 

ENVIRONMENT

An Inside Look At How Monsanto, A PR Firm And A

Reporter Give Readers A Warped View Of Science
Dogged for years by bad press, Monsanto hit reboot with Ketchum.

By Paul D. Thacker
08/06/2019 01:59 pm ET | Updated Aug 13, 2019

KRISTOFFER TRIPPLAAR/ALAMY

Agricultural giant Monsanto has spent much of the last decade attempting to polish its
public image amid campaigns to label genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and
horrifying stories about how the company treats anyone who might get in its way.

In 2013, it enlisted Ketchum PR ― the public relations firm for Russian President Vladimir
Putin, Russian natural gas giant Gazprom and many governments known for human rights
abuses ― to help. To reboot the national dialogue, Ketchum created a campaign called
GMO Answers, and used social media and third-party scientists to offer a counternarrative
to allay concern about Monsanto’s products. HuffPost has acquired 130 pages of internal
documents from an anonymous source that detail the campaign and its tactics for
enhancing Monsanto’s public image ― tactics that include developing close relationships
with one writer in particular that seem to have paid off for the company. (Bayer bought
Monsanto in 2018.)
 Iowa Seniors Can Get A Big Pay Day If They

Only Ask

At the time Ketchum launched GMO Answers, Tamar Haspel was a blogger and health
writer who had written several pieces supportive of the GMO industry on HuffPost and other
sites. Haspel posted a piece enthusiastically promoting the new campaign and was one of
the first people to submit a question to the GMO Answers website.

Later that year, Haspel, an oyster farmer living on Massachusetts’ Cape Cod, got a new gig
writing a food column for The Washington Post. In her column, she has regularly promoted
genetically modified foods and downplayed the dangers of chemicals, even quoting from
Ketchum and the third-party scientists that agrichemical companies promote to offer a
contrary take. Those companies have in turn amplified Haspel’s work and raised her profile.

Behind the scenes, Ketchum’s documents show a reporter eager to collaborate with the
firm and promote its new campaign ― and Ketchum happy to foster that relationship. (This
reporter has donated the 130 pages of Ketchum material to the Industry Documents Library
at the University of California, San Francisco.) Another page discusses GMO Answers’
“earned media” and a plan for “ongoing development of relationships” with Haspel — the
only media person mentioned by name — as well as outlets The Motley Fool and Politico.

For many who have been suspicious of Haspel’s relationship with agrichemical giants, the
documents are further evidence that she’s too close to the industry she writes about and
that her prominent column at The Washington Post provides a perch to spread misleading
information about agriculture and the food we eat. At the very least, they offer a behind-the-
scenes look at how public relations specialists work to shape public perception through
their interactions with journalists.
 
“Tamar tries to sell herself as this simple oyster farmer, but she clearly leans toward
industry,” said Michael Hansen, a senior staff scientist at Consumer Reports. “She uses
science as a cudgel: ‘Science says X, and anyone who says differently is not being
scientific.’”

An Emerging Pattern
Haspel began her Post columns in October 2013, promising to “negotiate the schism and
nail down the hard, cold facts” about GMOs. These columns have been sympathetic to the
agrichemical industry, promoting GMO products and commodity crops, downplaying the
dangers of toxic substances and pesticides, and finding fault with organic agriculture.

Among them, a column cites the potential of genetically modified mosquitoes to help control
dengue fever and GMO cows that could slow the spread of African sleeping sickness. In
both examples, there’s no clear evidence that they work — the GMO cow never even
seems to have been engineered — but Haspel projects their benefits as scientific fact.

Haspel tried to downplay the dangers of glyphosate — the pesticide that many GMO crops
have been designed to tolerate and that the International Agency for Research on Cancer
has said is a probable human carcinogen — in an October 2015 column. However, she did
not disclose that one of her sources, Keith Solomon, was a consultant for Monsanto who
had previously been criticized for his work defending another crop science giant, Syngenta,
 on the pesticide atrazine. After Haspel’s column, Solomon was later accused of having 
Monsanto ghostwrite studies for him and other scientists on glyphosate.

Meanwhile, internal emails show an increasingly friendly relationship between Haspel and
Monsanto’s representatives and third-party scientists. In a 2015 email to University of
Florida professor Kevin Folta, Haspel wrote that she just promoted a talk by him on Twitter
and relayed an anecdote about a panel on science communication: “One of my panelists
was from Monsanto (Janice Person), and when I asked the audience what was the last
issue on which you changed your mind, one of them said, ‘I think I just changed my mind
about Monsanto.’”

“It’s possible to make some headway,” Haspel noted, “but I’m convinced it’s by person-to-
person interaction.”

BRENT STIRTON VIA GETTY IMAGES

Monsanto agribusiness greenhouses on top of a research building in St. Louis in 2009.

At the time, Folta was putting together one of multiple industry-funded events he has
helped organize to discuss GMOs and the pesticide glyphosate. Haspel was one of his
favorite speakers, and he emailed her a schedule, to which Haspel responded, expressing
excitement about meeting one of the attendees, Monsanto spokesperson Vance Crowe.

“Very much looking forward to this,” Haspel wrote. “I’ve wanted to meet Vance Crowe ―
very glad he’ll be there.”
 A few months after the conference, The New York Times exposed Folta in a Sept. 5, 2015, 
front-page story for hiding his financial ties to Monsanto and becoming part of the
company’s lobbying campaign. Haspel later emailed a bizarre apology to Folta: “I am very
sorry for what you’ve gone through, and it’s distressing when mean-spirited, partisan
attacks overshadow the real issues — both on the science and on the transparency, both of
which are so important.”

When Ketchum partnered with Scientific American in 2016 to host discussions on science
communications, HuffPost reported that Haspel was one of the three journalists chosen to
speak on a panel.

A January 2016 Haspel column cites Ketchum’s research to suggest that the food
movement — a developing concept that essentially argues activists and young foodies are
seeking healthier, locally, and more responsibly grown food — isn’t much of a movement at
all and that most people aren’t overly concerned about GMOs and pesticides. Rep. Chellie
Pingree (D-Maine), who runs an organic farm, co-wrote a rebuttal with Anna Lappe, a best-
selling food author and co-founder of the Small Planet Institute.

Lappe said they wrote the rebuttal not just because Haspel’s writing on organic agriculture
is often “ridiculous” and “wrong,” but because the journalist misconstrued the Ketchum
study itself. In fact, PR Week reached the opposite conclusion from Haspel’s, deeming the
study as evidence that food evangelists could no longer be considered a small group, as
their numbers had increased by 10% in just two years.

Haspel shot back at her critics in a later interview: “If you want to know what consumers
really think and care about, a firm like Ketchum is who you want to hear from, because they
live and die by getting it right. I repeatedly asked, ‘Do you have any data that contradicts it?’
In all the controversy, I didn’t see any contradictory data.”

Haspel did not respond to several questions, but she sent a statement saying she lists her
speaking gigs and has written columns critical of the industry. (Her policy on this is posted
on her personal website, as is a list of past speaking engagements.) She noted that the
author of this piece has sent tweets critical of her writing and stated, “I’m perfectly happy to
have readers infer my views from my writing and public comment; but it has to be the whole
body of my work.”

Subscribe to The Morning Email.

Wake up to the day's most important news.

address@email.com SUBSCRIBE

“The problem isn’t just about Tamar Haspel,” Lappe said, “but she is a symptom of a
broader problem: the lack of robust journalism as industry front groups shape public
narratives.”
 

‘Embracing Skepticism’
Pages of Ketchum PR documents that discuss Haspel are labeled, “Success! A Strategy
That Embraces Skepticism.” For Monsanto, any story that muddies the water on the
science critical of its products is a win, and Haspel’s have been arguably the most
prominent in national media. The company’s touting of those articles is part of a mutually
beneficial loop — she promotes its science; it promotes her on industry sites and social
media.

A quote from Haspel also appears atop the website for Sense About Science, a nonprofit
that purports to deliver unbiased, transparent science to reporters but which has been cited
for its own links to industry.

“Embracing skepticism” is a strategy the PR firm of Hill & Knowlton created for tobacco
companies in the 1950s, a way to counter the prevailing science on a subject with experts
who would offer a more industry-friendly alternative. Harvard historian Allan Brandt
described the scheme as “brilliant” — it allowed tobacco companies to pretend they were
addressing the accumulating evidence that cigarettes caused cancer while effectively
undermining the public’s confidence in that evidence.

“It’s an incredibly effective corporate strategy: Set up your own science and then shape and
influence discussion,” he said. “These are the building blocks and foundation of current
debates on health science and conflicts of interest.”
 

It’s a strategy Monsanto has clearly employed. Court documents exposed how the
company ghostwrote studies for academics that argued for the safety of the pesticide
glyphosate, and the company worked behind the scenes with friendly scientists to
orchestrate the retraction of a study that found fault with glyphosate and GMO corn.

Another tobacco-created tactic Monsanto deploys is using seemingly independent

scientists and nonprofits to act as its emissaries to the press. Among the company’s go-tos
are Nina Federoff, an emeritus professor of biology at Penn State and science adviser to a
law firm that represents the biotech industry. Federoff has appeared at several of the
 industry-sponsored events Haspel has participated in and works closely with industry. She

also promotes the American Council on Science and Health, a front group Monsanto has
paid to attack reporters and scientists critical of industry’s financial influence on science.

There’s also Jon Entine, who runs the Genetic Literacy Project, a website owned by a PR
firm whose former clients include Monsanto. In one lawsuit, a plaintiff’s lawyers told a judge
that Monsanto funnels money to the Genetic Literacy Project and the American Council on
Science and Health in order to “shame scientists and highlight information helpful to
Monsanto and other chemical producers.” Haspel was among the “faculty” at an event the
Genetic Literacy Project co-organized on food and biotech, with University of Illinois
professor Bruce Chassy, a consultant for Monsanto. Chassy emailed several potential
invitees that speakers were offered “as much as $2500 (journalists aren’t inexpensive).”

Haspel has also faced criticism over the years for her attendance at industry junkets — trips
where industry organizations pay reporters’ expenses and sometimes offer speaking fees
— such as those of the North Carolina Biotechnology Center, Center for Food Integrity and
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Operations. This raised alarms
among watchdogs.

In a 2015 Washington Post live chat, Haspel explained, “I speak and moderate panels and
debates often, and it’s work I’m paid for.” In the same chat, she dismissed a critic for being
biased by “ideology,” warning that it “can warp perception just as reliably as money can.”
The Genetic Literacy Project then amplified Haspel’s viewpoint.

Brandt notes that when reporters and experts start following the money to root out
corporate financial influence in science, a common tactic is to then accuse those people of
being biased by ideology or lack of objectivity. “It’s right out of tobacco’s playbook. If you
say they are paid for by industry, they will call you an advocate. In some ways, it’s about
creating this false equivalence.”

To tamp down criticism, Haspel began disclosing her speaking gigs on her personal website
and wrote a piece for the National Press Foundation on ethics for freelance writers. But the
National Press Foundation has also faced its own ethical concerns for collaborating with
corporations such as Monsanto, the drug company Bayer and other pharmaceutical
companies. A recent British Medical Journal investigation by this reporter exposed its work
with Coca-Cola on journalism junkets that distracted reporters from the negative health
effects of soda.

“This is definitely a new kind of journalism,” said investigative reporter James B. Steele,
who has written articles about Monsanto. Haspel’s junkets remind him of the problems in
travel writing, where many of the reporters unethically take handouts from hotels,
restaurants and cruise ships and then write about the products.

“My guess is that the top editors at the Post don’t realize this is happening in the food
section,” he said.

HuffPost sought comment on the documents from Carla Broyle, the Post’s senior editor for
recruiting and training, who did not respond. The Post’s director of communications, Shani
George, responded instead: “We see value in having Post subject matter experts explain
the role of journalism and the work they do to different audiences and aim to avoid conflicts
of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest wherever and whenever possible. As
 our policy states, journalists should avoid accepting payments from organizations that try to
 
influence issues they cover.”

Who Gets The Benefit Of The Doubt?

In other areas that benefit commodity crops (such as corn, potatoes and other items sold to
large companies), Haspel often wades into controversies in ways that always seem to give
the benefit of the doubt to big food companies ― while getting the science wrong.

In January 2017, Haspel quoted Walter Willett, a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at
Harvard, in a column downplaying the potential health problems from excessive
consumption of potatoes. Willett’s findings conclude that small amounts of potatoes in your
diet are not bad, but people would be better off getting most of their starch calories from
whole grains. Other prominent research also finds benefits from whole grains, such as
reducing risks for cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

Others quoted in the piece have not published data on potatoes like Willett, but were given
greater weight in Haspel’s conclusions about the nutritional value of the tuber.

“Tamar tries to set herself up as the ultimate authority,” Willett said. After the column ran, he
sent Haspel a note along with a copy of his book “Nutritional Epidemiology,” which is the
standard textbook in the field. “I said, ‘As long as you’re going to be writing about nutrition,
it would be good for you to learn a bit.’”

Last summer, when the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a warning that chemicals
in food colorings, preservatives and packaging can be dangerous to children and they
aren’t being suitably regulated, Haspel offered up a column downplaying those concerns. It
quoted Alan Levinovitz, a professor of religion, as an expert.

Dr. Leo Trasande, vice chair for research in the department of pediatrics at the New York
University School of Medicine and author of “Sicker, Fatter, Poorer,” said the Haspel
column “distracts from the scientifically documented concerns with synthetic chemicals
found in food, such as phthalates, bisphenols, perfluoroalkyl substances, and perchlorate.”

This June, Haspel published a column on artificial sweeteners that caught the attention of
Marit Zinocker, a nutritional biologist at Bjorknes University College, in Oslo, Norway, who
studies the gut microbiome. Zinocker began tweeting questions at Haspel, asking her to
explain her odd column making “the case for diet soda,” which downplayed nutritionists’
concerns and argued that “the research” actually indicates there is little evidence it’s bad for
us.

Haspel responded on Twitter by dismissing much of the epidemiological studies on the

topic as well as research using mice.

“She has so many followers and what she writes will be the truth,” said Zinocker, “and so
when I know what she writes is not the truth, I have to go after it, even though it might not
have any impact.”

Other scientists who study the issue noticed as well, including Susan Swithers, a professor
at Purdue University who studies artificial sweeteners. “Diabetes and cardiovascular
disease have been linked to regular consumption of diet soda over decades,” Swithers
said.
 A 2013 review of potential biological problems caused by sucralose noted the compound 
can reduce beneficial gut bacteria and negatively affect blood glucose and insulin. The
German government recently advised citizens to not heat food containing sucralose, as the
compound can form chlorinated compounds at higher temperatures that can cause cancer.
None of that info was in Haspel’s column.

Brandt wonders if journalists still haven’t learned the lessons of the tobacco era.

“A lot of journalists don’t want to ask hard questions because they need access to sources
that they don’t want to irritate,” he said. So too do journalists feel a need to create “balance”
by quoting both sides in their stories — even when one side has clear reasons to promote
the science most beneficial to its product.

“Science journalists can often become the vehicle for getting out an industry message,” he
said.

Clarification: Language has been amended to characterize more accurately the industry-
funded events that Folta has helped to organize, and to include additional links to Haspel’s
speaking gigs and conflicts of interest policy.

Paul D. Thacker  Suggest a

Freelance writer
correction

MORE:

GMOs The Washington Post Agriculture monsanto Ketchum

Popular in the Community

Double Your Shooting Accuracy In 30

Minutes Or Less

Find Out More

Promoted Content

AdChoices Sponsored

You May Like

Buckingham Palace Wants Picture Of 'MAGA' Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Tweet Attacking The
Queen Elizabeth Removed From 'Trump Train' Squad Is Actually A Stunning Self-Own
 HuffPost HuffPost
 

Chilling Bodycam Video Shows Elizabeth Warren Sums Up 9 People Who Were Vaccine
Seething Trump Mob Attack The GOP With ‘Poisonous’ Hesitant Share What Persuaded
D.C. Police Officer Meal Analogy Them To Get Vaccinated
HuffPost HuffPost HuffPost

The Most Common Questions About Kids And Matt Gaetz Buddy Joel Greenberg Pleads Guilty,
The COVID-19 Vaccine, Answered Will Cooperate With Feds
HuffPost HuffPost

Meghan McCain Blasts Lisa Kudrow And Conan Starbucks Barista Fired For
Marjorie Taylor Greene For O'Brien Sincerely Teach How Tweeting Customer's ‘Crazy’
'Behaving Like An Animal' To Make It In Show Business Order Speaks Out
HuffPost HuffPost HuffPost

Marine Corps Officer Arrested On Charges Of Target Temporarily Pulls Pokemon, Sports
Assaulting Cop During Capitol Riot Cards As Collectors Turn To Violence
HuffPost HuffPost

Proud Boys Leader Charged In Kroger CEO’s COVID Cash Joe Biden Doesn't Want To
Capitol Attack Feels Betrayed Grab Fight Republicans Over
By Trump: 'You Left Us' HuffPost Unemployment Benefits
HuffPost HuffPost
 

MOST SHARED

Restaurants Brace For Facebook Was Right To Matt Damon Is Rooting Kelly Ripa Reveals
Federal Aid To Run Dry Ban Trump For ‘Egging For Ben Affleck, Special Tattoo
Before They Get Help On’ Violent Capitol Jennifer Lopez Reunion: Celebrating Her
Mob, Says Board ‘That Would Be Marriage To Mark
Member Awesome’ Consuelos

WHAT’S HOT

Twitter Calls Restriction Of The COVID-19 Vaccine Patent Controversial Arizona

Palestinian American Writer Waiver Fight Is Far From Over Recounters Won’t Pound On
Covering Tensions A ‘Mistake’ Voters’ Doors After DOJ
Complaint

Rand Paul Yells More, Listens Queen Makes First Major Solo Do You Have FODO? How To
Less In Yet Another Hearing Appearance Since Philip’s Tackle Your Fear Of Dining Out
With Anthony Fauci Death

NEWS POLITICS

ENTERTAINMENT LIFE

COMMUNITIES HUFFPOST PERSONAL

VIDEO NEWSLETTERS

HUFFPOST ABOUT US

ADVERTISE CONTACT US

RSS FAQ

CAREERS ARCHIVE

USER AGREEMENT COMMENT POLICY

HUFFPOST PRESS ROOM PRIVACY POLICY

DMCA POLICY

DO NOT SELL MY

PERSONAL
INFORMATION

Part of HuffPost Environment. ©2021 BuzzFeed, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Huffington Post