Bayer shareholder meeting draws protests, pleas from cancer patients

The Bayer AG annual shareholders’ meeting got underway Tuesday in Germany, drawing the attention of not only investors and analysts but also activists, lawyers and cancer patients who want to see Bayer make amends for alleged misdeeds by Monsanto, which Bayer bought two years ago. The meeting was to be an in-person event in Bonn, Germany but due to fears about large gatherings that could spread the Covid-19 virus, Bayer instead is hosting a video webcast  of the meeting. On Monday the company announced a “good start to 2020,” reporting higher sales and profits through all divisions driven in part by strong demand within its Consumer Health division related to the Covid-19 pandemic. The shareholders’ meeting comes as Bayer is facing legal claims in the United States brought by roughly 52,500 plaintiffs alleging that exposure to Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicides such as Roundup caused them or their loved ones to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). They allege Monsanto was aware of the risks and should have warned consumers but instead sought to manipulate the scientific record and regulators. Three trials have been held to date and Bayer lost all three as juries awarded more than $2 billion to four plaintiffs, though trial judges later reduced the awards. The trial losses angered investors and pushed share prices to the lowest levels in roughly seven years,  erasing more than 40 percent of Bayer’s market value at one point. Some investors called for Bayer CEO Werner Baumann to be ousted for championing the Monsanto acquisition, which closed in June of 2018 just as the first trial was getting underway. Bayer and plaintiffs’ attorneys have been engaged in settlement talks for the last year and appeared close to a deal that would resolve a majority of the claims before the onset of Covid-19. Virus-related government closures, including of U.S. courthouses, have eliminated the possibility of additional trials in the near future, and Bayer has seized on its fresh leverage to walk back some of its negotiated settlements, according to sources close to the talks. Bayer said Monday it will “continue to consider a solution only if it is financially reasonable and puts in place a mechanism to resolve potential future claims efficiently. Against the background of a looming recession and looking at, in part, considerable liquidity challenges, this applies now more than ever.” Despite the lack of an in-person meeting, several individuals and organizations are hoping to make their criticisms of the company known. One group representing beekeepers said it was running online ads redirecting people searching for Bayer AGM on Google to an online stream featuring beekeepers talking about the impacts of Bayer’s pesticides on bees. Several people involved in the Roundup litigation also spoke out. “It’s time for the Bayer board of directors to step up and do what is right,” said Thomas Bolger, a 68-year-old man from Texas who was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2013 after using Roundup since 1982. Bolger recorded a video message to Bayer, detailing his ordeal with cancer. Robyndee Laumbach, a 50-year-old Texas woman who said her work in cotton genetics exposed her repeatedly to Roundup, also made a video message for Bayer. “Cancer is bad, any which way you look at it. I’m completely damaged and scarred and I will be for the remainder of my life,” she said. Both Laumbach and Bolger are among the people suing Monsanto. Roundup litigation plaintiff Michelle Taranto also made a video message on behalf of her husband to share with Bayer. Rose said her husband will soon be entering his third round of treatments “that will hopefully save his life.” She asked Bayer to stop selling Roundup. “Our lives have been diminished to endless hospital visits, countless painful treatments and expensive scary hospital stays,” Taranto said. Maine Christmas tree farm operator Jim Hayes made a video message describing being diagnosed with Stage 4 NHL in 2016 after using Roundup on his farm for years. Hayes said he went through six rounds of chemotherapy and a stem cell transplant before being declared in remission. He now fears his cancer will return. “I love my life. I love my family. I trusted the product. Clearly it is not safe for everyone to use,” Hayes said. One Roundup litigation plaintiff who only wanted to be identified by his first name, Chuck, also made a video message for Bayer. “I believe Bayer should be doing everything in their power to fix the problem that Monsanto and their product Roundup has caused thousands of individuals like myself who thought we were just using a harmless weed killer,” he said. “Although my cancer is incurable, Bayer can prevent future people from developing this horrible disease by taking this product Roundup off the shelf now. Bayer should also be accountable for everyone that now has to deal with this horrible disease every day.”

https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/bayer-shareholder-meeting-draws-protests-pleas-from-cancer-patients/

Junk Food Manufacturers Have Targeted Communities of Color, Increasing Risks From COVID-19

In the United States, the novel coronavirus appears to be infecting, hospitalizing and killing black people and Latinos at alarmingly high rates, with data from several states illustrating this pattern. There are many reasons for this. Structural inequalities across U.S. society contribute to this problem, including unequal access to fresh healthy foods, specific targeting of communities of color by manufacturers of junk food, unequal access to health care, more workers in essential jobs who cannot stay home and excess exposure to toxic chemicals and unhealthy air. In this post, we are tracking studies and news articles about the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on black Americans, Latinos and communities of color, and how junk food manufacturers specifically and disproportionately target communities of color. For recent reporting on the connections between food-related diseases and the coronavirus, impacts on farmworkers and food workers, and other vital food system issues related to the pandemic, see our Coronavirus Food News Tracker.

Data on the disproportionate targeting of junk food advertising and marketing to communities of color

Increasing disparities in unhealthy food advertising targeted to Hispanic and Black youth, Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity; Council on Black Health (January 2019)

• Junk food ads disproportionately target black and Hispanic kids: report, by Lisa Rapaport, Reuters (1.17.19)
• Black and Hispanic youth are targeted with junk food ads, research shows, by Jessica Ravitz, CNN (1.15.19)

Television food advertising viewed by preschoolers, children and adolescents: contributors to differences in exposure for black and white youth in the United States, Rudd Center of Food Policy and Obesity (May 2016) Food advertising targeted to Hispanic and Black youth: Contributing to health disparities, Rudd Center for Food Policy, AACORN, Salud America! (August 2015)

• Study: Black children are exposed to junk-food ads way more than white kids are, by Caitlin Dewey, Washington Post (12.15.16)

Health equity & junk food marketing: talking about targeting kids of color, Berkeley Media Studies Group (2017) Television food advertising viewed by preschoolers, children and adolescents: contributors to differences in exposure for black and white youth in the United States, Pediatric Obesity (2016) To Choose (Not) to Eat Healthy: Social Norms, Self‐affirmation, and Food Choice, by Aarti Ivanic, Psychology and Marketing (July 2016)

• People of color have the highest obesity rates in the US. Food marketing is part of the problem: Interview with Aarti Ivanic by Nadra Little, Vox (9.28.18)

Disparities in Obesity-Related Outdoor Advertising by Neighborhood Income and Race, Journal of Urban Health (2015) Child-Directed Marketing Inside and on the Exterior of Fast Food Restaurants, American Journal of Preventive Medicine (2014)

• Fast-Food Chains Disproportionately Target Black Children, by Olga Khazan, The Atlantic (11.13.14)
• Fast food marketing for children disproportionately affects certain communities, Arizona State University (10.14)
• Fast Food Restaurants Are Targeting Black Kids with Their Advertising, by Laura Rotham, Vice (11.17.14)

Racial/Ethnic and Income Disparities in Child and Adolescent Exposure to Food and Beverage Television Ads across U.S. Media Markets, Health Place (2014) Impact of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption on Black Americans’ Health, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation(2011) The Context for Choice: Health Implications of Targeted Food and Beverage Marketing to African Americans, American Journal of Public Health (2008) Fast Food: Oppression through Poor Nutrition, California Law Review (2007) The Health Impact of Targeted Marketing: An Interview with Sonya Grier, Corporations and Health Watch (2010)

What to do

Limit junk-food ads that contribute to childhood obesity, Statement by the American Medical Association (2018) Targeted Marketing Of Junk Food To Ethnic Minority Youth: Fighting Back With Legal Advocacy And Community Engagement, ChangeLab Solutions(2012)

https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/junk-food-manufacturers-have-targeted-communities-of-color-increasing-risks-from-covid-19/

Litigation Update: Zantac MDL Procedures Are Announced

On April 1, 2020, the FDA requested the recall of all ranitidine heartburn medication products (commonly known by the brand name Zantac) because of the risks posed by NDMA contamination in some samples tested. Last week, Judge Robin L. Rosenberg, who is presiding over the MDL involving this drug currently venued in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District, issued Pretrial Orders #15 and 16 outlining the procedures for filing claims in the litigation. PTO #15, the Order on Procedures for Implementing Census, filed on April 2, established the initial census process to be used to assist in case management.  It governs the form and schedule for service of an Initial Census Form (ICF) for all cases currently filed or transferred into the MDL as well as the unfiled but retained clients of applicants to leadership positions in the litigation.  PTO #15 also provides deadlines for the ICF submissions. The PTO also provides for a Census Plus Form (CPF) to be submitted by all plaintiffs with filed cases as well as a Census Registry Program for unfiled claims.  The Registry program is not required but is encouraged in the Order and comes with certain benefits to those firms that register unfiled cases. PTO #16 filed on April 3 is an Order Rescheduling the Initial Conference (to May 12, 2020), Establishing an “April Deliverables Team” and Scheduling Interviews for Applicants for Leadership Positions (on May 6 and 7, 2020).  The April Deliverables Team consisting of Mark Dearman, Marlene Goldenberg, Fred Longer, Jennifer Moore, and Conlee Whitely have been tasked with working with the previously appointed Practices and Procedures and Census Teams to prepare for the Initial Conference and to implement the work set forth in the Order.  Additional attorneys named to assist in this effort are Robert Gilbert, Mike McGlamry, Fred Longer, Jennifer Moore, Mikal Watts, Tracey Finken, Daniel Nigh and Adam Pulaski. Guidelines for the litigation have now been established and they provide an optional resource for the gathering of claimant data and submission of that information into the document repository of the MDL which is required if your firm wants to participate in the census registry program. As always, firms can seek assistance from other litigation support providers in order to submit the required information into the census plus registry. Click on this link for information on Verus’ Mass Tort Services. To contact us, fill out this form or email us at info@verusllc.com and we will reply immediately. |CONTACT US| |REQUEST PROPOSAL|

https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/litigation-update-zantac-mdl-procedures-are-announced/

Litigation Update: Pharmacies’ Petition to Overturn Untimely Dispensing Allegations Granted in the Opioid MDL

On April 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit unanimously granted the writ of mandamus filed by several major pharmacy chains finding that U.S. District Judge Dan Polster of the Northern District of Ohio, who is presiding over the 2,600 case MDL, improperly allowed dispensing allegations to be added to the complaints filed by the plaintiff counties back in November 2019.  In their petition filed in January, the pharmacies alleged that Judge Polster improperly required them to provide prescription data on every prescription for opioid medication filed by their pharmacists at thousands of stores across the nation from 2006 on even though the upcoming bellwether trial scheduled to begin on November 9 involves only two Ohio counties- Cuyahoga and Summit. In its finding, the Sixth Circuit stated “The district court’s decision to grant leave to amend was plainly incorrect as a matter of law”, noting that the district court had allowed the counties to amend their complaints 19 months after the deadline originally imposed by the court.  The court also added, “Respectfully, the district court’s mistake was to think it had authority to disregard the Rules’ requirements in the Pharmacies’ cases in favor of enhancing the efficiency of the MDL as a whole.” This finding significantly alters the upcoming November trial since it now may not include the issue of whether pharmacies can be held liable for improperly dispensing painkiller prescriptions and will focus only on wholesale distribution activities.  Pharmacies in general have not been involved in the ongoing settlement negotiations in the MDL which to date have focused on drug manufacturers and distributors. The day after the Sixth Circuit’s decision, on April 16, Judge Polster issued an order directing local governments and pharmacy defendants to select a bellwether case by April 28 that will make the dispensing allegations precluded by the appellate court the sole issue.  If the parties cannot agree on a case, Judge Polster said he would select one himself. The pharmacies that filed the writ with the Sixth Circuit include Walgreen’s, CVS, Rite Aid, Discount Drug Mart and Giant Eagle’s HBC Service Corp. Click on this link for information on Verus’ Mass Tort Services. To contact us, fill out this form or email us at info@verusllc.com and we will reply immediately. |CONTACT US| |REQUEST PROPOSAL|

https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/litigation-update-pharmacies-petition-to-overturn-untimely-dispensing-allegations-granted-in-the-opioid-mdl/

As Reported Cases of COVID-19 Near 750,000, the United States Sees First Employee Lawsuit Filed for COVID-19-Related Death

By Guest Author: Mark S. Heinzelman Associate, Environmental Law & Litigation | Lowenstein Sandler PC Ph: 973.422.2946 | mheinzelmann@lowenstein.com COVID-19 is at this point ubiquitous, affecting our daily lives in myriad ways.  But it has not altered our continuing need to work and generate income.  Many of us have reconciled that need by adopting alternative work arrangements, such as working from home or (for working parents) employing staggered work hours.  There are many, however, who do not have that luxury.  These are the essential workers.  They include doctors, nurses, EMTs, and police officers, as well as those who ensure that we are able to carry on with everyday life, such as supermarket employees, waste disposal professionals, truck drivers, and delivery workers.  In the midst of a pandemic, these individuals must continue to work.  Most employers have already adopted health and safety measures designed to protect these employees to the greatest extent possible. Despite those efforts, for essential employees, there is still a risk of contracting the virus that is inherent in going to work. On April 6, the estate of one such worker (a deceased Walmart employee) filed perhaps the nation’s first wrongful death action arising from COVID-19. In Toney Evans, Special Administrator of the Estate of Wando Evans v. Walmart, Inc., et al., No. 2020L003938, out of Cook County, Illinois, the estate alleges that the decedent contracted COVID-19 while working for defendant Walmart and that Walmart committed “willful and wanton misconduct” by failing to implement proper workplace safety measures. The estate argues that Walmart owed a duty of reasonable care “in keeping the store in a safe and healthy environment” and that it should have taken all of the preventive measures recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), including store sterilizations, strict social distancing guidelines (for employees and customers), and the provision of personal protective equipment. According to the estate, “As a direct and proximate cause of , the decedent was infected by COVID-19 and ultimately died . . . .” When an employee is injured on the job, his or her claim for damages is ordinarily handled by the workers’ compensation system. In nearly all states, that system is an employee’s sole source of recovery for a workplace injury or occupational disease. It bars a direct claim for damages against an employer. This preclusive effect is sometimes referred to as the “exclusivity bar.” Of course, there are exceptions, and while the standard is usually quite high, when those exceptions are satisfied, they will allow an employee to pursue an employer directly.  In the Illinois COVID-19 litigation, for instance, the deceased employee’s estate attempts to avoid the exclusivity bar by alleging that Walmart acted willfully and wantonly (i.e., with intent) in failing to implement the preferred health and safety measures.  This argument is designed to invoke one of the most common exceptions to the exclusivity bar: the intentional-wrong exception. Whether through statute or case law, most states have adopted some version of this exception; although it is worth nothing that a minority of states, such as Pennsylvania, still do not recognize it. It remains to be seen whether the estate of the Walmart employee will be successful in avoiding the exclusivity bar and advancing that litigation past the inevitable motion to dismiss. The results will, of course, depend on certain nuances in Illinois law, as well as the judicial appetite (if any) for carving out a limited exception for essential employees who are faced with these unique and unprecedented circumstances. But if the estate is successful, and if plaintiffs in other jurisdictions are also successful in advancing the same or similar arguments, then this could signal an erosion of the exclusivity bar in the context of COVID-19 and would undoubtedly trigger a wave of litigation across the nation. As of April 20, the CDC has tallied nearly 750,000 cases of COVID-19 in the United States and nearly 40,000 deaths.  Every state has reported cases, with many reporting several thousand, and in some instances, tens of thousands.  Although we cannot be sure until an official study is performed, it is possible that a significant portion of those cases were contracted in the workplace.  This demonstrates the extraordinary scope of this pandemic and the ongoing threat to employees.  Given that scope, if litigation arising from employee exposure to COVID-19 gains traction and is not otherwise slowed by the exclusivity bar, then we could see those matters consolidated into mass tort actions.  Navigating such actions would be complex, time-consuming, and resource intensive.  Any litigants that are ultimately faced with COVID-19-related litigation, and the law firms they hire to represent them, would thus be wise to explore and capitalize on all available support services.  Until then, the progress of the Illinois litigation (and any future actions) should be monitored closely.

https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/as-reported-cases-of-covid-19-near-750000-the-united-states-sees-first-employee-lawsuit-filed-for-covid-19-related-death/

Litigation Update: Johnson & Johnson Files Motion for a New Punitives Trial

In February, after a massive punitive damages verdict, Johnson and Johnson filed a motion seeking a new trial on the issue of the award as well as motions asking for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and remittitur.  In its filings, J&J claimed that the plaintiffs’ subpoenaing of the company chief executive, Alex Gorsky, was inappropriate, causing the jurors to be exposed to inflammatory and inadmissible evidence that “breache(d) the outer limit of constitutional propriety”.  The testimony was the result of questions by plaintiffs’ counsel regarding the timing of Gorsky’s sale of company stock in November, 2018, just prior to receiving an email about a potentially damaging Reuters article that accused J&J of covering up information it had that its talc was contaminated with asbestos; questions about Gorsky’s compensation also came under fire.  In addition, the company claimed that plaintiffs’ counsel prejudiced the jury against the defendants by “repeatedly suggesting that Mr. Gorsky improperly failed to read historical documents”, by raising questions that implied the company “targeted racial minorities” and by asking questions designed to elicit “highly emotional and cumulative testimony from plaintiffs regarding their injuries”. Plaintiffs defended their examination of the J&J CEO, responding that his testimony shed light both on the issue of Mr. Gorsky’s veracity given his earlier assertions that he had not been aware of the damaging email as well as any bias that may have been reflected by his overall compensation by J&J. J&J made a number of other assertions in its motions, claiming that combining four trials for the punitive damages phase of trial was inherently unfair; the company also argued that the punitive damages award itself should have been precluded by the FDA’s statements that talc use is not dangerous. Click on this link for information on Verus’ Mass Tort Services. To contact us, fill out this form or email us at info@verusllc.com and we will reply immediately. |CONTACT US| |REQUEST PROPOSAL|

https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/litigation-update-johnson-johnson-files-motion-for-a-new-punitives-trial/

Why Site Speed Still Matters (Revisited) Posted by mwiegand

Posted by mwiegand

The marketing stack dictates infrastructure before content

Success in an earned media channel like organic search hinges on content. Specifically, on producing helpful content that has the ability to rank. Google has focused its recent algorithmic updates largely on promoting great content and natural links, and penalizing weak content with unscrupulous links (see also: Medic, BERT, and its legacy predecessors like Panda, Penguin, and Hummingbird). But as SEO professionals prioritize content recommendations, keyword research, and link acquisition strategies (the more immediate factors in obtaining rankings), they risk devaluing technical changes — including site speed — that absolutely make clients more money on their existing organic audiences. No content or channel initiative works without infrastructure (i.e. fast websites) and analytics. They are foundational to digital marketing success. Content marketing is undeniably effective at getting sites to rank in search engines, which might satiate a client’s curiosity about what SEO can do for their visibility. And you might even be able to get slow sites to rank consistently, but the lack of attention to infrastructure will eventually come back to haunt you in conversion rates.

Site speed study

Sending prospective customers generated by good content to websites with slow experiences erodes trust literally by the second. Our latest site speed study refresh looked at 10 websites spanning a number of industries and 26,000 different landing pages, ranging in performance from extremely slow pages (upwards of 9 seconds) to extremely fast (under one second). The results showed that every second you can shave off your page load speed has intense conversion rate benefits that defy differences in verticals or selling approaches. Pages that loaded in under one second converted at a rate around 2.5 times higher than pages that loaded slower than five seconds or more. But the gains weren’t limited to fast vs. slow pages. The difference in conversion rates between “fast” pages (two-second load times) and “really fast” pages (under one second) was also more than double. This brings me to my next point.

Users will demand even faster sites

We first ran this survey in 2014 and, compared to today, the difference between “really fast” sites and “fast” sites wasn’t as stark as it is now. When we run it again in five years, expect the difference to be even more dramatic. Why? 5G adoption. Ericsson’s mobility report, run back in November of last year, predicted 5G coverage would cover 65% of the world’s population in 2025. Another study run by Parks Associates last April shows that, while gigabit internet adoption has slowed in the US, worldwide broadband adoption is expected to reach one billion households worldwide by 2023. When you factor in both those trends, the only thing throttling a mobile or desktop user’s experience will be poor web infrastructure.

Prioritizing site speed

If you’ve read this far, then you’ll agree the conversion rate benefits of a fast site are significant and the marketplace demand for fast user experiences is widening quickly. But what practical steps should you take toward a faster page speed and which of those steps should you prioritize? Moz, of course, has a great guide on page speed best practices. From that list, you have the following recommendations:

• Enable compression
• Minify JavaScript, CSS, and HTML
• Reduce redirects
• Remove render-blocking JavaScript
• Leverage browser caching
• Improve server response time
• Use a content distribution network (CDN)
• Optimize images and video

If you were to reorder those recommendations in terms of difficulty to implement for the average search marketer and impact on site speed, it would probably go something like this:

Low difficulty, low impact

Optimize images and video

Marketers at any skill level can install a WordPress plugin like Smush and automatically reduce the size of any image uploaded in a piece of new or existing content. It saves a surprising amount of time when every image on a page is appropriately sized and compressed.

Minify JavaScript, CSS, and HTML

Minifying code is another quick win. There are plenty of tools out there that minify code, like minifycode.com. These tools essentially strip out all the spaces in the code, which can save a few kilobytes of size here and there. Those add up across an entire experience. It may take a developer to put these changes into place, but anybody can copy and paste code into the tools and send the minified version to the team doing the work.

Remove render-blocking JavaScript

Migrating to a tag management platform like Google Tag Manager can take the JavaScript weight off of your pages and put them in a container where they can load as fast or as slow as they need to without impairing the rest of the content or functionality on the page. Tag Managers are really easy to use for non-technical folks, too!

Medium difficulty, medium impact

The three recommendations below can be a little harder depending on who manages your CMS or existing web server. It could be as easy as clicking a checkbox, or as difficult as writing custom redirect rules on your setup. You’ll probably need to consult with either an IT and/or web developer to get these done.

Reduce redirects

Most SEOs can relay a URL redirect map to a client or internal stakeholder to determine server-side redirects with ease. But some sites include more complicated client-side redirect schemes using JavaScript. Working with a front end developer to tackle changes to script-based redirects can be tricky if those JS files impact the site functionality in other material ways.

Enable compression

Enabling compression in Apache or IIS is a pretty straightforward process, but requires access to servers and htaccess files that IT organizations are reluctant to hand marketers control over.

Leverage browser caching

Similarly, browser caching of website resources that don’t change very often is easy to do if you have control of the htaccess file. If you don’t, there are caching plugins or extensions for various CMS platforms that marketers can install to manage these settings.

High difficulty, high impact

Improve server response time

Common ways to improve response times include finding a more reliable web hosting service, optimizing databases that deliver functionality to the site, and monitoring PHP usages. Again, all these things fall under IT purview and require additional decision-makers and costs to execute.

Use a content distribution network (CDN)

Adopting a CDN can be time-consuming, expensive (hundreds or thousands of dollars per month per domain depending on site traffic), and require expertise that the average marketer or consultant doesn’t have to enable. But if you can do it, studies suggest Google is measuring time to first byte as a ranking factor and the payoffs can be huge.

Godspeed, everyone!

Hopefully, this inspires you to go out and make progress on site speed initiatives in your organization or for your clients. Not only is it worth the undertaking from a business perspective, but it’s actively making the internet a better place to be for the average person. Those are both things every search marketer can be proud of. Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!

https://www.businesscreatorplus.com/why-site-speed-still-matters-revisited-posted-by-mwiegand/

International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) is a Food Industry Lobby Group

The International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) is a corporate-funded nonprofit organization based in Washington DC, with 17 affiliated chapters around the world. ILSI describes itself as a group that conducts “science for the public good” and “improves human health and well-being and safeguards the environment.” However, investigations by academics, journalists and public interest researchers show that ILSI is a lobby group that protects the interests of the food industry, not public health. Recent news:

• Corporate Accountability report examines how food and beverage corporations have leveraged ILSI to infiltrate the U.S. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, and cripple progress on nutrition policy around the globe. (April 2020)
• New York Times investigation by Andrew Jacobs reveals that a trustee of the industry-funded nonprofit ILSI advised the Indian government against going ahead with warning labels on unhealthy foods. The Times described ILSI as a “shadowy industry group” and “the most powerful food industry group you’ve never heard of.” (9.16.19)
• The Times cited a study in Globalization and Health co-authored by Gary Ruskin of U.S. Right to Know reporting that ILSI operates as a lobby arm for its food and pesticide industry funders (June 2019)
• The New York Times revealed the undisclosed ILSI ties of Bradley C. Johnston, a co-author of five recent studies claiming red and processed meat don’t pose significant health problems. Johnston used similar methods in an ILSI-funded study to claim sugar is not a problem. (10.4.19)
• Marion Nestle’s Food Politics blog, ILSI: true colors revealed (10.3.19)

ILSI background and funding

ILSI was founded in 1978 by Alex Malaspina, a former senior vice president at Coca-Cola who worked for Coke from 1969-2001. Coca-Cola has kept close ties with ILSI. Michael Ernest Knowles, Coca-Cola’s VP of global scientific and regulatory affairs from 2008–2013, was president of ILSI from 2009-2011. In 2015, ILSI’s president was Rhona Applebaum, who retired from her job as Coca-Cola’s chief health and science officer (and from ILSI) in 2015 after the New York Times and Associated Press reported that Coke funded the nonprofit Global Energy Balance Network to help shift blame for obesity away from sugary drinks. Emails obtained by U.S. Right to Know and reported in a 2016 study revealed that Coke proposed and financed the Global Energy Balance Network as a “weapon” in the “growing war between the pubic health community and private industry” over obesity and the obesity epidemic.  ILSI is funded by its corporate members and company supporters, including leading food and chemical companies such as Coca-Cola, BASF, Bayer, DuPont, Syngenta, Mars, McDonalds, chemical industry trade groups, and many others. In its annual report, ILSI and its branches reported $17,481,251 in expenses for 2017 but did not disclose specific donor information.  U.S. Right to Know obtained a document via a state freedom of information request showing corporate contributions to ILSI Global amounting to  $2.4 million in 2012. The largest donations were $500,000 from Monsanto and over $500,000 from the pesticide industry trade group, Crop Life International. ILSI’s draft 2013 IRS tax returns show $337,000 in donations from Coca-Cola and over $650,000 from six agrichemical companies, BASF, Bayer, Dow, Monsanto, Pioneer Hi Bred and Syngenta. 

Emails show how ILSI seeks to influence policy to promote industry views 

A June 2019 paper in Globalization and Health provides several examples of how ILSI advances the interests of the food industry, especially by promoting industry-friendly science and arguments to policymakers. The study is based on documents obtained by U.S. Right to Know via state public records laws.   The researchers concluded: “ILSI seeks to influence individuals, positions, and policy, both nationally and internationally, and its corporate members deploy it as a tool to promote their interests globally. Our analysis of ILSI serves as a caution to those involved in global health governance to be wary of putatively independent research groups, and to practice due diligence before relying upon their funded studies and/or engaging in relationship with such groups.”  

• Are industry-funded charities promoting advocacy-led studies or evidence based science? A case study of the International Life Sciences Institute, Globalization and Health, by Sarah Steele, Gary Ruskin, Lejla Sarcevic, Martin McKee, David Stuckler.  Documents will be posted in the UCSF Food Industry Documents Archive in the U.S. Right to Know Food Industry Collection.
• New York Times: A Shadowy Industry Group Shapes Food Policy Around the World, by Andrew Jacobs (9.16.19)
• The BMJ: International Life Sciences Institute is a advocate for food and drink industry, say researchers, by Owen Dyer (6.4.19) and tweet from the BMJ
• The Guardian: Science institute that advised EU and UN ‘actually industry lobby group’, by Arthur Neslen (6.2.19)
• U.S. Right to Know news release: ILSI is a food industry lobby group not a public health group, study finds (6.2.19)
• El Poder del Consumidor news release: Revela investigación que institución científica internacional protege los intereses de Coca-Cola contra las políticas de salud pública (6.3.19)
• EcoWatch: Influential science group ILSI exposed as food industry lobby group, by Stacy Malkan (6.7.19)

ILSI undermined obesity fight in China

In January 2019, two papers by Harvard Professor Susan Greenhalgh revealed ILSI’s powerful influence on the Chinese government on issues related to obesity. The papers document how Coca-Cola and other corporations worked through the China branch of ILSI to influence decades of Chinese science and public policy on obesity and diet-related illnesses such as Type 2 diabetes and hypertension. Read the papers:

• Making China safe for Coke: How Coca-Cola shaped obesity science and policy in China, by Susan Greenhalgh, BMJ (January 2019)
• Soda industry influence on obesity science and policy in China, by Susan Greenhalgh, Journal of Public Health Policy (January 2019)

ILSI is so well-placed in China that it operates from inside the government’s Centre for Disease Control and Prevention in Beijing. Professor Geenhalgh’s papers document how Coca-Cola and other Western food and beverage giants “helped shape decades of Chinese science and public policy on obesity and diet-related diseases” by operating through ILSI to cultivate key Chinese officials “in an effort to stave off the growing movement for food regulation and soda taxes that has been sweeping the west,” the New York Times reported.  

• How Chummy Are Junk Food Giants and China’s Health Officials? They Share Offices, by Andrew Jacobs, New York Times (1.9.19)
• Study: Coca-Cola Shaped China’s Efforts To Fight Obesity, by Jonathan Lambert, NPR (1.10.19)
• The hidden power of corporations: A lesson from China, by Martin McKee, Sarah Steele, David Stuckler, BMJ (1.9.19)
• Food giants undermined obesity fight, scholar says, by Candace Choi, Associated Press (1.10.19)

Additional academic research from U.S. Right to Know about ILSI 

• How food companies influence evidence and opinion – straight from the horse’s mouth, by Gary Sacks, Boyd Swinburn, Adrian Cameron, Gary Ruskin, Critical Public Health (9.13.17) 
  • USRTK News Release: How the food industry sees science, public health and medical organizations (9.13.17)
• Public Meets Private: Conversations Between Coca-Cola and the CDC, Nason Maani Hessari, Gary Ruskin, Martin McKee, David Stucker, Milbank Quarterly (1.29.19) 
  • USRTK News Release: Study Shows Coca-Cola’s Efforts to Influence CDC on Diet and Obesity (1.29.19)

The UCSF Tobacco Industry Documents Archive has over 6,800 documents pertaining to ILSI.

ILSI sugar study “right out of the tobacco industry’s playbook”

Public health experts denounced an ILSI-funded sugar study published in a prominent medical journal in 2016 that was a “scathing attack on global health advice to eat less sugar,” reported Anahad O’Connor in The New York Times. The ILSI-funded study argued that warnings to cut sugar are based on weak evidence and cannot be trusted.   The Times story quoted Marion Nestle, a professor at New York University who studies conflicts of interest in nutrition research, on the ILSI study: “This comes right out of the tobacco industry’s playbook: cast doubt on the science,” Nestle said. “This is a classic example of how industry funding biases opinion. It’s shameful.”

Tobacco companies used ILSI to thwart policy 

A July 2000 report by an independent committee of the World Health Organization outlined a number of ways in which the tobacco industry attempted to undermine WHO tobacco control efforts, including using scientific groups to influence WHO’s decision-making and to manipulate scientific debate surrounding the health effects of tobacco. ILSI played a key role in these efforts, according to a case study on ILSI that accompanied the report. “Findings indicate that ILSI was used by certain tobacco companies to thwart tobacco control policies. Senior office bearers in ILSI were directly involved in these actions,” according to the case study. See: 

• The Tobacco Industry and Scientific Groups ILSI: A Case Study, WHO Tobacco Free Initiative (Feb. 2001)
• Tobacco Company Strategies to Undermine Tobacco Control Activities at the World Health Organization, Report of the Committee of Experts on Tobacco Industry Documents (July 2000) 

The UCSF Tobacco Industry Documents Archive has more than 6,800 documents pertaining to ILSI.

ILSI leaders helped defend glyphosate as chairs of key panel 

In May 2016, ILSI came under scrutiny after revelations that the vice president of ILSI Europe, Professor Alan Boobis, was also chairman of a UN panel that found Monsanto’s chemical glyphosate was unlikely to pose a cancer risk through diet. The co-chair of the UN Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR), Professor Angelo Moretto, was a board member of ILSI’s Health and Environment Services Institute. Neither of the JMPR chairs declared their ILSI leadership roles as conflicts of interest, despite the significant financial contributions ILSI has received from Monsanto and the pesticide industry trade group. See: 

• UN/WHO panel in conflict of interest row over glyphosate cancer risk, The Guardian (5.17.16)
• Möglicher Interessenskonflikt bei Pflanzenschutzmittel-Bewertung, Die Zeit (5.18.16) 
• Conflict of interest concerns cloud meeting as international experts review herbicide risks, USRTK (5.12.16)

ILSI’s cozy ties at U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention  

In June 2016, U.S. Right to Know reported that Dr. Barbara Bowman, director of a CDC division charged with preventing heart disease and stroke, tried to help ILSI’s founder Alex Malaspina influence World Health Organization officials to back off policies to reduce sugar consumption. Bowman suggested people and groups for Malaspina to talk to, and solicited his comments on some CDC summaries of reports, the emails show. (Bowman stepped down after our first article was published reporting on these ties.) This January 2019 study in the Milbank Quarterly describes key emails of Malaspina cozying up to Dr. Bowman. For more reporting on this topic, see:

• Coke and CDC, Atlanta icons, share cozy relationship, emails show, by Alan Judd, Atlanta Journal Constitution (2.6.19)
• What is Going on at the CDC? Health Agency Ethics Need Scrutiny, by Carey Gillam, The Hill (8.27.2016)
• More Coca-Cola Ties Seen Inside U.S. Centers for Disease Control, by Carey Gillam, Huffington Post (8.1.2016)
• CDC Official Exits Agency After Coca-Cola Connections Come to Light, by Carey Gillam, Huffington Post (12.6.2017)
• Beverage Industry Finds Friend Inside U.S. Health Agency, by Carey Gillam, Huffington Post (6.28.2016)
• UCSD Hires Coke-Funded Researcher, by Morgan Cook, San Diego Union-Tribune (9.29.2016)

ILSI influence on the U.S. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee

A report by the nonprofit group Corporate Accountability documents how ILSI has major influence on U.S. dietary guidelines via its infiltration of the U.S. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.  The report examines the pervasive political interference of food and beverage transnationals like Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Nestlé, and PepsiCo, and how these corporations have leveraged the International Life Sciences Institute to cripple progress on nutrition policy across the globe. See, “Partnership for an Unhealthy Planet: How big business interferes with global health policy and science,” Corporate Accountability (April 2020)

ILSI influence in India 

The New York Times reported on ILSI’s influence in India in its article titled, “A Shadowy Industry Group Shapes Food Policy Around the World.” ILSI has close ties to some Indian government officials and, as in China, the nonprofit has pushed similar messaging and policy proposals as Coca-Cola – downplaying the role of sugar and diet as a cause of obesity, and promoting increased physical activity as the solution, according to the India Resource Center.  Members of ILSI India’s board of trustees include Coca-Cola India’s director of regulatory affairs and representatives from Nestlé and Ajinomoto, a food additive company, along with government officials who serve on scientific panels that are tasked with deciding about food safety issues.  

Longstanding concerns about ILSI 

ILSI insists it is not an industry lobby group, but concerns and complaints are longstanding about the group’s pro-industry stances and conflicts of interest among the organization’s leaders. See, for example: Untangle food industry influences, Nature Medicine (2019) Food agency denies conflict-of-interest claim. But accusations of industry ties may taint European body’s reputation, Nature (2010) Big Food Vs. Tim Noakes: The Final Crusade, Keep Fitness Legal, by Russ Greene (1.5.17)  Real Food on Trial, by Dr. Tim Noakes and Marika Sboros (Columbus Publishing 2019). The book describes “the unprecedented prosecution and persecution of Professor Tim Noakes, a distinguished scientist and medical doctor, in a multimillion rand case that stretched over more than four years. All for a single tweet giving his opinion on nutrition.”

https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/international-life-sciences-institute-ilsi-is-a-food-industry-lobby-group/

How Google SERP Layouts Affect Searching Behavior

Posted by Stephen_Job There are several studies (and lots of data) out there about how people use Google SERPs, what they ignore, and what they focus on. An example is Moz’s recent experiment testing whether SEOs should continue optimizing for featured snippets or not (especially now that Google has announced that if you have a featured snippet, you no longer appear elsewhere in the search results). Two things I have never seen tested are the actual user reactions to and behavior with SERPs. My team and I set out to test these ourselves, and this is where biometric technology comes into play.

What is biometric technology and how can marketers use it?

Biometric technology measures physical and behavioral characteristics. By combining the data from eye tracking devices, galvanic skin response monitors (which measure your sweat levels, allowing us to measure subconscious reactions), and facial recognition software, we can gain useful insight into behavioral patterns. We’re learning that biometrics can be used in a broad range of settings, from UX testing for websites, to evaluating consumer engagement with brand collateral, and even to measuring emotional responses to TV advertisements. In this test, we also wanted to see if it could be used to help give us an understanding of how people actually interact with Google SERPs, and provide insight into searching behavior more generally.

The plan

The goal of the research was to assess the impact that SERP layouts and design have on user searching behavior and information retrieval in Google. To simulate natural searching behavior, our UX and biometrics expert Tom Pretty carried out a small user testing experiment. Users were asked to perform a number of Google searches with the purpose of researching and buying a new mobile phone. One of the goals was to capture data from every point of a customer journey. Participants were given tasks with specific search terms at various stages of purchasing intent. While prescribing search terms limited natural searching behavior, it was a sacrifice made to ensure the study had the best chance of achieving consistency in the SERPs presented, and so aggregated results could be gained. The tests were run on desktop, although in the future we have plans to expand the study on mobile. Users began each task on the Google homepage. From there, they informed the moderator when they found the information they were looking for. At that point they proceeded to the next task.

Data inputs

• Eye tracking
• Facial expression analysis
• Galvanic skin response (GSR)

Data sample

• 20 participants

Key objectives

• Understand gaze behavior on SERPs (where people look when searching)
• Understand engagement behavior on SERPs (where people click when searching)
• Identify any emotional responses to SERPs (what happens when users are presented with ads?)
• Interaction analysis with different types of results (e.g. ads, shopping results, map packs, Knowledge Graph, rich snippets, PAAs, etc.).

Research scenario and tasks

We told participants they were looking to buy a new phone and were particularly interested in an iPhone XS. They were then provided with a list of tasks to complete, each focused on searches someone might make when buying a new phone. Using the suggested search terms for each task was a stipulation of participation.

Tasks

1. Find out the screen size and resolution of the iPhone XS Search term: iPhone XS size and resolution
2. Find out the talk time battery life of the iPhone XS Search term: iPhone XS talk time
3. Find reviews for the iPhone XS that give a quick list of pros and cons Search term: iPhone XS reviews
4. Find the address and phone number of a phone shop in the town center that may be able to sell you an iPhone XS Search term: Phone shops near me
5. Find what you feel is the cheapest price for a new iPhone XS (handset only) Search term: Cheapest iPhone XS deals
6. Find and go on to buy a used iPhone XS online (stop at point of data entry) Search term: Buy used iPhone XS

We chose all of the search terms first for ease of correlating data. (If everyone had searched for whatever they wanted, we may not have gotten certain SERP designs displayed.) And second, so we could make sure that everyone who took part got exactly the same results within Google. We needed the searches to return a featured snippet, the Google Knowledge Graph, Google's “People also ask” feature, as well as shopping feeds and PPC ads. On the whole, this was successful, although in a few cases there were small variations in the SERP presented (even when the same search term had been used from the same location with a clear cache). “When designing a study, a key concern is balancing natural behaviors and giving participants freedom to interact naturally, with ensuring we have assets at the end that can be effectively reported on and give us the insights we require.” — Tom Pretty, UX Consultant, Coast Digital

The results

Featured Snippets

This was the finding that our in-house SEOs were most interested in. According to a study by Ahrefs, featured snippets get 8.6% of clicks while 19.6% go to the first natural search below it, but when no featured snippet is present, 26% of clicks go to the first result. At the time, this meant that having a featured snippet wasn’t terrible, especially if you could gain a featured snippet but weren't ranking first for a term. who doesn't want to have real estate above a competitor? However, with Danny Sullivan of Google announcing that if you appear in a featured snippet, you will no longer appear anywhere else in the search engine results page, we started to wonder how this would change what SEOs thought about them. Maybe we would see a mass exodus of SEOs de-optimising pages for featured snippets so they could keep their organic ranking instead. Moz’s recent experiment estimated a 12% drop in traffic to pages that lose their featured snippet, but what does this mean about user behavior?

What did we find out?

In the information-based searches, we found that featured snippets actually attracted the most fixations. They were consistently the first element viewed by users and were where users spent the most time gazing. These tasks were also some of the fastest to be completed, indicating that featured snippets are successful in giving users their desired answer quickly and effectively. All of this indicates that featured snippets are hugely important real estate within a SERP (especially if you are targeting question-based keywords and more informational search intent). In both information-based tasks, the featured snippet was the first element to be viewed (within two seconds). It was viewed by the highest number of respondents (96% fixated in the area on average), and was also clicked most (66% of users clicked on average).

People also ask

The “People also ask” (PAA) element is an ideal place to find answers to question-based search terms that people are actively looking for, but do users interact with them?

What did we find out?

From the results, after looking at a featured snippet, searchers skipped over the PAA element to the standard organic results. Participants did gaze back at them, but clicks in those areas were extremely low, thus showing limited engagement. This behavior indicates that they are not distracting users or impacting how they journey through the SERP in any significant way.

Knowledge Graph

One task involved participants searching using a keyword that would return the Google Knowledge Graph. The goal was to find out the interaction rate, as well as where the main interaction happened and where the gaze went.

What did we find out?

Our findings indicate that when a search with purchase intent is made (e.g. “deals”), then the Knowledge Graph attracts attention sooner, potentially because it includes visible prices. By also introducing heat map data, we can see that the pricing area on the Knowledge Graph picked up significant engagement, but there was still a lot of attention focused on the organic results. Essentially, this shows that while the knowledge graph is useful space, it does not wholly detract from the main SERP column. Users still resort to paid ads and organic listings to find what they are looking for.

Location searches

We have all seen data in Google Search Console with “near me” under certain keywords, and there is an ongoing discussion of why, or how, to optimise for them. From a pay-per-click (PPC) point of view, should you even bother trying to appear in them? By introducing such a search term in the study, we were hoping to answer some of these questions.

What did we find out?

From the fixation data, we found that most attention was dedicated to the local listings rather than the map or organic listings. This would indicate that the greater amount of detail in the local listings was more engaging. However, in a different SERP variant, the addition of the product row led to users spending a longer time reviewing the SERP and expressing more negative emotions. This product row addition also changed gaze patterns, causing users to progress through each element in turn, rather than skipping straight to the local results (which appeared to be more useful in the previous search). This presentation of results being deemed irrelevant or less important by the searcher could be the main cause of the negative emotion and, more broadly, could indicate general frustration at having obstacles put in the way of finding the answer directly.

Purchase intent searching

For this element of the study, participants were given queries that indicate someone is actively looking to buy. At this point, they have carried out the educational search, maybe even the review search, and now they are intent on purchasing.

What did we find out?

For “buy” based searches, the horizontal product bar operates effectively, picking up good engagement and clicks. Users still focused on organic listings first, however, before returning to the shopping bar. The addition of Knowledge Graph results for this type of search wasn't very effective, picking up little engagement in the overall picture. These results indicate that the shopping results presented at the top of the page play a useful role when searching with purchasing intent. However, in both variations, the first result was the most-clicked element in the SERP, showing that a traditional PPC or organic listing remains highly effective at this point in the customer journey.

Galvanic skin response

Looking at GSR when participants were on the various SERPs, there is some correlation between the self-reported “most difficult” tasks and a higher than normal GSR. For the “talk time” task in particular, the featured snippet presented information for the iPhone XS Max, not the iPhone XS model, which was likely the cause of the negative reaction as participants had to spend longer digging into multiple information sources. For the “talk time” SERP, the challenges encountered when incorrect data was presented within a featured snippet likely caused the high difficulty rating.

What does it all mean?

Unfortunately, this wasn't the largest study in the world, but it was a start. Obviously, running this study again with greater numbers would be the ideal and would help firm up some of the findings (and I for one, would love to see a huge chunk of people take part). That being said, there are some solid conclusions that we can take away:

1. The nature of the search greatly changes the engagement behavior, even when similar SERP layouts are displayed. (Which is probably why they are so heavily split tested).
2. Featured snippets are highly effective for information-based searching, and while they led to some 33% of users choosing not to follow through to the site after finding the answer, two-thirds still clicked through to the website (which is very different from the data we have seen in previous studies).
3. Local listings (especially when served without a shopping bar) are engaging and give users essential information in an effective format.
4. Even with the addition of Knowledge Graph, “People also ask”, and featured snippets, more traditional PPC ads and SEO listings still play a big role in searching behavior.

Featured snippets are not the worst thing in the world (contrary to the popular knee-jerk reaction from the SEO industry after Google's announcement). All that has changed is that now you have to work out what featured snippets are worth it for your business (instead of trying to just claim all of them). On purely informational or educational searches, they actually performed really well. People stayed fixated on them for a fairly lengthy period of time, and 66% clicked through. However, we also have an example of people reacting badly to the featured snippet when it contained irrelevant or incorrect information. The findings also give some weight to the fact that a lot of SEO is now about context. What do users expect to see when they search a certain way? Are they expecting to see lots of shopping feeds (they generally are if it’s a purchasing intent keyword), but at the same time, they wouldn't expect to see them in an educational search.

What now?

Hopefully, you found this study useful and learned something new about search behavior . Our next goal is to increase the amount of people in the study to see if a bigger data pool confirms our findings, or shows us something completely unexpected.   Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!

https://www.businesscreatorplus.com/how-google-serp-layouts-affect-searching-behavior/

10 Revelations from the U.S. Right to Know Investigations

Please help support the USRTK investigations by making a tax-deductible donation today.  Internal Monsanto documents released in August provide a rare inside look at how pesticide and food companies try to discredit public interest groups and journalists who raise concerns about their products. The documents (posted here) show that Monsanto and its new owner, Bayer, were especially worried about U.S. Right to Know, a nonprofit research group that began investigating the food industry in 2015. According to Monsanto’s response plan, “USRTK’s plan will impact the entire industry,” and “has the potential to be extremely damaging.” Read about it in The Guardian. Five years ago, we began filing public records requests to try to understand how powerful food and chemical industry interests impact the food we eat and feed our children. We quickly turned up documents that became a front-page New York Times story, and contributed to news coverage around the world about the covert tactics these companies use influence science, policy and public opinion about our food. Here are some of our top findings so far.

1. Monsanto funded “independent” academics to promote and lobby for agrichemical products, and hid these collaborations from the public     

U.S. Right to Know has documented numerous examples of how pesticide companies rely heavily on publicly funded academics to assist with their PR and lobbying. A September 2015 front-page New York Times article revealed that Monsanto enlisted academics, and paid them secretly, to oppose GMO labeling laws. WBEZ later reported on one example; how a University of Illinois professor received tens of thousands of dollars from Monsanto to promote and lobby for GMOs, and his university received millions — none of those funds were disclosed to the public.   Documents reported in the Boston Globe, Bloomberg and Mother Jones describe how Monsanto assigned, scripted and promoted pro-GMO papers from professors at Harvard, Cornell and other universities, which were published with no mention of Monsanto’s role. At the University of Saskatchewan, Monsanto coached a professor and edited his academic articles, according to documents reported by the CBC.  At the request of the pesticide industry’s PR firm, a University of Florida professor produced a video that aimed to discredit a Canadian teenager who criticized GMOs, according to documents reported by Global News.  For fact sheets based on documents obtained from our investigation, see our Agrichemical Industry Propaganda Tracker. Many U.S. Right to Know documents are also posted in the USCF Food and Chemical Industry Libraries.

2. The influential nonprofit ILSI is a lobby group for food and pesticide companies 

In September 2019, the New York Times reported on the “shadowy industry group” International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) that is shaping food policy around the world. The Times article cites a 2019 study co-authored by Gary Ruskin of USRTK reporting how ILSI operates as a lobby group that promotes the interest of its food and pesticide industry funders. See coverage of our study in the BMJ and The Guardian, and read more about the organization the Times described as “the most powerful food industry group you’ve never heard of” in our ILSI fact sheet. In 2017, Ruskin co-authored a journal article reporting on emails showing food industry leaders discussing how they “have to use external organizations” when dealing with controversies over the health risks of their products. The emails show senior leaders in the food industry advocating for a coordinated approach to influencing scientific evidence, expert opinion and regulators across the world. See Bloomberg coverage, “Emails show how the food industry uses ‘science’ to push soda.” The USRTK investigation also spurred a 2016 story in The Guardian reporting that the leaders of a Joint FAO/WHO panel that cleared glyphosate of cancer concerns also held leadership positions at ILSI, which received large donations from the pesticide industry.  3. Breaking news about the Monsanto Roundup cancer trials and the Dicamba GMO trials  U.S. Right to Know frequently breaks news about the Roundup cancer trials via Carey Gillam’s Roundup and Dicamba Trial Tracker, which provides a first look at discovery documents, interviews and news tips about the trials. More than 42,000 people have filed suit against the Monsanto Company (now owned by Bayer) alleging that exposure to Roundup herbicide caused them or their loved ones to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and that Monsanto covered up the risks. As part of the discovery process, Monsanto has turned over millions of pages of its internal records. USRTK is posting many of these documents and court records free of charge on our Monsanto Papers pages. Dozens of farmers around the United States are also now suing the former Monsanto Co. and conglomerate BASF in an effort to hold the companies accountable for millions of acres of crop damage the farmers claim is due to widespread illegal use of the weed killing chemical dicamba. In 2020, we also began posting the Dicamba Papers: Key documents and analysis from the trials.

4. Top CDC officials collaborated with Coca-Cola to shape the obesity debate, and advised Coca-Cola on how to stop WHO from cracking down on added sugars

Documents obtained by U.S. Right to Know led to another front-page New York Times story in 2017 reporting that the newly appointed director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, Brenda Fitzgerald, saw Coca-Cola as an ally on obesity issues (Fitzgerald has since resigned).  USRTK was also first to report in 2016 that another high-ranking CDC official had cozy ties to Coke, and tried to assist the company in steering the World Health Organization away from its efforts to discourage consumption of added sugars; see reporting by Carey Gillam, research director of U.S. Right to Know. Our work also contributed to a study in the Milbank Quarterly co-authored by Gary Ruskin detailing conversations between the CDC and Coca-Cola executives. Two articles in the BMJ based on USRTK documents, and articles in the Washington Post, Atlanta Journal Constitution, San Diego Union Tribune, Forbes, CNN, Politico and The Intercept provide more details about Coke’s influence at the U.S. public health agency that is supposed to help prevent obesity, type 2 diabetes and other diseases.   

5. The U.S. FDA found glyphosate residues in honey, infant cereals, and other common foods, and then stopped testing for the chemical   

FDA did not release the information, so USRTK did.

Carey Gillam broke news in the Huffington Post, The Guardian and USRTK about internal government documents obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests showing that the U.S. FDA conducted tests that found the weed-killer glyphosate in an array of commonly consumed foods including granola, crackers, infant cereal and in very high levels in honey.  The FDA did not release the information, so USRTK did. The government then suspended its testing program for glyphosate residues in food, Gillam reported. FDA did resume testing and in late 2018 and issued a report that showed very limited testing and reported no worrisome levels of glyphosate. The report did not include any of the information USRTK turned up through FOIAs.

6. Pesticide companies secretly funded an academic group that attacked the organic industry 

A group calling itself Academics Review made headlines in 2014 with a report attacking the organic industry as a marketing scam. The group claimed it was run by independent academics, and accepted no corporate contributions; however, documents obtained by USRTK and reported in the Huffington Post revealed the group was set up with the help of Monsanto to be an industry-funded front group that could discredit critics of GMOs and pesticides. Tax records show that Academics Review received most of its funding from the Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI), a trade group funded by the world’s largest pesticide companies.

7. Universities hosted conferences funded by the pesticide industry to train scientists and journalists how to promote GMOs and pesticides 

Pesticide-industry funded “boot camps” held at the University of Florida and the University of California, Davis brought together scientists, journalists and industry PR allies to discuss how to “connect emotionally with skeptical parents” in their messaging to promote GMOs and pesticides, according to documents obtained by U.S. Right to Know.  Two industry front groups, Genetic Literacy Project and Academics Review, organized the messaging-training events, and claimed the funding came from government, academic and industry sources; however, according to reporting in The Progressive, non-industry sources denied funding the events and the only traceable source of funds was the pesticide industry trade group CBI, which spent more than $300,000 on the two conferences. 

8. Coca-Cola secretly tried to influence medical and science journalists

Documents obtained by U.S. Right to Know and reported in the BMJ show how Coca-Cola funded journalism conferences at a U.S. university in an attempt to create favorable press coverage of sugar-sweetened drinks. When challenged about funding of the series of conferences, the academics involved weren’t truthful about industry involvement. 

9. Coca Cola saw itself at “war” with the public health community over obesity 

Another journal article co-authored by USRTK’s Gary Ruskin in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health revealed how Coca-Cola saw itself at “war” with the “public health community.” The emails also reveal the company’s thoughts on how to deal with issues surrounding obesity and responsibility for this public health crisis; for more see Ruskin’s article in Environmental Health News and more journal articles co-authored by USRTK on our Academic Work page. 

10. Dozens of academics and other industry allies coordinate their messaging with agrichemical companies and their PR operatives

Documents obtained by U.S. Right to Know reveal never-before-reported facts about the front groups, academics, and other third party allies the pesticide and food companies rely on to promote their public relations and lobbying agendas. USRTK provides detailed fact sheets about more than two dozen leading third party allies who appear to be independent, but work closely with companies and their PR firms on coordinated pro-industry messages. See our fact sheet, Tracking the Agrichemical Industry Propaganda Network.  Help us keep the USRTK investigations cooking! You can now contribute to our investigations through Patreon and PayPal. Please sign up for our newsletter to get regular updates about our findings and join us on Instagram, Facebook and Twitter for more discussion about our food system.

https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/10-revelations-from-the-u-s-right-to-know-investigations/

Coronavirus Food News Tracker: Best articles on the pandemic and our food system

U.S. Right to Know is tracking important food-related news about the coronavirus pandemic in this post. Please sign up for our newsletter to receive weekly updates about our food system and breaking news from the U.S. Right to Know investigations,

Most recent articles

April 18, 2020 

• The Food Chain’s Weakest Link: Slaughterhouses, by Michael Corkery  and David Yaffe-Bellany, New York Times (4.17.20)

April 17, 2020

• Coronavirus at Smithfield pork plant: The untold story of America’s biggest outbreak, by Jessica Lussenhop, BBC (4.17.20)
• ‘We may have to ration:’ US food banks face shortages as demand surges, by Nina Lakhani, Maanvi Singh, Erum Salam, The Guardian  (4.17.20)
• How toxic chemicals contribute to COVID-19 deaths, by Frederick vom Saal, Aly Cohen, Environmental Health News (4.17.20)

April 16, 2020

• Covid 19 and the elephant in the room: Obesity and chronic metabolic disease is killing COVID -19 patients, by Aseem Malhotra, European Scientist (4.16.20)
• Obesity Linked to Severe Coronavirus Disease, Especially for Younger Patients, by Roni Caryn Rabin, New York Times (4.16.20)

April 15, 2020

• I Harvest Your Food. Why Isn’t My Health ‘Essential’? by Alma Patty Tzalain, New York Times (4.15.20)
• With Coronavirus, Food Workers Face Threats From All Sides, by Sarah Jones, New York Magazine (4.15.20)
• South Dakota Meat Plant Is Now Country’s Biggest Coronavirus Hot Spot, by Caitlin Dickerson, Miriam Jordan, New York Times (4.15.20)
• Coronavirus Cases at D.C. Whole Foods Highlight Risks Facing Grocery Workers, by Zach Montague, New York Times (4.15.20)
• What grocery workers say stores have done wrong amid COVID-19, by Will Carless, Patrick Michels, Reveal News (4.15.20)

Obesity and Coronavirus

• Covid 19 and the elephant in the room: Obesity and chronic metabolic disease is killing COVID -19 patients, by Aseem Malhotra, European Scientist (4.16.20)
• Obesity Linked to Severe Coronavirus Disease, Especially for Younger Patients, by Roni Caryn Rabin, New York Times (4.16.20)
• Obesity and its Implications for COVID‐19 Mortality, by William Dietz, Carlos Santos‐Burgoa, Obesity journal (4.1.20)

Eating Ultra-processed Food Increases Likelihood of Dying from Coronavirus

• How Industrial Food Makes Us More Vulnerable to COVID-19, by Kristin Lawless, Heated (4.13.20)
• Reevaluate your nutrition strategy amid COVID-19, doctors say, by Anika Sinha, Stanford Daily (3.31.20)
• Mexico Official Calls Diet a Factor as Coronavirus Death Toll Climbs, Reuters (4.4.20)

Inequalities In Our Food System 

• How toxic chemicals contribute to COVID-19 deaths, by Frederick vom Saal, Aly Cohen, Environmental Health News (4.17.20)
• The Coronavirus Reveals The ‘Invisible Inequalities’ In Our Food System, by Tom Levitt, HuffPost (4.13.20)
• Black Americans Face Alarming Rates of Coronavirus Infection in Some States, By John Eligon, Audra D. S. Burch, Dionne Searcey, Richard A. Oppel Jr., New York Times (4.7.20)

Risks Facing Farmworkers and Food Workers

• Coronavirus at Smithfield pork plant: The untold story of America’s biggest outbreak, by Jessica Lussenhop, BBC (4.17.20)
• I Harvest Your Food. Why Isn’t My Health ‘Essential’? by Alma Patty Tzalain, New York Times (4.15.20)
• With Coronavirus, Food Workers Face Threats From All Sides, by Sarah Jones, New York Magazine (4.15.20)
• Coronavirus Cases at D.C. Whole Foods Highlight Risks Facing Grocery Workers, by Zach Montague, New York Times (4.15.20)
• What grocery workers say stores have done wrong amid COVID-19, by Will Carlessand, Patrick Michels, Reveal News (4.15.20)
• Whole Foods staff protest against conditions as coronavirus cases rise, by Michael Sainato, The Guardian (4.15.20)
• Worries grow about health of employees in Iowa’s meatpacking plants, impact on food supply, by Barbara Rodriguez, Tommy Birch, Tyler Jett, Des Moines Register (4.14.20)
• As more grocery workers die, many supermarket employees fear showing up during pandemic, by Abha Bhattarai, Washington Post (4.12.20)
• Trump Moves to Slash Pay for Essential Migrant Farmworkers, Democracy Now! (4.13.20)
• Grocery workers are beginning to die of coronavirus, by Abha Battarai, Washington Post (4.6.20)
• Farmworkers putting food on America’s tables are facing their own coronavirus crisis, by Catherine E. Soichet, CNN (4.4.20)
• Farmworkers are in the crosshairs of coronavirus, by Gosia Wozniacka, Civil Eats (3.25.20)

On the Role of Factory Farming and Agriculture in Pandemics Like Covid-19

• Animal Viruses Are Jumping to Humans. Forest Loss Makes It Easier, by Caitrin Einhorn, New York Times (4.9.20)
• It takes a whole world to create a new virus, not just China, by Laura Spinney, The Guardian (3/25/20)
• Destruction of Habitat and Loss of Biodiversity are Creating the Perfect Conditions for Diseases Like Covid-19 to Emerge, by John Vidal, ENSIA (3.17.20)
• We Made the Coronavirus Epidemic, by David Quammen, New York Times (1.28.20)

Toxic Chemicals and Coronavirus

• How toxic chemicals contribute to COVID-19 deaths, by Frederick vom Saal, Aly Cohen, Environmental Health News (4.17.20)

Food Supply and Security  

• The Food Chain’s Weakest Link: Slaughterhouses, by Michael Corkery, David Yaffe-Bellany, New York Times (4.17.20)
• ‘We may have to ration’: US food banks face shortages as demand surges,by Nina Lakhani, Maanvi Singh, Erum Salam, The Guardian (4.17.20)
• US food supply is strained as virus spreads, by Michael Corkery, David Yaffe-Bellany, New York Times (4.13.20)
• Dumped milk, smashed eggs, plowed vegetables: Food waste of the pandemic, by David Yaffe-Bellany, Michael Corkery, New York Times (4.11.20)
• As supermarkets feel hazardous and sparse, small farms deliver, by Tejal Rao, New York Times (4.3.20)
• The Effects of COVID-19 Will Ripple through Food Systems, by Laura Poppick, Scientific American (3.26.20)
• The coronavirus pandemic and future food security, by Patrick Holden, Environmental Health News (4.6.20)

Food Safety

• Answers to Common Questions About Coronavirus and the Food You Eat, Consumer Reports (4.1.20)

Junk Food Resurgence

• ‘I Just Need the Comfort’: Processed Foods Make a Pandemic Comeback, by Julie Creswel, New York Times (4.7.20)
• Processed food undergoing renaissance amid coronavirus: ‘We can’t make enough mac and cheese,’ by Alexia Elejalde-Ruiz, Chicago Tribune (4.3.20)

Please send us stories you think are important to include. You can email them to stacy@usrtk.org. If you want to receive weekly updates from U.S. Right to Know, please sign up for our newsletter here. You can donate here to help support our food industry investigations.

https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/coronavirus-food-news-tracker-best-articles-on-the-pandemic-and-our-food-system/