Pesticide politics
Did USDA cover up research?
by Debra Daniels Zeller
Sound Consumer, February 2016
http://www.pccnaturalmarkets.com/sc/1602/pesticide-politics.html
Is the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) silencing researchers who study
politically sensitive topics such as neonicotinoid (neonic) pesticides?
Reuters reports at least 10 USDA scientists have been investigated or faced
other consequences arising from research that called into question the
safety of certain agricultural chemicals.
Jonathan Lundgren is a senior researcher at the Agriculture Research Service
(ARS), a division of USDA, in Brookings, South Dakota. Lundgren says after
he submitted an article about the sub-lethal effects of clothianidin, a type
of neonic, on Monarch butterflies to a peer-reviewed journal in March 2014,
the ARS targeted him.
An 11-year veteran researcher, Lundgren has written nearly 100 articles for
peer-reviewed journals. In 2011 he was awarded "Outstanding Early Career
Research Scientist" and got to meet President Obama. USDA called Lundgren's
research "innovative," until he uncovered negative environmental effects of
biotech crops and neonics.
Lundgren's 2014 Monarch study reported caterpillars feeding on milkweed near
genetically engineered corn were exposed to clothianidin. Manufactured by
Bayer and applied to the seed by an adhesive from Monsanto, clothianidin
provides plants their own insecticides as they grow. Exposed caterpillars
have smaller heads, shorter bodies and weigh less than non-exposed
counterparts.
"Research should prompt a larger, more comprehensive risk assessment of how
pesticides might be entering untreated plants in the landscape to affect
species," says Lundgren. "Habitat development plans without integrated pest
management plans could have adverse effects on beneficial species."
Targeting science
Lundgren's complaint listed activities that he says generated the targeting
by USDA:
* An interview by NPR Harvest Public Media about an article Lundgren wrote
about RNAi technology, gene-splicing plants with pesticides for the journal
Bioscience.
* His role as an external reviewer for a report called "Heavy Costs:
Weighing the Value of Neonicotinoids in Agriculture," by the Center for Food
Safety, a nonprofit environmental advocacy organization. The report
questioned the safety of neonics.
* A paper Lundgren wrote with South Dakota State economist, Scott Fausti,
called, "The Effect of Biotechnology and Biofuels on U.S. Corn Belting
Systems." At the end of the article, Fausti wrote: "the ARS has required Dr.
Lundgren to remove his name as joint first author from this article. I
believe this action raises a serious question concerning policy neutrality
toward scientific inquiry."
* Travel expenses to speak on a panel at the National Academy of Sciences
in Washington, D.C., on "insect management in production systems" and at the
Sunshine Farmers' Conference presented by the No-Till Alliance in
Pennsylvania to speak on biodiversity to combat pests. After these speaking
engagements, Lundgren was told he didn't have permission and was told to pay
all travel expenses to conference organizers at his expense. He also was
docked his pay for the week.
After the NPR interview, officials told Lundgren not to speak to the press
because his research was "sensitive."
The complaint also says ARS officials had disrupted Lundgren's lab, coerced
and intimidated his lab assistants, and unexpectedly dismissed five of his
eight employees. Even for presentations, officials required multiple levels
of approval of Lundgren's slides before submission and questioned his
ability to do research.
USDA's response
Claiming to be a culture of integrity, USDA officials responded to
Lundgren's complaint in August 2015 by suspending the scientist for 14 days
without pay over the travel paperwork glitch, failure to follow supervisory
instructions, misuse of a government vehicle (driving to the airport for the
conference he assumed was approved and paid for), and for going AWOL while
attending the conference.
Lundgren found himself in a Kafkaesque world when his supervisor told him he
was accused of misconduct but couldn't tell Lundgren any details about the
allegations against him. The unspecific nature of the investigation caused
Lundgren and his entire research team unnecessary mental and physical
distress.
Public support
The advocacy group, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
(PEER), filed a whistleblower's complaint in October 2015, making Lundgren's
complaint against USDA public. Whistleblowers risk careers to bring
accountability and honesty back in government.
http://www.peer.org/search.html?peer_custom_search_field=Lundgren&x=0&y=0&id=3406
"The ability of scientific experts to investigate questions and publicly
discuss scientific results when these topics are politically invonvenient is
crucial to advance our society," Lundgren says. Federal scientists should be
able to ask tough questions.
