11 ms·
"The court documents included Monsanto’s internal emails and email traffic between the company and federal regulators. The records suggested that Monsanto had g
by DarkKomunalec 10y ago
"The court documents included Monsanto’s internal emails and email traffic between the company and federal regulators. The records suggested that Monsanto had ghostwritten research that was later attributed to academics and indicated that a senior official at the Environmental Protection Agency had worked to quash a review of Roundup’s main ingredient, glyphosate, that was to have been conducted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services."
This is the real story - Monsanto interfering with our ability to find out what is safe. But I'm sure needless endangerment of the health of ~tens of thousands of farmers will carry a stiff prison sentence for all involved...
- tudorw 10y agoDo we know if this something that happened and stopped, or something that could still be happening?
- mirimir 10y agoSome journals have a policy of rejecting ghostwritten stuff, and there have been some retractions. But it's still happening, I think.
- mmjaa 10y agoMonsanto have been very, very good at controlling the discussion regarding the negative impact their products have had on the world - they're very well known for the investment made in astro-turfing various and sundry places that Monsantos' crimes are discussed. I think that, besides the obvious corruption that these court documents reveal, another conversation has to be had about how disingenuous Monsanto and its agents have been in discussing these things - using classic deflection, obfuscation techniques online. The "Monsanto Field Manual for Internet Representatives" would be a very interesting leak indeed ..
- jessaustin 10y agoThis is an interesting comment on HN, where the most vociferous defenders of Monsanto are high-karma accounts rather than sockpuppet greenbeans. Are you saying they've been influenced by such techniques in other fora?
- RodericDay 10y agoI would say so. In a world in which being against corporations is increasingly seen as "passé", defending Monsanto is just the edgiest possible position for someone looking to have the hottest take. I'm very pro-GMO, but time and time again I see pro-GMO people taunt and belittle anti-GMO people as mean-spirited tinfoil hatters who have zero reason to doubt Monsanto. It's very "Team Red" vs. "Team Blue", and unproductive.
- ethbro 10y agoThe pro/anti GMO has too little science in the debate imho. I take the Nye position: from a "people starving" vs "GMO boosted yields" perspective, I take GMOs. On "Monsanto, etc make too much money", I realize that creating new strains is hard and expensive. But. That's not to say I'll defend all their practices (like this one) or will not admit the anti-GMO crowd has some very valid points.
- RodericDay 10y agoMy favorite and most effective pro-GMO take is to talk to people about how cheese is made. Many anti-GMO people are concerned with animal welfare and love cheese, and it's important to make them realize that it's thanks to GMO that you can have cheese without slaughtering a calf. https://io9.gizmodo.com/you-can-thank-genetic-engineering-for-your-delicious-ch-1701156684 https://io9.gizmodo.com/you-can-thank-genetic-engineering-fo...
- camiller 10y agoInteresting, I am/was of the understanding that there are also vegetarian rennet's made by extracting enzymes from certain plants; fig, thistle, etc. The place where I buy my cheese making supplies (well, would buy if the first attempt hadn't been such a disaster) has both calf and "vegetarian" rennet available for the home cheese maker.
- devoply 10y agoControlling the discussion would mean just P/R. This is unethical/bodering on illegal and it should be downright illegal with jail terms for execs when this sort of news comes out.
- rev_null 10y agoMy guess is that Monsanto is trying to weed out the current generation of farmers and replace them with roundup ready™ farmers.
- mirimir 10y agoCorporate ghostwriting is pervasive in the pharmaceutical industry. For some drugs, most of the relevant medical literature has been industry-funded. But that's not really very surprising, considering how firms influence politicians, judges, journalists, etc. Edit: It's also worth noting that much legislation and regulations is ghostwritten by affected corporations.
- wiz21c 10y agoThat's not exactly a gentle assessment of the situation. Would you care to provide sources ?
- mirimir 10y agohttp://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002046 http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jou... http://inhn.org/controversies/barry-blackwell-corporate-corruption-in-the-psychopharmaceutical-industry.html http://inhn.org/controversies/barry-blackwell-corporate-corr... https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=yIBtS3AAAAAJ&citation_for_view=yIBtS3AAAAAJ:u-x6o8ySG0sC https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&h... http://www.bmj.com/content/354/bmj.i4578 http://www.bmj.com/content/354/bmj.i4578
- wiz21c 10y agothank you, that's very interesting !
- unclenoriega 10y agoThere would seem to be a big difference between paying someone to do research and paying someone to sign their name to a research paper you wrote. Also, it's not really surprising that drug studies are industry-funded for another reason: Who else is going to fund them?
- gregwtmtno 10y agoI often see the opinion on HN that opposing GMO food is anti-science. I know this article is not about GMOs, but can we really say with confidence that the scientific research done on GMO food hasn't been influenced in the same way?
- Alex3917 10y agoHow is this article in any way not about GMOs? The whole point of roundup is that you can douse food crops with enormous quantities that would normally kill them, thanks to genetic modifications.
- cm2012 10y agoRoundup vastly reduces pesticide quantity.
- pbhjpbhj 10y agoIt takes a lot more water than bleach, when imbibed, to kill someone .. bleach for everyone?
- maxerickson 10y agoThe addition of appropriate amounts of chlorine to drinking water may well be the single thing that has most impacted human health.
- kuschku 10y agoAnd it’s something that’s never been done in large parts of Europe, without any issues.
- the_af 10y agoI would separate GMO, the technology and field of research, from Monsanto. I don't see why corporate corruption and dishonesty must go hand in hand with GMOs. Even glyphosate itself is not the whole story about GMOs.
- nathanvanfleet 10y agoI can only read your statement as sarcasm. But I am not completely sure. Are you actually suggesting that higher people at Monsanto could actually face jail time?
- infinite8s 10y agoI think he is arguing that they should.
- tgragnato 10y agoThis is the same company that stated > The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence suggests there are no chronic human effects associated with exposure to PCBs Monsanto knew the dangers of PCBs yet hid them from the public to generate profits. [http://fusion.net/story/381212/monsanto-pcb-pollution-lawsuit-problem-growing-fast/ http://fusion.net/story/381212/monsanto-pcb-pollution-lawsui...] Monsanto finally confessed and agreed to pay $700 million to more than 20,000 residents in the first civil suit of its kind. [https://www.honeycolony.com/article/the-little-known-toxic-travesty-of-anniston-alabama/ https://www.honeycolony.com/article/the-little-known-toxic-t...] Site investigations show that the former Monsanto Corporation's PCB manufacturing plant released the vast majority of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the area. The plant produced PCBs from 1929 until 1971. [https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0400123 https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0...] There's nothing scientific in a blatant lie. For the background, Monsanto is not trustworthy. Given that the company can afford to pay for the damages, and that no one has ever been imprisoned for their crimes, maybe start doing it is a good way to stop them. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases] Is that so bad ?
- CWuestefeld 10y agoThis is the real story - Monsanto interfering with our ability to find out what is safe. I'm not sure why you're singling out Monsanto, to the exclusion of the government meddling. Given the statement a senior official at the Environmental Protection Agency had worked to quash a review Shouldn't we be pointing a finger at the EPA - even more so, because it's their duty to protect us? We should all be watchdogs, pointing out malfeasance. But it can't stop when we discover a corporation doing wrong, especially when the implication of that finding is that the government needs more power to keep us safe - when part of the problem is malfeasance in the government itself.
- pessimizer 10y ago> I'm not sure why you're singling out Monsanto, to the exclusion of the government meddling. I'm sure you meant "to the exclusion of the [lack of] government meddling, [quashed on behalf of and directly coordinated with Monsanto by a public official.]"
- CWuestefeld 10y agoActually, I didn't mean that. First, the OP doesn't say anything about "on behalf of and directly coordinated with". Second, my intent is to point out the futility of vesting greater in public agencies to handle problems arising (in part) from malfeasance in public agencies. It seems like the old adage about digging deeper to get out of the hole you're in. I'll grant that there may be ways to finesse this, with proper checks and balances. But it would certainly be an exception to see a proposal that tries to create such interlocking responsibilities, rather than just casting Public Choice economics to the wind.
- balabaster 10y agoWho was the senior official? What was the purpose in them squashing it? Was there a conflict of interest? This raises many more questions than "shouldn't we be pointing a finger at the EPA?" I want to know why this was squashed and what interest this senior official had in squashing it.
- jly 10y ago> needless endangerment of the health of ~tens of thousands of farmers This affects an incredible array of life. Roundup is used on millions of perfect suburban lawns and landscape plants, impacting countless wildlife, pets, and humans. Glyphosate-grown foods are pervasive in our food supply, and eventually find their way into countless rivers and streams. Using chemicals that are designed to kill living things in such a widespread manner is just a dangerous idea.
- ptaipale 10y agoBut why pick on Monsanto? I wonder if they have even a two-digit percentage of the global glyphosate market. And there are many other herbicides, many of them much worse that glyphosate.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> I wonder if they have even a two-digit percentage of the global glyphosate market. They do. I can't find any free sources with hard numbers, but numerous reports indicate that Monsanto is the top producer and the top four together have over 50% share, so Monsanto has no less (and probably substantially more) than 12.5% of the global market. In addition, the global glyphosate market growth in the last two decades has largely been driven by another set of Monsanto products, "RoundUp Ready" (RoundUp is Monsanto's glyphosate-based herbicide product) glyphosate-resistant transgenic crops. So Monsanto not only has a large share of the glyphosate market, it also sells the products that are driving most of the glyphosate market.
- mohaine 10y agoRoundUp Ready has been off patent for MANY years. May brands sell that as well.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> RoundUp Ready has been off patent for MANY years No, it hasn't . The 1st Gen RoundUp Ready soybean trait patent expired in 2015 (two is not "many"), and most commercial volume has moved to product using the still-under-patent RoundUp Ready 2 Yield trait (such as RoundUp Ready 2 Xtend seeds, which also have another herbicide resistance trait.)
- idiot_stick 10y ago>This is the real story - Monsanto interfering with our ability to find out what is safe. The real story, to me, are the academics willing to sign their name to research they didn't write, for a pay cheque.
- wnevets 10y agoSounds like regulations are killing jobs, time to gut the EPA - our president.