GM Watch
  • Main Menu
    • Home
    • News
      • Latest News
      • Newsletter subscription
      • Daily Digest
      • News Reviews
      • News Languages
    • Articles
      • GM Myth Makers
      • GM Reports
      • GM Quotes
      • GM Myths
      • Non-GM successes
      • GM Firms
        • Monsanto: a history
        • Monsanto: resources
        • Bayer: a history
        • Bayer: resources
    • Videos
      • Latest Videos
      • Must see videos
      • Cornell videos
      • Agriculture videos
      • Labeling videos
      • Animals videos
      • Corporations videos
      • Corporate takeover videos
      • Contamination videos
      • Latin America videos
      • India videos
      • Asia videos
      • Food safety videos
      • Songs videos
      • Protests videos
      • Biofuel myths videos
      • Index of GM crops and foods
      • Index of speakers
      • Health Effects
    • Contact
    • About
    • Links
    • Donations
    • How donations will help us
News and comment on genetically modified foods and their associated pesticides    
  • News
    • Latest News
    • Newsletter subscription
    • Archive
      • 2019 articles
      • 2018 articles
      • 2017 articles
      • 2016 articles
      • 2015 articles
      • 2014 articles
      • 2013 articles
      • 2012 articles
      • 2011 articles
      • 2010 articles
      • 2009 articles
      • 2008 articles
      • 2007 articles
      • 2006 articles
      • 2005 articles
      • 2004 articles
      • 2003 articles
      • 2002 articles
      • 2001 articles
      • 2000 articles
    • Daily Digest
    • News Reviews
    • News Languages
      • Notícias em Português
      • Nieuws in het Nederlands
      • Nachrichten in Deutsch
  • Articles
    • GM Myth Makers
    • GM Reports
    • How donations will help us
    • GM Quotes
    • GM Myths
    • Non-GM successes
    • GM Firms
      • Monsanto: a history
      • Monsanto: resources
      • Bayer: a history
      • Bayer: resources
  • Videos
    • Index of speakers
    • Glyphosate Videos
    • Latest Videos
    • Must see videos
    • Health Effects
    • Cornell videos
    • Agriculture videos
    • Labeling videos
    • Animals videos
    • Corporations videos
    • Corporate takeover videos
    • Contamination videos
    • Latin America videos
    • India videos
    • Asia videos
    • Food safety videos
    • Songs videos
    • Protests videos
    • Biofuel myths videos
    • Index of GM crops and foods
  • Contact
  • About
  • Links
  • Donations
SUBSCRIBE TO REVIEWS

GMO INFO

10 Questions About GM Foods
Do GMOs increase yields and reduce pesticide use, and are they needed to feed the world? Find out in the 16-page document, 10 Questions About GM Foods.

News Menu

  • Latest News
  • News Reviews
  • Archive
  • Languages

Please support GMWatch

Donations

You can donate via Paypal or credit/debit card.

Some of you have opted to give a regular donation. This is greatly appreciated as it helps place us on a more stable financial basis. Thank you for your support!

2016 articles

USDA justifies scientific suppression as its policy

  • Print
  • Email
Details
Published: 29 February 2016
Created: 29 February 2016
Last Updated: 29 February 2016
Twitter

Confidential agency panel approves censorship and media gag orders

EXCERPT: [Jeff Ruch, Executive Director of PEER, said:] “Given how this complaint was handled, no wonder scientific integrity lapses inside USDA are never resolved and simply fester. Something now unmistakably clear is that no scientist in their right mind should report political manipulation of science inside USDA.”
—

USDA justifies scientific suppression as its policy

PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility), Feb 29, 2016
http://www.peer.org/news/news-releases/usda-justifies-scientific-suppression-as-its-policy.html

* Confidential agency panel approves censorship and media gag orders

Under its policy purporting to protect scientific integrity, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is entitled to do just the opposite, according to confidential findings by an internal agency panel released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The panel rejected a complaint by one of its top entomologists that USDA purged controversial findings, blocked publication of research papers with policy implications, and forbade scientists from being interviewed by reporters.

These conclusions come from a report by a five-member “Scientific Integrity Review Panel” convened to review the dismissal of a complaint filed by Dr. Jonathan Lundgren, a Senior Research Entomologist and Lab Supervisor for the USDA Agriculture Research Service based in South Dakota who has published research about adverse effects on monarch butterflies from widely-used neonicotinoid insecticides (or “neonics”). The panel agreed that Dr. Lundgren’s complaint should not be pursued because –

* The panel was told that charges of “reprisal” and retaliatory investigations were outside the scope of its review
* The panel found that USDA is entitled to prohibit scientists from speaking with reporters or even answering questions at conferences about the significance or ramifications of published studies                                                                                                                   * USDA’s Scientific Integrity Policy explicitly authorizes it to block publication of research containing “statements that could be construed as being judgments of or recommendations on USDA or any other federal government policy”

“This review confirms that what occurs inside USDA does not resemble what anyone else would consider ‘scientific integrity,’” stated Jeff Ruch, Executive Director of PEER which is suing USDA for its refusal to even consider a rulemaking petition seeking to strengthen the agency’s Scientific Integrity Policy. “Inside USDA, politics determines what scientific work will see the light of day.”

On February 12th, USDA Inspector General Phyllis Fong announced that her office had opened an investigation into a “significant volume” of complaints by agency scientists about censorship and interference with research on subjects that USDA upper management deemed sensitive.

The review panel report on the Lundgren complaint arises out of the first appeal of any USDA scientific integrity complaint. Dr. Lundgren filed his formal scientific integrity complaint in September of 2014. One month later, it was rejected as not even meriting an investigation. Dr. Lundgren immediately appealed but since USDA had never received an appeal on a scientific integrity complaint decision, the agency took an entire year to determine how to handle it. Yet under the guidelines finally developed –

* The panel does not investigate the complaint but instead simply reviews materials provided by agency management. In this case, no panel member even attempted to speak with Dr. Lundgren or any of the witnesses he identified
* There is no process for remedying any alleged scientific misconduct if it is ever confirmed
* The panel findings are confidential and USDA will not release them under the Freedom of Information Act by maintaining that even final reports are “deliberative”

“How will public confidence in the integrity of USDA science be enhanced when all of the reviews are kept secret?” asked Ruch, noting that a stated objective of the policy is to “ensure public confidence.” “Given how this complaint was handled, no wonder scientific integrity lapses inside USDA are never resolved and simply fester. Something now unmistakably clear is that no scientist in their right mind should report political manipulation of science inside USDA.”

Menu

Home

News

News Archive

News Reviews

Videos

Articles

GM Myth Makers

GM Reports

GM Myths

GM Quotes

How Donations Will Help Us

Contacts

Contact Us

About

Facebook

Twitter

RSS

Content 1999 - 2019 GMWatch.
Web Development By SCS Web Design