exposing spin Archives - Real Food Media https://realfoodmedia.org/tag/exposing-spin/ Storytelling, critical analysis, and strategy for the food movement. Thu, 30 Mar 2023 17:58:02 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.1 Raising the Alarm on Food and Climate Connections https://realfoodmedia.org/raising-the-alarm-on-food-and-climate-connections/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=raising-the-alarm-on-food-and-climate-connections https://realfoodmedia.org/raising-the-alarm-on-food-and-climate-connections/#respond Thu, 02 Feb 2023 17:49:44 +0000 https://realfoodmedia.org/?p=5395 We at Real Food Media have been trying to raise the alarm about the environmental impacts of the global food system since we launched more than 10 years ago.  In the ensuing decade, we have been thrilled to see the conversation about food systems grow—and so we were delighted to see the latest missive: The... Read more »

The post Raising the Alarm on Food and Climate Connections appeared first on Real Food Media.

]]>
We at Real Food Media have been trying to raise the alarm about the environmental impacts of the global food system since we launched more than 10 years ago. 

In the ensuing decade, we have been thrilled to see the conversation about food systems grow—and so we were delighted to see the latest missive: The Washington Post’s feature on the environmental cost of the food we eat. But we were disappointed with its narrow focus. By pitting one food against another—rice or potatoes? salmon or cod?—the piece misses a big opportunity to help consumers think about the climate consequences of their food buying decisions. 

One of the reasons our food system is a driver of environmental crises, including the climate crisis, is because of how food is grown, particularly our system’s dependence on the fossil-fuel based inputs of pesticides and synthetic fertilizer. Pesticides are fossil fuels in another form: 99 percent of all pesticides are derived from fossil fuels. And greenhouse gas emissions from nitrogen fertilizer alone are greater than all commercial aviation worldwide, noted a recent report by the Center for International Environmental Law. The good news is that, unlike aviation, we have technologies to free agriculture from fossil-fuel dependency through methods like organic and regenerative agriculture. Indeed, these production systems—that reduce the burden of costly and polluting inputs like pesticides and fertilizers—were identified as key climate solutions in a recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. So for readers who want to lighten the environmental load of their diet, reaching for the organic label or seeking out products raised with regenerative practices is a powerful place to start. 

We’re pleased to see mega-platforms like the Washington Post take on these big issues—we hope these deeper connections get exposed. 

 

FYI — Unpublished LTE 

As someone who has been trying to raise the alarm about the environmental impacts of the global food system for years, I was delighted to see The Washington Post’s headline: “This is the environmental cost of the food we eat.” But by pitting one food against another — rice or potatoes? salmon or cod? — the piece misses a big opportunity to help consumers think about the climate consequences of their food buying decisions. One of the biggest reasons our food system is a driver of environmental crises, including the climate crisis, is because of how food is grown, particularly our system’s dependence on the fossil-fuel based inputs of pesticides and synthetic fertilizer. Pesticides are fossil fuels in another form: 99 percent of all pesticides are derived from fossil fuels. And greenhouse gas emissions from nitrogen fertilizer alone are greater than all commercial aviation worldwide, noted a recent report by the Center for International Environmental Law. The good news is that, unlike aviation, we have technologies to free agriculture from fossil-fuel dependency through methods like organic and regenerative agriculture. Indeed, these production systems—that reduce the burden of costly and polluting inputs like pesticides and fertilizers—were identified as key climate solutions in a recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. So for readers who want to lighten the environmental load of the foods they eat, reaching for the organic label or seeking out products raised with regenerative practices is a powerful place to start. 

Anna Lappé | Founder and Strategic Advisor, Real Food Media |Author, Diet for a Hot Planet

The post Raising the Alarm on Food and Climate Connections appeared first on Real Food Media.

]]>
https://realfoodmedia.org/raising-the-alarm-on-food-and-climate-connections/feed/ 0
Op-ed: What the pesticide industry doesn’t want you to know https://realfoodmedia.org/op-ed-what-the-pesticide-industry-doesnt-want-you-to-know/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=op-ed-what-the-pesticide-industry-doesnt-want-you-to-know https://realfoodmedia.org/op-ed-what-the-pesticide-industry-doesnt-want-you-to-know/#respond Mon, 12 Dec 2022 00:39:32 +0000 https://realfoodmedia.org/?p=5345 by Stacy Malkan, Kendra Klein, and Anna Lappé, Environmental Health News   In the wake of this year’s global climate summit, advocates are raising the alarm about how industry continues to distort climate policy with public relations spin. Indeed, one of the most critical challenges of our times is the need to confront corporate disinformation.... Read more »

The post Op-ed: What the pesticide industry doesn’t want you to know appeared first on Real Food Media.

]]>
by Stacy Malkan, Kendra Klein, and Anna Lappé, Environmental Health News

 

In the wake of this year’s global climate summit, advocates are raising the alarm about how industry continues to distort climate policy with public relations spin.

Indeed, one of the most critical challenges of our times is the need to confront corporate disinformation. While the stakes of Big Oil’s climate denialism and greenwashing are ever clearer — as wildfires tear through communities, entire nations are threatened by rising sea levels, and farmlands are ravaged by extreme weather — a more stealthy set of devastating impacts hides behind the lies fabricated by Big Pesticide corporations.

Like Big Oil, pesticide companies spend hundreds of millions every year on deceitful PR strategies to keep their hazardous products on the market, even as evidence mounts that many pesticides still used today are tied to certain cancers, damage to children’s developing brains, biodiversity collapse, and more.

In a new report, Merchants of Poison, we document a case study of just such pesticide industry disinformation, revealing a PR playbook similar in strategy, institutions — and at times the very same individual players — as that of the fossil fuel industry. As nearly all agricultural chemicals are derived from fossil fuels, this interconnection should come as no surprise.

 

Increase in genetically modified crops

Today, more than 98 percent of genetically modified crops planted in the U.S. are glyphosate tolerant. 

Credit: Merchants of Poison

Merchants of Poison shows how pesticide giant Monsanto (purchased by Bayer in 2019) spent millions on deceptive communications strategies over decades to promote the narrative that its bestselling herbicide glyphosate, better known as Roundup, is safe – as safe as table salt, as Monsanto once claimed.

This messaging encouraged lax regulations that led to widespread use, especially as genetically modified corn and soy engineered to withstand being sprayed with the herbicide came to dominate farm acreage beginning in the mid-1990s.

Today, more than 98 percent of genetically modified crops planted in the U.S. are glyphosate tolerant, and glyphosate is the most widely used agrichemical in the world. In the U.S. alone, nearly 300 million pounds are used each year on farms, public parks, school grounds, and in home gardens. This despite the fact that, as far back as 1984, glyphosate was flagged as potentially causing cancer by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency scientists. And, in 2015, glyphosate was designated as a probable carcinogen by the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Recent science has also linked the chemical to lower birth weights among babies, reproductive health impacts, and other serious health concerns.

Manufactured doubt about glyphosate’s cancer link

Pesticide companies spend hundreds of millions every year on deceitful PR strategies to keep their hazardous products on the market.

Credit: Merchants of Poison, data from Food Barons, ETC Group 2022

So how did Monsanto thwart science-based regulation and mislead the public for over three decades? Thousands of pages of internal corporate documents brought to light through recent lawsuits over the cancer risk of Roundup reveal some answers. The documents show a PR machine in overdrive to manufacture doubt about the science linking glyphosate to cancer, and they reveal the many strategies Monsanto used to manipulate the scientific record over decades — from ghostwriting studies to running aggressive campaigns to discredit scientists who raised concerns about the pesticide.

The documents also expose how the company carefully cultivated a legion of front groups and other third-party allies that included top universities, scientific organizations, and professors who claimed to be independent even as they worked behind the scenes with Monsanto to protect sales of Roundup.

The documents also reinforce just how much the “disinformation industry” funded by pesticide companies has become a big business itself. Our analysis found that just seven of the front groups named in Monsanto’s internal strategy documents spent a total of $76 million over a five-year period, starting in 2015, pushing a broad range of anti-regulatory messaging. In addition, six industry trade groups named in the Monsanto documents spent more than $1.3 billion during that same time period, which includes defense efforts for agricultural chemicals including glyphosate.

Pesticides soar in the U.S. 

While the report focuses on Roundup, the chemical is just one of dozens of pesticides that remain on the market thanks to industry’s efforts to deny and manufacture doubt about scientific evidence of harm. Indeed, 85 pesticides that are banned in other countries are still used in the United States. And during just one year, from 2017 to 2018, the EPA approved more than 100 new pesticide products containing ingredients considered to be highly hazardous. Industry disinformation has also enabled growing pesticide sales worldwide; global use has jumped over 80 percent since 1990.

The result? Billions of pounds of pesticides blanket the earth, contaminating wildlands and streams, decimating pollinator populations, and winding up in us, too. Today, more than 90 percent of us have detectable pesticides in our bodies. Many of these chemicals are understood to cause cancer, affect the body’s hormonal systems, disrupt fertility, cause developmental delays for children or Parkinson’s, depression, or Alzheimer’s as we age. And like all petrochemicals, we know another devastating cost: the consequences of pesticides on our climate.

The stakes of this disinformation are high. Right now, policymakers in the U.S. and Europe are deliberating about whether to enforce greater restrictions on glyphosate. And a landmark European Union proposal for more sustainable, climate-friendly food systems aims to cut pesticide use by half. But these public health measures are threatened by aggressive industry-led lobby campaigns using stealth tactics like those described in our report.

Just as a growing number of people are seeing the need to take on Big Oil’s disinformation to ensure real action on the climate crisis, we must lift the veil on Big Pesticide’s disinformation tactics and boldly confront the lies the industry spreads and end the indiscriminate poisoning of our planet and ourselves and ensure a healthy planet for all.

Stacy Malkan is the c-founder of US Right to Know. Kendra Klein, PhD, is deputy director of science at Friends of the Earth US. Anna Lappé is an author and founder of Real Food Media.

See the full Merchants of Poison report.

The post Op-ed: What the pesticide industry doesn’t want you to know appeared first on Real Food Media.

]]>
https://realfoodmedia.org/op-ed-what-the-pesticide-industry-doesnt-want-you-to-know/feed/ 0
Merchants of Poison: How Monsanto Sold the World on a Toxic Pesticide https://realfoodmedia.org/merchantsofpoison/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=merchantsofpoison https://realfoodmedia.org/merchantsofpoison/#respond Thu, 08 Dec 2022 18:06:40 +0000 https://realfoodmedia.org/?p=5326 by Anna Lappé   We are pleased to announce a new report out this week from Stacy Malkan and US Right to Know, with support from Anna Lappé and Kendra Klein, PhD, of Friends of the Earth.  Based on a comprehensive analysis of documents released in litigation against Monsanto—and many more obtained in a years-long... Read more »

The post Merchants of Poison: How Monsanto Sold the World on a Toxic Pesticide appeared first on Real Food Media.

]]>
by Anna Lappé

 

We are pleased to announce a new report out this week from Stacy Malkan and US Right to Know, with support from Anna Lappé and Kendra Klein, PhD, of Friends of the Earth

Based on a comprehensive analysis of documents released in litigation against Monsanto—and many more obtained in a years-long investigation by US Right to Know—Merchants of Poison: How Monsanto Sold the World on a Toxic Pesticide tells the tale of pesticide industry disinformation, including science denial techniques, attacks on scientists, astroturf strategies, online domination of industry messaging, and other spin tactics. 

Since our founding at Real Food Media, we’ve tried to help expose the ways corporations bend the truth to line their pockets, not protect the public good. This report is another piece of that work, showing how pesticide companies—like Big Oil and Big Tobacco—use spin tactics to shape the story about food and farming, pushing the twin messages that pesticides are safe and that we need them to feed the world.

We hope this report adds to the multifaceted, growing effort to expose industry PR tactics and promote the public good. 

The post Merchants of Poison: How Monsanto Sold the World on a Toxic Pesticide appeared first on Real Food Media.

]]>
https://realfoodmedia.org/merchantsofpoison/feed/ 0
Microplastics in Pesticides and Fertilizers: poster child for the last thing we need right now https://realfoodmedia.org/microplastics-in-pesticides-and-fertilizers-poster-child-for-the-last-thing-we-need-right-now/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=microplastics-in-pesticides-and-fertilizers-poster-child-for-the-last-thing-we-need-right-now https://realfoodmedia.org/microplastics-in-pesticides-and-fertilizers-poster-child-for-the-last-thing-we-need-right-now/#respond Sun, 22 May 2022 02:24:29 +0000 https://realfoodmedia.org/?p=5273 Our colleagues at Center for International Environmental Law published a new report on an alarming use of microplastics: coating pesticides and fertilizers in industrial agriculture production. Read the report here and like us you may have a face palm experience as you wonder at the ability for industry to continue to find novel ways to... Read more »

The post Microplastics in Pesticides and Fertilizers: poster child for the last thing we need right now appeared first on Real Food Media.

]]>
Our colleagues at Center for International Environmental Law published a new report on an alarming use of microplastics: coating pesticides and fertilizers in industrial agriculture production. Read the report here and like us you may have a face palm experience as you wonder at the ability for industry to continue to find novel ways to pollute our bodies, our soils, and our atmosphere. (The study was funded in part by Anna’s grantmaking program).

The post Microplastics in Pesticides and Fertilizers: poster child for the last thing we need right now appeared first on Real Food Media.

]]>
https://realfoodmedia.org/microplastics-in-pesticides-and-fertilizers-poster-child-for-the-last-thing-we-need-right-now/feed/ 0
The IPCC report on Climate is Here. The News is Bad. But We Knew That. https://realfoodmedia.org/the-ipcc-report-on-climate-is-here-the-news-is-bad-but-we-knew-that/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-ipcc-report-on-climate-is-here-the-news-is-bad-but-we-knew-that https://realfoodmedia.org/the-ipcc-report-on-climate-is-here-the-news-is-bad-but-we-knew-that/#respond Mon, 09 Aug 2021 19:38:49 +0000 https://realfoodmedia.org/?p=5063 by Anna Lappé   It’s time to take action on every sector, including food.   As I wrote in Diet for a Hot Planet, food systems are at once climate casualties, culprits—and a key to the cure. The food system is responsible for an estimated third of greenhouse gas emissions, particularly a significant source of... Read more »

The post The IPCC report on Climate is Here. The News is Bad. But We Knew That. appeared first on Real Food Media.

]]>
by Anna Lappé

 

It’s time to take action on every sector, including food.

 

As I wrote in Diet for a Hot Planet, food systems are at once climate casualties, culprits—and a key to the cure. The food system is responsible for an estimated third of greenhouse gas emissions, particularly a significant source of nitrous oxide and methane emissions, gases with many times the heat trapping qualities of carbon dioxide. Research in the intervening years has only underscored the need to rethink food systems if we are to get the climate crisis under control. As a recent study exposed, even if we got everything right in terms of limiting emissions from other sectors; we ignore food at our peril. But how? Here are some of our ideas!  

As our Twitter feed fills with grief and alarm about the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest report, we can heed the call of labor organizer Joe Hill: “Don’t Mourn, Organize.” We might amend this sentiment in an era of climate grief amidst an acute pandemic: we can mourn and organize.

 

  1. Decarbonize the Food System, Fund Agroecology: All around the world public and private funders are stepping up to support the research, advocacy, and learning necessary to unlink food production from an addition to energy-intensive synthetic fertilizer, petrochemicals, and unhealthy monocultures. Knitted together under the umbrella of “agroecology,” you can find these efforts in every corner of the world. Learn more at www.agrecologyfund.org or watch this short video with voices of agroecology from around the world. 
  2. Take on the Petrochemicals in Food: Some of the biggest players in the food system are agrochemical giants like Bayer and Syngenta. Pushing antiquated and toxic pesticides, their products are destroying biodiversity and contributing to the climate crisis. Join Pesticide Action Network North America to be part of the movement of people around the world calling for the abolition of petrochemicals on our farms. 
  3. Target Agribusiness: Big Oil companies deserve our wrath, for sure. It’s clear that these companies have known for decades that their practices would lead us off this climate cliff, but agribusiness companies too need to feel the force of our fury. Companies like ADM and Cargill have been driving deforestation in climate-critical regions for decades. Learn more about taking on these food giants at RAN. Industrial meat giants, like Tyosno and JBS, are also deadly contributors to the climate crisis—not to mention animal welfare and human rights abuses. Learn more about factory farming and the environment at Foodprint.org
  4. Focus on the Financing. These companies are only able to keep operating because they’ve got the immense reserves of the world’s banking and insurance industries behind them. For years advocacy groups have been working to undermine this financial support. Rainforest Action Network, where I’ve served on the board for 10+ years, is just one of these groups. Learn more about Banking on Climate Chaos here.  
  5. Support Farmers Doing it Right: Thankfully, there are countless organizations and thousands of farmers who are embracing a way of farming that’s good for people and planet. Here are some of the fabulous groups doing this essential work: SAAFON, Practical Farmers of Iowa, Black Farmer Fund, Soul Fire Farm, and so many more. 
  6. Eat with the Climate at Heart: On September 21st, my mother’s new edition of her 1971 classic, Diet for a Small Planet, will be published. A celebration of planet- and plant-centered cuisine and a call to arms that if you care about fixing food you have to engage in democracy, the book will hopefully inspire you to think differently and (filled with 85 recipes) to cook!  
  7. Bust the Myth that We Need Industrial Agriculture to Feed the World: An oldie but a goodie, our Food MythBusters video takes on this entrenched myth.  

The post The IPCC report on Climate is Here. The News is Bad. But We Knew That. appeared first on Real Food Media.

]]>
https://realfoodmedia.org/the-ipcc-report-on-climate-is-here-the-news-is-bad-but-we-knew-that/feed/ 0
What’s the Latest Beef With Beef? https://realfoodmedia.org/whats-the-latest-beef-with-beef/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=whats-the-latest-beef-with-beef https://realfoodmedia.org/whats-the-latest-beef-with-beef/#respond Fri, 07 May 2021 02:58:13 +0000 https://realfoodmedia.org/?p=5015 by Anna Lappé, Sierra Magazine   What Biden’s burger boondoggle tells us about partisan politics and spin-doctoring. For a couple of days in April, my Twitter stream was abuzz with alarmist “the libs are coming for your burgers” headlines. The social media fire was sparked by news outlets and rogue posters asserting that President Biden’s Earth... Read more »

The post What’s the Latest Beef With Beef? appeared first on Real Food Media.

]]>
by Anna Lappé, Sierra Magazine

 

What Biden’s burger boondoggle tells us about partisan politics and spin-doctoring.

For a couple of days in April, my Twitter stream was abuzz with alarmist “the libs are coming for your burgers” headlines. The social media fire was sparked by news outlets and rogue posters asserting that President Biden’s Earth Day pronouncement for climate action—which set an ambitious goal of cutting US greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030—included a command to strip America of its burgers. Fox News host John Roberts rallied viewers with this battle cry: “Say goodbye to your burgers if you want to sign up to the Biden climate agenda.” Meanwhile, an on-air graphic declared, “Bye-Bye Burgers Under Biden’s Climate Plan.” In fact, Biden’s plan included nothing of the sort. 

The false claim seems to have stemmed from a British tabloid alleging that Biden would soon be scolding Americans to cut their red meat habit down to a measly four pounds a year. While the story was outlandishly off—Biden’s plan largely focused on massive decarbonization of the economy and didn’t mention beef at all—the tabloid had tapped into the findings of a real 2020 University of Michigan study. The punchline of that research was that, yes, dietary change in the United States could be a powerful tool to lower the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. Based on a large body of evidence of industrial animal agriculture’s climate footprint, particularly red meat, the researchers estimated that if Americans ate 90 percent less red meat and halved all other meat consumption, US greenhouse gas emissions would drop by 50 percent.  

In a retraction that aired several days after his burger fear-mongering, host Roberts even acknowledged as much. While the network was wrong about Biden’s meat-reduction demands, he said, the science was right: “Cutting back how much red meat people eat,” Roberts told Fox News viewers, “would have a drastic impact on harmful greenhouse gas emissions.” 

Despite the clear message embedded in this retraction—that eating less meat can reduce our climate impact—the damage had already been done: Those who heard the original spin were left believing there was truth behind Biden being pegged as a draconian hamburger-stealer-in-chief and were uninformed about the underlying takeaway: that by choosing to eat less meat, the typical American would benefit the climate, and their own health. What’s worse, the debate around reducing meat consumption became further positioned as something partisan, as opposed to, say, a matter of common sense. 

For years, advocates have been trying to sound the alarm that if we want to fix the climate crisis, we have to talk about food, and in particular, the environmental damage wrought by industrial-scale meat production. Although connected to nearly one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions, food systems are not only a major climate crisis culprit; sustainable farming practices are a key part of climate resiliency and mitigation. So I was thrilled to see the University of Michigan study driving home the impact meat reduction could have—but much less than thrilled to see it misused as fodder for Fox News spin. 

Let’s be clear, this spin is not random; it’s a deliberate tactic: Politicize science so that common-sense decisions feel like partisan posturing. (And it’s not the first time it’s been spun around beef. Remember in early 2019 when Republicans seized on a comment made by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that “maybe we shouldn’t be eating a hamburger for breakfast, lunch, and dinner” to claim that her Green New Deal would outlaw hamburgers?) We’ve seen this spin strategy deployed to try to sideline individual climate action for years: Driving a Prius makes you a progressive. We’ve even seen it around the COVID-19 response: Donning a mask marks you as a Democrat. And now, we’re seeing it about the food and climate connection: Reaching for a lentil burger makes you a leftie. 

This spin is not random; it’s a deliberate tactic: Politicize science so that common-sense decisions feel like partisan posturing. And it’s not the first time it’s been spun around beef.

Portraying these kinds of actions as partisan politics is a strategic means of sidelining their seriousness and silencing those who are uplifting the science behind them and pushing needed policy reforms. It’s also a way to keep the debate narrowly focused on individual action, not on a highly consolidated industry with undue influence on Capitol Hill that’s been working hard to thwart regulations. In one New York University study, researchers found that all 10 of the US-based meat and dairy companies they reviewed had contributed to efforts “to undermine climate-related policies.”

But perhaps the ludicrousness of this spin is a sign of just how desperate the fossil fuel industry and its allies have become. That’s the take of my colleague Jamie Henn of Fossil Free Media, who has been tracking the ways in which industry has used PR to fight climate action. Industry “knows climate action is popular,” Henn shared with me via email, “and that the public would be happy to ditch polluting fossil fuels in favor of clean, renewable energy.” He then added, with a semi-forgivable dad joke (his daughter is two months old), “when all you’re left clinging to is a burger, you know your buns are on the line.” 

The truth is simple. The amount of meat this country produces is out of whack—out of whack for our climate and for our health. The USDA estimates that we produce 222.4 pounds of red meat and poultry in 2018 for every man, woman, and child for domestic consumption alone—theoretically enough to have a burger for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. The University of Michigan study notes that about one-third of that ends up on our plates as the meat and poultry we eat—a total of about 133 pounds a year, among the highest in the world. From all food sources, the typical American is eating about twice as much protein as our bodies can use. In other words, we can cut back, way back, on meat consumption without worrying about our protein needs; in fact, we’d see health benefits. Overconsumption of meat, after all, carries worrisome health consequences—researchers have found red meat consumption to be tied with increased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and certain cancers, among other illnesses. Not to mention the fact that processed meat has been declared “carcinogenic to humans” by the world’s preeminent cancer authority—and that plant-based foods are an ample source of protein.

The overarching message is that an industrial meat industry that is allowed to operate virtually unchecked impacted our health and the environment. And, whether we are a Fox News watcher or an NPR listener, we all can make choices—including, yes, cutting back on burgers—that align with our and the planet’s health. So let’s not take the bait from the burger boondoggle and instead be aware of why and when the spinmasters are trying to spin us.  

The post What’s the Latest Beef With Beef? appeared first on Real Food Media.

]]>
https://realfoodmedia.org/whats-the-latest-beef-with-beef/feed/ 0
LTE: Fossil Fuel ‘Dark Cloud’ https://realfoodmedia.org/lte-fossil-fuel-dark-cloud/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=lte-fossil-fuel-dark-cloud https://realfoodmedia.org/lte-fossil-fuel-dark-cloud/#respond Tue, 04 May 2021 03:05:43 +0000 https://realfoodmedia.org/?p=5017 by Anna Lappé, The New York Times I hate to be the dark cloud hovering over Farhad Manjoo’s solar array (“The Wind and Solar Boom Is Already Here,” column, April 30), but while those who care about climate stability should applaud the growth of renewable energy sources like wind and solar, fossil fuel industry expansion... Read more »

The post LTE: Fossil Fuel ‘Dark Cloud’ appeared first on Real Food Media.

]]>
by Anna Lappé, The New York Times

I hate to be the dark cloud hovering over Farhad Manjoo’s solar array (“The Wind and Solar Boom Is Already Here,” column, April 30), but while those who care about climate stability should applaud the growth of renewable energy sources like wind and solar, fossil fuel industry expansion into worrisome markets should concern us all.

As the Center for International Environmental Law has reported, for instance, the fossil fuel industry is moving rapidly into plastics, including investing heavily in expanding or building new petrochemical facilities to ramp up production. The industry is also eyeing pesticides and ammonia fertilizer, eager to exploit the emerging demand in soil carbon markets with fossil-fuel-dependent agricultural models.

If we care about getting the climate crisis under control, we have to look at all the profitable but destructive outlets for the fossil fuel industry, including plastics, pesticides and fertilizers.

 

The post LTE: Fossil Fuel ‘Dark Cloud’ appeared first on Real Food Media.

]]>
https://realfoodmedia.org/lte-fossil-fuel-dark-cloud/feed/ 0
Climate Justice and Pesticides on The Majority Report https://realfoodmedia.org/climate-justice-and-pesticides-on-the-majority-report/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=climate-justice-and-pesticides-on-the-majority-report https://realfoodmedia.org/climate-justice-and-pesticides-on-the-majority-report/#respond Tue, 27 Apr 2021 21:40:08 +0000 https://realfoodmedia.org/?p=4985 by Anna Lappé I had a chance to do a deep dive on the powerful new research about the shadow of pesticide used here and around the world and what we can do about it in the first two segments of Sam Seder’s The Majority Report.     Want to learn more about this issue?... Read more »

The post Climate Justice and Pesticides on The Majority Report appeared first on Real Food Media.

]]>
by Anna Lappé

I had a chance to do a deep dive on the powerful new research about the shadow of pesticide used here and around the world and what we can do about it in the first two segments of Sam Seder’s The Majority Report.

 

 

Want to learn more about this issue? Make sure you read this Q+A with two of the research paper’s authors, Wolfgang Boedeker, an epidemiologist and board member of Pesticide Action Network-Germany, and Emily Marquez, a staff scientist with the Pesticide Action Network-North America.

 

The post Climate Justice and Pesticides on The Majority Report appeared first on Real Food Media.

]]>
https://realfoodmedia.org/climate-justice-and-pesticides-on-the-majority-report/feed/ 0
What Carey Gillam Learned Through Years of Investigating Monsanto https://realfoodmedia.org/what-carey-gillam-learned-through-years-of-investigating-monsanto/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=what-carey-gillam-learned-through-years-of-investigating-monsanto https://realfoodmedia.org/what-carey-gillam-learned-through-years-of-investigating-monsanto/#respond Wed, 21 Apr 2021 03:13:46 +0000 https://realfoodmedia.org/?p=5019 by Anna Lappé, Civil Eats   In August, 2018, a judge for the Superior Court of San Francisco, California read the verdict in a first-of-its-kind case: A suit against agrochemical giant Bayer over the link between non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and the company’s glyphosate-based weedkillers, Roundup and RangerPro. On every count, the jury found Monsanto (now owned by... Read more »

The post What Carey Gillam Learned Through Years of Investigating Monsanto appeared first on Real Food Media.

]]>
by Anna Lappé, Civil Eats

 

In August, 2018, a judge for the Superior Court of San Francisco, California read the verdict in a first-of-its-kind case: A suit against agrochemical giant Bayer over the link between non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and the company’s glyphosate-based weedkillers, Roundup and RangerPro. On every count, the jury found Monsanto (now owned by Bayer) guilty. The court held that Bayer’s glyphosate-based weedkiller had caused the plaintiff’s cancer to develop, the company should have warned users of the health risks and failed to do so, and it had acted with “malice, oppression, and fraud” and should pay punitive damages. The total jury award: $289.2 million—reduced to $20.5 million on appeal. (Bayer will not appeal that $20.5 million Roundup verdict—the first Roundup verdict in the nation—to the U.S. Supreme Court, the company recently announced.)

Veteran journalist and research director at public health advocacy group U.S. Right to Know Carey Gillam’s new book The Monsanto Papers offers an inside look at the legal fight that led to that historic verdict and an intimate portrait of the plaintiff at the heart of it, Lee Johnson. For the book, a follow-up to her first, Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science, Gillam pored over 80,000 pages of exhibits and documents and a 50,000-page trial transcript to reveal a chilling story of decades of doubt, denialism, and deflection that allowed glyphosate to become the most widely used herbicide in the world. It also profiles the legal advocates trying to hold the company accountable in the absence of government regulations doing so.

I spoke with Gillam about the implications of her research, the future of glyphosate, and how Bayer plans to keep selling the controversial product.

Tell us about the herbicide at the center of this story.

Glyphosate is the active ingredient in these weed killers. Most people are familiar with Roundup as the brand name, a popular product to kill weeds in yards and gardens. Farmers use Roundup products to kill weeds in their fields and school districts and municipalities use it for a variety of reasons. It has become so ubiquitous that our government scientists have found glyphosate residues in rainfall. It’s commonly found as residues in the food we eat; it’s in the water we drink. So what the science tells us that it can do to our health and to our environment is a critically important issue.

At the heart of your story is Lee Johnson, the first plaintiff to sue Bayer, which bought Monsanto and thus took on its glyphosate liability in 2018. What’s Lee’s connection to the weedkiller?

Lee was a groundskeeper for a school district in Northern California. Part of his job was spraying these glyphosate-based weed killers around school grounds. He tried to wear protective gear as you’re supposed to do, but had been led to believe these products were safe. When he had an accident, and was doused in the weed killer, he didn’t worry about it too much because he had heard that these weedkillers were safe enough to drink. But soon after his accident, he developed a type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. It manifests in the skin and ravages a person from head to toe. It caused Lee immense suffering and led to a terminal diagnosis. My story follows Lee from before his cancer through that journey and, ultimately, to when he decided a way to make his suffering meaningful was to try to hold Monsanto accountable and to take the company to trial.

In the book, you dive into internal Monsanto documents to tell the story of the tactics that the company used to shape the story of glyphosate. Can you describe those tactics?

The foundation to this story is that for 40 years the company has been deceiving consumers, regulators, lawmakers, farmers, and people like Lee who use glyphosate. Monsanto has been actively working to manipulate the scientific record about the safety of this chemical. That was made very clear through thousands of pages of documents, many that I had obtained before the litigation and that became the source material for my first book, Whitewash, and then the thousands of pages that came out during litigation.

There are so many examples. In these documents, Monsanto discusses ghost writing scientific papers to promote the safety of glyphosate. They also talk about funding front groups, using third-party organizations to both promote the safety of this chemical and lobby lawmakers and regulators, and to attack people like myself, scientists, or anyone pointing to evidence that indicated health problems with this chemical. They spent literally millions of dollars on these subversive campaigns to discredit legitimate, independent science and to promote their ghost-written, manipulated science. They did this over decades and you see that very clearly laid out in the documents.

The magnitude of this story was hard to wrap my mind around.

Yes, there have been so many victims: Lee Johnson was the first person to take Monsanto to trial, but now, in the United States, there are over 100,000 people who have sued Monsanto, alleging their non-Hodgkin lymphoma is caused by their exposure to Roundup.

Can you explain why the use of Roundup has increased and how it is tied to genetically engineered seeds?

Yes, genetically engineered crops, or GMOs, are linked very closely to glyphosate. Monsanto brought to market the very first genetically engineered crops in the 1990s. They weren’t designed to be more nutritious or grow better with less water; they were designed to be glyphosate-tolerant, so they could be sprayed directly with the herbicide and not die.

Why did the company focus on engineering this trait? We see from their internal records that Monsanto’s patent on glyphosate was expiring in 2000 and the company wanted to hold onto market share. They wanted to make sure generic glyphosate products didn’t take over the market. It was quite ingenious. They could develop what they called Roundup-Ready seeds and sell those to farmers as a package deal: you plant your Roundup-Ready corn, soy, cotton, canola, or sugar beets and spray directly with Roundup herbicide. The weeds in your fields will die and your crops will not.

Farmers loved it. It made their lives easier and the bonus, they were hearing, was it was safe enough to drink. The company said, “It has no impact on people or pets and it’s environmentally friendly.” With the release of these herbicide-resistant, genetically engineered crops, we saw glyphosate use skyrocket. It’s now the world’s most widely used herbicide. It went from about 25 million pounds or so used annually in the United States in the 1990s to close to 300 million pounds in 2015. That’s why we now see so much glyphosate in our creeks and rivers, in air samples, and in our food.

You found internal documents that show how the company was working to discredit journalists and others who were raising questions about its safety—journalists like you.

 

Yes, I had known that Monsanto was working to undermine me for years and discredit my first book, Whitewash. I was at Reuters from 1998 until 2015. They didn’t like that I was writing about the science showing harm associated with glyphosate and in those last several years, they worked really hard on my editors to try to get me pulled off the beat.

I knew they were funding front groups trying to discredit me, but as I read the internal documents, seeing a spreadsheet with my name on it with an action plan and strategies to tear me down—that was eye-opening. My main thought was: If they do that to me—one little gal in Kansas who writes a book or two—imagine what they’re doing to the scientists who are trying to do thorough, independent research.

Thanks to this court case, anyone can now read these internal conversations. Can you talk about how these documents became publicly available?

Yes, one of Johnson’s lawyers, Brent Wisner, used a loophole in a protective order to get these papers out in the public. Monsanto wanted very much to keep secret these internal records—emails, text messages, things that were quite damning. While they had to give them to the plaintiff’s lawyers, they wanted to keep them sealed so journalists and members of the public couldn’t see them. The judge issued a protective order and it had certain criteria each side had to meet in order to keep the documents sealed. Wisner essentially found a loophole and used it to release them. It was a gutsy move; suffice it to say Monsanto was furious.

The internal documents also reveal a coordinated effort by Bayer/Monsanto to try to discredit the highest-level international agency on cancer, which had ruled that glyphosate was a probable carcinogen.

Yes, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is an arm of the World Health Organization. Their job is to analyze published peer-reviewed literature on different substances suspected to be carcinogenic and to assess the hazard. They looked at glyphosate because it was so widely used and because there was so much epidemiology and toxicology literature linking it to cancer, particularly non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

These were independent scientists at the top of their field, brought in from around the world, with no ties to any company or any activist group, and they determined glyphosate was a probable human carcinogen, with an association of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Typically, their rulings generally don’t make headlines around the world, but the glyphosate classification did, and Monsanto was ready with an attack plan. We saw the plan in their internal documents. Interestingly enough, they put it together before IARC made the decision.

Monsanto discussed internally that they expected such a classification. They then went about trying to tear down these individual scientists. At one point, Monsanto involved U.S. lawmakers to get a hearing in the House of Representatives to look at stripping funding from IARC.

Let’s talk about the Johnson verdict. What was your reaction when you heard it?

I was watching the verdict read live from Australia, where I had been asked to speak about glyphosate. I actually didn’t believe [Johnson’s lawyers] could climb that hill, but the jury came back with a unanimous decision and $250 million in punitive damages because they were so outraged at the evidence of Monsanto’s deception.

Where does it go from here?

Bayer bought Monsanto in June of 2018 just before the Lee Johnson trial started, so the liability rests with Bayer and Bayer has been fighting back. There have been two subsequent trials. The company lost both of those as well, but they’ve appealed all the verdicts. They’ve lost all the appeals to date, but they’ve been successful in reducing the verdicts. In one of the other trials, the jury found that the evidence of Monsanto’s deception was so egregious they awarded $2 billion in punitive damages. But trial and appellate judges have reduced those awards significantly.

Now, Bayer has decided they don’t want any more trials. Three losses were enough. They have agreed to pay $11 billion to settle the existing U.S. litigation. They also put forward a plan in which they would pay about $2 billion into a fund that would cover people who’ve been using Roundup, but who haven’t yet developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or just haven’t filed a lawsuit yet. This would be a way to try to accommodate those people. They’re going to send out notices to Home Depot and other places where Roundup is sold. They are trying to determine how to ward off future litigation because of course they want to keep selling their product.

 

And Lee?

Lee Johnson finally did get paid after my book went to print, but just a tiny fraction of what the jury had wanted him to receive and what they had ordered in their verdict. He wasn’t expected to live this long. His own attorneys thought that he might die before trial and Monsanto’s attorneys predicted he wouldn’t live beyond November of 2019. He’s still suffering, but he’s able to be with his family and see the impact he’s been able to make from this case and from his activism.

Last time I was at Home Depot, I saw a huge Roundup display with no warning labels.

They are talking about putting something on the label. They don’t want to put language that says it can cause cancer, but they’re thinking about something that provides a link to a webpage that talks about the science.

So despite all this litigation they can’t be required to put a warning label on their products?

They certainly could if the EPA was going to stand up to Monsanto. But we’ve seen for more than 40 years that the EPA has not done that. In the book, I share lots of internal documents and records from the EPA essentially saying, “Hey, we think you should put a warning label on it. This looks dangerous.” And we see Monsanto push back and bring political pressure, and then the EPA folds, time and time again.

We are seeing other countries step up. Mexico has said that it plans to ban glyphosate. Thailand tried a couple of years ago. Bayer enlisted the help of the State Department and other U.S. officials to put the screws on countries talking about bans, so they wouldn’t. Thailand backed away after the U.S. pressure, but Mexico is saying it will go ahead with the ban, and other countries like Germany and France have gone ahead with it.

The science is clear that pesticides like glyphosate are contributing to cancers and reproductive health harms and a whole array of problems. We need to speak out. We need to make food policy as important as foreign policy.

This interview is based on a Real Food Media podcast interview, and has been edited for clarity and length.

 

The post What Carey Gillam Learned Through Years of Investigating Monsanto appeared first on Real Food Media.

]]>
https://realfoodmedia.org/what-carey-gillam-learned-through-years-of-investigating-monsanto/feed/ 0
The Monsanto Papers: Deadly Secrets, Corporate Corruption, and One Man’s Search for Justice https://realfoodmedia.org/portfolio/the-monsanto-papers/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-monsanto-papers Thu, 18 Feb 2021 22:30:44 +0000 https://realfoodmedia.org/?post_type=portfolio&p=4943 Lee Johnson never imagined that he would become the face of a David-and-Goliath showdown against one of the world’s most powerful corporate giants. When a workplace accident left Lee doused in a toxic chemical and facing a deadly cancer, his turned his life upside down. In 2018, the world watched as Lee was thrust to... Read more »

The post The Monsanto Papers: Deadly Secrets, Corporate Corruption, and One Man’s Search for Justice appeared first on Real Food Media.

]]>
Lee Johnson never imagined that he would become the face of a David-and-Goliath showdown against one of the world’s most powerful corporate giants.

When a workplace accident left Lee doused in a toxic chemical and facing a deadly cancer, his turned his life upside down. In 2018, the world watched as Lee was thrust to the forefront of one the most dramatic legal battles in recent history.

The Monsanto Papers is the inside story of Lee Johnson’s landmark lawsuit against Monsanto. For Lee, the case was a race against the clock, with doctors predicting he wouldn’t survive long enough to take the witness stand. For the lawyers representing him, it was a matter of professional pride and personal risk, with millions of dollars and hard-earned reputations on the line. For the public at large, the lawsuit presented a question of corporate accountability.

With enough money and influence, could a company endanger its customers, hide evidence, manipulate regulators, and get away with it all—for decades? Readers will be astounded by the depth of corruption uncovered and moved by Lee’s quiet determination to see justice served. 

Use code GILLAM for 20 percent off the book at Island Press.

The post The Monsanto Papers: Deadly Secrets, Corporate Corruption, and One Man’s Search for Justice appeared first on Real Food Media.

]]>