Merchants of Poison
Merchants of Poison
Merchants of Poison
by Stacy Malkan
with Kendra Klein, PhD and Anna Lappé
Acknowledgements About the Authors
This report is informed by the work of Stacy Malkan is the co-founder of U.S. Right
many researchers and journalists who to Know, a non-profit investigative research
have investigated Monsanto and, since its group whose public record research and
2018 purchase of the company, Bayer, and reporting informs this report. Kendra Klein,
reported on the documents released via PhD is Senior Staff Scientist with Friends of
lawsuits alleging that Monsanto’s glyphosate- the Earth and provided support on the state
based Roundup herbicides cause a type of the science on pesticides and their impacts
of cancer called non-Hodgkin lymphoma on ecosystem and public health. Anna Lappé
(NHL). We thank especially Carey Gillam, is an author and sustainability advocate who
former research director at U.S. Right to provided editorial, writing, and research
Know, whose reporting on the Monsanto support.
trials and discovery documents provided the
most comprehensive public record available Available online at
on the litigation.1,2 Gillam’s two books www.usrtk.org
— Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer,
Cancer, and the Corruption of Science (Island
© December 2022
Press, 2017)3 and The Monsanto Papers:
Deadly Secrets, Corporate Corruption,
Merchants of Poison: How Monsanto Sold the
and One Man’s Search for Justice (Island
World on a Toxic Pesticide.
Press, 2021)4 provide further insights into
A case study in disinformation, corrupted
Monsanto’s herbicide business that we drew
science, and manufactured doubt about
on for this account. We also owe a debt of
glyphosate
gratitude to Gary Ruskin, executive director
of U.S. Right to Know, who launched a public
records investigation into the pesticide Design: Keiko Okisada
industry and its PR firms in 2015 to uncover
ties between the companies, their front
groups, academic allies, and government
regulators who are supposed to protect
public health. Documents Ruskin obtained
through this investigation provide the basis
for much of the analysis in this report.
This report is for general information purposes only. It is intended solely as a discussion piece. It is not and should not be
relied upon as legal advice. While efforts were made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this report
and the above information is from sources believed reliable, the information is presented “as is” and without warranties,
express or implied. If there are material errors within this briefing note, please advise the author.
2
Table of contents
Key Milestones 5
Preface 7
Introduction 8
Conclusion 72
Appendix Il: Debunking the Myth that Pesticides Are Safe and Necessary 78
Endotes 86
3
Acronyms
AAAS American Association for the Advancement of Science
ACC American Chemistry Council
ACSH American Council on Science and Health
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
BIO Biotechnology Innovation Organization*
BLP Biotech Literacy Project
CAPHR Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research
CAS Cornell Alliance for Science
CBA Consumer Brands Association
CBI Council for Biotechnology Information
CFACT Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)
CFI Center for Food Integrity
CLA CropLife America
CLI CropLife International
CSSN Climate Social Science Network
ECPA European Crop Protection Association
EFSA European Food Safety Authority
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FAS U.S. Foreign Agricultural Service
FPA Foreign Press Association
FPF Foreign Press Foundation
GEBN Global Energy Balance Network
GLP Genetic Literacy Project
GMA Grocery Manufacturers Association**
HCIA Hawaii Crop Improvement Association
IFIC International Food Information Council
IWF Independent Women’s Forum
IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer
ILSI International Life Sciences Institute
JMPR WHO/FAO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues
STATS Statistical Assessment Services USA
TIRC Tobacco Institute Research Center
Vermont passes the nation’s first law requiring labeling of food including
May 2014
ingredients produced with genetic engineering.
5
German agrochemical and pharmaceutical company Bayer buys Monsanto for
$63 billion.
Jun 2018
Two academic papers analyze Monsanto documents and report on Monsanto’s
interference with scientific studies and regulatory actions on glyphosate.
Bayer loses its first Roundup case, Johnson v. Monsanto Co.. A jury
unanimously finds Monsanto failed to warn of the carcinogenic dangers of
Roundup products and awarded $289 million to the plaintiff. (The judge
Aug 2018 reduced the award to $87 million).
U.S. Right to Know begins posting the Monsanto Papers discovery documents
released in the Roundup cancer trials.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Agency for Toxic Substances
Apr 2019
and Disease Registry (ATSDR) links glyphosate to cancer.
Bayer agrees to set aside more than $10 billion to settle roughly 100,000
Jun 2020
claims from people who say exposure to Roundup caused their cancers.
Bayer says it will remove glyphosate from Roundup for the U.S. consumer
Jul 2021
market by 2023 but will keep selling it to commercial applicators and farmers.
May 2022 EU delays its decision about glyphosate reauthorization until 2023.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejects EPA’s decision that glyphosate likely
poses no “unreasonable risk” to the environment and human health.
Jun 2022
U.S. Supreme Court rejects Bayer appeals to stop Roundup lawsuits.
U.S. EPA withdraws its interim decision on glyphosate and will start again with
Sep 2022 a new review. Tens of thousands of lawsuits are still pending against Bayer
from people who say their cancers were caused by exposure to Roundup.
6
companies work to protect their profits at the
Preface expense of public health.
Ten years ago, pesticide and processed food Pulling from these documents — as well as
companies spent $45 million — roughly $1 million investigative journalism that has exposed
a day — to defeat a ballot initiative to label elements of this subterfuge — this report
genetically modified foods (GMOs) in California. showcases the breadth of Monsanto’s deception
The anti-transparency campaign led by Monsanto, on glyphosate and adds to the growing literature
one of the largest producers of GMOs, blitzed about how corporations deny science and
the state with misleading messages amplified manufacture doubt about the harm of their
by a wide range of seemingly independent products. This report reveals key tactics in the
third parties: from universities, professors, and pesticide industry’s disinformation playbook,
scientists to many groups that claimed expertise showing how, like Big Oil and Big Tobacco, they
on matters of food, health, nutrition, and science. rely on deceptive PR strategies to maintain their
But investigations would eventually reveal close “freedom to operate” without meaningful limits
ties between these so-called neutral groups and — with dangerous consequences for public health
the companies fighting transparency. and the environment.
The following year, 2013, the pesticide companies The PR effort has been so forceful — especially
launched a major public relations salvo to try Monsanto’s efforts to discredit the WHO’s
to win back consumer trust for their GMOs researchers — that some observers have
and pesticide products. They soon faced an described it as a particularly harsh and aggressive
even bigger PR crisis when the World Health effort to undermine cancer research and
Organization’s cancer research panel concluded, prevention.
in 2015, that glyphosate — the chemical
This report builds on previous reporting I and
ingredient in the herbicides that most GMO crops
my colleagues have done on pesticide industry
have been engineered to tolerate — is a probable
disinformation. This includes a 2015 report,
human carcinogen. In the wake of that finding,
Spinning Food, that documents how food
tens of thousands of people sued Monsanto,
and pesticide industry front groups use covert
claiming exposure to glyphosate-based Roundup
communication tactics to shape the narrative
weed killers caused their cancers. Monsanto and
about industrial agriculture and organic and
its allies accelerated their PR efforts, engaging
sustainable food production.
many of the same industry-connected third
parties and professors who helped them fight Thanks to a long history of writing and research,
labeling, in an all-out battle to defend glyphosate from Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962) to
against science raising cancer concerns. Robert van den Bosch’s Pesticide Conspiracy
(1989) to David Michael’s The Triumph of Doubt
How do these corporate partnerships and
(2020); Carey Gillam’s reporting on Monsanto’s
disinformation campaigns work? What financial
herbicide business and the Roundup cancer
arrangements exist between pesticide companies
trials and her two books, Whitewash (2017)
and the front groups, professional organizations,
and The Monsanto Papers (2021); the seminal
and academics they depend on to defend their
research by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway in
products? My colleague on the pro-labeling
their book Merchants of Doubt (2010), and other
campaign, Gary Ruskin, began filing Freedom of
investigative journalists and nonprofits working
Information requests in 2015 at public universities
for transparency, there is growing awareness
across the country to investigate these questions.
about industry spin and its harms to people
We shared what we were learning about industry
and planet. We hope this report — by taking a
influence through the nonprofit research group
deep dive into one company’s decades-long
we co-founded, U.S. Right to Know.
disinformation campaign to protect its herbicide,
In the years since, U.S. Right to Know has and the sector in general, from regulation — can
obtained, reported on, and posted online add to this awareness of industry tactics and
thousands of industry and government convey the urgency of action to address it.
documents, including discovery documents
released in the Monsanto Roundup cancer trials, ------------------------------
and many others acquired through judicial Stacy Malkan
enforcement of public records laws. These once- US Right to Know
secret documents provide a rare and invaluable Oakland, California
view into how the largest pesticide and food October 2022
7
Introduction
Tobacco industry executives are sworn in to testify at a Congressional hearing where they claimed nicotine is not addictive.
On the morning of April 14, 1994, the House These industries used now well-documented
Committee on Energy and Commerce disinformation tactics to push doubt and
Subcommittee on Health and the Environment denialism.9 Big Tobacco’s spin tactics arguably
swore in seven tobacco executives for a hearing cost millions of lives as regulations emerged
on the regulation of tobacco products. The long after it was evident that cigarettes cause
video from that day5 — with executive after cancer — and continue to cost lives. (The
executive stating a version of “I don’t believe WHO estimates 8 million people die annually
that nicotine or our products are addictive” from tobacco use).10 The fossil fuel sector’s
— is seared into the collective memory of spin pushed science denialism and political
Big Tobacco’s lies and deception. Indeed, inaction that has led to a warming world
for decades before that testimony, tobacco and is associated with millions of deaths per
executives had known that cigarettes cause year,11 with few clear pathways to averting
cancer — and that nicotine is, in fact, addictive. catastrophic climate change.
In October 2019, at a House oversight For decades, the pesticide industry has used
subcommittee hearing on civil rights, Martin similarly deceptive communication strategies
Hoffert, a former consultant for Exxon, testified to shape the public debate and influence
that in the early 1980s, scientists working for regulators — even manipulating the very
the company were already predicting how science on which policy is made — to distract
fossil fuel use would increase carbon dioxide from the evidence that pesticide-intensive
levels, leading to rising temperatures.6 Internal agriculture threatens ecosystems and human
documents would show that as far back as health. In this report, we show how pesticide
1968, the American Petroleum Institute, an companies not only followed in the footsteps of
oil industry trade group, had identified the Big Oil and Big Tobacco, they helped to write
threat of global warming and the role of the the public relations playbook that obscures
companies in their sector in it.7 the dangers of widely used products that
science shows are threatening human and
Oil industry executives knew fossil fuel use environmental health around the globe. This
would cause global warming and yet not only report about Monsanto’s campaign to defend
hid the science but actively attacked those who glyphosate tells one piece of a broader story:
raised alarm. Tobacco executives knew and that for decades, pesticide companies have
covered up the health risks of their products.8 waged expensive PR campaigns to shape the
8
narrative about science and our food system, followed by BASF with 11 percent of the
pushing the twin ideas that pesticides — a term market and Corteva (the rebranded name of
that encompasses insecticides, herbicides, the merged Dow and Dupont company) with
fungicides, and more — are safe and that we 10 percent. For commercial seeds and seed
need them to feed the world. In recent years, traits, Bayer controls 23 percent of the market,
groundbreaking global studies have shown while Corteva has a 17 percent market share,
the grave threat agricultural chemicals pose with ChemChina at 7 percent and BASF at 4
to biodiversity and public health and how they percent.13
fail to deliver on their promises for greater
agricultural productivity, leading to crop loss To bring light to the pesticide industry’s PR
and weed and pest resistance.12 Yet despite the spin, this report provides a deep dive into one
mounting evidence, the pesticide industry has company and one PR campaign: Monsanto,
doubled down on deceptive messaging. bought in 2018 by German pharmaceutical
and agrichemical multinational Bayer AG, and
This report comes at a time of ever greater its product defense campaign to promote
industry consolidation in the agrichemical and glyphosate-based herbicides sold under the
seed sector — much like we’ve seen across brand name Roundup, and to protect these
the economy. By 2020, thanks to recent products from the threat of regulation. This
purchases including the Bayer-Monsanto deal, report builds on a 2015 white paper written by
just four companies controlled 62 percent of Friends of the Earth’s Kari Hamerschlag along
the global market for agrichemicals and 51 with Stacy Malkan and Anna Lappé, which
percent of the global market for commercial documents some of the messages and tactics
seeds, according to ETC Group. Bayer’s market of food industry front groups, including the
share of agrichemicals, 16 percent, was second millions of dollars they spend every year to
only to ChemChina/Syngenta at 25 percent, shape the story of our food system.14
9
Two major developments in recent years undermined public health institutions, bought
prompted further reporting on this topic: First, influence at the most prestigious universities
new scientific evidence, discussed in Part 1, in the United States, and deployed an army of
makes clear the urgency of addressing the third-party allies to spread product-defense
health and environmental impacts associated messaging, including attacks on scientists
with the pesticide industry’s products, and journalists. We show how the company
including glyphosate herbicide formulations. tracked and attacked critics and tried to
Second, access to new evidence from internal dominate online spaces related to pesticides
corporate documents, obtained over the past and genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
five years via legal actions and public interest Throughout this report, we show how a small
investigations, provides new insight into how group of industry insiders deployed deceptive
Monsanto ran its propaganda operations, messaging through seemingly independent
with the help of the pesticide and processed voices, using many of the same strategies and
food industries. Thanks to tens of thousands funding streams — and sometimes the very
of pages of internal corporate documents same people — the tobacco and fossil fuel
made available by these efforts, the public has industries use to mislead the public.
unprecedented access to how the industry
develops strategies to mislead the public. These Why focus on the PR spin around glyphosate?
documents include the “Monsanto Papers” There are certainly more acutely toxic
obtained from litigation over glyphosate-based pesticides in agricultural use. There’s paraquat,
herbicides, and public records made available where exposure to even a capful can be
through an investigation led by colleagues at deadly, and the class of insecticides known
U.S. Right to Know. (Many of these documents as neonicotinoids, which have increased the
are available on the U.S. Right to Know toxicity of U.S. agriculture for insects by 48-
website and via the University of California, fold in the past 25 years.16 But while not the
San Francisco, chemical and food industry most toxic, glyphosate is still toxic to humans
documents archives.)15 and devastating to ecosystems; we discuss
in Part 1 the science linking glyphosate to
This report adds to a growing body of research cancer, reproductive harm, kidney disease,
and reporting on the deceptive tactics of the monarch butterfly declines and other health
pesticide industry: The Intercept’s reporting on and environmental impacts. And, as the most
the PR spin pushing neonicotinoids, the class of widespread agricultural chemical in the world,
pesticides driving the “insect apocalypse,” and a detailing of how long the company knew
detailing of the tactics industry used to keep about this toxicity, how much it did to spin a
the deadly pesticide paraquat on the market different story, and how it continues to push
for decades; or The New Yorker’s reporting doubt, science denial, and deflection as it
on pesticide company Syngenta’s attacks on faces thousands of lawsuits from farmers
the scientist Tyrone Hayes; or DeSmog Blog’s and gardeners suffering from cancers related
mapping of pesticide industry misinformation to glyphosate use is critically important.
outlets. Taken together, this reporting has Furthermore, the internal documents paint
helped reveal key PR tactics of the pesticide a clear picture of the PR tactics Monsanto/
industry and helped expose the myth-making Bayer used and the players the company relies
about the safety and necessity of pesticides. on, providing insight into product-defense
strategies not used just for glyphosate but
In this report, we add to this research by across all classes of pesticides.
detailing the spin tactics used to push the most
ubiquitous herbicide in the world: glyphosate. Finally, this story is important because it is
We show — using industry’s own words from connected to the promotion and defense
their own documents — how the largest of genetically engineered crops or GMOs,
producer of glyphosate-based herbicides, first commercialized in the mid-1990s. The
Monsanto (purchased by Bayer AG in 2018), connection is simple: most GMO crops sold
used stealth tactics to obscure the truth and to date have been developed with traits to
shape the narrative about this pesticide and express an insecticide or tolerate an herbicide
our food system more broadly. We detail or do both, and nearly all have been engineered
how the company produced corrupt science, with the trait of glyphosate tolerance.17 So, the
10
debates about the risks and rewards of GMOs This report also documents how the sector’s
are intimately linked to the story of the spin influence campaigns are themselves big
around glyphosate safety. business: Together, six of the trade associations
named in Monsanto documents for glyphosate
Based on these thousands of pages of internal defense — the Biotechnology Innovation
Monsanto documents and investigative Organization, CropLife America, American
reporting, analyzed together in one place for Chemistry Council, the Grocery Manufacturers
the first time, this report reveals five pesticide Association, the National Corn Grower’s
industry disinformation tactics, chronicling how Association and the American Soybean
Monsanto worked to: Association — spent $1.3 billion over a five-
year period (2015-2019) funding marketing,
1. Corrupt the science lobbying, and messaging. (See Appendix I)
We show how Monsanto employees shaped And, just seven of the non-profit organizations
the science on glyphosate, including paying named in Monsanto’s internal documents as
academics, ghostwriting papers, influencing key allies in its product-defense strategy spent
regulatory agencies, and using other covert up to $76 million during that same period.
tactics to shape the scientific and regulatory (This is all on top of $206 million Monsanto
record; spent on its reported advertising budget over
the three-year period just before the Bayer
2. Co-opt academia purchase).18 While glyphosate defense is only
We report how Monsanto and other pesticide part of what these organizations do — in some
companies partnered with and paid universities cases a small part — the size of their budgets
and professors who in turn promoted and conveys the huge resources available to groups
defended glyphosate and the GMO seeds that run product-defense campaigns using
designed to tolerate the herbicide. Many of the disinformation tactics we describe in this
these partnerships were not transparent to the report. These groups are an unquestionable
public. industry unto themselves: their purpose is to
protect and defend the chemical-intensive
3. Mobilize third-party allies food, products, and processes that are the
We describe the large and well-funded third- basis of today’s industrial food chain.
party echo chamber — the front groups,
professional organizations, universities, As this report goes to press, the European
astroturf campaigns, and others—who Union is debating whether to reauthorize the
disseminated messaging crafted by Monsanto use of glyphosate next year. Here in the United
and its PR firms for the purpose of opposing States, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
health, safety, and transparency regulations for ruled in June 2022 that EPA’s approval of
pesticide industry products. glyphosate was unlawful.19 The same month,
the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Bayer’s
4. Track and attack scientists, bid to dodge a $25 million jury award to a
journalists, and influencers California man who said decades of exposure
We examine how industry front groups that to glyphosate-based Roundup caused his non-
claim to be “pro-science” — including the Hodgkin’s lymphoma.20 Largely as a result of
Genetic Literacy Project and American Council the pressures from glyphosate litigation, Bayer
on Science and Health—targeted the World announced in July 2021 that it would replace
Health Organization’s cancer researchers, and its glyphosate-based products in the U.S.
other scientists and journalists who reported on residential “Lawn & Garden” market with new
glyphosate’s links to cancer. formulations beginning in 2023.21 Agricultural
use of glyphosate will continue. Numerous
5. Dominate online spaces other commercial and industrial uses, including
We discuss how Monsanto and other on school grounds and in city parks, will also
companies deployed the same front groups continue. While these uses are still permitted,
that attacked scientists and journalists in there is growing public pressure to further
defense of glyphosate to infiltrate online spaces regulate the herbicide.
and garner top placement in Google News
searches to elevate industry messaging.
11
Debates about the future of glyphosate, manipulated the scientific record on glyphosate
indeed all formulations of pesticides, should over many years. In Part 3 we discuss actions
be deliberated in light of what is revealed in that policy makers, media institutions,
this report and in other reporting on pesticide academics, and everyday people can take to
industry public relations spin: The fact that it combat industry disinformation tactics like the
is now well-documented how the pesticide kinds described here. On pages 76, we provide
industry works to shape science and public substantive addendums debunking the myths
opinion in order to avoid regulation. In this that pesticides are safe and necessary to feed
context, this report raises key questions: How the world.
do we expose industry manipulation of the
science around pesticides? How do we ensure Ultimately, the story of deceit this report
harmful chemicals like glyphosate are not documents is a story about the pesticide
replaced by even more toxic ones? And, how industry’s vulnerability: To evade the
do we regulate pesticides to protect public regulation and transparency that would
health and ecosystems and not remain at impact their profitability and market share,
the mercy of voluntary action from chemical the pesticide industry — just like the oil
companies? More broadly, how do we ensure and tobacco industries — are profoundly
that public officials, not influenced by industry reliant on the success of PR subterfuge to
or its third-party allies, make independent maintain profitability. Understanding how
policy decisions so critical to our health and the this subterfuge works is paramount for
wellbeing of our planet? journalists, policymakers, and public interest
groups working to inform the public about the
In Part 1 we delve into why this matters health and environmental risks posed by the
and what’s at stake for our health, the increasing use of pesticides and the availability
climate, biodiversity and our future. In Part of safer alternatives.
2, we describe the spin tactics Monsanto
used, including what the internal corporate
documents reveal about how the company
12
Part 1: What’s at Stake? Health,
Climate, and Biodiversity
Glyphosate use
increased 3,153%
from 1990 to 2014 in
U.S. agriculture
In 2018, German agrichemical giant Bayer report, have long suppressed these concerns
AG purchased the company for $63 and maintained a widely held public narrative
billion, evaluating it as a solid investment,32 that the herbicide is benign.35 The company
presumably based on current and projected even ran ads claiming glyphosate was safer
profits from the lucrative herbicide and GMO than table salt.36
seed segment of the company’s operations. But
by that year, there had already been evidence However, in March 2015, thirty years after
emerging about the safety of glyphosate — the EPA first raised cancer concerns about
evidence Bayer chose to ignore and continues glyphosate, the herbicide was publicly
to deny.33 Mounting concern about the safety classified as a probable human carcinogen.37
of glyphosate would soon cost the company The finding came from the world’s premiere
billions of dollars. (In this report, we will refer independent cancer research agency — the
to Monsanto for activity before its purchase World Health Organization’s International
by Bayer AG, which since 2003 has been Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
structured as a holding company for its The agency is tasked with identifying
pharmaceutical and chemical businesses as cancer hazards, and its classifications have
well as its agricultural input business, known as global implications, influencing public
Bayer CropScience. For post-2018 activity, we policy, regulatory decisions, public health
will refer to Bayer). recommendations, and litigation.38 IARC found
“strong” evidence of genotoxicity (damage
The science of glyphosate’s harms to genetic information within a cell causing
mutations, which may lead to cancer) and a
Despite the fact that scientists at the U.S. “statistically significant association between
Environmental Protection Agency flagged non-Hodgkin lymphoma and exposure to
glyphosate as having the potential to cause glyphosate.”39
cancer as far back as 1984,34 Monsanto’s spin
tactics, many of which are detailed in this
14
DeWayne “Lee” Johnson, a groundskeeper for California schools, was the
first cancer victim to take Monsanto to court. ©Josh Edelson/Getty Images
The first trial, Dewayne Johnson v. Monsanto Company, concluded in August 2018.40 School
groundskeeper Dewayne “Lee” Johnson developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after routinely using
glyphosate-based herbicides at his job. Johnson reports that, despite wearing protective gear,
he was soaked in the herbicide after a hose broke on his equipment. He later developed rashes,
lesions, and was soon diagnosed with cancer.41 A jury awarded Johnson $289 million (reduced to
$78 million by the judge), which included compensation for damages along with punitive damages
based on the finding that Monsanto failed to warn consumers of its products’ potential dangers.
The next two trials were brought by homeowners who frequently used Roundup on their
properties, first Edward Hardeman and then a married couple, Alberta and Alva Pilliod. In both
cases, juries unanimously found that Roundup caused the plaintiffs’ non-Hodgkin lymphoma and
also found that Monsanto acted negligently by not warning about risk. Hardeman was awarded
$80 million in damages, while the jury awarded the Pilliods over $2 billion, which was then cut to
$86.7 million by the judge.
After losing the first three trials, Monsanto owner Bayer set aside roughly $14 billion to cover
Roundup cancer claims. Litigation and settlement talks are ongoing. In June 2022, The Supreme
Court of the United States rejected Bayer’s bids to dismiss legal claims in two cases. The court left
in place lower court decisions upholding the judgements and jury awards for Hardeman and the
Pilliods.42
17
way EPA uses scientific data. As the biologist
Pete Myers states: “Regulatory agencies use
“Regulatory agencies use science science out of the Jurassic. The possibility that
out of the Jurassic. The possibility they might begin to use modern science is an
that they might begin to use existential threat to the chemical industry as we
know it.”
modern science is an existential
For more information, see Appendix II: Debunking
threat to the chemical industry as the Myth that Pesticides Are Safe and Necessary.
we know it.”
Pete Myers, PhD, chief scientist, To continue with the overuse of toxic
pesticides to grow our food is like continuing
Environmental Health Sciences
dependence on coal as an energy source: the
preponderance of scientific data points to more
These consequences highlight the urgency of sustainable and economically efficient solutions
understanding and combating the pesticide (See Appendix III: Science of Solutions). It is in
industry’s spin as we face a future in which this context that it is necessary to understand
hazardous pesticide use is likely to rise. the pesticide industry’s efforts to silence
This must go along with holding regulators concerns and dilute the voices of communities
accountable and pushing to modernize the and agroecological experts — using a range of
spin tactics we dive into next.
18
Part 2: The Spin
“It is not an exaggeration to say that in the product defense model, the
investigator starts with an answer, then figures out the best way to support it.”
David Michaels
The Triumph of Doubt: Dark Money and the Science of Deception
20
epidemiologist and the longest-serving head In an award-winning investigative series
of the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health for Le Monde, journalists Stéphane Horel
Administration, in the Boston Review.79 But and Stéphane Foucart detail the strategies
over the past several decades, he writes, we’ve Monsanto used “to interfere with science,
seen the rise of “science-for-sale specialists” influence the regulatory process and
and a “‘product-defense industry’ that sustains orchestrate PR campaigns to defend their
them — a cabal of apparent experts, PR flaks, products.” They summed up their findings:
and political lobbyists who use bad science “In order to save glyphosate, the Monsanto
to produce whatever results their sponsors corporation has undertaken an effort to destroy
want.”80 Michaels describes this trend as the United Nations’ cancer agency by any
“mercenary science,” in which scientific studies means possible.”82
are designed not to better understand the
world, but to defend products and protect But Monsanto’s efforts to shape the science
corporations. on glyphosate date back much farther. Internal
documents and investigative reporting in the
Michaels and others have long noted the wake of the IARC ruling reveal evidence of
danger of industry influence on science and the company working to shape the scientific
how it distorts public policy and impacts research on glyphosate for decades.
public health. In this section, we examine how
Monsanto worked over decades to shape Long-standing concerns about
the science, regulatory reviews, and public
perceptions of glyphosate. glyphosate
23
reviews.” Now that the paper was published, [Monsanto] as ghost writers” and that it “would
Drake noted, the “public affairs strategy begins be more powerful if authored by non-Monsanto
to kick in globally,” what Monsanto called its scientists.”109
“freedom to operate” initiative to promote sales
of its glyphosate-based herbicides.105 A year later, in 2016, Critical Reviews in
Toxicology published an “independent review”
A February 2015 email would further reveal of the science on glyphosate. In the disclosures,
Monsanto’s role in the paper: As the IARC panel the authors state: “Neither any Monsanto
prepared to release its report on glyphosate, company employees nor any attorneys
Monsanto’s Heydens discussed commissioning reviewed any of the Expert Panel’s manuscripts
a meta-study to respond to what the company prior to submission to the journal.”110 That
expected would be a negative carcinogenicity statement was disproven in the fall of 2017
ruling. One option for “keeping costs down,” he when internal Monsanto records came to
noted, would involve “us doing the writing and light showing Monsanto scientists’ extensive
[authors’] would just edit & sign their names involvement in drafting and editing the
so to speak. Recall that is how we handled papers,111 as well as selecting the authors and
Williams, Kroes and Munro in 2000.”106 (We paying at least one of them.112
discuss the meta-study further in the next
section.) In response to these revelations, the journal’s
publisher Taylor & Francis initiated a review
To this day, Monsanto has maintained the and its team of legal and ethical experts
independence of the 2000 paper’s authors. found the authors had hidden Monsanto’s
Monsanto claims the company “did not true involvement in the papers. Internal emails
ghostwrite”107 the paper and the medical reveal a protracted disagreement between the
school where one of the paper’s co-authors publishing group, which wanted to retract at
is on faculty found “no evidence” the authors least three of the five papers, and the journal
“violated the schools’ prohibition against editor Roger McClellan who refused to do so,
authoring a paper ghostwritten by others.”108 citing concerns about his reputation and the
But the email record quoted above suggests a “sensitive” position Monsanto was in with trials
different story. underway involving glyphosate.113, 114
24
influence is profound. This is why companies many other memos they examined were either
like Monsanto work to shape these sources of “incomplete” or had “otherwise unacceptable
information: They matter. toxicology screening tests.”
26
Crafting a PR narrative for GMO
foods “The paper is not Nobel Prize
As Monsanto scientists worked behind the science but it is intended to provide
scenes to shape the scientific record on two simple messages.”
glyphosate, they also developed a public
relations narrative about genetically modified John Vicini, Monsanto
crops (GMOs), most of which are engineered
to tolerate glyphosate-based herbicides. That
narrative, too, was designed to emphasize are “not supported by an objective analysis
safety and ward off regulation and government of the refereed literature,” according to
oversight. A September 2013 email from a statement signed by 300 independent
Monsanto scientist John Vicini offers a view scientific researchers and scholars.145 These
into the company’s approach. Vicini shared researchers assert that there is “no consensus
with his colleagues a draft paper he had on GMO safety.” They described blanket safety
written about animal consumption of GMOs. assurances as “an artificial construct that
He described the paper as “a first draft of a has been falsely perpetuated” by industry
manuscript that I prepared with the intention stakeholders.146
of submitting either as a co-author with some
global faculty in animal science or turn it over Making general claims about the safety of
to them and just be a ghost writer.”139 Vicini genetic engineering is “unscientific, illogical,
wrote, “I do not need to be on it and think and absurd,” wrote Belinda Martinau, a
that a non-[Monsanto] paper is the best-case geneticist who helped develop the first
scenario.” The paper was “not Nobel Prize genetically engineered food, in a letter to
science,” Vicini noted, “but it is intended to the New York Times; “because each product
provide two simple messages: 1) billions of is different ...the safety of each one must be
animals are consuming large amounts of GM assessed individually.”147 The World Health
crops every day for long periods and, 2) the Organization concurs, according to its FAQ: “it
forecasted health effects are not apparent in is not possible to make general statements on
publicly available datasets.”140 the safety of all GM foods” because “individual
GM foods and their safety should be assessed
A year later, Alison van Eenennam, an animal on a case-by-case basis.”148
geneticist at the University of California, Davis,
published a paper in the Journal of Animal Genetic engineering, including newer genome-
Science and Biotechnology that was based editing techniques, have “unpredictable
on the same datasets that Vicini was referring outcomes,” says Michael Antoniou, a molecular
to and echoed the messages he sought to geneticist at King’s College London. To
promote.141 That van Eenennaam was a former understand health impacts, he said, “You
Monsanto employee was not noted by the basically need to conduct a long term feeding
journal.142 trial in animals and see what happens … and
that’s just not going on anywhere in the world
The paper’s conclusions appear to have been for regulatory purposes, at all.”
part of a coordinated PR push. Before the
official publication date, Monsanto collaborator It is important to also note: due to patents
Jon Entine (whose group now receives money involved, studies on genetically engineered
from Bayer) published a lengthy article in seeds and crops are largely controlled by
Forbes claiming that van Eenennam’s study companies that own the intellectual property
was the “most comprehensive study of GMOs rights, since in most cases researchers must ask
and food ever conducted” and proved that “the for permission to research patented materials.149
debate about GMO safety is over.”143 As noted previously, just four companies —
Bayer, Corteva (formerly DowDuPont), BASF
Claims that the “debate is over” or that there and Syngenta/ChemChina — controlled 75
is a “consensus of safety” about GMOs are percent of plant breeding research, 60 percent
topline arguments of the pesticide industry of the commercial seed market, and 76 percent
and its PR allies.144 However, these claims of global agrichemical sales in 2019.150
27
The bottom line, according to the researchers’ A 2021 report from the Institute of Cancer
“no consensus” statement: scientific research Research at the Medical University of Vienna
in the field of GM crop safety “is nuanced; underscores this point in regard to glyphosate
complex; often contradictory or inconclusive; research. Researchers reviewed 53 safety
confounded by researchers’ choices, studies on glyphosate submitted to regulators
assumptions, and funding sources, and in by large chemical companies, and found that
general has raised more questions than it has most of the studies do not comply with modern
currently answered.” In their view, decisions international standards for scientific rigor.153, 154
about food and agriculture “should not be Most of the studies did not even include tests
based on misleading and misrepresentative that are most able to detect cancer risks.
claims made by an internal circle of likeminded
stakeholders,” but rather should be “supported In the next two tactics, we describe how
by strong scientific evidence on the long-term Monsanto, using the scientific findings they
safety of GM crops and foods ... obtained in helped craft, worked with a range of third-party
a manner that is honest, ethical, rigorous, allies, including leading academic institutions,
independent, transparent, and sufficiently to disseminate their messaging about the
diversified to compensate for bias.”151 safety and necessity of glyphosate and the
genetically engineered crops at the core of
Relying on insufficient science their business model.
28
TACTIC 2: Co-opting Academia
“USRTK’s plan [to FOIA universities] will impact the entire industry.”
Monsanto memo
In the fall of 2014, as voters in Oregon and enormous,” the Food and Water Watch analysis
Washington were poised to vote on whether concluded. “Corporate money shifts the public
genetically engineered foods should be research agenda toward the ambitions of the
labeled, industry allies grew worried about private sector, whose profit motivations are
Monsanto’s plan to feature scientists in ads often at odds with the public good.”
for the anti-labeling campaign. “I’m a little
skeptical that a letter with a lot of scientist The tobacco industry and fossil fuel industry
signatures will be enough to counter the flood have long recognized the benefits of working
of fear mongering,” Val Giddings, the former with academics and influencing academic
Vice President of the biotechnology trade agendas through institutional funding. We now
association BIO, wrote to Monsanto’s Lisa have ample evidence of how Monsanto, too, has
Drake.155 Giddings suggested the company influenced academic institutions and enlisted
instead consider creating “TV spots featuring academics in its campaign to shape consensus
attractive young women, preferably mommy on the safety of glyphosate and crops
farmers” to persuade voters to vote against genetically engineered to tolerate the chemical.
labeling requirements. Drake shot down that
idea: “Doesn’t poll as well as credible third How much money did Monsanto and other
party scientists,” she told Giddings. “I know pesticide companies give to land grant
[it is] hard to believe but I have seen the poll universities and to individual professors? What
results myself … and that is why the campaigns benefits do corporate donors get in return for
work the way they do.”156 these investments? And why is so much of this
information hidden from the public? These are
Indeed, the “voices of authority” — especially some of the questions that prompted Gary
academic experts — receive the highest marks Ruskin at U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) to launch
on trust, according to global surveys.157 In this an investigation in 2015, using the Freedom of
context, the growing private-sector influence Information Act (FOIA) and state public record
over universities, and land grant institutions in laws to research how Monsanto and other
particular, is concerning. From 1970 to 2014, pesticide firms work with and pay academics.
public funding to land grant universities for In the years since, USRTK has obtained
agricultural research and development grew and reported on thousands of industry and
by just 20 percent, while private funding grew government documents, many of which are
by 193 percent to $6.3 billion, according to an now posted in the USCF food and chemical
analysis from the Agricultural Policy Analysis industry document libraries.161
Center.158 Today, hundreds of millions of dollars
flow from agribusiness, including pesticide The documents shed light on how food and
companies, into land grant universities in the chemical corporations rely on many third-
United States. This funding is used to sponsor party allies, including academics, to promote
buildings,159 endow professorships and pay for their products. They also make clear that
research, according to an analysis from the inquiries into the ties between industry and
public interest group Food and Water Watch.160 academia were questions that Monsanto and
“The influence this money purchases is other pesticide companies wanted to avoid
answering.
29
This 31-page Monsanto memo details plans to try to discredit U.S. Right to Know’s public records investigation to uncover details
about how industry works with academics.
Fighting FOIAs at public and suggested answers are offered along with
additional action items like: “Brainstorm more;
universities especially funding options like unrestricted
grants.” In response to the sample question:
A confidential Monsanto memo dated July 2019
“Should we have been more transparent about
noted: “USRTK’s plan [to FOIA universities]
payment for travel for the academics/financing
will impact the entire industry” and “has the
these scholars?” the Monsanto memo directs
potential to be extremely damaging.”162 The
employees to explain: “We follow the guidance
31-page memo details Monsanto’s plan to form
for gifts, grants, research agreements, etc. that
a coordinated defense to counter the public
is provided by the universities that we fund.”163
record requests — involving PR firms, trade
groups, 11 Monsanto employees, and academic
One way universities can receive corporate
allies — to protect Monsanto’s reputation
donations without transparency is via university
and what the company dubbed “freedom to
foundations, which are not required to disclose
operate” or FTO, and to protect its relationships
their donors. In the case of the University of
with academics.
Florida Foundation, there was specific guidance
for how to answer questions about donations.
The memo gives guidance to employees on
If asked whether Monsanto was a “gold donor”
how to avoid disclosing details about funding
to the foundation, for example, the company
while conveying “complete transparency in our
document suggested this answer: “I have not
relationship with academics.” Sample questions
Monsanto was a “gold donor” to the University of Florida Foundation in 2013/2014, signifying a donation of more than $1 million.
30
been able to secure information to address your
mention of Monsanto as a ‘gold donor.’” The “Professors/researchers/scientists
company was a gold donor — a fact that had have a big white hat in this debate
already been reported by the New York Times in
2015.164 and support in their states.”
Bill Mashek, Ketchum PR firm
Undisclosed partnerships with
academics and universities traveling to other universities to train students
The FOIA research turned up a number of
and academics on how to promote GMOs and
examples of how Monsanto relied on academics
argue that they should not be labeled. (After
to shape the narrative about its products and
the Monsanto funding became public, Folta
help keep them unregulated. In 2015, Pulitzer-
donated the money to a food bank, but he
Prize winning journalist Eric Lipton reported on
continued receiving money from pesticide
this influence in a front-page New York Times
companies without full disclosure about his
article: “Food industry enlisted academics in
sources of industry funding.)170
GMO labeling war, emails show.”165 The article
reports on internal company documents,
In documents reported by the New York Times,
first obtained by U.S. Right to Know, showing
the pesticide industry’s PR firm Ketchum was
how Monsanto paid academics to promote
clear how valuable Folta, and academics more
genetically engineered foods in an effort to
broadly, have been for the industry’s public
keep these products unlabeled and unregulated.
relations: “Professors/researchers/scientists
Monsanto relied on academics, Lipton reported,
have a big white hat in this debate and support
“for the gloss of impartiality and weight
in their states, from politicians to producers,”
of authority that come with a professor’s
Bill Mashek, a vice president at Ketchum, wrote
pedigree.”166
to Folta in 2014. “Keep it up!”171
As one example, Monsanto gave a $25,000
In 2015, Monsanto’s Lisa Drake engaged Folta
grant to University of Florida Professor Kevin
to help boost the profile of GMOs on WebMD,
Folta to run promotional programs for GMOs167,
a website that Vox characterized as the “most
even as Folta publicly claimed to have no ties
popular source of health information in the
to Monsanto.168, 169 The programs involved Folta
United States.”172 “Over the past six months,”
The USRTK Agrichemical Collection donated to the UCSF Chemical Industry Documents Library includes documents acquired
through state public records requests, FOIA requests, whistleblowers and litigation.
31
Drake wrote to Folta, “we have worked hard their efforts to spread the good word.” He
through third parties to insert fresh and current added: “Kevin is our lead spokesperson at UF
material on WebMD relating to biotechnology on the GMO topic and he has taken on the
health and safety.” Before that effort, she charge of doing just what we discussed —
said, “the material popping up” about the educating the masses.”177 In that role, Folta has
topic “dredged up highly negative input from mounted a passionate defense of pesticides.
Organic Consumer Association and the anti- On his “Talking Biotech” podcast, Folta has
GMO critics.” While Drake noted that recent claimed that the health risk of consuming
pieces that had been placed by third parties pesticides through food is “probably
had “improved the search results somewhat,” somewhere between 10,000 and a million times
she was seeking Folta’s support to do more: “It lower than a car accident.” He has also said that
is a fairly simple process,” she said, and asked he drank glyphosate and would do it again “to
Folta to consider, “submitting a blog on the demonstrate its harmlessness.”178
safety and health of biotech,” and gave him
instructions for how to do so. Folta’s response:
“Can do! My pleasure.”173 AgBio Chatter list
Internal documents also shed light on
how Monsanto and its PR firms worked to
coordinate messaging and lobbying efforts
“I thought your talk was excellent with their academic allies using a private email
list called AgBioChatter. The list included two
… and it is harmonious with the Monsanto executives, DuPont’s former director
stance we are taking on GMOs at of scientific affairs, two higher-ups at the
biotechnology industry trade association, and
the University of Florida.” more than a dozen academics with industry
connections — many of them affiliated as
UF/IFAS Director David Clark to experts or ambassadors with the pesticide-
Monsanto’s Robb Fraley industry funded marketing campaign GMO
Answers (described in Tactic 5) run by
Ketchum. Several of the academics also served
Monsanto’s influence with academia doesn’t in leadership roles for industry front groups
simply run through individual professors. The connected with pesticide companies, such as
University of Florida Foundation has also Genetic Literacy Project, Academics Review,
received significant funds from pesticide and and Sense About Science (described in Tactic
seed companies — more than $12 million for 3). These groups, along with the listserv itself
the 2013-14 academic year, including a $1 — identified under the name “Academics
million grant from “gold donor” Monsanto.174 (AgBioChatter)” — appear among the “industry
The University of Florida, in turn, has been a partners” in Monsanto’s PR plan to defend
stalwart ally in communicating industry-friendly glyphosate.179
messaging. In a 2014 email to Monsanto,
Professor David Clark, from the university’s
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Plant Innovation Program (IFAS) described The AgBioChatter list looped
how the institution’s “stance” on GMOs is together chemical industry
“harmonious” with Monsanto’s.175 As an example executives and industry-friendly
of this harmonious messaging, Clark shared a academics, many of whom were
video of Jack Payne, IFAS senior vice president,
stating, “there is no science that agrees with
affiliated with spin groups we
these folks that are afraid of GMOs.”176 describe in this report.
32
Emails from the listserv highlight messaging 2014 to help lobby against proposed pesticide
themes: for example, efforts to frame science restrictions there. The industry trade group
documenting health concerns about pesticides set up the meetings and coordinated the
as “agenda-driven,” while studies that claim scientists’ messaging, according to internal
safety are “pro science.”180 Another major emails.181 One email describes key messages
theme involved efforts to discredit industry to be presented to the Kauai Business Council,
critics. Records show that former Monsanto including, “Giving them peace of mind about
Communications Director Jay Byrne peppered the pesticides being used and the crops being
the listserv with calls to action and messaging grown,” including glyphosate.182 Despite these
suggestions to confront influencers who raised industry ties, Folta promoted the trip as an
concerns about GMOs, including the scholar effort by “independent expert scientists” who
and environmental activist Vandana Shiva, went to Hawaii “simply to share science.”183
plant scientist and former Purdue Professor
Don Huber, and the nonprofit group Consumers The lack of public disclosure about pesticide
Union. As we describe in Tactic 4, attacks industry ties to academics who lobby for
on critics have been a key component of industry interests is a recurring problem. In
Monsanto’s communications efforts to protect another example, Bruce Chassy, a professor
glyphosate. emeritus of food and nutrition at the University
of Illinois, appeared frequently in the media as
an independent expert promoting GMOs and
Academics provide lobbying aid lobbying to keep them unlabeled. In May 2016,
These internal records also show how pesticide the Associated Press quoted Chassy twice in a
companies and affiliated trade associations single week as an independent expert on the
tap academic networks to help lobby for topic.184 But he, too, was receiving funds from
industry-favorable policy. In one example, Monsanto. Two months earlier, Monica Eng
the Hawaii-based Hawaii Crop Improvement of WBEZ revealed that Chassy had received
Association (HCIA) — a trade group funded by $57,000 from Monsanto over a two-year period
Corteva CropSciences (formerly DowDuPont) to travel, write, and promote GMOs, and that
and Bayer — recruited and paid academics, Monsanto donated at least $5.1 million to the
including Kevin Folta, to travel to the state in University of Illinois Foundation between 2005
and 2015.185
Emails reveal how a pesticide industry trade group coordinated a professor’s trip to Hawaii to lobby against pesticide regulations.
33
Internal documents posted by the New York Florida in 2014194 and University of California,
Times further reveal that, for years, Chassy Davis in 2015195 were “dedicated to helping
had been lobbying federal regulators to scientists and journalists work together to
deregulate GMOs while receiving funds from bring science to the public in a way that is
Monsanto.186 In 2011, when the EPA proposed accessible and persuasive,” according to the
a data requirement to better understand agendas. Expenses for the two events ran to
the health and environmental impacts of over $300,000, and routed through a nonprofit
genetically engineered crops, Chassy organized group called Academics Review, co-founded
a lobbying effort to defeat it.187 According to by Chassy.196 Although the group claimed
Chassy’s notes from a conference call, shared to be independent of industry, tax records
with Monsanto executives and others, the goal show that Academics Review received most
was “to ensure the EPA proposal never sees of its funding (including funding for the boot
the light of day.”188 For this lobbying effort, camps) from the Council for Biotechnology
Chassy enlisted other high-profile academics, Information (CBI) — a trade group funded by
the internal documents show, including Nina chemical giants BASF, Bayer, DowDuPont, and
Fedoroff, a molecular biologist at Penn State Syngenta.197
University, who was at that time president of
the American Academy for the Advancement The agenda left no doubt about the public
of Science (AAAS), the world’s largest relations purpose of the boot camps: to provide
multidisciplinary scientific society.189 “broad communications skills training” that
participants could use for “reframing the food
In July 2011, Chassy emailed Eric Sachs of safety and GMO debate” and lobbying for those
Monsanto190 to share that Fedoroff and 60 products. “Participants will be provided both
members of the National Academy of Sciences training and hands-on assistance in developing
had sent a letter to EPA191 opposing the EPA the tools and support resources necessary to
data requirement for genetically engineered effectively engage the media and appear as
foods. “Nina really picked up the ball and experts in legislative and local government
moved it down the field,” Chassy wrote. Chassy hearings,” states the agenda for the UC Davis
later reported to Sachs that he and Fedoroff event.198 Sessions included “Reframing the
had a “surprisingly productive meeting” with Debate: 5 Arguments for GMOs,” “Claiming
the EPA’s Steve Bradbury that had been Your Real-Estate on Social Media,” “Building
arranged by Stanley Abramson, a lobbyist for Trust in Science and the Science of Agriculture,”
the biotechnology industry trade group.192 and “Chasing the Media.”
Interspersed in Chassy’s emails to Sachs were
queries about whether Monsanto had sent a The pro-pesticide industry bias was not subtle.
check to the University of Illinois Foundation in A panel on organic foods, for example, was
support of Chassy’s “biotechnology outreach moderated by Chassy, who had written a
and education activities.”193 report condemning the organic industry as a
marketing scam in 2014.199 A panel on “GMOs
and chemicals” was led by Hank Campbell,
Hosting industry-funded president of the industry-funded American
messaging “boot camps” for Council on Science and Health (ACSH), a group
that frequently defends glyphosate and other
journalists and scientists products made by its funders.200 Keynote
Professors Chassy and Folta also collaborated speakers at the UC Davis event included
with the pesticide industry to arrange a series Yvette d’Entremont, who blogs as SciBabe and
of messaging training programs at public mounts an ardent defense of pesticides in her
universities — described as “boot camps” — to writings and public appearances, including
shape coverage of pesticides and GMOs in the talks at farming conferences sponsored by
popular press. “Independent scientists and Monsanto and DuPont.201 In one podcast, for
researchers can play a unique role in reframing example, d’Entremont claims, “We’ve proven
the GMO debate because the public holds them very, very carefully that, once they get into the
in such high esteem,” noted a promotional flier food supply, [pesticides] are safe for people.”202
for the Biotech Literacy Project “boot camps.” (While SciBabe’s website203 cites her former
The three-day conferences held at University of job as an analytical chemist, it omits that she
34
worked for Amvac Chemical Corporation,204 recently moderated a panel about GMO
which, according to a Los Angeles Times labeling at the industry-funded boot camp, and
investigation, did “booming business” selling that Giddings and Bruce Chassy had helped
older dangerous pesticides and fighting to him prepare, according to planning emails.209
“keep those chemicals on the market as long Among the proposed questions Chassy advised
as possible, hiring scientists and lawyers to do Gunther to ask was one about the costs of
battle with regulatory agencies.”)205 labeling, referencing a Cornell study that
alleged that labeling GMOs would cost a typical
Payoff for the pesticide industry’s investment in family $500 a year.210 Funded by the same
events like the boot camps can be seen in the industry trade group — whose members
post-event press. A few weeks after the UC include Monsanto — that funded the boot
Davis event, Popular Science ran a flattering camps, the study design had been debunked. A
“Q&A with SciBabe,” presenting d’Entremont as Consumers Union rebuttal details the flaws in
a credible source on science.206 The piece was the study design, finding that the industry-
written by Brooke Borel, a journalist who had funded study “dramatically overestimates the
attended the boot camp. In 2014, a month after cost of [GMO labeling].”211 Another journalist
attending the University of Florida boot camp, “faculty” member of the 2014 boot camp,
Marc Gunther penned an article in The Guardian Washington Post columnist Tamar Haspel, used
claiming that nonprofit organizations like her space in the Post a year later to defend
Friends of the Earth and Consumers Union — glyphosate. The article appeared at a politically
two groups that have been ardent critics of important moment, just days before a key
glyphosate — “can’t be trusted on GMOs.”207 Congressional vote on a bill that made it illegal
Gunther, an editor-at-large at the Guardian, for states to label GMOs. Haspel’s article
noted that he came up with the idea for his downplaying cancer concerns of glyphosate
article after reading a critique of Consumers quoted David Ropeik, a risk analyst who had
Union written by Val Giddings, the former shared a panel with her at the boot camp. In
executive of the biotech industry trade group her Post opinion column, Haspel did not
BIO.208 Gunther did not mention that he had mention that Ropeik owns a PR firm that serves
pesticide industry clients.212
Gates-funded PR campaign at
Cornell promotes Monsanto’s
messaging
As public universities lent their venues to the
boot camps, a longer-term public relations
effort was underway — this one under the
auspices of an Ivy League institution. By the
early 2010s with most commercialized GMOs
engineered to tolerate glyphosate, use of the
chemical was skyrocketing and Monsanto was
ramping up its efforts to promote these seeds,
and the glyphosate herbicides used to grow
them, as safe and necessary to feed the world.
Key aid came from the Cornell Alliance for
Science, a communications initiative launched
in 2014 with an initial $5.6 million grant from
the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.213 (The
foundation has since donated a total of at least
$22 million to the effort. Additional funders are
named on its website, but total revenues are
not disclosed).
While Cornell Alliance for Science says it does through Gates Foundation Trustee Warren
not receive any funds from industry, these Buffet’s company, Berkshire Hathaway. In
examples show how Monsanto’s allies provided 2018, Berkshire Hathaway, which is also the
aid to the company at key moments in the largest holding of the Gates Foundation Trust,
public debate about glyphosate safety. It is also played a key role in supporting the merger
worth noting that the Alliance’s main funder, between Bayer and Monsanto. As the financial
the Gates Foundation, has had financial ties press reported at the time , Buffet increased
to Monsanto. In 2010, the Gates Foundation Berkshire’s stake in Monsanto stock by 19
Trust came under criticism for buying 500,000 million shares (a 62 percent jump) just as
shares of Monsanto stock.227 Although the Trust Bayer was closing in on the merger — signaling
sold the stock, the financial ties continued, support for the deal to investors at a crucial
moment.228, 229
38
TACTIC 3: Cultivating Third-Party Allies
“The key will be keeping Monsanto in the background so as not to harm the
credibility of the information.”
Eric Sachs, Monsanto
As pressure mounted in the European Union produce papers on additional topics, including
to ban glyphosate in the wake of the IARC economic impact studies and research to pitch
2015 cancer ruling, members of a new group glyphosate as a climate solution.
called Freedom to Farm began appearing
at agricultural events and farmers’ markets Astroturf groups and other
across Europe. Marketing itself as a grassroots
effort led by farmers, the group warned of the
third-party allies
“threat to farming” posed by restricting the Freedom to Farm was a classic “astroturf”
use of glyphosate. But Freedom to Farm was operation, an effort that appears to be led
not the grassroots uprising it purported to be. by grassroots groups when it is actually
Monsanto’s name did not appear anywhere on an industry PR construct. The Monsanto-
Freedom to Farm materials, yet the operation funded PR operation was run by Red Flag
was fully staffed and supported by PR firms Consulting, a Dublin-based political firm, with
working for the company. An “intelligence help from the U.S. political consulting agency
report” prepared for Monsanto by the PR firm Lincoln Strategy Group, according to a 2019
FleishmanHillard, reveals the scope of the investigation by Unearthed, the investigative
operation: 39.5 full-time equivalent staff from wing of Greenpeace.243 Red Flag counts among
four PR firms were promoting “Freedom to its clients244 the tobacco giant British American
Farm” in seven countries. And that was not all: Tobacco. Lincoln Strategy Group has been
“In addition to the campaign team,” the report exposed for numerous stealth PR campaigns,
noted, “56 trained operatives are supporting including Protect America’s Consumers, a
the on-site recruiting process for grassroots.”242 secretive group tied to the Koch brothers.245
The group spent more than $130,000 on TV
PR firm FleishmanHillard, the document noted, and radio ads attacking the Consumer Financial
was also buying URLs and developing websites Protection Bureau, according to Politico.246
on the Freedom to Farm theme and working Founders of the Lincoln Strategy Group have
with research partners across Europe to also been linked to suspected voter247 fraud and
political bribery.248
Monsanto’s “Freedom to Farm” astroturf operation had 39.5 full time employees plus 56 “trained operatives” in the field
recruiting farmers to oppose glyphosate restrictions.
39
Ultimately, the EU did not ban glyphosate; it
extended authorization of the chemical to the
end of 2022, then delayed the decision again “Put your words in
to 2023.249 Red Flag’s promotional materials,
Unearthed noted, boasts how the firm “won
somebody else’s mouth.”
the single-biggest regulatory and public affairs
campaign in the European Union,” using “non- PR executive Merryl Rose describes
traditional allies.”250 While Red Flag did not the third-party strategy
name Freedom to Farm and its campaign to
protect glyphosate, that’s the implication:
“Red Flag leveraged these efforts on identified The tactic of using third-party allies dates back
targets through media and direct engagement to the dawn of the public relations industry
to ultimately change votes in a key committee at the turn of the last century and Edward
in Brussels to bring about a win for our client.”251 Bernays, a nephew of Sigmund Freud. Long
considered the father of modern-day public
The PR machine behind Freedom to Farm is relations, Bernays worked for various political
just one example of how companies use third- and corporate interests to shift public opinion
party allies to push messaging that seems like in ways that often left the public unaware they
it’s coming from independent sources. Internal were being influenced, or nudged, at all. In one
Monsanto documents make clear that the of his earliest campaigns, Bernays hired a team
company relied on a wide range of such third- of doctors in 1913 to promote the benefits of
party allies to disseminate its messaging on bacon for breakfast. Bernays did not disclose
glyphosate. While many of these industry allies that the doctors he hired were paid by the pork
present themselves to the public as independent industry. As historian Alan Brandt noted about
authorities on pesticides and GMOs, the Bernays’ work, “the best public relations work
documents tie their messaging — and in many left no fingerprints.”252
cases their funding — back to Monsanto.
“Put your words in somebody else’s mouth,”
is how Merryl Rose, an executive at the PR
Taxonomy of Third-Party Allies firm Porter Novelli, sums up this third-party
strategy.253 Monsanto’s internal documents
z Astroturf groups — seemingly led by provide a rare window into how the company
grassroots activists when they’re actually moved its product-defense messaging through
an industry PR construct; many mouths — and name many of the third
z Front groups — presented as neutral, or party allies the company relied on. The reach
as serving the public interst, that actually and influence of these industry allies — and
serve a company of indusry and whose the powerful false impression of independence
funding is often opaque or hidden; they create — cannot be overstated. They are
z Industry spin groups — run by PR an industry unto themselves; an entire sector of
firms of funded by industry groups that the economy devoted to efforts to convince the
disclose their industry funding but do public and policy makers to accept Monsanto’s
not make clear their purpose as PR and spin, and the pesticide industry more broadly.
lobbying arms of industry;
z Science spin and lobby groups
— industry-funded organizations “(T)he best public relations work
conducting or promoting science to
assist with corporate lobbying;
left no fingerprints.
z Professional associations — groups Historian Alan Brandt
that recieve funding from industry and/
or offer industry executives positions of
leadership.
40
The PR Firms Behind the Scenes once involved in an espionage operation
conducted against environmental groups that
The years 2013 and 2014 brought a noticeable opposed hazardous chemicals and GMOs,
uptick in pesticide industry defense efforts, as according to leaked documents reported in
new writers, speakers, and groups emerged, 2008 by James Ridgeway in Mother Jones.259
and existing ally groups accelerated their The documents establish that Beckett Brown
output. The timing was no coincidence, and International (BBI), a private security firm
no mystery: In spring 2013, a few months that worked extensively with Ketchum, “spied
after California voters narrowly defeated a on Greenpeace and other environmental
ballot initiative to label genetically engineered organizations from the late 1990s through at
foods, the pesticide industry announced a least 2000, pilfering documents from trash
new PR offensive to rehabilitate the image of bins, attempting to plant undercover operatives
its embattled GMO and pesticide products. within groups, casing offices, collecting
Monsanto selected PR firm FleishmanHillard phone records of activists, and penetrating
to “reshape” its reputation amid “fierce confidential meetings,” Mother Jones reported.
opposition” to GMO foods, according to That Ketchum was using BBI’s services to craft
the Holmes Report.254 FleishmanHillard also PR campaigns for its client Dow Chemical is
became the PR agency of record for Bayer.255 established by an August 1999 “intelligence
analysis” from BBI that Ketchum shared with
In 2013, the Council for Biotechnology its “Dow Global Trends Tracking Team.”260
Information (CBI) — a trade group funded The document details the internal plans and
by Bayer, Corteva (formerly DowDuPont), budgets for environmental and health groups
Syngenta, and BASF — hired Ketchum to lead that were trying to clean up polluted areas and
the GMO Answers campaign, a marketing and reduce toxic chemical exposures from Dow
PR effort to promote GMOs and pesticides products — information that, according to the
using the voices of academics (discussed in memo, was “supplied by confidential sources
Tactic 5). FTI Consulting, along with Red Flag and should be used with great discretion.”
and Lincoln Strategy Group, are also identified
in Monsanto documents and news reports as FTI Consulting, another firm that worked with
key players in Bayer and Monsanto’s efforts to Monsanto and Bayer to spin the glyphosate
defend glyphosate from cancer concerns. story, is known as a key player in oil and gas
industry efforts to discredit climate change
All these PR firms have histories of using covert science. The firm “drove influence campaigns
tactics to defend polluting industries, including nationwide for Big Oil,” the New York Times
working for tobacco and oil companies. In the reported in 2020.261 FTI’s work for Monsanto,
1980s, for example, FleishmanHillard helped according to internal company documents,
convert a tiny air ventilation company into the included trying to discredit Carey Gillam’s book
Healthy Buildings Institute, a promotional group about Monsanto’s herbicide business.262 And in
that received hundreds of thousands of dollars May 2019, an employee of FTI Consulting was
from tobacco industry lobbyists “to spread caught posing as a freelance journalist at a
the message that secondhand smoke was a federal Roundup cancer trial in San Francisco.263
symptom, not a cause, of indoor air pollution,” The employee, Sylvie Barak, claimed to work
Washington Post reported.256 FleishmanHillard for the BBC as she chatted with reporters and
also used espionage tactics against public suggested story angles.264, 265 It was not the
health and tobacco control advocates, sending first time FTI staff were caught pretending to
industry spies to conferences and secretly tape be journalists. As the Climate Docket reported,
recording sessions despite explicit instructions in January 2019, two FTI Consulting employees
from conference organizers not to do so, “posed as journalists in an attempt to interview
according to a study by Ruth Malone in the an attorney representing Colorado communities
American Journal of Public Health. 257 that are suing Exxon for climate change-related
damages.”266 FTI Consulting also has a long
Ketchum — owned by the same parent history of working with the tobacco industry,
company, Omnicom, as FleishmanHillard — according to the Tobacco Control Research
also did work for the tobacco industry and Group.267
has a history of subterfuge.258 The firm was
41
Monsanto’s many partners 5. International Food Information Council
(IFIC) and Foundation
To give a sense of the scope of these third- 6. Science Literacy Project/Genetic Literacy
party efforts, we analyzed the publicly available Project
financial records of seven of the groups named
as key allies in Monsanto documents detailing 7. Sense About Science
company efforts to defend glyphosate-based
Roundup herbicides:268 (In addition to these seven non-profit
organizations, other specific groups named
1. Academics Review in the documents we reviewed include
2. American Council for Science and Health Biofortified, Inc., Global Farmer Network, and
(ACSH) the Science Media Centre; these groups are
not included in our financial analysis due to
3. Center for Food Integrity (CFI) and the the lack of publicly available IRS 990 financial
Foundation for Food Integrity disclosures.)
4. GMO Answers/Council for Biotechnology
Information (CBI)
2015-2019
Total Expenses for Key Trade Groups, Front Groups, and Other
$1,447,446,036
Key Third-Party Allies
*Until 2014 was filing as Statistical Assessment Service **Known as Grocery Manufacturers Association until 2019
All expenses are pulled from publicly available IRS Form 990s. Where fiscal year doesn’t follow the calendar year, the reporting
uses the end month of the calendar year.
42
Based on the available data, these third-party, While glyphosate defense is only part of the
non-profit organizations Monsanto tapped budgets of these organizations — in some
for glyphosate defense spent more than $76.1 cases a small part — the size of their budgets,
million during the five-year period, starting the taken together, conveys what a huge industry
year of the IARC ruling, 2015, through 2019. this sector and these trade associations are.
(See Appendix I). These budgets reflect the resources available
to be marshaled for promoting and lobbying
Well-resourced industry trade associations to deregulate the chemical-intensive farming
are also named in key Monsanto internal practices and ultra-processed food products at
documents to be tapped for glyphosate the heart of our industrial food chain.
defense. These include:
Deploying partners to protect
1. Biotechnology Innovation Organization
(BIO) Roundup
2. CropLife America (CLA) To explore how these third-party allies
3. Consumer Brands Association (CBA), engaged in the spin around glyphosate-based
formerly Grocery Manufacturers herbicides, we reviewed documents that lay
Association (GMA) out the network of organizations the company
tapped, particularly in response to IARC’s
4. National Corn Growers Association classification of glyphosate as a probable
(NCGA) human carcinogen.269 In a confidential memo
5. American Soybean Association (ASA) from February 23, 2015, a month before IARC
6. American Chemistry Council and its issued its report, Monsanto described its
Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health “preparedness and engagement plan.” The
Research (CAPHR) company’s goal? “Protect the reputation and
FTO [freedom to operate] of Roundup” and
“provide cover for regulatory agencies.”270
Together, these trade associations spent a total To push back against the IARC cancer
of $1.37 billion over this same five-year period, classification, the plan assigned more than 20
advancing their sector’s agenda, including Monsanto staffers to a range of jobs including:
the defense of pesticides like glyphosate. “neutralize impact of decision,” “ensure MON
(Along with these five trade associations, the POV [Monsanto Point of View]” and “lead
documents also named CropLife International voice” on “outrage” over the IARC decision.
(CLI) and the European Crop Protection
Association (ECPA), whose budgets are not The memo named four tiers of “industry
included in these totals). partners” that could disseminate the company’s
messaging:
While some of these expenses may be
duplicative because, as we discuss, some of 1. trade groups like CropLife with ties to
these trade groups have funded some of these powerful Washington DC lobby groups
non-profit initiatives, it is still worth remarking with success in blocking policy and
on the scale of these expenses. Combined, from regulation;
2015 to 2019, seven of the non-profit groups
and six of the trade groups named in Monsanto 2. “science” groups that claim to be
PR documents pertaining to glyphosate independent from corporate interests,
defense spent over $1.45 billion on total though the documents clearly tie their
operations, including on marketing, advertising, strategies and messaging to Monsanto;
lobbying, and advocacy — work that has helped 3. “consumer trust” groups funded by food
shape the narratives informing regulations of and pesticide companies that work to
pesticides and biotech seeds, most of which as convince consumers to accept processed
of this writing are genetically modified with the foods and pesticides;
trait for glyphosate resistance. 4. groups representing industrial corn and
soy growers.
43
Monsanto’s PR plan for the IARC glyphosate report named four tiers of “industry partners” the company planned to engage in its
efforts to “protect Roundup.”
In the following section, we describe some established with backing from Monsanto and
of the strategies and groups named in these other leading pesticide firms. Tax records
internal documents and showcase the range also show that most of the funding for
of tactics Monsanto used to spin its messaging Academics Review came from the Council
about the safety of glyphosate and GMO seeds for Biotechnology Information (CBI), a
designed to tolerate the chemical. While these trade group of pesticide firms. Between
examples relate specifically to glyphosate, 2014-2016, CBI donated $650,000 to
they are common pesticide industry defense Academics Review,274more than 80 percent
strategies. of the organization’s spending in those years.
($790,000 in reported expenses).275
In February 2015, when Monsanto needed help “Each and every day, we work hard
defending glyphosate, the company named
Academics Review among the “industry
to prove our worth to companies
partners” it planned to engage. And Academics such as Monsanto.”
Review joined the chorus of messengers trying
to downplay cancer concerns, with a March Gil Ross, American Council on
2015 post that gave the IARC report a failing Science and Health
grade of “F.”281
45
Monsanto’s Daniel Goldstein pitches his colleagues on funding the American Council on Science and Health.
was already engaged in a “full-court press” Monsanto…”290 Later that same day, Goldstein
against IARC over the agency’s cancer rulings informed Ross that Monsanto would send the
on pesticides, phthalates, and diesel exhaust.288 donation. “Great news. Thanks Dan,” Ross
In an email to his Monsanto colleagues, responded. He then asked for information
Goldstein championed ACSH, writing, “While about IARC and glyphosate.291 In the wake
I would love to have more friends and more of these email exchanges, ACSH attacked
choices, we don’t have a lot of supporters and the IARC report as “Glyphosate-Gate: IARC’s
we can’t afford to lose the few we have…” To Scientific Fraud.”292 ACSH’s president at the
show how ACSH could be effective in shaping time, Hank Campbell, penned many more
the discourse, Goldstein shared links to 53 attacks on IARC and scientists who wrote
blogs, two books, and a pesticide review he critically about glyphosate and published them
described as “EXTREMELY USEFUL” (emphasis on his “Science 2.0” website.”293,294,295
in original). Goldstein acknowledged problems
with ACSH’s reputation, writing, “I am well ACSH, like Academics Review, is one of several
aware of the challenges with ACSH… I can groups identified in Monsanto documents as
assure you I am not all starry eyed about a third-party ally the company reached out
ACSH- they have PLENTY of warts- but: You to for its glyphosate defense needs. These
WILL NOT GET A BETTER VALUE FOR YOUR groups, including Sense About Science,
DOLLAR than ACSH”.289 (emphasis in original). the Science Media Centre, and the Genetic
Literacy Project, all promoted common
Ross defended Monsanto’s investments in messaging about glyphosate and pesticides
ACSH, at one point confiding to Goldstein that more generally: downplaying or denying
“it does get frustrating at times when we feel environmental and health concerns and arguing
as though we can’t count on the unrestricted that glyphosate and other pesticide industry
support of a company like Monsanto — whose products do not need to be regulated.296, 297, 298
products and technologies are constantly (In Tactic 4, we take a closer look at how these
vilified by activist groups but heralded by groups, especially the Genetic Literacy Project,
ACSH. Each and every day, we work hard played a key role in attacking the scientists who
to prove our worth to companies such as raised cancer concerns about glyphosate.)
46
Dr. Nina Fedoroff, second from right, appears at the ACSH press conference to promote their “junk science” book.
47
Rallying the food industry to front group Academics Review; David Zaruk,
a former pesticide industry lobbyist; and Keith
defend pesticides Solomon, a toxicologist who had received funds
from Monsanto for a paper that downplayed
Another powerful third-party ally Monsanto
concerns about glyphosate’s genotoxicity.307
used to defend glyphosate: the world’s largest
(Some of the content and images in IFIC blogs,
processed food companies. Internal documents
such as this image of a woman with a Post-It
show Monsanto’s plan to use a “Stakeholder
on her forehead, were removed or edited after
Engagement team” in the wake of the IARC
U.S. Right to Know published a fact sheet about
ruling to help disseminate Monsanto’s point
IFIC describing internal emails showing how
of view to the food industry. The team was
the group works with corporations on product
composed of two industry-funded spin groups
defense campaigns.)308
— the Center for Food Integrity and the
International Food Information Council (IFIC)
IFIC’s product-defense messaging defending
— and the Grocery Manufacturers Association
glyphosate is part of a broader effort to
(GMA), the food industry’s largest trade group.
support the interests of the processed food,
(The GMA rebranded itself as the Consumer
beverage and chemical companies that fund
Brands Association in 2020.) According
the group. A 2022 study co-authored by U.S.
to internal documents, the Stakeholder
Right to Know found that IFIC is “central
Engagement team could share Monsanto’s
to promoting industry-favorable content in
“inoculation” strategy for food companies,
defense of products facing potentially negative
emphasizing the low levels of glyphosate in
press.”309
food and framing the IARC cancer report as an
“agenda-driven hypotheses” at odds with the
In one resource, IFIC pushes the message that
“science-based studies” Monsanto preferred.304
low levels of pesticide residues on food do not
pose a health threat by pointing consumers to
IFIC’s message about glyphosate, and
its “safe produce” calculator.310 Consumers are
pesticides in general, echoed Monsanto’s
invited to click on a type of food, for example
narrative. In the wake of the IARC ruling, IFIC’s
strawberries, to learn that “a woman could
“food insight” website offered product-defense
consume 453 servings of strawberries in one
blog entries including “Cutting Through the
day without any effect even if the strawberries
Clutter on Glyphosate”305 and “8 Crazy Ways
have the highest pesticide residue recorded
They’re Trying to Scare You About Fruits
for strawberries by USDA.”311 The analysis is
and Vegetables.”306 IFIC advised women not
based on a report funded by the Alliance for
to “freak out” about glyphosate, but rather
Food and Farming, a trade association that
“listen to the experts… the real experts.” These
represents large conventional grower groups
“experts” promoted in IFIC blogs included
that rely on pesticides.312 Their messaging
Val Giddings, the former vice president of the
leaves out crucial context about how
BIO trade association who helped set up the
government safety standards fail to account
for the long-term health risks of exposure to
multiple pesticide residues found on fruits
and vegetables sold in the U.S.313 Scientists
have raised concerns especially about the
documented health risks of pesticides for
children.314 Groups like IFIC are well funded to
produce messaging and materials designed
to persuade the public that pesticides and
chemical additives in food do not pose a health
risk. Between 2013 and 2017, IFIC spent over
$22 million, according to tax forms filed with
the IRS. Public disclosures show that its funders
include Bayer CropScience, DowDuPont, Coca-
Cola, and many processed food companies.315
How IFIC messages to women. This image was removed from
the IFIC website after USRTK wrote about it.
48
IFIC’s Dave Schmidt solicits funds from corporate executives on the IFIC Board of Directors. Past supporters of the processed
food promotional materials, he noted, included Bayer, DuPont, Dow and Monsanto.
Internal emails provide more details about million in five years. (See Appendix I.) To give
how IFIC works with these funders. One email a sense of state level spending, in 2017, groups
obtained by U.S. Right to Know reveals that representing corn growers in five Midwestern
IFIC solicited money from corporations to states (Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina
produce specific product-defense materials.316 and South Dakota) spent over $32 million.
In April 2014, the group’s CEO, Dave Schmidt, That Monsanto counted on these groups for
emailed a long list of corporate board members glyphosate messaging support is noted in the
asking for $10,000 contributions to update company’s response plan for the IARC ruling. In
IFIC’s “Understanding Our Food” initiative317 to a section describing efforts to engage industry
improve consumer views of processed foods. partners, the plan states: “inoculate key grower
The email notes previous financial supporters associations.”320 In the wake of the IARC report,
included Bayer, Coca-Cola, Dow, Kraft, Mars, commodity groups issued press statements
McDonalds, Monsanto, Nestle, PepsiCo, and defending glyphosate and trying to preempt
DuPont.318 cancer concerns about other pesticides. For
example, a June 2015 joint press release from
the National Corn Growers’ Association and
Co-opting professional trade the American Soybean Association — both
groups named as third-party allies321 in the Monsanto
documents — accused IARC of creating
Professional organizations for dieticians, “confusion and unnecessary fear amongst
beekeepers, food technologists, farmers, and the public” and using “narrowly-focused data
other groups that represent fields with obvious removed from real-world situations to find
— and sometimes not so obvious — pesticide almost everything that it reviews as potentially
industry connections have also been tapped to carcinogenic.”322 The release also warned that
amplify pesticide industry messaging, including IARC might raise cancer concerns about other
the defense of glyphosate. These groups widely used herbicides, including dicamba and
sometimes receive funding from pesticide 2,4-D. (A couple weeks after its IARC ruling,
companies or include pesticide industry the cancer agency did issue a report on 2,4-
executives in positions of leadership on their D, classifying the widely used herbicide as a
boards or advisory councils. possible human carcinogen.323) For further
information on IARC and its glyphosate report,
Some professional groups spend enormous the trade groups’ joint press release links to a
sums on direct marketing efforts that echo resource from CropLife America, the pesticide
pesticide industry views. Commodity groups,
industry trade group.
such as corn and soy growers’ associations,
spend tens of millions each year on programs
to defend and expand chemical-intensive Influencing journalism groups
corn and soy crops, nearly all of which are
genetically modified to tolerate glyphosate Bayer also exerted influence over journalism
in the U.S.319 Just one of these groups that groups, according to internal emails from 2018.
appears in Monsanto PR materials, the National The emails revealed details of a sponsorship
Corn Growers Association, spent over $108 agreement between Bayer and the U.S. arm
49
of the Foreign Press Association (FPA).324 American Association for the Advancement
The agreement states that Bayer would be of Science (AAAS), the world’s largest
guaranteed that “selection of the honorary multidisciplinary scientific society, to advance
awardees for the Foreign Press Awards should its product-defense messaging.
not be contradictory to Bayer’s strategic
communications plans and initiatives,” and that To give one example of this, a 2015 op-ed for
Bayer would be made “aware in advance about the Guardian opposing the U.S. Right to Know
the honorees of the Foreign Press Awards.” The investigation into the pesticide industry’s ties
company was also promised the Association’s with academic institutions, three former AAAS
annual all-day forums for media professionals presidents touted their affiliation with the
would be on topics “relevant to Bayer’s prestigious scientific organization, but not their
strategic communications goals and priority industry ties.327 Nina Fedoroff, Peter Raven,
(for example agriculture, or any other issue that and Phillip Sharp decried the public records
matter to Bayer)” and that Bayer could help research as “science denialism” and compared
identify “media influencers from the American it to “Climate-gate,” in which climate scientists’
and international community of journalists” emails were illegally hacked — the same
to attend its two main cocktail parties each framing Monsanto front groups were pushing.328
year. In addition, the Association offered to Fedoroff was at that time a Senior Science
organize “three background briefings’’ with Advisor at OFW Law,329 a lobbying firm whose
Bayer representatives and “selected members of clients included pesticide company Syngenta
the international and national press and online and a pesticide industry trade group. The
bloggers” to dive into “topics that fit in Bayer’s Guardian later noted that conflict330 but failed
communications priorities and strategic goals.”325 to include those of her co-authors: Peter Raven
was identified simply as Director Emeritus of
While the FPA has since replaced the executive the Missouri Botanical Garden. That group
director behind these emails, and current counts Monsanto among its “most generous
leadership stands by the group’s independence, benefactors”331 and has a Monsanto Hall and
the internal emails indicate that there had been a Monsanto Center with a Peter H. Raven
widespread support for this kind of industry Library.332 Phillip Sharp, whom MIT Technology
influence. As the FPA’s executive director Review described as “the man who helped
shared with his Bayer contacts in 2018: “I launch biotech,” is the co-founder of two multi-
informed all Board Members of the FPA and billion dollar biotech companies, Biogen and
the FPF [Foreign Press Foundation] about the Alnylam Pharmaceuticals.333
dissatisfaction from Bayer that over the last
couple of years the FPA didn’t deliver as much
as it was expected given that Bayer was one of
the major contributors of our programs. I got “Appearing to be less than
everyone from the two boards to agree that transparent is a really bad idea for
this situation won’t happen again and I got the
full and exclusive authorization from our boards
the scientific community.”
to work with you from my role on the initiatives
I deployed in my previous emails and discussed
AAAS member scientists
over the phone with Chris [from Monsanto] for
2018, 2019 and 2020.”326
This was not the first time Fedoroff used her
position with AAAS to aid Monsanto. In 2012,
Using a prestigious scientific while Fedoroff was chair of the AAAS Board
of Directors, the Board issued a statement
group to promote industry opposing GMO labeling just weeks before
messaging California voters went to the polls to decide
on the issue.334 The Board did not solicit input
Another key industry strategy is to work with
from the scientific society’s 120,000 members,
experts connected to groups that have the
and its statement contained inaccuracies and
veneer of scientific impartiality. We see this in
misleading assertions, according to long-
the way Monsanto used the branding of the
standing AAAS members.335, 336 In a letter to
50
Science magazine AAAS-member scientists as Nature reported in 2013.341 Professional
urged the Board to reconsider their anti- groups such as the Academy of Nutrition and
labeling statement; “appearing to be less than Dietetics, the world’s largest organization
transparent,” they noted, “is a really bad idea of food and nutrition professionals, and
for the scientific community.”337 many others receive funding from pesticide
companies, have industry executives on their
boards, and also provide helpful channels for
More spin groups industry communications.
There are many more spin groups associated
with Monsanto and the pesticide industry The groups discussed in this section all appear
than we can profile here. These include in internal Monsanto documents or in the public
influential nonprofits such as the industry- record as neutral-appearing channels that are
funded International Life Sciences Institute disseminating similar messaging: downplaying
(ILSI), which funds studies helpful to industry the risks of pesticides, ultra-processed foods and
and lobbies for industry interests around the food additives, and working to create a powerful
world.338 The New York Times has described impression on journalists and the public: if all
ILSI as “the most powerful food industry these groups are saying it, mustn’t it be true?
group you’ve never heard of.”339 An influential
nonprofit called the Science Media Centre, In the next section, we focus in on another key
partly funded by corporations, connects tactic Monsanto used to defend glyphosate:
reporters with hand-picked experts that attacking the scientists and others who raised
share industry views on breaking science cancer concerns — and the groups Monsanto
stories involving controversial topics such as relied on to do it.
glyphosate, GMOs, aspartame, cell phones, and
fracking.340 The model of influencing science
reporting is “spreading around the world,”
51
TACTIC 4: Tracking and Attacking Scientists,
Journalists, and Influencers
How activist scientists hijacked IARC for personal profit and ideological vanity
David Zaruk, former chemical industry lobbyist
These and over 200 other articles about IARC appear on the Genetic Literacy Project website. A 2015 Monsanto PR plan listed
Genetic Literacy Project as one of the “industry partners” that could help protect Roundup from cancer concerns raised by IARC.
Engaging climate science denialists Indeed, several GLP posts attacking the IARC
scientists were written by individuals with long
The efforts of Jon Entine and his Genetic histories of defending polluting industries.
Literacy Project to discredit scientists who These include not just Kabat, but also David
raised cancer concerns about glyphosate Zaruk,379 a chemical industry lobbyist;380 and
echo the playbook Marc Moreno used to raise Paul Dreissen,381 a well-known climate denialist
doubts about climate science: “name names” and senior policy advisor at the Committee for
and “go after individuals.” The parallels do a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), the parent
not end there: despite GLP’s claims to stand group of Moreno’s Climate Depot.
for “science not ideology,” its funding sources
trace back to some of the largest, most In service of the anti-IARC messaging, well
consistent funders of climate science denial. known climate denial groups also echoed
These include the Searle Foundation (which the attacks on the scientists raising concerns
also backs Moreno’s375 ClimateDepot), Scaife about glyphosate. “Congress should stop
Foundation, and Templeton Foundation, which funding the International Agency for Junk
have supported GLP for many years, and more Science,” declared the Competitive Enterprise
recently,376 the Charles Koch Foundation and Institute,382 a “free-market organization
DonorsTrust, a funding organization Mother that disputes climate change is a problem,”
Jones has described as the “dark money according to the New York Times.383 Additional
ATM of the conservative movement.”377 All attacks on IARC scientists came from the
these are leading funders of climate science Heartland Institute,384 the Cato Institute,385
disinformation campaigns, according to a and CFACT386 — all groups that have received
2013 study by sociologist Robert Brulle. These funding from oil companies and foundations
foundations have “bank-rolled denial,” Brulle that have supported climate science
wrote, and they “promote ultra-free-market disinformation.
ideas in many realms.”378
54
Influencing media narratives to documents was Monsanto’s media relations
executive Sam Murphey. In an April 27, 2017
discredit scientists email to Kelland, Murphey included not only
Blair’s testimony but also suggestions for how
The holy grail of PR spin is free media in your
to frame the story, along with a slide deck
favor. In the case of the IARC ruling, a series of
and talking points for a suggested article
articles critical of the cancer research group
about how “IARC chair concealed crucial
appeared in the international wireservice
data” and “concealed data undermines IARC’s
Reuters between 2016 and 2018, and gave
conclusions.”394, 395 The email also included
a boost to Monsanto’s campaign to defend
a request that the information be treated as
glyphosate. Thanks to internal documents the
background material, and not reveal Monsanto
public can now see how Monsanto and its PR
as the source. When Reuters published
firm Red Flag worked to shape the stories that
Kelland’s article critical of Blair and IARC two
were reported by Kate Kelland, a longtime
months later, the article was centered around
correspondent for Reuters. One email from a
those Monsanto talking points, but did not
Red Flag employee to Monsanto notes, “You’ll
disclose that information had been provided by
recall that following engagement by Red Flag
Monsanto.396
a number of months ago, the first piece [in
Reuters] was quite critical of IARC.”387 The
IARC defended its glyphosate assessment and
email indicates that the PR team helpwed
pushed back against Reuters’ reporting with
Kelland find an anonymous source388 to criticize
a statement explaining that the panel does
IARC and also offered her exclusive materials.389
not consider unpublished and unfinished data
In another case, Kelland shared an article about
in its assessments.397 IARC also noted that
glyphosate with Monsanto executives before it
Monsanto had paid a consulting fee to a key
went to print.390
source Kelland used for her article, Bob Tarone,
industry influence that was not disclosed in
The most influential of Kelland’s articles ran in
the reporting. While Reuters later did add a
June 2017, claiming that the chair of the IARC
note about the conflict of interest, no other
glyphosate panel, Aaron Blair, withheld key
corrections were made. (Kelland has not
data in the panel’s glyphosate assessment.391
responded to requests for comment on these
Had that data been included, the article
critiques.)
claimed, the panel would have been less likely
to have designated glyphosate a probable
Kelland’s reporting continues to circulate on
human carcinogen. The story reverberated
social media and has appeared in paid ads on
around the world with reprints and reports
Google and Facebook. It also won the 2017
lifted from the article appearing in many
Science Story of the Year Award from the
leading newspapers and even progressive
Foreign Press Association. (There is no direct
outlets such as Mother Jones.392
evidence the award was influenced by Bayer,
but the evidence described earlier about
Questions about Kelland’s reporting began
Bayer’s sponsorship deal with the Foreign Press
surfacing shortly after publication, however.
Association raises questions about the group’s
Kelland had characterized her source as “court
impartiality.)
documents” from a deposition Blair had given
in a Monsanto legal case. But the deposition
was not filed in court, and Kelland did not
provide her readers with access to the original
documents, so it was initially impossible to
verify her claims. Carey Gillam, a former Reuters’
reporter who worked for U.S. Right to Know at
the time, gained access to the documents, and
reported how Blair’s full testimony contradicted
key claims in Kelland’s article.393
The “Project Spruce” spreadsheet shows how Monsanto and FTI planned to ask third-party allies to write negative reviews about
Carey Gillam’s book that is critical of glyphosate.
57
Deploying women to attack “alarmist” concerns about toxic chemicals
in food. A 2016 IWF podcast encourages
organic food “reasonable moms” to push back on organic
“food alarmism.”423 That same year, IWF asked
Another tool in the corporate attack toolbox:
Monsanto to contribute $43,000 to a “Super
recruit women to go after “organic moms”
Women of Science” lecture series designed
and other concerned citizens who are trying
to undercut support for a California law to
to cut down on exposures of glyphosate
label toxic chemicals in food and consumer
and other pesticides. Why target mothers?
products.424
According to Pew research, 80 percent of
women with children do most of the food
Founded in 1993, IWF spent $3 million in 2019
shopping and most of the meal preparation in
toward its mission to “engage more individuals
their households (for women with spouses but
in the civic process, educate them about the
no children, the number was 68 percent for
impact of public policies on their lives and
shopping and 75 percent for meal prep).419 And
our economy, and build support for policies
market trends are clear: demand for organic
that empower individuals.”425 This mission
food continues to outpace conventional
belies the group’s actual work: serving the
foods that allow synthetic pesticides, with
interests of corporate donors like Monsanto
many consumers citing health concerns
and foundations like the Scaife Foundation,
about pesticides as their reason for choosing
Searle Freedom Trust, and DonorsTrust that
organic.420As Fortune magazine reported
heavily back deregulation of toxic industries
in 2015, concerns over pesticides, GMOs,
and climate science denial.426
antibiotics and food additives — led by moms
and millennials — were driving an “$18-billion
Monsanto and Bayer have also allied with a
food revolution” with demand shifting away
particular genre of female writers and public
from conventional food companies.421, 422
speakers: “science communicators” who claim
to correct misinformation about chemical risks.
Monsanto and other pesticide companies have
The Washington Post featured “Sci Babe” in a
pushed back by teaming up with groups and
2018 column about “skeptics” who are “using
writers who disparage these concerns. In 2017,
science to fight a wave of bad nutrition advice
for example, Monsanto partnered with the non-
on the Internet.”427 SciBabe also took up the
profit Independent Women’s Forum (IWF)
glyphosate debate for Self magazine. “Should
on a “Food and Fear” lecture series, during
you worry about herbicides in your food? …
which speakers encouraged women to ignore
Nope,” she concluded, claiming, inaccurately,
that “no studies have found a causal link
between glyphosate and cancer.”428 Neither Self
nor the Washington Post mentioned SciBabe’s
conflicts of interest, including that her talks
have been sponsored by Monsanto and DuPont
or that she had a contract with the artificial
sweetener company Splenda to “debunk junk
science” about artificial sweeteners.429
58
this genre include Ag Daily writers “Farmer’s Michele Payn, describes herself as a “kickboxing
Daughter USA,” the corporate-side attorney professional speaker” and also “a mom tired
Amanda Zaluckyj;431, and Michelle Miller, the of food bullies and keyboard cowards.”437 Her
“Farm Babe,” a “writer and public speaker for book claims to reveal the “$5.75 trillion secret”
agriculture” who “reaches millions on social food marketers don’t want you to know — that
media,” according to AgriPulse.432 The “Foodie organically grown, low-pesticide, non-GMO,
Farmer”433 and “Hawaii Farmer’s Daughter”434 unprocessed foods made without chemical
(a one-time Cornell Alliance for Science fellow) additives are no better for your health and
are more examples. the environment. Payne advises mothers to
“stand up to the bullies” and “simplify safe
More broadly than glyphosate defense, these food choices” by not worrying about risks like
writers serve up similar messaging fare: they pesticides.
argue that synthetic chemicals in food are
nothing to worry about, heap scorn on the Praise for Payn’s book came from many of the
organic food industry and public interest pesticide defenders who appear in this report:
groups, and oppose efforts to increase University of Florida Professor Kevin Folta,438
transparency or restrict hazardous chemicals former biotech trade association executive Val
in food or farming — often under the banner Giddings,439 Monsanto employees Cami Ryan440
of “freedom for women.” The tactic harkens (social sciences lead) and Robb Fraley441 (former
back to one of Edward Bernays most famous chief technology officer) and the Genetic
stealth PR efforts, the “Torches for Freedom” Literacy Project.442 A page on Payn’s website
campaign to eliminate the social taboo of entitled “Speaking and Training” offers various
women smoking — and thus increase sales for “keynotes for agriculture” and “workshops for
his tobacco industry clients. Bernays’s salvo farm, ranch and ag” options. Clients, the page
opened on March 31, 1929 when a woman notes, include Bayer and Syngenta.443
named Bertha Hunt stepped out onto a
crowded street at New York’s Easter Parade Another example: a 2018 film called Science
and created a scandal by lighting a Lucky Moms,444 produced by a group of “Sci Moms”
Strike cigarette.435 The contrived stunt that was who say their purpose is to promote “evidence-
made to look spontaneous and independent is based parenting” and “facts not fear” about
widely considered to be one of the first public chemical risks.445 The film was “funded
relations campaigns. independently by Kickstarter,” according to the
Sci Moms website, and among the donors listed
The same “freedom for women” framing also in the credits: employees of Monsanto, Syngenta,
plays out in the pesticide debate. One example and the Cornell Alliance for Science.446 The film
is a 2019 book Food Bullying.436 The author, gives special thanks to Vance Crowe, Monsanto’s
director of millennial engagement at the time.
One Monsanto document notes how its Fusion involved developing “foundational messages”
Center tracked the singer Neil Young who was to frame USRTK FOIA requests as an attack on
critical of the company in songs appearing in scientists and posting the messages on GMO
his 2015 album The Monsanto Years. According Answers, the industry-funded website run by
to an email from a Monsanto official reported Ketchum public relations firm discussed below.
by The Guardian, the company’s Fusion Center In the case of “1 tweet from Gary Ruskin,”
“evaluated the lyrics on (Young’s) album to a “tailored statement” would be posted on
develop a list of 20+ potential topics he may GMOAnswers.com, but not promoted. In the
target” and created a plan to “proactively case of “More than one day of social volume”
produce content and response preparedness.” at “50+ tweets,” the company detailed plans
They were also “closely monitoring discussions” to promote the GMO Answers response on
about a concert featuring Young, Willie Nelson, Facebook and Twitter along with “Google
John Mellencamp and Dave Matthews.461 promotion around potential search terms.”
In 2016, the Fusion Center was also tracking The example shows the intense level of scrutiny
Rachel Parent, a Canadian teenager who and planning Monsanto brought to product
had founded the GMO labeling advocacy defense and its efforts to counter critics. In the
group Kids Right to Know. Internal emails next section we look at how they wield their
show that Andy Shaul, director of corporate power and attempt to control messaging and
engagement for the Monsanto Fusion Center, reporting about pesticides online.
sent background reports to his colleagues
about Parent and other women who planned
to attend the company’s annual shareholder
meeting to raise concerns about glyphosate.
The emails discuss how to address the
teenager’s crowdfunding campaign (which
had raised just $250 at the time of his emails).
Monsanto’s Shaul also shared comments one
of the women made on a Huffington Post
blog and a video clip that “might be useful in
preparing for her personality.”462
61
TACTIC 5: Weaponizing the Web
“Think of the internet as a weapon on the table. Either you pick it up or your
competitor does — but somebody is going to get killed.”
Presentation by Jay Byrne, Monsanto’s former director of corporate communications, quoting Michael S.
Dell, founder and CEO of Dell Computer Corporation463
When Edward Bernays designed PR campaigns the company’s fingerprints. That is especially
for his clients in the 1920s and the decades true online, where search engines serve up
that followed, he didn’t have the tools that help corporate messaging from independent-
today’s corporate clients reach millions, even appearing sources, and messengers appear
billions, with a stroke of a few keys: the internet seemingly spontaneously across social media
and social media. Today, as more people get platforms to attack journalists, scientists, and
their news and information from social media, others who pose a threat to the company or
blogs, and seemingly independent online news the pesticide industry more broadly. Internal
and information sites like WebMD, companies Monsanto documents point to an inner circle of
like Monsanto, now Bayer, have developed messengers — including Byrne, now president
many new stealth tactics to shape online public of a PR firm called v-Fluence Interactive —
discourse. who coordinate an echo chamber of third-
party allies to disseminate messaging laid out
Monsanto has been honing its skills in this in Monsanto/Bayer PR plans. Here we take a
arena for decades. In 2002, Jay Byrne, closer look at how some of those groups wield
Monsanto’s then director of internet outreach, influence online.
helped influence online debates about
genetically engineered foods with the help of
“fake citizens” — people who did not actually Monsanto loving ‘science’
exist who were “bombarding internet listservs
websites
with messages denouncing the scientists
and environmentalists who were critical Anyone looking for articles on the topic of
of GM crops,” according to reporting by “IARC and glyphosate” might first try searching
George Monbiot in the Guardian.464 In a pitch those terms in Google News. If they did so on
to industry groups in 2001,465 the Guardian October 14, 2021, they would have found that
reported, Byrne described “how, before he four of the top 10 “news” results came from
got to work, the top GM sites listed by an one source: the American Council on Science
internet search engine were all critical of the and Health (ACSH), a well-known industry front
technology. Following his intervention, the top group described in Tactic 3. Headlines for those
sites were all supportive ones” and several of ACSH articles included, “The Emperor —IARC
those sites had been established by a Monsanto — Has No Clothes,” and “Glyphosate Doesn’t
PR firm, Bivings.466 Cause Cancer.”467, 468 The internal emails we
reported on in Tactic 3 revealed that Monsanto
As we have shown throughout this report, had paid ACSH to help try to discredit IARC’s
Monsanto has worked with a wide range of findings on the carcinogenicity of glyphosate.
third-party allies to spread its product-defense
messaging, using stealth tactics that make it Another “news” source turned up in the top
difficult, and at times impossible, to detect spot of a Google News search in February
62
2020 for the terms “glyphosate and cancer”:
Science 2.0. The website promotes itself with
the tagline, “The world’s best scientists. The
internet’s smartest readers.” Its owner, Hank
Campbell, was president of the Monsanto-
funded ACSH until December 2018. A few
weeks prior to Campbell’s departure from
ACSH, Charles Seife, a professor of journalism
at New York University, posted documents
that offer insights into the high visibility of
websites connected to Campbell. In a Twitter
thread he called “Mapping a Monsanto-Loving
Octopus,” Seife explained that, in 2016, ACSH
paid $60,000 to ION Publications, which
owned science blogging websites including
Science 2.0 and Science Codex.469 The payment
was for promotional services to increase traffic
to the ACSH.org website, according to tax
records.470 The owner of ION Publications was
ACSH’s Campbell. In 2018, Campbell expanded
his ring of science-focused websites when he
converted Science 2.0 into a non-profit and
acquired another popular blogging website,
ScienceBlogs.com.
Over a three-year period from 2019 to 2021, In a Google News search for those keywords
we conducted multiple keyword searches on on February 14, 2020, for example, six of the
topics related to glyphosate, other pesticides, top 10 returns were from Genetic Literacy
and genetically engineered foods and found Project and all with content that downplayed
that a small group of Monsanto-connected concerns about glyphosate. As we highlighted
“science communicators” has dominated the earlier, internal Monsanto documents and
algorithm for Google News searches, leading public record results showcase that the Genetic
to high-ranking results. Industry influence of Literacy Project has been an important entity
63
in Monsanto-coordinated PR and lobbying
campaigns, particularly in pushing personal
attacks on scientists who raised cancer Six of 10 top Google “News”
concerns about glyphosate. search returns for a scientist’s
The Genetic Literacy Project links with high name were attacks from Monsanto
Google News ranking included headlines that front groups.
align with talking points laid out in Monsanto’s
PR glyphosate defense plan. For example, a
top “news” return was a headline claiming reporting (for news) and trustworthy resources
“activists” were pushing a “conspiracy claim” (for general searches). Secondly, most people
about the toxicity of glyphosate surfactants.474 do not click lower ranking results, even on
The article was written by Cameron English, the first page of returns let alone past page
former managing editor of Genetic Literacy one. So, ensuring articles and links appear
Project who now works for ACSH.475 The high in search returns makes a huge impact
timing of his article coincided with Bayer’s on visibility. One recent study by Sistrix, a
efforts to end the Roundup litigation and offer Search Engine Optimization software company,
a $10 billion settlement with cancer victims found that in a 2020 analysis of billions of
who had sued Monsanto claiming exposure to search results, 28.5 percent of people click
glyphosate-based Roundup caused them to the very first result in a Google Search, with
develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma.476 click-through rates falling considerably past
that: Second and third place rankings had only
Additional searches found a range of industry-
a 15 and 11 percent click-through rate (CTR),
aligned and industry-funded messages and
respectively.478 By the tenth result, the CTR is
messengers rising to the top of Google News.
just 2.5 percent, with virtually no one moving
For a February 25, 2020 search for “Chris
on to the second page.
Portier,” a scientist who served on the IARC
glyphosate panel, five of the first six Google
News returns were articles attacking his Driving traffic to pro-industry
credibility. Two of these were from the Genetic
Literacy Project, one was from ACSH, and
messaging
another was from the ACSH-connected Science One of the strategies Genetic Literacy Project
2.0. Another top result was a link to a Forbes uses to get these high-ranking results is
column by Geoffrey Kabat, the epidemiologist to republish content of mainstream news
mentioned in Tactic 3 who has a history of articles. The website pulls articles from a
defending tobacco industry interests, and who range of outlets, ensuring a continual fresh
also serves on the board of Genetic Literacy stream of content. Importantly, GLP changes
Project’s parent group. headlines, condenses content, adds graphics,
and emphasizes specific keywords (such as
According to Google, its news search “helps
glyphosate) in headlines. The website also
you learn about what’s happening in the
sometimes adds promotional content to
world through an organized experience of top
emphasize product-defense messaging, while
stories, articles, videos and more” and the “Top
linking back to the original news outlet. These
stories feature aims to display relevant, high-
practices elevate the site’s Search Engine
quality results for a news topic.”477 But these
Optimization (SEO),479 helping vault Genetic
findings raise questions about the credibility
Literacy Project’s industry-friendly messages
of the “high-quality results.” Our searches for
to the top of the Google News search. As
keywords important to Monsanto and now
an example: in Google News searches for
Bayer, and the pesticide industry more broadly,
“glyphosate and cancer” conducted 11 days
indicate that industry front groups are elevating
apart (on February 14 and February 25, 2020)
corporate messaging over legitimate news to
six of the top 10 returns on both dates were
the top of the search results.
from Genetic Literacy Project or the ACSH-
This search domination is critically important connected Science 2.0. Several of these were
for two key reasons: Many people may presume reposts of articles lifted from other news
that Google results provide links to legitimate outlets and reprinted by Genetic Literacy
64
Project in condensed form. Reposts included
articles from the Wall Street Journal, Reuters,
Bloomberg Law, and USA Today, posted
with new headlines and some text cut to
emphasize or downplay particular themes.
For instance, a 33-paragraph Bloomberg Law
article by Stephen Gardner — titled “Four
Pesticides Could Show U.K.s Post-Brexit
Regulation Plans”480 — is condensed to five
non-consecutive paragraphs in Genetic Literacy
Project with a different headline (naming
glyphosate and neonicotinoids) and missing
context, yet still carrying the reporter’s byline.
The reprint does not include, for example, a
paragraph explaining the controversy in the EU
over glyphosate safety and a pending ban in
Luxembourg.481
Genetic Literacy Project also makes frequent To give another example of how the Genetic
use of “Editor’s notes” to promote its own Literacy Project alters content to emphasize
content. For example, a February 11, 2020 particular messaging, consider the excerpt
press release from the State of California from a January 28, 2020 BBC article by Emma
Department of Justice describes an amicus Woollacot, titled “Zap! How microwaves and
brief filed by the state arguing that federal laws electricity are killing weeds.”485 The reprint
should not preempt California laws requiring is retitled: “Glyphosate herbicide cancer
warnings on cancer-causing chemicals.483 fears could turn electricity, microwaves into
GLP reprinted the press release under the viable weed-killing tools,” and leads with a
byline of then California Attorney General paragraph that appears later in the piece.486
Xavier Becerra, but added an “Editor’s note” The actual opening to Woollacot’s article was
in bold near the top: “Most experts, including not as helpful to pesticide industry messaging:
EPA regulators, don’t share California’s view Woollacot began by explaining that the weed-
that glyphosate causes cancer. The agency zapping machines are part of an effort to
therefore told California in August 2019 that it clean up parks by “doing away with potentially
would be “irresponsible” to put a warning label dangerous weedkillers.” The repost also
on the herbicide.”484 The note includes links to includes a GLP Editor’s note: “Most experts say
two Genetic Literacy Project articles. glyphosate probably doesn’t cause cancer.”
65
Monsanto’s “Let Nothing Go” tracking key influencers, volume and tone
of conversation, and other social and media
strategy metrics in six European countries.490
“Let Nothing Go” was Monsanto’s strategy to
respond to any and all media coverage and PR firm “balances” online
social media posts involving the company or
its products.487 As plaintiff’s lawyers in one conversation
case against the company described, Monsanto One of the strategies Monsanto/Bayer and
was determined “to leave nothing, not even other pesticide companies developed to
Facebook comments, unanswered” — a sort influence online conversations is GMO Answers.
of “broken windows” approach to shaping the Though the effort was clearly a marketing
public narrative on GMOs and pesticides.488 and PR campaign launched in 2013 by PR
The lawyers further explained how Monsanto firm Ketchum,491 the GMO Answers website
“employs individuals who appear to have described itself as a “transparency” initiative.492
no connection to the industry, who in turn The initiative centers around a website that
post positive comments on news articles and looks like a definitive source of information and
Facebook posts, defending Monsanto, its features the voices of experts enlisted to build
chemicals, and GMOs.” The court brief calls public trust in GMOs and the pesticides used to
out the Genetic Literacy Project and American grow them. These experts, however, have been
Council on Science and Health specifically, handpicked by Ketchum, the industry-funded
describing them as “organizations intended PR firm running the site. Tax records show that
to shame scientists and highlight information the Council for Biotechnology Information,
helpful to Monsanto and other chemical a trade group funded by Bayer, Syngenta,
producers.”489 BASF, DowDupont, and formerly Monsanto,
paid Ketchum over $14 million between
The “Let Nothing Go” strategy was to dominate 2014 and 2018 to conduct GMO Answers.493
social media and online fora to reframe the (CropLife International, the pesticide industry
conversation about glyphosate, and GMOs trade association, has since taken over the
generally, pushing back on all reporters, funding.)494
editors, influencers, and others who published
unflattering material about these topics. A Ketchum characterized GMO Answers as an
“Let Nothing Go report” compiled by the PR effort to answer public concerns with “nothing
firm FleishmanHillard for Monsanto in 2017 filtered or censored, and no voice silenced.”
describes how the firm was doing just this: As the St. Louis Post Dispatch reported at the
Aggregated posts from legitimate news sources are embedded with “Editor’s notes” promoting Genetic Literacy Project content.
66
A “Let Nothing Go report” for Monsanto tracks public comments about glyphosate.
time, the top pesticide companies launched the Messaging on the site also mirrors industry
campaign to “help clear up confusion — and talking points, often with industry sources.
dispel mistrust — about their products.”495 On the GMO Answers website, typing in the
question, “Does glyphosate cause cancer?”
The website discloses that it is funded by the yields an answer from Bayer scientist David
largest pesticide firms, but how “filtered” is Saltmiras: “No, glyphosate does not cause
the site’s content? Internal documents reveal cancer. But don’t just take my word for it.
what a heavy hand industry has had in shaping Please also consider statements from multiple
content. In one example, these documents authorities who reviewed both robust
reveal the specific ways that Monsanto used glyphosate data sets and peer-reviewed
GMO Answers in its glyphosate defense. In its literature.”500 Queries about the IARC cancer
PR plan to protect the company from cancer report on glyphosate elicit an infographic from
concerns related to glyphosate-based Roundup Monsanto’s Cami Ryan (who now works for
herbicides, for example, Monsanto named GMO Bayer) comparing the toxicity of glyphosate
Answers as an “industry partner.” GMO Answers to wine,501 and a quote from Kevin Folta, the
also appears as a key partner in Monsanto’s PR University of Florida professor who worked
plan to discredit the U.S. Right to Know public with Monsanto on PR projects discussed in
records investigation into industry influence Tactic 2, claiming, “Glyphosate is amazingly
on academics.496 And emails obtained by U.S. non-toxic to humans or any other animals.”502
Right to Know via the public records search (Folta now also works for the Bayer-funded
found a number of the “independent” experts Genetic Literacy Project.)503
and groups listed on the GMO Answers website
were receiving funds from Monsanto or were Alongside the website, Ketchum developed
working with the company on PR projects, a social media plan to engage people on
which were not disclosed on the site.497, 498 platforms that were discussing GMOs and bring
These internal records also reveal at least three visitors to the site. Ketchum boasted this work
instances of Ketchum employees working with had a measurable impact on the conversation
professors to ghostwrite content for GMO about GMOs online. In a promotional video
Answers.499 about GMO Answers, Ketchum noted:
“On Twitter, where we closely monitor the
67
conversation, we’ve successfully balanced “A Win for GMO Trolls,” Nestle announced
80 percent of interactions with detractors.” she is no longer accepting comments on her
As a result of this engagement, and the GMO website. “The GMO trolls — people who post
Answers project more generally, Ketchum deliberately hostile comments — have defeated
reported a doubling of “positive media me,” she wrote. “This is not about thoughtful
coverage” about GMOs during its first year of discussion of the scientific, social, and political
operation. In the video, the firm also bragged issues raised by GMOs. This is about personal
about its success in GMO Answers’ position attacks to discredit anyone who raises
on Google search results: Before Ketchum got questions about those issues, as I did.”
to work, “anyone searching for GMOs had to
navigate more than 25 pages of hate before Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of The Black
finding one factual scientific response. We’re Swan, Antifragile, and other bestselling books
now on the first page of search results.”504 on risk management became a target of
GMO trolls after he co-authored a paper in
In 2014, these efforts on behalf of the pesticide 2014 calling for a precautionary approach
industry earned Ketchum recognition for to genetically engineered foods; and a year
its success spinning the media and online later, when he described the GMO endeavor
coverage of the industry’s products: GMO in the New York Times as a “too big to fail”
Answers was shortlisted in the “Public system “vastly riskier” than the 2008 financial
Relations: Crisis and Issue Management” sector meltdown.508, 509 The attacks coming
category for a CLIO Award, a prominent from product-defense groups were swift and
international advertising award.505 familiar: “unintelligible gibberish,” declared
the Competitive Enterprise Institute,510 while
Unleashing the trolls David Ropeik, a risk management consultant
with pesticide industry clients, tried to discredit
Coordinated, aggressive pushback on social Taleb’s paper as “anti-GMO advocacy” via
media is a common experience for people who Twitter and a lengthy article on Medium.511, 512
disagree with pesticide industry narratives Genetic Literacy Project wondered whether
about pesticides and GMOs. In Tactic 4, we Taleb is a “dangerous imbecile in the pay
discussed how attacking critics — often of the anti-GMO mafia.”513 A familiar ring
with ad hominem personal attacks — is a of industry-friendly writers, including the
common product-defense strategy, one that is freelance reporter Keith Kloor514 and Mark
increasingly playing out on social media and in Lynas of Cornell Alliance for Science,515 jumped
other online spaces. in on Twitter to promote these critiques. In
a Facebook post he called “How to Argue
In one example from the summer of 2017, with GMO Propagandists,” Taleb noted that
Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition at these attacks echoed “the history of how the
New York University, became a target when tobacco industry spread disinformation.” Taleb
she posted a blog critical of a documentary concluded, “unlike the mafia with tentacles,
called Food Evolution.506 The pro-GMO film corporations are monstrously fragile. The fact
was funded by an industry trade group and that they need so much lobbying and spinning
heavily promoted by industry allies, including indicates how fragile they are.”
the professors, trade groups and front groups
described in this report. On her blog, Nestle
characterized the documentary as a “GMO
propaganda film.” She explained to her readers “Unlike the mafia with tentacles,
on June 21, 2017, “I have asked repeatedly to corporations are monstrously
have my short interview clip removed from this
film. The director refuses. He believes his film is
fragile. The fact that they need
fair and balanced. I do not.” Cue a coordinated so much lobbying and spinning
troll attack. “Would you believe 870 comments? indicates how fragile they are.”
These were filed in response to my post of
last week about the GMO propaganda film,” Nassim Taleb
Nestle reported on June 26.507 In a post titled, Author, The Black Swan
68
Coordinating the industry troops: that reported on the failure of GMO crops to
increase yields and reduce pesticides,520 and
Bonus Eventus the “mounting questions” facing the IARC
While Monsanto’s and now Bayer’s tactics scientists who reported glyphosate is probably
for shaping public debates are adapted to a human carcinogen. Byrne prompted his
the age of social media and online news, audience to share content on these themes
the core strategy — to track, attack, and from industry-connected writers Julie Kelly,521
try to discredit critics of chemical-intensive Dr. Henry I. Miller,522 Kavin Senapathy,523 and
industrial agriculture — has been developed Hank Campbell524 formerly of the American
over decades. Consider Jay Byrne, Monsanto’s Council on Science and Health (ACSH), one
former director of communications who of the groups Monsanto was paying to help
ensured back in 2001 that the top websites discredit the cancer scientists.525 All these
appearing in an internet search for GMO writers, though they appear to be independent,
foods “were all supportive ones.”516 Today, as are linked to Monsanto and participate in the
president of the public relations firm v-Fluence, echo chamber that shares pesticide industry
Byrne plays an active role in pesticide industry messaging via blogs and social media activities.
defense efforts via his “Bonus Eventus.”517 The
“private social networking portal” supplies Byrne’s client list has included a range of
academics and other industry allies with agribusiness and pharmaceutical companies
talking points and promotional opportunities.518 and business groups, including the American
Members receive Byrne’s newsletter, access Chemistry Council, Syngenta, AstraZeneca,
to his reference library of talking points on Monsanto, Pfizer, the American Farm Bureau,
agribusiness topics, a “stakeholder database” National Corn Growers Association, Grocery
of influential people in the GMO and pesticide Manufacturers Association, the pesticide
debate, and training and support for social industry trade group CropLife, and the
media engagement. International Rice Research Institute (IRRI),
which promotes genetically engineered
Examples of Byrne’s newsletter can be found “Golden Rice.”526
in a cache of emails from Byrne to Peter
Phillips, a University of Saskatchewan professor His pitch to industry groups, urging them
who has been criticized for his close ties to to spend more money for product defense
Monsanto.519 The emails were obtained by U.S. and attack strategies, is laid out in a 2013
Right to Know via a public records request. In presentation to the African Agricultural
a newsletter from November 2016, Byrne urged Technology Foundation (AATF) — a group
Phillips and other recipients to share content funded by the Gates Foundation to develop
on key topics important to the pesticide commercial seeds for the private sector.527, 528
industry — and these influencers in turn share Byrne described the threats posed by “eco-
messages via Twitter and other social media advocates,” ranked their influence online, and
channels on topics Byrne suggests. That week urged companies to pool their resources to
Byrne urged followers to discuss the “flaws confront such influencers to avoid “regulatory
and omissions” in a New York Times story market constraints.”529
Email from USAID rep discussing partnership with Monsanto PR helpers Jay Byrne and Jon Entine to create a “journalism enclave”
and do global media outreach with industry messaging.
69
Jay Byrne presentation describes “eco-activist” groups that he argues need to be confronted.
71
Conclusion
In recent years, outrage over Big Oil’s decades- model would not be possible if pesticide
long campaign of doubt and denialism to products were subject to rigorous, independent
stall climate action has spilled onto the front research and if there were widespread public
page of major newspapers and into the Halls understanding of the harms and risks of many
of Congress.577 Outrage around Big Tobacco’s of these products.
long-standing attempts to delay action
on tobacco regulation, and the industry’s Dissipating the industry fog of doubt, denial,
continued marketing and misinformation, and deflection, we can more clearly see that
has fueled similar public outcry. With more glyphosate, as well as many of the most
than 480,000 people dying for tobacco- widely used pesticides in the world, are indeed
related reasons578 and 5 million extra deaths harmful — to people and planet. And, not
related to climate change every year,579 this only is it possible to feed the world without
misinformation is literally deadly. In this report, glyphosate and other toxic pesticides, but
through a case study about one pesticide given increasing weed and pest resistance to
company and one spin campaign to protect these agrichemicals and their impact on the
one chemical, we hope to add to the growing climate and on the health of the soil, water, and
literature building the case for vigilance about biodiversity on which we depend to grow food,
industry misinformation, including from the it is indeed our only way to do so.
pesticide industry.
While the propaganda tactics of Big Oil
Thanks to discovery and the findings from and Big Tobacco are well-documented and
public records investigations, we now have a their grave impacts well understood, the
clear record of the disinformation campaigns pesticide industry’s similar role in widespread
waged by Monsanto/Bayer, and with these disinformation, and its extensive scope and
tactics revealed, we see clearly one more case impact, has not been as well documented or
of a pesticide marketed as safe. Companies publicly understood. We hope this report, and
like Monsanto, now Bayer, didn’t just take a the chorus of recent reporting, will change
page from the PR playbook of Big Oil and Big that and give journalists, policy makers, public
Tobacco, they helped to write it. interest groups, and consumers the tools they
need to correct the record, hold pesticide
Ultimately, the story of deceit this report companies accountable, and foster a more
documents is a story about industry honest conversation about the choices we face
vulnerability: To forgo the regulation that for our food system and our future.
would impact their profitability and market
share, companies in the pesticide, oil, and
tobacco industry are profoundly reliant on
the success of PR subterfuge. They must
protect the secrecy about how the evidence
on which they base their defense is influenced
by their cooptation of scientific and academic
institutions; and they need to cover up the
large web of organizations — from non-profits
to academic think tanks and fake grassroots
groups — that they rely on to push their
products around the world. In the case of
the pesticide industry, their current business
72
Part 3: What Can We Do?
As this report has detailed, companies like Internal corporate documents have made
Bayer, and the pesticide industry broadly, clear how long the fossil fuel industry knew
spend millions every year on a range of tactics about the dangers of the climate crisis and
to mislead the public about its products and how long the tobacco industry knew about
its sector. Like the tactics of the tobacco and the deadliness of cigarettes. In recent years,
fossil fuel industries, the methods Monsanto massive public action campaigns have focused
and Bayer used to protect glyphosate are on teaching this history. As the #ExxonKnew
designed to thwart transparency, public campaign states: “Exxon knew about climate
scrutiny, independent scientific examination, change half a century ago. They deceived the
and regulatory oversight. These tactics are also public, misled their shareholders, and robbed
used to distract the public and policymakers humanity of a generation’s worth of time to
from grappling with the systemic changes reverse climate change.”
needed to address the impacts of glyphosate,
and pesticides more generally, on ecosystems From the internal Monsanto and Bayer
and public health. documents shared in this case study, it’s clear
the company was aware that glyphosate
In this final section, we offer six suggestions herbicide formulations posed a risk to human
for policy makers, media outlets, academics, health and ecosystems and yet worked to
and others to counteract industry spin tactics suppress evidence about these threats.
like those described in this report. We see the Beyond the Monsanto/Bayer case, there is
following recommendations as just some of a robust literature showing how pesticide
the steps necessary as part of a multifaceted companies have also known about the
effort that is urgently needed to rein in the human health and environmental impacts
disinformation spread by the pesticide industry of other pesticides — including paraquat,
to influence public policies and mislead the atrazine, chlorpyrifos, neonicotinoids and
public. We offer these not as an exhaustive organophosphates — yet have long worked
set of recommendations, but as examples of to suppress or deny the science. We believe
actions needed to curtail industry influence it’s crucial for the public and policymakers to
understand that the pesticide industry has
known about these threats for decades, but
1. Understand and Expose the like the tobacco and fossil fuel industries,
Strategies purposefully pushed disinformation and doubt,
leading to immeasurable harm, illness, and
This report adds to a growing body of biodiversity loss. These same companies are
research and reporting on pesticide industry now marketing themselves — and their current
disinformation tactics and, more broadly, business models — as solutions to climate
to a literature and social science field that change, claiming they will engineer more
reveals how polluting industries manufacture sustainable methods as they push to expand
ignorance and doubt and influence popular fossil-fuel intensive industrial farming reliant
understanding and public policy around critical on synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, one of the
health issues. A key to upending the narrative top climate-polluting industrial chemicals. The
hold of these companies is to understand their pesticide industry’s claims must be scrutinized
PR strategies and expose them. Doing so helps and challenged, for they risk, alongside other
to inoculate the public and policymakers from industry disinformation, robbing us of crucial
their persuasive power. As Louis Brandeis said time to deploy real solutions for reversing
in Harper’s magazine in 1913, “Sunlight is said to climate change.
be the best of disinfectants.”
73
Reports like this and other efforts by the media 2019 Journal of Public Health Policy article
and research institutions are key to exposing about Coca-Cola. Ruskin and colleagues
these disinformation campaigns and their real- recommend that to further protect the integrity
world impacts. To name just a few examples of peer-reviewed journals, in addition to conflict
of this growing body of evidence, exposés on of interest and funding disclosures, journals
pesticide industry PR and influence campaigns should also require authors to include their
can be found in Lee Fang’s investigation of research agreements as appendices to papers
neonicotinoids; Sharon Lerner’s and Stéphane when they are published.
Horel’s reporting on paraquat; and extensive
reporting by Carey Gillam on Bayer/Monsanto
and glyphosate-based herbicides. We hope this 3. Uphold Strong Journalistic
report will play a role in this effort and will add Standards for Disclosing Conflicts
to this growing body of evidence and public
understanding of the extent and impact of
of Interest and Vetting Sources
pesticide industry spin techniques. It is imperative that media outlets also uphold
strong standards for revealing conflicts of
interest among sources, both those quoted
2. Protect the Integrity of on the record and those used on background.
Scientific Journals The Society of Professional Journalists, a
membership organization of more than 6,000
As we discussed in Tactic 1, shaping journalists, has a comprehensive code of ethics,
the scientific literature is a key industry which includes: “Identify sources clearly. The
disinformation tactic. Ghostwriting or otherwise public is entitled to as much information as
covertly influencing journal content is one possible to judge the reliability and motivations
powerful tool to do so. To maintain the integrity of sources.” Many reporters do just that: they vet
of peer-reviewed journals, it’s critical to limit whether to report on studies or quote so-called
the publication of scientific articles by authors experts with conflicts of interest if the integrity
with conflicts of interest or, at the very least, of the science or source could be questionable.
clearly divulge those conflicts when they occur. They do things like follow the money behind
Unfortunately, this transparency is still not the funding of think tanks housed at academic
consistent. Just to give one example, four out institutions. This report includes many examples
of five authors of a 2018 paper in the peer- of journalists doing just such digging to
reviewed journal Food and Chemical Toxicology expose these funding streams. Unfortunately,
that significantly downplayed the dietary risk of thorough vetting isn’t ubiquitous, and when
eating foods with pesticide residues noted their a media outlet fails to do this robust source
employment by Bayer, but they did not declare excavation, or when a news outlet relies on or
this affiliation as a conflict of interest. reports information from an astroturf group or
front group without disclosing their conflicts of
Like other scientific journals, Food and interests, the media can end up being a pawn in
Chemical Toxicology has clear guidelines an industry public relations campaign.
for its authorship: “All financial relationships
with any entities that could be viewed as As one example of an effort to hold media
relevant to the general area of the submitted accountable, in 2017, two dozen public interest
manuscript” should be declared along with groups wrote to USA Today editors raising
“Any other relationships or affiliations that may concerns that the paper was publishing
be perceived by readers to have influenced, or science columns by members of the American
give the appearance of potentially influencing, Council on Science and Health (ACSH) without
what you wrote in the submitted work.” This identifying that group as a corporate front
paper is an example of how, even with strong group with a history of spinning science for
policies, enforcement and oversight is needed. corporate benefactors. (As we described earlier,
Furthermore, some corporate agreements with internal documents establish that Monsanto
researchers include provisions that enable the paid ACSH in 2015 to help defend glyphosate.)
funding company to prevent the publication of USA Today editors declined to take action;
unfavorable research, as U.S. Right to Know’s for years afterward, the paper’s opinion
Gary Ruskin and co-authors document in a section board of contributors included Alex
74
Berezow, ACSH’s vice president of scientific example, has a toolkit for students on how to
communications, without full disclosure about uncover the influence of the food and pesticide
Berezow’s affiliation with a corporate front industries on campus. The toolkit explains
group. Berezow left the USA Today board how to use Freedom of Information laws and
(and ACSH) in June 2022, but still describes other strategies to uncover corporate influence
himself in his Twitter bio as a “contributor” to within universities, what questions to ask, and
USA Today — an affiliation that helps legitimize other strategies for leading campaigns for
industry-affiliated spin. Although the pressure transparency on campuses.
from public interest groups did not yield results
in this case, it is important to document this Nationally, stronger transparency laws are
type of corporate influence of a media outlet, needed. The Physician Payment Sunshine Act,
and to notify editors and apply pressure when passed in 2013, requires drug and medical
they fail to properly identify corporate-funded product manufacturers to disclose payments
groups and writers. and other items of value given to physicians
and teaching hospitals, with data disclosed on
4. Challenge and Expose a public website. A similar requirement should
be put in place for universities, university
Corporate Influence at departments and foundations, and professors
Universities to disclose funding or gifts they receive from
food and pesticide companies.
Partnering with universities and academics is
a well understood PR tactic of health-harming
industries. A “public relations masterstroke” 5. Hold Public Relations
of tobacco industry PR was direct funding to
universities, writes the historian Alan Brandt; Professionals Accountable
“offering funds directly to university-based As we describe in Tactic 3, the PR agencies
scientists would enlist their support and Monsanto and Bayer employed to lead
dependence. Moreover, it would have the their glyphosate and GMO-defense efforts
added benefit of making academic institutions — including FleishmanHillard, Ketchum,
‘partners’ with the tobacco industry in its and FTI Consulting—have histories of using
moment of crisis.” Fossil fuel companies, too, underhanded tactics to defend Big Tobacco
“pour money into prestigious universities,” and Big Oil interests. These PR agencies
according to a 2022 investigation by the BMJ, can also be held to account for their role in
in an attempt “to weaken messages on climate pesticide disinformation . In November 2020,
change, capture academia and protect their Duncan Meisel and Jamie Henn launched the
interests.” The BMJ also describes a growing Clean Creatives campaign, housed within the
student movement to end fossil fuel funding nonprofit Fossil Free Media. The campaign
on campuses across the country. Pesticide calls on PR firms and ad agency executives to
and food industry funding at universities “divest” from fossil fuel contracts and “pledge
also deserves scrutiny. As we describe in this to only work with businesses who support
report, the pesticide industry relies heavily climate solutions.” As the campaign’s founders
on universities and professors to assist with write: “Unless the entire ecosystem of agencies,
their product defense campaigns, and public creatives, and clients take action to address
universities, professors and researchers depend the growing harm of fossil fuel disinformation,
on funding from large multinational food and the expansive relationship between PR and
chemical companies. This dependence shapes ad firms and fossil fuels will grow once more.
research agendas and communications and Individuals and companies in every part of
messaging in ways that often benefit corporate the advertising ecosystem have a role to
profits at the expense of public health. play.” There is a parallel with PR firms and ad
agencies working for pesticide companies and
But there is much students on campus can promoting pesticide products. Those agencies
do to challenge this, and it starts with asking and professionals should be called on to make
questions and doing research. There are many a similar commitment not to work for pesticide
resources for students to raise questions companies.
on their campuses. U.S. Right to Know, for
75
6. Support Independent 5 two years before. Several new nonprofit
newsrooms, some quoted in this report,
Investigative Journalism including ProPublica, The Intercept, and U.S.
Right to Know, have helped to fill this void, but
Independent investigative journalism is critical
there is more need than ever to support reliable
for a functioning democracy — journalism
investigative reporting to expose industry spin.
that exposes corporate and government
Supporting investment in independent media
wrongdoing, fraud, lies, deceit, crimes, and
and nonprofit investigative research groups will
the multi-faceted disinformation tactics these
be critical to fight this disinformation.
entities use to control the narrative about
crucial health and environmental issues. Yet,
As we finish this report, lawsuits against
investigative journalism — long-considered
Bayer from people alleging their cancers were
democracy’s fourth estate for its role in holding
caused by the company’s glyphosate products
those in power to account—is eroding. Without
continue to wind through the courts. It’s likely
a strong independent media sector, the public
that, as a result of these cases, even more
and elected officials are even more vulnerable
evidence will emerge about the company and
to the covert communications tactics the
industry’s attempts to shape public opinion
pesticide industry is using to shape public
about glyphosate. Additionally, as the EU
opinion.
considers reauthorizing the chemical in 2023,
we expect to see new waves of industry
As the public relations industry booms and
product-defense messaging. In this context,
media institutions around the country are
we recommend these strategies as just some
impacted by consolidation and a changing
of the steps needed to help take on industry
media landscape journalism has suffered.
disinformation and empower policymakers to
Since 2008, employment in U.S. newsrooms
better regulate not only glyphosate, but other
plummeted 26 percent, a 2021 Pew study
toxic pesticides as well.
found. By 2018, there were 6 public relations
professionals for every journalist, up from
76
Appendix I: Expenses of Key Third-Party Allies Named in
Monsanto Glyphosate Defense Documents (2015-2019)
Non-Profit Organizations 2015-2019 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015
Academics Review $577,060 $17,369 $50,722 $119,244 $138,026 $251,699
American Council on $8,569,186 1,571,356 $1,995,725 $1,729,003 $1,790,837 $1,482,265
Science and Health
Center for Food Integrity $14,889,183 $3,235,372 $2,225,630 $2,152,888 $2,838,497 $4,436,796
Foundation for Food $594,050 71,361 $44,276 $199,371 $156,242 $122,800
Integrity
GMO Answers / Council $22,687,700 1,842,702 $2,743,571 $3,359,708 $4,081,201 $10,660,518
for Biotechnology
International Food $19,376,743 $3,147,965 $3,619,060 $3,547,503 $3,880,537 $5,181,678
Information Council
International Food
Information Council $4,694,134 $805,227 $809,058 $812,860 $608,812 $1,658,177
Foundation
Science Literacy Project/ $2,967,614 $603,069 $515,549 $476,983 $520,423 $851,590
Genetic Literacy Project*
Founded in
Sense About Science $1,773,888 $147,270 $344,846 $675,800 $605,972
2015
$76,129,558 $11,441,691 $12,348,437 $13,073,360 $14,620,547 $24,645,523
77
Appendix II: Debunking the Myths that Pesticides Are Safe
and Necessary
Debunking the Myth that use crop rotations, foster natural predators of
pests and increase crop diversity to disrupt
Pesticides Are Safe growth of pest populations, they plant “trap”
crops that draw insects to the edges of fields,
While humans have long used various
and they build healthy soils that confer greater
pesticides in agriculture, what we think
pest immunity to plants.
of as modern-day pesticides — synthetic
chemicals — were not widely used until the
post-World War II period. Weapons-grade Pesticides do not discriminate between pests
chemicals were converted into peacetime and beneficial insects like pollinators. A peer-
uses in agriculture. Nerve gas agents became reviewed study co-authored by Friends of
organophosphate pesticides. The insecticide the Earth found that U.S. agriculture has
DDT, used to thwart mosquitoes and lice to become 48 times more toxic to bees and other
stave off malaria and typhus among soldiers, insects since the introduction of neonicotinoid
was pushed for agricultural use after World insecticides 25 years ago.540 This study came
War II. In the ensuing decades, pesticides on the heels of the first meta-analysis of global
have become widely used around the world insect declines which found that 40 percent
in farming and beyond, including in war. The of insect species could face extinction in
US government tapped Monsanto and other coming decades, leading the authors to warn of
chemical manufacturers to produce the toxic “catastrophic ecosystem collapse” if we don’t
defoliant dubbed Agent Orange that was change the way we farm.541
sprayed extensively during the Vietnam War.536
Today, U.S. agriculture uses more than 1.1 billion Along with life aboveground, pesticides
pounds of pesticides annually, representing destroy biodiversity belowground. A recent
approximately 15 percent of total global meta-analysis shows that pesticides harm the
pesticide usage.537 living organisms that are the basis of healthy
soils — which we need to prevent erosion,
The widespread use of pesticides has led to the conserve water and draw carbon down from
inevitable ecological result: resistance to these the atmosphere.542 Scientists warn that we are
very pesticides by insects and weeds. By one experiencing the “sixth great extinction” and
count, more than 360 weed varieties and 540 that this collapse of biodiversity is on par with
insect species have developed resistance to the climate crisis.543
pesticides.538 As a result, farmers are stuck on
a “pesticide treadmill” — a term coined by the Many pesticides also harm human health.
American entomologist Robert van den Bosch in The same properties that make pesticides
1978 to describe the problem that farmers must toxic to insects and weeds can also make
spray more often and use more toxic pesticides them toxic to other forms of life, including us.
to deal with ever more resistant pests. More than 90 percent of the U.S. population
has detectable pesticides in their bodies,544
The scientific record shows that an ecological, and there are more pesticide residues on our
rather than chemical, approach to agriculture is food now than a decade ago.545 Decades of
dramatically more successful at managing pests studies show that pesticides can disrupt and
without incurring environmental and health derail the healthy functioning of our bodies.
costs. As just one example, a recent study Pesticide exposure is linked to cancers, asthma,
found that farmers who did not use insecticides neurodevelopmental disorders like autism
and relied on ecological methods to manage and ADHD and to neurological diseases like
pests had 10 times less pest pressure than Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.546,547,548,549 Exposure
farmers who used insecticides.539 Ecological is also associated with reproductive disorders
farming methods work with nature to disrupt like infertility and birth defects and metabolic
pest cycles. Rather than toxic chemicals, they diseases like obesity and diabetes.550,551
78
Emerging science reveals more than 50 National and global institutions are taking note.
pesticides are endocrine disruptors, meaning A report from the President’s Cancer Panel of
they can mimic, block or scramble our the National Cancer Institute highlights the
hormones.552 Miniscule exposures to endocrine health concerns of pesticides, and noted the
disruptors may lead to various cancers, ADHD, ways to reduce risk, including “choosing, to the
Parkinson’s, depression, fertility problems, extent possible, food grown without pesticides
obesity, diabetes, and birth defects.553 Timing or chemical fertilizers.”558 In a 2012 report,
of exposure also matters, putting pregnant the American Academy of Pediatrics warned:
women, infants, children, and adolescents at “children’s exposure to pesticides should be
greatest risk. Exposure during these important limited as much as possible.”559 And a 2017
developmental windows can lead to lifelong policy paper from the United Nations Special
impacts. Rapporteur on the Right to Food noted that:
“Pesticides…are a global human rights concern,
Farmers, farmworkers, and pesticide and their use can have very detrimental
applicators, and those living in communities consequences on the enjoyment of the right to
abutting farm fields are particularly impacted. food…as well as the right to health.”560
Farmworkers can be exposed at levels
hundreds of times higher than consumers’ Debunking the Myth that We
exposure to pesticides. Farmers, farmworkers
and their families have higher rates of acute Need Pesticides to Feed the
poisonings, cancers, birth defects, asthma, World
infertility, autism, and other neurological and
reproductive effects.554 Despite all this, the pesticide industry continues
to push the message that pesticides are safe.
U.S. regulatory systems are not based on the They do so along with the message that we
latest science on the harms of pesticides. The need these products to “feed the world.” It
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide follows then, according to their narrative,
Act (FIFRA) has proven to be woefully that raising concerns about pesticides and
inadequate to protect human health and the calling for stricter regulations or reductions
environment from toxic pesticides. While some in use poses a threat to food security. But the
countries have in recent years banned the most evidence doesn’t add up: We do not need
toxic pesticides, the U.S. still allows use of over pesticides to feed the global population;
80 pesticides that have been restricted or indeed, their continued unbridled use threatens
banned in other countries.555 food security.561
While the Environmental Protection Agency To understand why, it’s critical that we first look
(EPA) sets legal limits for pesticide residues on to the root causes of hunger. Experts have long
food, referred to as maximum residue limits, underscored that world hunger is not primarily
many scientists and medical professionals say the manifestation of a scarcity of food, but a
that these limits are outdated.556 They do not scarcity of democracy — of who has power
reflect the unique vulnerabilities of infants, over what is grown, where, and with what
children, pregnant women, and the elderly nor methods.562 Hunger is the result of poverty
do they account for our cumulative exposure to and unequal access to land, water and other
pesticides via food, water and the environment. resources, not simply “not enough.” Focusing
Companies and regulatory agencies typically on increasing productivity does not uproot
do not test for the health risks of exposures these underlying forces.
from multiple pesticides and whether there are
synergistic effects, and whether those effects Despite the industry’s public relations efforts
are linear or nonlinear. These exposures add to insist that GMOs are necessary to “feed the
up. One study found that approximately 40 world” — and many media outlets that repeat
percent of U.S. children may have cumulative this narrative uncritically — the truth is that the
exposure to organophosphate pesticides at a majority of acreage is devoted to commodities
level greater than benchmarks for neurological like corn and soy used for livestock feed or
impacts.557 industrial processes like corn-based ethanol.563
In addition, if we do take productivity as a
79
primary goal, data show that GMO crops have use.571 Another study from France concluded
overall failed to increase crop yields.564 that most farmers would be able to reduce
pesticide use significantly without sacrificing
What’s more: pesticide use is actually profit or productivity, and in some cases, can
undermining the basis of food security. A improve yields and decrease farm costs.572 A
United Nations report noted pesticides have global synthesis found that managing farms
had “catastrophic impacts on the environment, to increase biodiversity of pollinators and
human health and society as a whole.”565 beneficial insects results in higher yields and
The industrial food system has decimated better pest control, and another study found
biodiversity, destroyed soil health, and polluted that organic farm management boosts the
water resources — all of which exacerbates natural defenses of plants to prevent pest
the conditions of world hunger and poverty.566 damage even when pests are abundant.573,574
The United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization estimates that industrial A years-long process involving over 400
agriculture, of which pesticides are a key input, independent experts from every continent
costs the world three trillion dollars every year culminated in the 2009 International
in damages to the environment and public Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science
health.567 and Technology for Development (IAASTD).575
The message was clear: “Business as usual is
Another path forward is possible. Research not an option.” The report calls for a paradigm
shows notable benefits in using ecological shift in agriculture from industrial models
principles on farms instead of toxic dependent on intensive inputs of pesticides
pesticides.568 Organic farmers grow abundant and synthetic fertilizers to an agroecological
food without the use of over 900 active pathway that protects natural resources.
pesticide ingredients allowed in non-organic These findings have been repeatedly bolstered
farming.569,570 Recent studies show that farmers in a series of expert reports in the decade since.
who rely on ecological methods to manage As the United Nations Special Rapporteur
pests may outperform their conventional on Food notes, “Without or with minimal use
counterparts. One study found that using of toxic chemicals, it is possible to produce
ecological methods to protect pollinators healthier, nutrient-rich food, with higher yields
increased yields of oil seed crops more than in the longer term, without polluting and
the yield benefit associated with pesticide exhausting environmental resources.”576
80
Appendix IIl: The Science of Solutions
Decades of science show that we need a rapid shift to organic and regenerative
agriculture in order to feed all people now and in the future and address the intertwined
biodiversity and climate crises we face.
Key findings: Roadmap for insect recovery highlights agroecology & citizen science methods
to monitor insects as solutions alongside reduction of pesticides & increasing landscape
heterogeneity."
Agroecological and Other Innovative Approaches,
FAO High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition, 2019
Scaling Up Nutrition and Food in the Anthropocene
The EAT-Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems, 2019
Sustainability in global agriculture driven by organic farming.
Eyhorn, Frank, et al., Nature Sustainability 2.4 (2019): 253.
Agroecological Approaches and Other Innovations for Sustainable Agriculture and Food
Systems that Enhance Food Security and Nutrition.
CFS/HLPE. 2019. FAO Commission on Food Security, High Level Panel of Experts, Report #14.
Key findings: Includes assessments of multiple types of "innovative" approaches classed under
two main types: agroecological and sustainable intensification. See Table 7. Strong evidence
that agroecological approaches can enhance food sovereignty and food security (defined as
availability, access, utilization, stability, and (potentially) agency).
Climate Change and Land
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2019
Growing Better
Food and Land Use Coalition, 2019
Agroecological and Other Innovative Approaches
FAO High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition, 2019
Climate Change, Global Food Security, and the U.S. Food System
USDA, 2018.
Landscapes that work for biodiversity and people.
Kremen, Claire, and Adina. M. Merenlender. Science 362, no. 6412. 2018.
Key findings: Authors review how biodiversity-based techniques can be used to manage
most human-modified lands as “working landscapes.” These can provide for human needs and
maintain biodiversity not just for ecosystem services but also for maintenance and persistence
of nonhuman species.
Global assessment of agricultural system redesign for sustainable intensification.
Pretty, Jules, et al. Nature Sustainability 1.8. 2018. (441).
Triggering a positive research and policy feedback cycle to support a transition to agroecology
and sustainable food systems.
Miles, Albie, Marcia S. DeLonge, and Liz Carlisle. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 41.7.
2017 (855-879).
81
UN Report on Pesticides
Hilal Elver, UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food. 2017
Key findings: Pesticides cause “catastrophic harm to the human health and the environment”
and are not necessary to feed a growing world population. Global corporations that manufacture
pesticides are accountable for “systematic denial of harms”, “aggressive, unethical marketing
tactics” and heavy lobbying of governments which has “obstructed reforms and paralysed
global pesticide restrictions.”
Farming for the Future
By Chris Cook, Kari Hamerschlag and Kendra Klein for Friends of the Earth. 2016
Key findings: Feeding the world sustainably requires that we protect the ecological resources
that are essential for producing food now and in the future. What’s more, research consistently
shows that hunger is not a problem of overall supply of food, but results from poverty, lack of
democracy and unequal access to land, water and other resources. Rather than producing more
food under unequal and ecologically destructive conditions, the solution to hunger hinges on
creating a more sustainable, democratic and fair food system for all.
From Uniformity to Diversity
International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES) report. 2016
Key findings: Multiple negative outcomes of the existing food system stem from industrial
agriculture: “the input-intensive crop monocultures and industrialscale feedlots that now
dominate farming landscapes.” These systems are “locked in” due to entrenched political-
economic power of food industries and instead of “tweaking practices,” a “fundamentally
different model of agriculture” is needed, i.e. “diversified agroecological systems.”
World Hunger: 10 Myths
By Francis Moore Lappé and Joseph Collins, 2016
Key findings: Hunger is not the result of inadequate amounts of food or human overpopulation,
but rather stems from poverty and inequalities of political and economic power. Large farms,
expanded markets and free trade won’t help solve world hunger, but will likely make it worse.
Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century.
Reganold, J. P., and J. M. Wachter. Nature Plants 2: 15221. 2015.
Key findings: Review paper of organic agriculture showing benefits over conventional
production in four main areas: (1) produce adequate amounts of high-quality food (production);
(2) enhance the natural-resource base and environment (environment); (3) be financially viable
(economics); and (4) contribute to the wellbeing of farmers and their communities (wellbeing).
Natural Capital Impacts in Agriculture: Supporting better business decision-making
UN FAO, 2015
Key findings: The natural capital costs associated with crop production in this study represent
nearly $1.15 trillion, over 170 percent of its production value, whereas livestock production in this
study produces natural capital costs of over $1.18 trillion, 134 percent of its production value.
Wake Up Before It Is Too Late
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development report, 2013
Key findings: Hunger is not a supply-side productivity problem and “meeting food security
challenges is primarily about empowerment of the poor.” A shift is needed “from a conventional,
monoculture-based and high-external-input-dependent industrial production towards mosaics
of sustainable, regenerative production systems that also considerably improve the productivity
of small-scale farmers.”
82
Ecosystem services in biologically diversified versus conventional farming systems: benefits,
externalities, and trade-offs.
Kremen, Claire, and Albie Miles. Ecology and Society 17.4. 2012.
UN Report on Agroecology
Olivier De Schutter, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, 2010
Key findings: “Agroecology, if sufficiently supported, can double food production in entire
regions within 10 years while mitigating climate change and alleviating rural poverty.” State
support for scaling up agroecology is crucial in both developed and developing countries and
should focus on small-scale farmers, their organizations and the innovative agroecological
practices they can develop alongside scientists.
Agriculture at a Crossroads Global Report
International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology for Development
(IAASTD) report, 2009
Key findings: “Business as usual is not an option” to reach goals of environmental protection
and hunger reduction. Small-scale agriculture and traditional ecological knowledge of farmers
and indigenous people are as — if not more — important to a future food system than genetic
engineering and capital-intensive forms of agriculture.
83
Appendix IV: Recommended Resources & Readings
Our Organizations
U.S. Right to Know: A non-profit investigative research group focused on promoting
transparency for public health. // https://usrtk.org/
Real Food Media: Storytelling, critical analysis and strategy for the food movement // https://
realfoodmedia.org/w
Friends of the Earth: An environmental organization fighting for a more just and healthy world
// www.foe.org
Organic for All: A project of Friends of the Earth on the science of why organic works // www.
OrganicForAll.org
Document Databases
The Poison Papers: Documenting the hidden history of chemical and pesticide hazards in the
United States // https://www.poisonpapers.org/
UCSF Industry Documents Library: A portal to millions of documents created by industries that
influence public health // https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/
Project TOXIDOCS: A project of Columbia University and the City University of New York
to release millions of previously classified documents on industrial poisons // https://www.
toxicdocs.org/
Monsanto Papers: Internal company documents obtained via litigation revealing Monsanto’s
deception around glyphosate // https://usrtk.org/monsanto-papers/
Organizational Resources
Center for Public Integrity: A nonprofit investigative journalism organization that releases
reports via its website to media outlets throughout the U.S. and around the globe. CPI is one of
the largest nonpartisan, nonprofit investigative centers in America. // www.publicintegrity.org
Center for Responsive Politics: A nonprofit, nonpartisan research group that tracks the effects
of money and lobbying on elections and public policy. Its website allows users to track federal
campaign contributions and lobbying by lobbying firms, individual lobbyists, industry, federal
agency and bills. Other resources include the personal financial disclosures of all members of the
U.S. Congress, the president, and top members of the administration. // www.opensecrets.org
LittleSis: A free database detailing the connections between powerful people and
organizations. It tracks the key relationships of politicians, business leaders, lobbyists,
financiers, and their affiliated institutions. // www.littlesis.org
Recommended Reading
Books
The Monsanto Papers: Deadly Secrets, Corporate Corruption, and One Man’s Search for Justice.
Carey Gillam. 2021. Island Press: Washington DC.
84
Whitewash: The Story of a Weedkiller, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science. Carey Gillam.
2018. Island Press: Washington DC.
Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco
Smoke to Global Warming. Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway. 2010. Bloomsbury: New York, NY.
The Triumph of Doubt: Dark Money and the Science of Deception. David Michael. 2020. Oxford
Spinning Food: How Food Industry Front Groups and Covert Communications are Shaping the
Story of Food. by Kari Hamerschlag, Anna Lappe and Stacy Malkan. Friends of the Earth. 2015.
The Best Public Relations Money Can Buy, by Michele Simon and the Center for Food Safety.
2015.
Seedy Business: What Big Food is Hiding with Its Slick PR Campaign, by Gary Ruskin, U.S. Right
to Know. 2015.
Buzz Kill: How the pesticide industry is clipping the wings of bee protection efforts across the
U.S,. Friends of the Earth. 2016.
Follow the Honey: Seven ways pesticide companies are spinning the bee crisis to protect
profits, Friends of the Earth, 2014.
The Pesticide Industry’s Playbook for Poisoning the Earth. Lee Fang. The Intercept. 2020.
Tracking the Pesticide Industry Propaganda Network. Stacy Malkan. Series of fact sheets
documenting key players in the pesticide industry’s PR network. U.S. Right to Know.
Investigation: How Pesticide Companies are Marketing Themselves as the Solution to Climate
Change. Sharon Kelly and Francis Rankin. DeSmog. 2020.
85
Endnotes
1. Gillam, C. (2021, November 24). Monsanto Roundup & Dicamba Trial Tracker. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/monsan-
to-roundup-trial-tracker-index/
2. Gillam, C. (2021, August 5). Monsanto Papers. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/monsanto-papers/
3. Gillam, C. (2017). Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science. Island Press.
4. Gillam, C. (2021). The Monsanto Papers. Island Press.
5. U.S. Congress. (1994). Hearing on the Regulation of Tobacco Products House Committee on Energy and Commerce Committee on
Health and Environment. https://senate.ucsf.edu/tobacco-ceo-statement-to-congress.
6. Holden, Emily. (2019, October 23). Exxon sowed doubt about the climate crisis, House Democrats hear in testimony. The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/23/exxon-climate-crisis-house-democrats-hearing
7. Robinson, E., & Robbins, R.C. (1968). Sources, abundance, and fate of gaseous atmospheric pollutants. Final report and supple-
ment. United States: Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA. https://www.smokeandfumes.org/documents/16
8. obacco Litigation Documents. (Online). Legacy Tobacco Documents Library. UCSF Library Truth Initiative. https://www.industry-
documents.ucsf.edu/tobacco/research-tools/litigation-documents/.
9. Oreskes, Naomi; Conway, Eric M. (2011) Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobac-
co Smoke to Climate Change. Bloomsbury Press.
10. Ritchie, Hannah, & Max Roser.(2013, May 23). Smoking. Our World in Data https://ourworldindata.org/smoking
11. Lombrana, Laura Milan. (2021, July 7). Climate Change Linked to 5 Million Deaths a Year, New Study Shows. Bloomberg.https://
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-07/climate-change-linked-to-5-million-deaths-a-year-new-study-shows
12. Hakim, Danny. (2016, Oct. 29). Doubts About the Promised Bounty of Genetically Modified Crops. New York Times. https://www.
nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-short.html
13. Research by ETC Group, September 2022 - Full report with citations is available here: https://www.etcgroup.org/content/
food-barons-2022
14. Hammerschlag, K., Lappe, A. and Malkan, S. (2015). Spinning Food: How food industry front groups and covert communications
are shaping the story of food. Prepared for Friends of the Earth, Real Food Media and U.S. Right to Know. https://foe.org/resourc-
es/food-industry-shapes-story-food/
15. Ruskin, Gary. (2021, June 11). UCSF Chemical Industry Documents Library Now Hosts USRTK Collection. U.S. Right to Know https://
usrtk.org/our-investigations/ucsf-industry-documents-library-to-hold-key-agrichemical-industry-papers/. More documents are
posted at https://usrtk.org.
16. DiBartolomeis, M., Kegley, S., Mineau, P., Radford, R., & Klein, K. (2019). An assessment of acute insecticide toxicity loading (AITL)
of chemical pesticides used on agricultural land in the United States. PloS one, 14(8), e0220029. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/
article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0220029
17. USDA Economic Research Service. (2020). Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. https://www.ers.usda.gov/da-
ta-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx.
18. Methodology: These seven front groups and six trade associations were selected because all were named in Monsanto internal
documents as organizations to enlist to support glyphosate defense. All expenses are found in publicly available IRS Form 990s.
(Where the fiscal year doesn’t follow the calendar year, the reporting uses the end month of the calendar year.) Monsanto adver-
tising budget figures are taken from corporate SEC filings the three years before the Bayer purchase.
19. NRDC V. USEPA (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit June 17, 2022). U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-con-
tent/uploads/2022/06/Ninth-Circuit-glyphosate-June-2022.pdf
20. Stohr, Greg; Feeley, Jef. (2022, June 21). Bayer Rejected by US Supreme Court in Bid to End Roundup Suits, Bloomberg. https://
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-21/bayer-rejected-by-us-supreme-court-in-bid-to-end-roundup-suits
21. Bayer Global. (Online). Roundup litigation - five-point plan. https://www.bayer.com/en/roundup-litigation-five-point-plan
22. Valavanidis, A. (2018). Glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide. Department of Chemistry, National and Kapodistrian University
of Athens. http://chem-tox-ecotox.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/GLYPHOSATE-REVIEW-12-3-2018-1.pdf
23. Environmental Working Group. (2018, Aug 14). Breakfast with a Dose of Roundup? https://www.ewg.org/research/break-
fast-dose-roundup
24. Ledoux, M. L., Hettiarachchy, N., Yu, X., Howard, L., & Lee, S. O. (2020). Penetration of glyphosate into the food supply and the
incidental impact on the honey supply and bees. Food control, 109, 106859. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/
pii/S0956713519304487
25. Battaglin, W. A., Meyer, M. T., Kuivila, K., & Dietze, J. E. (2014). Glyphosate and AMPA in US streams, groundwater, precipitation and
soils. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 50(2), 275-290. https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70046159
26. Gillam, Carey. (2022, July 9). Weedkiller ingredient tied to cancer found in 80% of US urine samples. The Guardian https://www.
theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/09/weedkiller-glyphosate-cdc-study-urine-samples
27. Gillam, Carey. (2017). Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science. Chapter 3: The “Roundup
Ready” Rollout. Island Press: Washington DC.
28. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. (2021, June 30). Acreage Report. https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-es-
mis/files/j098zb09z/00000x092/kw52k657g/acrg0621.pdf
29. Benbrook, C. (2016). Trends in glyphosate herbicide use in the United States and globallyEnviron Sci Eur. 28(1): 3.
30. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. (2016). 2016 Annual Report. https://www.isaaa.org/resourc-
es/publications/annualreport/2016/pdf/ISAAA-Aannual_Report-2016.pdf
31. Picchi, A. (2018, June 27). Monsanto’s Roundup weed-killer goes on trial with billions at stake. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.
com/news/monsantos-roundup-weed-killer-goes-on-trial-with-billions-at-stake/
32. Bayer AG. (2018, June 7). Bayer Closes Monsanto Acquisition. https://media.bayer.com/baynews/baynews.nsf/id/Bayer-clos-
es-Monsanto-acquisition.
33. Bayer AG. (accessed 2022, July 30). Glyphosate’s Impacts on Human Health and Safety https://www.bayer.com/en/glyphosate/
glyphosate-impact-on-human-health-and-safety
34. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1985). Consensus Review of Glyphosate. (Caswell #661A) Office of Pesticides
and Toxic Substances https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/chemicalsearch/chemical/foia/web/pdf/103601/103601-171.pdf
35. Gillam, Carey. (2017, June 8). Of Mice, Monsanto, and a Mysterious Tumor. Huffington Post. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/
of-mice-monsanto-and-a-mysterious-tumor_b_5939717fe4b014ae8c69de40
86
36. AP News. (1996, November 25). Monsanto Agrees to Modify Roundup Ads in New York State. https://apnews.com/article/
d196b9a5bb54637a7b281760b0f7a966
37. WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer. (2015). IARC Monograph on Glyphosate. https://www.iarc.who.int/fea-
tured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/
38. Samet, J. M. (2019). Expert review under attack: glyphosate, talc, and cancer. American Journal of Public Health, 109(7), 976-978.
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305131
39. WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer. (2015). IARC Monograph on Glyphosate. https://www.iarc.who.int/fea-
tured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/
40. Baum, Hedlund. (Online). Johnson vs. Monsanto Co. https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/
johnson-v-monsanto-co-/
41. Gillam, Carey. (2018, November 21). I won a historic lawsuit but may not live to get the money. Time Magazine. https://time.
com/5460793/dewayne-lee-johnson-monsanto-lawsuit/
42. Dietrich Knauth, L. H. (2022, June 27). U.S. Supreme Court again Nixes Bayer Challenge to weedkiller suits. Reuters.https://www.
reuters.com/business/us-supreme-court-again-nixes-bayer-challenge-weedkiller-suits-2022-06-27/
43. Jayasumana, C., Gunatilake, S., & Senanayake, P. (2014). Glyphosate, hard water and nephrotoxic metals: are they the culprits be-
hind the epidemic of chronic kidney disease of unknown etiology in Sri Lanka?. International journal of environmental research and
public health, 11(2), 2125-2147. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945589/
44. Parvez, S., Gerona, R. R., Proctor, C., Friesen, M., Ashby, J. L., Reiter, J. L., ... & Winchester, P. D. (2018). Glyphosate exposure in preg-
nancy and shortened gestational length: a prospective Indiana birth cohort study. Environmental Health, 17(1), 1-12. https://ehjour-
nal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-018-0367-0
45. Altamirano, G. A., Delconte, M. B., Gomez, A. L., Ingaramo, P. I., Bosquiazzo, V. L., Luque, E. H., ... & Kass, L. (2018). Postnatal expo-
sure to a glyphosate-based herbicide modifies mammary gland growth and development in Wistar male rats. Food and Chemical
Toxicology, 118, 111-118. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29746933/
46. Nerozzi, C., Recuero, S., Galeati, G., Bucci, D., Spinaci, M., & Yeste, M. (2020). Effects of Roundup and its main component, gly-
phosate, upon mammalian sperm function and survival. Scientific reports, 10(1), 1-9. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-
67538-w
47. Samsel, A., & Seneff, S. (2013). Glyphosate’s suppression of cytochrome P450 enzymes and amino acid biosynthesis by the gut
microbiome: pathways to modern diseases. Entropy, 15(4), 1416-1463. https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416
48. Mesnage, R., Renney, G., Séralini, G. E., Ward, M., & Antoniou, M. N. (2017). Multiomics reveal non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in rats
following chronic exposure to an ultra-low dose of Roundup herbicide. Scientific reports, 7(1), 1-15. https://www.nature.com/arti-
cles/srep39328
49. Gillam, Carey. (2021, September 27). Glyphosate Fact Sheet: Cancer and other health concerns. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.
org/pesticides/glyphosate-health-concerns/
50. Mesnage, R., Renney, G., Séralini, G. E., Ward, M., & Antoniou, M. N. (2017). Multiomics reveal non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in rats
following chronic exposure to an ultra-low dose of Roundup herbicide. Scientific reports, 7(1), 1-15. https://www.nature.com/arti-
cles/srep39328
51. Woźniak, E., Sicińska, P., Michałowicz, J., Woźniak, K., Reszka, E., Huras, B., ... & Bukowska, B. (2018). The mechanism of DNA dam-
age induced by Roundup 360 PLUS, glyphosate and AMPA in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells-genotoxic risk assess-
ment. Food and chemical toxicology, 120, 510-522. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30055318/
52. Székács, I., Fejes, Á., Klátyik, S., Takács, E., Patkó, D., Pomóthy, J., ... & Székács, A. (2014). Environmental and toxicological impacts
of glyphosate with its formulating adjuvant. International Journal of Biological Veterinary Agricultural and Food Engineering, 8(3),
212-218. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262013094_Environmental_and_toxicological_impacts_of_glyphosate_with_
its_formulating_adjuvant
53. Mesnage, R., Benbrook, C., & Antoniou, M. N. (2019). Insight into the confusion over surfactant co-formulants in glyphosate-based
herbicides. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 128, 137-145. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691519301814
54. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2021, November). Final National Level Listed Species Biological Evaluation for Glyphosate.
https://www.epa.gov/endangered-species/final-national-level-listed-species-biological-evaluation-glyphosate
55. Thogmartin, W. E., Wiederholt, R., Oberhauser, K., Drum, R. G., Diffendorfer, J. E., Altizer, S., ... & Lopez-Hoffman, L. (2017). Monarch
butterfly population decline in North America: identifying the threatening processes. Royal Society open science, 4(9), 170760.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.170760
56. Dai, P. et al. (2018). The herbicide glyphosate negatively affects midgut bacterial communities and survival of honey bee
during larvae reared in vitro. Journal of agricultural and food chemistry. 66(29), pp.7786-7793. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/29992812/
57. Vázquez, D.E., Ilina, N., et al. (2018). Glyphosate affects the larval development of honey bees depending on the susceptibility of
colonies. PloS one, 13(10), p.e0205074. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0205074
58. Balbuena, M.S., Tison, L., et al. (2015). Effects of sublethal doses of glyphosate on honeybee navigation. Journal of Experimental
Biology, 218(17), pp.2799-2805. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26333931/
59. Paul, N. (2019). The Impacts of Glyphosate on Bumble Bee Productivity and Parasite Load. Masters Thesis. School of Biological
Sciences. Queen’s University Belfast. https://bit.ly/3QjVIBU
60. Druille, M., Cabello, M. N., Omacini, M., & Golluscio, R. A. (2013). Glyphosate reduces spore viability and root colonization
of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Applied Soil Ecology, 64, 99-103. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/
S0929139312002466
61. Gaupp-Berghausen, M., Hofer, M., Rewald, B., & Zaller, J. G. (2015). Glyphosate-based herbicides reduce the activity and reproduc-
tion of earthworms and lead to increased soil nutrient concentrations. Scientific Reports, 5(1), 1-9. https://www.nature.com/arti-
cles/srep12886
62. Wozniacka, Gosia (2019, June 24). Roundup’s Other Problem: Glyphosate is sourced from controversial mines. Civil Eats. https://
civileats.com/2019/06/24/roundups-other-problem-glyphosate-is-sourced-from-controversial-mines/
63. Center for Biological Diversity. (2021, April 27). Lawsuit Challenges Trump administration Approval of Southeast Idaho Phosphate
Mine. https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/lawsuit-challenges-trump-administration-approval-of-southeast-ida-
ho-phosphate-mine-2021-04-27/
64. US EPA. (Online). Monsanto Chemical Co. (Soda Springs Plant). https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseac-
tion=second.Cleanup&id=1000213#bkground
65. Environmental Working Group et al. (2018, Sept 27). Petition to modify the tolerance of glyphosate in oats to 0.1ppm and re-
quire glyphosate-containing product labels to explicitly prohibit the use of glyphosate as a pre-harvest desiccant. Submitted to
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.ewg.org/sites/default/files/Glyphosate%20Petition%20Final%20.pdf?_
ga=2.113994951.1767375155.1591202521-1157746858.1582135909
87
66. Mills, P. J., Kania-Korwel, I., Fagan, J., McEvoy, L. K., Laughlin, G. A., & Barrett-Connor, E. (2017). Excretion of the herbicide glypho-
sate in older adults between 1993 and 2016. JAMA, 318(16), 1610-1611. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2658306
67. Fagan, J., Bohlen, L., Patton, S., & Klein, K. (2020). Organic diet intervention significantly reduces urinary glyphosate levels in US
children and adults. Environmental research, 189, 109898. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32797996/
68. Mortensen, D. A., Egan, J. F., Maxwell, B. D., Ryan, M. R., & Smith, R. G. (2012). Navigating a critical juncture for sustainable weed
management. BioScience, 62(1), 75-84. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/62/1/75/295845
69. USDA National Agriculture Statistics Service. (Online). QuickStats. https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/
70. Malkan, Stacy. (2021, October 20). 2,4-D: Concerns about Cancer and Other Serious Illnesses, U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/
pesticides/2-4-d-health-concerns/; Gillam, Carey. (2020, June 12). Dicamba: Concerns about Health Risks and Crop Damage, U.S.
Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/pesticides/dicamba/
71. Held, Lisa. (2020, July 1). Bayer forges ahead with new crops resistant to five herbicides. Civil Eats. https://civileats.
com/2020/07/01/bayer-forges-ahead-with-new-crops-resistant-to-5-herbicides-glyphosate-dicamba-2-4-d-glufosinate-quizalo-
fop/
72. WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer. (2015). IARC Monograph on Glyphosate. https://www.iarc.who.int/fea-
tured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/
73. Smoking and Health Proposal. (1969). Brown & Williamson Records. Minnesota Documents; Tobacco Industry Influence in Public
Policy; Master Settlement Agreement. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/psdw0147
74. Tobacco Industry Research Committee. (2020, February 7). TobaccoTactics. https://tobaccotactics.org/wiki/tobacco-industry-re-
search-committee/
75. Brandt A. M. (2012). Inventing conflicts of interest: a history of tobacco industry tactics. American journal of public health, 102(1),
63–71. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300292
76. Rojas, Diego. (2022, April 7). The Climate Denial Machine: How the Fossil Fuel Industry Blocks Climate Action. The Climate Reality
Project. https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/climate-denial-machine-how-fossil-fuel-industry-blocks-climate-action
77. Banerjee, Neela, C.-A. (2020, December 7). How Big Oil Lost Control of Its Climate Misinformation Machine. Inside Climate News.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122017/big-oil-heartland-climate-science-misinformation-campaign-koch-api-trump-info-
graphic/
78. See for example: Lerner S., (2015, August 11). The Teflon Toxin: DuPont and the Chemistry of Deception. The Intercept. https://
theintercept.com/2015/08/11/dupont-chemistry-deception/; Nelson, A., (2017, August 10) Monsanto sold banned chemicals
for years despite known health risk, archives reveal. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/09/
monsanto-continued-selling-pcbs-for-years-despite-knowing-health-risks-archives-reveal; Dowler, C. The Paraquat Papers: How
Syngenta’s bad science helped keep the world’s deadliest weedkiller on the market. Unearthed. https://unearthed.greenpeace.
org/2021/03/24/paraquat-papers-syngenta-toxic-pesticide-gramoxone/; Hettinger, J. (2020, December 4) ‘Buy it or else’: Inside
Monsanto and BASF’s moves to force dicamba on farmers. Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting https://investigatemidwest.
org/2020/12/04/buy-it-or-else-inside-monsanto-and-basfs-moves-to-force-dicamba-on-farmers/;
79. Michaels, David. (2020, January 28). Science for Sale. Boston Review. https://bostonreview.net/articles/david-michaels-sci-
ence-sale/
80. Michaels, David. (2020). The Triumph of Doubt: Dark Money and the Science of Deception (1st ed.). Oxford University Press.
81. Samet, Jonathan. (2019).Expert Review Under Attack: Glyphosate, Talc, and Cancer American Journal of Public Health 109,
976_978, https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305131
82. Foucart, S. & Horel, S. (2019, April 7). Monsanto Papers. European Press Prize. https://www.europeanpressprize.com/article/mon-
santo-papers/
83. Condon, Liam. (Online). Commonly asked questions about glyphosate. https://www.bayer.com/en/glyphosate/is-glyphosate-safe
84. Atkins, Dorothy. (2019, March 25). Ex-Monsanto CEO Defends Roundup, Concedes Study Limits. Law 360. https://www.law360.
com/articles/1142398/ex-monsanto-ceo-defends-roundup-concedes-study-limits
85. Adams, Stephen. (2010, December 14). Re: Response Need - Re: Glyphosate Questions (Argentina); FW: publicaciones CASAFE
en la pagina. [Email]. Baum Hedlund Law. https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/documents/pdf/monsanto-documents/28-inter-
nal-email-monsanto-employee-admits-company-has-not-tested-carcinogenicity-of-roundup-formulation.pdf
86. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1984, February 10). Glyphosate; oncogenicity study in the mouse (Caswell #
661A). Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/1984-mouse-is-oncogenic.pdf
87. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1985, February 26). Use of historical data in determining kidney tumor incidence
in glyphosate. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/chemicalsearch/chemical/foia/web/
pdf/103601/103601-170.pdf
88. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1985, March 4). Consensus Review of Glyphosate. (Caswell #661A). Office of
Pesticides and Toxic Substances. https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/chemicalsearch/chemical/foia/web/pdf/103601/103601-171.pdf
89. Gillam, Carey. (2017, June 08). Of mice, Monsanto and a mysterious tumor. Huffpost. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/
of-mice-monsanto-and-a-mysterious-tumor_b_5939717fe4b014ae8c69de40
90. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2022, April 30). EPA Takes Next Step in Review Process for Herbicide Glypho-
sate, Reaffirms No Risk to Public Health. https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/epa-takes-next-step-review-process-herbicide-glypho-
sate-reaffirms-no-risk-public-health
91. Farmar, Donna. (2003, December 24). RE: Agitation Against Roundup. [Email]. Corporate Europe Observatory https://corpora-
teeurope.org/sites/default/files/attachments/27-internal-monsanto-email-you-cannot-say-that-roundup-is-not-a-carcinogen.pdf
92. Dirks, Richard (2002, April 4). RE: European Commission Endocrine Disruptors developments. [Email]. Baum Hedlund Law https://
www.baumhedlundlaw.com/documents/pdf/monsanto-documents/37-monsanto-executive-admits-studies-demonstrate-formulat-
ed-roundup-does-the-damage.pdf
93. Baum Hedlund Law (Online). Email from William Heydens Monsanto vulnerable on gene tox after Parry https://www.baumhed-
lundlaw.com/documents/pdf/monsanto-documents/email-from-william-heydens-monsanto-vulnerable-on-gene-tox-after-parry.
pdf
94. Baum Hedlund Law. (2019, March 7). Monsanto Motion Denied for Summary Judgment in Roundup Cancer Cases. https://www.
baumhedlundlaw.com/blog/2019/march/monsanto-motion-denied-for-summary-judgment-in-r/
95. Wilson, Alan. (1999, September 2). RE: Comments on Parry Write-up. [Email]. Baum Hedlund Law. https://www.baumhedlundlaw.
com/documents/pdf/monsanto-documents/monsanto-toxicologist-donna-farmer-dr-parry-left-monsanto-in-a-genotox-hole.pdf
96. Heydens, William. (1999, September 16). RE: Parry Report. [Email]. Baum Hedlund Law. https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/docu-
ments/pdf/monsanto-documents/email-from-william-heydens-monsanto-vulnerable-on-gene-tox-after-parry.pdf
97. Wilson, A. (1999, September 2). RE: Comments on Parry write-up. [Email]. Baum Hedlund Law. https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/
documents/pdf/monsanto-documents/monsanto-toxicologist-donna-farmer-dr-parry-left-monsanto-in-a-genotox-hole.pdf
88
98. Kier, L. D., & Kirkland, D. J. (2013). Review of genotoxicity studies of glyphosate and glyphosate-based formulations. Critical Re-
views in Toxicology, 43(4). https://doi.org/10.3109/10408444.2013.770820
99. Buelig, M. (2012, July 19). AW: Genotox Review: your approval requested! [Email]. Baum Hedlund Law. https://www.baumhedlund-
law.com/documents/pdf/monsanto-documents/emails-between-william-heydens-david-saltmiras-and-others-discussing-kier-kirk-
land-study.pdf
100. Ibid.
101. Krimsky, S. & Gillam, C. (2018). Roundup litigation discovery documents: implications for public health and journal ethics. J Public
Health Pol 39, 318–326 https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271-018-0134-z
102. Williams, G., Kroes, R., Munro, I.C. (2000). Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredi-
ent, Glyphosate, for Humans, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. Science Direct, 31, 2. https://doi.org/10.1006/rtph.1999.1371.
103. Heydens, W. (1999, July 30.) Glyphoasate Mamalian Manuscript. [Email]. Baum Hedlund Law. https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/
documents/pdf/monsanto-documents-2/final-draft-of-williams-et-al-2000-article-heydens-admits-to-having-sprouted-gray-hairs-
during-the-writing-of-article.pdf
104. Carr, Katherine. (2000, May 30). RE: Kudos on Publication of Roundup Tox Paper - now posted on the Internet. [Email]. U.S. Right
to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/2019/04/Ghostwriting-Monsanto-Email-Congratulating-scien-
tists-for-their-work-on-independent-Williams-Kroes-Munro-article.pdf
105. Ibid.
106. Heydens, William. (2015, February 19.) RE: IARC Planning. [Email]. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/up-
loads/2017/03/Heydens.png
107. Bayer Global. (2017, March 14). Monsanto did not ghostwrite the Williams et al (2000) glyphosate paper. Wayback Machine.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200329053442/https://monsanto.com/products/product-stewardship/articles/monsanto-not-
ghostwrite-williams-et-al-2000-glyphosate-paper/
108. Conrwall, Warren. (2017, March 23). Update: After Quick Review, medical school says no evidence Monsanto Ghostwrote Profes-
sor's paper. Science. https://www.science.org/content/article/update-after-quick-review-medical-school-says-no-evidence-mon-
santo-ghostwrote
109. Koch, Michael. (2015, May 11). RE: Post-lARC Activities to Support Glyphosate. [Email]. Baum Hedlund Law. https://www.baum-
hedlundlaw.com/documents/pdf/monsanto-documents/5-monsanto-involvement-with-scientific-studies-without-disclosing-con-
flicts-of-interest.pdf
110. Williams, G. M. et al. (2016). A review of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate by four independent expert panels and compari-
son to the IARC assessment. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 46(sup1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2016.1214677
111. Waldman, P., Stecker, T., & Rosenblatt, J. (2017, August 09). Monsanto was its own ghostwriter for some safety reviews.
Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-09/monsanto-was-its-own-ghostwriter-for-some-safety-reviews
112. Kier, L. and Monsanto. (2015, August 17). Project Ammendment Letter. [Consulitng Agreement]. Baum Heldlund Law. https://www.
baumhedlundlaw.com/documents/pdf/monsanto-documents/23-email-showing-monsanto-paid-a-consultant-on-expert-panel-be-
lieved-to-be-composed-of-independent-scientists.pdf
113. Whalley, C., Khan, D., McClellan, R. (2017). All communications with Taylor & Francis Regarding the 2017 Ethical Investigation into
the Publication of the five manuscripts by the Intertek Expert Panel. [Emails.] U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/
uploads/2019/08/McClellan-Roger-Exhibit-05_Redacted-final.pdf
114. Gillam, C. (2019, August 23). Emails reveal science publisher found papers on herbicide safety should be retracted due to Monsan-
to meddling. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-trial-tracker/emails-reveal-science-publisher-found-papers-
on-herbicide-safety-should-be-retracted-due-to-monsanto-meddling/
115. Gillam, C., & Donley, N. (2018, August 27). A Story Behind the Monsanto Cancer Trial - Journal sits on Retraction. https://careygil-
lam.com/articles/article/a-story-behind-the-monsanto-cancer-trial-journal-sits-on-retraction
116. Critical Reviews in Toxicology. (2018). Expression of Concern - 26 September 2018, 48:10, 891-891, DOI:
10.1080/10408444.2018.1522786. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10408444.2018.1522786
117. Grossman, E., & Brown, V. (2017, November 1). How Monsanto captured the EPA-and twisted science-to keep glyphosate on the
market. In These Times. https://inthesetimes.com/features/monsanto_epa_glyphosate_roundup_investigation.html
118. Ibid.
119. Malkan, S. (2021, March 08). Read the emails and texts that show EPA efforts to stop ATSDR glyphosate review. U.S. Right to
Know. https://usrtk.org/pesticides/read-the-emails-texts-that-show-epa-efforts-to-slow-atsdr-glyphosate-review/
120. Text Messages between Monsanto and the EPA. (2013, November 2). UCSF Industry Documents Library. https://www.industrydoc-
uments.ucsf.edu/docs/hjvm0226
121. Ibid.
122. Case, David. (2012, July 30). Manufacturing doubt in product defense. Fast Company. https://www.fastcompany.com/1139299/
manufacturing-doubt-product-defense
123. Sass, Jennnifer. (2019, April 11). ATSDR Report Confirms Glyphosate Cancer Risks, NRDC. https://www.nrdc.org/experts/jenni-
fer-sass/atsdr-report-confirms-glyphosate-cancer-risks
124. Heydens, William. (2015, April 28). RE: Glyphosate IARC Question. Roundup Litigation Documents. [Email]. UCSF Industry Docu-
ments Library. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/#id=rjvm0226
125. Gillam, Carey. (2018, February 14). Questions about EPA-monsanto collusion raised in cancer lawsuits. Huffpost. https://www.huff-
post.com/entry/questions-about-epa-monsa_b_14727648; Copley, M. Copley correspondence Jess Rowland, [Letter]. https://usrtk.
org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Copley-correspondence-Jess-Rowland.png
126. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2020, August). Toxicological Profile for Glyphosate. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/
toxprofiles/tp214.pdf
127. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2020, January). Interim Registration Review Decision and Responses to Public
Comments for Glyphosate. https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/interim-registration-review-decision-and-re-
sponses-public
128. Dinzeo, Maria. (2022, June 17). Ninth Circuit orders EPA to reexamine glyphosate’s toxicity to humans and the environment.
Courthouse News. https://www.courthousenews.com/ninth-circuit-orders-epa-to-reexamine-glyphosates-toxicity-to-hu-
mans-and-the-environment/
129. Burtscher-Schaden, H., et al. (2017). Glyphosate and Cancer, Buying Science: How industry strategized (and regulators colluded) in
an attempt to save the world’s most widely used herbicide from a ban, Friends of the Earth Austria. http://www.pan-germany.org/
download/Glyphosate_buying_science-EN.pdf
130. Nelsen, A. (2019, January 15). EU glyphosate approval was based on plagiarised Monsanto text, report finds. The Guardian. https://
www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/15/eu-glyphosate-approval-was-based-on-plagiarised-monsanto-text-report-finds;
Greens/EFA European Parliament (2019, January 15). Glyphosate renewal rife with chemical industry influence, new findings. [Press
Release]. https://www.greens-efa.eu/en/article/press/glyphosate-renewal-rife-with-chemical-industry-influence-new-findings
89
131. Nelsen, Arthur. (2016, May 17). UN/who panel in conflict of interest row over glyphosate cancer risk. The Guardian. https://www.
theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/17/unwho-panel-in-conflict-of-interest-row-over-glyphosates-cancer-risk
132. Malkan, Stacy. (2022, March 22). ILSI is a food industry lobby group. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/ilsi-is-
a-food-industry-lobby-group/
133. ILSI 2012 Donors. Document obtained by U.S. Right to Know via FOIA. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ILSI2012do-
nors.pdf
134. Nelsen, Arthur. (2016, May 17). UN/who panel in conflict of interest row over glyphosate cancer risk. The Guardian. https://www.
theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/17/unwho-panel-in-conflict-of-interest-row-over-glyphosates-cancer-risk
135. Ibid.
136. Gillam, Carey. (2020, February 18). Science shouldn't be for sale – we need reform to industry-funded studies to keep people safe.
The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/18/science-shouldnt-be-for-sale-we-need-reform-industry-
funded-studies-monsanto
137. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1983). Summary of the IBT Review Program: Office of Pesticides Program.
https://nepis.epa.gov
138. The New York Times. (1983, October 22). 3-EX officials of major laboratory convicted of falsifying drug tests. https://www.nytimes.
com/1983/10/22/us/3-ex-officials-of-major-laboratory-convicted-of-falsifying-drug-tests.html
139. Vicini, John L. (2013, September 11). RE: Animal performance trends. [Email]. Baum Hedlund Law. https://www.baumhed-
lundlaw.com/documents/pdf/monsanto-documents-2/monsanto-scientist-john-vicini-contemplates-submitting-draft-manu-
script-as-a-ghostwriter.pdf
140. Ibid.
141. Van Eenennaam, A. L., & Young, A. E. (2014). Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered feedstuffs on livestock popula-
tions. Journal of Animal Science, 92(10). https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2014-8124.
142. Malkan, S. (2022, April 12). Alison Van Eenennaam: Key outside spokesperson and lobbyist for keeping us in the dark about GMO
animals. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/gmo/alison-van-eenennaam-key-outside-spokesperson-and-lobbyist-for-the-agri-
chemical-and-gmo-industries/
143. Entine, J. (2014, September 18). The debate about GMO safety is over, thanks to a new trillion-meal study. Forbes. Retrieved July
17, 2022. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/09/17/the-debate-about-gmo-safety-is-over-thanks-to-a-new-trillion-meal-
study/?sh=3ddb55f58a63
144. See for example: Lynas, Mark. (2016, May 23). GMO Safety Debate is Over. Cornell Alliance for Science. https://allianceforscience.
cornell.edu/blog/2016/05/gmo-safety-debate-is-over/; and, The Scientific Consensus on GMOs (Online). GMO Answers. https://
gmoanswers.com/scientific-consensus-and-gmos.
145. Hilbeck, A., Binimelis, R., Defarge, N. et al. (2015), No scientific consensus on GMO safety. Environ Sci Eur 27, 4. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1
146. ibid.
147. Martinau, B. (2015, October 30). When food is genetically modified. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/
opinion/when-food-is-genetically-modified.html
148. World Health Organization. (2014, May 1). Food, genetically modified. https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/
item/food-genetically-modified
149. Scientific American. (2009, August 01). Do Seed Companies Control GM crop research? https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti-
cle/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/
150. ETC Group. (2019, April 06). New report: Putting the cartel before the horse...and farm, seeds, soil, peasants. https://www.etc-
group.org/content/new-report-putting-cartel-horse%E2%80%A6and-farm-seeds-soil-peasants
151. Ilbeck, A., Binimelis, R., Defarge, N. et al. (2015), No scientific consensus on GMO safety. Environ Sci Eur 27, 4. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1
152. Buchanan, M. (2019, June 28). Modern Science Couldn't Hit Roundup Maker Monsanto Where it Hurts. Bloomberg. https://www.
bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-28/modern-science-could-hit-roundup-maker-monsanto-where-it-hurts
153. Nersesyan, Armen & Knasmueller, Siegfried. (2021, March 25). Evaluation of the scientific quality of studies concerning genotoxic
properties of glyphosate. Institute of Cancer Research, Department of Medicine I, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna. https://us-
rtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Evaluation_25.03.21-with-signatures.pdf
154. Gillam, C. (2021, July 14). New analysis of glyphosate industry studies finds them outdated, flawed. U.S. Right to Know. https://us-
rtk.org/pesticides/new-analysis-glyphosate-studies/
155. Giddings, Val. (2014, October 23). RE: Colorado and Oregon Labeling Campaign. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/
uploads/2019/09/scientists-poll-well-.pdf
156. Ibid.
157. 21st Annual Edelman Trust Barometer. Online survey in 28 countries. (2021). https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/
files/2021-03/2021%20Edelman%20Trust%20Barometer.pdf
158. Schaffer, H. D., & Ray, D. E. (2018, November 30). Questionable changes in how AG Research in land-grant universities is funded.
Agricultural Policy Analysis Center. http://www.agpolicy.org/weekcol/2018/952.html
159. University of Minnesota. (Online). Cargill Building - microbial and Plant Genomics. http://www1.umn.edu/twincities/maps/CargillB/
160. Food and Water Watch. (2012, March). Public Research, Private Gain: Corporate Influence over University Agricultural Research.
https://foodandwaterwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Public-Research-Private-Gain-Report-April-2012.pdf. See also: Het-
tinger, J. (2021, November 15). Corporate money keeps university ag schools ‘relevant,’ and makes them targets of donor criticism.
Harvest Public Media. https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/corporate-money-keeps-university-ag-schools-relevant-
and-makes-them-targets-of-donor-criticism/article_b8afe11a-46e0-567b-97a5-b752c1a1a934.html
161. Ruskin, G. (2021, June 11). UCSF Chemical Industry Documents Library now hosts USRTK Collection. U.S. Right to Know. https://
usrtk.org/our-investigations/ucsf-industry-documents-library-to-hold-key-agrichemical-industry-papers/
162. Monsanto Company Confidential Document. (2019, July 25). U.S. Right to Know FOIA Communications Plan. https://usrtk.org/
wp-content/uploads/2019/08/2019-Monsanto-USRTK-FOIA-Communications-Plan.pdf
163. Ibid.
164. New York Times. (2015, September 05). Biotech Industry’s Big Gifts to the University of Florida https://www.documentcloud.org/
documents/2303691-kevin-folta-uoffloridadocs.html
165. Lipton, E. (2015, September 05). Food Industry enlisted academics in G.M.O. lobbying war, emails show. New York Times. https://
www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in-gmo-lobbying-war-emails-show.html
166. Ibid.
167. New York Times. (2015, September 05). A Florida professor works with the Biotech Industry. [Email]. https://www.nytimes.com/
interactive/2015/09/06/us/document-folta.html
90
168. Folta, K. (Online). University of Florida deep Monsanto Ties. [Response to Reddit Thread]. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/
wp-content/uploads/2015/09/No-formal-connection-to-Monsanto.png
169. Folta, K. (2015, September). Bingo! U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Not-my-work.png
170. Biofortified Board. (2019, January 28). Statement on Kevin Folta and conflicts of interest. Biofortified. https://biofortified.
org/2018/08/kevin-folta-coi/
171. New York Times. (2015, September 05). A Florida professor works with the Biotech Industry. [Email]. https://www.nytimes.com/
interactive/2015/09/06/us/document-folta.html
172. Belluz, J. (2016, April 05). The truth about WebMD, a hypochondriac's nightmare and big pharma's dream. Vox. https://www.vox.
com/2016/4/5/11358268/webmd-accuracy-trustworthy
173. Anderson, Liz; Folta, Kevin; Spurgat, Jennifer; Bayer Crop Science. (2015). [Email]. UCSF Chemical Industry Documents. https://
www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/xlbm0226
174. New York Times. (2015, September 05). A Florida professor works with the Biotech Industry. https://www.nytimes.com/interac-
tive/2015/09/06/us/document-folta.html
175. Payne, Jack M. (2014, July 21). RE: ASPB Follow-up. [Email]. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/
University-of-Florida-stance-on-GMOs.pdf
176. Florida Trend. (2014, July 17). Jack Payne of UF on GMOs and climate change. https://www.floridatrend.com/article/17361/jack-
payne-of-uf-on-gmos-and-climate-change
177. Payne, Jack M. (2021, July 21). RE: ASPB Follow-up. [Email]. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/
University-of-Florida-stance-on-GMOs.pdf
178. Malkan, Stacy. (2021, October 26). The misleading and deceitful ways of Dr. Kevin Folta. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/
our-investigations/kevin-folta/
179. Monsanto Internal Document. (2015, February 23). Glyphosate: IARC. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/up-
loads/2017/08/72-Document-Details-Monsantos-Strategy-Regarding-IARC.pdf
180. Folta, Kevin M. (2015, February 16). RE: Points Against Labeling. [Email]. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/up-
loads/2018/05/AgBioChatter-Academics-emails.pdf
181. Maluafili, Alicia. (2013, July 24). Breakfast with Kauai Business Council. [Email]. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/
uploads/2018/10/Biofortified-boys-messaging.pdf
182. Ibid.
183. Digital, G. (2018, January 12). Hawaii science 'SWAT team' engages public fears fanned by anti-GMO activists. Genetic Literacy
Project. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/07/29/hawaii-science-swat-team-engages-public-fears-fanned-by-anti-gmo-activ-
ists/
184. Kolpack, D. (2016, May 12). Opponents of GMO law find friendly audience in Fargo. Associated Press. https://eu.desmoinesreg-
ister.com/story/money/agriculture/2016/05/12/opponents-gmo-law-find-friendly-audience-fargo/84299424/; Borenstein, S.
(2016, May 17) National Academy of Science report says there's no evidence that eating genetically modified food will hurt you
or harm the environment. Associated Press. https://www.usnews.com/news/science/articles/2016-05-17/report-genetically-al-
tered-food-safe-but-not-curing-hunger
185. Eng, M. (2016, April 01). Why didn't an Illinois professor have to disclose GMO funding? WBEZ Chicago. https://www.wbez.org/
stories/why-didnt-an-illinois-professor-have-to-disclose-gmo-funding/eb99bdd2-683d-4108-9528-de1375c3e9fb
186. New York Times (2015, September 05). A University of Illinois professor joins the fight. [Emails]. https://www.nytimes.
com/interactive/2015/09/05/us/document-chassy.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=5DC20C892C493561A0497F-
4770CE2DDF&gwt=regi&assetType=REGIWALL
187. Chassy, Bruce. (2011). Re: Need help. [Email]. UCSF Chemical Industry Documents. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/
chemical/docs/#id=fpvm0226
188. 188 Chassy, Bruce. (2011, September 12). Re: Response to proposed EPA Rule Making -- possible next steps. [Email]. U.S. Right to
Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Chassy-notes-from-Sept.-2011-lobby-call-.pdf
189. 189 AAAS (2011, March 3). (Online) https://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-president-nina-v-fedoroff-expanding-sciences-role-across-in-
ternational-borders
190. Chassy, Bruce. (2011, July 5). RE: EPA letter. [Email]. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Federoff-
role-in-EPA-reg-opposition-.pdf
191. Nina Fedoroff et. al. (2011, July 5). Letter to US EPA. National Academy of Sciences. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7hhP5Qa-
sNtsNzk2YTczODktZmQxMi00ZWE1LTljNWEtYTdjZmUzNGMxNGU1/view?resourcekey=0-ZupO8FT0G0JReuMpzuVwhA
192. Chassy, Bruce. (2011, October 17). RE: Question. [Email]. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/meet-
ing-with-EPA_Federoff_Chassy.pdf
193. Chassy, Bruce. (2011, July 5). RE: EPA letter. [Email]. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Federoff-
role-in-EPA-reg-opposition-.pdf
194. BLP 2014 Schedule. (2014). University of Florida, Gainesville. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/
TamarHaspel1.pdf
195. BLPII: 2nd Annual Biotechnology Literacy Project Bootcamp Flyer. (2015). University of California, Davis. U.S. Right to Know.
https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/BLP-Davis-Flyer-2015.pdf
196. Malkan, S. (2018, May 31). Academics Review: The making of a Monsanto front group (see Academics Review tax records).
U.S.Right to Know https://usrtk.org/gmo/academics-review-the-making-of-a-monsanto-front-group/
197. Malkan, S. (2017, December 07). Monsanto fingerprints found all over attack on organic food. Huffpost. https://www.huffpost.com/
entry/monsanto-fingerprints-fou_b_10757524
198. BLPII: 2nd Annual Biotechnology Literacy Project Bootcamp Flyer. (2015). University of California, Davis. U.S. Right to Know.
https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/BLP-Davis-Flyer-2015.pdf
199. Academics Review (2014, April 7). Why consumers pay more for organic foods: Fear sells and marketers know it. https://web.
archive.org/web/20140410181250/http://academicsreview.org/2014/04/why-consumers-pay-more-for-organic-foods-fear-sells-
and-marketers-know-it/
200. Kroll, A., & Schulman, J. (2013, October 28). Leaked documents reveal the secret finances of a pro-industry science group. Mother
Jones. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/american-council-science-health-leaked-documents-fundraising/
201. Malkan, S. (2020, April 29). Scibabe says eat your pesticides. But who is paying her? U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/gmo/
sci-babe-yvette-dentremont/
202. Talking Biotech podcast (2015, Oct. 3). 019 The SciBabe Talks Toxins; Your Questions Answered, https://web.archive.org/
web/20201119022952/https://www.talkingbiotechpodcast.com/tag/scibabe/
203. About SciBabe. (2021, March 16). https://scibabe.com/about-scibabe/
204. Yvette d'Entremont - Researchgate. (Online). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yvette-Dentremont-2
91
205. Miller, T. C. (2007, April 08). Pesticide maker sees profit when others see risk. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/ar-
chives/la-xpm-2007-apr-08-me-amvac8-story.html
206. Brooke Borel (2015, June 26). Q&A with SciBabe on GMOs, swearing, and more. Popular Science. https://www.popsci.com/qa-sci-
babe/
207. Gunther, M. (2014, July 16). Why NGOs can't be trusted on GMOs. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-busi-
ness/2014/jul/16/ngos-nonprofits-gmos-genetically-modified-foods-biotech
208. Gunther, M. (2014, July 16). A deeper dive into NGO's claims on biotech foods. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/sus-
tainable-business/2014/jul/16/ngo-claims-biotech-foods-gmos-emails
209. Folta, Kevin. (2014, May 27). RE: Your presentation at BLP 2014 - GMO Labelling - What Works? [Email]. U.S. Right to Know.
https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Marc-Gunther_Biotech-Literacy-Project.pdf
210. Ibid.
211. Hansen, M. (2014, May 29). CU response to Cornell Study on cost of GE labeling. Consumer Reports. https://advocacy.consumerre-
ports.org/research/cu-response-to-cornell-study-on-cost-of-ge-labeling/
212. Haspel, T. (2015, Oct. 4). It’s the chemical Monsanto depends on. How dangerous is it? Washington Post https://www.washington-
post.com/lifestyle/food/its-the-chemical-monsanto-depends-on-how-dangerous-is-it/2015/10/04/2b8f58ee-67a0-11e5-9ef3-fde-
182507eac_story.html. See also Ropeik & Associates. (Online). Clients. https://www.dropeik.com/dropeik/clients.html
213. Shackford , S. (2014, August 21). New Cornell Alliance for Science gets $5.6 million grant. Cornell Chronicle. https://news.cornell.
edu/stories/2014/08/new-cornell-alliance-science-gets-56-million-grant
214. Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa. (2020, January 25). Seeds of Neo-Colonialism – Why the GMO Promoters Get It So Wrong
About Africa. https://afsafrica.org/seeds-of-neo-colonialism-why-the-gmo-promoters-get-it-so-wrong-about-africa/
215. Cornell Alliance for Science. Our 2018 Global Fellows (online). https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/fellows/2018
216. Focus Countries. AGRA. (Online). https://agra.org/focus-countries/
217. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2012). Helping poor farmers, changes needed to feed 1 billion hungry. https://www.gatesfounda-
tion.org/ideas/media-center/press-releases/2012/02/helping-poor-farmers-changes-needed-to-feed-1-billion-hungry
218. Malkan, S. (2022, March 17). Gates Foundation agriculture project in Africa flunks review. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/bill-
gates-food-tracker/gates-foundation-agriculture-project-in-africa-flunks-review/
219. Secretariat. (2021, September 22). Press release: 200 organizations urge donors to scrap Agra. Alliance for Food Sovereignty in
Africa. https://afsafrica.org/press-release-200-organisations-urge-donors-to-scrap-agra/
220. Southern African Faith Communities and Environment Institute (SAFCEI). (2018). Press release: African faith communities tell
Gates Foundation, "big farming is no solution for Africa". https://safcei.org/press-release-african-faith-communities-tell-gates-
foundation-big-farming-is-no-solution-for-africa/
221. Wise, Timothy. (2020) Failing Africa’s Farmers: An Impact Assessment of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, Tufts Uni-
versity Global Development and Environment Institute. https://sites.tufts.edu/gdae/files/2020/07/20-01_Wise_FailureToYield.pdf;
and Mkindi, Abdallah et al. (2020). False Promises: The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). https://www.rosalux.de/
fileadmin/rls_uploads/pdfs/Studien/False_Promises_AGRA_en.pdf.
222. Malkan, S. (2021, October 15). Critiques of Gates Foundation Agricultural Interventions in Africa. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.
org/our-investigations/critiques-of-gates-foundation/
223. Monsanto Internal Document. (2015, February 23). Glyphosate: IARC. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/up-
loads/2017/08/72-Document-Details-Monsantos-Strategy-Regarding-IARC.pdf
224. Lynas, M. (2020, September 15). Europe still burns witches - if they're named Monsanto. Alliance for Science. https://alliancefor-
science.cornell.edu/blog/2017/11/europe-still-burns-witches-if-theyre-named-monsanto/
225. Alliance for Science. (2015, March 5). Stop the next Climategate: Stand with public sector scientists and show them your support
against agenda-driven bullying. https://web.archive.org/web/20150305065123/http://cas.nonprofitsoapbox.com/science14
226. Monsanto Internal Document. (2019, July 25). U.S. Right to Know FOIA Communications Plan. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.
org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/2019-Monsanto-USRTK-FOIA-Communications-Plan.pdf
227. Vidal, J. (2010, September 29). Why is the Gates Foundation investing in GM giant Monsanto? The Guardian. https://www.
theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2010/sep/29/gates-foundation-gm-monsanto
228. Brennan, V. (2018, May 21). Buffett's Berkshire increases Monsanto stake as Bayer acquisition nears completion. St. Louis Business
Journal. https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2018/05/21/buffetts-berkshire-increases-monsanto-stake-as.html
229. Purdy, C. (2017, February 15). One of the food world's most controversial mergers just got a hell of a cheerleader: Warren Buffett.
Quartz. https://qz.com/911501/warren-buffett-buys-shares-in-monsanto-mon-lending-his-backing-to-the-controversial-merger-
with-bayer-bayn/
230. Bayer AG. (Online). Bayer in Hawaii. https://www.bayer.com/en/us/bayer-in-hawaii
231. Pala, C. (2015, August 23). Pesticides in Paradise: Hawaii's spike in birth defects puts focus on GM crops. The Guardian. https://
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/23/hawaii-birth-defects-pesticides-gmo
232. Holland, F. A. (2019, November 21). Guest room: Students should continue to question the ethics of the Cornell Alliance for Sci-
ence. The Cornell Daily Sun. https://cornellsun.com/2019/11/19/guest-room-students-should-continue-to-question-the-ethics-of-
the-cornell-alliance-for-science/
233. Conrow, J. (2020, September 15). Hawaii joins Alliance for Science Global Network. Alliance for Science. https://allianceforscience.
cornell.edu/blog/2016/12/hawaii-joins-alliance-for-science-global-network/
234. Alliance for Science. (2021, October 11). Joan Conrow. https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/team/joan-conrow/
235. Conrow, J. (2015, November 5). Undue outside influence. Journalist Joan Conrow Original Reportage Prose. https://web.archive.
org/web/20160826125226/http://www.journalistjoanconrow.com/undue-outside-influence/
236. Conrow, J. (1970, January 1). Musings: Cowed by anti-science bullies. Kauai Eclectic. http://kauaieclectic.blogspot.com/2017/04/
musings-cowed-by-anti-science-bullies.html
237. Conrow, J. (1970, January 1). Musings: Christopher Pala's hit piece. Kauai Eclectic. http://kauaieclectic.blogspot.com/2015/08/mus-
ings-christopher-palas-hit-piece.html
238. Holland, F. A. (2019, November 21). Guest room: Students should continue to question the ethics of the Cornell Alliance for Sci-
ence. The Cornell Daily Sun. https://cornellsun.com/2019/11/19/guest-room-students-should-continue-to-question-the-ethics-of-
the-cornell-alliance-for-science/
239. Malkan, S. (2021, October 28). Cornell Alliance for Science is a PR campaign for the agrichemical industry. U.S. Right to Know.
https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/cornell-alliance-for-science-is-campaign-for-agrichemical-industry/
240. Malkan, S. (2021, June 11). Mark Lynas promotes the chemical industry's commercial agenda. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/
our-investigations/mark-lynas/
92
241. Malkan, S. (2021, March 26). Gates Foundation doubles down on misinformation campaign at Cornell as African leaders call for
Agroecology. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/gates-foundation-cornell-misinformation-campaign-afri-
can-leaders-call-for-agroecology/
242. Monsanto Internal Document. (2016, December). FH Glyphosate Campaign Weekly Intelligence Report. U.S. Right to Know. https://
usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/FreedomtoFarmMonsantoPR.pdf
243. Boren, Z., & Neslen, A. (2018, October 31). How lobbyists for Monsanto led a 'grassroots farmers' movement against an EU glypho-
sate ban. Unearthed. https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/10/17/monsanto-red-flag-glyphosate-roundup-eu/
244. TobaccoTactics. (2020, March 2). Red Flag Consulting. University of Bath. https://tobaccotactics.org/wiki/red-flag-consulting/
245. POLITICO. (2016, January 4). New CFPB attack, with Koch fingerprints? https://www.politico.com/tipsheets/politico-influ-
ence/2016/01/new-koch-linked-group-attacks-cfpb-211982
246. POLITICO. (2016, May 19). Pi exclusive: Uncovering the 'Astroturf' firm behind the CFPB attack ads. https://www.politico.com/
tipsheets/politico-influence/2016/05/pi-exclusive-unmasking-the-astroturf-firm-behind-the-cfpb-attack-ads-214391. See also U.S.
House Committee on Financial Services (2016, April 7). House Democrats Call for Investigation into anti-CFPB group. https://finan-
cialservices.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=399743
247. Saul, S. (2012, October 4). G.O.P. operative long trailed by allegations of voter fraud. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.
com/2012/10/05/us/politics/nathan-sproul-a-republican-operative-long-trailed-by-voter-fraud-claims.html?_r=0
248. Hansen, R. J. and Sanchez, Y. W.. (2020, July 25). Report: Arizona Political Operative tied to ohio bribery case. The Arizona Repub-
lic. https://eu.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2020/07/24/meghan-cox-co-founder-lincoln-strategy-group-tied-ohio-
bribery-case/5508266002/
249. Dahm, J. (2022, May 11). EU agencies push back glyphosate assessment to mid-2023. Euractive. https://www.euractiv.com/section/
agriculture-food/news/eu-agencies-push-back-glyphosate-assessment-to-mid-2023/
250. Boren, Z., & Neslen, A. (2018, October 31). How lobbyists for Monsanto led a 'grassroots farmers' movement against an EU glypho-
sate ban. Unearthed. https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/10/17/monsanto-red-flag-glyphosate-roundup-eu/
251. Ibid.
252. Brandt A. M. (2012). Inventing conflicts of interest: a history of tobacco industry tactics. American journal of public health, 102(1),
63–71. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300292
253. Tobacco Tactics (2021, June 14). Background: What is the third party technique? University of Bath. https://tobaccotactics.org/
wiki/third-party-techniques/
254. Sudhaman, A. (2013, July 24). Monsanto selects Fleishmanhillard to reshape reputation. PRovoke Media. https://www.provokeme-
dia.com/latest/article/monsanto-selects-fleishmanhillard-to-reshape-reputation
255. Dickson, V. (2015, February 24). Bayer brings on Fleishman for Global Issues Account. PR Week Global. https://www.prweek.com/
article/1275012/bayer-brings-fleishman-global-issues-account
256. Mintz, M. (1996, March 24). SECOND-HAND MONEY. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/maga-
zine/1996/03/24/second-hand-money/be084c1c-d396-4207-b1ad-8467f6eb9fb6/
257. Ruth E. Malone. (2002). Tobacco Industry Surveillance of Public Health Groups: The Case of STAT and INFACT. American Journal
of Public Health. 92, 955_960. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.92.6.955
258. Ruskin, G. (2015, January). Seedy Business: What Big Food is hiding with its slick PR campaign on GMOs. U.S. Right to Know.
https://usrtk.org/seedybusiness.pdf
259. Ridgeway, J. (2008, April 11). Black Ops, Green Groups. Mother Jones. https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2008/04/exclu-
sive-cops-and-former-secret-service-agents-ran-black-ops-green-groups/
260. Beckett Brown International, Inc. (1999, August 25). Intelligence Analysis for Dow Global Trends Tracking TeamL Activists, Issues
and Trends. Mother Jones. https://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/legacy/news/feature/2008/04/Dow-Global-
Trends-Tracking-Team.pdf
261. Tabuchi, H. (2020, November 11). How One firm drove influence campaigns nationwide for Big Oil. The New York Times. https://
www.nytimes.com/2020/11/11/climate/fti-consulting.html
262. Monsanto Internal Document. (2017, September 11). Project Spruce: Carey Gillam Book. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/
wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Monsanto-Project-Spruce-Carey-Gillam-1.pdf
263. France 24. (2019, May 18). Consultant poses as journalist in Monsanto trial. https://www.france24.com/en/20190518-consul-
tant-poses-journalist-monsanto-trial
264. DeSmog Guest. (2021, August 3). Understanding Overlapping Corporate Disinformation Campaigns is Critical to Telling the Full
Story About Science Denial. https://www.desmog.com/2021/08/03/monsanto-fti-consulting-overlapping-corporate-disinforma-
tion-campaigns-science-denial/
265. Thacker, P. D. (2019, October 29). Monsanto’s Spies. HuffPost. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/monsantos-spies_n_5d-
7ba20de4b03b5fc88233c4
266. Savage, K. (2019, January 21). Exxon reps pose as reporters to query opposing lawyer in climate lawsuit. The Climate Docket.
https://www.climatedocket.com/2019/01/21/exxon-reps-climate-lawsuit-colorado-earthrights/
267. Tobacco Tactics. (2021, July 21). FTI Consulting. University of Bath. https://tobaccotactics.org/wiki/fti-consulting/
268. We based our third-party analysis on four primary sources:
1) Monsanto Internal Document. (2017, September 11). Project Spruce: Carey Gillam Book. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/
wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Monsanto-Project-Spruce-Carey-Gillam-1.pdf
2) Monsanto Internal Document. (2015, February 23). Glyphosate: IARC. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/up-
loads/2017/08/72-Document-Details-Monsantos-Strategy-Regarding-IARC.pdf
3) Ross, G. (2015, March 16). Re: Request for Monsanto Report for ACSH, 2015, with “impacts”. [Email]. U.S. Right to Know. CSH-
does-for-Monsanto-and-glyphosate.pdf
4) Goldstein, D. (2015, February 2). ACSH [Email]. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/ACSH-
email.pdf
269. International Agency for Research on Cancer. (2015, March 20). IARC Monographs Volume 112: evaluation of five organophosphate
insecticides and herbicides. World Health Organization. https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/MonographVol-
ume112-1.pdf
270. Monsanto Internal Document. (2015, February 23). Glyphosate: IARC. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/up-
loads/2017/08/72-Document-Details-Monsantos-Strategy-Regarding-IARC.pdf
271. Chassy, B. (2014, April 8). Academics Review Report: Why consumers pay more for organic foods? Fear sells and marketers know
it. PRWeb. https://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/04/prweb11743859.htm
272. About. Academics Review RSS. (Online). https://web.archive.org/web/20141212200429/http:/academicsreview.org/about-academ-
ic-review/
93
273. Chassy, B. (2014, April 8). Academics Review Report: Why consumers pay more for organic foods? Fear sells and marketers know
it. PRWeb. https://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/04/prweb11743859.htm
274. IRS 990, Council for Biotechnology Information, 2014 & 2015. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/
CBI_2014-990.pdf https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/CBI_2015-990.pdf
275. IRS 990, Academics Review Org Co Bruce Chassy, 2013-2016. U.S. Right to Know.
https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Academics-Review_2013-990.pdf
https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Academics-Review_2014-990.pdf
https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Academics-Review_2015-990.pdf
https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Academics-Review_2016-990.pdf
276. Chassy, B. (2011. March 10). Re: domain available. [Email]. U.S. Right to Know. http://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/up-
loadBruceChassy3.pdf
277. Graves, L. (2014, December 31). Rick Berman Caught on Tape: Hear His 10 Tactics to Aid Dirty Energy Corps. HuffPost. https://www.
huffpost.com/entry/rick-berman-caught-on-tap_b_6082602?utm_hp_ref=tw
278. Chassy, B. (2011. March 10). Re: domain available. [Email]. U.S. Right to Know. http://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/up-
loadBruceChassy3.pdf
279. Chassy, B. (2010, November 30). Re: Questions. [Email]. U.S. Right to Know. http://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Sachs-
AR.pdf
280. Ibid.
281. Academics Review. (2015, March 23). IARC glyphosate cancer review fails on multiple fronts. https://web.archive.org/
web/20150803041530/http:/academicsreview.org/2015/03/iarc-glyphosate-cancer-review-fails-on-multiple-fronts/
282. Lipton, E. (2015, September 5). Food Industry enlisted academics in G.M.O. lobbying war, emails show. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in-gmo-lobbying-war-emails-show.html
283. About. Academics Review. (Online). (The original Academics Review URL is no longer operational and the archived website has
moved to the BonusEventus.org domain owned by Jay Byrne.) https://academics-review.bonuseventus.org/about-academic-re-
view/
284. Ruskin, G. (2021, March 25). The American Council on Science and Health is a Corporate Front Group. U.S. Right to Know. https://
usrtk.org/our-investigations/american-council-on-science-and-health/
285. Wilce, R. (2019, Jan. 24). Corporate Front Group, American Council on Science and Health, Smears List of Its Enemies as “Deniers
for Hire”. Exposed by CMD. https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2019/01/24/corporate-front-group-american-council-on-science-and-
health-smears-list-of-its-enemies-as-deniers-for-hire/
286. ACSH. (2013). FY 2013 Financial Update. U.S. Right Now. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/acsh-financial-summary.pdf
287. 287 Kroll, A., & Schulman, J. (2013, October 28). Leaked documents reveal the secret finances of a pro-industry science group.
Mother Jones. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/american-council-science-health-leaked-documents-fundraising/
288. 288 Goldstein, D. A. (2015, February 26). RE: ASCH. [Email]. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/
ACSH-email.pdf
289. Ibid.
290. Ross, G. (2015, March 16). Re: Request for Monsanto Support ACSH, 2015, with “impacts”. [Email]. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.
org/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/2019/04/Monsanto-money-for-ACSH-and-discussion-of-what-ACSH-does-for-Mon-
santo-and-glyphosate.pdf
291. Ibid.
292. Berezow, A. (2017, Oct. 24). Glyphosate-Gate: IARC’s Scientific Fraud. American Council on Science and Health https://www.acsh.
org/news/2017/10/24/glyphosate-gate-iarcs-scientific-fraud-12014
293. News Staff. (2018, August 6). Congress pulls funding for IARC statistics organization. Science 2.0 https://www.science20.com/
news_staff/congress_pulls_funding_for_iarc_statistics_organization-233610
294. Campbell, H. (2019, January 3). My EPA Comment On IARC Monograph Leader Kurt Straif Being Nominated To The Science Advi-
sory Committee On Chemicals. Science 2.0. https://www.science20.com/hank_campbell/my_epa_comment_on_iarc_monograph_
leader_kurt_straif_being_nominated_to_the_science_advisory_committee_on_chemicals
295. Campbell, H. (2019b, April 30). IARC Alone: EPA Confirms Again That Glyphosate Does Not Cause Cancer. Science 2.0. https://
www.science20.com/hank_campbell/iarc_alone_epa_confirms_again_that_glyphosate_does_not_cause_cancer-237811
296. Gross, L. (2016, November 15). How Self-Appointed Guardians of “Sound Science” Tip the Scales Toward Industry. The Intercept.
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/15/how-self-appointed-guardians-of-sound-science-tip-the-scales-toward-industry/
297. Malkan, S. (2020, November 17). Science Media Centre Promotes Corporate Views of Science. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/
our-investigations/science-media-centre/
298. Ruskin, G. (2021, October 7). Genetic Literacy Project: PR Front for Monsanto, Bayer and the Chemical Industry. U.S. Right to Know.
https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/jon-entine-genetic-literacy-project/
299. Ross, Gilbert. (2009, Aug. 28) ACSH proposal, “Pesticides and Health.” [Email.] Sourcewatch. https://www.sourcewatch.org/imag-
es/5/55/Syn_email_ACSH_Whelan_Say_Syngenta_Is_Financial_Lifeblood.pdf
300. Philpott, T. (2012, Feb. 24) The making of an agribusiness apologist. Mother Jones. https://www.motherjones.com/food/2012/02/
atrazine-syngengta-tyrone-hayes-jon-entine/
301. Malkan, S. (2022, July 14) Genetic Literacy Project: PR front for Monsanto, Bayer and the chemical industry. U.S. Right to Know.
https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/jon-entine-genetic-literacy-project/
302. ACSH staff. (2017, June 29) Little Black Book of Junk Science. American Council on Science and Health. https://www.acsh.org/
news/2017/06/29/little-black-book-junk-science-11507
303. Root, T. (2019, July 10). Following the money that undermines climate science. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.
com/2019/07/10/climate/nyt-climate-newsletter-cei.html and The Advancement of Sound Science Background. DeSmog (online).
https://www.desmog.com/advancement-sound-science-coalition/
304. Internal Monsanto Document. (2015, February 23). Glyphosate: IARC. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/up-
loads/2017/08/72-Document-Details-Monsantos-Strategy-Regarding-IARC.pdf
305. Martin, J. (2018, October 10). Cutting Through the Clutter on Glyphosate. Food Insight. https://foodinsight.org/cutting-through-
the-clutter-on-glyphosate/
306. Food Insight. (2020, August 27). 8 Crazy Ways They’re Trying to Scare You About Fruits and Vegetables [UPDATED]. https://foo-
dinsight.org/8-crazy-ways-theyre-trying-to-scare-you-about-fruits-and-vegetables-updated/
307. Navarro, A. (2015, December 8). Scientists Hired By Monsanto Say Weed Killer Glyphosate Does Not Cause Cancer. Tech Times.
https://www.techtimes.com/articles/114226/20151208/scientists-hired-by-monsanto-say-weed-killer-glyphosate-does-not-cause-
cancer.htm
94
308 Malkan, S. (2022, April 12). IFIC: How Big Food Spins Bad News. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/how-big-
food-spins-bad-news/
309. Steele, S. Sarcevic, L. Ruskin, G. Stuckler, D. (2022, March 8). Confronting potential food industry ‘front groups’: case study of the
international food information Council’s nutrition communications using the UCSF food industry documents archive. BioMed Cen-
tral. https://globalizationandhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12992-022-00806-8
310 Sims, T., PhD. (2020, June 30). Glyphosate 101: Gaining Food Safety Insights. Food Insight. https://foodinsight.org/glypho-
sate-101-gaining-food-safety-insights/
311 Safe Fruits and Veggies Calculator https://www.safefruitsandveggies.com/calculator-faq/
312. Environmental Working Group (2010, Sept. 28). Taxpayers funding pro-pesticide PR campaign. https://www.ewg.org/news-in-
sights/news/taxpayers-funding-pro-pesticide-pr-campaign
313. Gillam, C. (2021, March 8). Chemicals on our food: When “safe” may not really be safe. EHN. https://www.ehn.org/when-safe-may-
not-really-be-safe-2621578745.html
314. President’s Cancer Panel. (2009). Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now. U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services. https://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/annualreports/pcp08-09rpt/pcp_report_08-09_508.pdf
315. International Food Information Council (IFC) and IFC Foundation. (2017). Partners and Supporters. Food Insight. https://web.
archive.org/web/20171021194723/http:/www.foodinsight.org/sites/default/files/Partners-and-Supporters.pdf
316. Ayres, R. (2014, April 28). UPDATE: IFIC Foundation’s Understanding Our Food Initiative. [Email]. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.
org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/IFIC-Foundation-fundraising-from-corporations.pdf
317. Food Insight. (2017, May 1). 2017 Food and Health Survey: "A healthy perspective: Understanding american food values". https://
foodinsight.org/2017-food-and-health-survey-a-healthy-perspective-understanding-american-food-values-2/
318. Ayres, R. (2014, April 28). UPDATE: IFIC Foundation’s Understanding Our Food Initiative. [Email]. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrt-
korg/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/IFIC-Foundation-fundraising-from-corporations.pdf
319 USDA ERS. (Online). Recent Trends in GE Adoption.https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engi-
neered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx
320 Monsanto Internal Document. (2015, February 23). Glyphosate: IARC. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/up-
loads/2017/08/72-Document-Details-Monsantos-Strategy-Regarding-IARC.pdf
321. Monsanto Internal Document. (2017, September 11). Project Spruce: Carey Gillam Book. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/
wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Monsanto-Project-Spruce-Carey-Gillam-1.pdf
322. Grassi, M. (2015, June 8). ASA, NCGA: IARC Pesticide Findings Create Confusion. CropLife. https://www.croplife.com/crop-inputs/
herbicides/asa-ncga-iarc-pesticide-findings-create-confusion/
323. WHO Internal Agency for Research on Cancer. (2015, June 23). IARC Monographs evaluate DDT, lindane, and 2,4-D. Press Release.
https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr236_E.pdf
324. Dimadis, T. (2018, June 26). FPA-FPF Board meeting at 4.30 pm. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/up-
loads/2019/11/June-Email-laying-out-all-details-of-agreement-with-BAYER.pdf
325. Ibid.
326. Dimadis, T. (2018, July 11). Pictures- Secretary Johnson FPA event. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/up-
loads/2019/11/Chris-on-board-other-terms.-2018.pdf
327. Fedoroff, N. Raven, P. & Sharp, P. (2015, March 09). The anti-GM lobby appears to be taking a page out of the Climategate Pla-
book. The Guardian. https://web.archive.org/web/20150310032613/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/09/
gm-opponents-are-science-deniers
328. Kloor, K. (2018, December 31). Mimicking climategate, anti-GMO activists fund legal attack on Biotech Academics. Genetic Literacy
Project. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/02/11/mimicking-climategate-organic-and-anti-gmo-activists-fund-legal-at-
tack-on-biotech/
329. Nina Fedoroff. OFW Law. (2021, January 15). https://ofwlaw.com/attorneys/dr-nina-v-fedoroff/
330. Fedoroff, N. Raven, P. & Sharp, P. (2015, March 09). The anti-GM lobby appears to be taking a page out of the Climategate Play-
book. The Guardian. https://web.archive.org/web/20150310032613/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/09/
gm-opponents-are-science-deniers
331. Missouri Botanical Garden (2012, June 5) Missouri Botanical Garden receives $3 million gift from Monsanto Company towarddevel-
opment of a world flora online. https://web.archive.org/web/20160309034808/http://www.missouribotanicalgarden.org/media/
news-releases/article/327/missouri-botanical-garden-receives-3-million-gift-from-monsanto-company-toward.aspx
332. Plant science. (Online). Missouri Botanical. Garden.https://www.missouribotanicalgarden.org/plant-science/plant-science/resourc-
es/raven-library.aspx
333. Blanding, M. (2020, February 11). The Man Who Helped Launch Biotech. MIT Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview.
com/2015/08/18/166642/the-man-who-helped-launch-biotech/
334. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2020, October 12). Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Label-
ing of Genetically Modified Foods. https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf
335. Gurian-Sherman, D. (2012, November 2). A contrary perspective on the AAAS Board statement against labeling of Engineered
Foods. The Equation. https://blog.ucsusa.org/doug-gurian-sherman/a-contrary-perspective-on-the-aaas-board-statement-against-
labeling-of-engineered-foods/
336. Hunt, P. (2012). Yes: Food labels would let consumers make informed choices. Environmental Health News. https://web.archive.org/
web/20121202114418/http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2012/yes-labels-on-gm-foods
337 Priest, S. H. et al. (2013, February 15). AAAS position on GM Foods could backfire. Science.og. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/
science.339.6121.756-a
338. Malkan, S. (2022, March 22). ILSI is a food industry lobby group. U.S. Right to Know https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/ilsi-is-a-
food-industry-lobby-group/
339. @NYTScience (2019, September 16) [Tweet]. https://twitter.com/USRightToKnow/status/1173794825356763136
340 Malkan, S. (2017, July 20). Science Media Centre Promotes Corporate Views of Science. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/
our-investigations/science-media-centre/
341. Callaway, E. (2013) Science media: Centre of attention. Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/499142a
342. Kenner, Robert. (2014). Merchants of Doubt. Sony Pictures Classics.
343. Graham Jr. , F. (2012, June 21). Fifty years after Silent spring, attacks on science continue. Yale Environment 360. https://e360.yale.
edu/features/fifty_years_after_rachel_carsons_silent_spring_assacult_on_science_continues
344. Samet, J. M. (2019). Expert review under attack: glyphosate, talc, and cancer. American Journal of Public Health, 109(7), 976-978.
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305131
345. Horel, S., & Foucart, S. (2017, November 20). The Monsanto Papers, part 1 - operation: Intoxication. Environmental Health News.
https://www.ehn.org/monsanto-glyphosate-cancer-smear-campaign-2509710888.html
95
346. Monsanto Internal Document. (2015, February 23). Glyphosate: IARC. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/up-
loads/2017/08/72-Document-Details-Monsantos-Strategy-Regarding-IARC.pdf
347. IRS 990, Science Literacy Project, 2019. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/SLP-IRS-990-2017.pdf
348. Jon's biography. (Online). Jon Entine. https://jonentine.com/biography/
349. Malkan, S. (2022, July 22). Genetic literacy project: PR front for Monsanto, Bayer and the Chemical Industry. U.S. Right to Know.
https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/jon-entine-genetic-literacy-project/
350. Entine, J. (2013, November 5). University of Texas-Environmental Defense Fund Shale Gas study unmasks politics of anti-fracking
activist Cornell scientists. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/09/18/university-of-texas-environmental-de-
fense-fund-shale-gas-study-unmasks-politics-of-anti-fracking-activist-cornell-scientists/?sh=6a62ba8469a0#2715e4857a0b23a3f-
b0e7880
351. Entine, J. (2012, October 12). New York Times blunders into advocacy role on the fracking debate -- children are the victims.
Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/10/03/new-york-times-blunders-into-advocacy-role-on-the-fracking-de-
bate-children-are-the-victims/?sh=23e1eca9160a
352. Entine, J. (2012, November 1). Bisphenol A (BPA) found not harmful, yet again -- so why did so many reporters and ngos botch
coverage, yet again? Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/10/31/bisphenol-a-bpa-found-not-harmful-yet-again-
so-why-did-so-many-reporters-and-ngos-botch-coverage-yet-again/?sh=38132d3e4e95
353. Glyphosate Archives. Genetic Literacy Project. (Online). https://geneticliteracyproject.org/tag/glyphosate/
354. David Zaruk archives. Genetic Literacy Project. (Online). https://geneticliteracyproject.org/writer/david-zaruk/
355. David Zaruk CV. U.S. Right to Know. (2019, April). https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/CV.David_.Zaruk_.pdf
356. Paul Driessen archives. Genetic Literacy Project. (Online). https://geneticliteracyproject.org/writer/paul-driessen/
357. Fisher, M. (2021, July 9). Paul Driessen. DeSmog. https://www.desmog.com/paul-driessen/
358. Monsanto Client ESG Media Metrics. [Screenshot.] U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/entine-cli-
ent-monsanto.jpg
359. Mission, financial transparency, governorship. Genetic Literacy Project. (2016). https://web.archive.org/web/20160909002518/
https:/geneticliteracyproject.org/mission-financials-governorship/
360. Malkan, S. (2019, November 18). Academics review: The making of a Monsanto Front Group. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/
gmo/academics-review-the-making-of-a-monsanto-front-group/
361. Mission, financial transparency, governorship. Genetic Literacy Project. (2016). https://web.archive.org/web/20160909002518/
https:/geneticliteracyproject.org/mission-financials-governorship/
362. Phillips, P. (2019, September 9). RE: URGENT Request. [Email]. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/
urgentrequest.pdf
363. Krantz, L. (2015, October 1). Harvard professor failed to disclose connection. The Boston Globe. https://www.bostonglobe.com/
metro/2015/10/01/harvard-professor-failed-disclose-monsanto-connection-paper-touting-gmos/lLJipJQmI5WKS6RAgQbnrN/sto-
ry.html
364. Kaskey, J. (2015, October 2). How Monsanto Mobilized Academics to Pen Articles Supporting GMOs. Bloomberg. https://www.
bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-02/how-monsanto-mobilized-academics-to-pen-articles-supporting-gmos
365. IRS 990, Science Literacy Project, 2020. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/SLP-990-
for-2020-2021.pdf
366. Driessen, P. (2018, March 12). Viewpoint: Congress should reign in IARC Cancer Agency's 'corruption, distortion and fraud'. Genetic
Literacy Project. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/03/13/viewpoint-congress-reign-iarc-cancer-agencys-corruption-distor-
tion-fraud/
367. Heitz, A. (2019, January 10). Viewpoint: North American scientists, IARC officials conspired to misrepresent glyphosate health
risks. Genetic Literacy Project. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/05/08/viewpoint-north-american-scientists-iarc-offi-
cials-conspired-to-misrepresent-glyphosate-health-risks/
368. Entine, J. (2019, January 9). Viewpoint: 6 ways IARC Director Christopher Wild lied to Congress about cancer agency’s glypho-
sate debacle. Genetic Literacy Project. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/01/22/viewpoint-6-ways-iarc-director-christo-
pher-wild-lied-congress-cancer-agencys-glyphosate-debacle/
369. Digital, G. (2018, January 12). Jon Entine podcast: Corruption and secrecy behind IARC’s glyphosate cancer designation? Genet-
ic Literacy Project. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/10/25/jon-entine-podcast-corruption-secrecy-behind-iarcs-glypho-
sate-cancer-designation/
370. Entine, J. (2019b, March 4). Predatort Part II: How predatory lawyers, activist scientists hijacked IARC — International Agen-
cy for Research on Cancer — for personal profit and ideological vanity. Genetic Literacy Project. https://geneticliteracyproj-
ect.org/2019/03/01/predatort-part-ii-how-predatory-lawyers-activist-scientists-hijacked-iarc-international-agency-for-re-
search-on-cancer-for-personal-profit-and-ideological-vanity/
371. Zhang, L., Rana, I., Shaffer, R. M., Taioli, E., & Sheppard, L. (2019, February 10). Exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides and risk
for non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: A Meta-analysis and supporting evidence. Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research. https://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1383574218300887
372. Entine, J. [@JonEntine]. (2019, February 6). Epidemiologist geokabat@twitter.com takes careful look at (ridiculous) study that
claims glyphosate can increase cancer rates by 41%: Did authors commit deliberate fraud? [Link attached.] [Tweet]. Twitter.
https://twitter.com/JonEntine/status/1100431041871953920
373. Enstrom J. E. Kabat G. C. Smith D. (2003, March 7). Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective
study of Californians. BMJ. 326 :1057. https://www.bmj.com/content/326/7398/1057
374. Bero L.A. Glantz S. Hong M. (2005). The limits of competing interest disclosures. Tobacco Control. 14:118-126. https://tobaccocon-
trol.bmj.com/content/14/2/118.citation-tools
375. Grandia, K. (2021, December 14). Marc Morano. DeSmog. https://www.desmog.com/marc-morano/
376. Genetic Literacy Project. (2022, April 26). Mission, Financial Transparency and Governance. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/mis-
sion-financials-governance/
377. Kroll, A. (2013, February 5). Exposed: The Dark-Money ATM of the Conservative Movement. Mother Jones. https://www.mother-
jones.com/politics/2013/02/donors-trust-donor-capital-fund-dark-money-koch-bradley-devos/
378. McKechnie, A. (2013, December 20). Not Just the Koch Brothers: New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change
Denial Effort. Drexel News. https://drexel.edu/news/archive/2013/december/climate-change
379. David Zaruk archives. Genetic Literacy Project. (Online). https://geneticliteracyproject.org/writer/david-zaruk/
380. David Zaruk CV. U.S. Right to Know. (n.d.). https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/CV.David_.Zaruk_.pdf
381. Fisher, M. (2021, July 9). Paul Driessen. DeSmog. https://www.desmog.com/paul-driessen/
382. Logomasini, A. (2018, September 18). Report: Congress should stop funding international junk science agency. Competitive Enter-
prise Institute. https://cei.org/content/report-congress-should-stop-funding-international-junk-science-agency
96
383. Root, T., Friedman, L., & Tabuchi, H. (2019, July 10). Following the Money That Undermines Climate Science. New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/climate/nyt-climate-newsletter-cei.html
384. Driessen, P. (2019, February 4). Keep Fraudulent Science Out of Our Courtrooms. The Heartland Institute. https://www.heartland.
org/news-opinion/news/keep-fraudulent-science-out-of-our-courtrooms?source=policybot
385. Olson, W. (2018, August 20). Roundup, the Usual Suspects. Cato.org. https://www.cato.org/commentary/roundup-usual-suspects
386. Driessen, P. (2019, August 6). Fraud and corruption bring big payoffs. CFACT. https://www.cfact.org/2019/08/06/fraud-and-cor-
ruption-bring-big-payoffs/
387. Monsanto internal document. (2016, March 2). RE: Reuters looking to speak to IARC observer. [Email]. U.S. Right to Know. https://
usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/2019/04/Monsanto-email-regarding-Red-Flag-connection-to-Reuters-reporter.
pdf
388. Ibid.
399. Murphey, S. (2017, March 27). FW: Your Voicemail. [Email]. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Kel-
land-Monsanto-email.pdf
390. Murphey, S. (2017, March 12). Reuters Inquiry. [Email]. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manag-
er/2019/04/Kate-Kelland-sends-draft-of-story-to-Monsanto.pdf
391. Kelland, K. (2017, June 14). The WHO's cancer agency left in the dark over glyphosate evidence. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/
investigates/special-report/glyphosate-cancer-data/
392. Butler, K. (2017, June 15). A scientist didn't disclose important data-and let everyone believe a popular weedkiller causes cancer.
Mother Jones. https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/06/monsanto-roundup-glyphosate-cancer-who/
393. Malkan, S. (2019, May 24). Reuters' Kate Kelland IARC story promotes false narrative. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/pesti-
cides/reuters-kate-kelland-iarc-story-promotes-false-narrative/
394. Monsanto Internal Document. (2019, February). Summary. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-man-
ager/2019/02/Monsanto-suggested-storyline-for-Kate-Kelland.pdf
395. Murphey, S. (2017, April 27). FW: Your Voicemail. [Email]. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/
Kland-Monsanto-email.pdf
396. Kelland, K. (2017, June 14). The WHO’s cancer agency left in the dark over glyphosate evidence. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/
investigates/special-report/glyphosate-cancer-data/
397. WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer. (2017, June 16). IARC Responds to Reuters on 14 June 2017. Wayback Machine.
https://web.archive.org/web/20211105200235/https://governance.iarc.fr/ENG/Docs/IARC_responds_to_Reuters_15_June_2017.pdf
398. Reynolds, T.L. Fwd: US Government Outreach- WHO IARC Clarification on Glyphosate. [Email]. The Intercept. https://www.docu-
mentcloud.org/documents/6306322-69-Internal-Email-Monsanto-Lobbying-Efforts-in.html
399. Anonymous. (n.d.). Letter to Dr. Francis S. Collins. The Intercept. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6304316-MONG-
LY07577415.html
400. Fang, L. (2019, August 23). Emails show Monsanto orchestrated GOP effort to intimidate cancer researchers. The Intercept. https://
theintercept.com/2019/08/23/monsanto-republicans-cancer-research/
401. Funding – IARC. (Online). International Agency for Research on Cancer. https://www.iarc.who.int/about-iarc-funding-assessed-con-
tributions
402. Lerner, S. (2017, May 20). Congressman Lamar Smith of Texas has a problem with science – and with voters. The Intercept. https://
theintercept.com/2017/05/20/congressman-lamar-smith-of-texas-has-a-problem-with-science-and-with-voters/
403. Berezow, A. (2017, March 15). Glyphosate: NYT's Danny Hakim Is Lying To You. American Council on Science and Health. https://
www.acsh.org/news/2017/03/15/glyphosate-nyts-danny-hakim-lying-you-11001
404. Hakim, D. (2016, October 29). Doubts about the promised bounty of genetically modified crops. The New York Times. https://ww-
wnytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-short.html
405. Hakim, D. (2016, December 31). Scientists loved and loathed by an agrochemical giant. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.
com/2016/12/31/business/scientists-loved-and-loathed-by-syngenta-an-agrochemical-giant.html
406. Hakim, D. (2017, August 2). Monsanto emails raise issue of influencing research on Roundup Weed Killer. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/business/monsantos-sway-over-research-is-seen-in-disclosed-emails.html
407. Gross, L. (2021, June 30). Bees face yet another lethal threat in dicamba, a drift-prone pesticide. Reveal News. https://revealnews.
org/article/bees-face-yet-another-lethal-threat-in-dicamba-a-drift-prone-pesticide/
408. Gross, L. (2017, November 16). Smoke screen. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/16/16658358/vape-lobby-vap-
ing-health-risks-nicotine-big-tobacco-marketing?source=acsh.org
409. Gross, L. (2016, November 15). How self-appointed guardians of "Sound science" tip the scales toward industry. The Intercept.
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/15/how-self-appointed-guardians-of-sound-science-tip-the-scales-toward-industry/
410 Berezow, A. (2017, November 21). PLoS Biology Senior Editor Liza Gross: An Activist With No Biology Education. American Coun-
cilon Science and Health. https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/11/21/plos-biology-senior-editor-liza-gross-activist-no-biology-educa-
tion-12175
411. Campbell, H. (2017, November 20). Science Is A Vast Corporate Conspiracy And More Media Links. American Council on Science
and Health. https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/11/20/science-vast-corporate-conspiracy-and-more-media-links-12163
412. Deniers for Hire. (Online). Wayback Machine. https://web.archive.org/web/20180609195837/https:/www.deniersforhire.com/
413. Gillam, C. (2019, June 2). How Monsanto manipulates journalists and academics. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/com-
mentisfree/2019/jun/02/monsanto-manipulates-journalists-academics
414. Thacker, P. D. (2017, July 21). Flacking for gmos: How the biotech industry cultivates positive media-and discourages criticism.
Progressive.org. https://progressive.org/magazine/how-the-biotech-industry-cultivates-positive-media/
415. Monsanto Internal Document. (2017, September 11). Project Spruce: Carey Gillam Book. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/
wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Monsanto-Project-Spruce-Carey-Gillam-1.pdf
416. Amazon.com. (Online). Whitewash Customer Reviews. https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/1610918320/ref=acr_dpProduct-
Detail_hist_1??ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&showViewpoints=0
417. Gillam, C. (2019, August 9). I’m a journalist. Monsanto built a step-by-step strategy to destroy my reputation. The Guardian. https://
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/08/monsanto-roundup-journalist-documents
418. Legal documents posted here (2018. August 1). U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/kevin-folta/
419. Schaeffer, K. (2020, September 10). Among U.S. couples, women do more cooking and grocery shopping than men. Pew Research
Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/09/24/among-u-s-couples-women-do-more-cooking-and-grocery-shop-
ping-than-men/
420. Redman 1, R. (2021, June 10). Organic food sales jump nearly 13% to record high in 2020. Supermarket News. https://www.super-
marketnews.com/produce-floral/organic-food-sales-jump-nearly-13-record-high-2020
421. Kowitt, B. (2015, May 21). Special Report: The war on big food. Fortune. https://fortune.com/2015/05/21/the-war-on-big-food/
97
422. Marinova, P. (2021, April 24). Millennials are driving an $18 billion food revolution. Fortune. https://fortune.com/2015/10/13/
food-revolution-millennials/
423. Gunlock, J. (2017). IWF -Podcast #56 Reasonable Mom’s Pushing Back On Food Alarmism. Independent Women’s Forum. https://
web.archive.org/web/20170616113325/http:/www.iwf.org/media/2801796/Podcast-
424. Independent Women’s Forum. (2016, April 21). Proposal to Monsanto: Culture of Alarmism Event. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.
org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/IWF-proposal-to-Monsanto-.pdf
425. Nonprofit Explorer. (Online). Independent Womens Forum. ProPublica. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organiza-
tions/541670627
426. Waldman, S. (2021, December 8). Meet the ‘dead industrialists’ funding climate denialism. E&E News. https://www.eenews.netarti-
cles/meet-the-dead-industrialists-funding-climate-denialism/
427. Rosenbloom, C. (2018, February 6). Perspective | these skeptics are using science to fight a wave of bad nutrition advice on the
internet. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/these-skeptics-are-using-science-to-fight-a-
wave-of-bad-nutrition-advice-on-the-internet/2018/02/02/c739e4ca-ff98-11e7-9d31-d72cf78dbeee_story.html
428. Dentremont, Y. (2018, October 10). Should You Worry About Herbicides in Your Food? Self. https://www.self.com/story/herbicides-
in-your-food
429. Malkan, S. (2018, March 31). SciBabe says eat your pesticides. But who is paying her? U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/gmo/
sci-babe-yvette-dentremont/
430. Food Science Babe. (2019, Febraury 19). This just in...Glyphosate STILL not found to cause cancer. [Link attached] [Status Update].
Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/foodsciencebabe/posts/this-just-inglyphosate-still-not-found-to-cause-cancerthe-bottom-
line-even-in-th/408505769974171/
431. Amanda N. Zaluckyj | Team. (Online). Jones Obenchain, LLP. https://jonesobenchain.com/team/amanda-n-zaluckyj/ and Zaluckyj,
A. (2019, January 22). Glyphosate isn't scary. the movement to demonize it is, though. AGDAILY. Retrieved August 21, 2022, from
https://www.agdaily.com/insights/farmers-daughter-glyphosate-isnt-scary-the-movement-to-demonize-it-is-though/
432. Blum, M. (2020, March 21). Ag a hot topic: Farm Babe’s message reaches millions on social media. Agrinews. https://www.
agrinews-pubs.com/2020/03/20/ag-a-hot-topic-farm-babes-message-reaches-millions-on-social-media/agk1ly1/ and Miller, M.
(2017, July 6). Farm babe: Glyphosate is a carcinogen? says who? AGDAILY. https://www.agdaily.com/insights/farm-babe-glypho-
sate-is-a-carcinogen-says-who/
433. The Foodie Farmer. (Online). [Blog]. Blogspot. https://thefoodiefarmer.blogspot.com/
434. Hawaiifarmersdaughter. (2019, June 27). Knee jerk reactions. HawaiiFarmersDaughter. https://hawaiifarmersdaughter.
com/2019/06/27/knee-jerk-reactions/
435. Chakraborty, R. (2019, September 5). Torches of Freedom: How the world’s first PR campaign came to be. YourStory.Com. https://
yourstory.com/2014/08/torches-of-freedom/amp
436. Payne, M. (2019). Food Bullying: How to Avoid Buying Bs. Morgan James Publishing.
437. Payne, M. (Online). Food Bullying How to Avoid Buying B.S. Cause Matters. https://causematters.com/foodbullying/
438. Folta, K. [@KevinFolta]. (2019, November 5). And my interview with Michele goes live on Saturday morning, 11/9. We
laughed a lot. I always appreciate time with Michele,” [Link Attached]. [Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/kevinfolta/sta-
tus/1191789424708898823
439. Giddings, V.[@prometheusgreen]. (2019, August 14). Tired of food shaming and guilt over eating choices? "Food Bullying: How
to Avoid Buying B.S." helps uncover the mind games... [Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/search?lang=en&q=(from%3Apro-
metheusgreen)%20(%40mpaynspeaker)&src=typed_query
440. Ryan, C. [@CamiDRyan]. (2019, November 5). How time flies ... @mpaynspeaker. [Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/kevinfolta/
status/1191789424708898823
441. Fraley, R. [@RobbFraley]. Really like the #GMO crops analogy from @mpaynspeaker in MACA newsletter: If you add or remove an
app from your... [Tweet]. [Image Attached]. https://twitter.com/search?lang=en&q=(from%3ARobbFraley)%20(%40mpaynspeak-
er)&src=typed_query
442. Entine, J. (2020, February 12). Podcast: ‘There’s no safe level of pesticides’? ‘Don’t eat what you can’t pronounce’? Food Science
Babe takes on popular nutrition tropes. Genetic Literacy Project. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/02/13/podcast-theres-
no-safe-level-of-pesticides-dont-eat-what-you-cant-pronounce-food-science-babe-takes-on-popular-nutrition-tropes/
443. Payne, M. (2022, March 21). Looking for a speaker who will leave your audience thinking? Cause Matters. https://causematters.
com/speaking-and-training/
444. Science Moms. (2018, May 12). Science Moms: Full Film! [Film]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEGAUHkHMyE
445. SciMoms. (Online). https://scimoms.com/
446. Ibid.
447. Hakim, D. (2017, August 1). Monsanto Emails Raise Issue of Influencing Research on Roundup Weed Killer. New York Times. https://
www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/business/monsantos-sway-over-research-is-seen-in-disclosed-emails.html
448. Ruskin, G. (2021, March 26). Henry Miller Dropped by Forbes for Monsanto Ghostwriting Scandal. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.
org/our-investigations/henry-i-miller/
449. Senapathy, K. (2019, September 30). I Was Lured Into Monsanto’s GMO Crusade. Here’s What I Learned. Undark Magazine. https://
undark.org/2019/06/27/monsanto-gmo-crusade/
450. Bernstein, A. (2018, February 22). Risk In Perspective. SciMoms. https://scimoms.com/risk-perspective-series-intro/
451. Foucart, S., & Horel, S. (2019, June 19). « Fichier Monsanto » : des dizaines de personnalités classées illégalement selon leur posi-
tion sur le glyphosate. Le Monde.fr. https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2019/05/09/fichier-monsanto-des-dizaines-de-person-
nalites-classees-illegalement-selon-leur-position-sur-le-glyphosate_5460190_3244.html
452. CBS News. (2019, May 21). Monsanto kept “watch lists” of European agrochemical friends and foes, Bayer says, as Roundup legal
battles continue. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/monsanto-watch-lists-europe-bayer-pesticide-roundup-gmo-journalists-pub-
lic-figures/
453. Bronner, L. (2019, May 10). « Fichier Monsanto » : « Le Monde » porte plainte. Le Monde.fr. https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/arti-
cle/2019/05/09/fichier-monsanto-le-monde-porte-plainte_5460196_3244.html
454. Picard, F., & Xenos, A. (2019, May 14). The debate - ticking time bomb? cancer lawsuits mount for Monsanto over glyphosate.
France 24. https://www.france24.com/en/20191405-debate-monsanto-glyphosate-weed-killer-trial-farming-cancer
455. Bayer Global. (2019, May 12). Bayer commissions external law firm to investigate Monsanto's stakeholder mapping project and
reaffirms its commitment to transparency and fair dealings with all stakeholders. https://media.bayer.com/baynews/baynews.nsf/
id/Bayer-commissions-external-investigate-Monsantos-stakeholder-mapping-project-reaffirms-commitment
456. Bayer Global. (2019, September 5). Monsanto stakeholder lists: No evidence of illegal behaviour. https://media.bayer.com/
baynews/baynews.nsf/id/Monsanto-stakeholder-lists-No-evidence-of-illegal-behaviour
98
457. Rfi. (2021, July 28). France fines Monsanto for illegally running 'watch lists'. https://www.rfi.fr/en/business-and-tech/20210728-
france-fines-monsanto-for-illegally-running-watch-lists
458. Owen, J. (2019, September 5). Bayer's reputational issues continue as 'watch list' scandal deepens. PR Week. https://www.prweek.
com/article/1588274/bayers-reputational-issues-continue-watch-list-scandal-deepens
459. Malkan. S. (2021, March 16). Monsanto’s Campaign Against U.S. Right To Know: Read the Documents. U.S. Right to Know. https://us-
rtk.org/our-investigations/monsanto-usrtk-foia/
460. Cowley, S. (2018, May 20). Banks adopt military-style tactics to fight cybercrime. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.
com/2018/05/20/business/banks-cyber-security-military.html
461. Levin, S. (2019, August 8). Revealed: how Monsanto's 'intelligence center' targeted journalists and activists. The Guardian. https://
www.theguardian.com/business/2019/aug/07/monsanto-fusion-center-journalists-roundup-neil-young
462. Murphey, S. (2016, January 28). RE: Shareholder 2016 Backgrounders. [Email]. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/
uploads/2020/02/Monsanto-Fusion-Center-Rachel-Parent-and-Moms-Across-America.pdf
463 Byrne, J. (2001). Protecting Your Assets: An Inside Look at the Perils and Power of the Internet. [Internal Monsanto Document].
U.S. Right to Know. https://www.google.com/url?q=https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Byrne-Ragan.ppt&sa=D&source
=docs&ust=1652785501578872&usg=AOvVaw1dH79CxUq_UeVxTfaVNoHg
464 Monbiot, G. (2002, November 19). The Covert Biotech War. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2002/nov/19/gm.
food
465. Byrne, J. (2001). Protecting Your Assets: An Inside Look at the Perils and Power of the Internet. [Internal Monsanto Document].
U.S. Right to Know. https://www.google.com/url?q=https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Byrne-Ragan.ppt&sa=D&source
=docs&ust=1652785501578872&usg=AOvVaw1dH79CxUq_UeVxTfaVNoHg
466. Monbiot, G. (2002, Mary 14). The Fake Persuaders. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/may/14/greenpoli-
tics.digitalmedia
467. Goldhaber, S. (2021, June 14). The Emperor - IARC - Has No Clothes. American Council on Science and Health. https://www.acsh.
org/news/2021/06/14/emperor-iarc-has-no-clothes-15600
468. English, C. (2021, June 17). Glyphosate Doesn’t Cause Cancer: New EU Report Confirms What We Already Knew. American Council
on Science and Health. https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/06/17/glyphosate-doesnt-cause-cancer-new-eu-report-confirms-what-
we-already-knew-15612
469. Seife, C. [@cgseife]. (2018). Thread: Mapping a @monsanto-loving octopus. Let's start with @scienceblogs. [Tweet]. Twitter.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1063135263835217920.html
470. IRS 990, American Council on Science and Health, 2016. https://pdf.guidestar.org/PDF_Images/2017/132/911/2017-132911127-0
ee0fcc1-9.pdf
471. R, Gilbert. (2015, March 16). Re: Request for Monsanto Support for ACSH, 2015, with “impacts”. [Email]. U.S. Right to Know. https://
usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/2019/04/Monsanto-money-for-ACSH-and-discussion-of-what-ACSH-does-for-
Monsanto-and-glyphosate.pdf
472. A note on methodology:These searches were conducted using a new computer, incognito function, or newly downloaded brows-
ers to avoid the influence of search history on the results.
473. IRS 990, Science LIterary Project, 2020. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/SLP-990-
for-2020-2021.pdf (see Schedule B.)
474. Entine, J. (2020, February 6). With Roundup-cancer settlement looming, activists revive conspiracy claim that glyphosate surfac-
tants threaten human health. Genetic Literacy Project. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/02/06/with-roundup-cancer-settle-
ment-looming-activists-revive-conspiracy-claim-that-glyphosate-surfactants-threaten-human-health/
475. English, C. (Online). Cameron English. American Council on Science and Health. https://www.acsh.org/profile/cameron-english
476. Bayer Global. (Online). Roundup litigation - five-point plan. https://www.bayer.com/en/roundup-litigation-five-point-plan
477. Google. (Online). Products – how news works. https://newsinitiative.withgoogle.com/hownewsworks/products/
478. SISTRIX. (2021, January 18). Why (almost) everything you knew about google CTR is no longer valid. https://www.sistrix.com/
blog/why-almost-everything-you-knew-about-google-ctr-is-no-longer-valid/
479. Lahey, C. (2021, May 26). 15 Keys to Improve Your SEO Ranking. Semrush Blog. https://www.semrush.com/blog/seo-ranking/
480. Gardner, S. (2020, January 31). Four Pesticides Could Show U.K.'s Post-Brexit Regulation Plans. Bloomberg Law. https://news.
bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/brexit-in-four-pesticides
481. Entine, J. (2020, February 4). Post-Brexit rules on glyphosate, neonicotinoid pesticides may reveal UK’s willingness to break
fromEU regulations. Genetic Literacy Project. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/02/05/post-brexit-rules-on-glyphosate-ne-
onicotinoid-pesticides-may-reveal-uks-willingness-to-break-from-eu-regulations/
482. Genetic Literacy Project. (2022, May 16). GLP’s aggregation of articles and use of images under the Fair Use copyright exception.
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/glps-aggregation-of-articles-and-use-of-images-under-the-fair-use-copyright-exception/
483. Attorney General Becerra Files Amicus Brief in Lawsuit Against. (2020, February 12). State of California - Department of Jus-
tice - Office of the Attorney General. https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-becerra-files-amicus-brief-law-
suit-against-monsanto-support
484. Entine, J. (2020, February 13). California attorney general sides with Bayer glyphosate cancer plaintiffs, challenges appeal of $78.5
million verdict. Genetic Literacy Project. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/02/13/california-attorney-general-sides-with-bay-
er-glyphosate-cancer-plaintiffs-files-brief-challenging-appeal-of-78-5-million-verdict/
485. Woollacott, B. E. (2020, January 28). Zap! How microwaves and electricity are killing weeds. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/
news/business-50711566
486. Entine, J. (2020a, January 28). Glyphosate herbicide cancer fears could turn electricity, microwaves into viable weed-killing tools.
Genetic Literacy Project. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/01/29/glyphosate-herbicide-cancer-fears-could-turn-electrici-
ty-microwaves-into-viable-weed-killing-tools/
487. PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE CONFIDENTIALITY OF HEYDENS DEPOSITION (UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA April 24, 2017). U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/up-
loads/2017/04/MDLLetNothingGomotion.pdf
488. Ibid.
489. Ibid.
490. Fleishman Hillard. (2017, March 24). Let Nothing Go Weekly Report. [Internal Monsanto Document]. U.S. Right to Know. https://us-
rtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Let-Nothing-Go-report-2017-.pdf
491. Gillam, C. (2013, July 29). GMO companies launch website to fight anti-biotech movement. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/arti-
cle/gmo-campaign/gmo-companies-launch-website-to-fight-anti-biotech-movement-idUSL1N0FZ0RE20130729
492. GMO Answers. (Online). GMO Answers Stands by Our Commitment to Answering Questions with Transparency. https://gmoan-
swers.com/gmo-answers-stands-our-commitment-answering-questions-transparency
99
493. Malkan, S. (2020, September 2). Council for Biotechnology Information, GMO Answers, CropLife: pesticide industry PR initiatives.
U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/gmo/key-pesticide-industry-propaganda-group-cbi-closes-gmo-answers-moves-to-croplife/
494. Ibid.
495. Gustin, G. (2013, October 12). Monsanto, other biotech companies, launch website to answer GMO-related questions. St. Louis
Post-Dispatch. https://www.stltoday.com/business/local/monsanto-other-biotech-companies-launch-website-to-answer-gmo-re-
lated-questions/article_3ddb6c9f-7655-58c9-81b5-806e44218ace.html
496. U.S. Right to Know FOIA Communications Plan. (2019, July 25). Monsanto Internal Document. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.
org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/2019-Monsanto-USRTK-FOIA-Communications-Plan.pdf
497. Bruce M. Chassy. GMO Answers. (Online). https://gmoanswers.com/experts/bruce-m-chassy
498. Eng, M. (2016, April 1). Why didn't an Illinois professor have to disclose GMO funding? WBEZ Chicago. https://www.wbez.org/sto-
ries/why-didnt-an-illinois-professor-have-to-disclose-gmo-funding/eb99bdd2-683d-4108-9528-de1375c3e9fb
499. Schmidt, E. (2013, July 31). Additional GMO Answers Question- Assistance Requested. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/
wp-content/uploads/2022/04/GMO-Answers-ghostwriting-examples.pdf
500. Saltmiras, D. (n.d.). Does glyphosate cause cancer? GMO Answers. https://gmoanswers.com/ask/does-glyphosate-cause-cancer
501. GMO Answers. (Online). IARC's classification of glyphosate – what does it mean for you? https://gmoanswers.com/
iarc%25E2%2580%2599s-classification-glyphosate-%25E2%2580%2593-what-does-it-mean-you
502. Ibid.
503. GMO Answers. (Online). GLP Staff and Contributors. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/our-team/
504. Ruskin, G. (2018, August 1). The GMO Industry Doesn’t Want You to See This Video. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/gmo/
gmo-industry-doesnt-want-you-to-see-this-video/
505. GMO Answers. (2022). Clios. https://clios.com/awards/winner/public-relations/gmo-answers-3573
506. M. Nestle. (2017, June 20). GMO propaganda film: Food Evolution. Food Politics by Marion Nestle. https://www.foodpolitics.
com/2017/06/gmo-industry-propaganda-film-food-evolution/
507. Nestle, M. (2017, June 27). A win for GMO trolls: This blog no longer accepts comments. Food Politics by Marion Nestle. https://
www.foodpolitics.com/2017/06/follow-up-to-gmo-propaganda-film-food-evolution/
508. Taleb, N. et al. (2014, October 17). The Precautionary Principle (with Application to the Genetic Modification of Organisms). NYU
School of Engineering. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.5787.pdf
509. Spitznagel, M., & Taleb, N. N. (2015, July 13). Another ‘Too Big to Fail’ System in G.M.O.s. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.
com/2015/07/14/business/dealbook/another-too-big-to-fail-system-in-gmos.html
510. Conko, G. (2015, July 16). More Unintelligible Gibberish on GMO Risks from Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Competitive Enterprise Institute.
https://cei.org/blog/more-unintelligible-gibberish-on-gmo-risks-from-nassim-nicholas-taleb/
511. D. Ropeik [@dropeik]. Anti GMO advocacy masquerading as ostensibly rational argument. So many examples. Anti-Monsanto?
[Tweet]. [Link attached]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/dropeik/status/527799671688007680
512. Ropeik, D. (2014, November 11). On Taleb et.al.'s "The precautionary principle (with application to the genetic modification of...
Medium. https://medium.com/@dropeik.com/on-taleb-et-al-s-the-precautionary-principle-with-application-to-the-genetic-modifi-
cation-of-dba21ccf94aa
513. Entine, J. (2014, November 3). Is Nassim Taleb a “dangerous imbecile” or on the pay of anti-GMO activists? Genetic Literacy Proj-
ect. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/11/03/is-nassim-taleb-a-dangerous-imbecile-or-just-on-the-pay-of-the-anti-gmo-mafia/
514. Kloor, K. [@keithkloor]. Imbeciles on Twitter continue to distract @nntaleb Via @DiscoverMag. [Tweet]. [Link attached]. Twitter.
https://twitter.com/keithkloor/status/537656534822830080. For more on Kloor’s industry ties see, Malkan, S., (2018, November 1)
Keith Kloor: How a science journalist worked behind the scenes with industry allies, U.S. Right to Know https://usrtk.org/our-inves-
tigations/keith-kloor-the-agrichemical-industrys-favorite-writer/
515. Lynas, M. [@mark_lynas]. ‘More unintelligible gibberish on GMO risks from @nntaleb" - great blog @ceidotorg https://cei.org/
blog/more-unintelligible-gibberish-gmo-risks-nassim-nicholas-taleb… Naturalistic fallacy writ large.[Tweet]. [Link Attached]. Twit-
ter. https://twitter.com/mark_lynas/status/622001750824853504
516. Monbiot, G. (2002, November 19). The Covert Biotech War. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2002/nov/19/gm.
food
517. Bonus Eventus. (Online). https://community.bonuseventus.org/login/?redirect_to=%2F&reauth=1
518. Entine, J. (2015, July 10). Biotech Literacy Project 2015 - Summary Evaluation and Assessment. UC Davis Institute for Food and
Agricultural Literacy. U.S. Right to Know. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ygfm0226
519. Warrick, J. (2017, May 10). U of S defends Prof's Monsanto ties, but some faculty disagree. CBC news. https://www.cbc.ca/news/
canada/saskatoon/university-of-saskatoon-professor-monsanto-1.4107475; Warrick, J. (2017, May 7). U of S professor says there's
nothing unusual about his ties to Monsanto. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/u-of-s-professor-says-there-
s-nothing-unusual-about-his-ties-to-monsanto-1.4100399; Bluethner, A. (2016). Email communication between Peter Phillips and
chemical industry organizations. U.S. Right to Know. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mxcm0226;
520. Hakim, D. (2016, October 29). Doubts about the promised bounty of genetically modified crops. The New York Times. https://www.
nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-short.html
521. Malkan, S. (2021, March 24). Julie Kelly cooks up propaganda for the agrichemical industry. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/
food-for-thought/julie-kelly-writes-propaganda/
522. Ruskin, G. (2021, March 26). Henry Miller's Monsanto Ties. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/henry-i-miller/
523. Malkan, S. (2019, May 15). Why Forbes deleted some Kavin Senapathy articles. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/food-for-
thought/kavin_senapathy_henry_miller/
524. Malkan, S. (2021, March 8). Hank Campbell's Shady Maze of monsanto-loving science blogs. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/
our-investigations/hank-campbells-maze-of-monsanto-loving-science-blogs/
525. Goldstein, D. A. (2015, February 6). ACSH. [Email]. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/ACSH-email.
pdf.
526. Byrne, J. (Online). Jay Byrne Linkedin Profile. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Jay-Byrne-Linke-
dIn.pdf
527. Byrne, J. (2013, May). Food & Agricultural Advocacy Background & Best Practices. U.S.Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-con-
tent/uploads/2019/01/v-fluence-jay-byrne-presentation.pdf
528. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (Online). African Agricultural Technology Foundation. https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/
committed-grants/2018/04/opp1187061
529. Byrne, J. (2013, May). Food & Agricultural Advocacy Background & Best Practices. U.S.Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-ctent/
uploads/2019/01/v-fluence-jay-byrne-presentation.pdf
530. N. Oreskes & E.M. Conway. (2011, May 31). Merchants of Doubt. Bloomsbury Press. https://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/
531. Kenner, Robert. (2014, August 30). Merchants of Doubt. [Film]. Participant Media. https://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Pa-
tricia-Callahan/dp/B00YO2IC3W
100
532. M. Holtzman. (2013, December 13). Re: anti-GMO crop biotech challenges with GLP and Jay Byrne. [Email]. U.S. Right to Know.
https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/USDA-Entine-Byrne.pdf
533. Ibid.
534. B.M. Chassy. (2012, April 27). RE: U-Tube Videos. [Email]. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/By-
rne-Chassy-GMO-videos.pdf
535. Ibid.
536. Solomon, Gina (2012, Feb. 24) Agent Orange in Your Backyard: The Harmful Pesticide 2,4-D. The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.
com/health/archive/2012/02/agent-orange-in-your-backyard-the-harmful-pesticide-2-4-d/253506/
537. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2017, Jan). Pesticide Industry Sales and Usage 2008 – 2012. Washington D.C. https://www.
epa.gov/pesticides/pesticides-industry-sales-and-usage-2008-2012-market-estimates
538. University of Nebraska-Lincoln. (2015, January 20). Weed and Insect Resistance a Growing Problem. Institute of Agriculture and
Natural Resources. https://cropwatch.unl.edu/weed-and-insect-resistance-growing-problem.
539. LaCanne, C. E., & Lundgren, J. G. (2018). Regenerative agriculture: merging farming and natural resource conservation profit-
ably. PeerJ, 6, e4428. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29503771/
540. DiBartolomeis, M., Kegley, S., Mineau, P., Radford, R., & Klein, K. (2019). An assessment of acute insecticide toxicity loading (AITL)
of chemical pesticides used on agricultural land in the United States. PloS one, 14(8), e0220029.
541. Sánchez-Bayo, F., & Wyckhuys, K. A. (2019). Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers. Biological conserva-
tion, 232, 8-27.
542. Gunstone, T., Cornelisse, T., Klein, K., Dubey, A., & Donley, N. (2021). Pesticides and soil invertebrates: A hazard assessment. Fron-
tiers in Environmental Science, 9, 122.
543. IPBES. Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. E. S. Brondizio, J. Settele, S. Díaz, and H. T. Ngo (editors). IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany.
https://ipbes.net/global-assessment
544. US Centers for Disease Control. (2021, March). Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. Washing-
ton, D.C. https://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/pdf/FourthReport_UpdatedTables_Volume3_Mar2021-508.pdf
545. Gillam, Carey. (2017, December 21). Hold the Plum Pudding: U.S. Food Sampling Shows Troubling Pesticide Residues. Environmen-
tal Health News. https://careygillam.com/articles/article/hold-the-plum-pudding-us-food-sampling-shows-troubling-pesticide-resi-
dues
546. Gilden, R. C., Huffling, K., & Sattler, B. (2010). Pesticides and health risks. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nurs-
ing, 39(1), 103-110. https://www.jognn.org/article/S0884-2175(15)30255-0/fulltext
547. Bassil, K. L., Vakil, C., Sanborn, M., Cole, D. C., Kaur, J. S., & Kerr, K. J. (2007). Cancer health effects of pesticides: systematic re-
view. Canadian Family Physician, 53(10), 1704-1711. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17934034/
548. Alavanja, M. C., Hoppin, J. A., & Kamel, F. (2004). Health effects of chronic pesticide exposure: cancer and neurotoxicity. Annu. Rev.
Public Health, 25, 155-197. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15015917/
549. Eskenazi, B., Marks, A. R., Bradman, A., Harley, K., Barr, D. B., Johnson, C., ... & Jewell, N. P. (2007). Organophosphate pesticide
exposure and neurodevelopment in young Mexican-American children. Environmental health perspectives, 115(5), 792-798. https://
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17520070/
550. Mendola, P., Messer, L. C., & Rappazzo, K. (2008). Science linking environmental contaminant exposures with fertility and repro-
ductive health impacts in the adult female. Fertility and sterility, 89(2), e81-e94. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18308071/
551. Holtcamp, W. (2012). Obesogens: an environmental link to obesity. Environmental Health Perspectives https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/
doi/10.1289/ehp.120-a62
552. Beyond Pesticides. (Online). Pesticides that Disrupt Endocrine System Still Unregulated by EPA. https://www.beyondpesticides.
org/assets/media/documents/gateway/health%20effects/endocrine%20cited.pdf
553. The Endocrine Disruption Exchange. (Online). EDC Factsheet. https://endocrinedisruption.org/interactive-tools/endocrine-basics
554. Farmworker Justice. (2013). Exposed and Ignored: How pesticides are endangering our nation’s farmworkers. Washington DC.
https://www.farmworkerjustice.org/sites/default/files/aExposed%20and%20Ignored%20by%20Farmworker%20Justice%20sin-
gles%20compressed.pdf
555. Donley, N. (2019). The USA lags behind other agricultural nations in banning harmful pesticides. Environmental Health, 18(1), 1-12.
https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-019-0488-0
556. Gross, L., & Birnbaum, L. S. (2017). Regulating toxic chemicals for public and environmental health. PLoS Biology, 15(12), e2004814.
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2004814
557. Payne-Sturges, D., Cohen, J., Castorina, R., Axelrad, D. A., & Woodruff, T. J. (2009). Evaluating cumulative organophosphorus pesti-
cide body burden of children: a national case study. Environmental science & technology, 43(20), 7924-7930.
558. Reubens, Suzanne. (2010). Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What we can do now. President’s Cancer Panel. National Cancer
Institute. Washington, D.C. https://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/annualreports/pcp08-09rpt/pcp_report_08-09_508.pdf
559. Roberts, J. R., Karr, C. J., Paulson, J. A., Brock-Utne, A. C., Brumberg, H. L., Campbell, C. C., ... & Wright, R. O. (2012). Pesticide expo-
sure in children. Pediatrics, 130(6), e1765-e1788.
560. United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. (2017, March). Pesticides are “global human rights concern” say
UN experts urging new treaty. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2017/03/pesticides-are-global-human-rights-concern-say-
un-experts-urging-new-treaty
561. Cook, Christopher, Kari Hamerschlag and Kendra Klein. (2016). Farming for the Future: Organic and Agroecological Solutions to
Feed the World. Prepared for Friends of the Earth. Washington DC. https://foe.org/resources/farming-for-the-future-organic-and-
agroecological-solutions-to-feed-the-world
562. Lappe, F.M., Collins, J. and Rosset P. (1998). World Hunger: 12 Myths. 2nd edition. New York: Grove Press.
563. USDA Economic Research Service. (Online). Trends in GE Adoption. Washington D.C. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/
adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption/
564. Hakim, Danny. (2016, Oct 29). Uncertain Harvest: Doubts About the Promised Bounty of Genetically Modified Crops. New York
Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-short.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
565. United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. (2017, March). Pesticides are “global human rights concern” say
UN experts urging new treaty. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2015/10/using-death-penalty-fight-drug-crimes-violates-
international-law-un-rights?
566. Horrigan, L., Lawrence, R. S., & Walker, P. (2002). How sustainable agriculture can address the environmental and human health
harms of industrial agriculture. Environmental health perspectives, 110(5), 445-456. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC1240832/
567. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. (2015, June). Natural Capital Impacts in Agriculture: Support Better Busi-
ness-Making. Rome, Italy. https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/nr/sustainability_pathways/docs/Natural_Capital_Impacts_in_
Agriculture_final.pdf
101
568. Cook, Christoper, Kari Hamerschlag and Kendra Klein. (2016). Farming for the Future: Organic and Agroecological Solutions to
Feed the World. Prepared for Friends of the Earth. Washington DC. https://foe.org/resources/farming-for-the-future-organic-and-
agroecological-solutions-to-feed-the-world
569. California Certified Organic Farmers. (2019). Roadmap to an Organic California: Benefits Report. Santa Cruz, CA. https://www.ccof.
org/page/roadmap-organic-california
570. Ponisio, L. C., M'Gonigle, L. K., Mace, K. C., Palomino, J., De Valpine, P., & Kremen, C. (2015). Diversification practices reduce organic
to conventional yield gap. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282(1799), 20141396. https://royalsocietypub-
lishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2014.1396
571. Catarino, R., Bretagnolle, V., Perrot, T., Vialloux, F., & Gaba, S. (2019). Bee pollination outperforms pesticides for oilseed crop pro-
duction and profitability. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 286(1912), 20191550. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/
rspb.2019.1550
572. Lechenet, M., Dessaint, F., Py, G., Makowski, D., & Munier-Jolain, N. (2017). Reducing pesticide use while preserving crop productivi-
ty and profitability on arable farms. Nature Plants, 3(3), 1-6. https://www.nature.com/articles/nplants20178
573. Dainese, M., Martin, E. A., Aizen, M. A., Albrecht, M., Bartomeus, I., Bommarco, R., ... & Steffan-Dewenter, I. (2019). A global syn-
thesis reveals biodiversity-mediated benefits for crop production. Science advances, 5(10), eaax0121. https://www.science.org/
doi/10.1126/sciadv.aax0121
574. Blundell, R., Schmidt, J. E., Igwe, A., Cheung, A. L., Vannette, R. L., Gaudin, A., & Casteel, C. L. (2020). Organic management pro-
motes natural pest control through altered plant resistance to insects. Nature plants, 6(5), 483-491. https://www.biorxiv.org/con-
tent/10.1101/787549v1.full
575. McIntyre, Beverly, H. Herren, J. Wakhungu, R. Watson. (2009). International Assessment of Agriculture Knowledge, Science and
Technology for Development. Island Press: Washington D.C. https://www.gaiafoundation.org/app/uploads/2017/09/Agricul-
ture-at-a-crossroads-Synthesis-report-2009Agriculture_at_Crossroads_Synthesis_Report.pdf
576. United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. (2017, March). Pesticides are “global human rights concern” say
UN experts urging new treaty. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2017/03/pesticides-are-global-human-rights-concern-say-
un-experts-urging-new-treaty
577 Daly, M. (2021, October 27). Watch: Oil executives testify over climate misinformation in house hearing. PBS. Retrieved August 24,
2022, from https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/watch-live-oil-executives-testify-over-climate-misinformation-in-house-hear-
ing
578 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020, April 28). Tobacco-related mortality. Centers for Disease Control and Preven-
tion.
579 WebMD. (2021, July 8). Climate change causes 5 million extra deaths per year. https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/
news/20210708/climate-change-already-causes-5-million-extra-deaths-per-year
102
Merchants of Poison
How Monsanto sold the world on a toxic pesticide
103