CORRESPONDENCE Standing up for transparency

To the Editor: We are working for transparency, at this time, there is no similar requirement I am writing to you as co-director of the accountability, the integrity of and for food or agrichemical companies. USRTK consumer group US Right to Know (USRTK). public institutions, and to improve our believes there should be. Your editorial in the October issue entitled nation’s food system. We are not out to ‘get Collaboration between industry and “Standing up for science” contained many anyone’. Folta’s main complaint is that his academia can be beneficial as well as indefensible statements. It falsely accused us e-mails were cherry-picked; however, unlike problematic; transparency must be the of a “smear campaign” in investigating the WikiLeaks, we chose not to post thousands guiding principle for such relationships. food and agrichemical industries, their public of pages of documents obtained through Scientific journals, such as relations firms and front groups, and the the US Freedom of Information Act exactly , have an important role to play professors who speak for them. because they contain personal e-mails and in advocating for transparency in funding, Our aim is to expose the ties between other material that are not relevant to our lobbying and public relations conducted by the food and agrichemical industries and investigation. We do release to journalists, university scientists. We hope to hear more those who assist in their public relations or in some cases directly to the public, from your team on that topic. efforts. The documents we obtained show specific newsworthy documents about food We want to encourage scientists to that Professor Kevin and agrichemical industry PR and lobbying communicate with the public to create a Folta accepted a $25,000 unrestricted grant tactics that highlight what they do not want thriving science-based society. The problem from (St. Louis). In accepting the consumers to know about our food. comes when such communication is reduced grant, he promised Monsanto “a solid return But a larger issue looms beyond the to misleading PR talking points to promote on the investment.” Just a couple weeks specifics of Folta’s relationship with commercial products and corporate profits. later, he publicly claimed no association Monsanto; the incident highlights a wider with Monsanto, and repeatedly denied ties problem in the systems we have for assuring COMPETING FINANCIAL INTERESTS The author declares competing financial interests: to Monsanto. Although the grant was paid transparency concerning disclosure of details are available in the online version of the paper to the University of Florida Foundation, financial interests of academic scientists. (doi:10.1038/nbt.3453). Monsanto’s grant letter is addressed to Folta Although drug and medical device and specifically states that the funds could manufacturers are required under the Stacy Malkan be used “at your discretion in support of Physician Payments Sunshine Act to disclose US Right to Know, Oakland, California, USA. your research and outreach projects.” The payments to doctors and teaching hospitals, e-mail: [email protected] documents show that Folta’s proposal to Monsanto was crafted to evade disclosure and conflict-of-interest reporting. As Folta notes in his proposal, the purpose was “to eliminate Standing up for scientific the potential concern of the funding organization influencing the messaging,” by consensus Nature America, Inc. All rights reserved. America, Inc. © 201 6 Nature placing the funds into an account that is “not publicly noted.” To the Editor: to USRTK’s letter. In my opinion, both Just because it is legal to lie and hide As senior vice president for agriculture general circulation and scientific media npg corporate contributions doesn’t make it and natural resources at the University of have erroneously framed the interactions of ethical. At one point, Folta even wrote to a Florida in Gainesville, where Professor scientists and USRTK as a scientific debate. Monsanto executive, “I’m glad to sign on to Kevin Folta is based, I am responding to the It is not. whatever you like, or write whatever you like.” letter from activist group US Right to Know A broad exists that This is not a shining example of integrity in (USRTK). USRTK presents its account of genetically modified (GM) foods are as safe science. Folta’s relationship with private companies. to eat as conventionally produced food. That Your editorial neglects to mention that Folta already has done much soul-searching, we continue to see this consensus rejected or Folta used text that was ghostwritten by the acknowledged in retrospect where he would have activists muddle public understanding public relations firm Ketchum (New York) do things differently, and set a new standard of this is frustrating. However, food scientists for the website GMO Answers (https:// for disclosure by posting online the sources take consolation in knowing that those who gmoanswers.com/), and—incredibly—in of his outreach funding. champion the science of , sea- a recent interview he defended this as an Although USRTK aims, as stated in its level rise or vaccines face similar challenges. acceptable practice for scientists (http://www. letter, “to improve our nation’s food system,” The last time I responded to USRTK’s buzzfeed.com/brookeborel/when-scientists- in reality its actions have diverted us at accusations, my response was followed by email-monsanto). the University of Florida from doing so. the group filing a public records request For the record, USRTK is not an anti- Folta already has spent a great deal of time against me. That request has led to publicly GMO group. We are a consumer group. We responding to USRTK. I believe he can funded attorneys pouring through thousands believe genetic engineering of crops may better spend his time on research to actually of my own e-mails. So be it. someday have benefits; however, it should improve a food system instead of continuing I am proud of the transparency in which proceed only with full transparency, as well to debate which people and institutions scientists test their ideas. We embrace as stringent health and environmental testing are the most trustworthy to do so. This transparency in the form of peer review. We and safeguards. is why I, and not Folta, am responding put our colleagues on notice that we intend

NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY VOLUME 34 NUMBER 1 JANUARY 2016 23