• Citrus Farmers Facing Deadly Bacteria Turn to Antibiotics, Alarming Health Officials - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/health/antibiotics-oranges-florida.html

    Since 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency has allowed Florida citrus farmers to use the drugs, streptomycin and oxytetracycline, on an emergency basis, but the agency is now significantly expanding their permitted use across 764,000 acres in California, Texas and other citrus-producing states. The agency approved the expanded use despite strenuous objections from the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which warn that the heavy use of antimicrobial drugs in agriculture could spur germs to mutate so they become resistant to the drugs, threatening the lives of millions of people.

    The E.P.A. has proposed allowing as much as 650,000 pounds of streptomycin to be sprayed on citrus crops each year. By comparison, Americans annually use 14,000 pounds of aminoglycosides, the class of antibiotics that includes streptomycin.

    The European Union has banned the agricultural use of both streptomycin and oxytetracycline. So, too, has Brazil, where orange growers are battling the same bacterial scourge, called huanglongbing, also commonly known as citrus greening disease.

    “To allow such a massive increase of these drugs in agriculture is a recipe for disaster,” said Steven Roach, a senior analyst for the advocacy group Keep Antibiotics Working. “It’s putting the needs of the citrus industry ahead of human health.”

    But for Florida’s struggling orange and grapefruit growers, the approvals could not come soon enough. The desperation is palpable across the state’s sandy midsection, a flat expanse once lushly blanketed with citrus trees, most of them the juice oranges that underpin a $7.2 billion industry employing 50,000 people, about 40,000 fewer than it did two decades ago. These days, the landscape is flecked with abandoned groves and scraggly trees whose elongated yellow leaves are a telltale sign of the disease.

    The decision paves the way for the largest use of medically important antibiotics in cash crops, and it runs counter to other efforts by the federal government to reduce the use of lifesaving antimicrobial drugs. Since 2017, the F.D.A. has banned the use of antibiotics to promote growth in farm animals, a shift that has led to a 33 percent drop in sales of antibiotics for livestock.

    The use of antibiotics on citrus adds a wrinkle to an intensifying debate about whether the heavy use of antimicrobials in agriculture endangers human health by neutering the drugs’ germ-slaying abilities. Much of that debate has focused on livestock farmers, who use 80 percent of antibiotics sold in the United States.

    Although the research on antibiotic use in crops is not as extensive, scientists say the same dynamic is already playing out with the fungicides that are liberally sprayed on vegetables and flowers across the world. Researchers believe the surge in a drug-resistant lung infection called aspergillosis is associated with agricultural fungicides, and many suspect the drugs are behind the rise of Candida auris, a deadly fungal infection.

    Créer du doute là où il n’y en a pas, au nom de la science évidemment... une science « complète » qui est impossible avec le vivant, donc un argument qui pourra toujours servir.

    In its evaluation for the expanded use of streptomycin, the E.P.A., which largely relied on data from pesticide makers, said the drug quickly dissipated in the environment. Still, the agency noted that there was a “medium” risk from extending the use of such drugs to citrus crops, and it acknowledged the lack of research on whether a massive increase in spraying would affect the bacteria that infect humans.

    “The science of resistance is evolving and there is a high level of uncertainty in how and when resistance occurs,” the agency wrote.

    Since its arrival in Florida was first confirmed in 2005, citrus greening has infected more than 90 percent of the state’s grapefruit and orange trees. The pathogen is spread by a tiny insect, the Asian citrus psyllid, that infects trees as it feeds on young leaves and stems, but the evidence of disease can take months to emerge. Infected trees prematurely drop their fruit, most of it too bitter for commercial use.

    Taw Richardson, the chief executive of ArgoSource, which makes the antibiotics used by farmers, said the company has yet to see any resistance in the 14 years since it began selling bactericides. “We don’t take antibiotic resistance lightly,” he said. “The key is to target the things that contribute to resistance and not get distracted by things that don’t.”

    Many scientists disagree with such assessments, noting the mounting resistance to both drugs in humans. They also cite studies suggesting that low concentrations of antibiotics that slowly seep into the environment over an extended period of time can significantly accelerate resistance.

    Scientists at the C.D.C. were especially concerned about streptomycin, which can remain in the soil for weeks and is allowed to be sprayed several times a season. As part of its consultation with the F.D.A., the C.D.C. conducted experiments with the two drugs and found widespread resistance to them.

    Although the Trump administration has been pressing the E.P.A. to loosen regulations, Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, said the agency’s pesticides office had a long track record of favoring the interests of chemical and pesticide companies. “What’s in the industry’s best interest will win out over public safety nine times out of 10,” he said.

    A spokesman for the E.P.A. said the agency had sought to address the C.D.C.’s and F.D.A.’s concerns about antibiotic resistance by ordering additional monitoring and by limiting its approvals to seven years.

    #Antibiotiques #Citrons #Agrumes #Pesticides #Conflits_intérêt #Pseudo-science

  • Harvard Calls for Retraction of Dozens of Studies by Noted Cardiologist - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/health/piero-anversa-fraud-retractions.html

    A prominent cardiologist formerly at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston fabricated or falsified data in 31 published studies that should be retracted, officials at the institutions have concluded.

    The cardiologist, Dr. Piero Anversa, produced research suggesting that damaged heart muscle could be regenerated with stem cells, a type of cell that can transform itself into a variety of other cells.

    Although other laboratories could not reproduce his findings, the work led to the formation of start-up companies to develop new treatments for heart attacks and stroke, and inspired a clinical trial funded by the National Institutes of Health.

    “A couple of papers may be alarming, but 31 additional papers in question is almost unheard-of,” said Benoit Bruneau, associate director of cardiovascular research at the Gladstone Institutes in San Francisco. “It is a lab’s almost entire body of work, and therefore almost an entire field of research, put into question.”

    #Fraude_scientifique #Conflits_intérêt #Science

  • Funding Matters – a statement about the corporate funding of academic conferences
    https://fundingmatters.tech

    As privacy scholars and advocates concerned with human rights, we write to express our dismay with the decision to have Palantir as a platinum sponsor for the Amsterdam Privacy Conference (APC).

    Privacy is one of the central challenges of our time and a pressing topic in today’s discussions on platforms, algorithms and policy making. The APC is a powerful forum for academics and advocates from around the world to move the field of privacy research forward. The conference is an important venue for privacy scholars from many different disciplines. The presence of Palantir as a sponsor of this conference legitimizes the company’s practices and gives it the opportunity to position itself as part of the agenda. This is deeply problematic and extremely regrettable.

    Palantir’s business model is based on a particular form of surveillance capitalism that targets marginalized communities and accelerates the use of discriminatory technologies such as predictive policing, for which the company has already been heavily criticized [1, 2]. Among Palantir’s public clients are police agencies and defense departments from all over the world. In the last year, Palantir has helped the Trump administration to find and deport asylum seekers, undocumented immigrants and refugees, raising serious concerns about wide-scale human rights violations [3]. While the company is largely secretive about its operations, it reportedly collaborated with Cambridge Analytica [4, 5], hedge funds, banks and financial service firms [6].

    Despite criticism over Palantir’s sponsorship since the conference’s 2015 edition, APC’s sponsorship strategy has not changed. This stance has consequences: it contributes to the marginalization and exclusion of scholars that otherwise would have participated and enriched the conversation at these events. Hence, it also impacts APC’s ability to nurture public debate on privacy.

    Palantir has also surfaced as a sponsor at a range of other prominent privacy and technology policy events. Due to similar concerns, some of these conferences have discontinued Palantir sponsorship, an example that we hope to see replicated. Given the political, economic and societal implications of privacy today, the funding strategies of our conferences matter more than ever. However complicated the process may be, it is time to develop sponsorship criteria and guidelines that ensure academic independence and proper consideration of human rights.

    We therefore call for:

    The discontinuation of Palantir’s sponsorship of the Amsterdam Privacy Conference,
    Organizers and participants alike to engage in an action-oriented discussion on corporate funding of academic events,
    The development of rigorous criteria and guidelines for corporate sponsorship, for example, based on Human Rights Impact Assessments.

    #Conflits_intérêts #Résistance #Sponsoring

  • Advertising in Medical Journals: Should Current Practices Change?
    https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0030130
    https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/figure/image?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0030130.t002&size=inline

    By accepting only advertisements for drugs and medical devices, medical journals have accepted an exclusive and dependent relationship with corporations. Perhaps the distance between the prescribing physician and the purchase of the advertised product contributes to the perception that drug advertisements in journals are somehow more professional than advertisements for goods hawked directly to the consumer. However, all advertising campaigns are designed to create positive feelings about a brand, to saturate a targeted population’s environment with a brand name, and to sell the product.

    #Médecine #Big_Pharma #Conflits_intérêt

  • Some of Trump’s Biggest Donors Are Profiting Big-Time on Immigration Detention Centers | Alternet
    https://www.alternet.org/some-trumps-biggest-donors-are-profiting-big-time-immigration-detention-ce

    The giant retail stores being converted into detention centers and these large tent cities cropping up to house immigrants, where did they come from? As always, it is important to follow the money. This plan to lock-up asylum-seeking migrants may seem like it happened overnight, but it has been years in the making. Only weeks after Donald Trump put his filthy hand on Lincoln’s Bible and took the Oath of Office, this was the February 24, 2017, headline at CNN Money:

    The actions Donald Trump, his sycophant Stephen Miller and Minister of White Supremacy Jeff Sessions are taking today are a huge payoff to the prison lobbyists and the border security industry that spent millions helping to get Donald Trump elected. Private for-profit prison executives were furious that President Obama decided to end the practice of using private prisons. They poured everything into Donald Trump and his campaign, maxing out $250,000 donations and even helping Trump raise $100 million in sketchy, secret money for his “inauguration committee.” And it paid off, as one of the first decisions from the Trump administration was to rescind Obama’s order to phase out private prisons.

    They didn’t stop there. These groups have been spending lavishly at Trump’s private business as well. The Miami New Times noted the private prison company GEO Group was one of the newest big spenders at Trump’s Doral property in Florida.

    In March of 2017, then Homeland Security chief John Kelly told Wolf Blitzer on CNN that he was considering a plan to separate families and detain them.

    “We have tremendous experience of dealing with unaccompanied minors,” he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on “The Situation Room.” "We turn them over to (Health and Human Services) and they do a very, very good job of putting them in foster care or linking them up with parents or family members in the United States."

    It didn’t take long for Kelly to publicly walk back that statement, denying he meant it would be a cruel, intentional warning or deterrent to others who might be thinking of seeking asylum in the U.S. But we can clearly see now, they’ve been plotting this for quite some time.

    [UDPATE] Bloomberg reports a Texas non-profit got a nearly $500 million contract to take care of the immigrant kids.

    The Trump administration plans to pay a Texas nonprofit nearly half a billion dollars this year to care for immigrant children who were detained crossing the U.S. border illegally, according to government data.

    The nonprofit, Southwest Key Programs Inc., is to be paid more than $458 million in fiscal 2018, according to the data — the most among the organizations, government agencies and companies that run a detention and care system for immigrant children on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services. Southwest Key has about a dozen facilities in Texas, including a site at a former WalMart Inc.store in Brownsville that has drawn attention from members of Congress and national news organizations.

    #Capitalisme_carcéral #Prédation #Conflits_intérêt

  • Federal Agency Courted Alcohol Industry to Fund Study on Benefits of Moderate Drinking - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/health/nih-alcohol-study-liquor-industry.html

    It was going to be a study that could change the American diet, a huge clinical trial that might well deliver all the medical evidence needed to recommend a daily alcoholic drink as part of a healthy lifestyle.

    That was how two prominent scientists and a senior federal health official pitched the project during a presentation at the luxurious Breakers Hotel in Palm Beach, Fla., in 2014. And the audience members who were being asked to help pay for the $100 million study seemed receptive: They were all liquor company executives.

    They also made the industry privy to pertinent details, including a list of clinical sites and investigators who were “already on board,” the size and length of the trial, approximate number of participants, and the fact that they could choose any beverage. By design, no form of alcohol — wine, liquor or beer — would be called out as better than another in the trial.

    Dr. Michael Siegel, a professor of community health sciences at Boston University School of Public Health who was shown slides from the scientists’ presentation at The Breakers by The Times, said the study “is not public health research — it’s marketing.”

    “This must have seemed like a dream come true for industry. Of course they would pay for it,” he said. “They’re admitting the trial is designed to provide a justification for moderate drinking. That’s not objective science.”

    Whether scientists studying alcohol should accept money from the industry has long been controversial. Many scientists and policymakers have publicly said that any engagement with the alcohol industry undermines the credibility of the research.

    In 2016, a group representing hundreds of scientists and policymakers published a statement saying researchers should never accept direct or indirect industry funding, and that “any form of engagement with the alcohol industry may influence the independence, objectivity, integrity and credibility” of the research.

    “We know that industry funding not only affects the results of studies but affects the questions that are asked, how the results are analyzed and what the answers are,” said Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman, a professor of pharmacology at Georgetown University and director of Pharmed Out, a group that researches drug marketing.

    If the health effects of moderate drinking are a priority for the N.I.H., she added, “they should fund it themselves.”

    #Pharmacie #Alcool #Addiction #Conflits_intérêt

  • L’éditeur scientifique Springer Nature entrerait en Bourse en 2018
    https://www.actualitte.com/article/monde-edition/l-editeur-scientifique-springer-nature-entrerait-en-bourse-en-2018/86068

    Éditeur des revues scientifiques Nature ou Scientific American, entre autres, Springer Nature envisage une introduction en Bourse en 2018, à Francfort, pour une opération de valorisation de 4 à 5 milliards €, annonce l’agence Reuters. Cette IPO aurait lieu au cours de l’été 2018, et le capital de la société serait augmenté de 700 à 800 millions €.

    Né de la fusion de Macmillan Science and Education de Holtzbrinck et de l’activité Springer de BC Partners, Springer Nature a accumulé une dette de 3 milliards €, et l’objectif de cette introduction en Bourse n’est rien de moins que la réduction de cette dette qui plombe les résultats du groupe.

    #Edition_scientifique #Conflits_intérêt #Publications_scientifiques #Springer #Nature_revue

  • Even Oxford University Is Mixed up With Corrupt Monsanto | Alternet
    https://www.alternet.org/food/university-oxford-has-disturbingly-cozy-connection-monsanto

    Food
    Even Oxford University Is Mixed up With Corrupt Monsanto
    An unscientific report completely discounts Monsanto’s role in climatic and ecological damage.
    By John W. Roulac / AlterNet
    November 4, 2017, 9:30 PM GMT

    A University of Oxford thinktank, the Food Climate Research Network (FCRN), has come out with a report, “Grazed and Confused,” that likens 100-percent grass-fed beef to that produced on a 10,000-cow confined animal feedlot operation (CAFO) like Harris Ranch on Interstate 5 in Central California—calling them basically the same in climate impacts.

    Think, for a moment, how absurd that is. One has to wonder why this Oxford thinktank is being so deferential to Monsanto and the GMO/fertilizer industry, which profits via the planet-killing, health-destroying CAFO model.

    The Monsanto Connection to Oxford University

    It seems that Monsanto has a deep and enduring connection to the University of Oxford (UO). Monsanto has paid out to UO through various business ventures more than $50M pounds ($75M US).

    Also, Oxford University Press has published a flattering book, written by Robert Paarlberg, full of Monsanto puffery: Food Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know.

    In 2006, the Guardian reported that UO professor and Oxford resident Dr. Richard Droll wrote and testified that Monsanto chemicals did not cause cancer, while he “was receiving a consultancy fee of $1,500 a day in the mid-1980s from Monsanto, then a major chemical company and now better known for its GM crops business.”

    Oxford University has advertised a Monsanto Senior Research Fellowship.

    The distinguished and well-respected U.K. Sustainable Food Trust was also critical of the report, stating:

    The report focuses exclusively on greenhouse gas emissions, and while it does accept that grassland can sequester carbon, it fails to understand the vital necessity of returning degraded cropland to rotations that include grass and grazing animals, in order to rebuild carbon and organic matter levels, and the potential of integrating grazing livestock production with crop production in genuine mixed farming systems, to address a wide range of the food system problems currently faced…The only sustainable way to obtain food from grassland is to graze it with ruminants. With the growing global population it would be irresponsible not to do that.

    In one conclusion, the FCRN report states, “Grain-fed intensive livestock systems use less land and so cause less damaging land use change.” Yet the destruction of forest and savannah lands in South America for soybean farms to feed CAFO animals is in the millions of hectares. GMO corn and soy are two of the most damaging systems for land and habitat that the world has ever seen.

    Cows eat grass; therefore they don’t need to consume vast amounts of GMO corn and soybeans. Less GMO corn planted means less cancer-linked, soil-killing RoundUp being sprayed. If consumers can understand that pasture-raised beef is better for them than CAFO meat, they’ll change their buying preferences and sales of beneficial pasture-raised beef will go up, while Monsanto profits from agricultural products with a multitude of negative impacts for animals, humans and the environment will go down.

    Ces rapports payés par les industries sont en fait des supports pour la promotion cachée des médias. Il s’agit de se cacher derrière une « science » qui ne dit pas d’où viennent ses financemets et quelles sont ses allégeances. Et puis les rapports ne passent jamais devant des instances de contrôle...

    After the “Grazed and Confused” report came out, it began spreading virally across the web. One headline in the New York Post read: “Your Grass-Fed Burger Is Making Climate Change Worse.”

    To quote from this article:

    Environmentally conscious meat eaters have touted grass-fed meat as a solution to help negate the impact of cows on the environment. But unfortunately, it’s not that simple. Raising grass-fed cows also leads to deforestation—another big climate change issue—as farmers chop down forests in order to expand their pastures.

    #Monsanto #Université #Conflits_intérêt

  • How Silicon Valley Plans to Conquer the Classroom - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/technology/silicon-valley-baltimore-schools.html?emc=edit_th_20171104&nl=todaysheadlin

    Silicon Valley is going all out to own America’s school computer-and-software market, projected to reach $21 billion in sales by 2020. An industry has grown up around courting public-school decision makers, and tech companies are using a sophisticated playbook to reach them, The New York Times has found in a review of thousands of pages of Baltimore County school documents and in interviews with dozens of school officials, researchers, teachers, tech executives and parents.

    Au moins en France, ils n’ont pas ce problème : c’est directement le Ministère de l’Education nationale qui a invité ses cadres aux formations et conseils délivrés par Microsoft...

    School leaders have become so central to sales that a few private firms will now, for fees that can climb into the tens of thousands of dollars, arrange meetings for vendors with school officials, on some occasions paying superintendents as consultants. Tech-backed organizations have also flown superintendents to conferences at resorts. And school leaders have evangelized company products to other districts.

    These marketing approaches are legal. But there is little rigorous evidence so far to indicate that using computers in class improves educational results. Even so, schools nationwide are convinced enough to have adopted them in hopes of preparing students for the new economy.

    Intéressant cette notion de « pharmacy-like » technique de marketing. Il n’y a plus seulement l’industrie du tabac comme modèle de la capacité à créer un foule d’accros.

    In some significant ways, the industry’s efforts to push laptops and apps in schools resemble influence techniques pioneered by drug makers. The pharmaceutical industry has long cultivated physicians as experts and financed organizations, like patient advocacy groups, to promote its products.

    Studies have found that strategies like these work, and even a free $20 meal from a drug maker can influence a doctor’s prescribing practices. That is one reason the government today maintains a database of drug maker payments, including meals, to many physicians.

    Tech companies have not gone as far as drug companies, which have regularly paid doctors to give speeches. But industry practices, like flying school officials to speak at events and taking school leaders to steak and sushi restaurants, merit examination, some experts say.

    Several parents said they were troubled by school officials’ getting close to the companies seeking their business. Dr. Cynthia M. Boyd, a practicing geriatrician and professor at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine with children in district schools, said it reminded her of drug makers’ promoting their medicines in hospitals.

    “You don’t have to be paid by Big Pharma, or Big Ed Tech, to be influenced,” Dr. Boyd said. She has raised concerns about the tech initiative at school board meetings.

    In Baltimore County and beyond, the digital makeover of America’s schools has spawned a circuit of conferences, funded by Microsoft, Google, Dell and other tech vendors, that lavish attention on tech-friendly educators.

    Another way tech companies reach superintendents is to pay private businesses that set up conferences or small-group meetings with them. Superintendents nationwide have attended these events.

    One prominent provider is the Education Research and Development Institute, or ERDI, which regularly gathers superintendents and other school leaders for conferences where they can network with companies that sell to schools.

    ERDI has offered superintendents $2,000 per conference as participating consultants, according to a Louisiana Board of Ethics filing. And there are other perks.

    “Because we are asking for their time and expertise, we commonly offer to pay the cost of their food, transportation and lodging during their participation,” ERDI’s president, David M. Sundstrom, said in an email.

    #Education #Edutech #Conflits_intérêt #Pharma_marketing_model

  • Pruitt Bars Some Scientists From Advising E.P.A. - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/31/climate/pruitt-epa-science-advisory-boards.html

    Très fort ! Accuser les chercheurs qui touchent de l’argent de l’Agence fédérale de conflit d’intérêt, quand les industriels en seraient « par nature » exemplts. Ça c’est de la rhétorique...

    Mais ce n’est pas nouveau. Chez nous, on dénonce facilement les « chercheurs militants » (l’injure suprême, demandez à Gilles-Eric Séralini). mais personne ne considère ceux qui sont sous contrat d’entreprise comme des « militants du marché ». Pourtant...

    Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, stripped a half-dozen scientists and academics of advisory positions Tuesday and issued new rules barring anyone who receives E.P.A. grant money from serving on panels that counsel the agency on scientific decisions.

    The move will effectively bar a large number of academic researchers, many of them experts in fields ranging from toxicology to epidemiology, from advising the E.P.A. on scientific matters, since the agency is one of the largest funders of environmental research.

    Mr. Pruitt was expected to appoint several industry representatives to the panels. He did not impose any new restrictions to prevent them from offering advice on environmental regulations that may affect their businesses.

    #Recherche #Conflits_intérêt #EPA #Indépendance_scientifique

  • Trump’s New CDC Chief Championed Partnership with Coca-Cola to Solve Childhood Obesity
    https://theintercept.com/2017/07/08/trumps-new-cdc-chief-championed-partnership-with-coca-cola-to-solve-ch

    The new chief of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which monitors significant public health concerns, including the impact of sugary beverages on obesity and heart disease, will be led by Brenda Fitzgerald, a Georgia physician whose signature childhood obesity project was underwritten by Coca-Cola.

    Coca-Cola was so fond of Fitzgerald’s approach to obesity issues that an opinion column authored by Fitzgerald is featured prominently on Coca-Cola’s website.

    Public health officials around the country have made obesity a top issue of concern. The United States has the distinction of having the highest rate of childhood obesity in the world, according to a recent report from the New England Journal of Medicine. And multiple reports have found that regular consumption of sugary beverages is a leading driver of obesity, which is linked to heart disease, diabetes, kidney diseases, cancers and hypertension.

    More exercise, of course, is a good thing, but the Georgia SHAPE program notably eschewed another well-known step toward healthier living: curbing sugary beverage consumption

    The CDC in particular has also been targeted by Coca-Cola, which has long disclosed attempts to lobby the agency to influence public health policy.

    Emails obtained by U.S. Right to Know revealed that executives from Coca-Cola and the International Life Sciences Institute — an organization founded with support from Coca-Cola — had pressured the agency to partner with the soda giant and allow it to weigh in on debates over sugary soft drinks. In one particular email chain with a CDC official, a former Coca-Cola executive discussed strategies for influencing the World Health Organization’s call for greater regulation of soft drinks. The former Coca-Cola executive called the WHO’s efforts a “threat to our business,” and invited the CDC official out for dinner to further discuss ways to sway decisions at the international body. Clyde Tuggle, the former Coca-Cola executive, was included in the email chain.

    #alimentation #conflits_intérêt #boissons_sucrées #obésité

  • Sécurité alimentaire : l’agence européenne minée par les conflits d’intérêts, selon une ONG
    http://abonnes.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2017/06/14/securite-alimentaire-l-expertise-europeenne-mise-en-cause-par-les-co

    L’ONG a analysé les déclarations publiques d’intérêts de plus de deux cents scientifiques répartis dans les dix groupes d’experts de l’agence européenne. Chacun d’eux est dévolu à un domaine précis (pesticides, OGM, additifs alimentaires, matériaux au contact des aliments…) et se trouve régulièrement amené à évaluer la sûreté des substances entrant dans la chaîne alimentaire. C’est-à-dire de tout ce qui finit, d’une manière ou d’une autre, dans l’assiette des Européens.

    « Nous avons analysé un à un tous les liens d’intérêts déclarés par ces experts et nous concluons que 46 % d’entre eux sont en conflit d’intérêts, direct ou indirect, avec des entreprises dont ils sont censés évaluer les produits », explique Martin Pigeon, chercheur à CEO et auteur du rapport – en partie fondé sur des données réunies entre janvier et avril 2016 par la journaliste indépendante Stéphane Horel, devenue depuis collaboratrice du Monde.

    Ces liens peuvent être la détention d’actions, des contrats de consultance, des financements de recherche… Ils peuvent être directs si ce sont des entreprises qui sont à l’origine des flux financiers, indirects si ces financements transitent par d’autres organisations (sociétés savantes, associations professionnelles, organismes de rattachement…).

    « Pour être clair, les intérêts financiers de tous les experts travaillant dans les panels de l’EFSA ont été minutieusement évalués, en accord avec les règles strictes d’indépendance de l’agence », se défend-on à l’EFSA.

    L’agence considère généralement comme un conflit d’intérêts une situation où l’expert a reçu des financements liés au produit qu’il est chargé d’évaluer. Schématiquement, un scientifique ayant perçu d’une entreprise un financement en rapport avec un produit A, peut conduire une expertise sur un produit B commercialisé par la même entreprise sans que le lien avec l’industriel soit considéré comme un conflit d’intérêts par l’EFSA.

    #Santé_Publique #Alimentation #Conflits_intérêt

  • ​Mise en examen dans l’affaire du Mediator mais nommée au comité d’éthique de l’Académie de médecine !
    https://www.marianne.net/societe/mise-en-examen-dans-l-affaire-du-mediator-mais-nommee-au-comite-d-ethique-

    La nomination de Marie-Thérèse Hermange parmi les membres du comité d’éthique de l’Académie de médecine, début janvier, avait suscité la colère. Et pour cause. L’ancienne sénatrice UMP de Paris, mise en examen en 2013 dans le cadre d’une enquête pour « trafic d’influence » dans l’affaire du Mediator, est soupçonnée d’avoir servi les intérêts des laboratoires Servier. Selon les informations du Figaro, ce mardi 28 février, l’intéressée a pourtant été « maintenue dans ses fonctions » par ledit comité d’éthique lors d’une réunion qui s’est tenue le 7 février.

    #santé_publique #conflits_intérêts #éthique

  • As drug industry’s influence over research grows, so does the potential for bias
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/as-drug-industrys-influence-over-research-grows-so-does-the-potential-for-bias/2012/11/24/bb64d596-1264-11e2-be82-c3411b7680a9_story.html

    What only careful readers of the article would have gleaned is the extent of the financial connections between the drugmaker and the research. The trial had been funded by GlaxoSmithKline, and each of the 11 authors had received money from the company. Four were employees and held company stock. The other seven were academic experts who had received grants or consultant fees from the firm.


    #pharma #corruption #conflits_intérêt