Slashdot Mirror
Monsanto Leaks Suggest It Tried To Kill Cancer Research On Roundup Weed Killer (rt.com)
Danny Hakim reports via The New York Times (Warning: article may be paywalled; alternate source): Documents released Tuesday in a lawsuit against Monsanto raised new questions about the company's efforts to influence the news media and scientific research and revealed internal debate over the safety of its highest-profile product, the weed killer Roundup. The active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, is the most common weed killer in the world and is used by farmers on row crops and by home gardeners. While Roundup's relative safety has been upheld by most regulators, a case in federal court in San Francisco continues to raise questions about the company's practices and the product itself.
The documents underscore the lengths to which the agrochemical company goes to protect its image. Documents show that Henry I. Miller, an academic and a vocal proponent of genetically modified crops, asked Monsanto to draft an article for him that largely mirrored one that appeared under his name on Forbes's website in 2015. Mr. Miller could not be reached for comment. A similar issue appeared in academic research. An academic involved in writing research funded by Monsanto, John Acquavella, a former Monsanto employee, appeared to express discomfort with the process, writing in a 2015 email to a Monsanto executive, "I can't be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication." He also said of the way the company was trying to present the authorship: "We call that ghost writing and it is unethical." Mr. Miller's 2015 article on Forbes's website was an attack on the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization that had labeled glyphosate a probable carcinogen, a finding disputed by other regulatory bodies. In the email traffic, Monsanto asked Mr. Miller if he would be interested in writing an article on the topic, and he said, "I would be if I could start from a high-quality draft." The article appeared under Mr. Miller's name, and with the assertion that "opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." The magazine did not mention any involvement by Monsanto in preparing the article.
The documents underscore the lengths to which the agrochemical company goes to protect its image. Documents show that Henry I. Miller, an academic and a vocal proponent of genetically modified crops, asked Monsanto to draft an article for him that largely mirrored one that appeared under his name on Forbes's website in 2015. Mr. Miller could not be reached for comment. A similar issue appeared in academic research. An academic involved in writing research funded by Monsanto, John Acquavella, a former Monsanto employee, appeared to express discomfort with the process, writing in a 2015 email to a Monsanto executive, "I can't be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication." He also said of the way the company was trying to present the authorship: "We call that ghost writing and it is unethical." Mr. Miller's 2015 article on Forbes's website was an attack on the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization that had labeled glyphosate a probable carcinogen, a finding disputed by other regulatory bodies. In the email traffic, Monsanto asked Mr. Miller if he would be interested in writing an article on the topic, and he said, "I would be if I could start from a high-quality draft." The article appeared under Mr. Miller's name, and with the assertion that "opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." The magazine did not mention any involvement by Monsanto in preparing the article.
And you're correct. There are significant ecological reasons to farm organic. Just ask any farmer. If you want to use more land, and more water, with less yield, and significantly greater (in most commercial scale operations) application of herbicides and pesticides, by all means - go organic. If you believe otherwise, you may never have actually spoken to farmers. Organic IS about fear-mongering. Ask people who actually buy organic why they do it and you'll get "it's healthier" (it's not), "it's more sustainable" (it's not), "it uses less pesticides" (it doesn't, except in hobby farms), "it uses fewer artificial chemicals" (there are over 40 artificial chemicals approved for use in organic production - and many non-artificial chemicals approved for use are still fine to use if they're produced artificially), "it's better for the planet" (it's not, it uses more resources, for less yield), "it doesn't contain toxins" (the traits introduced to GMOs to produce natural pesticides are brought across from other plants where they already exist - even in the organic forms), and so on and so forth. We could do this all day, but I doubt we'll convince each other if anything.
As long as the science says GMO are better for the environment, more sustainable, with no adverse effects, I'll happily support them. If peer-reviewed science ever shows any actual harm, I'll be happy to revisit that view. The same can't be said for organic proponents, as they don't care about the science. They care about feelings, and their feelings tell them "GMO bad. Organic good."
"The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk