The Monsanto Papers: MDL Glyphosate Cancer Case Key Documents & Analysis

Print Email Share Tweet

More than 50 lawsuits against Monsanto Co. are pending in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, filed by people alleging that exposure to Roundup herbicide caused them or their loved ones to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and that Monsanto covered up the risks. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.

On March 13th, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled — over Monsanto’s objections — that documents obtained by plaintiffs through discovery could be unsealed.

Court documents >
Reporting and analysis >

Court documents

Monsanto supplement to May 22, 2017 discovery letter (1 page) (5.26.17)
Plaintiffs’ supplement to May 22, 2017 discovery letter (2 pages) (5.26.17)
— Letter on dispute over renal tissue slides from Study BDN-77-420 and schedule (5 pages) (5.22.17)
— Plaintiffs’ opposition to continuance of hearing date for plaintiffs’ remand motion (5 pages) (5.19.17)
— Monsanto motion to continue unilaterally-noticed hearing date for plaintiffs’ remand motion (5 pages) (5.18.17)
— Bio/dynamics kidney slide memo to pathologist regarding glyphosate feeding study in mice (3 pages) (5.16.17)
— Memo from Monsanto’s George Levinskas on kidney tumors (2 pages) (5.16.17)
— Pretrial orders on motions to compel production and additional testimony (2 pages) (5.15.17)
— Plaintiffs’ reply in support of remand (14 pages) (5.12.17)
— Declaration of Pedram Esfandiary in support of reply and request for attorney fees and associated costs (4 pages) (5.12.17)
— Plaintiffs’ reply in further support of motion to compel responses from Jess Rowland (9 pages) (5.10.17)
— Plaintiffs’ reply in further support of motion to compel slides of kidney tissue from mice in study BDN-77-420 (10 pages) (5.10.17)
— Monsanto motion to strike and response re: plaintiffs’ 4/28/17 motion to file under seal (5 pages) (5.10.17)
— Email from plaintiffs re: deposition of Jess Rowland (3 pages) (5.9.17)
— Jess Rowland’s opposition to motion to compel responses from Jess Rowland (23 pages) (5.9.17)
— Jess Rowland’s motion to file under seal (3 pages) (5.9.17)
— Monsanto motion to strike and response re: administrative motion to file under seal (4 pages) (5.5.17)
— Monsanto’s opposition to motion to compel slides of kidney tissue from mice in study BDN-77-420 (10 pages) (5.5.17)
— Declaration of Jess Rowland’s lawyer regarding motion to file under seal (6 pages) (5.2.17)
— Monsanto’s answer to plaintiffs’ complaint (26 pages) (5.2.17)
— Goodbred v. Monsanto amended complaint (41 pages) (5.2.17)
Order denying Monsanto motion to increase page limit (1 page) (5.2.17)
— Pretrial order no. 20: denying motion to de-designate Heydens deposition (2 pages) (5.1.17)
Pretrial order no. 22: Jameson and Ross depositions (1 page) (5.1.17)
— Plaintiffs’ arguments over duration of Jameson & Ross depositions (2 pages) (5.1.17)
— Monsanto letter on Jameson & Ross depositions (3 pages) (5.1.17)
Monsanto’s motion to increase page limit for opposition to plaintiffs remand motion (3 pages) (5.1.17)
— Monsanto’s motion to strike plaintiffs’ reply exhibit 1 and unredacted version of reply (4 pages) (4.28.17)
— Plaintiffs’ motion to compel responses from deponent Jesudoss Rowland (11 pages) (4.28.17)
— Judge Chhabria orders Jess Rowland to answer questions about his post-EPA work (1 page) (4.24.17)
— Plaintiffs request for hearing to address Jess Rowland’s refusal to answer questions (2 pages) (4.24.17)
— Plaintiffs motion to compel the production of all original and re-cut slides of kidney tissue from mice in study BDN-77-420 (8 pages) (4.21.17)
Monsanto’s response to plaintiffs’ request for production of documents (14 pages) (4.21.17)
— Plaintiffs reply in support of motion to strike confidentiality of Heydens deposition (5 pages) (4.20.17)
— Judge Chhabria’s order on pretrial redaction of identifying information (1 page) (4.18.17)
Judge Chhabria’s order on additional discovery about IARC (1 page) (4.18.17)
— Monsanto letter on privacy of non-party individuals (6 pages) (4.14.17)
— Plaintiffs’ amended notice to take videotaped deposition of Jesudoss Rowland (3 page) (4.6.17)
— Plaintiffs: administrative motion to file under seal (25 pages) (4.6.17), see especially pp. 6-10
— Monsanto: discovery dispute (10 pages) (4.4.17)
— Monsanto Company’s answer to plaintiff’s complaint (31 pages) (3.24.17)
— Plaintiffs’ notice to take videotaped deposition of Jesudoss Rowland (4 pages) (3.23.17)
— Plaintiffs’ case management statement (28 pages), new documents unsealed (355 pages), key documents on p. 136, pp. 220-1 (3.16.15)
Jess Rowland documents unsealed (115 pages), key documents on pp. 99-102. (3.14.17)
— Documents unsealed (227 pages), key documents on pp. 203-4. (3.14.17)
Plaintiffs submission in response to pretrial order no. 8 (3.14.17)
— Judge Vince Chhabria’s ruling to unseal documents (3.13.17)
Plaintiffs’ reply in support of motion to compel deposition of Jess Rowland (2.27.17). Key document: Marion Copley letter on p. 11 (2.27.17)
Pretrial order no. 8: order requesting briefing re relevance of EPA and IARC (1.25.17)
Summary of ORD comments on OPP’s glyphosate cancer assessment (12.14.15)

Reporting and analysis on MDL Monsanto glyphosate cancer case

EFSA dismissed glyphosate cancer study after unsupported ‘viral infection’ slur by ex-EPA official, by Claire Robinson (Ecologist) (5.25.17)
— EU declares Monsanto weedkiller safe after intervention from controversial US official, by Arthur Neslen (Guardian) (5.24.17)
— US court documents show Monsanto manager led cancer cover up for glyphosate and PCBs (Sustainable Pulse) (5.19.17)
— Judge sides with ex-EPA employee in Monsanto cancer suit, by Tiffany Stecker and Robert Burnson (Bloomberg BNA) (5.17.17)
Patients: Roundup gave us cancer as EPA official helped the company, by Holly Yan (CNN) (5.16.2017)
— Discussion on setting up of a special inquiry committee on the “Monsanto Papers” (MEPs Against Cancer) (5.9.17)
— Did Monsanto Hire Online Trolls to Attack Critics?  by Chris Crowley (Grub Street) (5.8.17)
— EU Weed Killer Evidence “Written by Monsanto,” by Vincent Harmsen (EU Observer) (5.2.17)
Monsanto Accused of Hiring Army of Trolls to Silence Online Dissent — Court Papers (RT) (5.2.17)
— E&C Dems Urge Walden to Investigate EPA’s Permitting of Toxic Chemicals (4.3.17)
— Inside the Academic Journal That Corporations Love, by Paul Thacker (Pacific Standard) (3.28.17)
Split Within EPA on Glyphosate Carcinogenicity, by Jennifer Sass (NRDC) (3.28.17)
Monsanto Knowingly Sold Human Carcinogen to Consumers (The Young Turks) (3.27.17)
— Letter on glyphosate from Members of the European Parliament to European Commission President Jean-Claude Junker (3.24.17)
“Monsanto Papers”: des eurodéputés veulent la révision de l’expertise du glyphosate, by Stéphane Foucart (Le Monde) (3.24.17)
— Roundup Lawsuits Raise Doubts About EPA’s Integrity, by Matthew Renda (Courthouse News) (3.20.17)
— Ce que les “Monsanto Papers” rélèvent du Roundup, by Stéphane Foucart (Le Monde) (3.18.17)
Monsanto Weed Killer Deserves Deeper Scrutiny As Scientific Manipulation Revealed, by Carey Gillam (Huffington Post/USRTK) (3.17.17)
Les experts européens blanchissent le glyphosate, by Stéphane Foucart (Le Monde) (3.16.17)
— Unsealed Documents Raise Questions on Monsanto Weed Killer, by Danny Hakim (New York Times) (3.15.17)
— Glyphosate: discorde à l’agence de protection de l’environnement américaine, by Stéphane Foucart (Le Monde) (3.14.17)
EPA Official Accused of Helping Monsanto “Kill” Cancer Study, by Joel Rosenblatt, Lydia Mulvany and Peter Waldman (Bloomberg) (3.14.17)
Monsanto Accused of Ghostwriting Papers on Roundup Cancer Risk, by Joel Rosenblatt (Bloomberg) (3.14.17)
Plaintiffs in U.S. Lawsuit Say Monsanto Ghostwrote Roundup Studies, by Brendan Pierson (Reuters) (3.14.17)
Monsanto did not ghostwrite the Williams et al. (2000) glyphosate paper (Monsanto blog) (3.14.17)
— Judge Threatens to Sanction Monsanto for Secrecy in Roundup Cancer Litigation, by Carey Gillam (Huffington Post/USRTK)) (3.10.17)
Monsanto Cancer Suits Turn to EPA Deputy’s “Suspicious” Role, by Joel Rosenblatt (Bloomberg) (2.27.17)
Questions Raised About EPA-Monsanto Collusion Raised in Cancer Lawsuits, by Carey Gillam (Huffington Post/USRTK) (2.13.17)
Monsanto, EPA Seek to Keep Talks About Glyphosate Cancer Review a Secret, by Carey Gillam (Huffington Post/USRTK) (1.18.17)

BMJ Reveals Secret Industry Influence on Medical and Science Reporting

Print Email Share Tweet

News Release

For Immediate Release: Gary Ruskin (415) 944-7350                                                    
For More Information Contact: April 5, 2017

The medical journal BMJ published an article today about how Coca-Cola Co. deployed hidden influences to obtain favorable media coverage on issues of soda and obesity.

“Industry money was used to covertly influence journalists with the message that exercise is a bigger problem than sugar consumption in the obesity epidemic, documents obtained under freedom of information laws show. The documents detail how Coca-Cola funded journalism conferences at a US university in an attempt to create favourable press coverage of sugar sweetened drinks,” the article states.

The BMJ article by Paul Thacker, based on documents obtained by consumer group U.S. Right to Know, is available at: http://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j1638.full

In October, BMJ published another article, also based in part on documents from U.S. Right to Know, regarding ties between Coca-Cola Co. and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  That article is available at: http://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i5723.

U.S. Right to Know is a nonprofit organization that investigates the risks associated with the corporate food system, and the food industry’s practices and influence on public policy. We promote the free market principle of transparency – in the marketplace and in politics – as crucial to building a better, healthier food system.

-30-

U.S. Right to Know Sues EPA for Release of Glyphosate Documents

Print Email Share Tweet

News Release

For Immediate Release: Thursday, March 9, 2017
For More Information Contact: Carey Gillam (913) 526-6190

U.S. Right to Know, a consumer advocacy organization, filed a federal lawsuit on Thursday against the Environmental Protection Agency for violating provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).  Public Citizen Litigation Group, a public interest law firm in Washington, D.C., is representing U.S. Right to Know in the action.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., seeks documents related to EPA’s assessment of a controversial chemical called glyphosate. Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world and is the key ingredient in Monsanto Co.’s branded Roundup herbicides as well as other weed-killing products.  Concerns about the chemical have grown since the World Health Organization in 2015 said its cancer experts classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. Other scientists have also said research shows safety problems with the chemical and the formulations its used in.

U.S. Right to Know requested the EPA records after the EPA posted an internal memorandum titled “GLYPHOSATE: Report of the Cancer Assessment Review Committee” to the agency’s website on April 29, 2016. The internal EPA report, known as the CARC report, concluded that glyphosate was “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” The EPA then deleted the public posting on May 2, saying that the document was posted inadvertently. But before it was deleted Monsanto officials copied the document, promoted it on the company website and on social media and made reference to it in a court hearing dealing with lawsuits filed by agricultural workers and others who allege Monsanto’s herbicide gave them cancer.

The May 12, 2016 FOIA request asked for certain records relating to the CARC report on glyphosate as well as records of communications between Monsanto and EPA officials that discussed glyphosate issues.  Under FOIA, the EPA had 20 working days to respond to the request, but well over 190 working days have now passed and the EPA has yet to produce any records in response to the request. The EPA has also failed to comply with similar, more recent FOIA requests made by U.S. Right to Know for documentation of EPA dealings with Monsanto regarding glyphosate, though those requests are not part of this lawsuit.

The lawsuit specifically claims that U.S. Right to Know has a statutory right under FOIA to the requested records and that EPA has no legal basis for refusing to produce these records. The complaint asks the court to order EPA to make the requested records promptly available.

U.S. Right to Know is a nonprofit organization that works to advance transparency and accountability in the nation’s food system. For more information about U.S. Right to Know, please see www.usrtk.org.

Public Citizen Litigation Group litigates cases involving open government, health and safety regulations, consumer rights, access to the courts, and the First Amendment. It is the litigating arm of the national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization, Public Citizen. The Litigation Group often represents individuals and organizations seeking access to records under the Freedom of Information Act. More information can be found at www.citizen.org.

U.S. Right to Know Statement on Trump Transition Picks

Print Email Share Tweet

News Release

For Immediate Release:  Thursday, November 17, 2016
For More Information Contact: Gary Ruskin (415) 944-7350

 Statement of Consumer Group U.S. Right to Know on Trump Transition Picks

Statement of Gary Ruskin, co-director of U.S. Right to Know, a consumer and public health organization.

So far, the Trump administration looks like a servile minion for the junk food and tobacco industries.  First, they appointed soda lobbyist Mike Torrey and Altria lobbyist Cindy Hayden to the transition team.  Now, the Guardian is reporting that U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo, author of the DARK Act to kill GMO labeling, is a possible pick for the Trump cabinet.

These are signs that the Trump administration intends to act with contempt against public health and consumers in our nation.

-30-

How Not to Drain the Swamp

Print Email Share Tweet

The guys in the C-suites sure must be laughing today. They pulled a fast one on the American public.

As the seating chart fills out for the incoming Trump administration, it becomes clear that Team Trump seeks to “drain the swamp” in Washington by putting the swamp’s corporate lobbyists in charge.

It’s party time for the corporate elite that really runs our nation.

The signs are legion.

Jeffrey Eisenach, who has worked as a consultant for Verizon and its trade association, is running the FCC transition, and will likely use his post to eviscerate Internet freedoms and bury Net Neutrality.

As our nation’s obesity epidemic continues on, what could be worse than installing a lobbyist for the American Beverage Association, Michael Torrey, to head up Trump’s U.S. Department of Agriculture transition team. Nevermind the 25,000 Americans who die each year due to overconsumption of sugary drinks.

Prominent climate change skeptic Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the corporate front group Competitive Enterprise Institute, is leading Trump’s EPA transition team, a slap in the face to all Americans who recoil at climate change, dirty air and poisoned water.

Two of the biggest winners will be billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, and their firm Koch Industries. At least two of their lobbyists have prominent places in the Trump transition.

Mike Catanzaro, who lobbies for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Chemistry Council and Koch Industries, is the honcho for Trump’s “energy independence” agenda.

Mike McKenna, who is in charge of the transition at the Department of Energy, lobbies for Dow Chemical and Koch Industries.

Doubtless Team Trump’s lobbyists are working on how to gut the key regulators, for example, carrying out Trump’s promise to undermine the “FDA Food Police,” which is supposed to keep our nation’s food system safe for all Americans. Try telling that to the one in six Americans who contract food poisoning each year.

According to some news outlets, venture capitalist Peter Thiel, is joining Trump’s transition team. Thiel is co-founder of Palantir Technologies, which played a key role in a corporate espionage scandal involving U.S. Chamber of Commerce plans to spy on unions and citizen groups.

Trump’s promise to “end our government corruption” by putting corporate lobbyists in charge is laughable. As is the idea of empowering Newt Gingrich, who left Congress with a record of contempt for law and House Rules on ethics and corruption, after being forced to pay a $300,000 fine for his congressional wrongdoing.

To be sure, Hillary Clinton has been no great friend of the consumers, public health or government watchdogs. Clinton has a well-honed reticence to taking on the corporations and trade associations who paid her mammoth speaking fee and filled her foundation coffers. Her victory would not have brought citizen movements to power, just as her husband’s did not.
One open question: How will Trump voters respond to — instead of draining the swamp — putting the swamp in charge of the swamp?

Trump voters ought to be mad — they just got sold out.

Gary Ruskin is co-director of U.S. Right to Know, a food industry watchdog group.  For 14 years, he directed the Congressional Accountability Project, which opposed corruption in Congress. You can follow him on Twitter at @garyruskin.

This article was first published in The Hill.

UC Davis Sued for Failing to Release Public Records on GMOs and Pesticides

Print Email Share Tweet

News Release

For Immediate Release:  Thursday, August 18, 2016
For More Information Contact: Gary Ruskin (415) 944-7350

Consumer group U.S. Right to Know filed a lawsuit late Wednesday to compel the University of California, Davis to comply with requests for public records related to the university’s work on genetically engineered food, pesticides and its relationship with the agrichemical industry.

Since January 28, 2015, U.S. Right to Know has filed 17 public records requests with UC Davis as allowed under the California Public Records Act, but the university has provided a total of merely 751 pages in response to all of these requests, while similar requests at other universities have yielded thousands of pages each.

UC Davis has provided no estimate of when it will comply with the unfilled requests, as required by law.  It originally estimated production of documents in April 2015.  It has completed only one response – regarding the soda industry – but none of the 16 requests related to the agrichemical industry.

“We are conducting a wide-ranging investigation into the collaboration between the food and agrichemical industries, their front groups and several U.S. universities,” said Gary Ruskin, co-director of U.S. Right to Know. “So far, documents obtained from other universities have shown secretive funding arrangements and covert efforts to use taxpayer-funded university resources to promote the products of various corporations. The public has a right to know what is going on behind the scenes.”

These revelations have been covered in the New York Times, Boston Globe, the Guardian, Le Monde, STAT, Mother Jones and other outlets.

To underscore the agrichemical industry’s unease about U.S. Right to Know’s public records requests, a law firm that is allied with the agrichemical industry, Markowitz Herbold, has taken the unusual step of filing a public records request for all of U.S. Right to Know’s correspondence with UC Davis, including the responses to all public records requests.

Just over fifty years ago, on July 4, 1966, President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the Freedom of Information Act into law. “Fifty years later, FOIA is a crucial tool for uncovering corruption, wrongdoing, abuse of power, and to protect consumers and public health,” Ruskin said. The California Public Records Act is the California state version of the federal Freedom of Information Act.

The plaintiff for the lawsuit is Gary Ruskin, in his capacity as co-director of U.S. Right to Know.  A copy of the complaint is available at: http://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/UCDaviscomplaint.pdf

U.S. Right to Know is a nonprofit organization that investigates the risks associated with the corporate food system, and the food industry’s practices and influence on public policy. We promote the free market principle of transparency – in the marketplace and in politics – as crucial to building a better, healthier food system.

-30-

Congress Backs Big Food Over Consumers; President Should Veto GMO Anti-Labeling Law

Print Email Share Tweet

News Release

For Immediate Release: Thursday, July 14, 2016
For More Information Contact: Gary Ruskin (415) 944-7350

Today’s vote by the U.S. House of Representatives to approve a law that allows food companies to avoid clearly labeling foods made with genetically engineered ingredients cheats consumers out of information they are entitled to have, and should be vetoed by President Obama, according to the consumer advocacy group U.S. Right to Know.

The measure passed the House in a 306 to 117 vote on Thursday.  The Senate approved the measure on July 7 after months of negotiations with a range of food industry players. It nullifies a mandatory GMO labeling law that took effect in Vermont on July 1, and prevents any other state from enacting its own mandatory labeling law.  Rather than requiring food makers to state the presence of genetically engineered ingredients in plain English, as the Vermont law provides, the new federal law would allow food companies instead to use codes, or to offer phone numbers or website addresses that consumers would need to access for the information.

“This bill is a sweetheart deal for the food and agrichemical industries, who want to keep consumers guessing about the contents of their food,” said Gary Ruskin, co-director of U.S. Right to Know. “There are legitimate questions about the health and environmental risks genetically engineered crops, including the glyphosate herbicide that many are doused with. President Obama should veto this legislation and champion the consumer’s right to know what’s in our food,” Ruskin said.

Backers have said the bill is supported by leading organic industry players such as the Organic Trade Association, and organizations such as the Environmental Working Group and Just Label It have lauded Sen. Debbie Stabenow, one of the architects of the anti-GMO labeling bill. But those organizations do not speak for the overwhelming majority of consumers who polls have shown want clear, on-label language regarding genetically engineered foods.

The bill contains numerous loopholes that would likely allow food companies to avoid even the codes or website links for countless food products.

U.S. Right to Know is a nonprofit organization that investigates the risks associated with the corporate food system, and the food industry’s practices and influence on public policy. We promote the free market principle of transparency – in the marketplace and in politics – as crucial to building a better, healthier food system.

-30-

U.S. Right to Know’s Position on GMOs

Print Email Share Tweet

U.S. Right to Know is a consumer group. We are not opposed to genetic engineering or genetically engineered foods or crops; we advocate for a precautionary and transparent approach for all new food technologies.

New food technologies that involve genetic engineering should proceed only with robust testing for health and environmental risks, as well as with full transparency, including clear on-package labeling, open access to scientific data, and disclosure of industry influence over science and academia.

Genetically engineered foods may someday provide benefits to consumers; however, at this time, the overwhelming majority do not.

Most genetically engineered crops on the market are designed to confer tolerance to herbicides, a trait that allows for – and has resulted in – large increases in herbicide use on corn, soybeans and other crops. This use of large volumes of herbicides raises concerns about health risks of food made with these crops. Multiple scientific studies, and the World Health Organization’s cancer research unit, have validated these concerns.

It is incorrect to report that the science is settled on the safety and benefits of genetic engineering.  For details, see:

Media Reports That GMO Science Is Settled Are Flat-Out Wrong

U.S. Senate Declines to Advance Anti-Consumer Bill to Stop Mandatory GMO Labeling

Print Email Share Tweet

News Release

For Immediate Release: Wednesday, March 16, 2016
For More Information Contact: Gary Ruskin (415) 944-7350

Statement of Gary Ruskin, Co-director of U.S. Right to Know

Today’s Senate vote is a victory for consumers and everyone who wants the right to know what’s in our food.

The Roberts measure, backed by the food industry, shows the contempt of our nation’s large food companies for their own customers, who overwhelmingly support labeling of genetically engineered food.

The industry campaign for the DARK Act will only accelerate consumer distrust of large food companies and their processed food.  In other words, the bill’s proponents will reap what they have sown.

—-

U.S. Right to Know is a nonprofit organization that investigates the risks associated with the corporate food system, and the food industry’s practices and influence on public policy. We promote the free market principle of transparency – in the marketplace and in politics – as crucial to building a better, healthier food system.

-30-

Consumer Group USRTK Calls on Jon Entine to Reveal Funding, Ties to Industries He Defends

Print Email Share Tweet

News Release

For Immediate Release: Wednesday, March 2, 2016
For More Information Contact: Gary Ruskin (415) 944-7350

Jon Entine, a leading chemical industry PR operative who has written dozens of articles defending corporate interests, today attacked the Columbia University’s Journalism School, stating that it “smeared Exxon,” engaged in “advocacy journalism,” and hired “an activist” to run the Journalism School.

In response, consumer group U.S. Right to Know called on Entine to reveal in full detail his funding and ties to the industries he defends in his writing.

“Who is funding Jon Entine and the Genetic Literacy Project?” asked Gary Ruskin, co-director of U.S. Right to Know. “Will Jon Entine disclose his funders?  If not, what is he hiding?”

In his New York Post article today, Entine attacks award-winning journalist Susanne Rust, who is an investigative editor at the Columbia Journalism School.  Entine fails to mention that Rust and co-author Meg Kissinger exposed undisclosed industry ties of Entine’s group STATS in a 2009 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article, which reported that “STATS claims to be independent and nonpartisan. But a review of its financial reports shows it is a branch of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. That group was paid by the tobacco industry to monitor news stories about the dangers of tobacco.”

The Genetic Literacy Project previously declared that it is “affiliated with the non-profit Statistical Assessment Service (STATS).”  However, the Genetic Literacy Project has removed the reference to STATS from its website.  Entine’s New York Post byline previously referred to him as “a senior fellow at STATS,” and Entine has referred to STATS as “the organization that houses the Genetic Literacy Project, where I work.”

Entine is executive director of the agrichemical industry front group Genetic Literacy Project, a group with unknown funding that regularly attacks activists, journalists and scientists who raise concerns about the health and environmental risks of genetically engineered foods and pesticides.

Entine’s New York Post article is his second recent foray into the arena of climate politics, defending oil companies and attacking climate change heroes.  On February 1, Entine penned an attack on Harvard Professor Naomi Oreskes, co-author of Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.

Entine is an influential spokesman for the agrichemical industry. FOIA requests by U.S. Right to Know revealed Entine’s ties to New York Times reporter Amy Harmon, Washington Post food columnist Tamar Haspel, and pro-GMO journalist Keith Kloor.

In 2012, Entine claimed he had “no idea” that Syngenta was funding the organization (American Council on Science and Health) that published his book defending Syngenta’s herbicide, atrazine, according to reporting by Tom Philpott in Mother Jones.

Entine has made a career of defending the chemical, pesticide, fossil fuel and nuclear power industries.  For more background on Jon Entine, read U.S. Right to Know’s fact sheet about him.

U.S. Right to Know is a nonprofit organization that investigates the risks associated with the corporate food system, and the food industry’s practices and influence on public policy. We promote the free market principle of transparency – in the marketplace and in politics – as crucial to building a better, healthier food system.

-30-