Bribed science: Monsanto and EFSA

It is claimed that Monsanto paid an employee of the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) tasked with pesticide evaluation to declare that glyphosate is not dangerous at a conference for toxicologists. This has come to light in the firm's internal emails that have been published in the course of legal action being taken against Monsanto in California. The organisation Testbiotech has called for clarification by the EFSA.

After the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC - an agency of the World Health Organisation) classified glyphosate as probably being carcinogenic in the spring of 2015, Monsanto launched a massive counter-offensive. Supposedly, independent scientists who rejected this classification received money via an agency. In some cases, Monsanto supplied ghostwritten texts for their articles.

As part of this campaign, Monsanto made use of the annual meeting of the Society of Toxicology (SoT). In March 2017, SoT ran a workshop on controversies in the toxicological evaluation of pesticides. A pro and a contra presentation were given on the carcinogenic effect of glyphosate. Christopher Portier, who was also involved in the IARC evaluation, argued that glyphosate is carcinogenic. On the contrary, Jose Tarazona, head of the pesticide department at the EFSA, was meant to maintain glyphosate as not being carcinogenic. According to the programme (p.141), this EFSA presentation was sponsored by Allister Vale, a leading British toxicologist who moderated the workshop.

British scientist promised to support Monsanto

The published emails reveal that in March 2016, Vale and Monsanto executive Daniel Goldstein discussed Goldstein’s wish to talk with medical toxicologists in Europe in order to explain the Monsanto standpoint. Vale assured him of his support. This is how they thought of the idea of arranging a pros and cons debate at the next annual conference of the SoT. In the emails they agreed that neither Monsanto nor the lobby organisation Glyphosate Consortium should be revealed as the sponsors of this and other meetings. This is why Goldstein proposed to proceed as they had done in a previous case.

For quite a long time, the British toxicologist Sir Colin Berry was in charge of a group of toxicologists on behalf of Monsanto, with the corporation covering all the costs. According to the emails, Berry and his group were to be reactivated and supported by Allister Vale. In one email it says that Monsanto would not only cover the costs but also pay in a way designed to maintain academic independence. The corporation went further and offered the two toxicologists “logistical support” to limit the time they needed for supervising the group.

Testbiotech: “Covert payments seem to be a proven tool for Monsanto”

Testbiotech concludes from the email traffic and nominating Allister Vale as sponsor of the EFSA presentation at the SoT conference, that the financing was indeed provided by Monsanto. “Covert payments to scientists seem to be for Monsanto a proven tool to influence important decisions on their products,” says Christoph Then from Testbiotech. “So far, authorities and politicians have been far too reluctant to do anything about it. We now want to know from the EFSA precisely how and why the presentation by Jose Tarazona was sponsored.” This was subsequently corrected by Testbiotech:  the SoT conference was in fact attended not by Tarazona himself but by one of his colleagues. This in no way affects the issue of how and by whom the presentation was financed.

Interview with Christian Kreiß

Our author Leo Frühschütz interviewed the German scientist Professor Christian Kreiß, who researches these issues and has written the book "Gekaufte Forschung. Wissenschaft im Dienst der Konzerne" (Bribed Research: Science in the Service of Corporations).

Christian Kreiß is the author of the book "Gekaufte Forschung. Wissenschaft im Dienst der Konzerne" (Bribed Research: Science in the Service of Corporations) (Photo © Conny Geiger)

The Monsanto corporation paid a respected German toxicologist to maintain that a ready-made script on the theme of glyphosate was his own work. Does that surprise you?

No. We estimate that today, in the pharma industry eleven percent of all studies have been ghostwritten. I don't know of concrete numbers for the chemical industry, but this practice is likely to be widespread there too.

But Monsanto could have published the study itself.

In March 2015, the cancer research agency IARC of the WHO classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic. In response, Monsanto released a flood of articles to prove that glyphosate is harmless. The names of scientists in the pay of Monsanto are intended to convey objectivity and neutrality.

And the authorities are impressed by work of this kind that has been bought?

It's even worse than that. Until recently, the regulatory authorities used only studies carried out by the industry itself. They were never published and couldn't be peer reviewed. For me, that's a scandal, because with its own studies, a corporation can select and manipulate the framework conditions so that they get the results they want to see. If the regulatory authority has got 30 studies on hand and 25 come to the conclusion that there is no risk involved with glyphosate, that's 25:5. End of story.

Don't the regulatory authorities know what's going on – or are they complicit in all this?

You only have to read the entry on the European food authority EFSA on lobbypedia.de. It's a swamp of industry people. Similarly, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) is very close to industry. Independent scientists speak of misleading the reader and serious shortcomings in the science in the assessment of glyphosate by the BfR.

What kind of authorisation could ensure this doesn't happen?

The authorities must not be allowed to use an industry's own studies but only studies that have been published. No use should be made of work in which the authors reveal conflicts of interest or when it has been proved that they were financed by corporations

So who carries out the studies necessary to investigate, for example, the risk of cancer?

We've got many biochemistry labs in our universities. The regulatory authority could invite tenders: This is the material, who wants to examine it? Biochemistry labs can apply, and the studies are financed by the public purse.

How can you prevent people close to industry working in regulatory authorities?

That's not easy. There's a lot of pressure in industry get their people into authorities and onto boards. The least we can demand is a balance of interest in bodies of this kind. But I don't have a patent remedy.