Blueprint of Monsanto’s “black ops” public relations machine REVEALED: See the names of fake front groups and science hacks who took part

It’s no secret that companies like Monsanto do everything in their power to keep the true toxicity of their products under wraps. Big Food, Big Ag, Big Pharma and the like have all been accused of similar tactics across the board. But the lengths to which Monsanto has gone to keep the world from knowing the truth about glyphosate (the star ingredient in its flagship product, Roundup) is truly disturbing.

After the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) labeled glyphosate a “probable human carcinogen,” Monsanto engaged in a covert operation to slam the findings from every avenue — and they recruited a number of partners to help them save face.

Recently released documents provided by US Right To Know (USRTK) show that the biotech firm enlisted over a dozen “industry partner” groups in their plan to denounce the IARC findings and keep Roundup in the public’s good graces. An internal document dated February 2015 describes a detailed plan, in which 20 Monsanto employees were given goals to “neutralize impact of decision,” engage in “regulator outreach,” “ensure MON POV ” and “lead voice in ‘who is IARC’ plus 2B outrage.”

Monsanto conspires with “industry partners”

In the five-page document, Monsanto lists four tiers of “industry partners” to be used in their “preparedness and engagement plan” for the IARC’s carcinogen rating for glyphosate. The plan, of course, was put in place nearly a month before the IARC publicly released their finding that glyphosate probably causes cancer — which raises substantial suspicions that the biotech giant knew what IARC was going to find.

As Sustainable Pulse reports, Monsanto’s plan to denounce the IARC’s conclusion came from all sides. Step two in Monsanto’s diabolical plan to deceive the world includes the four tiers of industry partners.

Tier 1 industry partners included agrichemical industry-funded lobbyists and public relations groups:

• Biotechnology Innovation Organization is a trade association for the biotech, GMO and pesticide industries.
• CropLife International / European Crop Protection Association are trade groups for the pesticide industry. European Crop Protection Association is a member association of CropLife International.
• GMO Answers is a “crisis management public relations tool” run by Ketchum public relations firm and paid for by Monsanto and their biotech brethren, Bayer, BASF, Dow, DuPont and Syngenta.

Tier 2 partners are “front groups.” Though these sources are often listed as “independent,” the sad truth is that behind closed doors, they work with the industry on public relations and lobbying efforts:

• Genetic Literacy Project — Evidence has shown GLP founder Jon Entine works closely with Big Ag and Monsanto.
• Academics (AgBioChatter) — This is actually a “private email listserver used by the agrichemical industry and its allies to coordinate messaging and lobbying activities.”
• Sense About Science — Often cited as “independent experts” by the MSM, it seems they’re in Monsanto’s back pocket.
• Biofortified — A nonprofit that reportedly works with Big Ag on lobbying campaigns and PR issues.
• Academics Review — USRTK has revealed that this is a front group set up by Monsanto to attack Big Ag’s detractors while keeping the appearance of being “independent.”

Tier 3 included partners from the food industry. As Sustainable Pulse explains, these groups were used to “Alert food companies via Stakeholder Engagement team (IFIC, GMA, CFI) for ‘inoculation strategy’ to provide early education on glyphosate residue levels, describe science-based studies versus agenda-driven hypotheses” of the independent cancer panel.”

Groups in the third tier were used to brainwash stakeholders and keep them in favor of glyphosate. In a truly Orwellian effort, Monsanto insinuated that the IARC’s find was “agenda-driven,” while their own approved studies were “science-based.”

Tier 3 includes:

• Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) — A top trade group for the junk food industry.
• International Food Information Council (IFIC) — Funded by the food industry, this group reportedly heads up “a coalition of 130 associations that coordinate messaging about GMOs and pesticides.”
• The Center for Food Integrity (CFI) — Another group funded by Big Food, charged with “earning consumer trust” by promoting industry-approved messaging about GMOS, pesticides, antibiotic-laden meat and more.

Tier 4 of the plan may be the most covert of them all; even Monsanto didn’t include the names of who belonged to the fourth and final tier in their internal documents. Instead, Tier 4 simply reads, “Inoculate key grower associations.”

Monsanto’s extensive plan to con the world

This is not just a company trying to protect its interests by disputing the claim that glyphosate causes cancer. This is a massive, well orchestrated attempt to promote disinformation. And these four tiers are only part of the plan; Monsanto has a multi-faceted approach to combating truth with lies, paid-off shills and a host of other tricks.

Step 3 of the “master plan” is to “Address New Allegations,” which dictates that Monsanto “Respond quickly and publically to new pseudoscience cancer studies,” and that they “Identify/ request third-party experts to blog, op/ed, tweet and/or link, repost, retweet, etc.”

In other words, Monsanto’s third step was to get third-party people to produce pro-glyphosate, anti-IARC content for the media.

And then, there’s Step 4, named, “Orchestrate Outcry with IARC Decision.” Monsanto wanted Sense About Science and CropLife International to lead industry press releases and discussions as part of their charge to “conduct robust media/social media outreach on process and outcome.” Another bullet point describes their objective to “Push opinion leader letter to key daily newspaper on day of IARC ruling with assistance of Potomac Group.”

Step 4 essentially outlines Monsanto’s plan to control media coverage of the IARC finding and sway the messaging in their favor.

And then there’s Step 5: Engage Regulatory Agencies

Step 5’s only bullet point states that the objective is to encourage “Grower associations/ growers write regulators with an appeal that they remain focused on the science, not the politically charged decision by IARC.”

Note how throughout the document, Monsanto refers to the IARC’s finds as “politically charged,” “agenda driven” and the like. The IARC is part of the World Health Organization; it’s a team of international experts and belongs to one of the most respected health agencies on the planet. Who is “agenda driven” here, when Monsanto has literally crafted a multi-pronged approach to obscure the IARC’s findings? Check out Monsanto.news to stay current on their latest scams.

Sources for this article include:

SustainablePulse.com

USRTK.org