitate to deny scientific conclusions, even from studies funded by Bayer.

READ MORE >>>

 

Monsanto Makes Poison - Deep Science w/Dr. Seneff (MIT) Tags: Monsatan Monsanto

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDum7GGuOTA

Published on 24 Jun 2017 by Suspicious0bservers

This video used images copyrighted by Monsanto, and some from Dr. Seneff's presentations.

Dr. Stephanie Seneff is a senior research scientist at MIT (CSAIL)
Her personal page is remarkable: https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/
[Find the slides, papers, and much much more!]

Interview was recorded by phone on June 23, 2017, from 10:00 - 10:35 AM eastern time USA

OTF2018: http://www.observatoryproject.com

http://www.Suspicious0bservers.org 
http://www.SpaceWeatherNews.com
http://www.QuakeWatch.net
http://www.ObservatoryProject.com
http://www.EarthChanges.org
http://www.MagneticReversal.org

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/observatoryp...
Alerts on Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheRealS0s

 

RSS
Recent Blog Comments
"The Covert Origins of ISIS Sources and full transcript:..."
In: Israel collaborates closely with ISIS terrorists
by: Parsifalrain
"with just 4 weeks to wait, then he is finished ..."
In: Autumn Berry Liqueur
by: explainMe
""Who controls the politics and the media of the West again..."
In: Israel collaborates closely with ISIS terrorists
by: SiNeh
"Thanks again Parsifal Also the Mike Oldfield Video does not work here..."
In: Song for Today: Maddy Prior - The Song of Hiawatha
by: SiNeh
"Aloha SiNeh~ done, thank you for telling, otherwise I would not now and..."
In: Song for Today: Maddy Prior - The Song of Hiawatha
by: Parsifalrain
"Aloha Parsifal Thank you for that beautiful post! Unfortunately, the Video..."
In: Song for Today: Maddy Prior - The Song of Hiawatha
by: SiNeh
"Aloha Parsifal So, we see that Scribd now also is censoring. Better..."
In: Osama bin Laden Died in December 2001 and 'Kept Alive' by CIA + Mossad + MI6 until 2011
by: SiNeh
"NOTICE - This Document has been removed from SCRIBD"
In: Osama bin Laden Died in December 2001 and 'Kept Alive' by CIA + Mossad + MI6 until 2011
by: Parsifalrain
"etwas zum Nachdenken Here is a worthy election poster of..."
In: Great ! Merkel destroyed in Munich ! 20,000 Watt-system drowned out !
by: Parsifalrain
"Very beautiful Parsifal. I see you enjoyed the celebration regardless the rain."
In: Autumn Equinox - Mabon - September 21-23
by: SiNeh
"Israel's President Shimon Perez awarded the order 'Itur Nesi Medinat Yisrael' in February..."
In: Who is 'Angela Merkel' ?
by: Parsifalrain
"our 2017 Mabon Thanksgiving and Autumn Equinox Celebration (indoor as to..."
In: Autumn Equinox - Mabon - September 21-23
by: Parsifalrain
"so much about the popularity of The Merkel"
In: Great ! Merkel destroyed in Munich ! 20,000 Watt-system drowned out !
by: Parsifalrain
"Sehr gut, danke Parsifal!"
In: THE COMMERCIAL THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE
by: SiNeh
"strange co-incidence - just watched the ref. video: (the who's happy does..."
In: THE COMMERCIAL THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE
by: Parsifalrain
"Aloha SiNeh, this is all about the qualifying to the 2018 Soccer World..."
In: Syria could participate in the World Cup 2018
by: Parsifalrain
"Aloha Parsifal I was reading this with an open mouth because I..."
In: Syria could participate in the World Cup 2018
by: SiNeh
"Thank you Parsifal!!! I have to read it over the SUNday as..."
In: The Secret of the Celtic Entrenchments
by: SiNeh
"Aloha Parsifal a good picture and I mean ..."
In: No Other Way to Say It, the Zombie Apocalypse Is Here
by: SiNeh
Search Archive

September 2018 (1)
October 2017 (92)
September 2017 (91)
August 2017 (125)
July 2017 (149)
June 2017 (183)
May 2017 (204)
April 2017 (151)
March 2017 (128)
February 2017 (123)
January 2017 (136)
December 2016 (200)
November 2016 (288)
October 2016 (70)

WHO IS ONLINE
Donation / Support

We take BITCOIN too

3GgibGqh4Rr5i6WmGKeQqdisENLJNKeJH4

The B.O.L.E. is completely funded by community, managed and maintained by volunteers. Please consider making a contribution so more stories of awakening and alternative views can be shared!

THANK YOU

Focusing On Real Values

A great way to a new standard.

Gold in small units, also one gram at time

Products for your Wellness and Leisure

Important: For all products chose at the top of the page the  language (English or German) and currency!

 click HERE to reach all products

TATWellness deliver worldwide.

In Your Service

B.O.L.E.

SiNeh~

Live Support