Monsanto hit listing uncovered

Posted On Aug 21, 2019 By admin With Comments Off

In what Democracy Now! 1 refers to as an “explosive report” by The Guardian, 2 records obtained during the discovery process of lawsuits against Monsanto reveal the company has been engaged in a coordinated campaign to discount pundits of the company.

Among them are journalist Carey Gillam, the nonprofit U.S. Right to Know( USRTK) and singer-songwriter Neil Young, whose 2015 book, “The Monsanto Years, ” was an aesthetic critique of the company.

“The records … indicate Monsanto adopted a multi-pronged approach to target Carey Gillam, a Reuters journalist who analyse the company’s weedkiller and its links to cancer, ” The Guardian writes. 3

“Monsanto , now owned by the German pharmaceutical firm Bayer, too monitored a not-for-profit food research establishment through its ‘intelligence fusion center, ‘ a period that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies use for activities focused on surveillance and terrorism.

The documents, principally from 2015 to 2017, were disclosed as part of an ongoing court battle on the health hazards of the company’s Roundup weedkiller.”

Monsanto records see organized anticipated to silence writer

According to The Guardian, 4 the records procured reveal how Monsanto planned to discredit Gillam’s book, “White Wash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science, “5 ahead of its liberation in 2017 by instructing “industry and farmer customers” to announce negative reviews and paying Google to promote search results critical of Gillam and her work.

In all, the attack on Gillam’s book, dubbed “Project Spruce, “6( an internal code name for Monsanto’s defense directive to protect the company against all realized threats to its business7) had more than 20 activity phases, including the engagement of regulatory authorities and providing “pro-science third parties” with talking points.

Gillam told The Guardian the documents are “just one more example of how the company cultivates behind the scenes to try to manipulate what the public knows about its products and practices.”

According to The Guardian, staff at Monsanto’s PR firm too seems to have been stressed Reuters to prevent Gillam from reporting on Monsanto and its commodities, saying they “continue to push back on[ Gillam’s] editors very strongly every likelihood we get.”

In an August 9, 2019, section in The Guardian, Gillam is more forthcoming with her sentiments, be said that :8

“As a reporter who has plowed corporate America for more than 30 times, extremely limited disturbances me about the propaganda tactics corporations often deploy. I know the pressure companies can and do bring to bear when trying to effect positive coverage and restraint reporting they see negative about their business practices and products.

But when I recently received close to 50 sheets of internal Monsanto communications about the company’s plans to target me and my honour, I was outraged … I never dreamed I would warrant my own Monsanto action plan …

One Monsanto plan involved paying for web placement of a blogpost about me so that Monsanto-written information would pop up at the top of certain internet probes involving my figure … In addition, Monsanto produced a video to help it amplify company-engineered propaganda about me and my work …

The documents show that Monsanto enrolled Washington DC-based FTI Consulting to help it with its plans. FTI was in the news earlier this year after one of its employees posed as a reporter at the Roundup cancer trial maintained this March in San Francisco.

The woman pretended to be reporting on the Hardeman v Monsanto inquiry, while suggesting to real reporters clothing the visitation specific storylines “thats been” favorable to Monsanto.”

USRTK targeted by Monsanto’s surveillance hub

Monsanto’s surveillance center also caused written reports on Young’s anti-Monsanto advocacy efforts and USRTK’s activities, along with a detailed plan9 for how to deal with USRTK’s Freedom of Information Act( FOIA) requests.

“Monsanto officials were frequently worried about him the liberation of documents on their financial the relations with scientists that could support the allegations they were ‘covering up unflattering research, ‘” The Guardian writes. 10

Indeed, among the many action steps listed in Monsanto’s USRTK response plan1 1 are “Edit existing copy” to “Bolster language on clarity and collaboration, ” and “Write post that tells the story about the impact of a project( one that resonates well with a societal audience) that was procreated possible through the collaboration of Monsanto and Academia … ” The Guardian adds: 12

“Government fusion midsts has steadily collected privacy concerns smothering the route law enforcement agencies collect data, surveil citizens and share information.

Private companies might have intelligence middles that monitor legitimate criminal threats, such as cyberattacks, but ‘it becomes troubling when you understand business leveraging their money to investigate people who are engaging in their first amendment rights, ‘ said Dave Maass, the major investigate researcher at the Electronic Frontier Foundation …

Michael Baum, one of the attorneys participate fully in the Roundup troubles that uncovered the records, said the records were further ‘evidence of the vicious and conscious neglect of the rights and safety of others’ … ‘It depicts an defamation of their dominance that they have gained by having achieved such enormous auctions, ‘ he added.”

In an August 9, 2019, press release, USRTK remarks on the documented campaign against the organization: 13

“USRTK has made available to the public records requests to taxpayer-funded universities since 2015, leading to multiple disclosures about secretive manufacture partnerships with professors …

The documents, which were made available through finding in the Roundup cancer litigation, show that Monsanto was worried that the public records petitions had the “potential to be extremely damaging” and so crafted a plan to counter the USRTK investigation …

‘The story of the Monsanto Papers is that the company acts like it has only one abominable batch to hide, ‘ said Gary Ruskin, co-director of U.S. Right to Know, who led the investigation. ‘Whenever scientists, journalists and others raise questions about their business, they affect. We are just the latest example. This has been going on for years.'”

The press release goes on to list several key findings from the documents, detailing how Monsanto intended to safeguard its “freedom to operate.” One room of doing that was to “position” USRTK’s investigation into its dealings as “an attack on scientific integrity and academic freedom.”

The documents also indicate Monsanto would have the right to review any documents released by FOIA before their secrete to USRTK, “even though USRTK solicited the documents by commonwealth FOI, ” the press release documents. Monsanto’s campaign plan also specified the use of third parties to counteract USRTK.

Again, this tactic is intentionally used to make it appear as though Monsanto has nothing to do with the criticism against USRTK, when in fact it’s the driving and coordinating force behind it.

Third parties to be employed include Forbes and other third party content creators, GMO Answers donors, Sense About Science, the Science Media Center, Center for Food Integrity, International Food Information Council, many farmers radicals, Jon Entine with the Genetic Literacy Project, Henry Miller( previously caught publishing articles ghostwritten by Monsanto, which led to Forbes firing him and deleting his articles ).

AgBioChatter member admonishes removing emails

That USRTK is seen as a threat to industry’s business as usual is also made clear in a September 2015 email exchange1 4,15 between various Monsanto employees, including Monsanto scientist Eric Sachs.

The discussion centered around “unfortunate” language used by an unnamed individual associated with GMO Answers in his or her match with academics on AgBioChatter — described by USRTK as “a private email listserver used by the agrichemical the enterprises and its allies to coordinate messaging and lobbying activities.”1 6

There was some question about whether AgBioChatter was confidential or private. In an email to AgBioChatter representatives( forwarded in the email exchange ), Karl Haro von Mogel, 17 media director of Biofortified, a GMO promotion group, advised: 18

“It seems that there has been a leak of mentioning AgBioChatter, and it is inevitable that it will become a target for future FOIAs. It sounds like Ruskin did not include it in his latest round of FOIAs but likely will in the future. If anyone here have not been able to taken the Ruskin Cleanse of these private emails it will imply more content for them to twist and string into a false narrative.”

In other commands, it looms as though Haro von Mogel was advising people to delete their emails — to get rid of the evidence — to prevent the behind-the-scenes truths from being known, were USRTK to file a FOIA is asking for AgBioChatter correspondence.

Monsanto accused of mishandle personal data in Europe

The information about Monsanto’s targeted attacks on Gillam and USRTK comes on the heels of Bayer’s admission that Monsanto kept registers of hundreds of lawmakers, the researchers and journalists and their views on GMOs in France and other European countries. 19,20

According to Reuters, 21 the documents were stopped “in hopes of influencing plights on pesticides.” And, while Bayer denied that Monsanto’s procurement of the lists infringed any laws, Reuters reported that: 22

“French public-sector research institutes Inra and CNRS … said they would file criminal complaints over mishandling of personal data, after finding that some of their researchers and executives peculiarity on the Monsanto stakeholder lists.”

Reuters’ report2 3 also included a quote from Matthias Berninger, head of public affairs at Bayer, saying “When you accumulate nonpublicly available data about individuals a Rubicon is clearly crossed, regardless of whether data privacy ordinances have effectively violated.”

Report shed light on GMO Answers

Yet another cache of documents liberated to HuffPost shed light on GMO Answers, a front radical created by Monsanto’s PR company, Ketcum PR, in an effort to polish Monsanto’s tarnished likenes. As reported by Paul Thacker: 24

“To reboot the national dialogue, Ketchum composed awareness-raising campaigns called GMO Answers, and used social media and third-party scientists to offer a counternarrative to allay concern about Monsanto’s products.

HuffPost has acquired 130 sheets of internal documents from an anonymous informant that detail public information campaigns and its tactics for enhancing Monsanto’s public image … “

By answering any and all basic questions about GMOs and perfecting their SEO strategy, GMO Answers is now among the top outcome of most GMO-related web investigations. The trouble, again, is that the “experts” answering the questions are not independent experts. They work for Monsanto and are supporters of the biotech manufacture. You cannot tell that this is the case, however, as those relationships are purposely hidden.

Captured correspondents help shape public opinion

Thacker also details the influence of Tamar Haspel, “an oyster farmer living on Massachusetts’ Cape Cod, ” who writes blogs and essays favoring the GMO industry and compound agriculture, who became a strong singer for GMO Answers.

“Behind the scenes, Ketchum’s records present a reporter eager to collaborate with the firm and promote its brand-new[ GMO Answers] campaign — and Ketchum happy to foster that relationship, ” Thacker writes. 25

“Another page discusses … a plan for ‘ongoing development of relationships’ with Haspel — the only media person mentioned by name — as well as channels The Motley Fool and Politico …

Haspel began her[ Washington] Post editorials in October 2013, promising to ‘negotiate the separation and nail down the hard, cold facts’ about GMOs. These pillars have been sympathetic to the agrichemical industry, promoting GMO produces and stock cultivates, minimise the dangers of harmful essences and pesticides, and receive defect with organic agriculture.”

Thacker goes on to list examples of Haspel’s biased reporting, which includes downplaying the hazards of glyphosate and failing to disclose that one of her beginnings was a Monsanto consultant, and understating the risks of synthetic food additive to children, quoting a prof of belief as key experts source.

“For many who have been suspicious of Haspel’s relationship with agrichemical monstrous, the documents are further evidence that she’s too close to the industry she writes about and that her prominent row at The Washington Post provides a roost to spread misleading information about agricultural products and the nutrient we eat.

At the very least, they give a behind-the-scenes look at how public relations experts work to shape public insight through its relationship with reporters … ” Thacker writes. 26

“Pages of Ketchum PR documents that discuss Haspel are labeled, ‘Success! A Strategy That Embraces Skepticism.’ For Monsanto, any narrative that blurs the sea on the science critical of its commodities is a acquire, and Haspel’s have been arguably the most prominent in national media.

The company’s touting of those articles is part of a mutually beneficial loop — she promotes its science; it promotes her on industry locates and social media.”

Who are Monsanto’s ambassadors?

As Thacker points out, Monsanto has perfected various of the strategies initiated by the tobacco industry decades ago to hide the dangers of smoking. One key strategy is to undermine the public’s confidence in science testify there are problems.

This is done in two parts: First, appoint your own science that affirms observes indicating a problem. Next, influence and contour public discussion by badmouth the commentators and emphasizing the lack of technical consensus. This engineered disbelief is what keeps the public from turning their back on the products and avoids regulatory interventions.

Another tobacco tactic employed by Monsanto is the development of relationships with scientists and nonprofit organizations who, while maintaining an halo of independence, act as “corporate diplomats to the press, ” to use Thacker’s term. Who are some of Monsanto’s most well-known ambassadors? Aside from Haskel, Thacker’s article refers 😛 TAGEND

Nina Federoff, Ph.D ., Professor Emeritus of biology at Penn state2 7

Jon Entine, founding conductor of the Genetic Literacy Project2 8 — another figurehead radical that, despite having has frequently exposed as such, continues to be promoted to the top of internet search results for GMO topics

Bruce Chassy, Professor Emeritus at the University of Illinois2 9,30

Kevin Folta, University of Florida professor

The American Council on Science and Health

What’s especially disturbing is the idea that professors working for publicly funded universities have been captured by industry and are promoting an manufacture agenda on the taxpayers’ dime, while simultaneously benefiting financially from their corporate masters.

Assistant USRTK unearth the truth — Donate today!

One of the key take-home themes from all this that the unionized silencing of reviewers applying sinful tactics is standard practice, and has been standard practice for a long time.

In fact, these underhanded policies was exactly what have allowed Monsanto( now Bayer, as well as many other dangerous business operates on a same playbook) to continue selling toxic makes for so long.

Using third-parties pretending to be independent to broadcast the corporate agenda is grossly misleading to the public. What Monsanto has been doing is social engineering — seeing you think a certain viewpoint predominates among the general population and among reporters, scientists and academia when in fact this “consensus” is a absolutely engineered artifice, bought and paid for by corporate interests.

USRTK has done an enormous errand introducing these kinds of industry schemes into wide-ranging dawn. They’re a tiny procedure with just four employees, and depend on donations to keep this work extending. So, please, consider making a tax-deductible donation to USRTK today. Your help is urgently needed and your subscription will ensure USRTK can continue unearthing the truth, one document at a time.