Is the USDA Just a Corporate
Lobbyist Group?
March 22, 2016
Story at-a-glance
-
The USDA has come under increasing scrutiny
following charges of harassment and censorship. Due
to mounting complaints from scientists, the USDA
inspector general is opening an investigation.
-
USDA whistleblower Jonathan Lundgren, Ph.D., claims
he was retaliated against when he started talking
about his research, which shows neonicotinoids cause
decline in bee and Monarch butterfly populations.
-
Krysta Harden, former deputy secretary of the USDA,
has been hired by chemical giant DuPont to head up
its "public policy and government affairs
strategies” department.
By Dr. Mercola
Many, if not most, of our regulatory agencies have a long
history of protecting industry interests over public and
environmental health. Most recently, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) has come under increasing scrutiny following
mounting charges of harassment and censorship.
In the first week of November 2015, Jonathan Lundgren, who
spent the last 11 years working as an entomologist at the USDA,
filed a whistleblower complaint against the agency, claiming
he'd suffered retaliation after speaking out about research
showing that
neonicotinoids had adverse effects on bees.1
In the U.S., nearly all corn, about 90 percent of canola, and
approximately half of all soybeans are treated with
neonicotinoids. As the use of these
pesticides has gone up, bee and Monarch butterfly
populations have plummeted.
After publicly discussing his findings, Lundgren claims that
"USDA managers blocked publication of his research, barred him
from talking to the media, and disrupted operations at the
laboratory he oversaw."
The Washington Post recently published an article that
details Lundgren's complaints and the retaliation waged against
him.2
According to Agri-Pulse,3
the Agriculture Department's inspector general, Phyllis Fong,
has now received so many complaints about harassment and
censorship, she's opening a broad investigation to assess
"whether there is a systemic problem in the department."
Charges of Censorship Mount Against USDA
Food and Water Watch4
recently followed up on this issue, noting that "when
independent, government scientists produce research that
threatens corporate agribusinesses, the USDA — according to at
least 10 government scientists — censors the results, waters
down the findings and punishes the researchers."
Jonathan Lundgren is one of these 10 scientists. The other 9
have all chosen to remain anonymous for fear of even more
reprisals.
Lundgren's research at the USDA shows that neonicotinoids are
instrumental in the decline of bee and Monarch butterfly
populations. But his work, and his criticism against factory
farming, goes even deeper than that.
He has become convinced and has spoken out about the fact
that toxic insecticides like neonics are not some sort of
necessary evil. We don't actually need these types of
chemicals at all in agriculture.
As he notes in the video above, organic or regenerative
farming actually produces higher yields and requires less land.
This, I believe, even more so than his critique of neonics,
poses a major threat to corporate agribusinesses.
It does not, however, detract from the USDA's mission, which
is why the agency's mistreatment of scientists like Lundgren is
so revealing.
Whistleblower Sets Up Nonprofit Science Lab and Sustainable Farm
Fortunately, Lundgren has become very outspoken about his
whistleblower suit. So much so, the Shafeek Nader Trust
presented him with a civic courage award last November, for
taking an open stand against the USDA.
Moving forward, he's also setting up two new businesses: Blue
Dasher Farm, which he intends to be a model for large-scale
sustainable farming using crop diversity and other regenerative
methods, and Ecdysis, a nonprofit science lab for independent
research.
According to Lundgren:5
"I don't think science can be done, at least on this subject, in
any of the conventional ways. I think we need truly independent
scientists — not funded by government or industry."
USDA Policy Encourages Suppression of Unpopular Science
This charge was made by Jeff Ruch, Executive Director of
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), who on
March 26, 2015 filed a Petition For Rulemaking with the
Secretary of Agriculture.6
(PEER is also the alliance representing Lundgren's whistleblower
case.) In it, he notes that:
"The stated purpose of USDA's scientific integrity
policy is to ensure 'the highest level of integrity in all
aspects of the executive branch's involvement with
scientific and technological processes and analyses.'
However, the Policy fails to clearly prohibit
political suppression and interference. While the Policy
defines political suppression and interference, it does not
include these acts in its definition of misconduct.
The USDA, by its own admission, has yet to develop
procedures for handling scientific integrity complaints. To
compound the problem, an overly broad provision within the
Policy actively encourages USDA to suppress
scientific work for political reasons.
The provision states that scientists "should refrain
from making statements that could be construed as being
judgments of or recommendations on USDA or any other federal
government policy, either intentionally or inadvertently."
USDA management routinely relies up this vague but
expansively worded provision a pretext for suppressing
technical work solely because the scientific conclusions
expressed draw the ire of USDA corporate stakeholders."
The Case of USDA Scientist Jeffery Pettis
The case of Jeffery Pettis adds even more weight to the
notion that there's a definitive agenda at work within the USDA
to officially downplay any risks associated with neonicotinoids.
Pettis, who like Lundgren is an entymologist, headed up the
USDA's bee laboratory in Beltsville for 9 years. His career was
suddenly derailed after he presented testimony about neonics
before the House Agriculture Committee in the spring of 2014. As
reported by The Washington Post:7
"Pettis had developed what he describes as a
'significant' line of research showing that neonics
compromise bee immunity.
But in his opening remarks before Congress, he
focused on the threat posed by the varroa mite, often put
forward by chemical company representatives as the main
culprit behind bee deaths.
Only under questioning by subcommittee Chairman
Austin Scott (R-Ga.) did Pettis shift. Even if varroa were
eliminated tomorrow, he told Scott, 'we'd still have a
problem.' Neonics raise pesticide concerns for bees 'to a
new level,' he said. About two months later, Pettis was
demoted, losing all management responsibilities for the
Beltsville lab ....
Pettis said, the USDA's congressional liaison told
him that the Agriculture Committee wanted him to restrict
his testimony to the varroa mite. 'In my naivete,' he said,
'I thought there were going to be other people addressing
different parts of the pie. I felt used by the whole
process, used by Congress.'
The hearing was 'heavily weighted toward industry,'
he said, 'and they tried to use me as a scientist, as a way
of saying, 'See, it's the varroa mite,' when that's not how
I see it.'... He said he walked up to Scott
afterward, to make small talk, and the congressman 'said
something about how I hadn't 'followed the script.'"
Is USDA Shielding Corporations Like Monsanto?
While you would think that the USDA exists to protect you
against the vagaries of industry, this is not the case. The
chemical and agricultural industries spend millions of dollars
to lobby for regulations that are favorable to them, and there's
a constantly revolving door between the agency and private
corporations.
For example, USDA Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack is
widely regarded as a shill for Monsanto, and he's always been a
strong supporter of
genetically engineered (GE) crops, regardless of the
scientific evidence against it.
The undemocratic and highly unpopular 2005 seed pre-emption
bill was also Vilsack's brainchild. The law stripped local
government's right to regulated GE seed, including where GE can
be grown. Overall, Vilsack's record is one of aiding and
abetting
concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) or factory
farms and promoting both genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
and animal cloning.
Roger Beachy is another example. Between 2009 and 2011, he
was the head of National Institute of Food and Agriculture
(NIFA), the USDA's main research arm, and he too is a proponent
of
GMOs, and has ties to Monsanto. As reported in a previous
Grist article:8
"In his short stint at USDA, Beachy never hid his
enthusiasm for ag biotechnology — or his disdain for organic
ag. When I ... asked him about funding for organic research,
he came up with a novel slander against synthetics-free ag:
'I'm concerned about the safety of organic food … I'm
concerned about the issue of microbial contamination with
organic.'"
To get an idea of just how broad and deep Monsanto's reach
is, take a look at the following chart. Over the years, this
biotech giant has successfully infiltrated an ever increasing
number of high-level federal regulatory positions in the U.S.
government; many of which are positions meant to protect
your food safety, including a number of top positions within the
USDA.
Top USDA Official Goes to Work for DuPont
The most recent person to walk their way through the
revolving door between government and industry is
Krysta Harden, who spent over 6 years at the USDA — first as
chief of staff to Secretary Tom Vilsack, and then deputy
secretary. She's been hired by
chemical giant DuPont to head up its "public policy and
government affairs strategies" department. You would think this
activity would be illegal and prohibited but it is actually
encouraged.
The New York Times recently published an
in-depth exposé9
on the legal battle fought against DuPont for the past 15 years
over PFOA contamination and its toxic effects. The Intercept
also published a three-part exposé10
titled "The
Teflon Toxin: Dupont and the Chemistry of Deception" last
year, detailing DuPont's history of covering up the facts.
Earlier this month, they came out with a fourth part in the
series,11
covering DuPont's contamination of the Cape Fear River with "a
new generation of replacement compounds" that likely have "the
same chemical performance properties as the older generation of
PFCs."
DuPont is now working on a merger with Dow, and once the
merger is completed, that chemical-seed company will be even
larger than Monsanto. Considering DuPont's history of covering
up the toxic effects of their products, this gigantic entity is
going to Monsanto in terms of being a serious threat, and the
most perniciously evil company on the planet.
Federal Agencies Aid and Abet Corporate Stronghold
So why exactly is a "public servant" like Harden supporting
and defending this toxic corporate cesspool? Probably because
she's no stranger to playing both sides of the field. In the
1990s, she worked for Gordley Associates,12
a government relations corporation that handles "legislative
initiatives" for the American Soybean Association. Now, as
noted by Mother Jones:13
"[H]er recent experience as a top U.S. agriculture
policy official may come in handy. The anticipated DowDuPont
agrichemical/seed division would not only own a massive
position in the two most lucrative U.S. seed markets — corn
(41 percent market share) and soybeans (38 percent); it
would also sell 17 percent of the pesticides consumed
globally ...
Citing 'less
competition in the marketplace and fewer choices for farmers,'
the National Farmers Union has urged the Department of
Justice to block the deal. Because of such pushback, an
analyst ...
wrote in a December 14 note to investors,
'We expect regulatory and political challenges will be
greatest in ag.'
Going forward, a combined DowDuPont ag division would
deal directly with the USDA, which (nominally)
vets all new GMO seed products before they can be planted on
US farm fields. Both
DuPont and
Dow boast of robust ag-biotech product
pipelines going forward."
There are many other examples in addition to these. The
problem is quite clear. The revolving doors between industry and
the agencies created to regulate them have led to the breakdown
of these agencies.
They no longer fulfill their stated functions, and instead
they aid and abet some of the most toxic and harmful industries
on the planet to continue business as usual, even when their own
scientists are raising red flags. They've simply become the
middlemen who legalize fraud and unconscionable corporate
behavior.
FOIA Lawsuit Reveals White House Administration Killed FOIA
Reform
If it seems like virtually all federal agencies are working
against transparency, it's because they are. Vice News14
recently drove home this point in an article discussing the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that led to the
disclosure of documents showing the White House Administration
has "worked aggressively behind the scenes to scuttle
congressional reforms designed to give the public better access
to information possessed by the federal government."
This despite, and completely contrary to, its own assertion
that President Obama's administration is "the most transparent
administration in history." According to Vice News:
"The
documents were obtained by the Freedom of
the Press Foundation ... using the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) — the same law Congress was attempting to reform.
The group sued the DOJ last December after its FOIA requests
went unanswered for more than a year.
The documents confirm longstanding suspicions about
the administration's meddling, and lay bare for the first
time how it worked to undermine FOIA reform bills that
...were unanimously passed by both the House and Senate in
2014 — yet were never put up for a final vote.
Moreover, a separate set of documents ... provides
new insight into how the Securities and Exchange Commission
and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) also tried to disrupt
Congress's FOIA reform efforts, which would have required
those agencies to be far more transparent when responding to
records requests.
The disclosures surface days before Sunshine Week, an
annual celebration of open government, and a renewed effort
by the House and Senate to improve the FOIA by enacting the
very same reforms contained in the earlier House and Senate
bills — the seventh attempt in at least 10 years by
lawmakers to amend the transparency law. But the
administration is again working to derail the legislation,
according to congressional staffers."
Most Transparent Administration in History? I Think Not
On his first day in office, President Obama signed a
presidential memorandum instructing all government agencies to
"adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew
their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to
usher in a new era of open Government."
Five years later, in 2014, the FOIA Oversight and
Implementation Act was brought forth, which would have codified
the President's memorandum into law. The bill passed by a
unanimous vote, 410-0. But then all progress stopped. According
to Vice, the documents show that it was actually the White House
Administration itself that put the brakes on, and "strongly
opposed passage" of the House bill. Why?
"The White House claimed it would increase the FOIA
backlog, result in astronomical costs, and cause unforeseen
problems with processing requests ... [Committee Chairman
Jason] Chaffetz, who co-sponsored the latest FOIA reform
bill passed by the House in January, told VICE News in a
statement that the Obama administration's promises of
transparency have never materialized.
'President Obama promised the 'most transparent'
administration in history. I see no evidence to support that
statement,' Chaffetz said. 'Time and time again this
administration has aggressively thwarted efforts for a more
open and transparent government.'"
There's more to the story, and if you're interested, I
suggest reading through the original article. The point I'm
trying to make here is that the push-back against transparency
goes all the way to the top, and we're actually moving in the
wrong direction. This is particularly true when it comes to
toxic chemicals.
While it's becoming clear that we need far more stringent
regulations on chemicals, proposed updates to the 1976 Toxic
Substances Control Act may actually hinder efforts to
protect Americans against hazardous chemicals by nullifying
chemical regulations enacted by individual states.
The Senate's bill (The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety
for the 21st Century Act), which was passed in December 2015,
makes it more difficult for states to regulate chemicals once
the EPA has evaluated them. It also prohibits states from taking
any action against any chemical that the EPA is currently
investigating.
The House version (the TSCA Modernization Act) — which
preempts states from regulating new chemicals, and is supported
by more than 100 industry groups — was passed in June 2015. At
present, they're trying to reconcile the two bills.15
The Death of Democracy, Knowledge, and Science
Our society is largely built on the concept that science can
help us make rational decisions that serve the people and
promote public health. But now we're facing a world so rife with
corruption and conflict of interest facilitated by the very
sciences that were supposed to keep us healthy, safe, and
productive, it's quite clear that we're heading toward more than
one proverbial brick wall.
In a sense, the fundamental role of science itself
has been hijacked for selfish gain. Looking back, you can now
see that the preferred business model of an industry was created
first, followed by "scientific evidence" that supports
the established business model.
When the science doesn't support the company's economic
gains, it's swept under the rug, even if people are dying and
the planet is becoming irreparably poisoned as a result. Today
we live in a world where chemical companies and biotech giants
can easily buy and pay for their own research studies, as well
as the
lobbying to support whatever legislation they need passed in
their favor.
Their tentacles also reach deep within federal agencies, so
that even the scientists hired to work on the public's behalf
are thwarted as soon as their research clashes with the
corporate agenda. Conflicts of interest have become the norm
within virtually all fields of science, which creates a
completely unworkable — and dangerous — situation in the long
run.
The first step toward change is awareness that there's a
problem, and whistleblowers like Lundgren make it abundantly
clear that the agencies that are there to protect us are not
only failing, but are actively working to protect an industry
agenda. There are no simple answers to this conundrum, but the
reality of the situation must be brought to light nonetheless,
and every effort must be made to push for greater transparency
and accountability in all areas of government.
Putting an end to the revolving door between private industry
and government would be one step in the right direction.
Unfortunately, it appears we need a law against it, as public
shaming has so far failed to deter any of it.
© Copyright 1997-2016 Dr. Joseph Mercola. All Rights Reserved.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/03/22/usda-corporate-lobbyist-group.aspx
|