We respect open-records laws as a vital safeguard in a democratic society. However, it is concerning that agenda-driven interest groups can also exploit these laws with the goal of silencing and discrediting scholars and researchers who speak out on important topics—in this case, agricultural biotechnology—and ultimately preventing other academics from doing so. Public-private collaborations are essential to the advancement of science and agriculture, and we see USRTK’s record requests as a coercive tactic to stifle dialogue. Following are brief summaries that provide context on the isolated excerpts taken from the FOIA emails with academics. We fully stand by these professional relationships, communications and collaborations.

Communication on the Public and Private Responses to an EPA Draft Proposal (2011)

In 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requested input on its draft proposal to change the data requirements for different forms of GM crops. Drs. Chassy and Fedoroff were leading the preparation of comments to the EPA on behalf of the public sector and welcomed input from Dr. Sachs of Monsanto. Dr. Sachs was working separately with his colleagues in the private sector to submit comments on behalf of industry. As would be expected, elements of the proposed rule changes were of interest to both the public and private sector—particularly changes that potentially would increase the time and cost of product approval without improving the quality or rigor of the risk assessment. Such changes would ultimately create barriers to entry for the public sector due to the relatively reduced resources available.

This is one example of public and private sector experts sharing information that is relevant to all involved and that would ultimately help the EPA make a more informed decision. The comments provided to the EPA by Drs. Chassy and Fedoroff, as well as by the industry, are available and in the public record. It is important to note that the EPA elected not to take further action at the time and did not finalize the proposed rule.

Note: Dr. Chassy has addressed this topic in his post on Academics Review.

Coordination of a Speaking Engagement in China (2012)

In 2012, Monsanto China was working with the industry-funded Chinese Agricultural Biotech Association to help plan a scientific seminar on plant biotechnology. The workshop included academic experts who provided their scientific knowledge and expertise on current and relevant topics in modern science. Dr. Sachs of Monsanto asked Dr. Chassy (then Assistant Dean for Biotechnology Outreach at the University of Illinois) if he would be available to travel to China and speak about the safety assessments used to evaluate agricultural products. Dr. Chassy was reimbursed for his travel to the event, but he did not receive any compensation for his time or presentation. And, while it wasn’t required or necessary, Dr. Chassy did share his presentation with scientists at Monsanto for their feedback and comments.

Note: Dr. Chassy has addressed this topic in his post on Academics Review.

Policy Papers on the Potential Impacts and Societal Benefits of GM Crops (2013)

In 2013, Dr. Sachs of Monsanto asked academics who are well-recognized experts and leaders in their respective fields to consider writing a policy brief on a topic within their area of expertise. We believed their specific knowledge and points of view on topics such as sustainability, safety or global farming challenges would help people understand the potential impacts and societal benefits of GM crops.

Seven academics expressed interest (Dr. Folta, Dr. Juma, Dr. McHughen, Dr. Phillips, Dr. Shaw, Dr. Shelton, Dr. Zilberman), and we connected them with an independent agency that could help manage the process of producing the briefs. After that introduction, the agency worked directly with each academic—and without involvement by Monsanto—to ensure each author’s independence. Those articles were later published on Genetic Literacy Project (GLP). We stand by the professionalism and integrity of this collaboration, as well as the importance of elevating the dialogue surrounding plant biotechnology.

GMO Content on WebMD (2014)

In summer 2014, an inaccurate WebMD article sparked an internal Monsanto discussion surrounding WebMD and how it works. We decided to raise the issue with a few industry trade associations (which we referred to as “third parties” in our emails) and asked them to consider pursuing balanced articles on behalf of the industry. Lisa Drake of Monsanto also shared the information about WebMD with several academics including Dr. Folta who may be interested in becoming bloggers on WebMD to bring balance to the discussion. However, to our knowledge, none of the individuals she contacted—including Dr. Folta—have blogged on WebMD. As this exchange demonstrates, oftentimes we may flag ideas for people who are experts and they may disregard the request or just say no.

Note: Other than Monsanto commercial advertising which has been placed in WebMD, we have not paid anyone to produce material for WebMD.

In the News: What others are saying

“Freedom to Bully: How Laws Intended to Free Information Are Used to harass Researchers (2015)”
Union of Concerned Scientists

More Articles