Manuale di
Spinning Science &
Silencing Scientists:
A Case Study in How the
Chemical Industry Attempts to Influence Science
Minority Staff Report Prepared for Members of the
Committee
on Science, Space & Technology
U.S. House of
Representatives February 2018
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
Introduction Page 1
Background Page 1
Glyphosate
Levels in the U.S. 1992-2015 (Map) Page 3 Key Players Page 4
Monsanto’s IARC Battle
Plan Page 5
Ghostwriting Page 6
Orchestrate Outcry Page 11
Establish Front
Groups Page 14
Silence Scientists Page 15
Conclusion Page 17
Introduction. On February 6, 2018, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
is scheduled to hold a hearing entitled, “In
Defense of Scientific Integrity: Examining the IARC Monograph Programme and
Glyphosate Review.” The chemical glyphosate is a herbicide most commonly
found in Monsanto’s commercial weed-killer Roundup. Committee Chairman Lamar
Smith scheduled this hearing after months of letter writing criticizing the
IARC review of glyphosate and examining the EPA’s actions on glyphosate. Many
of the criticisms contained in the Committee’s letters regarding IARC mimic
criticisms that the chemical industry has leveled on the IARC process. Since
these industry talking points are apparently the basis for both a Congressional
investigation as well as a Committee hearing, Minority Committee Staff have
written this staff report to better inform the Committee Members about the
chemical industry tactics which have ultimately produced these industry talking
points. The report necessarily focuses on the Monsanto Company due to their
primary role in inventing, selling, and marketing glyphosate and glyphosate
resistant seeds. This report is based in no small part on documents that have
been made publically available due to ongoing third-party litigation with
Monsanto.1 These newly released public documents have revealed in an
unprecedented manner the tactics of the chemical industry in attacking public
health science related to their products.
Background. In March 2015, the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), based in Lyon, France, released a hazard
assessment that found glyphosate to be “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
In December 2017, the EPA released a draft human health risk assessment
that concluded, “glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” There
are significant differences between these two types of assessments because they
attempt to evaluate different questions. According to IARC, “A cancer
‘hazard’ is an agent that is
capable of causing cancer under some circumstances, while a cancer ‘risk’ is an
estimate of the carcinogenic effects expected from exposure to a cancer
hazard.” As more scientific data is gathered and analyzed to more fully understand
the impacts of glyphosate on human health, it is important for the science to
lead the way, and for industry and politicians to remain on the sidelines. But
that has not happened.
There is significant evidence
that Monsanto launched a disinformation campaign to undermine IARC’s
classification of glyphosate as a probable carcinogen. A multi-district
litigation court case against Monsanto regarding potential adverse health
consequences of exposures to glyphosate has revealed hundreds of pages of
internal Monsanto e-mails, memorandums, and other
records that clearly show
Monsanto engaged in a decades-long concerted effort to fend off any evidence
suggesting potential adverse human health effects from glyphosate and more
recently to undermine IARC’s findings. They ghost wrote scientific articles on
glyphosate, established front groups to help amplify their anti-IARC message
and scientific evidence they did not like, and they attempted to silence
scientists who reached conclusions questioning glyphosate’s safety.
 |
1 The Monsanto Papers, Baum, Hedlund, Aristei &
Goldman, accessed here: https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/monsanto-secret-documents/
While there are divergent
conclusions between IARC and other science agencies, including the EPA,
regarding the potential human health hazard of glyphosate, even Monsanto’s own
scientists acknowledged in internal e-mails that Roundup, the glyphosate
containing weed-killer that Monsanto sells, does cause damage. “Glyphosate is
OK, but the formulated product causes the damage,” one Monsanto researcher
wrote in an email.2 “You cannot say that Roundup is not a
carcinogen,” wrote another Monsanto toxicologist. “We have not done the
necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.”3 What
we do know is that the use of glyphosate has exploded across the United States
and around the world since it first came on the market in 1974. In the U.S.
alone its use has grown from 11 million pounds in 1987 to nearly 300 million
pounds in 2016. Recent studies have also shown that it is prevalent in the U.S.
food supply from crackers and cookies to honey and wine. Several studies have
also shown that glyphosate is detectible in around 90% of the U.S. population.
This
report describes some of the tactics Monsanto has used to control the public
debate about glyphosate as well as the scientific studies that have been
conducted to assess its potential harm. These efforts
appear aimed at corrupting and disrupting any honest, thorough and complete
scientific evaluation of glyphosate and its potential adverse impact on the
public’s health.
 |
2 Email from William Heydens to Donna Farmer and
Richard Dirks, Subject: “RE: European Commission Endocrine Disrupters
developments (1),” April 25, 2002, accessed here: http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto- documents/37-Monsanto-Executive-Admits-Studies-Demonstrate-Formulated-Roundup-Does-the-Damage.pdf.
3 Email from Donna Farmer to
Monsanto employees, Subject: “RE: Agitation against Roundup,” Nov. 22, 2003,
accessed here: http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/27-Internal-Monsanto-Email-You-Cannot-
Glyphosate use in the United
States from 1992 to 2015
(Source: U.S. Geological
Survey4)
 |
4 Glyphosate use in the U.S. 1992: https://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/usage/maps/show_map.php?year=1992&map=GLYPHOSATE&hilo=H; Glyphosate
use in the U.S. 2015: https://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/usage/maps/show_map.php?year=2015&map=GLYPHOSATE&hilo=H
Key Players. The individuals
listed below are some of the key players mentioned in the internal Monsanto e-
mails and records cited in this report. Brief descriptions of their affiliation
with Monsanto and their activities surrounding glyphosate are summarized below.
·
John
Acquavella: Former Monsanto Company Scientist, Paid Monsanto Consultant.
Currently works as a Consultant/Professor Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University.
·
Bruce Chassy: Professor
Emeritus at the University of Illinois Department of Food Science and Human
Nutrition and Monsanto grant recipient. Chassy helped organize writing campaigns to scientific journals
criticizing studies on glyphosate at Monsanto’s request and runs a non- profit
called Academics Review that Monsanto reportedly helped to establish to provide
an “independent” voice supporting glyphosate and other issues of interest to Monsanto.
·
Donna R. Farmer: Monsanto’s lead
toxicologist and a Monsanto employee since 1991.
·
A.
Wallace (“Wally”) Hayes: Former Editor-in-Chief for Vision
and Strategy at Food and Chemical
Toxicology journal, which, during his tenure, published and retracted the
Seralini rat study. Reportedly was paid $16,000 by Monsanto in a consulting contract.
·
William F.
Heydens: Currently Monsanto’s Product Safety Assessment Strategy Lead.
·
Larry
Kier: Former Monsanto toxicologist. Authored, “Review of
genotoxicity studies of glyphosate and glyphosate-based formulations,” which
found glyphosate posed no risk to humans.
·
David
J. Kirkland: Monsanto contractor who was a co-author with Larry Kier
on the study “Review of genotoxicity studies of glyphosate and glyphosate-based formulations.”
·
Henry
Miller: Stanford Hoover Institution fellow and former
contributor to Forbes. In 2015,
Miller published a Forbes article
critical of IARC that was solicited–and largely ghostwritten
–by Monsanto. Forbes cut ties with Miller and
retracted his articles when they discovered his failure to disclose ties with
Monsanto.
·
Dr.
James Parry was a Geneticist at Swansea University in the United
Kingdom who was hired by Monsanto in 1999 to evaluate the genotoxicity of
glyphosate. Monsanto refused to
conduct additional tests at his request and attempted to “move him from his position.”
·
Eric Sachs: Monsanto Science
and Policy lead since 2005; botanist and plant
geneticist.
·
David
A. Saltmiras: Former Monsanto Company Toxicology Manager and author
on the so- called Greim Study that refuted animal data indicating glyphosate’s carcinogenicity.
·
Gilles-Éric
Séralini. French molecular biologist who conducted a study that found rats fed
glyphosate-tolerant corn treated with Roundup had an increased risk of
developing tumors. The study, published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, was retracted by journal editor and
Monsanto contractor A. Wallace Hayes.
Monsanto’s IARC
Battle Plan. Prior to IARC’s March 2015
classification of glyphosate as a Group 2A agent that was “probably
carcinogenic to humans,” Monsanto knew that the existing scientific evidence
regarding potential ill-health effects from exposure to glyphosate was not on
their side, according to their own internal e-mails. In October 2014, Monsanto
scientist William Heydens wrote in an e-mail with the Subject hearing “IARC
Evaluation of Glyphosate,” “[W]hile we have vulnerability in the area of
epidemiology, we also have potential vulnerabilities in the other areas that IARC
will consider, namely, exposure,
genetox, and mode of action…”5
By February 2015, a battle plan
to confront what they suspected would be bad news for glyphosate was already
underway.6 “We should assume and prepare for the outcome of a 2B
rating (possible human carcinogen); a
2A rating (probable human carcinogen)
is possible but less likely.” Glyphosate received the 2A rating by IARC.
According to several key records unsealed in the multi-district litigation
against Monsanto, including the
company’s “Preparedness and Engagement Plan for IARC Carcinogen Rating of
Glyphosate,” dated February 17, 2015, Monsanto was ready for a full- borne
defense of glyphosate when IARC released its Monograph on glyphosate in March
2015.7
The Monsanto attack plan
included efforts to “amplify” their message that glyphosate was safe pointing
to industry-sponsored studies and industry-placed news stories. They sought to
generate industry “outrage” over what they thought would be a 2B rating. They
had plans to address these “new allegations” regarding the potential hazard of
glyphosate and to “neutralize” the impact.
They also sought to “amplify”
the “positive” message about glyphosate’s safety via social media platforms
including Twitter and Facebook. They turned to industry trade groups, such as
CropLife and industry front groups, such as Genetic Literacy Project and
Academics Review as platforms of support for industry spokespersons. They also
sought third-party experts to “blog, op/ed, tweet and/or link, repost, retweet,
etc.” They were planning an onslaught of actions to help undermine IARC and to
embolden their justifications to dismiss IARC’s scientific findings. They have
carried out that battle plan in a consistent and very aggressive manner ever
since.
Separately from Monsanto’s
attacks on IARC they have also tried to wield their influence at the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as well. In some instances, they have
objected to key scientists sitting on EPA science panels reviewing glyphosate’s
safety. There have also been questions about other tactics. In May 2017 the
EPA’s Office of Inspector General opened “an investigation into reports that an
EPA employee may have colluded with Monsanto to conduct a biased review of
glyphosate,” according to the IG’s letter announcing the investigation.8
 |
5 Email from William Heydens to Monsanto employees,
Subject: “IARC Evaluation of Glyphosate,” October 15, 2014, accessed here: http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/35-Monsanto-Admits-Company-Faces- Issues-in-Epidemiology-Exposure-Genotoxicity-and-Mode-of-Action.pdf
6 Monsanto internal
document, “Glyphosate: IARC,” (also referred to as the Monsanto IARC Battle
Plan by the media) February 23, 2015, accessed here: http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/72-Document- Details-Monsantos-Goals-After-IARC-Report.pdf
8 See: Tiffany Stecker,
“Watchdog May Find EPA-Monsanto Links on Pesticides Routine,” Bloomberg Energy
& Environment Report, June 8, 2017, accessed here: https://www.bna.com/watchdog-may-find-n73014453069/
Ghostwriting. Internal Monsanto
e-mails show that Monsanto scientists “ghost wrote” scientific journal articles
on glyphosate. It is clear from these e-mails, revealed in court documents,
that ghostwriting articles on glyphosate was a concerted effort by the company.
Monsanto scientists wanted to
both steer the scientific studies away from identifying potential
adverse human health effects
from exposure to glyphosate and they wanted other “independent” scientists
listed on these studies to provide the aura of objectivity and independence.
Monsanto did this on several
occasions. The internal e-mails show a clear and consistent attempt by some
Monsanto scientists to obfuscate their roles in writing, directing and funding
glyphosate- related studies. Equally disturbing are examples where they
attempted to bury scientific study results that did show potential adverse effects from glyphosate exposures. Many
of these e-mails portray Monsanto scientists as less interested in discovering
if glyphosate and Monsanto’s herbicide
Roundup could have toxic effects
and more interested in developing studies that showed no potential ill health
effects and had the veneer of independence and objectivity. The e-mails and
other records unsealed in the Monsanto court case regarding Roundup have begun
to pull back the curtain on those claims and the company’s extraordinary
efforts to discredit the scientific conclusions made by IARC on glyphosate and
to undermine the reputation of the science agency.
Ghostwriting Greim. In 2015, Monsanto
anticipated, based on the scientific evidence that was publicly available, that
IARC would classify glyphosate as either a Group 2B agent (possibly carcinogenic to humans) or Group 2A agent (probably carcinogenic to humans). In
preparation, they sought to publish new papers countering the animal data used
by IARC, which ultimately concluded in March 2015 that glyphosate was a Group
2A agent, “probably carcinogenic to
humans.” In an email between Monsanto scientists Bill Heydens and Donna Farmer,
they discuss what became known as the “Greim paper” – a 2015 study published in
Critical Reviews in Toxicology whose
listed authors include Helmut Greim and David Saltmiras.9 In the
emails, they contemplate paying for a study to combat problematic findings, but
determine a cheaper option would be to “ghost-write the Exposure Tox &
Genetox sections… [and] add Greim and Kier or Kirkland to have their names on
the publication, but we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing
and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak.”10 The
paper, published in March 2015 with Greim as the lead author, concluded: “After
almost forty years of commercial use, and multiple regulatory approvals
including toxicology evaluations, literature
|
9 Greim H, Saltmiras D, Mostert V, Strupp C,
“Evaluation of carcinogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate, drawing on
tumor incidence data from fourteen chronic/carcinogenicity rodent studies,” Critical Reviews in Toxicology, March
2015, accessed here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25716480.
10 Email from William Heydens
to Donna Farmer, cc David Saltmiras and other Monsanto employees, Subject: “RE:
IARC Planning,” February 19,
2015, accessed here: https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto- documents/Email-Correspondence-Wherein-William-Heydens-Suggests-Experts-Could-Edit-and-Sign-Their- Names-to-Scientific-Paper.pdf.
reviews, and numerous human health risk assessments, the clear and
consistent conclusions are that glyphosate is of low toxicological concern, and
no concerns exist with respect
to glyphosate use and cancer in
humans.” That conclusion dismissed or ignored multiple other studies that have
questioned
glyphosate’s safety.
Multiple internal Monsanto
records show that whatever role Greim had in the study, Monsanto scientists
were clear that they were in charge and conducted the bulk of the work on the
paper. One internal Monsanto power- point slide says Monsanto could use Greim
and one or two other external authors on the paper they envisioned but that the
“Majority of writing can be done by
Monsanto, keeping OS$ down.”11 David Saltmiras, a Monsanto scientist
who was a co-author with Greim on the paper, wrote a description of his work
for Monsanto in August 2015 labelled “Glyphosate Activities.” He wrote that he
“ghost wrote cancer review paper Greim et al. (2015).”12
|
11 Monsanto internal presentation, “Proposal for
Post-IARC Meeting Scientific Projects DRAFT,” May 11, 2015, accessed here: https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/Monsanto-Proposal-for%20Post-IARC- Meeting-Scientific-Projects.pdf.
12 David Saltmiras custodial
document, “Glyphosate Activities,” August 4, 2015, accessed here: http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/18-Monsanto-Scientist-Admits-to-Ghostwriting-Cancer-
The Greim paper became a focal point of Monsanto’s objections to
IARC, with the company claiming that if it had been considered, the
classification of glyphosate would have been different. While the definition of
ghostwriting often differs from this situation – typically meaning that the
true author is unnamed – Monsanto itself referred to this process as
“ghostwriting” multiple times. In addition,
e-mails from Monsanto scientists show that this was not the first time they had
“ghostwritten” a journal article on glyphosate. One e-mail says that Monsanto
scientists had also ghostwritten an article and had the independent scientists
simply edit and sign their names to the paper back in 2000.13
Too close for comfort. On the other extreme, Monsanto, at times, has sought to have former
Monsanto scientists distance themselves from Monsanto’s scientific studies to
maintain the charade of independence they have attempted to convey on
Monsanto-directed research. In 2015, after the release of the IARC monograph on
glyphosate, Monsanto put together a supposedly independent “expert panel
review” to dispute the IARC classification. Their effort to bury Monsanto ties
to the panel was complicated by a retired Monsanto
scientist who was now consulting for the company, John Acquavella.
He objected to his name
|
13 Email from William Heydens to Donna Farmer, cc David
Saltmiras and other Monsanto employees, Subject: “RE: IARC Planning,” Feb. 19,
2015, accessed here: https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/Email- Correspondence-Wherein-William-Heydens-Suggests-Experts-Could-Edit-and-Sign-Their-Names-to-Scientific- Paper.pdf;
See:
Gary
M.Williams, Robert Kroes and Ian C.Munro, “Safety Evaluation and Risk
Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, for
Humans,” Regulatory Toxicology and
Pharmacology, Volume 31, Issue 2, April 2000, Accessed here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230099913715?via%3Dihub;
Despite the
evidence in the Monsanto e-mails some of the independent scientists mentioned
by Monsanto regarding the “ghost writing” of articles have said they would
never do such a thing. See: Warren Cornwall, “Update: After quick review,
medical school says no evidence Monsanto ghostwrote professor's paper,” Science Magazine, March 23, 2017,
accessed here: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/update-after-quick-review-medical-school-says- no-evidence-monsanto-ghostwrote.
being omitted from a poster listing the names of authors and experts
on that panel. Heydens responded to his objection by explaining that management
“would not be able to use your or Larry [Kier] as Panelists / authors because
of your prior employment at Monsanto.” Acquavella was blunt in his response,
writing back, “I don’t think that will be okay with my panelists. We call that
ghost writing and it is unethical.” 14
The next day Acquavella writes
that he “can’t be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or
publication” and he schools his former Monsanto co- workers in the ethics of
authorship by including excerpts of the International Committee of Medical
Journal Editors (ICJME) recommendations regarding authorship.15
Two days later Monsanto’s
Heydens attempts to backtrack and set the record straight after a
phone call with Acquavella and Donna Farmer. He describes this whole
episode as a “huge misunderstanding around authorship.”16
Ultimately, a later email
indicates that Monsanto listed Acquavella as an author. In fact, the abstract, “Expert Panel Review of the Carcinogenic
Potential of the Herbicide Glyphosate,” as published in the Society for
Risk Analysis’ 2015 Annual Meeting also included Williams, Greim, Kier and
Kirkland, who Monsanto
|
14 Emails between John Acquavella, William Heydens, and
Donna Farmer, Subject: “John, Glyphosate Expert Panel Poster at 2015 SRA Annual
Meeting,”Nov. 3 – 6, 2015, accessed here: http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto- documents/6-Monsanto-Consultant-Protests-Ghostwriting.pdf.
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid.
scientists had named in internal
e-mails as individuals they had or believed they could ghost write scientific
studies on glyphosate for, although Monsanto scientists would do the bulk of
the writing.17
Hiring journalists to discredit
IARC.
In Monsanto’s effort to
discredit IARC, they sought to recruit writers to publish pieces echoing their
criticisms of IARC’s process. In February 2015, one month before IARC published
their glyphosate monograph that found glyphosate to be a “probable human
carcinogen,” Monsanto scientist Eric Sachs reached out to Henry Miller, a Forbes contributor and a Medical Doctor
and Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University’s
Hoover Institute, a conservative think tank. Sachs prompted Miller on the
desired content of the article, writing, “Ideally, your article would precede
the IARC decision. Why not set the table with the weight of scientific evidence
before IARC convenes? Then, regardless of what they do, your article will set the state for a science-based
response.”18 Miller agreed – and, after a follow-up email, requested
a “high quality draft” from Monsanto.19 Officials at the company
quickly got to work and provided Miller with a draft that was posted on the Forbes website largely unchanged. The
article was published on March 17, 2015, with the title: “March Madness from
the United Nations.”20
When this ghostwriting was
discovered, Miller was fired by Forbes. In
a statement to Retraction Watch, a Forbes
representative said: “All contributors to Forbes.com sign a contract requiring them to disclose any potential
conflicts of interest and only publish content that is their own original
writing. When it came to our attention that Mr. Miller violated these terms, we
removed all of his posts from Forbes.com and
ended our relationship with him.”21
|
17Society for Risk Analysis 2015 Annual Meeting
Abstracts, Dec. 6-10, 2015, Arlington, Virginia, see page 136, Williams, GM,
et. al., “Expert Panel Review of the Carcinogenic Potential of the Herbicide
Glyphosate,” accessed here: http://www.sra.org/sites/default/files/pdf/events/Abstracts%202015.pdf
18 Email from Eric Sachs to
Henry Miller, Subject “Opportunity: Glyphosate and IARC,” Feb. 23, 2015,
accessed here: http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/21-Internal-Monsanto-Email-Detailing-Company- Effort-to-Preemptively-Criticize-IARC-Ahead-of-Glyphosate-Report.pdf.
Pull
quote citation: Email from Eric Sachs to Donna Farmer, David Saltmiras, and other
Monsanto employees, Feb. 24, 2015, link above.
19 Email from Henry Miller to
Eric Sachs, Subject: “Re: IARC Outcomes, Process, and Response,” March 12,
2015, accessed here: http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/22-Internal-Email-Demonstrating-Monsanto-
20 Henry Miller, “March Madness
from the United Nations,” Forbes, March 17, 2015, accessed here: https://web.archive.org/web/20170220012554/https:/www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2015/03/20/march- madness-from-the-united-nations/#21e081ee2e9.
21 Andrew P. Han, “Unearthed
emails: Monsanto connected to campaign to retract GMO paper,” Aug. 10, 2017,
Retraction Watch, accessed here: http://retractionwatch.com/2017/08/10/unearthed-docs-monsanto-connected-
Orchestrate Outcry. Henry Miller,
whose clandestine ties to Monsanto got him removed as a contributor at Forbes, co-authored a piece on Forbes.com in September 2012 with Bruce
Chassy, the former head of the Department of Food Science and Nutrition at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Chassy too has opaque ties to
Monsanto.22 He received funds
from Monsanto for research
through the University of Illinois and he would later be recruited to defend
Monsanto on the chemical industry website GMO Answers23 and
established a non-profit website called Academics Review with Monsanto’s
assistance.24 The article Miller and Chassy wrote for Forbes critiqued a study of glyphosate
by French microbiologist Gilles- Eric Seralini in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) that
found that the glyphosate containing herbicide Roundup and genetically modified
glyphosate-resistant corn caused tumors in rats.25
This spelled trouble for Monsanto’s Roundup Ready crops. Monsanto
was tipped off about the publication of the Seralini paper by FCT’s Editor in Chief for Vision and
Strategy, Wally Hayes. On September 26, 2012 Monsanto scientist David Saltmiras
sent an e-mail to colleagues and wrote: “Wally Hayes (FCT Editor in Chief) called me this morning in response to my voice
mail yesterday. He expressed concern that to date he has only received links to
blogs, web postings, media releases, etc. and no formal letters to the Editor”
regarding the Seralini article.26 He needed more. |
22 Tom Philpott, “These Emails Show Monsanto Leaning on
Professors to Fight the GMO PR War,” Mother Jones, Oct. 2, 2015, accessed here:
https://www.motherjones.com/food/2015/10/monsanto-professors-gmo-pr/.
23 “A University of Illinois
Professor Joins the Fight,” Sept. 5, 2015, New York Times, accessed here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/05/us/document-chassy.html
24
Stacy
Malkan, “Monsanto Fingerprints Found All Over Attack On Organic Food,” Dec. 6,
2017, HuffPost, accessed here: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/stacy-malkan/monsanto-fingerprints-fou_b_10757524.html ; “Academics Review – About,” accessed here: http://academicsreview.org/about-academic-review/
25 Gilles-Eric Seralini et al.,
“Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically
modified maize,” Food and
Chemical Toxicology, Sept. 19, 2012, accessed here: https://ac.els- cdn.com/S0278691512005637/1-s2.0-S0278691512005637-main.pdf?_tid=58d0db10-0a9c-11e8-b8f6- 00000aacb35f&acdnat=1517852905_42d9615555402636b3cd425628eb849f.
26 Email from David Saltmiras
to Eric Sachs, William Heydens, and other Monsanto employees, Subject: “Letters
to
the Editor?”, Sept. 26,
2015, accessed here: http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/7-Monsanto- Personnel-Discusses-Plan-Seeking-Retraction-of-Serlani-Glyphosate-Study.pdf.
Pull
quote citation: Email from Eric Sachs to Monsanto employees, Sept. 26, 2012, link
above.
Internal Monsanto records show
that Monsanto started aggressively attempting to attack the Seralini paper
through third-parties. Monsanto began working their network of scientists.
Monsanto scientists were encouraging and soliciting third parties to
criticize the Seralini paper and call out flaws in hopes of putting enough
pressure on the FCT journal to
retract the study. One of the people they turned to was Bruce Chassy who wrote
to Hayes complaining about the Seralini paper. But some Monsanto scientists
worried because they did not want their fingerprints on any public campaign to
retract the paper. “We should not provide ammunition for Seralini, GM critics
and the media to charge that Monsanto used its might to
get this paper retracted,” wrote
Monsanto scientist Eric Sachs.27 Others agreed, including Monsanto’s
Daniel Goldstein, who wrote: “We are being asked to keep internal correspondence
down on this subject.”28
While Monsanto’s quiet
third-party efforts seemed to help, there was something else working in
Monsanto’s favor. Wally Hayes, the FCT editor
who was also a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health had apparently
signed a consulting agreement on August 21, 2012, with Monsanto just before the
Seralini paper dispute heated up. A letter dated September 7, 2012 from Monsanto to Hayes, just three weeks
before Hayes and Saltmiras began talking about the Seralini paper, was identified as an “Authorization Letter” to
the August 21, 2012 Consulting Agreement. The letter said that Hayes’ services
in setting up a Latin America South Toxicology Expert Panel, slated to begin on
September 7, 2012, would pay him $400 an hour, not to exceed $3,200 per day,
for a total of $16,000. David Saltmiras was listed as Monsanto’s representative
for the project.29
The Seralini paper was
officially retracted by Hayes and FCT in
2013.30 Hayes told the New
York Times that he had not been under contract with Monsanto at the
time of the retraction and was paid by the company only after he left the
journal. “Monsanto played no role whatsoever in
|
27 Ibid.
28 Email from Daniel Goldstein
to Eric Sachs and Yong Gao, Subject: “RE: Slides- Seralini Publication,” Sept.
28, 2012, accessed here: http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/14-Monsanto-Emails-Confirming- Undisclosed-Involvement-in-Successful-Retraction-of-Serlani-Study.pdf
29
“Authorization
Letter to Consulting Agreement dated August 21, 2012, between Prof. A. Wallace
Hayes and Monsanto Company,” Aug. 21, 2012, accessed here: http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/10- Monsanto-Consulting-Agreement-with-Food-and-Chemical-Toxicology-Editor.pdf.
30Andrew Pollack, “Paper Tying
Rat Cancer to Herbicide Is Retracted,” New York Times, Nov. 28, 2013, accessed
the decision that was made to
retract,” he told the newspaper. “It was based on input that I got from some
very well-respected people, and also my own evaluation,” he said.31
Meanwhile, Monsanto’s
Saltimiras’s own “business performance” plan for FY2013 touts his own success
in these efforts. “Successfully facilitate numerous third party expert letters
to the editor which were subsequently published, reflecting the numerous
significant deficiencies, poor study design, biased reporting and selective
statistics employed by Seralini,” Saltmiras wrote in his review.32
The website Retraction Watch noted however, “An FCT investigation found no
evidence of fraud, misconduct, or gross error, [in the Seralini paper], which
are required by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines for
retraction; however, FCT cited COPE guidelines in
their retraction
notice anyway.”33
31Danny Hakim, “Monsanto Emails Raise Issue of
Influencing Research on Roundup Weed Killer,” New York Times, Aug 1, 2017,
accessed here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/business/monsantos-sway-over-research- is-seen-in-disclosed-emails.html.
32 Internal Monsanto document
by David Saltmiras, “FY2013,” Aug. 20, 2013, accessed here: http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/8-Monsanto-Scientist-Admits-to-Leveraging-Relationship- with-Food-and-Chemical-Toxicology-Journal.pdf.
33Andrew P. Han, “Unearthed
emails: Monsanto connected to campaign to retract GMO paper,” Retraction Watch,
Aug 10, 2017, accessed here” http://retractionwatch.com/2017/08/10/unearthed-docs-monsanto-connected-
Establish Front Groups. Media
reports have pointed to several seemingly independent non-profit groups as
having close ties to Monsanto. Some were reportedly established with assistance
from Monsanto in order to serve as a platform to confront scientific findings
revealing
potential health hazards from
glyphosate while concealing Monsanto’s direct involvement. This
confront-and-conceal approach is nothing new. These tactics have been used by
the tobacco industry, energy sector and chemical companies. They often have
innocuous-sounding names – for instance, the Campaign for Accuracy in Public
Health Research (CAPHR), which is run by the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
In this case, the ACC has not attempted to hide their ties with CAPHR and even
announced its launch in January 2017. The organization’s primary target is
IARC.34 The group’s initial press release said: “In particular,
CAPHR will seek reform of the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s
(IARC) Monographs Program, which evaluates the carcinogenic hazard of
substances and behaviors.”35
Other front groups are more secretive. Academics Review was
co-founded by Bruce Chassy. The site was founded in January 2010 to “ensure
that sound science is widely and easily available.” It describes itself as “an
association of academic professors, researchers, teachers and credentialed authors from around the
world” who “stand against falsehoods, half-baked assertions and theories or
claims not subjected to this kind of rigorous review.”36 What it
does not reveal are the close ties between Chassy and Monsanto. But one e-mail
exchange between Monsanto’s Eric Sachs and Chassy shows Monsanto was interested
in using the site to its advantage as long as it was able to hide its
involvement. “The key will be keeping Monsanto in the |
34 Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research,
“IARC,” accessed here: http://campaignforaccuracyinpublichealthresearch.com/iarc/.
35 American Chemistry Council,
“ACC Launches Campaign to Promote Credibility in Public Health Research,” Jan.
25, 2017, accessed here: https://www.americanchemistry.com/Media/PressReleasesTranscripts/ACC-news- releases/ACC-Launches-Campaign-to-Promote-Credibility-in-Public-Health-Research.html.
36 Academics Review, “Purpose,”
accessed here: http://academicsreview.org/about-academic-review/purpose/.
background so as not to harm the
credibility of the information,” wrote Sachs.37
Silence Scientists. Monsanto and
other large corporate interests use multiple tactics in their attempts to delay
regulations, deter the publication of scientific findings that endanger their
corporate profits, and degrade scientific institutions, such as IARC, that are
independent and a
threat to an industry’s
influence and a challenge to their disinformation campaigns. Sometimes they
also attack specific scientists who are independent and pose a potential threat
to their objectives and activities as a result of their scientific studies,
interests or integrity.
Dr. Peter Infante, a renowned and highly
respected epidemiologist, has been the victim of industry attacks for four
decades due to his solid scientific findings on the cancer-causing properties
of chemicals such as formaldehyde
and benzene and arsenic. In the
early 1980s, when he was a senior official at the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) the House Science Committee held a hearing on the
“Proposed firing of Dr. Peter Infante by OSHA” due to pressure on OSHA from the
Formaldehyde Institute.38 The oversight hearing was led by then
Representative Al Gore, and OSHA eventually backed down from its attempt to
fire Dr. Infante. More recently it has been the glyphosate industry led by
CropLife America, the national trade association that represents the
manufacturers, formulators and distributors of pesticides, that has gone after
Dr. Infante.
In 2016, Dr. Infante was
selected as a Member of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory Panel
(SAP) on the Evaluation of the Human Carcinogenic Potential of Glyphosate. In
October 2016, CropLife sent a letter to the EPA citing concerns about the SAP,39
specifically citing Dr.
Infante’s participation. The
CropLife letter stated that Dr. Infante had biases against industry and should
therefore be removed from the Panel. Dr. Infante sent a rebuttal letter40
to the EPA as did the Center for Food Safety defending Dr. Infante.41
However, prior to the December 2016 meeting of the SAP, EPA officials removed Dr. Infante from the SAP on glyphosate
without
|
37 Email from Eric Sachs to Bruce Chassy, Subject:
“Questions,” Nov. 30, 2010, accessed here: https://www.usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Sachs-AR.pdf.
38 “Proposed Firing of Dr.
Peter Infante by OSHA: A Case Study in Science and Regulation,” Subcommittee on
Investigations and Oversight
of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, July
16, 1981, accessed here: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015082337588;view=1up;seq=8.
39 Letter from CropLife to EPA,
Oct. 12, 2016, accessed here: http://191hmt1pr08amfq62276etw2.wpengine.netdna- cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/CLA-Comments-on-SAP-Disqualification-10-12-16.pdf.
40“Comment submitted by Peter
F. Infante, Consultant, Peter F. Infante Consulting, LLC,” Regulations.gov,
Oct. 21, 2016, accessed here: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0385-0439.
41 Comment submitted by Center
for Food Safety to EPA, “RE: Scientific Advisory Panel meeting on glyphosate’s
carcinogenic potential,” Dec. 12, 2016, accessed here: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/glyphosate-sap-
explanation.42 This sort
of industry influence has accelerated at Scott Pruitt’s EPA, where he has
intentionally removed independent scientists from the Agency’s science advisory
boards and stated that he wants them replaced with more scientists from
regulated industries.
Dr. James Parry. It is important to understand that Monsanto’s aggressive tactics
regarding its efforts to defend glyphosate and its highly successful product
Roundup have been going on for decades. Like so many chemical-based products,
however, as scientific evidence of
potential worry accumulate, the potential threat to the commercial viability
and sustainability of the product can grow. It is clear from the substantive
documents that have come to light recently that Monsanto has been fending off
those sorts of threats for many years.
In the past, Monsanto has even
sought to silence their own scientists, when they discovered evidence of
potential adverse human health effects from exposures to glyphosate. Back in
1999, Monsanto’s contracted scientist, Dr. James Parry, a geneticist at Swansea
University in the United Kingdom, was one of them.
Monsanto hired Parry to
evaluate the genotoxicity of glyphosate, and, to their disappointment, Parry
concluded that “glyphosate is capable of producing genotoxicity both in vivo
and in vitro by a
mechanism based upon the
production of oxidative damage.”43 Disturbingly, internal Monsanto
e-mails show that Monsanto scientists contemplated ways to “move Dr. Parry from
his position”44 regarding the toxicity of glyphosate. Parry also
signed a secrecy agreement with Monsanto in April 1999. The contents of the
agreement are not known, but it does not appear that Dr. Parry ever published
his findings regarding glyphosate’s genotoxicity.
|
42 “Panel Member Roster, Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel, Open Meeting,
December 13-16, 2016,” Regulations.gov, Nov. 28, 2016, accessed here: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0385-0454.
43 Email from Donna Farmer to
unknown recipients, Subject: “Meeting Minutes 2/25,” April 17, 1999, accessed
here: http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/38-Email-Shows-Former-Monsanto-Expert-Confirmed- Biological-Plausibility-of-Glyphosate-as-Carcinogen.pdf.
44 Ibid.
As part of Parry’s review, he suggested additional studies into the
genotoxicity of glyphosate.
Monsanto was opposed to funding these additional studies, however,
and Bill Heydens expressed his disappointment in the Parry review in an email
to colleagues and expressed the importance of finding a pro-glyphosate
advocate. This was important, he wrote, because Monsanto was “currently very
vulnerable in this area” regarding the genotoxicity of glyphosate. “We want to
find/develop someone who is
comfortable with the genetox
profile of glyphosate/Roundup and who can be influential with regulators and
scientific outreach operations when genetox issues arise,” added Heydens.45
In 2001, Parry reached out to
Monsanto again to obtain a sample of another herbicide, Propachlor, so he could
conduct studies on it. Monsanto employees disagreed on how to handle this
request. Mark Martens supported providing the samples, so as to “keep prof
Parry happy which will make him a good proponent of glyphosate.” Bill Heydens,
however, had concerns. “Data generated by academics has always been a major
concern for us in the defense of our products,” he wrote.46
Conclusion. The incidents and tactics outlined in this report are,
unfortunately, not surprising when it comes to the chemical industry. These
same tactics were employed by the chemical industry with regards to lead and a
host of other chemicals. They also mimic the tobacco industry’s efforts to
muddy the science surrounding the health effects of smoking. These efforts have
been thoroughly documented, perhaps most notably in David Michaels book, “Doubt
is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health,” and
in “Merchants of Doubt,” by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway. These industry
efforts oftentimes only come to light through disclosure of internal industry
documents through the discovery process during litigation. The disclosures made
during tobacco litigation revealed the inner workings of the “science for hire”
industry and industry’s tactics to undercut legitimate science. Likewise, this
report relies heavily on documents which have been publically released in the ongoing litigation with Monsanto.
That litigation is ongoing, and many documents and deposition transcripts
remain under court seal. As these documents continue to be released to the
public, more revelations about industry tactics and influence will undoubtedly
come to light.
|
45 Email from William Heydens to Mark Martens, Larry
Kier, and Donna Farmer, Subject: “RE: Parry report,” Sept. 16, 1999, accessed
here: https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/Email-from-William- Heydens-Monsanto-Vulnerable-on-Gene-Tox-After-Parry.pdf.
46 Email from William Heydens
to Mark Martens and other Monsanto employees, Subject: “RE: Propachlor sample
request,” April 10, 2001, accessed here: https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/Email-
Given the public policy
implications of the IARC and EPA reviews of glyphosate (and other chemicals),
staff wanted to ensure that Members had the most up to date information
concerning the troubling industry led efforts to discredit the IARC process and
exert undue influence at the EPA.
