5 More Astroturf Groups: Part 2 Electric Boogaloo

And now, the long awaited follow up to 5 Astroturf Groups You Should Stop Sharing From - ok, maybe not. Regardless, here is another list of some fake grass front groups pushing industry junk science on the unsuspecting public.

#1. ENDOCRINE SCIENCE MATTERS

Well, yes it does. And it matters where you get your science from, like independent endocrinologists or the chemical industry. Guess who is behind Endocrine Science Matters? Spoiler alert: it's not independent scientists.

On the ESM about page; "Endocrine Science Matters is a project of CropLife International and its global network, which are the voice and leading advocates for the plant science industry."

CropLife's members?

Surprise!

It's evident that the Big 6 (for now, anyway, pending mergers) and friends have a rather strong financial interest in NOT having any of their chemical products declared to have endocrine disrupting effects.

Here they are trying to throw shade on a recent study looking at declining sperm counts in Western countries by sharing a link from the very aptly named Junk Science website run by Steve Milloy. Similarly, they seem extremely bothered by estimates of human cost burden from exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) calling them "grossly exaggerated" on their website along with half a dozen or so tweets making similar accusations about research conducted by NYU scientists. The 'experts' they cite are Gregory Bond a former Dow Chemical employee, and Daniel R. Deitrich, who has received funding from industry as well as working closely with chemical companies like Dow and Bayer.

One might notice too that their logo is not so dissimilar to that of the Endocrine Society, a legitimate science organization - you have to wonder if this was purposefully done to confuse the public.

If you're looking for endocrine science that matters, best to skip over this industry front group.

#2. CAMPAIGN FOR ACCURACY IN PUBLIC HEALTH RESEARCH (CAPHR)

This is a group I've written about before more extensively, but I'll give a short recap here. The CAPHR is somewhat unique in that they are focused on the findings of one group of independent scientists - the International Agency for Research on Cancer arm of the World Health Organization, known as IARC for short. CAPHR is a project of the American Chemistry Council and its members who happen to be exactly who you would expect them to be.

Here they are making the argument that out of the hundreds of compounds and agents evaluated, only one has been categorized as probably not likely to cause cancer.

Inadequate evidence to classify the carcinogenic potential of caffeine is impacting enjoyment of pumpkin spice lattes everywhere. It's a crisis of epic proportions. 

If you listen to the pumpkin spice latte enthusiasts over at the CAPHR, it would seem as though IARC just chooses things at random to evaluate simply so they can scare people into avoiding benign substances, such as asbestos, tobacco, or plutonium.

This of course isn't really the case. IARC explains on their monograph Q&A about how they choose which agents to evaluate:

IARC works with international experts to identify priorities from among agents suspected of causing cancer, based on the availability of scientific evidence of carcinogenicity and evidence that people may be exposed to the agent. Priority can be given to a wide variety of agents or substances with different impacts on public health. For example, air pollution has a high public health impact because everyone is exposed, even if exposure levels are generally low. On the other hand, occupational exposures, such as those involving vinyl chloride, may be very high and can therefore have a marked impact even if very few workers are exposed.

So, they are evaluating things that are already suspected of of causing cancer in the first place, which would explain why only one has been found to be probably not carcinogenic to humans and placed in group 4.

IARC's mission is in the interest of public health, by categorizing hazards that health agencies around the world may use for conducting risk assessments. The science they rely on is available to the public and peer reviewed. Their monographs are updated periodically as new data emerges. While constructive criticisms are warranted with most any large scientific group and how they operate, it's not very hard to see the picture that the CAPHR paints is heavily biased towards the interests of the ACC and its members.

#3. PEEL BACK THE LABEL

This is a relatively new organization, launched in August 2017 by the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF). It seems that a major impetus for this campaign is Dannon's pledge to remove genetically engineered ingredients from its supply chain for many of their major products, as well as providing labeling indicating whether a product is produced with genetically engineered ingredients. The long term goal seems to be to transition all products "towards the use of fewer and more natural ingredients that are not synthetic and non-GMO.' 

This change isn't going over so hot with the dairy industry, in particular the NMPF. They've publicly challenged Dannon and other food manufacturers on what they call "deceptive food company marketing claims." They base this argument on the fact that some foods are being labeled 'non-GMO' like orange juice for instance. They use as one example that "Florida's Natural adding a Non-GMO Project certification to its orange juice labels, despite the fact that there are no commercially-grown, genetically modified oranges."

There are in fact no GE oranges on the market (yet). But it's a bit hard to follow how this is deceptive. The oranges have not been genetically engineered - so how is it 'deceptive' to label them as such? I've seen no explicit statements like, 'no genetically engineered oranges used in Florida's Natural products' and that I could see as implying that there is a commercially available counterpart. But labeling a non-GMO product as non-GMO?

This seems like quite a stretch. Honestly, as a consumer, a non-GMO label can only tell you so much and sometimes it seems redundant on certain products - but do consumers really need the dairy industry to sweep in and protect them from labels? Kosher labels are not relevant to a gentile like myself, but even I can appreciate that they are there for informational purposes, even if I am not using the information for myself. The real issue Peel Back The Label has with this doesn't seem to be about consumer welfare as much as it is about protecting the supply chain.

In their open letter to the Dannon corporation, NMPF states, "Your pledge would force farmers to abandon safe, sustainable farming practices that have enhanced farm productivity over the last 20 years while greatly reducing the carbon footprint of American agriculture." Would it surprise you to know that the letter was co signed by the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean Association, American Sugarbeet Growers Association, National Corn Growers Association, and U.S. Farmers and Rancher's Alliance?

No? Then it should also come as no surprise that the campaign is taking a cue from none other than the Astroturf Kingpin Rick Berman with another of their arguments against GMO labels. Leaked audio of a speech Berman gave reveals his tactics for manipulating public opinion and discrediting opponents. His 7th commandment? Push "fear and anger". PR Watch reports, "Berman talked about pushing people's emotional buttons...stating: "you could not get into people's heads and convince them to do something as easily as you could get into their hearts or into their gut to convince them to do something. Because, emotions drive people much better than intellectual epiphanies."

The Peel Back The Label campaign is putting this to use by portraying labels they don't like as 'fear mongering' in fact, they use the word fear quite a bit, it's all over their Twitter feed and website. By positioning the companies meeting consumer demand by dropping GE ingredients, or adding labels to their products as 'fear mongers', they are attempting to do two things - discredit the proponents of labels, and elicit an emotional reaction from the public. Some may feel embarrassed that they have been 'deceived' and don't want to be seen as fearful or naive. Embarrassment is a strong emotion that can motivate behavior - the campaign is readily exploiting this. Watch, as they invoke the Spectre of Fear Mongering - spooky!

Logically, we know labeling an orange or a tomato that is not genetically engineered, as not genetically engineered or 'non-GMO' that this is true, and not a deceptive statement. The Peel Back The Label campaign uses propaganda to emotionally manipulate the public, fights transparency and promotes what is best for their profit margins, not consumers. 

#4. THE CENTER FOR FOOD INTEGRITY

The Center for Food Integrity (CFI) was launched in 2007, by a PR firm called CMA Consulting. The name is quite similar to that of independent consumer group, Center for Food Safety (CFS). The legal director for CFS Joseph Mendelson, believes this is no coincidence. He is quoted in Food Navigator-USA.com as saying, "The name was obviously chosen to try to distract attention from groups like ours and confuse consumers."

CFI's members include the American Farm Bureau Association, Chik-fil-A, DuPont, Iowa Pork Producers Association, McDonald's, Merck & Co., Monsanto, Purdue Foods, Tyson Foods, Inc., and the United Soybean Board.

A main focus of CFI is on conducting informal research on consumer attitudes to inform their members on what they consider to be 'important food system issues.' The purpose of this research is to 'identify key audiences and insights for Food and Ag to earn trust.' CFI states on their website, "We survey U.S. consumers to measure and track attitudes on important food system issues. Each year's results build on the previous year - culminating in a greater understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing the food system, and translating into new CFI strategies to effectively engage, increase transparency, and earn consumer trust."

As a service to their members, CFI also offers 'Influencer Direct Outreach.' Influencers are what CFI calls consumers. They created the website Best Food Facts to 'help consumers make informed choices'.

Best Food Facts website's blog tackles in depth and hard hitting topics like:

Ask An Expert: Is German Chocolate Cake Really From Germany?

How Long Does Halloween Candy Really Last?

and

The Art Of Eating Insects

They also answer your questions about genetically engineered salmon, how 'science' created gene silenced Arctic apples, pesticide use on food, and one post specifically about glyphosate where a professor of crop and soil sciences and a weed scientist (clearly experts on human biology and toxicology) assure you not to worry about this herbicide residue in food, because...wait for it... it's 'safer than table salt.'

Seriously, it's getting old.

The bottom line from them on all of these topics, as you might have guessed, is that everything is fine and dandy in our agricultural and food systems.

Well, the reality is that we are facing some big problems with resource depletion, food waste, land management, antibiotic resistance, and abuse of pesticides. This is not going to go away because you deploy public relations teams to conduct surveys and try to manipulate consumers opinions with fake grassroots looking campaigns.

#5. THE COALITION FOR SAFE AFFORDABLE FOOD

Formed in 2014, the Coalition For Safe Affordable Food (CFSAF) is an industry funded lobbying group that includes members such as CropLife America, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association. Monsanto Company has even announced their involvement with CFSAF on social media.

As you might have guessed, CFSAF and its members main focus is on food labels that would identify crops or products made with genetically engineered ingredients. They fought mandatory state laws and promoted voluntary labeling like the bogus SmartLabel as a federal standard for disclosure of genetically engineered ingredients. Between 2016-17, they spent at least 360,000 dollars on lobbying efforts through the firm Russell Group who has a very long list of agricultural and food industry clients, along with both the tobacco and chemical industry.

The money spent by the Food and Ag industries on labeling is hard to tally, but one estimate puts the number at about 51.6 million dollars - just for the first half of 2015 alone. Compare that to the spending by what some ironically call 'Big Organic' to lobby for labeling in the same time period that came to just under 1.5 million dollars.

Clearly the playing field is not close to level from even an industry standpoint, never mind consumer representation. Big Food Frontgroups like CFSAF are not doing anything to fight for consumers, transparency or science - only what is best for their members business interests. 

Can you spot the Astroturf? 

Technology isn't deserving of trust - that can only be earned the industry deploying it.

What this industry doesn't seem to understand is that while they can pour millions of dollars into lobbying and campaigns made to look independent and scientific, they can never buy our trust.

The Little Black Book of Junk

Our good friends over at American Council on Science and Health have shat out a new book called "The Little Black Book of Junk Science." Released on June, 29 with a star studded panel consisting of: 

Dr. Angela Logomasini, Senior Fellow at Competitive Enterprise Institute who specializes in environmental risk, regulation and consumer freedom. Her articles have also appeared in Wall Street Journal, NY Post and many more places.

Dr. Alan Moghissi, Long-time member of the American Council on Science and Health Board of Scientific Advisors, a charter member of the Environmental Protection Agency, where he was Principal Science Advisor for Radiation and Hazardous Materials; and Manager of the Health and Environmental Risk Analysis Program, and now Associate Director of International Center for Regulatory Science at George Mason University and President of the Institute for Regulatory Science.

Professor Nina Federoff,  Professor Emeritus at Penn State University, who was appointed to the National Science Board by President Clinton, was Science and Technology Adviser to U.S. Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton and was a recipient of the National Medal of Science from President George W. Bush. Among her many books is Mendel in the Kitchen: A Scientist's View of Genetically Modified Foods.

Dr. Alex Berezow, Senior Fellow in Biomedical Science at the American Council on Science and Health, frequent contributor to USA Today, Wall Street Journal and BBC, and author of Little Black Book of Junk Science and Science Left Behind.

L-R: Angela Logomasini, Alan Moghissi, Nina Federoff, Alex Berezow

It is appropriately named at least, with emphasis on "junk." I thought we could take a look at a few excerpts and have a cringe and chuckle.

Here are just some of the lowlights:

Second hand smoke? Pay no attention to the warnings from the CDC!

I have no idea what the fuck they're talking about here. Maybe themselves?

Fuck the ecosystem and those hippies with their science!

Hey, why blame the dealers when you can put it all on the addicts? It's complex!

No worries about 'low levels' of  PCBs! OK sure they bioaccumulate...

Except when they are an invention of Big Environmental! Oh, Hank.

The main goal of the Little Black Book of Junk Science seems to be to reassure all you irrational chemophobes about the safety of 2,4-D, atrazine, BPA, DDT, EDCs, flame retardants and the like. They go on to cite themselves no less than 26 times, as well as other highly regarded peer reviewed publications such as Forbes, Natural News, and David Wolfe dot com.

Once again, the ACSH prove themselves to be an agenda driven outfit, more concerned with industry interests than science or health. At least the title of their book was accurate.

5 Astroturf Groups You Should Stop Sharing From

After a hefty helping of inspiration from blogger Dawn's Brain's series on Facebook pages that people need to stop sharing from, the impetus for this post was born. Now, Dawn chose some pretty low-hanging fruit for her lists - Natural News, InfoWars, David Wolfe, Freelee The Banana Girl - she's shooting fish in a barrel. Instead of kooky Facebook pages though, I'm heading in a different direction...

In her second post in the series she blasts some random commenter on a post about Roundup about how wrong they are about glyphosate, the active ingredient in the world's most widely used herbicide.

"You’ve got the Lethal Dosage (LD50) all wrong, Facebook commenter. Glyphosate has a toxicity at 5,600 milligrams per kilogram, which is safer than table salt and baking soda.

Facebook fear-mongers love to throw around the meaningless term “endocrine disruptors” to sound like they know what they are talking about. Please, tell us the mechanism by which the trace amounts of glyphosate that humans ingest might disrupt our endocrine systems."

The first link is a blog post from Cami Ryan whose info isn't wrong, so much as it is misleading in this context. It's not giving you the whole story. There is so much more to toxicity than how much you need to ingest to kill you. That's like smoking a cigarette, and proclaiming it is without harm because you have not dropped dead. Many substances have chronic effects, and not all substances follow a linear dose response. This lack is even acknowledged in the comments to the article, lest you think I'm just pulling this out of my ass. Cami's affiliations (she works for Monsanto) are pretty clearly laid out and listed on her blog. She's actually a great example of the intertwining of groups and people and industry, she has connections to sites and groups that will get more of a mention later on.

It was specifically the second link there that provided the inspiration to write this series, because of the extraordinary irony of it. Here, in a blog post about social media pages that spread misinformation, Dawn is using a link from a known astroturf group as her proof that endocrine disruption is just a 'meaningless term.' The link is from 1998 and a stupefying testament to bullshit artistry.

Just the first line alone should set your spidey senses tingling...

"In 1997, endocrine disruptors joined radon, Alar, dioxin, asbestos in schools, and electromagnetic fields in the rogues’ gallery of environmental hoaxes."

Of course, each thing they've named deserves its own discussion, but grouping these together and calling them 'environmental hoaxes' is absurd. I've hyperlinked each subject to a credible source.

So comparisons aside, is endocrine disruption truly as they say, 'in the rogue's gallery of environmental hoaxes'? Well, the National Institutes Of Health, World Health Organization, Environmental Protection Agency, Centers For Disease Control And Prevention, Harvard School Of Public Health researchers, and many other scientists all support the existence of endocrine disrupting chemicals.

I think it's safe to say Dawn may have been cherry picking a little bit there.

And so, this begins the list of an entirely different kind of bullshit that you really ought to stop sharing - and seriously question the credibility of anyone who shares from them. Astroturf groups.

Simply put, astroturf groups are defined as "...apparently grassroots-based citizen groups or coalitions that are primarily conceived, created and/or funded by corporations, industry trade associations, political interests or public relations firms."

These organizations give themselves an air of legitimacy, but in reality, they are pushing an agenda - and it's not for the benefit of consumers or the public.

Sharing anything from these groups or their members is an affront to honest scientists and endangers science literacy and public health.

#1. AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH

These guys are kind of like the Grandaddies of astroturf. Home to Henry I. Miller, frequent Forbes contributer and former tobacco science purveyor, as well as Gilbert Ross MD who just happens to be a convicted felon, the ACSH is a colorful cast of heartwarming characters. Even Orac thinks so.

Their Facebook page description says they are "Trusted guides on complex science and health issues since 1978."

Well, I could claim to be Beyoncè, but it still wouldn't make it so.

Leaked documents show ACSH's funding from corporate donors is extensive, and lines up with the issues they tackle. Not only that, documents reveal that they have deliberately solicited donations in exchange for favorable reports on donor products. From a 2013 report in Mother Jones:

"ACSH donors in the second half of 2012 included Chevron ($18,500), Coca-Cola ($50,000), the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation ($15,000), Dr. Pepper/Snapple ($5,000), Bayer Cropscience ($30,000), Procter and Gamble ($6,000), agribusiness giant Syngenta ($22,500), 3M ($30,000), McDonald's ($30,000), and tobacco conglomerate Altria ($25,000). Among the corporations and foundations that ACSH has pursued for financial support since July 2012 are Pepsi, Monsanto, British American Tobacco, DowAgro, ExxonMobil Foundation, Phillip Morris International, Reynolds American, the Koch family-controlled Claude R. Lambe Foundation, the Dow-linked Gerstacker Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, and the Searle Freedom Trust."

Sample bullshit:

 

 Who needs regulations?!

Look over here at this death mistletoe! Pay no attention to the lead painted toys from China!

Oof. Not sure letting Gil write this one was the best choice...

Other sites connected to ACSH:

Science 2.0

which has now merged with ScienceBlogs much to the chagrin of many

Science Codex

Scientific Blogging

Deniers For Hire, a collaboration with Cameron J. English

#2. GMO ANSWERS

Got questions about genetic engineering? GMO Answers to the rescue!

After spending milllions fighting a labeling initiative in California in 2012, Ag & Chem industry execs announced plans to create a campaign to change public opinion on GMO's.

From their website: "GMO Answers is funded by the members of The Council for Biotechnology Information, which includes BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto Company and Syngenta."

Supporting partners are listed as follows: The American Council on Science and Health (déjà vu!), The American Farm Bureau Federation, American Seed Trade Association, American Soybean Association, The American Sugarbeet Growers Association, Minnesota Crop Production Retailers, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Corn Growers Association, National Cotton Council, Ohio AgriBusiness Association, South Dakota Agri-Business Association, The U.S. Beet Sugar Association, and Western Sugar.

The Council for Biotechnology Information has hired the public relations firm Ketchum
(owned by Omnicom) famous for their representation of human rights violators, to run the site and oversee their 'independent experts'.

While the above description makes it seem like ONLY independent experts will be answering your questions, when you look at who is on the list, you'll find that a good portion of the experts are not independent but in fact are employed by the same corporations funding the site.

One of the 'independent' experts there to give you answers happens to be Kevin Folta, who came under fire recently when it was found through FOIA requests that he was given a $25k contribution from Monsanto company, despite denying repeatedly that he had anything to do with them. Kevin continued to maintain his innocence even after being caught in this lie. The ensuing criticism led to his stepping out of the public eye for a time, though he remains listed as an independent expert on the GMO Answers site and has recently announced his podcast is set to resume.

Other 'independent' experts listed on the site, include Bruce Chassy, Jennie Schmidt, Monsanto test farmer and prize winner, and Mary Boote, CEO of Truth About Trade & Technology among others.


So, this website, funded by an industry with a financial stake in selling GM seeds and the pesticides that pair with them, run by a public relations firm that represents human rights violators, wants to answer your questions about genetic engineering used in agriculture with their 'independent' panel of experts....

Alright then.

 

#3. GENETIC LITERACY PROJECT

The sister organizations Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) and the Center For Media And Public Affairs (CMPA) are both affiliated with the Genetic Literacy Project, designed to promote GMO's. As stated by the website, the mission of the GLP is 'to promote public awareness of genetics, biotechnology and science literacy.' Because, according to them, 'Intricate science scares people who don’t understand risk and complexity.'

GLP's executive director is Jon Entine. He has no science credentials to speak of, though he defends industry interests on a regular basis as - is exemplified in the situation of Syngenta's herbicide atrazine. Entine is listed under 'Third Party Outreach' in an email document from White House Writer's Group to Syngenta about work they had done to influence news coverage and promote atrazine. Entine also authored a book which was published by (guess who?!) the American Council on Science and Health called, Scared to Death: How Chemophobia Threatens Public Health. The current president of ACSH, Hank Campbell also happens to be a contributor to the GLP site. Entine insists that he is fully independent, but given his corporate and astroturf entanglements, that's an awfully hard pill to swallow.

Entine's shady rep doesn't end with his industry ties. He's made several science journalists upset by 'borrowing' their work without permission. Keith Kloor publicly complained about what happened to him on his blog last November.  Kloor even took to Twitter with his complaints, and judging by the conversation, Entine's response was less than satisfactory.

From his blog, Kloor's take on the GLP website:

"It’s bad enough that a website built on the aggregated work of journalists takes something that belongs to you without asking for permission. It’s outrageous when the website truncates your text in ways that change the meaning of what you wrote, which is also what Genetic Literacy is guilty of doing with respect to my post. It’s infuriating and unforgivable when the person who stole your text puts his own flatly wrong headline above it."

This statement, and from a pro-GMO journalist no less, isn't very reassuring about the ethical compass of the Genetic Literacy Project.

Sample bullshit: 

I think we know their answer before we even start....

    Excessive use of quotation marks to 'debunk' 'endocrine disruption,' because, 'science.'

Uncle Henry from (surprise!) ACSH, and self-appointed expert on citrus greening disease - stops by to make grand statements about using a soil drench of neonics and genetic engineering.

In which we try to further confuse the definition of transgenics/genetic engineering by conflating it with selective breeding.

Bonus bullshit:

If the Moon were made out of BBQ spare ribs, would ya eat it? 

They seem more like Genetic Illiteracy...than Genetic Literacy.

#4.  CENTER FOR CONSUMER FREEDOM

Known by the nicknames of 'Dr. Evil' and the 'Astroturf Kingpin', Rick Berman is president, executive director and board member at the Center For Consumer Freedom. He is a well known lobbyist for the food, alcoholic beverage, and tobacco industries as well as hotels, beer distributors, taverns, and restaurant chains with his group Berman & Co. who serve clients such as International House of Pancakes, Olive Garden, Outback Steakhouse, Red Lobster, Cracker Barrel, Hooters, Steak & Ale, TGI Friday's, Uno's Restaurants, and Wendy's.

Run by Berman & Co., the Center For Consumer Freedom underwent a name change in 2014 to the Center for Organizational Research and Education. A section of their website is titled 'The Center for Accountability In Science'. Begun in 2014, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) reported on Joseph Perrone's appointment and Berman's apparent flip-flop on UV rays and cancer. Where Berman once defended tanning beds, calling the claims that indoor tanning causes skin cancer 'hype', he now decries the Environmental Working Group's ranking of sunscreens and ingredients by singing the praises of the sunscreen industry's products to prevent a 'much larger threat' - skin cancer. The chief science officer of CAS is Dr. Joseph Perrone. Berman enlisted Perrone to be the guiding force behind this new campaign, but who is he really?

CREW reports:

Who is Dr. Perrone?  According to CAS, he used to be an executive at the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute and he served as an advisor to the World Health Organization.  Unmentioned by CAS, however, is the fact that Dr. Perrone also has a long record of industry work.  He used to run a consulting company, previously worked at Becton, Dickinson, and Company, a medical technology company, and has been an adviser to several other companies, including Biomedical Enterprises and FASgen.  It’s surprising that Berman’s staff neglected to mention this part of Dr. Perrone’s biography.  It’s not like they take a dim view of industry-backed research.  In fact, CAS has a page on its website highlighting “the importance of industry-funded research.”

While Dr. Perrone may be relatively new to the PR game, Berman is old hat. Back in 2014 the New York Times broke a story about a secretly taped industry talk Berman gave before executives of the oil industry. You can listen to the audio here and view the transcript here. The Cliff Notes version is available from PR Watch, with a short version below:

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS OF RICK BERMAN 

1. Screw your enemy

2.  Marginalize your opponents.

3.  Demolish the moral authority

4.  Make it personal

5.  Brand whole movements as not credible

6.  Being nasty wins

7.  Push fear and anger

8.  Treat public policy as endless war

9.  Give corporate cash total anonymity

10.  Tear down celebrities who speak out 

Sample bullshit:

The 'Chubby Chiplotle' campaign. One can only guess what industry must be paying for this...

Center For Consumer Freedom's Facebook page is Farm Babe approved, but Chipotle reacting to consumer demand is not. Bad, bad Chipotle. 

A defense of triclosan, an antibacterial agent found in personal care products.

Look people, consumer products are made with wonderful chemicals that make our clients money. And they have no connections at all to your tumors, hypospadias, low sperm count, or infertility. Also, science.

 Does it even need to be said that it's a bad idea to get your science news from Dr. Evil?

"Marginalize" your opponents

"Screw" your enemy.

"Screw" your enemy.

"Screw" your enemy.

"Screw" your enemy.

"Screw" your enemy.Sample bullshit:

#5. INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM

Rising like a hot pink phoenix from the ashes of Women For Clarence Thomas, comes the Independent Women's Forum, described in a New York Times editorial as "a right-wing public policy group that provides pseudofeminist support for extreme positions that are in fact dangerous to women."

IWF has received funding from several sources with ties to the Koch brothers, as well as Exxon Mobil and quite notably began a group called Balanced Education for Everyone in 2010 whose goal it was to stop the teaching of global warming 'junk science' in schools. It is their opinion that:

"Parents need to ask their children's teachers, 'What are you doing for Earth Day this year?'" said IWF President and CEO Michelle Bernard.  "Too often, our children are being subjected to terrifying lectures on global warming...while being told they represent settled science.  That's just not the case.

 
As part of their campaign, hundreds of signatures were gathered by Balanced Education For Everyone in May 2010. This was in support of a movement to ban teaching climate science in classrooms in Mesa County, Colorado. Those signatures were presented at a school board meeting on May 25, 2010. The Huffington Post reported that forty of the people who appeared at the hearing to support the group dismissed global warming as "junk science." The petition they presented was aimed at preventing teachers from imparting their "personal, political views in the classroom," according to Tea Party movement adherent and author of the petition, Rose Pugliese.

On their website, IWF tackles mostly political issues, healthcare, economics, education etc... but they do a little 'science' reporting with their 'Culture Of Alarmism Project' in which they seek to paint anyone with a concern about manufactured chemicals, pollution, food additives and the like as alarmist chemophobic 'enviro-Nazi's.'

Sample bullshit:

Yes. Yes they did. They made a frivolous Nazi comparison.

 Snarky climate science denial post, using Christopher Booker, a man who has a Prize for Bullshit named after him as a reference. How apropos!

 How on earth will people stay slim and healthy without their beloved diet drinks???

It's easy to see how the IWF site is really just a space for a conservative and industry agenda - and not a place to go for unbiased science information.

Of course, this doesn't stop 'Science Defender' Kavin Senapathy, and 'Decimator of Woo' Yvette d'Entremont from attending IWF events, as seen in this public photo album.

Frequent Forbes contributors Kavin Senapathy and Tara Haelle with Julie Gunlock, Senior Fellow at IWF, 'SciBabe' Yvette d'Entremont and Michelle 'Shelly' McGuire, a recent Monsanto study collaborator.

In top row: Shelly McGuire, Janice Person, Online Engagement Director for Monsanto Company, Anastasia Bodnar of Biology Fortified, Julie Gunlock, and Monsanto's Social Sciences Lead Cami Ryan who is mentioned prior in the intro. In bottom row: Tara Haelle, Kavin Senapathy, Yvette d'Entremont.


These photos were from a trip to DC where such notable folks as Kevin Folta, Elizabeth Held of the White House Writers Group, Ms.Senapathy's 'The Fear Babe' co-author, computer programmer Mark Alsip, Julie Kelly, writer, frequent Henry (Miller) collaborator and wife of lobbyist John Kelly, and Grounded Parents contributors Jenny Splitter and Emily Sexton add to the sampling of the public faces of SSkeptics who spent time fraternizing at various events over a two-day period.

This particular IWF event was pitched to - surprise - both Monsanto and the American Chemistry Council for funding.

These sort of associations don't do much to advance the 'cause' of science literacy. IWF has demonstrated themselves to be an unreliable source, and an eyebrow (or two) should be raised at the relative ease in which these groups orbit around each other.

It's very important that we get our science from independent sources, as it's a well know fact that industry funding taints research. And in that same way, it can also taint a message. Even an 'independent' and unpaid message - if they are drinking from a poisoned well.

In closing I leave you with these words of wisdom:

Always check your source. Check your source's source too. And their source's funding. Astroturf is everywhere.