Giant GMO Corporations Scared By Teen Activist

Why are giant GMO corporations so frightened of teenager Rachel Parent?

Documents obtained via a freedom of information request reveal that a large number of GMO corporations are threatened by the work of a 14-year-old girl who uses social media to speak out against the dangers of GMO’s. 

In an embarrassing revelation internal emails reveal that the GMO lobby plotted to counter Rachel Parents efforts to spread awareness on the dangers of GMO foods, admitting that they are “quite plainly threatened” by her efforts. reports:

Parent was even lucky enough to have a debate with Kevin O’Leary which aired on national television, and she also give a speech at a past TEDx event on the basic premise that individuals do have a right to know what’s in their food. Parent was also successful at campaigning until she got a sit-down with former Canadian Health Minister Rona Ambrose, to discuss the issues surrounding the labeling of GMO food. It is said that Parent is one of Canada’s most visible anti-GMO advocates.

Dan Dicks had the chance to speak with Parent earlier this year, where she shared some light on her ongoing efforts, details about the March Against Monsanto, and on why this issue is so important to her:

The documents recently obtained in the freedom of information request reveal that Parent’s message has been attracting attention from the GMO corporations themselves. Their internal e-mails display that they have been discussing how they could possibly counter her anti-GMO message. “It is mostly scientists that they attack, but Rachel is a standout. The agrichemical industry is plainly quite threatened by this teenage schoolgirl, so that’s why they’re after her,” says Gary Ruskin, the co-director of USRTK. The documents detail that professors and academics were contacted by biotech companies and the industry trade association’s public relations firm in order to provide some expert opinion and to offer credibility in a debate on the topic.

One relationship that the documents did allegedly shine some light on was that between Monsanto and the chairman of the horticultural sciences department at the University of Florida, Kevin Folta. It was revealed that in August 2014, Folta allegedly received a grant from Monsanto to the tune of $25,000 and he was told to put it towards his “research and outreach projects,” that he had going. Folta wrote a blog about the grant and discussed his plans to use the money to fund his travels so that he could teach other scientists how to talk about science. Folta denies the claims and says that he “doesn’t care about the companies,” only that he himself believes GMO technology is safe.

Documents also reveal that Folta was asked to establish a counter-argument to Parent’s work against GMO technology. “How do you agree/disagree with a 14-year old GMO labeling activist Rachel Parent, who is, in her own words ‘not anti-science’ but ‘for responsible science and ethical progress?” read the request. They also added that they “try to refrain from personally attacking folks,” so that Folta shouldn’t spend too much time worrying about Rachel specifically. Just a few days later, a video surfaced online ‘How do you agree/disagree with a 14 year old GMO activist?”

Folta still wasn’t done with Parent. The e-mails also disclose that Folta allegedly had plans to purchase a site domain in order to counter Parent’s own site, and he would title his which is a play off of her own Kids Right To Know site. If the science and the truth in support of GMO technology is so sound, then it’s surprising that they find a random 14 year old from Canada to be such a threat on the matter. Truth doesn’t need propaganda in order to support it because the truth should be able to stand-up on its own. Parent isn’t swayed by the attacks and she says that she is still going strong with her message, “we’re just appealing to simple transparency,” she says.

  • Terry5135

    The problem with his reasoning is that “no evidence of harm” does NOT mean that something is safe. The only way to gather evidence of harm is to cause harm. By this rationale, everything is on until the damage is done. There are times to use such reasoning, granted, but it is no way to run a world.

    • Rob Bright

      That is why labeling is so important. With no way to track or trace back a possible illness or health consequence, there is no way epidemiologists could ever trace an illness or outbreak to GE foods. They are simply untraceable. So no amount of crying, “There’s been no evidence of harm!” is absolutely bogus. How on earth would anyone ever be able to determine a health problem was caused by a GMO?

      • Kevin Folta

        Because food containing salmonella is not labeled as “Contains salmonella”. When a problem occurs, it is simple to trace back to the origins these days.

        • Goldfinger

          People are not intentionally putting salmonella in the food supply like they are the cancer causing Glyphosate laden GMOs that they purposely hide to prevent people from making an informed choice about the food they feed their families.

          It’s obvious that you didn’t think through your BS false equivalency before you posted it and made a fool of yourself again here, Folta.

          • Kevin Folta

            Glyphosate laden? The numbers are pretty clear! There is < 3ppm on raw corn/soy when it is found at all, and it never has been reliably detected in food above ppb (seconds in 32 years). More scare mongering from the fleet of sock puppet accounts.

          • Goldfinger

            Glyphosate has been shown to cause breast cancer cell growth at part per TRILLION concentrations.

            A recent peer review scientific study posted on the Nature website shows that Roundup causes fatty liver disease a concentrations over 430,000 times lower that the contamination allowed in the food supply.

            Monsanto’s 1981 glyphosate study in rats by Lankas & Hogan shows that Glyphosate causes malignant LYMPHOMA .. . Glyphosate induced Malignant Lymphoma particularly in the female rats. These malignant lymphomas were found ONLY in the treated animals and found in fourteen different types of tissue. The controls animals did not have any lymphomas.

            Monsanto study with 240 rats in their 2-year feeding trial concluded in 1990, which is called “Stout and Ruecker” in the literature. The data from this are revealed in the 1991 EPA memo and in Greim (2015) and clearly show cause for concern which was swept under the rug in the 1991 memo. Three EPA toxicologists also did not concur with the conclusions and did not sign the memo.

            The cancers related to transgenic organisms and glyphosate mainly increase cancers that were far more rare. Cancer of thyroid, pancreas, liver, blader, stomach and esophagus are all up since introduction of transgenics and rise in glyphosate application by 17 fold.

            Table 3. Pearson’s coefficients between disease and glyphosate applications (N=21
            encompassing 1990-2010), except autism (N=16; autism data only available for 1995-2010).
            Disease Coefficient, R R 2 × 100 Probability, p
            Thyroid cancer (incidence) 0.988 97.6 =7.6E-9
            Liver cancer (incidence) 0.960 92.1 =4.6E-8
            Bladder cancer (deaths) 0.981 96.2 =4.7E-9
            Pancreatic cancer (incidence) 0.918 84.2 =4.6E-7
            Kidney cancer (incidence) 0.973 94.8 =2.0E-8
            Table 4. Pearson’s coefficients between disease and the percentage of US corn and soy crops
            that are GE (N=15 encompassing 1996-2010; GE crops were first planted in 1995).
            Disease Coefficient, R R 2 × 100 Probability, p
            Thyroid cancer (incidence) 0.938 87.9 =2.2E-5
            Liver cancer (incidence) 0.911 82.9 =5.4E-5
            Bladder cancer (incidence) 0.945 89.3 =7.1E-6
            Pancreatic cancer (incidence) 0.841 70.7 =4.0E-4
            Kidney cancer (incidence) 0.940 88.4 =2.0E-5
            Myeloid leukaemia (deaths) 0.889 79.0 =5.4E-5
            Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America

          • patzagame

            Wow equating glyphosate residues in our food supply to time…really disingenuous.

        • Kevin

          Go figure. Label GMOs Folta = Hillary. Ineffective loser. Liar.

  • David Lee Smith

    Well done to this girl. Wish there were more like her, willing to stand up against these corporations.

  • Kevin Folta

    I’m the guy they talk about and it is really sad what they did. I have been a public scientists my entire life and my views always reflect the best in the literature and the scientific consensus. I’m always asked about Rachel and always say the same thing– she is a bright young woman that has been misled, and reflects the views of her family’s food empire, not necessarily the science. My video was fair and reasonable. There is no attack here.

    Yet the author ties this to funds that came to my science communication workshop program (ultimately funds were never used and were donated elsewhere after personal and family threats). It is unfair and has nothing to do with my words about Ms. Parent. The discussion about “” was an off-the-cuff comment in my PRIVATE emails confiscated through freedom of information requests. There was no attempt to purchase the domain or build such a website.

    The good news is that I think that Rachel is smart enough to see that she was used to harm others, and I’m guessing she’ll not be happy about this in the long run. In fact, I believe she’ll apologize someday. I like to think that people find their higher angels, and she’s young and smart enough to realize how they used her to harm others.

    • Rob Bright

      Yeah, the guy who lied about having no relationship with Monsanto (when e-mails clearly indicate you did.) How about that e-mail where you told them you’d be willing to write about whatever they wanted you to?

      The guy who lied about receiving no funds from Monsanto when they clearly gave you $25,000.00 for “educational outreach” (meaning you would spread their industry propaganda for them.

      You’re a liar and a fraud, Folta. You’re a disgrace to the science community. You have zero credibility, and even less integrity.

      • Kevin Folta

        Or is the liar and fraud the person that uses multiple sock puppets to harass a scientist? Any reader can see that this article sat for 1.5 years with no comments. When I commented I knew that Rob Bright, Debbie Owen, Cletus Debunkerman, razorjack and a handful of other fictitious accounts would show up. And it worked like a charm. Look how they were all posted at the same time once I posted my gentle, appropriate defense. Thanks, you played right into my test.

        • Goldfinger

          Your attempts to make your sleazy behavior about others isn’t working any better than your whacked out conspiracy theory that all the people who see through your corrupted disingenuous behavior are all sock puppets of one omnipotent person who is commenting with 20 accounts simultaneously.

          You don’t know how crazy and twisted you look when you bring out your whiny cock and bull sob stories, Folta.

          You are such a dishonest sleazebag.

        • sir_ken_g

          Pathetic … got that name list from the Monsanto database did you?

        • Rob Bright

          Pathetic, indeed. You can click on my account and see quite easily I’m using my real name, and my account is over ten years old and has never changed in that time. Your constant whining of victimhood is truly what is pathetic here, Folta. You have zero credibility and even less integrity,

        • Debbie Owen

          Wrong again, I comment with my real name, no fictitious account. And as the article states so well “If the science and the truth in support of GMO technology is so sound, then it’s surprising that they find a random 14 year old from Canada to be such a threat on the matter. Truth doesn’t need propaganda in order to support it because the truth should be able to stand-up on its own.”

    • razorjack

      Still playing victim, but the long paper trail of hard evidence shows that you are a liar and a disingenuous Monsanto shill.

    • StopGMO

      Kevin, you’re a tad late on this article. It’s from 2015 and the comments go as far back as last year. And stop playing poor me. It’s all self-inflicted.

    • patzagame

      I find your accusations about Rachel “harming” others very offensive.

    • Kevin

      Poor Kevin Folta. It must suck to be you.

  • razorjack

    Folta is a know industry shill and sleaze.

    Folta lied repeatedly about the $25,000.00 unrestricted slush fund Monsanto made available to him, and his own e-mail contacts prove it.

    Not only that Folta conspired with the PR firm Ketchum and allowed them to write propaganda articles under his name.

    Not only is there an e-mail trail, but there is also video and screenshot evidence that shows his so-called “science outreach” was industry propaganda.

    Folta also had a podcast under an assumed name and didn’t disclose the ruse to the people he interviewed. One time he even interviewed himself.

    Folta also claimed his hairdresser wife was a nurse and promoted her dis-info blog. Impersonation of a nurse in Florida is a crime.

    Folta has also conspired with known industry trolls to marginalize any opposition to the industry propaganda. The proof also show he was willing to lie about the facts to support the corrupt industry agenda

    The fact is Folta’s activities were not about science, He was using science, selectively, to promote a corrupt GMO pesticide industry political agenda.

    Folta should be sanctioned and fired by his university. He doesn’t have the moral character or integrity to be influencing you people. He is a disgrace to honest scientists everywhere.

    More here:

    • Kevin Folta

      Anyone interested should send me an email or visit my website. Everything always disclosed, all proper. These folks just love to harass me. Google the stuff above. It is cut/paste harassment from sock puppet accounts.

      • Goldfinger

        So the disgraced “scientist” whines that he is being harassed by having the facts about his duplicitous behavior exposed while at the same time harassing a teen age girl because she is presenting facts that he can’t spin away. You are such a tender little snowflake sociopath, Folta.

        • Kevin Folta

          Anyone reading this should watch the video. Am I harassing her? Or are these sockpuppets harassing me? You decide!

          • sir_ken_g

            Boo hoo hoo. Shameful. Sure glad my kid is not going to your school.

          • Goldfinger

            We have seen you harass anyone who questions your industry echo chamber junk pseudo-science agenda.

            You are not “debating science” and it is disingenuous to claim that you are. You are using science, selectively, to promote a corrupt GMO pesticide industry political agenda.

      • Kevin

        Why bother recognizing a shill, liar and paid by Monsanto fool.
        Folta exposed…

  • kim hunter

    You know you’re doing something right when the most high profile GMO trolls come-a-calling. 😀
    We’ll see if the ‘Let nothing go’ Monsanto army descends. 🙂

  • E.W. Modemac

    By the way, the videos here are from 2015 (Rachel Parent) and 2013 (Kevin Folta). This is hardly breaking news, just a re-hash of previously written articles.