Monsanto Nudges Eight Scientists to Write Pro-GMO Papers

Monsanto Nudges 8 Scientists to Write Pro-GMO Papers
October 5, 2015
By Mark Terry, BioSpace.com Breaking News Staff

The public relations battle over Monsanto and genetically modified organisms (GMO) hit another peak as BloombergBusiness reports on Monsanto Co.’s recruitment of scientists to write articles in favor of plant biotechnology.

In 2013, Eric Sachs, who heads Monsanto’s scientific outreach, contacted eight scientists, broaching the idea of having them write a series of articles with the intention of influencing “public policy, GM crop regulation and consumer acceptance.” Five of the researchers agreed.

Sachs, in an Aug. 8, 2013 email divulged by a Freedom of Information Act request by U.S. Right to Know, wrote, “I need to step aside so I don’t compromise the project.” Sachs suggested specific topics for the paper and then turned the project over to a public relations firm paid by Monsanto, CMA Consulting. “I understand and appreciate that you need me to be completely transparent and I am keenly aware that your independence and reputations must be protected,” Sachs wrote.

After the topics were suggested, the authors of the paper were completely responsible for the content. They were eventually published by the Genetic Literacy Project. The authors were not paid to write the papers.

The Genetic Literacy Project is part of the Science Literary Project, an independent 501c3 funded by grants from non-partisan foundations. It accepts tax-deductible donations and has no affiliation with any other organization, although the organization’s website does state that its office in Washington, DC is partially supported by the University of California-Davis.

“I got independent articles written by independent professors,” said John Entine, the executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project in an interview with Bloomberg. “I ended up working with the professors to edit their pieces and I had total control over the final product. There is nothing to disclose.”

Consumers groups opposed to GMOs, however, disagree. “It says something that Monsanto can’t defend the safety of their own products, that they have to resort to hiring a PR consultant and get academics to spin the science,” Scott Faber, a Washington-based lobbyist at the Environmental Working Group and executive director of Just Label It, said to Bloomberg.

Most organizations, technology-oriented or otherwise, however, often utilize white papers as part of their marketing efforts. White papers are essentially technical papers with a marketing slant that attempt to present useful information to readers about specific problems and how their products solve them. This series of articles spurred on by Monsanto aren’t much different.

One of the professors, Calestous Juma, with the Harvard Kennedy School, whose work focuses on international development, points out that he was not paid by Monsanto. Although the topic, a summary and title were suggested, he utilized material from a book he had previously published on the topic and did not perform new research for the company. Nor did he change his earlier opinions on the topic.

In a Boston Globe article, Juma points out that, in his view, the invitation to write the paper was very similar to what happens when he is invited to present at a conference, something which he does regularly. In his case, Juma is not a paid consultant, but often discusses the topics with industry professionals on all sides of the GMO issue.

“I consider GMOs as actually a small part of what it takes an agricultural system to function,” he said in the interview. Juma’s article, published by the Genetic Literacy Project, was titled, “Global Risks of Rejecting Agricultural Biotechnology.”

Another one of the authors, Kevin Folta, with the University of Florida, indicates he agreed to write the paper because a big part of his job is communicating science to the public. He has had some controversy before, although not in this case, when Monsanto made a $25,000 donation to the science communication program he runs. Folta responds, however, with pointing out that after the New York Times reported on the story, the $25,000 was donated to charity and he never benefited financially.

“It makes me really sad because I just want technology to help people,” Folta told Bloomberg. “I don’t even care about these companies. I want people to understand the science.”

Folta’s article was titled, “Anti-GMO activism and Its Impact on Food Security.”

In his article, Folta writes, “The movement against biotechnology has much in common with movements that oppose vaccines, deny climate science or contend evolution is a myth. Biotech opponents often ignore sound science and credible scientists, and instead rely on low-quality data, spread misinformation, appeal to fear, and present an addition to logical fallacy.”

Back to news