Health Impact News
The “media relations manager” for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics contacted us regarding the N.Y. Times story we featured: Registered Dietitian Dismissed from Panel Researching GMO Nutrition for Pointing out Other Members Ties to Monsanto.
We are publishing their response unedited below, as well as the response from Ms. Bartolotto.
—————————
From: Ryan O’Malley
To: Editor Health Impact News
Date: 4/16/2013
To whom it may concern,
My name is Ryan O’Malley and I’m the media relations manager for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Your reposting of the article that appeared recently in the New York Times was brought to my attention, and I thought your readers would be interested to read our response to this, pointing out the factual inaccuracies it contains. You can find that here: http://www.eatright.org/Media/
Your readers may also find informative a blog posting by the RD who was falsely attributed to Monsanto, clarifying that information as well: http://thefoodiefarmer.
These are the facts of the situation. Unfortunately, the New York Times writer did not properly investigate the story before writing it.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Ryan O’Malley
——————–
From: Carole Bartolotto
To: Assistant Editor Health Impact News
Date: 4/17/2013
Hi,
The work group was tasked to review the evidence related to food technologies, including genetically modified foods. I was happy to be a part of the group because I have seen how industry uses these position papers to support their stance.
Being on the work group was an interesting experience. Right off the bat, I had some major concerns, including the following:
- Two members, Jennie Schmidt and Marianne Smith Edge, disclosed their ties to industry groups such as Monsanto.
- The evidence review was not going to link to the position paper. And it would only include human studies, not animal. The problem with this is that there are not very many human studies to review.
- The position paper was going to be written by Christine M. Bruhn, PhD, from UC Davis, a vocal supporter of genetically modified foods who is against labeling. UC Davis has strong ties to Monsanto.
I mentioned some of my concerns with the group and I also sent an email to an Academy employee involved with the project about the potential conflicts of interest. Because of my concerns, members of the group were asked to fill out the Academy’s disclosure statement again and disclose any money they might have received.
On March 22, 2013, I received a letter saying I was dismissed for not disclosing my consulting business, listed on my blog, healthyeatingrocks.com. I was shocked to say the least, especially since I do not have a business. At some point I would like to pursue one, but I am too busy with my full-time job and family obligations.
I sent the Academy 3 emails explaining that I do not have a business, that I did have questions, and would like to talk. Since the dismissal letter specifically stated, “Please contact us if you have any questions,” I was expecting a response back. I waited for over 3 weeks, but I heard nothing.
And that is why I decided to talk to the New York Times.
Then the Academy issued a posted a statement that was filled with inaccuracies.
I did not refuse to “disclose any and all conflicts of interest.” Why would I disclose something that does not exist? I did disclose however, that I received 135.00 from two sources that were relevant to the project, as they required.
The Academy also says that “She was simply asked, repeatedly, to disclose this information and she declined to do so.” However, it was my questioning of the groups policy to include people on the committee with ties to industry that led to the Academy’s request for more information from the entire group, not only me. And I complied with their request.
It was clear their minds were made up. A nonexistent business, not disclosed, was a bigger concern than two people who are involved with industries that would directly benefit from an evidence review and position paper with a positive slant toward genetically modified foods.
All of this posturing takes away from the real issue: Is it appropriate to have people involved with the biotech industry, which could benefit from the outcome, sit on a biotech-related work group? I don’t think so. Additionally, I found it alarming that the Academy was intent on moving forward with a position paper, written by Christine M. Bruhn, PhD, to be published before the evidence review was complete. She wrote the Academy’s 2006 position paper, which said that GMOs “…enhance the quality, safety, nutritional value, and variety of food available for human consumption and increase the efficacy of food production, processing, food distribution, and environmental and waste management,” I am guessing her 2013 version will offer up more of the same.
Sadly, it is the American people who are the losers in this situation because they will probably not get clear, unbiased, and balanced information about what to eat from the organization that represents the largest group of nutrition-related health professionals in the country.
Considering that we have no long-term evidence showing that genetically modified foods are safe for humans, the most responsible position the Academy could take would be to say, “The long-term health effects of genetically modified foods are unknown. Until and unless we know more, at minimum, they should be labeled.”
Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Thank you,
Carole
———————-