By Jon Rappoport

US Dept. of Agriculture scientists under the gun; explosive details

“Anybody can fake scientific results. But to be believed, you want a prestigious organization behind you with a billion-dollar budget and access to compliant reporters. You want to manipulate technical language. You want to keep saying how much you care about people. And then you also want to get down and dirty when you have to, and threaten and coerce your in-house scientific dissenters who won’t go along with the fakery. Cut their pay, demote them, fire them, ruin their careers and lives. This is all standard procedure in the major leagues of science. I’ve watched it happen.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Wonder how a federal agency as large as the USDA can keep claiming pesticides like Roundup are safe?

Wonder how the truth can be kept from leaking out?

Wonder how this agency, tasked with protecting the public from unsafe food, can turn fake science into “real science” like clockwork?

Wonder how, in Hawaii, Monsanto and Dow can defend their toxic, open-air, pesticide experiments as “approved by the USDA?”

Government scientists who believe in exposing the truth are being targeted.

Ten scientists at the US Dept. of Agriculture are on such a target list, because their research findings would harm big-corporate agriculture. (See Common Dreams, 5/5/15, “Suppressing Science for Monsanto?”)

PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility), a non-profit group, knows who these scientists are, but they aren’t talking. Not yet. They’re trying to gain protection for the researchers.

Here is a March 26 release from PEER, “USDA Urged to Shield Its Scientists From Harassment”:

“Scientists within the U.S. Department of Agriculture are subjected to management pressure and retaliation for research threatening agribusiness interests…”

“PEER has received reports concerning USDA scientists ordered to retract studies, water down findings, remove their name from authorship and endure long indefinite delays in approving publication of papers that may be controversial. Moreover, [USDA] scientists who are targeted by [big-Ag] industry complaints find themselves subjected to disruptive investigations, disapprovals of formerly routine requests, disciplinary actions over petty matters and intimidation from [USDA] supervisors focused on pleasing ‘stakeholders’.”

The “stakeholders,” of course, would include huge biotech companies. Like Monsanto.

In a separate PEER petition to the USDA, we find this statement:

“The USDA Scientific Integrity Policy actively enables [USDA] agency managers to suppress and alter scientific work products for their policy implications, regardless of their technical merit. It also appears clear that agribusiness interests, such as Monsanto Corporation, have access to top [USDA] agency managers and are invited to lodge complaints and concerns about the published work of [USDA] agency scientists. Significantly, the [USDA] Policy lacks any mechanism to effectively challenge this political manipulation of science.”

The PEER petition goes on to describe what truth-telling USDA scientists face:

“USDA scientists have been subjected to Directives not to publish data on certain topics of particular sensitivity to [big-Agriculture] industry;

“Orders to rewrite scientific articles already accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal to remove sections which could provoke [big-Ag] industry objections;

“Summons to meet with [USDA] Secretary Vilsack in an effort to induce retraction of a paper that drew the ire of [big-Ag] industry representatives;

“Orders to retract a paper after it had been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The paper could only be published if the USDA scientist removed his authorship thus leaving only the names of authors unassociated with USDA;

“Demotion from supervisory status and a reprimand after the scientist provided testimony before Congress that did not reflect [USDA] agency preferences;

“Disruptive and lengthy internal investigations to search out any irregularity that could be used for management leverage against the targeted scientist;

“Suspensions without pay and other disciplinary actions for petty matters, such as minor irregularities in travel paperwork;

“Inordinate, sometimes indefinite, delays in approving submission for publication of scientific papers that may be controversial;

“Restrictions on topics that USDA scientists may address in conference presentations;

“Threats by USDA managers to damage the careers of [USDA] scientists whose work triggers [big-Ag] industry complaints.”

“USDA scientists working on topics with direct relevance to [big-Ag] industry interests are under constant pressure not to do anything to upset these important ‘stakeholders.’ Rather than shield staff scientists from [big-Ag] industry influence, USDA managers amplify it.”

This is a witch hunt.

The notion of believing anything the USDA says or publishes is absurd.

Claims of the inherent safety and value of GMO food? Claims about the safety of pesticides? The assertion that corporations like Monsanto and Dow aren’t favored USDA clients?

Smoke blowing in the wind.

Claims that the USDA is serving the public interest?

A fairy tale.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.