> I think this is a rude and unfair characterization of him.

Then let me provide a more complete characterization, as it seems clear that
you do not know him very well at all.

How else other than "being a shill for hire" might one explain support for
both nuclear plants and fracking, persistent lobbying against GMO labeling
and food origin/content labels, or dogged denial of the hazards of
Syngenta's Atrazine in groundwater, and even bisphenol A (BPA) in food
packaging and phthalates in childrens' products?  Isn't it an amazing
coincidence that enthusiastic support is only given to such an eclectic set
of things made by companies who were donors of record to the one-man PR firm
posing as a non-profit (at least when disclosure was last required)?  

To top it all off, we have climate-change denial... apologist postures on
behalf of "energy companies":
http://www.jonentine.com/ethical_corporation/2009_01_Rescue_Planet.pdf

So, this clearly is the work of a PR man - a former TV producer and
self-proclaimed expert with no education or degree in the sciences, no
nutrition education, no  agriculture experience - a BA in philosophy.
Seriously.  The entity producing the PR was named "ESG MediaMetrics" a few
years ago, and had clients like Monsanto, and plastics associations, but
that name was abandoned in favor of several more scientific-sounding names,
such as "The Genetic Literacy Project".

I did not mention that ABC fired Entine over a hit-piece on the cosmetics
company "The Body Shop", or that Forbes dropped him as a contributor over
backlash over a hit piece he did on Consumer Reports over their stance that
consumers might want to differ between GMO soy milk vs non-GMO soy milk. 

I did not mention his book "Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and
Why We Are Afraid to Talk About It".  The inherent racism evinced and basic
errors over simple issues of "nature vs nurture" prompted dozens of
scholarly refutations.

I did not mention the methods used - vicious personal attacks against
legitimate researchers, to undermine their credibility in the press. 

Is it any wonder which side would be taken in any discussion of pesticides
by such a PR firm?   No mention is ever made of any bee science at all, good
or bad, except to consistently deny of any potential issues of concern with
any pesticide.

I hope that this more complete characterization makes clear that just
because someone seems to support your preconceived notions does not imply
that he has any interest in the facts of the matter at all.

One should not a trust any PR firm when it attempts to enter a legitimate
debate, as they are never bastions of even-handed delivery of facts.  They
are paid to sway opinion.  

It is not "rude" to point these things out.  It is crucial to know the
difference between a letter written to a journal or a PLoS comment (both
done without compensation by parties with subject-matter expertise) and the
paid work of PR firms.  The first two are legitimate critique, the last is
mere advertising.  

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html