Monsanto corruption of universities, media and politicians

U.S. Right to Know (USRTK), a non-profit organization dedicated to exposing the fraud and corruption surrounding the food industry, launched an investigation into the intimate and unethical relationship between the biotech industry and university faculty and staff, which is used to manipulate public opinion about GMOs and to coerce the government into passing legislation supportive of Big Ag’s patented seeds and pesticides.


The classic politician being used by Monsanto to further their programme of poisoning the planet, Owen Paterson.   Gullible, ambitious and keen to please his masters.

The investigation, which is still ongoing, reveals how biotech industry giants Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Dow AgroSciences and others, buy academics employed by taxpayer-funded universities to push GMOs and lobby Congress to pass legislation favorable of their products, with one of the most high-profile examples including attempts to derail states’ rights to enact GMO-labeling laws.

The collusion between Big Food, its front groups and university staff has been exposed through thousands of emails and documents obtained through a USRTK Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, which was meticulously filed over a six-month period.

USRTK: Public deserves to know about flow of money and level of coordination between Big Ag and public university scientists

The FOIA request sought to obtain emails and documents from 43 public university faculty and staff to learn more about the biotech industry’s public relations strategies. Records were requested from scientists, economists, law professors, extension specialists and communicators, all of whom are employed by taxpayer-funded public institutions and steadily promote GMO agriculture under the “independent” research.

Currently, USRTK has received thousands of documents in nine of their requests; however, much more information is expected to be released as FOIA requests continue to be answered.

The documents received thus far expose how the biotech industry funds expenses for university faculty to travel the globe promoting and defending GMOs and their associated pesticides, highlighting the shift that scientists have made from being researchers to being actors in Big Ag PR campaigns.

Named the “Biofortified boys” by Alicia Maluafiti, executive director of Hawaii Crop Improvement Association (HCIA), a biotech front group, the academics were awarded thousands, and in some cases, hundreds of thousands of dollars in unrestricted grant money.

Dr. Kevin Folta, professor and chairman of the Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Florida, Gainesville, is one of the biotech industry’s most cooperative “Biofortified boys.” Emails show that Folta was enlisted to travel to Hawaii and later to Pennsylvania to “testify to government bodies to oppose proposed mandatory genetically modified labeling measures.”

Folta has repeatedly denied ties to Monsanto or having accepted funds from them; however, newly released documents prove otherwise, exposing him as a bald-faced liar and attack dog for the biotech industry.

Sponsored and organized by the HCIA, which includes Monsanto, DuPont, Dow AgroSciences, Syngenta and BASF, Folta and others were recruited to meet with local business execs to lobby against Hawaii’s proposed GMO-labeling law.

HCIA’s Maluafiti writes:

So please know that you are part of our overall public education strategy and specifically – how do we use your valuable time wisely while you are here in Hawaii (besides hitting the beaches!) I’d love to hear your thoughts. Aloha!

A second email authored by Renee Kester, wife of Dow AgroSciences R&D Leader Kirby Kester, who is also president of the HCIA, thanks them for their support:

First off I would like to thank you for all of the support you have given us over here in Hawaii with regards to our recent legislative battles, it means a lot to all of us over here.


Monsanto asks academics to author articles promoting GMOs

In an effort to influence “thought leaders and influencers,” Monsanto reached out to Dr. Folta and other academics, asking them to author a series of pro-GMO policy briefs to be used for “outreach and engagement with policy makers and consumers.” The briefs were to be promoted as being authored by “independent scientists.”

Eric Sachs, the chief of Monsanto’s global scientific affairs group wrote:

The key to success is participation by all of you – recognized experts and leaders with the knowledge, reputation and communication experience needed to communicate authoritatively to the target groups. You represent an elite group whose credibility will be strengthened by working together.

Recognizing participants’ careers are at stake, Sachs offers the academics assurance by promising that he will protect their “independence,” as well as their reputations.

Some of the topics the academics were asked to write on include:

  • Meeting World Challenges (discuss how GMOs will save the world by addressing shrinking agricultural resources, food security, food affordability and environmental sustainability).
  • Stifling Innovation (discuss how GM crop regulations stifle technological advancements and prevent GMOs from improving overall quality of life).
  • Holding Activists Accountable – assigned to Kevin Folta (discuss how anti-GMO activist campaigns spread false information and if left unchallenged will limit consumer choice, increase food prices, decrease farmer viability and undermine global food security).
  • GM Crop Safety (address consumer and policy maker concerns that GM crops aren’t tested for safety, convince public that they are proven safe).
  • Consequences of Rejecting GM Crops (address public health fears and political resistance and concerns about biodiversity and biological safety and intellectual property rights that create barriers to GM acceptance).
  • Sustainable Crop Systems (discuss how GM crop technology provides environmental benefits, increases yields and improves productivity).
  • Responsible Choice (highlight the role GM crop technology plays in ensuring increase production and how it balances our needs for food, feed, fiber and fuel).

Academics were asked to include a “call to action,” which would be used in the briefs to influence the public on a variety of platforms including social media, blogs, websites and allied organizations.

Monanto enlists university scientists to pressure EPA to abandon proposed pesticide regulations

Documents reveal that Monsanto also used academics to put pressure on regulatory agencies like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – in one instance pressuring the EPA to abandon its proposal to tighten regulations regarding pesticide use on insect-resistant crops.

“Is there a coordinated plan to maintain pressure and emphasis on EPA’s evolving regulations?” asked Sachs in an email to Dr. Bruce Chassy, a professor emeritus at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.

Sachs continued, “Have you considered having a small group of scientists request a meeting with Lisa Jackson [referring to the EPA’s administrator at the time]?”

With the help of an industry lobbyist, Chassy was eventually able to set up a meeting with Jackson, after which the agency’s proposal was ultimately dropped.

Stay tuned for more as Natural News continues to dissect documents exposing the incestuous relationship between the biotech industry and university scientists.

Learn more:


12 Responses to “Monsanto corruption of universities, media and politicians”

  1. jkick says:

    Hi Tap

    To understand what’s going on here, and elsewhere, you got to understand whose controlling Monsanto.

    Yahoo informs us that top Institutional holder is Vanguard inc with 30,395,478 shares valued at $3,239,853,878.

    To cut a long story short Vanguard, through its investments, more or less controls everything in the US. including banks, media and industry concerns.

    For example Vanguard Group Inc held 85,939,439 shares on 12/31/2012 worth $2,192,315,109 in News Corp.

    Rupert Murdoch is Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of News Corp.

    Rupert Murdoch is also major share holder in Genie Energy along with Jacob Rothschild.

    Israel has granted oil exploration rights inside Syria, in the occupied Golan Heights, to Genie Energy.

    Dick Cheney was also a member of Genie Energy Corporation Strategic Advisory Board.

    Dick Cheney (Halliburton), had close to $85 million invested in the Vanguard Group.

    John Kerrys wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, has over $3,500,001 stake in General Electric Co.

    Biggest stakeholder in General Electric Co is Vanguard Group:

    Jul 30, 2012
    The board of directors of General Electric Co. has elected John J. Brennan as an independent member of the company’s board of directors.

    Brennan was chairman emeritus and a senior advisor of The Vanguard Group Inc

    Brennan was sworn into the office of CIA Director on March 8, 2013.

    In 2013:

    ‘Raytheon stock nears all-time high amid news of possible cruise-missile strike in Syria.

    Vanguard inc had 15,664,626 shares worth $920,923,362 in ‘Raytheon. Along with John Kerry spouse, Teresa Heinz Kerry, holdings.
    3. Raytheon Co. $960,010 – $2,200,000

    Other concerns of Vanguard inc. include being the largest holder in Corrections Corporation of America.

    Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the biggest name in the private prison industry, contacted 48 states offering to buy their prisons.

    One stipulation of eligibility for the deal was particularly bizarre: “an assurance by the agency partner that the agency has sufficient inmate population to maintain a minimum 90% occupancy rate over the term of the contract.

    However, more recently another occupency of the camps has helped profits.

    An explosive new report from the Daily Beast’s Betsy Woodruff looks at how the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), one of America’s two large private prison corporations, has seen its profits explode, thanks to a little-noticed move by the Obama administration.

    Woodruff notes that before last summer, there was virtually no “family detention,” referring to the detention of migrant families crossing the border, children included, in U.S. immigrant detention facilities. But as Human Rights Watch’s Antonio Ginatta noted, “now we’re in the thousands.”

    It started last summer, when large numbers of families fleeing violence in Central America started crossing over into the United States. The Obama administration opened a facility in Artesia, New Mexico, to detain these families; after controversy, that facility was closed and a new one operated by CCA opened in Dilley, Texas, with a capacity of 2,400 beds.

    Woodruff notes that CCA’s quarterly report shows its profits in the second quarter of 2015 were $49 million higher than the same period in 2014, largely due to the expansion in detaining migrant families. The Dilley facility alone generated $36 million in revenue during the quarter.

    Is no one concerned about Government involment in Vanguard inc. What about the president?

    Seems as though he got up $750,000 investment in the groups pension scheme.

    So Tap, I’m afraid there’s little hope of Monsanto disapearing of the radar anytime soon.

    Not when the government controls it, and who funds the universities and regulatory bodies that carry out research in regards food production by the company

    rgds jkick

  2. Lynn says:

    Using taxpayers money to poison er the taxpayers. Well well !! isn’t that ilegal. They really are a cunning breed. Liars cheats and rapist’s as well as mass murdering scum. When they finally get brought to book , what will we do with them. They truly are very dangerous .

  3. Dogman says:

    Lynn wrote “what will we do with them.”

    Vaccinate them and feed them GM food,
    The staff cafeteria at biotech-crop Monsanto’s UK headquarters reportedly banned GM foods from the menu back in 1999.

    The private catering company running the canteen, Sutcliffe Catering, owned by Granada Food Services, told its clients, including Monsanto, that it would no longer use foods containing GM soya or maize because of “customer concerns” about the technology.

    Gotta love the irony!

    • Amazing irony thanks for reporting this, emailed it on including to uni scientists, though after Taps article today I wonder if any of them are in the pay of Monsanto
      Hopefully though ive sent GM related stuff to enough uni staff, that will cause a catalyst of awakening (I started this back in march when I saw the Ceres electric lights). (but I don’t carpet bomb I tailor and pick and choose who might be interested in what. IE free energy – physics dept. )
      My point is hoipefully sent it out to enough, awakened outraged staff members might notice the GM corrupt ones.
      Funny world we live in

  4. Dogman says:

    No problem adamspiritualwarrior. More forum info:
    Dr Angelika Hilbeck, chair of the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), said, The number of scientists and experts who have signed a joint statement saying that GM foods have not been proven safe and that existing research raises concerns has climbed to 297 since the statement was released on 21 October (2013).

    Dr Angelika Hilbeck, chair of the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), which published the statement, said, “We’re surprised and pleased by the strong support for the statement. It seems to have tapped into a deep concern in the global scientific community that the name of science is being misused to make misleading claims about the safety of GM technology.”

    The statement indirectly challenges claims by EU chief science adviser Anne Glover that there is no evidence that GM foods are any riskier than non-GM foods.[2]

    Dr Rosa Binimelis Adell, board member of ENSSER, said, “It seems that Anne Glover chooses to listen to one side of the scientific community only – the circle of GMO producers and their allied scientists – and ignores the other. Thus she is giving biased advice to the EU Commission. For a science adviser, this is irresponsible and unethical.”

    Dr Margarida Silva, biologist and professor at the Portuguese Catholic University, said, “Even if researchers did largely agree on GMO safety, that doesn’t make them correct. To paraphrase Albert Einstein, it only takes one study to prove a whole theory wrong – no matter how many scientists believed in it.

    “In addition, research has been mostly financed by the very companies that depend on positive outcomes for their business, and we now know that where money flows, influence grows. The few independent academics left must work double shift to address the vast array of unanswered questions and red flags that keep piling up.”

    Dr Raul Montenegro, biologist at the University of Cordoba, Argentina, said:

    “Usually, analysis of GMO safety fails to consider four main issues. One: GMO plants, seeds and byproducts contain not only residues of commercial chemical pesticides, but also insecticidal proteins produced by the plant, like the Bt toxin Cry1Ab. Two: each commercial pesticide contains a cocktail of chemicals that undergo chemical changes within pesticide containers, when mixed with other pesticides, and when released in the environment. Three: In GMO agriculture each crop cycle begins with a higher background level of commercial pesticides and insecticidal proteins accumulated in agricultural soil, people’s homes and gardens, and exposed people. Four: GMO agriculture adds unwanted biodiversity (GMO genes) in countries having less and less natural biodiversity as a consequence of deforestation, pesticides, GMO insecticidal proteins and uncontrolled flux of engineered genomes.

  5. Lynn says:

    Nice thought Dogman. Give them their own debilitating vaccines and contaminate them.make them drink fluoride water and chemtrail air to breath. Put them on an island and charge them rent. Let them que for doctors and dentists. They have had all their own way for long enough. It’s time to get even folks.

  6. freebornman says:

    GM crops work once. The environment responds and defeats the modification. Corporate ownership of the food chain is the only reason for GM crops. Blunt force trauma directly to the face of anyone advocating them. To defeat corpratocracy, just stop giving them your money.

    • ive gone into supermarkets, seeing managers. With printouts. Tapbloigs ‘doctors prescribe non gmo foods – remarkable recoveries’
      Just the title alone is powerful. ive given out handouts, and explained as subtly cleverly as I can. Ive realised to myself (and of course others are realisnng too)
      by GMO labelling at the front end, powers put in consumers, buyers hands. Their choices, consumer choices. Will reverberate powerfully back through the food chain, farmers feed choices.
      its at the front end any powerful change can be effected.
      This is why I tried to influence supermarket managers as possible key links in the chain
      Most were very dismissive, ignorant, some atively sent me away
      I say on the record, waitrosemanager didn’t dismiss me, he looked into my theories
      ill say goodnight now goodnight xxxx

  7. freebornman says:

    Thing is, while we all sit at our computers, agreeing about how shit it all is, NOTHING CHANGES. A leaflet from the parish council fell through my letterbox the other day, inviting volunteers to assist with the ‘community emergency commitee’ or some such bollocks. So I’m going to turn up, and ‘advise’ them. That should get their g-ring attention. They win because no-one directly engages them, and the pseudo-psycho-babble continues unabated. I’m that fucking angry right now, I’m going on facebook to see if I can alienate anyone else I ever knew.

  8. freebornman says:

    Must’ve hit a button somewhere, my comment is awaiting moderation. Interested in what key words trigger moderation.

  9. Dogman says:

    Unfortunately, to become a member of the scientific community one has to jump through many bureaucratic hoops until they are eventually inducted into an establishment which is tightly regulated and directed by warmongers and control freak aristocrats.

    People spend half of their lives taking classes, passing tests and filling out applications in hopes that one day they can become a scientist and cure a disease. After years of struggling to make the cut they realize that there is no funding for their charitable projects and if they dare step outside of the established guidelines they will be exiled from the scientific community.

    Additionally, even when legitimate studies are done, they hardly ever reach the public or get taken seriously because most of the publishers that are considered “reputable” are controlled by just a few corporations that heavily censor the information that gets released.

    A recent study conducted by Professor Vincent Lariviere from the University of Montreal’s School of Library and Information Science, and a number of other researchers, found that nearly all major scientific papers are controlled by the same six corporations.

    “Overall, the major publishers control more than half of the market of scientific papers both in the natural and medical sciences and in the social sciences and humanities. Furthermore, these large commercial publishers have huge sales, with profit margins of nearly 40%. While it is true that publishers have historically played a vital role in the dissemination of scientific knowledge in the print era, it is questionable whether they are still necessary in today’s digital era,” Lariviere said.

    The researchers sifted through tons of studies that were published between the years of 1973 and 2013 and found that the studies were overwhelmingly published by the same six publishers. The publishers named in the study are ACS, Reed Elsevier, Sage, Taylor & Francis, Springer, and Wiley Blackwell.

    Source –

  10. Dogman says:

    The problem that we face in convincing others is that some people are naturally opinionated and as soon as you tell them something that contradicts their beliefs, many of them take it personally as if you are trying to prove you are cleverer than them. Egos are unavoidable if approached head on. Think how many of us became angry when we started to wake up to the enormity of the lies we’ve been spoon fed. My technique hopefully allows people not to feel affronted.e.g. “Some people still believe that you can knock down 3 buildings in NY with 2 planes.” Mentioning the BBC’s mistake about Tower 7’s collapse being an “oops” moment isn’t confrontational. You just have to pique their interest for more info.
    Us Brits always talk about the weather, right, so I will casually mention that it all depends on whether they’ve sprayed anything first thing in the morning. I follow that up quickly with the fact that it is easy to spot as they do it parallel to the M4 corridor and when I work nights I can see them being sprayed from about 4:30am. I explain that they are easy to spot if you look up at the sky every 10-15 mins should they be up at that time. I will happily point out any visible chemtrails by mentioning that while contrails start to disappear while the plane is still visible, these other trails somehow spread out in a uniform pattern along their entire length, which would be some trick of the air currents.

    I irritate trolls because by mentioning sources or quotes, I am simply a conduit of information and arguing with me about somebody else’s research or quote is kinda silly.
    This isn’t a game that we can afford to lose, and as these people have accepted mainstream indoctrination most of their lives, they tend to accept a famous person’s quote that backs up the point you are trying to make. I take special pleasure in mentioning Kissinger’s current age, when I use his quote “the elderly are usless eaters.”

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.