And I'm the target
By the way - I am a terrible sales person, but I have had a couple private inquires about how best to support my work. If you want to help support the journalism, a charitable donation to The New Lede
https://act.ewg.org/cXWUG66dJEeFKovViPxgpQ2 would be welcomed, no matter how small, just the sign of support is welcomed. And, of course, sharing the news, (and news tips with me) is always the best support!!!
You go, Carey! Kevin Folta has been proven many times to be a tool of big ag and the chemical companies like Monsanto and Bayer. If anyone has doubts, about this, simply google him and you'll find a sordid history of his many misdeeds and questionable relationships even with his conjugal partner at one point. He is certainly a person with a a reputation for taking payments from chemical and GMO corporations and trying to hide or deny those facts.
A bunch of lobbyists and corporate PR lackies whipped up a smear campaign. People can see it for what it is. And, as I'm sure you know, it goes with the territory of standing up to power.
It’s sad and pathetic to see the agrochemical industry again resorting to tactics which sole purpose is to manufacture doubt. However, this does signal that the agrochemical industry is nervous that something could adversely impact their profits.
A similar clearly orchestrated event occurred when the Solicitor General recommended SCOTUS not hear the Hardeman appeal. We know how those efforts turned out.
If only we could see who’s actually greasing the wheels of this propaganda machine designed to defend and protect agrochemical profit by means of attacking perceived threats and manufacturing doubt. My guess - CropLife.
Folta, Entine, Kabat, and their respective affiliations (GLP, ACSH, etc.) are known propagandists. Pawns who sold out decades ago. Pay them no mind.
They always attack the messenger when they can't dispute the facts. Keep up with what you are doing. Their fear shows when they attack you.
Read "Silent Earth" by Professor of Entomology Dave Goulson. He relates how these companies fudge the research.
The effects of agrochemicals on invertebrates is serious but hard to investigate. Pollinators are so necessary in the food chain between wild and cultivated plants, to animals and humans. He describes how the agrochemical companies formulate a toxin, negative outcomes arise but which require independent but badly funded research to prove the links between toxin and effects to health etc. It's a cycle that agrochemical industry are always playing.
Hi, Dr. Kevin Folta here, the guy in the article. I usually don't respond to such things, but it is kind of important as a teaching tool. As in the article in question, she continues to mislead. Here are my responses to her claims.
1. Note that Gillam does not address the criticisms levied against her article. She attacks the scientists that levied the criticisms. Because we appropriately called out the distortions, she's angry and needs to disqualify expert opinion.
2. Her claims that a 2014 (snooze) donation from Monsanto to my university to help defray the costs of a science communication program were not disclosed is not true. The VP of my university clarified that, and be because of the threats, hassles and fallout from her social media (and others) the university moved the funds to a campus food bank. None went to me and they were never used for science communication. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2015/09/10/what-the-new-york-times-missed-on-kevin-folta-and-monsantos-cultivation-of-academic-scientists/?sh=57fe4f32619a
3. I did not "allow my name to be used on columns posted on an industry website that were written by industry PR teams." When the website GMO Answers came out I was asked to answer questions. Awesome. That's what I should do as a public scientists. In a conference call with all independent, unpaid writers, I asked about the scope and depth expected for answers. In response, the folks running the website provided a sample answer to one of the 72 questions I answered on the site. The answer was quite good, it was accurate. So I edited it, changed things around, clarified other aspect of it, essentially using that one as a template. That was one article of the thousands of things I've written. It gave red meat to those that want to cancel my voice, and that was a huge mistake I should have never given them. And that answer is 100% accurate and supported by a scientific consensus to this day.
4. In thousands of pages of emails etc provided and information subpoenaed in legal discovery, there was no place that I 'defended" "questionable activities in defense of Monsanto". I'm a scientist that discusses the strengths and weaknesses of technology. I don't care about the companies.
5. I did write a (freely available) email to a friend of mine that works for Monsanto (it's hard to be a plant scientist and not have old friends that end up there) "I'm glad to sign on to whatever you like, or write whatever you like." What was the context that Gillam omits to make this look nefarious? There was a blatantly false and deceptive television commercial going on in Oregon and Colorado around the 2013 (?) labelling ballot initiatives. Lies, total disinformation. My friend and someone else (and you can go back and read those emails online) were soliciting scientists to respond to the false information. They suggested an op-ed or a petition. I replied, "I'm glad to sign on to whatever you like, or write whatever you like." Context matters, but do you see how Gillam pulls quotes from context to make it appear nefarious?
6. The line "I'm grateful for this opportunity and promise a solid return on investment" is absolutely 100% correct. I didn't make that statement to a "Monsanto executive". I made it in an email to Charla Lord who is on the communications team at Monsanto. She was the one that sent the donation to my university to expand the science communication program. I was really grateful for the donation because it would allow me to teach more, hold more workshops where I trained scientists, farmers, academics, etc on the nuances of science communication. It would have been a great return on investment. I always over deliver. It's how I roll.
7. And yes, I published it in GLP. I appreciate GLP a lot as a source of scientific information and always am glad for the space they give me.
8. And I'm paid 9 months a year by a public university, also from a software company to do my podcast and by various websites that pay me for freelance content. I have no funding from Bayer, Monsanto (dead now 4 years) or any ag or biotech company. If there are factual problems with that content I'm always glad to discuss.
In the days of disinformation it is good to illuminate how we as public scientists are maligned by folks like Gillam. Those of us that discuss the science of chemistry, genetics, climate, vaccines, abortion, etc are targeted by these folks She's been on me for a decade, and while she's paid to write books and articles to trash the science and scientists, my work appears in scholarly journals with peer review.
It's why I bothered to reply.
You have supporters out here!!
Why the rise in food allergies in last 20 yrs? Glyphosate
Why can’t I eat sandwiches, pasta, donuts, etc?
Why did I get diagnosed with celiac in 2011?
Why did I eat mostly whole grains?
Healthy (right??? ONLY if organic!)
Why can I never enjoy them again?
Why so much glyphosate in whole grain?
Kills/knocks down (desiccates) the wheat making for an easier harvest
Where else is this poison?
Almost everywhere you find corn, soy, sugar (used to desiccate sugar cane also!) cane/beets, vegetable oils (mostly corn/soy/canola) oats….
If you take away anything whatsoever from my rant (other than my clear anger for never again enjoying a fresh made gluten-containing donut, durum wheat pasta, inexpensive bread, etc…) do yourself and a family and never, ever, ever, ever eat non-organic whole grain (wheat, rye, barley, oats..) foods. Organic is great. Non-organic is likely poisoned. If you don’t have the celiac gene, you’ll probably be ok, but believe me (and my mother), you’d rather not find out the hard way.
Game on Carey! Excellent work.
You know you’re hit a serious nerve or two when they send out the mob with lies!
Everyone of your readers should be really Angry (I cleaned that up a lot) Everyone of your readers who has an elderly parent, children, honeybee producers, or pet owners should be screaming. Everyone should be as committed as Carey. This is for the health of us, our water, bees, birds, dogs. We as community members need to be as concerned as Carey is. We need to send letters to our elected leaders and ask, in writing and ask what are you doing to prevent the poison to our planet....People do not listen until there is pressure on them to respond. If we really do care, then we have to get involved. I live in Springfield, Mo. Monsanto/Bayer land. I went to the college and asked them about cleaning up the chemicals they are spraying. Answer "They give us a lot of money" ICK
Chin up, Carey! You're doing an excellent job exposing corporate lies and their health consequences -- and the truth will win in the end.
Thank you for your tireless coverage of the Bayer/Monsanto machine. More people need to understand glyphosate and crop desiccation as it's related to our cancer risks. Please keep re-incorporating the urine sample study (80%) in your stories until it sinks in!
Unike you Carey, I'm an independent journalist -I haven't/don't work for US Right To Know or the Environmental Working Group or any NGO that has aligned itself with the Organic agriculture industry. Similarly, I don't/have not and likely never will, knowingly take money from Monsanto/Bayer or any Agrochemicals group or those representing them.
You can accuse all these people of working for Monsanto, Bayer, etc. but you seem to forget you effectively work for the opposing team. So how are you independent? You attack scientists like Professor Folta here with spun allegations taken and quoted, by my measure, totally out of context. This is a skill I picked up as a writer many years ago, just take a quote out of context (cite it so no one can accuse you of impropriety, because no one ever reads the cites) and then go on to explain why this person was a shill for Big Pharma, Big Oil, etc.
Your book Whitewash while brilliantly written, contains nothing substantive and if my memory serves you also enjoy a glass of wine, as many of us do from time to time.
By my calculations a single glass of wine contains more of a CLASS 1 carcinogen than a person like me (I've lived within a few miles of farming country my entire life) than the glyphosate I could be expected to ingest/inhale in a decade.
Would you like to step up an explain that one?
A class 2A carcinogen is not proven to cause cancer. Suspected, yes, but not proven and in fact (I'll have to check this) the internal discussions at Monsanto with people like Donna Farmer, are related to Roundup formulations, not the active herbicide. The thing is, that Roundup's surfactant as I recall is organic in nature. But I digress.
Alcohol in your wine directly or indirectly causes multiple cancers and other health problems including hepatic cirrhosis, is addictive to the point that it can cause severe dependence (wet brain) and kills an estimated 95,000 Americans EVERY SINGLE YEAR. That's almost as many people as Baum Headland estimated benefited from the Bayer settlement IN TOTAL.
Care to explain that?