Well-known GMO advocates Julie Kelly and Henry I. Miller co-wrote a pro-Monsanto op-ed proclaiming that California is run by "chemophobes" who are suffering from an "anti-glyphosate mania." Glyphosates found in the pesticide Roundup have been linked to severe illness. (Photo: Mike Mozart)CAROLINE CORNELL FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Monsanto is at it again. Rather than admitting defeat after California labeled glyphosate (commonly marketed as Roundup) as a carcinogen, the company still claims that the herbicide is completely safe.

Two op-eds published back-to-back in California newspapers -- the Sacramento Bee and the Los Angeles Times -- argue that glyphosate is harmless, and that the state "got it wrong" by listing the herbicide under California's Prop 65, which requires warning labels on cancer-causing products.

The Los Angeles Times op-ed -- though not published by Monsanto, it oddly ran on the same day as Monsanto's Sacramento Bee piece -- even trivializes the plight of the more than 700 agricultural laborers and gardeners who allege their non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was caused by glyphosate.

"Since [the International Agency for Research on Cancer's] report was published, hundreds of lawsuits have been filed against Monsanto as lawyers in the 'environmental justice' industry seek to profit from so-called glyphosate victims," write Julie Kelly and Henry I. Miller.

In addition to questionable rhetoric (as seen above) and recycled short-sighted arguments for glyphosate's safety, the op-eds underscore the questionable PR tactics of the behemoth corporation.

Readers can expect a degree of bias in the arguments posed by Jen Listello, who identifies herself as a molecular biologist for Monsanto Regulatory Affairs. But what's more troubling is when Monsanto colludes with "independent" experts.

"Monsanto has a long track record of providing industry-funded studies and corporate influence to justify getting cancer-causing products like Roundup on the market," Jonathan Evans said, who fired back against the pro-Monsanto article by publishing a letter of his own in the Los Angeles Times. He has witnessed Monsanto's duplicitous PR tactics firsthand as the environmental health legal director for the Center for Biological Diversity.

Kelly and Miller Share Questionable Links to Big Ag

Well-known GMO advocates Julie Kelly and Henry I. Miller co-wrote the Los Angeles Times call to arms. In their op-ed, the duo proclaim that California is run by "chemophobes" who are suffering from an "anti-glyphosate mania."

The authors do not disclose a relationship with Monsanto, and there isn't any evidence they've been directly paid by the company. However, they still share questionable ties to Big Agriculture.

Kelly's husband is an agribusiness lobbyist for food processing company ADM, and she is a frequent contributor to publications like The National Review and The Federalist, advocating in support of everything from GMOs to defunding the International Agency of Cancer Research (IARC).

But Miller's history is more dubious. He was the face of the opposition to California’s Prop 37, a measure that would have required companies to label GMO ingredients. Monsanto was the top contributor to the No on Prop 37 campaign, spending $8 million to kill it.

Henry Miller has also served on a number of think tanks and foundations like the American Council on Science and Health, which is so immersed in corporate funding that Ralph Nader once said that "its real purpose, you might say, is to glove the hand that feeds it."

Currently, Miller works for the Stanford Hoover Institute, a conservative think tank that also relies on corporate funding, including from organizations like the American Chemistry Council which represents Monsanto.

Supporters Claim Glyphosate Is Safe if You Compare It to Other Carcinogens

But what's even more troubling than the backgrounds of Julie Kelly and Henry Miller are the arguments they published to lull Californians into a false sense of security with glyphosate.

Like many other glyphosate supporters, they argue glyphosate's safety by comparing it to other herbicides on the market.

"It is not carcinogenic, and it is lower in overall toxicity than many other weed killers," they claim.

But if we're comparing glyphosate to other herbicides, we're setting a pretty low bar for our safety.

Atrazine, for example, which is used on 90 percent of sugarcane and half of corn crops, was shown to change the sex of frogs in one UC Berkeley study, and has even been associated with incidents of hairy-cell leukemia in some humans. Europe banned the herbicide in 2004.

And there's2,4-D, which is used for corn and soybeans, and has been linked to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and sarcoma. The IARC declared it as a possible human carcinogen in 2015. The chemical is also an endocrine disruptor -- it inhibits hormones in the body -- which can cause cancerous tumors and developmental disorders.

Not too long ago, Miller even advocated for the use of DDT, a common pesticide that was banned by the US in 1972. It was linked to cancer, male infertility and developmental delays, not to mention a host of environmental side effects.

Amid Allegations of Influence, Monsanto Still Uses EPA's Pro-Glyphosate Conclusions

But, it's the arguments that still rest on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) conclusions that glyphosate is safe that crack the reliability of the pro-glyphosate camp.

"Court documents released this spring indicate that the chair of the EPA's Cancer Assessment Review Committee on glyphosate had a cozy and collaborative relationship with Monsanto and was someone the company thought might be 'useful' in defending glyphosate safety," Evans said.

"The records include discussion of how the chair of the EPA committee may be able to thwart a Department of Health and Human Services' review of glyphosate's safety, saying that if he was successful he deserved a medal. The department never did review glyphosate's safety."

And when an "independent" scientific panel was assembled to assess the clean bill of health the EPA issued for glyphosate, CropLife America (who represents Monsanto) allegedly influenced the list of panelists.

"Dr. Peter Infante, a respected researcher with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, was removed from the panel after CropLife accused the highly credentialed scientist of bias," Evans shared.

WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer Still on Defense

Unlike the EPA, the IARC -- which is the cancer research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO) -- proved itself immune to Monsanto's influence when it became the first regulatory agency to declare glyphosate as a carcinogen. Not surprisingly, the IARC continue to face accusations of producing "shoddy science."

In his editorial, Evans attacks claims from Kelly and Miller that the IARC "cherry-picked" the studies they used in their assessment of glyphosate. The IARC did "cherry-pick," he writes, by only relying on transparent, publicly available studies from "independent researchers rather than those who receive money from agribusiness."

It isn't the first time the IARC has had to fight off attacks from Monsanto. Earlier this year, the American Chemistry Council launched the Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research, whose sole purpose is to undermine and defund the IARC's research. The IARC even called their campaign "reminiscent of the strategies used by Big Tobacco to spread doubt about scientific conclusions" in an emailed statement.

It's no surprise then to learn that Monsanto is a member of a club that no corporation would want to find itself in.

"In 2015, the Center for Biological Diversity awarded Monsanto the 2015 Rubber Dodo Award, given annually to those who have done the most to destroy wild places, species and biological diversity," Evans said.

Caroline Cornell is a writer for ClassAction.com, a go-to source for consumers with information on the products, services and medications they depend on.