Monsanto attacks Honest Scientists & Science

More evidence has emerged to show how Monsanto attacks honest scientists and even science itself.  The chemical company giant has long worked to “neutralize” or discredit individuals and organizations when their findings threaten Monsanto profits.

Time and again, Monsanto’s actions behind the scenes impugn the chemical company’s endless “on- message” claim that Roundup is safe, doesn’t cause cancer, and no evidence exists anywhere to show that it does cause cancer.

The big message problem for Monsanto is that its own duplicitous conduct is well known on many fronts.  It begs the simple question:  If Roundup is as safe as advertised, then why has Monsanto worked so very hard to attack any scientists and any scientific findings showing Roundup causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma?  Monsanto’s messaging problems abound and grow by the day.  Here is just a small sampling:

  • Why has Monsanto hired ghost writers like Henry Miller, the bogus Stanford academic, to attack organic foods and organic farming in mainstream publications like Newsweek?
  • Why does Monsanto secretly attack anti-GMO Activists?
  • Why did Monsanto try to destroy French researcher Dr. Giles Seralini after he performed a rat study which showed GMO corn gave rats hideous tumors?
  • Why did Monsanto use its press minions to attack Carey Gilliam, a brave and honest writer who has published a superbly-researched book on Monsanto titled, “Whitewash — The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer and the Corruption of Science.
  • Why has Monsanto worked behind the scenes with EPA regulators to quash at least one Roundup safety study?
  • Why did a Monsanto executive feed a Reuters reporter fake news that defamed the International Agency for Research on Cancer and one of its scientists, after the IARC declared glyphosate a probable carcinogen?
  • Why has Forbes magazine had to pull fake news stories (on at least two occasions) that maligned, misrepresented, and attacked researchers who pointed out the dangers of Roundup?
  • Why did Monsanto use an industry hack named Geoffrey Kabat to attack research which showed Roundup increases non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma risk by 41 percent? Kabat accused the authors of cherry-picking data, and he made other patently false statements, all while failing to disclose his ties to the industry.
  • Why has Monsanto attacked those who prove that the industrial farming methods Monsanto promotes strip soil of nutrients that form the most basic building blocks of environmental, human, and animal health?

Forbes magazine – which has published several articles defending Monsanto – published Mr. Kabat’s scathing review of the meta-analysis showing Roundup increased cancer risk, and then later pulled the article.  Why did Forbes pull the piece?  Because it was full of falsehoods, like so much of Monsanto’s propaganda that its press minions get paid to fling.  It was the second time in recent memory that Forbes was forced to pull Monsanto propaganda which Forbes had initially represented as “news.”

There was nothing honest about Geoffrey Kabat’s diatribe, just as there is nothing honest about Monsanto’s position that glyphosate is safe and no studies prove otherwise.  Even a federal judge who has shown himself more than sympathetic to Monsanto’s arguments – curiously “bifurcating” the first federal Roundup trial – was forced this week to admit the plain truth.  The judge denied a request from Monsanto’s lawyers to grant a summary judgment which would have ended the trial in Monsanto’s favor.

Yes, even the federal judge who had favored Monsanto by severely handicapping the plaintiff’s side with “bifurcation” wrote:

“[T]he plaintiffs have presented a great deal of evidence that Monsanto has not taken a responsible, objective approach to the safety of its product. (Although) the evidence that Roundup causes cancer is quite equivocal, there is strong evidence from which a jury could conclude that Monsanto does not particularly care whether its product is in fact giving people cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about the issue.”

Those are strong words from a judge who had once worked for a law firm that defended Monsanto.  His bifurcation of the trial meant the jury was not able to hear about Monsanto’s reckless attitude toward safeguarding the public.   They were unable to hear trial evidence of how Monsanto had more interest in manipulating public opinion than getting at any underlying truths.  The jury did not hear evidence of how Monsanto was most interested in undermining anyone with “genuine and legitimate” concerns about Roundup.

The six jurors will be allowed to hear some of that evidence of Monsanto’s propagandizing and reckless disregard only if they decide unanimously that Roundup caused the plaintiff’s non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.  The jury began deliberations on March 13, 2019.  They will resume deliberations again on Friday, March 15.

One can only hope now that the bifurcated trial arrangement will not hinder the jury’s arriving at the truth of the matter, despite being allowed to hear only a fraction of the whole story in this first phase of the trial.

In this first phase, only if all six jurors unanimously agree that Roundup was the principal cause of the plaintiff’s non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, will they then be allowed to move to a second, damages phase.  If and only if they make it that far, will they then be allowed to hear at least some of the truth behind Monsanto’s behind-the-scenes manipulations, of Monsanto’s attacks on honest scientists, of its never-ending maneuvers to manipulate the actual reporting of the science itself.

Related

Share