PR Firm Shuts Down Site That Profiled Pesticide Critics After Investigation Reveals USAID Funding

v-Fluence, which created profiles on over 3,000 organizations and 500 people and made the profiles available to pesticide industry executives and others, collected more than $400,000 from USAID between 2013 and 2019. The funds were funneled through the International Food Policy Research Institute.

A pesticide industry public relations consultant that secretly profiled hundreds of food and environmental health journalists, scientists and advocates has shut down its profiling operation in response to public outcry, The Guardian reported Monday.

v-Fluence created profiles on more than 3,000 organizations and 500 people. The company coordinated with government officials to counter global resistance to pesticides and genetically modified (GM) crops, according to Lighthouse Reports, which conducted a year-long investigation into the firm.

Many profiles include personal details including the names of family members, phone numbers, home addresses and even house values.

v-Fluence published the profiles on a private social network called “Bonus Eventus,” named after a Roman god of agriculture. Bonus Eventus is a private stakeholder “wiki” accessible by about 1,000 members described as the “who’s-who of the agrochemical industry” and its allies, including the world’s largest pesticide companies, academics and government officials from several countries.

More than 30 current U.S. government officials are on the membership list, primarily from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which regulates pesticides and organics.

The profiling was part of a broader effort to minimize pesticide dangers, discredit critics and undermine global policymaking on pesticides and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), according to documents obtained by Lighthouse Reports.

v-fluence is run by Monsanto’s former communications director, Jay Byrne, according to GMWatch, which also investigated the firm’s activities.

The scheme was funded in part by the U.S. government through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which channeled more than $400,000 to v-Fluence through the International Food Policy Research Institute between 2013 and 2019.

Among those profiled was Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Children’s Health Defense founder and President Donald Trump’s nominee for U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Other targets included environmental investigative journalist Cary Gillam, author of “The Monsanto Papers: Deadly Secrets, Corporate Corruption, and One Man’s Search for Justice” and co-author of The Guardian article. Indian environmentalist and longtime Monsanto critic Vandana Shiva, GM scientist professor Michael Antoniou and food writer Michael Pollan also were on the list.

v-Fluence and Byrne were also central to the smear campaign against Ignacio Chapela and Gilles-Éric Séralini, whose research raised questions about gene flow from GM crops and the safety of GM corn and Roundup, respectively.

Antoniou told The Guardian he worried that the v-Fluence shut-down was “too little too late.” He said:

“Those of us who were profiled still do not know who accessed the information and how it was used.

“Did it hinder us in our careers or close doors that otherwise may have been open to us? The fact that v-Fluence and the industries it serves resorted to these underhanded methods shows that they were unable to win on the level of the science.”

The Guardian reported that v-Fluence ended the profiling and made “significant staff cuts” after Lighthouse and its media partners exposed its work. Byrne blamed the costs of “litigator and activist harassment” for the cutbacks.

In a statement sent to Lighthouse before it published its investigation and posted on v-Fluence’s website, the company accused Lighthouse of “manufactured falsehoods” and seeking to “unjustly damage” v-Fluence’s global reputation.

Several corporate backers and industry organizations have also canceled contracts with the company.

v-Fluence clients face billions in lawsuits over their toxic products

v-Fluence, founded in 2001, provides “reputation management” services for a limited number of major corporations. Services include “ongoing intelligence gathering, proprietary data-mining and analytics,” for clients that include Monsanto and Syngenta.

Monsanto, which Bayer acquired in 2018, faces thousands of lawsuits by people who allegedly developed cancer after being exposed to Roundup weedkiller, made with glyphosate. Bayer said it would set aside more than $10 billion to settle roughly 100,000 of the claims, although some the settlements have become mired in difficulties. In 2021, Bayer it said it would set aside another $4.5 billion to cover cancer claims.

The company also said it would stop selling glyphosate-based herbicides to U.S. consumers, although it would continue to sell them to commercial farmers.

Syngenta, maker of the highly poisonous paraquat weedkiller, faces lawsuits over alleged links between the pesticide and Parkinson’s disease. The company denies the link, but legal documents show its claim rests on “weak” data and contradicts its own research and knowledge.

v-Fluence and Byrne are listed as co-defendants in a lawsuit Syngenta is facing in the U.S. They are accused of helping Syngenta suppress information about paraquat’s link to Parkinson’s and of helping to neutralize its critics.

A recent USRTK report revealed details about v-Fluence and a range of other deceptive tactics Byrne and other industry players have been using to defend and promote pesticides and GMOs.

Byrne personally advised AstraZeneca, Pfizer, the International Rice Research Institute — which promotes genetically engineered (GE) “golden rice” and the U.S. government. He played a key role in attacks on Greenpeace, which he placed on a “targets” list he was compiling for Monsanto.

Byrne was instrumental in creating “Academics Review” an industry-funded “independent” organization that produces reports that, for example, attack the organic industry.

Byrne and v-Fluence also produced a series of taxpayer-funded videos to promote GE foods, according to USRTK.

‘The people who run v-Fluence should search their consciences’

Since The Guardian, The New Lede, USRTK and others published Lighthouse Report’s findings, v-Fluence hired a law firm to review whether its profiling violated the European Union’s (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which protects individuals’ personal data rights.

In a Dec. 9, 2024, statement posted on its website, v-Fluence announced the law firm found that the company wasn’t subject to the GDPR. The statement also said the law firm provided recommendations for handling personal data of people in the EU consistent with the GDPR in case that law were to apply.

In response, the organization said, “v-Fluence has adopted all such recommendations, including the removal of the non-profit Bonus Eventus stakeholder wiki from our work, and we will continue to offer stakeholder research with updated guidelines to avoid future misinterpretations of our work product.”

Numerous media organizations have condemned v-Fluence and called for further investigation. Arthur Grimonpont of Reporters without Borders said:

“The practice of profiling and spreading rumours that could harm journalists’ integrity should never be allowed to flourish in a democratic state. A thorough investigation must be conducted to bring to justice all those involved in these outrageous violations of privacy and the reputation of environmental journalists.

“These manipulation techniques aimed at influencing the public debate are a direct attack on the public’s right to reliable and independent information.”

Antoniou told The Defender that the people profiled had the right to know who their information had been shared with. “At the very least, v-Fluence must tell us who accessed the information and when,” he said.

Antoniou added:

“The people who run v-Fluence should search their consciences and ask themselves how the organisation serves society and humankind, since as far as I can see, it serves no positive societal function whatsoever.

“Quite the opposite — their sole purpose seems to be to undermine the honest work of individuals and organisations whose aim is to research and educate about the risks posed by GMOs and pesticides.”