The US government-funded 'private social network' attacking pesticide critics

> Syngenta denies there’s a proven causal link between paraquat and Parkinson’s.

> A profile of a London-based research professor who has spoken out against agrochemical companies and GM crops contains several deeply personal details of his life unrelated to his positions on crops or chemicals. The profile describes a wife who died of “suicide-related complications” after discovering an extra-marital affair by her husband and following a “23-year struggle with depression and schizophrenia …”

> The New Lede and the Guardian have previously revealed that Syngenta’s internal research found adverse effects of paraquat on brain tissue decades ago but the company withheld that information from regulators, instead working to discredit independent science linking the chemical to brain disease and developing a “Swat team” to counter critics.

Keep this in mind when these companies release any statement regarding how safe their products are. Their approach to public debate is finding unrelated dirt on their critics and killing their funding, while knowingly spreading lies to literally poison their customers. Treat them and their words accordingly.

I once visited a local store that's 100% dedicated to selling pesticides and herbicides, pest control, traps, you name it. Open to consumers, no license or ID required.

It really drove home the quiet facts: pharmaceutical companies such as Bayer and Johnson & Johnson are the same ones in charge of manufacturing modern pesticides/herbicides, and distributing them to farmers and home-improvement stores.

They're also the self-same companies who've been producing the drugs designed to execute criminals. It's interesting how they've recently sort of balked on furnishing those drugs in service of capital punishment, isn't it?

The profiling mentioned in this article just seems dystopian. But then I realize this type of opposition research is what “PR” actually is. And it is a part of everything in our society - politics, corporations, celebrities, and so forth. As for what these companies use that research for - I am guessing it is mass manipulation. I don’t disagree with their right to speech and influence, just like activists enjoy those rights. But having this exposed out in the open makes it easier to understand where the corruption is and where more scrutiny is needed, so the debate on this topic can be had efficiently. I’m not usually a fan of much of the Guardian’s journalism, particularly where it strays from factual reporting to biased opinion, but appreciate this particular article.

As an aside, one thing that really disturbs me is that these industries can pollute our environment with all these complex chemicals without any real understanding of the long term negative effects. It seems wild that you can just roll the dice with things that are spread across millions of acres and presumably get into our food, water, etc.