text:
Center for Food Integrity
Tracking the Agrichemical Industry Propaganda Network
Posted on June 12, 2019 by Stacy Malkan
Propaganda: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view
Just four corporations now control more than 60% of the global supply of seeds and pesticides. Public oversight of their activities is crucial for a safe and healthy food supply. Yet all of these companies – Monsanto/Bayer, DowDuPont, Syngenta/ChemChina and BASF – have documented histories of hiding the health risks and environmental harms of their products. Since their records do not inspire trust, these companies rely on third-party allies to promote and defend their products.
The public has a right to know about the industry ties of industry PR and lobbying aides. U.S. Right to Know has uncovered many documents that shine light on how the hidden corporate connections of front groups, academics, journalists and regulators who oppose transparency and public health protections for genetically engineered foods and pesticides. The following fact sheets provide more information:
Academics Review: the making of a Monsanto front group
AgBioChatter: where corporations and academics plotted strategy on GMOs and pesticides
Alison Van Eenennaam: key outside spokesperson and lobbyist for the agrichemical and GMO industries
American Council on Science and Health is a corporate front group
Bayer's Shady PR Firms: FleishmanHillard and Ketchum PR
Biofortified aids chemical industry PR & lobbying efforts
Center for Food Integrity food and agrichemical industry PR partners
Cornell Alliance for Science is a public relations campaign at Cornell to promote GMOs
Drew Kershen: agrichemical industry front group ringleader
Food Evolution GMO Documentary is a misleading propaganda film, say many academics
Geoffrey Kabat: ties to tobacco and chemical industry groups
Glyphosate Spin Check: tracking claims about the most-widely used herbicide
GMO Answers is a crisis management PR tool for GMOs & pesticides
Hank Campbell's maze of Monsanto-loving science blogs
Henry I. Miller dropped by Forbes for Monsanto ghostwriting scandal
Independent Women's Forum: Koch-funded group defends pesticide, oil, tobacco industries
International Food Information Council (IFIC): how Big Food spins bad news
International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) is a food industry lobby group, documents show
Jay Byrne: meet the man behind the Monsanto PR machine
Jon Entine, Genetic Literacy Project: key messengers for Monsanto, Bayer and the chemical industry
Keith Kloor: how a science journalist worked with industry allies behind the scenes
Kevin Folta's misleading and deceptive claims
Mark Lynas of Cornell Alliance for Science promotes the agrichemical industry's commercial agenda
Monsanto named these "industry partners" in its PR plan to confront glyphosate cancer ruling (2015)
Nina Federoff mobilized the authority of American science to back Monsanto
Pamela Ronald's ties to chemical industry front groups
SciBabe says eat your pesticides, but who is paying her?
Science Media Centre promotes corporate views of science
Sense About Science/STATS spin science for industry
Tamar Haspel misleads readers of the Washington Post in her food columns
Val Giddings: former BIO VP is a top operative for the agrichemical industry
More fact sheets about key front groups, trade groups and PR writers:
BIO: biotech industry trade group
Calorie Control Council
Crop Life International
International Life Sciences Institute
International Dairy Association
Kavin Senapathy/MAMMyths
Ketchum PR
International Farmers and Ranchers Alliance
Science fact sheets:
Aspartame: Decades of Science Point to Serious Health Risks
Aspartame Tied to Weight Gain, Increased Appetite, Obesity
Glyphosate: Health Concerns About Most Widely Used Pesticide
You can learn more about the findings of the U.S. Right to Know investigation here and see here for a list of global news coverage about our top findings. If you like our work, please consider donating here to keep the USRTK investigation cooking.
Food For Thought, GMOs, Our Investigations, Pesticides Academics Review, Alison Van Eenennaam, American Council on Science and Health, Bayer AG, Biofortified, Center for Food Integrity, Cornell Alliance for Science, Drew Kershen, FleishmanHillard, Genetic Literacy Project, Geoffrey Kabat, GMO Answers, Hank Campbell, Henry Miller, IFIC, Independent Women's Forum, IWF, Jon Entine, Ketchum PR, Kevin Folta, Mark Lynas, Monsanto, Sci Babe, Sense About Science, STATS, Tamar Haspel, Val Giddings
Jon Entine's Genetic Literacy Project: PR Messengers for Monsanto, Bayer and the Chemical Industry
Posted on October 7, 2018 by Gary Ruskin
Jon Entine is the founder and executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project, a key partner in Monsanto's public relations efforts to protect and defend agrichemical products. Entine portrays himself as an objective authority on science, but the evidence described in this fact sheet indicates that he is a longtime PR operative with deep ties to the chemical industry and undisclosed industry funding.
Genetic Literacy Project origins: a Monsanto PR firm and a nonprofit with tobacco ties
Entine is also the founder and principal of ESG MediaMetrics, a public relations firm that had Monsanto as a client in 2011 when the firm registered the GeneticLiteracyProject.org domain name.
Entine was at that time employed by Statistical Assessment Services (STATS), a nonprofit group that journalists have described as a "disinformation campaign" that is "known to take positions that buck scientific consensus or dismiss emerging evidence of harm." Genetic Literacy Project was developed as a "cross disciplinary program with STATS," according to web archives. In 2015, Genetic Literacy Project moved under the umbrella of a new group, the Science Literacy Project, which inherited the STATS tax ID number.
An investigation by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel found that STATS was a "major player in the public relations campaign to discredit concerns about bisphenol A" and that its parent organization, the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA), "was paid in the 1990s by Philip Morris, the tobacco company, to pick apart stories critical of smoking." Entine was a director of the CMPA in fiscal year 2014/2015, according to tax forms.
Monsanto was a client of Entine's PR firm when it registered the domain for Genetic Literacy Project.
Partners with Monsanto on PR projects / attacks on scientists
Documents obtained by U.S. Right to Know and from litigation against Monsanto show that Entine and the Genetic Literacy Project partner with Monsanto to promote and defend GMOs and pesticides, without disclosing their collaborations:
A 2015 Monsanto PR plan identified Genetic Literacy Project as one of the "industry partners" Monsanto planned to engage in its efforts to "orchestrate outcry" about a cancer report from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), in order to "protect the reputation" of Roundup. GLP has posted over 200 articles about IARC, several of them attacking the scientists who found glyphosate carcinogenic as frauds and liars who are driven by profit and vanity.
An award-winning Le Monde investigation about the "Monsanto Papers" described Genetic Literacy Project as a "well-known propaganda website" that is "fed by PR people linked to the pesticides and biotechnology industries," and played a key role in Monsanto's efforts "to destroy the United Nations cancer agency by any means possible."
In a 2017 court filing, plaintiffs' attorneys suing Monsanto over glyphosate cancer concerns described Genetic Literacy Project and the American Council on Science and Health as "organizations intended to shame scientists and highlight information helpful to Monsanto and other chemical producers."
In 2014 and 2015, Genetic Literacy Project worked with Monsanto and their PR firm to publish and promote a series of pro-GMO papers written by professors with no disclosure of the corporation's role. See Boston Globe report, "Harvard professor failed to disclose Monsanto connection."
According to a Sept. 2014 email, Monsanto executives chose Genetic Literacy Project as the "the primary outlet" to publish the professors' papers, and to build a "merchandising plan" with the PR firm CMA to promote the papers.
The PR firm CMA, which has since been renamed Look East, is directed by Charlie Arnot, who also runs the Center for Food Integrity, a nonprofit that receives funding from Monsanto — and also donates to Genetic Literacy Project.
In 2014 and 2015, Genetic Literacy Project partnered with Academics Review, a Monsanto front group, to organize industry-funded conferences at the University of Florida and UC Davis "to train scientists and journalists to frame the debate over GMOs and the toxicity of glyphosate," as Paul Thacker reported in The Progressive.
Ties to Syngenta / American Council on Science and Health
Syngenta was funding ACSH when it published Entine's book defending Syngenta's pesticide.
Jon Entine is closely tied in with the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), a corporate front group that receives funding from Monsanto and other chemical companies. ACSH published Entine's 2011 book, which defends atrazine, a pesticide manufactured by Syngenta. Reporting by Tom Philpott in Mother Jones and the Center for Media and Democracy establish that Syngenta was funding ACSH at the time, and that ACSH had asked Syngenta to provide extra funding for a project that included a book that sounds like Entine' book.
Philpott's article in Mother Jones described the circumstances leading up to the publication of Entine's book, based on documents obtained by the Center for Media and Democracy that describe Syngenta's PR campaign to get third-party allies to defend atrazine.
In 2009, ACSH staff asked Syngenta for a $100,000 grant — "separate and distinct from general operating support Syngenta has been so generously providing over the years" — to produce a paper and "consumer-friendly booklet" about atrazine. In 2011, ACSH announced Entine's new book along with a "companion friendly, abbreviated position paper," both defending atrazine. Entine told Philpott he had "no idea" Syngenta was funding ACSH.
Key theme: attacks on scientists and journalists
A key theme in Entine's work is attacking scientists and journalists who report critically about the chemical industry, the oil industry or health problems associated with them. Some examples:
Attacked New Yorker reporter Rachel Aviv in attempt to discredit her reporting about internal Syngenta documents that reveal how the chemical company tried to destroy the reputation of UC Berkeley Professor Tyrone Hayes due to his research connecting the herbicide atrazine to birth defects in frogs. Entine's chief source was Bruce Chassy, a professor who was quietly receiving money from Monsanto and helped start a Monsanto front group to attack industry critics.
Attacked Harvard Professor Naomi Oreskes, co-author of Merchants of Doubt, as "a populist Luddite, the intellectual Rottweiler of in-your-face, environmentalism, unduly wary of modern technology."
Accused Columbia Journalism School Dean Steve Coll and journalist Susanne Rust of "smearing Exxon" for reporting that Exxon knew for years that climate change was real but hid the science to keep revenues flowing.
In a follow-up attack (since removed from the Huffington Post website), Entine accused Rust of ethics violations for her reporting in an award-winning series on BPA that was short-listed for a Pulitzer Prize; Entine did not disclose that her reporting identified his former employer STATS as a major player in industry's PR efforts.
The Murky Funding Trail to Entine and the Genetic Literacy Project
Entine's funding history is complex and opaque, but tax documents and his own disclosures reveal a pattern of funding from anonymous sources and right-wing foundations that push deregulation and climate science denial, as well as undisclosed funding from the biotechnology industry.
Inaccurate, ever-changing "transparency" note
The "financial transparency" note on the Genetic Literacy Project website is inaccurate, changes often and at times contradicts itself. For 2017 and 2018, the Genetic Literacy Project claimed it received funding from a handful of foundations including the Templeton and Searle foundations, which are leading funders of climate science denial efforts. GLP also notes funding from the Center for Food Integrity, a food-industry front group that receives money from Monsanto and also partners with Monsanto and Genetic Literacy Project to promote agrichemical industry PR.
In September 2016, the "disclosure" note said GLP received no funding from corporations, but disclosed a $27,500 "pass through" from "Academics Review Charitable Association," which appears not to exist. That group is apparently AcademicsReview.org, a front group that received its funding from the agrichemical industry trade group.
In March 2016, GLP made no financial disclosures and Entine tried to distance GLP from his former employer STATS, claiming that STATS provided accounting services only and that the groups weren't involved with each other's activities. But in 2012, GLP said it was "developed as a cross disciplinary program with STATS."
Center for Media and Public Affairs/George Mason University
For the fiscal year 2014/2015, according to tax records, Entine received $173,100 for his work as "director" at Center for Media and Public Affairs, a group based at George Mason University and founded by GMU Professor Robert Lichter. CMPA was paid by Phillip Morris in the 1990s to deflect concerns about tobacco, according to documents in the UCSF Tobacco Industry Library.
CMPA does not disclose its funders but has received funding from George Mason University Foundation, the leading recipient of donations affiliated with Charles Koch and Koch Industries. GMUF also received $5.3 million from Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund between 2011-13, according to the Guardian. These funds channel money from anonymous donors including corporations to campaigns and academics who push industry interests, as Greenpeace demonstrated in an undercover investigation.
STATS Payments and Loans
CMPA's sister group, also founded by Lichter and based at GMU, was Statistical Assessment Services (STATS), a nonprofit group that played a key role in chemical industry PR efforts to defend toxic products, according to reporting in The Intercept, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The Atlantic and Consumer Reports.
According to IRS forms:
STATS paid Entine $140,600 in 2012/2013 and $152,500 in 2013/2014 as a "research consultant"
STATS and Center for Media and Public Affairs both listed Entine as Director in 2014/2015 with compensation of $173,100. Tax records for both groups also listed President Trevor Butterworth for $95,512 and Director Tracey Brown with no compensation. Tracey Brown is director of Sense About Science, a group that also spins science to defend chemical industry interests; Butterworth founded Sense About Science USA in 2014 and merged STATS into that group.
Science Literacy Project took over the tax ID of STATS in 2015 and listed Entine as Executive Director with compensation of $188,800.
In 2018, ESG MediaMetrics, Entine's PR firm, reported $176,420 in income.
The Center for Media and Public Affairs has also loaned money to STATS, which "due to inadequate funding" has "not been reimbursed." George Mason University Foundation, which does not disclose its funding, gave CMPA grants in those years. Tax records show:
CMPA loaned STATS $203,611 in 2012/2013 and $163,914 loan in 2013/2014
George Mason University Foundation granted $220,900 in 2012/2013 and $75,670 in 2013/2014 to CMPA.
Biotechnology industry funding to train scientists and journalists
In 2014 and 2015, the Council for Biotechnology Information, which is funded by BASF, Bayer, DowDuPont and Monsanto Company, spent over $300,000 on two events organized by Genetic Literacy Project and the front group Academics Review to "train scientists and journalists to frame the debate over GMOs and the toxicity of glyphosate," according to tax records and reporting in The Progressive. The events, called the Biotech Literacy Project boot camps, were held at the University of Florida in 2014 and UC Davis in 2015. The agendas describe the events as "communication skills training" for scientists and journalists to help reframe the food safety and GMO debate, and promised to provide scientists with the "tools and support resources necessary to effectively engage the media and appear as experts in legislative and local government hearings, and other policy making and related outreach opportunities."
Faculty at the first first boot camp included representatives from the agrichemical industry, food industry front groups and trade groups, and pro-GMO academics including University of Florida Professor Kevin Folta, and University of Illinois Professor Emeritus Bruce Chassy, both of whom have accepted undisclosed funding from Monsanto and promote the GMOs and pesticides that Monsanto sales rely upon. Washington Post food columnist Tamar Haspel, who also accepts money from agribusiness interests, was the journalist on faculty.
Climate science denier funders
Major financial supporters of Entine's former employer STATS and his current group Genetic Literacy Project include right-wing foundations – primarily Scaife Foundation, Searle Freedom Trust and Templeton Foundation – that are leading funders of climate science denial, according to a 2013 Drexel University study. See USRTK investigation: Climate Science Denial Network Funds Toxic Chemical Propaganda.
Chemical industry defense guy
For many years, Entine has been a prominent defender of chemical industry interests, following the industry playbook: he defends the chemicals as safe; argues against regulation; and attacks science, scientists journalists and others raising concerns.
Defending neonicotinoids
Growing scientific evidence suggests that neonicotinoids, the most widely used class of pesticides, are a key factor in bee die-offs. The European Union has restricted neonics due to concerns about impact on bees.
Entine:
Argues that neonics are not key driver of bee deaths (American Enterprise Institute).
Attacked a Harvard professor's study on bee Colony Collapse Disorder (American Enterprise Institute).
Claimed neonics may actually help bee health (American Enterprise Institute and Forbes).
Accused European politicians of trying to kill bees by restricting neonics (Forbes).
Defending phthalates
In August of 2012, Entine defended vinyl plastic backpacks that were found to be exposing children to phthalates.
"Few chemicals on the market today have undergone as much scientific scrutiny as phthalate esters," Entine wrote (Forbes). He didn't mention that a significant body of scientific evidence compiled over two decades links phthalate exposures to abnormal reproductive development in baby boys.
Entine criticized an NBC reporter for "shoddy journalism" for raising questions about the safety of phthalates (Forbes).
Entine's communications firm, ESG MediaMetrics, did PR for the Vinyl Institute. However, Entine did not disclose that in his Forbes articles on phthalates.
Defending fracking
Entine defends hydraulic fracturing ("fracking"), the pumping of high-pressure chemical-laced water into the ground to crack shale and extract natural gas. As in his many other messaging campaigns, Entine blasts science and scientists who raise concerns, framing them as "activists," while making sweeping and indefensible statements about "scrupulous" science conducted over many years that defend its safety.
For example, Entine claimed: "From a scientific perspective, no reason exists to even suspect unknown health or environmental issues will turn up" from fracking (New York Post).
Entine also:
Accused New York Times reporters of misleading children about the potential environmental dangers of fracking (Forbes).
Attacked two Cornell University scientists for their study suggesting that fracking operations leak methane (Forbes).
Attacked the Park Foundation, claiming that it has "almost single-handedly derailed shale-gas development in methane-rich New York State, and put its imprint on public opinion and policy decisions around the country." (Philanthropy Roundtable)
Defending BPA
Entine writes in defense of the chemical bisphenol A (BPA), despite a large body of scientific evidence raising concerns about its endocrine disrupting potential and other health problems associated with it. Canada declared the chemical to be toxic in 2010, and the EUbanned BPA in baby bottles in 2011.
Attacked "a small but determined group of university researchers, activist NGOs and journalists" raising concerns about BPA (Forbes).
Tells women who can't get pregnant not to blame it on plastics (Forbes).
Challenged scientists linking BPA to heart disease (Forbes).
Defending Nuclear Power
Entine also defends the nuclear power industry; he has claimed that nuclear power plants are environmentally benign and that "nothing as bad as Chernobyl is likely to occur in the West." He accused Harvard Professor Naomi Oreskes of science "denialism," for, among other things, pointing out the economic and environmental risks of nuclear power.
Entine was an unpaid fellow at the Center for Health and Risk Communication at George Mason University (GMU) from 2011-2014.Entine is also a former senior fellow at the UC Davis World Food Center's Institute for Food and Agricultural Literacy, which does not disclose its donors, and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a DC think tank funded in part by corporate and dark money contributions.
See also, Greenpeace Polluter Watch page on Jon Entine and "the hidden story of the Genetic Literacy Project."
Related groups and people
American Council on Science and Health
Geoffrey Kabat
Jay Byrne
Academics Review
Food For Thought, Hall of Shame, Our Investigations Academics Review, AcademicsReview.org, American Council on Science and Health, American Enterprise Institute, Amy Harmon, Biotechnology Literacy Project Boot Camps, Bruce Chassy, Center for Food Integrity, Center for Health and Risk Communication at GMU, Center for Media and Public Affairs, Charles Koch, Chemophobia, CMA, Donors Capital Fund, Donors Trust, Eric Sachs, ESG MediaMetrics, Genetic Literacy Project, George Mason University, George Mason University Foundation, John Templeton Foundation, Jon Entine, Keith Kloor, Kevin Folta, Koch Industries, Monsanto, Robert Lichter, Scaife Foundation, Science Literacy Project, Searle Freedom Trust, Statistical Assessment Service, Syngenta, Tamar Haspel, UC Davis World Food Center's Institute for Food and Agricultural Literacy, University of Florida, University of Illinois, Vinyl Institute, Winkler Family Foundation
How Tamar Haspel Misleads Readers of the Washington Post
Posted on August 23, 2018 by Stacy Malkan
Tamar Haspel is a freelance journalist who has been writing monthly food columns for the Washington Post since October 2013. Haspel's columns frequently promote and defend agrichemical industry products, while she also receives payments to speak at industry-aligned events, and sometimes from industry groups – a practice known as "buckraking" that raises questions about objectivity.
A review of Haspel's Washington Post columns turns up further concerns: in multiple instances, Haspel failed to disclose or fully describe industry connections of her sources, relied on industry-slanted studies, cherry-picked facts to back up industry positions or cited industry propaganda uncritically. See source review and other examples described below. Haspel has not yet responded to inquiries for this article.
Buckraking on the food beat: a conflict of interest?
In a 2015 online chat hosted by the Washington Post, answering a question about whether she receives money from industry sources, Haspel wrote that, "I speak and moderate panels and debates often, and it's work I'm paid for." She discloses her speaking engagements on her personal website, but does not disclose which companies or trade groups fund her or what amounts they give.
When asked how much money she has taken from the agrichemical industry and its front groups, Haspel tweeted, "Since any group believing biotech has something to offer is a 'front group,' plenty!"
According to the Washington Post Standards and Ethics, reporters cannot accept gifts, free trips, preferential treatment or free admissions from news sources, and "should make every effort to remain in the audience, to stay off the stage, to report the news, not to make the news." These rules do not apply to freelancers however, and the paper leaves it up to editors to decide.
Haspel describes her criteria for accepting paid speaking engagements on her personal website: that the events are constructive debates about food issues involving more voices than for-profit companies. Not all events on her roster appear to fit that criteria (see the "biotech literacy" industry-funded message training events described below). Haspel's editor Joe Yonan has said he is comfortable with Haspel's approach to paid speaking engagements and finds it a "reasonable balance."
More comments from Haspel and Yonan are reported here, "Buckraking on the Food Beat: When is it a Conflict of Interest?" by Stacy Malkan (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, 2015). See also, "A short report on three journalists mentioned in our FOIA requests," by Gary Ruskin (U.S. Right to Know, 2015). For perspectives from journalists and editors on buckraking, see Ken Silverstein's reporting (Harper's, 2008).
Taking up the GMO beat
Haspel began writing about genetically engineered foods in March 2013 in the Huffington Post ("Go Frankenfish! Why We Need GM Salmon"). Her writings about other food-related topics began appearing in the Washington Post and HuffPo in 2011 and elsewhere since the mid 1990s. Haspel's final series of articles for Huffington Post continued on the topic of agrichemical industry products, with blogs debunking studies about possible risks of glyphosate and GMO animal feed, an argument against GMO labeling campaigns and a puff piece about the agrichemical industry's marketing website, GMO Answers.
GMOAnswers.org was part of a multi-million-dollar public relations initiative the agrichemical industry announced in the spring of 2013 to combat consumer concerns about genetically engineered foods in the wake of campaigns to label GMOs.
HuffPo July 2013: An example of how Haspel has promoted industry sources uncritically. More examples below.
WaPo Unearthed column: digging for industry perspectives
Haspel launched her monthly "Unearthed" food column in the Washington Post in October 2013 ("Genetically modified foods: What is and isn't true") with a promise to "dig deep to try and figure out what's true and what isn't in the debate about our food supply." She advised readers to figure out "whom you can trust" in the GMO debate and identified several groups that did not pass her impartiality test (the Union of Concerned Scientists among them).
Haspel's November 2013 column ("GMO common ground: Where supporters and opponents agree") provided a broad range of perspectives from public interest as well as industry sources; however, in subsequent columns, Haspel seldom quotes public interest groups and devotes far less space to public health experts and data sources than she does to industry-connected sources or experts in risk analysis or "risk perception" who tend to downplay public health and safety concerns, and echo industry views. In several instances, Haspel failed to disclose or fully describe industry ties to sources.
Industry-sourced 'food movement' column
An example that illustrates some of these problems is Haspel's January 2016 column ("The surprising truth about the food movement"), in which she argues that people who care about genetic engineering or other aspects of food production – the "food movement" – are a marginal part of the population. She included no interviews with consumer, health, environmental or justice groups that consider themselves part of the food movement.
Haspel sourced the column with two industry-funded spin groups, the International Food Information Council and Ketchum, the public relations firm that runs GMO Answers. While she described Ketchum as a PR firm that "works extensively with the food industry," Haspel did not disclose that Ketchum was hired by the agrichemical industry to change consumer views of GMO foods (nor did she mention Ketchum's scandalous history of flacking for Russia and conducting espionage against environmental groups).
A third source for her column was a two-year old phone survey conducted by William Hallman, a public perception analyst from Rutgers who reported that most people don't care about GMO labeling. (A year earlier, Hallman and Haspel discussed consumer perspectives about GMOs on a government-sponsored panel they shared with Eric Sachs of Monsanto.)
Collaborations with industry spin groups
Tamar Haspel's affinity for and collaborations with key players in the agrichemical industry's public relations efforts raise further concerns about her objectivity.
A promotional quote from Haspel appears on the homepage of STATS/Sense About Science, describing STATS as "invaluable" to her reporting. Other journalists have described STATS as a product-defense "disinformation campaign" that uses tobacco tactics to manufacture doubt about chemical risk and plays a key role in the "hardball politics of chemical regulation." A 2016 story in The Intercept described the tobacco ties of STATS and Sense About Science (which merged in 2014 under the direction of Trevor Butterworth) and the role they play in pushing industry views about science.
A 2015 public relations strategy document named Sense About Science among the "industry partners" Monsanto planned to engage in its campaign to "orchestrate outcry" against the World Health Organization's cancer research agency to discredit a report about the carcinogenicity of glyphosate.
Agrichemical industry spin events
In June 2014, Haspel was a "faculty" member (alongside several industry representatives) at a messaging training event called the Biotech Literacy Project Boot Camp that was funded by the agrichemical industry and organized by the Genetic Literacy Project and Academics Review, two industry front groups that Monsanto also identified as "industry partners" in its 2015 PR plan.
Genetic Literacy Project is a former program of STATS, and Academics Review was set up with the help of Monsanto to discredit industry critics while keeping corporate fingerprints hidden, according to emails obtained through public records requests.
The boot camp Haspel attended was aimed at "reframing the food safety and GMO debate," according to the agenda. Paul Thacker reported about the event in The Progressive, "Industry has also secretly funded a series of conferences to train scientists and journalists to frame the debate over GMOs and the toxicity of glyphosate … In emails, organizers referred to these conferences as biotech literacy bootcamps, and journalists are described as 'partners.'"
Academics familiar with corporate spin tactics reviewed the boot camp documents at Thacker's request. "These are distressing materials," said Naomi Oreskes, professor of the history of science at Harvard University. "It is clearly intended to persuade people that GMO crops are beneficial, needed, and not sufficiently risky to justify labeling." Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition, food studies, and public health at New York University, said, "If journalists attend conferences that they are paid to attend, they need to be deeply suspicious from the get-go."
Cami Ryan, a boot camp staffer who later went on to work for Monsanto, noted in the conference evaluation that participants wanted, "More Haspel-ish, Ropeik-ish sessions." David Ropeik is a risk perception consultant whose clients include Bayer and other chemical companies, and whom Haspel used as a source in a column she wrote about glyphosate.
2015 biotech literacy day with Kevin Folta
In May 2015, Haspel presented at a "biotechnology literacy and communications day" at the University of Florida organized by Kevin Folta, a professor tied in with agrichemical industry public relations and lobbying efforts. Folta had included Haspel in a proposal he sent to Monsanto seeking funding for events he described as "a solution to the biotech communications problem" resulting from activists' "control of public perception" and their "strong push for clunky and unnecessary food labeling efforts." Page 4 of the proposal described an event to feature UF professors "and several others brought in from the outside including industry representatives, journalist experts in science communication (e.g. Tamar Haskel [sic], Amy Harmon), and experts in public risk perception and psychology (e.g. Dan Kahan)."
Monsanto funded Folta's proposal, calling it "a great 3rd-party approach to developing the kind of advocacy we're looking to develop." (The money was donated to a food pantry in August 2015 after the funding became public.)
In April 2015, Folta wrote to Haspel with details about the messaging training event, "We'll cover the costs and an honorarium, whatever that takes. The audience will be scientists, physicians and other professionals that need to learn how to talk to the public."
Haspel responded, "I am definitely in," and she relayed an anecdote from another recent "science communication" panel that had changed somebody's view about Monsanto. "It is possible to make headway, but I'm convinced it's by person-to-person interactions," Haspel wrote to Folta.
The archived agenda for the Florida communication day listed the speakers as Haspel, Folta, three other UF professors, Monsanto employee Vance Crowe and representatives from Biofortified and Center for Food Integrity (two more groups Monsanto referred to as industry partners in its PR strategy to defend glyphosate). In another email to Folta, Haspel enthused about meeting Crowe, "Very much looking forward to this. (I've wanted to meet Vance Crowe – very glad he'll be there.)"
Ethics and disclosure
In September 2015, The New York Times featured Folta in a front-page story by Eric Lipton about how industry groups relied on academics to fight the GMO labeling war. Lipton reported on Folta's fundraising appeal to Monsanto, and that Folta had been publicly claiming he had no associations with Monsanto.
Haspel wrote to Folta a few months later, "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." Haspel mentioned she was working with the National Press Foundation to develop better conflict of interest standards for freelance journalists.
Haspel was a 2015 fellow for the National Press Foundation (a group partly funded by corporations, including Bayer and DuPont). In an article she wrote for NPF about ethics for freelancers, Haspel discussed the importance of disclosure and described her criteria for speaking at events only if non-industry funders and diverse views are involved — criteria not met by either of the biotech literacy events. The disclosure page on her website does not accurately disclose the conveners and funders of the 2014 biotech literacy boot camp. Haspel has not responded to questions about the biotech literacy events.
Source review: misleading reporting about pesticides
A source review of three of Tamar Haspel's Washington Post columns on the topic of pesticides found multiple concerning examples of undisclosed industry-connected sources, data omissions and out-of-context reporting that served to bolster pesticide industry messaging that pesticides are not a concern and organic is not much of a benefit. The source review covers these three columns:
"Is organic better for your health? A look at milk, meat, eggs, produce and fish" (April 7, 2014)
"It's the chemical Monsanto depends on. How dangerous is it?" (October 2015)
"The truth about organic produce and pesticides" (May 21, 2018)
Failed to disclose industry connections to sources
In all three of the columns cited in this source review, Haspel failed to disclose pesticide industry connections of key sources who downplayed the risk of pesticides. None of the following industry connections were mentioned in her columns as of August 2018 when this review was published.
In her 2018 report on the "truth about organic produce and pesticides," Haspel gave readers "an idea of the magnitude of risk" from cumulative pesticide exposures by citing a study that equated the risk of consuming pesticides from food to drinking wine. Haspel did not disclose that four of five authors of that study were employed by Bayer Crop Sciences, one of the world's largest pesticide manufacturers. She also did not disclose that the study originally contained a glaring error that was later corrected (even though she linked to both the original and corrected study). The study originally reported the risk as equal to drinking one glass of wine every seven years; it was later corrected to one glass of wine every three months; That error and several others were pointed out in letter to the journal by several scientists who described the wine study as "overly simplistic and seriously misleading."
To dismiss concerns about the synergistic effects of exposure to multiple pesticides, Haspel cited another study from the only non-Bayer affiliated author of the flawed wine study, and "a 2008 report" that "made the same assessment." Authors of that report included Alan Boobis and Angelo Moretto, two academics who were caught in a conflict of interest scandal in 2016 because they chaired a UN panel that exonerated glyphosate of cancer risk at the same time as they held leadership positions in the International Life Sciences Institute, a nonprofit group that received substantial donations from the pesticide industry.
In her 2015 column about the risk of glyphosate, the "chemical Monsanto depends on," Haspel quoted two sources with pesticide industry connections she didn't disclose: Keith Solomon, a toxicologist who wrote papers about glyphosate that were funded by Monsanto (and whom Monsanto was promoting as a source); and David Ropeik, a risk perception consultant affiliated with Harvard who also has a PR firm whose clients include Dow, DuPont and Bayer. Haspel and Ropeik spoke together at the agrichemical industry-funded messaging training boot camp at the University of Florida in 2014.
In her 2014 column about whether pesticide residues in food pose a health risk, Haspel introduced doubt about the health risks of organophosphates, a class of pesticides linked to neurological damage in children, with a review that found "the epidemiological studies did not strongly implicate any particular pesticide as being causally related to adverse neurological developmental outcomes in infants and children." The lead author was Carol Burns, a scientist at Dow Chemical Company, one of the country's largest manufacturers of organophosphates.
That column also used industry go-to toxicologist Carl Winter as a source vouching for the safety of pesticide residues in food based on EPA risk assessments. Monsanto was promoting Winter's work at that time in talking points, and Winter also served on the science advisory board of the Monsanto-funded group American Council on Science and Health, which bragged in a blog post a few months earlier about anti-organic press coverage that quoted their guy, "ACSH advisor Dr. Carl Winter."
Misled with out-of-context reporting
In her 2014 column, Haspel used a 2012 paper by the American Academy of Pediatrics out of context to reinforce her argument that eating organic might not offer health benefits, but she did not inform readers of the full scope of the study or its conclusions. The AAP paper chronicled a wide range of scientific evidence suggesting harm to children from both acute and chronic exposures to various pesticides, and concluded, "Children's exposures to pesticides should be limited as much as possible." The report cited evidence of a "drastic immediate decrease in urinary excretion of pesticide metabolites" in children eating an organic diet. AAP also issued policy recommendations to reduce children's exposure to pesticides.
Haspel left out all that context and reported only that the AAP report, "noted the correlation between organophosphate exposure and neurological issues that had been found in some studies but concluded that it was still 'unclear' that reducing exposure by eating organic would be 'clinically relevant.'"
In her 2018 column, Haspel misleadingly reported that the pesticide chlorpyrifos "has been the subject a battle between environmental groups, which want it banned, and the EPA, which doesn't" — but she did not inform readers of a key point: that the EPA had recommended banning chlorpyrifos due to mounting evidence that prenatal exposure could have lasting effects on children's brains. The agency reversed course only after the Trump EPA interfered. Haspel sourced her misleading "environmental groups vs EPA" sentence with a link to a New York Times documents page that provided little context about the EPA decision, rather than linking to the NYT story that explained the political context of corporate influence.
Relied on industry go-to sources and sources who agree
In her 2018 column, Haspel set up her argument that pesticide exposures in food are not much of a concern with a dubious reporting tactic she has used on other occasions: citing agreement among many sources she knows. In this case, Haspel reported that pesticide levels in food "are very low" and "you shouldn't be concerned about them," according to "the USDA and the Environmental Protection Agency (along with many toxicologists I've spoken with over the years)."
Although she reported that, "Not everyone has faith in those assessments," Haspel cited no disagreeing sources and ignored entirely the American Academy of Pediatrics report that recommended reducing children's exposures to pesticides, which she cited out of context in her 2014 column.
In her 2015 column about glyphosate she again quoted like-minded sources, reporting that "every" scientist she spoke with "noted that until recent questions arose, glyphosate had been noted for its safety." She also again relied on industry-connected sources whose industry ties she did not disclose (see disclosure section above).
Missed relevant data
Relevant data Haspel missed in her reporting about the risks or pesticides and the benefits of organic included statements by prominent health groups and recent science:
January 2018 study by Harvard researchers published in in JAMA Internal Medicine reporting that women who regularly consumed pesticide-treated fruits and vegetables had lower success rates getting pregnant with IVF, while women who ate organic food had better outcomes;
January 2018 commentary in JAMA by pediatrician Phillip Landrigan urging physicians to encourage their patients to eat organic;
February 2017 report prepared for the European Parliament outlining the health benefits of eating organic food and practicing organic agriculture;
2016 European Parliament Science and Technology Option Assessment recommended reducing dietary intake of pesticides, especially for women and children;
2012 President's Cancer Panel report recommends reducing children's exposure to cancer-causing and cancer-promoting environmental exposures;
2012 paper and policy recommendation from the American Academy of Pediatrics recommending reducing children's exposure to pesticides as much as possible;
2009 statement by the American Public Health Association, "Opposition to the use of hormone growth promoters in beef and dairy cattle production";
2002 review by the European Union's Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures Review reporting that growth-promoting hormones in beef production pose a health risk to consumers.
More perspectives on Haspel's reporting
"The food movement is small? Not from where we sit, it isn't," by Chellie Pingree and Anna Lappé, Washington Post (2.4.2016)
"Washington Post food columnist goes to bat for Monsanto — again," by Stacy Malkan, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (2.4.2016)
Buckraking on the Food Beat: When is it a Conflict of Interest?" by Stacy Malkan, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (10.28.2015)
"Response to 'Is Organic Better for Your Health?'" The Organic Center (4.8.2014)
"The Assault on Organic: Ignoring science to make the case for chemical farming," by Kari Hamerschlag and Stacy Malkan, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (7.2014)
Food For Thought, GMOs, Our Investigations, Pesticides Academics Review, ACSH, Alan Boobis, American Council on Science and Health, Amy Harmon, Angelo Moretto, Bayer, Bayer Crop Sciences, Biofortified, biotech literacy boot camp, Biotech Literacy Project, Cami Ryan, Carl Winter, Carol Burns, Cathleen Enright, Center for Food Integrity, CFI, chlorpyrifos, Dan Kahan, David Ropeik, Dow Chemical, Dupont, Eric Sachs, Genetic Literacy Project, glyphosate, GMO Answers, IFIC, International Food Information Council, Joe Yonan, Keith Solomon, Ketchum, Kevin Folta, Monsanto, National Press Foundation, Rutgers, Sense About Science, STATS, Syngenta, Tamar Haspel, Trevor Butterworth, Trump EPA, University of California at Davis, University of Florida, Vance Crowe, Washington Post, William Hallman
IFIC: How Big Food Spins Bad News
Posted on May 31, 2018 by Stacy Malkan
Documents obtained by U.S. Right to Know and other sources shine light on the inner workings of the International Food Information Council (IFIC), a trade group funded by large food and agrichemical companies, and its nonprofit "public education arm" the IFIC Foundation. The IFIC groups conduct research and training programs, produce marketing materials and coordinate other industry groups to communicate industry spin about food safety and nutrition. Messaging includes promoting and defending sugar, artificial sweeteners, food additives, pesticides and genetically engineered foods.
Spinning pesticide cancer report for Monsanto
As one example of how IFIC partners with corporations to promote agrichemical products and deflect cancer concerns, this internal Monsanto document identifies IFIC as an "industry partner" in Monsanto's public relations plan to discredit the World Health Organization's cancer research team, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), to protect the reputation of Roundup weedkiller. In March 2015, IARC judged glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup, to be probably carcinogenic to humans.
Monsanto listed IFIC as a Tier 3 "industry partner" along with two other food-industry funded groups, the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the Center for Food Integrity.
How IFIC tries to communicate its message to women.
The document identifies IFIC, GMA and the Center for Food Integrity as part of a "Stakeholder Engagement team" that could alert the food companies to Monsanto's "inoculation strategy" for the glyphosate cancer report.
Blogs later posted on the IFIC website illustrate the group's patronizing "don't worry, trust us" messaging to women. Entries include, "8 crazy ways they're trying to scare you about fruits and vegetables," "Cutting through the clutter on glyphosate," and "Before we freak out, let's ask the experts … the real experts."
Corporate funders
IFIC spent $23,659,976 in the five-year period from 2012-2016, while the IFIC Foundation spent $5,639,289 from 2011-2015, according to tax forms filed with the IRS. Corporations and industry groups that support IFIC, according to public disclosures, include the American Beverage Association, American Meat Science Association, Archer Daniels Midland Company, Bayer CropScience, Cargill, Coca-Cola, Dannon, DowDuPont, General Mills, Hershey, Kellogg, Mars, Nestle, Perdue Farms and PepsiCo.
Draft tax records for the IFIC Foundation, obtained via state records requests, list the corporations that funded the group in 2011, 2013 or both: Grocery Manufacturers Association, Coca-Cola, ConAgra, General Mills, Kellogg, Kraft Foods, Hershey, Mars, Nestle, PepsiCo and Unilever. The US Department of Agriculture gave IFIC Foundation $177,480 of taxpayer money in 2013 to produce a "communicator's guide" for promoting genetically engineered foods.
IFIC also solicits money from corporations for specific product-defense campaigns. This April 28, 2014 email from an IFIC executive to a long list of corporate board members asks for $10,000 contributions to update the "Understanding our Food" initiative to improve consumer views of processed foods. The email notes lists the previous financial supporters: Bayer, Coca-Cola, Dow, Kraft, Mars, McDonalds, Monsanto, Nestle, PepsiCo and DuPont.
Promotes GMOs to school children
IFIC coordinates 130 groups via the Alliance to Feed the Future on messaging efforts to "improve understanding" about genetically engineered foods. Members include the American Council on Science and Health, the Calorie Control Council, the Center for Food Integrity and The Nature Conservancy.
The Alliance to Feed the Future also provides free educational curricula to teach students to promote genetically engineered foods, including "The Science of Feeding the World" for K-8 teachers and "Bringing Biotechnology to Life" for grades 7-10.
The inner workings of IFIC's PR services
A series of documents obtained by U.S. Right to Know provide a sense of how IFIC operates behind the scenes to spin bad news and defend the products of its corporate sponsors.
Connects reporters to industry-funded scientists
May 5, 2014 email from Matt Raymond, senior director of communications, alerted IFIC leadership and "media dialogue group" to "high profile stories in which IFIC is currently involved" to help spin negative news coverage, including responding to the movie Fed Up. He noted they had connected a New York Times reporter with "Dr. John Sievenpiper, our noted expert in the field of sugars." Sievenpiper "is among a small group of Canadian academic scientists who have received hundreds of thousands in funding from soft-drink makers, packaged-food trade associations and the sugar industry, turning out studies and opinion articles that often coincide with those businesses' interests," according to the National Post.
On February 27, 2013, IFIC staff sought analysis from James Hill to confront a paper co-authored by Dr. Robert Lustig connecting sugar and diabetes. Hill was the director of Global Energy Balance Network, a front group funded by Coca-Cola to shift the debate about obesity away from sugar concerns. Those revelations caused GEBN to close down in 2015.
Emails from 2010 and 2012 suggest that IFIC relies on a small group of industry-connected scientists to confront studies that raise concerns about GMOs. In both emails, Bruce Chassy pushes the view that there is no difference between conventional bred and genetically engineered crops.
DuPont exec suggests stealth strategy to confront Consumer Reports
In a February 3, 2013 email, IFIC staff alerted its "media relations group" that Consumer Reports had reported about safety and environmental concerns of GMOs. Doyle Karr, DuPont director of biotechnology policy and vice president of the board of Center for Food Integrity, forwarded the email to a scientist with a query for response ideas, and suggested confronting Consumer Reports with this stealth tactic: "Maybe create a letter to the editor signed by 1,000 scientists who have no affiliation with the biotech seed companies stating that they take issue with (Consumer Reports') statements on the safety and environmental impact. ??"
Other PR services IFIC provides to industry
Disseminates misleading industry talking points: April 25, 2012 mail to the 130 members of the Alliance to Feed the Future "on behalf of Alliance member Grocery Manufacturers Association" claimed the California ballot initiative to label genetically engineered foods "would effectively ban the sale of tens of thousands of grocery products in California unless they contain special labels."
Confronts troublesome books: February 20, 2013 describes IFIC's strategy to spin two books critical of the food industry, "Salt, Sugar, Fat" by Michael Moss, and "Pandora's Lunchbox" by Melanie Warner. Plans included writing book reviews, disseminating talking points and exploring additional options to enhance engagement in the digital media.
Research and surveys to support industry positions; one example is a 2012 survey that found 76% of consumers "can't think of anything additional they would like to see on the label" that was used by industry groups to oppose GMO labeling.
"Don't worry, trust us" marketing brochures, such as this one explaining that artificial sweeteners and food dyes are nothing to worry about.
Message training for professional groups, such as this training program for dieticians about how to promote GMOs.
Food For Thought, GMOs, Our Investigations, Pesticides Alliance to Feed the Future, American Beverage Association, American Council on Science and Health, American Meat Science Association, Archer Daniels Midland Company, Bayer, Bayer CropScience, Bruce Chassy, Calorie Control Council, cancer concerns, Cargill, Center for Food Integrity, Coca-Cola, ConAgra, Dannon, Dow, DowDuPont, Doyle Karr, Dupont, General Mills, Global Energy Balance Network, glyphosate, Grocery Manufacturers Association, Hershey, IARC, IFIC, IFIC Foundation, James Hill, John Sievenpiper, Kellogg, Kraft Foods, Mars, Matt Raymond, McDonalds, Monsanto, Nestle, PepsiCo, Perdue Farms, The Nature Conservancy, Understanding our Food initiative, Unilever, US Department of Agriculture
Center for Food Integrity Partners with Monsanto
The Center for Food Integrity (CFI), formerly the Grow America Project, is an industry-funded 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization that conducts research, lobbying and public relations campaigns to "earn consumer trust" for food and agrichemical companies, including DowDuPont, Monsanto, Cargill, Costco, Grocery Manufacturers Association, Hershey, Kroger and trade associations for meat, dairy and soybeans.
In the five-year period from 2012-2016, CFI spent $23,225,098 on various marketing and messaging programs to promote industry messaging to build trust in genetically engineered foods, pesticides, food additives and antibiotics in meat.
CFI's 501(c)(3) arm, the Foundation for Food Integrity, funds research to inform messaging attempts to build consumer trust, with a spending budget of $823,167 from 2012-2016. Sponsors in 2012 included Monsanto Company, CropLife America and the US Farmers and Ranchers Alliance.
"Industry partner" in Monsanto's attack on IARC cancer panel
This internal Monsanto document identifies the Center for Food Integrity as an "industry partner" in Monsanto's public relations plan to discredit the World Health Organization's cancer research arm, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), to protect the reputation of Roundup weedkiller. In March 2015, IARC judged glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup, to be probably carcinogenic to humans.
The Monsanto plan lists four tiers of industry partners to engage in its public relations efforts. CFI is listed as a Tier 3 "industry partner" along with two other food-industry funded groups, the International Food Information Council and the Grocery Manufacturers Association.
According to the document, these groups were part of a "Stakeholder Engagement team" that could alert food companies to Monsanto's "inoculation strategy" to provide education about glyphosate levels and "describe science-based studies versus agenda-driven hypothesis" of the independent cancer panel.
Look East/CMA partnership with Monsanto and Genetic Literacy Project
The CEO of the Center for Food Integrity, Charlie Arnot, is also CEO of Look East (formerly CMA), a PR and communications agency for food and agriculture. CFI contracts with Look East for project management services, according to tax forms.
Arnot's PR firm also works with Monsanto, according to documents obtained by U.S. Right to Know. In 2014, Monsanto tapped CMA to "merchandize" and promote a series of pro-GMO policy briefs that a Monsanto executive assigned to professors and arranged to publish on the Genetic Literacy Project website — with no disclosure of Monsanto's behind-the-scenes role, as the Boston Globe reported.
The Genetic Literacy Project, another industry partner group named in Monsanto's PR plan to discredit IARC, also receives funding from the Center for Food Integrity, according to the GLP's most recent and often incorrect "transparency page."
Food For Thought, GMOs, Our Investigations, Pesticides Cargill, Center for Food Integrity, Charlie Arnot, CMA, Costco, CropLife America, DowDuPont, Foundation for Food Integrity, Genetic Literacy Project, Grocery Manufacturers Association, Grow America Project, Hershey, IARC, International Food Information Council, Kroger, Look East, Monsanto, US Farmers and Ranchers Alliance, World Health Organization


Nvizible's screening theatre can comfortably seat 12 people. Located in our basement, the theatre is fully air conditioned and equipped with Dolby 5.1 surround sound.
Clients and staff can now benefit from viewing content on our digital projector and enjoy daily reviews, approvals, showreel viewings and private events.


Ignacio Football head coach 'Ponch' Garcia discusses matters with an official prior to the Bobcats' home game versus Center earlier this season. He regretted to inform the media that IHS' Oct. 19 win over Dolores will be the team's last game; Ignacio will be forfeiting the scheduled Oct. 26 season finale to Centauri.
One wouldn't have to ask Centauri junior running back/linebacker Taj Cornum how disgusting a taste remained in his mouth after a double-overtime field goal denied the Falcons the 2017 Class 1A State Championship.
On their own field, no less.
That was unacceptable, so Cornum and team leaders Bennie (senior offensive/defensive tackle) and Adam (junior tight end/offensive lineman/linebacker) Chacon took it upon themselves to step their game up even before summertime, weighing their attributes against others from four states at Blue-Grey Football's mid-April Colorado Regional Combine held in Denver.
Cornum was reportedly chosen to return to Foothills Sports Arena for the July 7-8 Rocky Mountain Super Regional showcase where more than 100 standouts, representing 19 states (only 2A La Junta senior OL/DL Jacob Tafoya also repped a small-school Colorado program), would be present.
Now collectively eager to take out their frustration on opponents in '18, CHS – ranked #4 in the CHSAANow.com 1A poll released Oct. 15 – actually lost a tense 12-7 non-conference clash at #10 Florence on the 19th, which would have primed the Southern Peaks Conference powerhouse even more to punish their final regular-season foe: IHS.
But despite drubbing Dolores 31-0 on the 19th, Garcia and others thought it safest not to put an undermanned, underclassman-dominated roster on the field Oct. 26 against Centauri, and elected to forfeit (as DHS had done on Oct. 12), the Bobcats' slated finale in advance.
CHS had began SPC work with a 55-19 rout of Center on Sept. 28, then mangled Monte Vista 45-8 – in Monte Vista (which then hosted, and defeated Ignacio 62-8) – on Oct. 5, before they were to welcome Dolores (which had already lost 52-0 to MVHS). IHS' forfeit will boost the postseason-bound Falcons to 7-2 overall and a first-place 4-0 in conference.
The Bobcats will finish 2018 standing 3-6 overall and 1-3 in the SoPeaks (the Bobcats' final placing in which will be determined by the Oct. 26 Center-at-Dolores contest).


Cross-language speech perception and production (CLSP) is the study of how speakers produce and perceive sounds, sequences, prosody, and tone that are not found in their native language. This has been examined from more than a few perspectives, notably phonetic, theoretical/phonological, and psycholinguistic. The study of CLSP encompasses many studies that look at adult second language (L2) learners; however, what sets CLSP apart from strictly L2 acquisition is that it also includes studies of how speakers confront non-native sounds and structures even when they are not actively learning the language under study. Such research has a number of purposes, including getting a glimpse into the initial stages of L2 acquisition, gaining a better understanding of the structure of the native phonology by understanding how speakers and listeners modify structures that are not allowed by their native phonology, and probing factors that affect loanword adaptation (for more on this, see the separate Oxford Bibliographies article in Linguistics Loanwords). Because the broader issue of second language acquisition of phonetics and phonology from early stages to full attainment is not the focus of this article, there are several related topics that will not be represented here. First, studies of only simultaneous or early bilingual speakers are not included, since these speakers have been exposed to multiple languages before the critical period (though some of the studies below do use these bilinguals as a comparison to adult L2 learners). However, studies examining data from beginning adult L2 acquisition are included, since such learners still exhibit substantial interference from their native languages in the perception and production of the non-native stimuli. Second, the focus of this article is on experimental studies, primarily those from a phonetic and psycholinguistic perspective. While there is a rich tradition of research investigating predictions from theoretical phonology in L2 acquisition, most prominent theories of CLSP crucially integrate predictions from acoustic and articulatory phonetics in the tenets of the theories, and they have informed most subsequent studies of non-native speech production and perception. Nevertheless, some research that aims to assess both the contributions of higher-level phonological structure and the production or perception of phonetic detail in CLSP is included. In this article, research on segmental units such as vowels and consonants, phonotactics, prosody, and tone are presented, as well as studies that represent particularly notable methodological paradigms, such as perceptual illusions and high variability training.
The development of models of cross-language speech perception and production has been shaped by the disparate goals of the authors proposing them. Flege 1995 and Flege 2003 intend the Speech Learning Model (SLM) to be a theory of second language acquisition after the critical period, and the author's research often focuses on how factors such as age of acquisition or length of residence affect speakers' ability to perceive and produce sounds in their second language. Despite the focus on L2 acquisition, many subsequent researchers have applied the SLM to cross-language research more generally. Moreover, Flege's body of work notably addresses both production and perception, whereas most of the other works in this section focus mostly on perception. In contrast to Flege, the Perceptual Assimilation Model (PAM) proposed in Best 1995 is borne out of the tenets of direct realism, which postulates that the basic perceptual primitives are distal articulatory gestures. PAM more explicitly addresses the issue of cross-language perception, and not longer-term L2 acquisition, though the PAM was later extended to account for some aspects of L2 perception in Best and Tyler 2007. The Automatic Selective Perception (ASP) model proposed by Strange 2011 also focuses on perception but has a greater focus on the role of attention and memory than other cross-language speech perception models. Another unique aspect of Strange's model is that it incorporates the influence of particular task demands to account for listener behavior. The NLM and NLM-e developed by Kuhl and Iverson 1995 and Kuhl, et al. 2008 differ from other perception models by incorporating insights from both L1 and L2 acquisition research. The NLM-e, in particular, focuses on the shift that occurs around one year of age, when the ability to fully perceive all possible sounds gradually recedes, attributing this change to advancing neural commitment to the native language. Finally, Van Leussen and Escudero 2015 proposes the Second Language Linguistic Perception (L2LP) model to incorporate a critical role for lexical learning in assisting listeners to acquire new sounds that otherwise would be difficult to distinguish from existing L1 sounds in many cases. At this point in the development of theories of cross-language speech perception (or processing more generally), much of the focus is on individual consonants and vowels, or on the contrast between sounds in an inventory, but existing models will ultimately need to provide a more complete account of phonotactics, prosody, and tone as well.
Best, Catherine. 1995. A direct-realist view of cross-language perception. In Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research. Edited by Winifred Strange, 171–204. Baltimore: York.
The first part of this chapter on the Perceptual Assimilation Model (PAM) explains how cross-language speech perception can be derived from direct realism. The second half motivates the patterns of assimilation for non-native segments, such as whether they are assimilated to a native category, are an uncategorizable speech sound, or are not perceived as speech.
Best, Catherine, and Michael Tyler. 2007. Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities. In Second language speech learning: The role of language experience in speech perception and production. Edited by Murray Munro and Ocke-Schwen Bohn, 13–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
This paper extends Best's 1995 PAM model to account for how the perception of non-native sounds may proceed as learners get more experienced with L2. The expanded version, called PAM-L2, addresses how the formation of categories for L2 sounds interacts with existing L1 categories.
Flege, James. 1995. Second-language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research. Edited by Winifred Strange, 229–273. Timonium, MD: York.
This chapter develops detailed hypotheses for Flege's Speech Learning Model (SLM), which aims to account for age-related effects on language learners' ability to produce L2 vowels and consonants. The SLM hypothesizes that L2 sounds that are more similar to native sounds will be harder to learn than different sounds, since they will assimilate to native categories.
Flege, James. 2003. Assessing constraints on second-language segmental production and perception. In Phonetics and phonology in language comprehension and production: Differences and similarities. Edited by Antje Meyer and Niels Schiller, 319–355. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Updates Flege 1995 and evaluates some predictions from the earlier paper in light of many studies on both perception and production, especially in vowel acquisition, that appeared between 1995 and 2003. Flege concludes that the claims of the SLM are mostly upheld, but he points out where there are limitations.
Kuhl, Patricia, Barbara T. Conboy, Sharon Coffey-Corina, Denise Padden, Maritza Rivera-Gaxiola, and Tobey Nelson. 2008. Phonetic learning as a pathway to language: new data and native language magnet theory expanded (NLM-e). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 363:979–1000.
While primarily a model of development and behavior in infants, the NLM-e pertains to cross-language perception because it holds that early phonetic learning leads to a decline in neural flexibility. It is hypothesized that when neural stability is reached, it becomes difficult to shift the distribution of phonetic categories in response to new input.
Kuhl, Patricia, and P. Iverson. 1995. Linguistic experience and the perceptual magnet effect. In Speech perception and linguistic experience: Theoretical and methodological issues in cross-language speech research. Edited by Winifred Strange, 121–154. Baltimore: York.
This chapter presents the Native Language Magnet (NLM) model, focusing on how the perception of L2 sounds is related to the process of phoneme category formation in L1 acquisition. The NLM holds that L1 acquisition leads to the development of perceptual magnets, which cause close non-native sounds to be perceived as part of the already formed categories.
Strange, Winifred. 2011. Automatic selective perception (ASP) of first and second language speech: A working model. Journal of Phonetics 39.4: 456–466.
This approach to cross-language speech perception focuses on "selective perception routines," which refers to highly practiced behaviors used to perceive native sounds. L2 perception does not benefit from these routines, so listeners must apply greater attentional resources to process non-native sounds. Another focus is on what task demands reveal about phonetic and phonological modes of perception.
Van Leussen, Jan-Willem, and Paola Escudero. 2015. Learning to perceive and recognize a second language: The L2LP model revised. Frontiers in Psychology 6.
This model starts with the premise that L2 learning takes an optimized L1 system as its starting point and adds the idea that lexical acquisition is crucial for enabling L2 phoneme perception. Hypothesizes that an interaction between the speech signal and the lexicon is likely an important component of L2 phonetic learning.


The new frontier of entertainment and animation for village feasts and white nights, and concerts passes through the search for innovative shows, in which technique and high technology, special effects and light effects are combined. The itinerant animation with our LED-Robots is the right choice thanks to its incredible visual strength.
ROBOLED are itinerant stilt walkers with stunning luminous costumes. They have an exceptional visual strength thanks to hundreds of colored LED lights with which they are built, their height and their futuristic appearance. They are equipped with luminous instruments, lasers and portable battery-powered audio systems, perfect for animating the streets during night-time events such as white nights, village festivals and street artists' festivals.
A fantastic itinerant entertainment with luminous Robots for city events, discos, concerts and clubs, the juggling performances with LED lights and stilt walkers is suitable for outdoor city-events, festivals, village festivals, white nights, weddings, inaugurations of buildings. A format never seen before, unique and innovative, designed as an itinerant entertainment for white nights but also usable for discos, clubs or concerts, beach parties, music festivals and in general any type of night event.


This is apparently one of only three histories of Croatia to be published in English; most other treatments have been included within a history of the Balkans or of Yugoslavia. Those interested in Croatian or Balkan history will find the volume both informative and readable. The author is a native Croat with a Ph.D. in history.
All spellings given in the book seem to be standard modern ones, and are not necessarily those used before 1600. Most of these names belong to kings, dukes, or other nobles. Names of bishops are marked with a +, since they are often atypical of the general population and are drawn from names of saints according to Church traditions. Names which may not be those of native Croats are indicated with a "?" -- these are names of Serbs, Slovenes, Venetians, and others. All names are followed by an indication of the centuries for which they are recorded. The annotation [dim.] indicates that a particular name is a diminutive or pet form of a longer name.
I have drawn a distinction between names recorded before 1250 and those after. This seems convenient because it was about that time that the Mongols withdrew from Croatia and many foreign artists and architects emigrated to help rebuild the country. This is also about the time that the Angevins and Habsburgs became important ruling powers in East Central Europe, and the children of these families married into the Croatian and neighboring lines. The year 1526 was chosen as a cutoff since at that time Croatia and Hungary fell to the Turks at the Battle of Mohacs.
Bynames, or surnames, were rare throughout Europe during this time, and most names recorded during this period have only a given name. Those few individuals recorded with a byname have a patronymic, formed from the father's name. These may be simply the father's name unmodified, or a construction formed by adding -ov or -ovic.
Christian and saints' names became the standard during this period, while native Croatian names dwindled. Bynames or surnames of this time include patronymics, but also tribal identity and city of origin or residence.
Stjepan (XIII,XIV,XV) [Stephen] Frankopan (XV)?
Women's names were never recorded as frequently as men's names, and so are rather scarce. By the time they were beginning to be recorded, Christian names had already displaced whatever native names had previously been used. After 1250 women's names, like men's names, probably became predominantly those of saints. This is a general pattern for all of Europe in the later period, and most of the names below follow this pattern.
Below are the women whose names actually appear in Gazi's book. Some of these women are undoubtedly foreigners, but I have included them with explanatory notes to help expand an otherwise very short list. These women each played an important historical role in Croatia whether or not they were of Croat blood. Page numbers are those on which each woman is first mentioned in Gazi's book.
Anna (XVI) p.71 - sister of Ljudevit II; married Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria.
Elizabeth (XIV) p.58 - daughter of Stjepan Kotromanic; married Ljudevit I.
Hicela (XI) p.29 - [Gisela?], daughter of the Venetian Doge Peter Orseolo; married King Stjepan Drzislav.
Jadviga (XIV) p.58 - daughter of King Ljudevit I; married Ladislav Jagiello of Lithuania.
Jelena Lijepa (XI) p.31 - sister to King Geza of Hungary; married Dmitar Zvonimir, Duke of Croatia.
Maria Morosini (XIII) p.51 - presumably a Venetian woman; wife of Ladislav IV; mother of Andrija III, called the Venetian.
Marija (XIV) p.58 - daughter of King Ljudevit I and (presumably) Elizabeth.
Marija of Anjou (XIII) p.51 - Queen of Naples; sister to Ladislav IV; mother of Charles Martel.


CBS has picked up a new competition series from "Survivor" executive producer Mark Burnett, and this one focuses specifically on obstacle courses.
"TKO" (a working title) is a 10-episode show produced by MGM Television, set for a summer 2018 premiere, Sharon Vuong, the network's senior vice president for alternative programming, announced Tuesday.
According to the logline, the series features one player racing through daunting obstacles while the other contestants are manning battle stations along the course, firing over-the-top projectiles in an attempt to knock them off and slow them down. It's a physical and funny "us versus them" scenario, with the top two players advancing to the final showdown to face off for a cash prize.
The series hails from MGM Television will be distributed internationally by MGM. Burnett, MGM Television Group and digital president, and Barry Poznick, president of unscripted television, MGM, will executive produce. "TKO" is an original format created by Steve Hughes and Sean Kelly of Shaggy Entertainment, Inc.
Here are all the players competing for "Survivor" Season 35, including one choice quote from their cast bios and which of the three tribes they represent -- Heroes, Healers and Hustlers.
Best quote: "I have wanted to play this game since I was six years old. It's much more than a game to me, it's a passion, I obsess over it."
Best quote: "[My hobbies are] volunteering, yoga, and complaining."
Best quote: "No one will come close to being as well rounded as I am."
Best quote: "I feel that with my athletic ability and personality, I will be the final 'Survivor!'"
Best quote: " I can take on the outdoor elements, I can fish, I can build a shelter, and probably start a fire."
Best quote: "I'm just another lovable guy!"
Best quote: "There are two powers: love and fear. I like to focus on the power of love."
Best quote: "People will be hugging me as I vote them off."
Best quote: "My dad and I have wanted me to be on 'Survivor' since Season 1 -- and I finally decided that I should stop messing around and go out and win a million bucks."
Best quote: "I always try to do things differently than other people."
Best quote: "I hate being cold."
Best quote: "If Sophie Clarke and Courtney Yates found a way to have a child I would be the result."
Best quote: "It would take me 10 plus years to earn a million dollars at my current work rate. Why not speed up the process and make a million in six weeks? It's a no brainer."
Best quote: "Charm, wit, beauty, mental fortitude, physical strength -- all of these traits and more will ensure I'm the Sole Survivor."
Best quote: "My time is now!"
Best quote: "I can't stand liars or people who feel entitled."
Best quote: "I could win Miss Congeniality of 'Survivor' if there was such an award!"
Best quote: "I'm a little conniving and manipulative like Russell [Hantz], have the determination and confidence of Boston Rob, and the athletic ability of Joe [Anglim]."


text:
By necessity this site uses cookies to temporarily store information about your interaction with the services.
Cookies are small collections of data stored on your computer by your browser that allow websites like this one to provide relevant responses to your requests. These cookies, while generally anonymous, may contain references to more detailed information stored on the server, such as information entered into forms and recently visited pages from the site.
Cookies stored by your browser should only be made available to the sites that generated them. However, the proper configuration and integrity of this software is the responsibility of the user and the operators of this site cannot take responsibility for information deliberately or accidentally disseminated by the application used to access the site.
At any time you may delete the cookies stored by your browser though this may degrade the browsing experience of this and other websites. If you wish to delete cookies please follow the instructions provided for your application. Visiting the site after deleting cookies will result in new cookies being created and stored.
Depending on the capabilities of your browsing application you may block cookies from this and other websites to prevent them from being stored. This will degrade the capabilities of any site that uses them and will prevent logging in to services that require registration.
In the case of registered users cookies are used to store a Session ID that references your current authorisation to access additional services on the site. These cookies do not contain personal information but can be used by the website to access account information stored on the server. When logging out these cookies are reset. Deleting these cookies will have the same effect as logging out of the site.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl