“Expert” Detractors on California Prop 37 are Shills for Big Biotech

By Dr. Mercola

All eyes are on California where Proposition 37, which would require labeling of foods produced using genetic engineering. It will be put to voters on November 6th. In recent weeks, the battle over GMO labeling has taken an ugly turn. In a true David versus Goliath battle, the opposition will apparently stop at nothing to defeat the measure.

What are they so afraid of?

A common corporate tactic, well-honed by the tobacco industry, is to hire "third-party experts" to bring your message to the public, especially through the media. The idea is that academic types carry much more credibility than the likes of Monsanto when it comes to defending genetically engineered food.

University of California at Monsanto?

It's no accident that the No on Prop 37 campaign has many academics on its side at the University of California at Davis. The school enjoys millions of dollars in research grants and other largesse from the biotech industry.

A 2004 story in the Sacramento Bee¹ describes UC Davis as a research incubator for Big Biotech:

"You name it, and biotechnology companies help pay for it at UC Davis: laboratory studies, scholarships, post-doctoral students' salaries, professors' travel expenses, even the campus utility bill."

According to Bill Liebhardt, former director of the UC system's sustainable farming program:

"'The public is having a hard time figuring out where the corporate door ends and where the university door begins.' And UC Davis cell biologist Eduardo Blumwald says that biotech companies 'are influencing the way we do research.'"

That would certainly explain why at least six UC Davis professors support for the No on 37 campaign.

One article, co-authored by University of California at Davis professor Colin Carter,² not only defends genetically engineered (GE) foods, but also makes unsubstantiated claims while mischaracterizing the language of Prop 37, as Tufts professor Parke Wilde pointed out in August.³ Another pair of UC Davis professors were paid by the No on 37 campaign, which released their report⁴ with this dramatic headline:

"UC Davis Professors of Agricultural Economics Release New Report that Shows Proposition 37 Will Increase Costs for California Farmers and Food Processors by $1.2 Billion."

The Los Angeles Times⁵ reported that the No campaign paid UC Davis professors Julian Alston and Daniel Sumner at least $30,000.

"This article would never stand to peer-review scrutiny, which explains why the report isn't published anywhere but on the No on 37 website,"⁶ he says.

Professor Alston is no stranger to Monsanto largesse. According to the Sacramento Bee:⁷

"In July 2002, UC Davis farm economics professor Julian Alston found a patron in the private sector: Monsanto, one of the world's five largest crop biotechnology firms. The official announcement came in the form of a letter. 'Dear Dr. Alston,' it read. 'Please find enclosed a check for $40,000 that represents an unrestricted gift in support of your research program.'"

Next, UC Davis Professor Kent Bradford penned a curious op-ed in the Woodland Daily Democrat⁸ opposing Prop 37 that listed talking points bearing striking resemblance to the No on 37 campaign's arguments.⁹ That similarity just might be explained by Bradford's deep ties to Monsanto. According to the Sacramento Bee,¹⁰ Branford is "director of the Seed Biotechnology Center at UC Davis, and a leader of Seed Central, a university-led initiative to attract seed industry to the Davis area." He recently trumpeted Monsanto's $31 million expansion at the Woodland, California campus, saying the investment, "capitalizes on UC Davis and the research capacity of the companies."

Most recently, two UC Davis professors appeared on an episode of the Dr. Oz show defending genetically engineered foods.¹¹ One of them, Martina Newell-McGloughlin is director of the University of California Biotechnology Research and Education Program,¹² while the other, Alison L. Van Eenennaam, has worked for Monsanto.¹³

It's no wonder the funders of No on Prop 37 would keep dipping into the UC Davis deep well of alleged academic experts. They obviously made an excellent investment, and it's payback time.

Monsanto Expert, Henry Miller: "I am Not a Stanford Professor, But I Play One on TV"

No on Prop 37 has been putting Henry Miller front and center of its campaign. Miller has a long and sordid history¹⁴ of defending toxic chemicals such as DDT, in addition to working for Big Tobacco. He also tends to misrepresent himself quite a bit. As the Los Angeles Times¹⁵ reported, a No on 37 ad had to be pulled off the air because Miller was identified as, "Dr. Henry I. Miller M.D., Stanford University, founding dir. FDA Office of Technology." Behind him in the shot was Stanford's recognizable vaulted campus walkway.

Just one problem: Miller is not a Stanford professor but a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank that happens to be housed on the Stanford campus. Adding insult to injury, Stanford has a policy to not take positions on candidates or ballot measures, and does not allow political filming on campus.

Oops. The campaign admitted its error and edited the ad.

But the Stanford deception did not end there. Recently, the Yes on 37 campaign complained¹⁶ that Stanford's policy was being violated once again, this time in at least two different No on 37 flyers sent to California voters that identify Miller as, "Henry Miller, MD, Stanford University." The campaign claimed it wouldn't happen again. Right.

Science Media Centre aka Big Biotech Spin Control

A related tactic to hiring academic experts one at a time to do your bidding is to corral them all into one really important sounding organization; often, an "institute." The Tobacco Institute was an arm of Big Tobacco that according to its own description,¹⁷ acted "as official spokesman for the industry, always reflecting official [strategy] position agreed upon by all members."

Moreover, spinning science through a sophisticated public relations campaign was paramount. The institute's main mission was:

"[P]ublicizing scientific research funded by the industry which produces counter evidence to unfavorable findings or, at least, helps to keep the question open."

Sounds unbelievable now, but for decades this strategy was so effective that it delayed policy action while millions died. Enter the Science Media Centre.¹⁸ Headquartered in the UK, there is also a US-based outlet.¹⁹ Their mission (like their name), sounds innocuous enough:²⁰

"Our aim is to ensure that when a major science story breaks, we can quickly offer news desks a list of scientists available to comment, a summary of the main scientific points involved and details of which press officers or web sites to go to for further information."

They also provide handy tips in this document²¹ called, "Communicating risks in a soundbite: A guide for scientists," on how to respond to media questions by downplaying problems. For example, if a reporter asks, "Is it risky?" the scientist should get the journalist to instead ask about the benefits by replying, "the benefits outweigh the risks." Another suggested answer: "It is a very small risk. So small that I believe it is safe."

Why would a "science media center" put words into scientists' mouths?

Just take a look at the source of funding, which include:²²

• BASF
• Bayer
• Biotechnology & Biological Sciences and Research Council
• CropLife (pesticide and biotech trade group)
• Monsanto
• Novartis
• Syngenta

Not exactly players with an objective view of science. This might explain why the center pounced²³ on the recent French study showing organ damage and massive cancer tumors in rats fed GE corn. This was the first lifetime feeding study that has ever been conducted with GE food, so it was sure to be a major embarrassment to Big Biotech.

The very same day the French report was published came a press release²⁴ from the Science Media Centre claiming "anomalies throughout the paper" despite the authors having been through the usual peer review process.

The main statement from the center was authored by Professor Maurice Moloney, head of Rothamsted Research, which was the target of a protest earlier this year.²⁵ (A counter group formed at the time, calling itself "Sense about Science." This is a common tactic, to portray those who object to tinkering with nature as anti-science luddites.) Moloney is certainly not an objective scientist when it comes to genetically engineered foods, as his Porsche license plate with the letters GMO indicates. His bio²⁶ includes working at biotech incubator Calgene (which was later bought by Monsanto), "where he developed the first transgenic oilseed plants using canola as the model crop," which became the basis of Monsanto's Roundup Ready and Liberty Link canola products."

How nice. So the man who gave us Monsanto's premiere product – Roundup Ready – doesn't think an independent study demonstrating harm from eating genetically engineered food is valid? Why am I not shocked?

Have You Fallen for Falsehoods?

Here is what should be shocking: that it's so easy for opponents of GMO labeling to insert such obviously biased scientific spin into the public discourse. According to GM Watch,²⁷ Moloney's critique was picked up in numerous media outlets, at times, just attributed to unnamed "independent scientists." Mission accomplished.

In addition to using experts for hire as spokespeople, the No on 37 campaign has engaged in numerous other underhanded tactics, getting caught each time.

For example, the Yes on 37 campaign recently sent letters to the U.S. Department of Justice requesting a criminal investigation for possible fraudulent misuse of the official seal of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.²⁸ No on 37 included the FDA logo on a mailer²⁹ sent to California voters, along with a quote falsely attributed to FDA saying the agency was opposed to Prop 37.

No on 37 has also misrepresented the positions of several health and nutrition organizations,³⁰ even going so far as to deceive Californians in the official voter guide.

How sad that Monsanto and friends must stoop so low to keep consumers in the dark about what they are eating. What are they trying to hide?

Passing Prop 37 is Key to Expanding Sustainable Agriculture in North America

It's quite evident that we have no real champions for food safety and labeling of genetically engineered foods within the federal government. As I recently reported, the last three US Presidents and Presidential-hopeful Mitt Romney all have something health related in common – they all insist on 100% organic diets for their own families while promoting unlabeled GE foods on the rest of us.

But right now we do have a great opportunity to change this situation by circumventing Monsanto's posse entirely.

Although many organic consumers and natural health activists already understand the importance of Proposition 37, it cannot be overemphasized that winning the battle over Prop 37 is perhaps the most important food fight Americans – not just Californians – have faced so far.

But in order to win this fight for the right to know what's in our food, we need your help. Please remember, the failure or success of this ballot initiative is wholly dependent on your support and funding! There are no major industry pockets funding this endeavor. In order to have a chance against the deep pockets of Big Biotech and transnational food corporations, it needs donations from average citizens.

More:  http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/10/30/prop-37-detractors.aspx?e_cid=20121025_DNL_artTest_A2