Experts Bribed to Lie for Corporate Predators
by Stephen Lendman (stephenlendman.org - Home - Stephen Lendman)
It’s longstanding practice. Corporate predators bribe organizations, scientists, academics, and other experts to lie about the safety of their products.
When hazardous to human health, they need endorsements from experts, willing to sacrifice their integrity for a big payday.
The Organic Authority reports “the truth behind America’s food supply and consumer products industries - pulling back the curtain on how America’s food is grown and processed.”
Earlier it reported how Monsanto (now Bayer after both companies merged) bribes academics to claim hazardous to human health GMOs are safe.
US Right to Know (USRTK) “work(s) for transparency and accountability in our nation’s food system.” Earlier it reported on how academics collaborated with a Monsanto PR campaign.
In July, it explained that “Monsanto was its own ghostwriter for some safety reviews.” It got the EPA to kill a cancer study.
It aims to neutralize and undermine the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) - part of its campaign to prevent cancer-causing Roundup glyphosate herbicide from being banned in America, Europe and elsewhere.
In June, Professor Sheldon Krimsky warned about Monsanto’s “ghostwriting and strong-arming, threaten(ing) sound science and society,” adding:
“To protect the scientific enterprise, one of the core pillars of a modern democratic society, against the forces that would turn it into the handmaiden of industry or politics, our society must support firewalls between academic science and the corporate sectors and educate young scientists and journal editors on the moral principles behind their respective professional roles.”
USRTK explained how “food industry lobby groups, CropLife International, BIO and the Grocery Manufacturers Association; industry-funded spin groups such as GMO Answers and the International Food Information Council,” as well as other organizations partner with Monsanto to discredit IARC scientific work.
It called the so-called American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) “a corporate front group for the tobacco, agrichemical, fossil fuel, pharmaceutical and other industries.”
It has ties to Monsanto (now Bayer), company official Daniel Goldstein, saying “(y)ou will not get a better value for your dollar than ACSH” - funding its war on science.
According to USRTK, former ACSH medical/executive director Dr. Gilbert Ross “was convicted in a scheme to defraud the Medicaid system prior to joining ACSH.”
A 2005 Mother Jones article, titled “Paging Dr. Ross” called him a “highly untrustworthy individual,” citing a judge banning him from Medicaid practice for 10 years.
Current ACSH head Hank Campbell worked for software companies before founding the Science 2.0 website - despite having no science expertise.
ACSH donors and backers comprise a rogue’s gallery of agribusiness, energy, tobacco, pharmaceutical, and other consumer products corporate predators, according to leaked documents, Mother Jones reported.
The organization defends hazardous GMOs, glyphosate, fracking, bisphenol (BPA), other carcinogens, and junk science over the real thing.
Academics Review (AR) co-founders Bruce Chassy and David Tribe colluded with Monsanto officials about using AR “as a front group to promote industry interests and attract industry cash, while keeping corporate fingerprints hidden,” USRTK explained, adding:
AR and similar industry front groups claim to be “honest arbiters of science even as they spread false information and level near hysterical attacks against scientists who raised concerns about the cancer risk of glyphosate.”
USTRK stressed “(i)t’s time to end the corporate war on cancer science.”
It’s no easy task with deep pockets supporting it, along with governments backing their interests in America and elsewhere.
VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home - Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].
My newest book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."
