Home Distract, delay, disrupt: examples of manufactured doubt from five industries
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Distract, delay, disrupt: examples of manufactured doubt from five industries

  • Rebecca F. Goldberg and Laura N. Vandenberg EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: July 4, 2019
Reviews on Environmental Health
From the journal Reviews on Environmental Health Volume 34 Issue 4

Abstract

Manufactured doubt describes the efforts used by organizations or individuals to obscure the harmful effects of their products or actions by manipulating science. Although approaches to do so are widely used, relevant stakeholders are often unaware of these tactics. Here, we examine the strategies used in five cases of manufactured doubt: tobacco and adverse health; coal and black lung; Syngenta and the herbicide atrazine; the sugar industry and cardiovascular disease; and the Marshall Institute and climate change. By describing the tactics used in these cases, effective methods for identifying and countering instances of manufactured doubt can be generated.

Keywords: dietary fat; endocrine disruptor; ghostwriting; global warming; public relations; true doubt principle; uncertainty
Corresponding author: Laura N. Vandenberg, PhD, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts – Amherst, 171C Goessmann, 686 N. Pleasant Street, Amherst, MA 01003, USA, Phone: +413-477-7405

Funding source: National Institutes of Health Sciences

Award Identifier / Grant number: K22ES025811

Award Identifier / Grant number: U01ES026140

Funding statement: This work was supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health Sciences, Funder Id: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000066, grants K22ES025811 and U01ES026140 (to LNV).

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge helpful input from other members of the Vandenberg lab and Dr. Tom Zoeller, who provided feedback on an early draft of this manuscript. The content of this manuscript is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

  1. Conflict of interest: LNV has received grants from the National Institutes of Health and funding from the Cornell Douglas foundation and Paul G. Allen Foundation. She has been reimbursed for travel expenses by numerous organizations including SweTox, Israel Environment Fund, the Mexican Endocrine Society, Advancing Green Chemistry, ShiftCon, US EPA, CropLife America, BeautyCounter and many universities, to speak about endocrine disrupting chemicals. In 2012, she received payment as an expert witness in a case about a commercial plastic with suspected endocrine disrupting properties. RFG has no conflicts to disclose.

  2. Informed consent: Not applicable.

  3. Ethical approval: Not applicable.

References

1. Unknown. Smoking and health proposal. In: Brown & Williamson Records; Tobacco Industry Influence in Public Policy, Minnesota Documents, 1969. Available at: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/psdw0147.Search in Google Scholar

2. Michaels D. Doubt is their product. Sci Am 2005;292(6):96–101.10.1038/scientificamerican0605-96Search in Google Scholar PubMed

3. Michaels D. Manufactured uncertainty: protecting public health in the age of contested science and product defense. Ann NY Acad Sci 2006;1076:149–62.10.1196/annals.1371.058Search in Google Scholar PubMed

4. Oreskes N. The fact of uncertainty, the uncertainty of facts and the cultural resonance of doubt. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci 2015;373:20140455.10.1098/rsta.2014.0455Search in Google Scholar PubMed

5. Panzer F. Memo from Panzer to Kornegay. In: Kornegay HR, editor. Philip Morris Records, 1972. Available at: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ljcv0184.Search in Google Scholar

6. Michaels D. Doubt is their product. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.Search in Google Scholar

7. Oreskes N, Conway EM. Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York, NY, USA: Bloomsbury Publishing; 2010.Search in Google Scholar

8. Heron M. Deaths: leading causes for 2016. In: D.o.V. Statistics, NVSS, National Vital Statistics Reports, 2018:1–76.Search in Google Scholar

9. Mann ME. The hockey stick and the climate wars dispatches from the front lines. New York, NY, USA: Columbia University Press; 2012.10.7312/mann15254Search in Google Scholar

10. Michaels D. Doubt is their product: how industry’s assault on science threatens your health. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2008.Search in Google Scholar

11. Proctor RN, Proctor R. Golden holocaust: origins of the cigarette catastrophe and the case for abolition. Oakland, CA, USA: University of California Press; 2011.10.1525/9780520950436Search in Google Scholar

12. Glantz SA, Bero LA, Slade J, Barnes DE, Hanauer P. The cigarette papers. Oakland, CA, USA: University of California Press; 1998.10.1525/9780520920996Search in Google Scholar

13. Hong MK, Bero LA. How the tobacco industry responded to an influential study of the health effects of secondhand smoke. Br Med J 2002;325(7377):1413–6.10.1136/bmj.325.7377.1413Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

14. Ngamwong Y, Tangamornsuksan W, Lohitnavy O, Chaiyakunapruk N, Scholfield CN, Reisfeld B, et al. Additive synergism between asbestos and smoking in lung cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2015;10(8):e0135798.10.1371/journal.pone.0135798Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

15. Pence M. The great American smoke out, Mike Pence for Congress, 2001. Available at: http://web.archive.org/web/20010415085348/, http://mikepence.com/smoke.html.Search in Google Scholar

16. Blackley DJ, Halldin CN, Laney AS. Continued increase in prevalence of coal workers’ pneumoconiosis in the United States, 1970–2017. Am J Public Health 2018;108(9):1220–2.10.2105/AJPH.2018.304517Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

17. Blackley DJ, Halldin CN, Cummings KJ, Laney AS. Lung transplantation is increasingly common among patients with coal workers’ pneumoconiosis. Am J Ind Med 2016;59(3): 175–7.10.1002/ajim.22551Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

18. Smith BE. Black lung: the social production of disease. Int J Health Serv 1981;11(3):343–59.10.2190/LMPT-4G1J-15VQ-KWEKSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

19. Prunty AR, Solomons ME. The federal black lung program: its evolution and current issues. West Virginia Law Rev 1989;91(3):665–736.Search in Google Scholar

20. Department of Labor, Part IV: Administrative Processing of Claims, Powers and Duties of the Administrative Law Judge. In: D.o. Labor, 1996. Available at: https://www.dol.gov/brb/References/reference_works/bla/bldesk/BD04-D3C.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

21. Yula S. Workers’ compensation black lung benefits act, True Doubt rule. Duquesne Law Rev 1994;32(2):361–76.Search in Google Scholar

22. Hamby C. Breathless and burdened: coal industry’s go-to law firm withheld evidence of black lung, at expense of sick miners. The Center for Public Integrity, 2013. Available at: https://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/10/29/13585/coal-industrys-go-law-firm-withheld-evidence-black-lung-expense-sick-miners.Search in Google Scholar

23. US Congress, 30 USC CHAPTER 22, SUBCHAPTER IV: BLACK LUNG BENEFITS. Available at: http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title30/chapter22/subchapter4&edition=prelim.Search in Google Scholar

24. Hamby C. Breathless and burdened: Johns Hopkins medical unit rarely finds black lung, helping coal industry defeat miners’ claims. Center for Public Integrity; 2013. Available at: https://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/10/30/13637/johns-hopkins-medical-unit-rarely-finds-black-lung-helping-coal-industry-defeat.Search in Google Scholar

25. Hamby C. Breathless and burdened: as experts recognize new form of black lung, coal industry follows similar pattern of denial. Center for Public Integrity; 2013. Available at: https://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/11/01/13653/experts-recognize-new-form-black-lung-coal-industry-follows-familiar-pattern-denial.Search in Google Scholar

26. Council of Foods and Nutrition (USA). Some nutritional aspects of sugar, candy and sweetened carbonated beverages. J Am Med Assoc 1942;120:763–5.10.1001/jama.1942.02830450035013Search in Google Scholar

27. Mucci K. The illustrated history of how sugar conquered the world. Saveur; 2017. Available at: https://www.saveur.com/sugar-history-of-the-world.Search in Google Scholar

28. O’Connor A. How the sugar industry shifted blame to fat. NY Times, New York, NY, 2016. www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugarindustry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html.Search in Google Scholar

29. Kearns CE, Schmidt LA, Glantz SA. Sugar industry and coronary heart disease research: a historical analysis of internal industry documents. J Am Med Assoc Intern Med 2016;176(11):1680–5.10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.5394Search in Google Scholar

30. Hegsted DM. Fredrick John Stare (1910–2002). J Nutr 2004;134(5):1007–9.10.1093/jn/134.5.1007Search in Google Scholar

31. Nestle M. Unsavory truth: how food companies skew the science of what we eat. New York, NY, USA: Basic Books; 2018.Search in Google Scholar

32. McGandy RB, Hegsted DM, Stare FJ. Dietary fats, carbohydrates and atherosclerotic vascular disease. N Engl J Med 1967;277(4):186–92.10.1056/NEJM196707272770405Search in Google Scholar

33. Taubes G, Couzens CK. Big sugar’s sweet little lies. Mother Jones; 2012. Available at: https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/10/sugar-industry-lies-campaign/.Search in Google Scholar

34. Kearns CE, Glantz SA, Schmidt LA. Sugar industry influence on the scientific agenda of the National Institute of Dental Research’s 1971 National Caries Program: a historical analysis of internal documents. PLoS Med 2015;12(3):e1001798.10.1371/journal.pmed.1001798Search in Google Scholar

35. Boyland E, Wallace DM, Williams DC. Urinary enzymes in bladder cancer. Br J Urol 1955;27(1):11–4.10.1111/j.1464-410X.1955.tb03430.xSearch in Google Scholar

36. Miller BF, Aiba T, Keyes FP, Curreri PW, Branwood AW. Beta-glucuronidase activity and its variation with pH in human atherosclerotic arteries. J Atheroscler Res 1966;6(4): 352–8.10.1016/S0368-1319(66)80046-7Search in Google Scholar

37. Kearns CE, Apollonio D, Glantz SA. Sugar industry sponsorship of germ-free rodent studies linking sucrose to hyperlipidemia and cancer: an historical analysis of internal documents. PLoS Biol 2017;15(11):e2003460.10.1371/journal.pbio.2003460Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

38. Johns DM, Oppenheimer GM. Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”? Science 2018;359(6377):747–50.10.1126/science.aaq1618Search in Google Scholar PubMed

39. Johnson TJ, Bichard SL, Zhang W. Communication communities or “CyberGhettos?”: a path analysis model examining factors that explain selective exposure to blogs. J Comput-Mediat Comm 2009;15(1):60–82.10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01492.xSearch in Google Scholar

40. Mitchell NS, Catenacci VA, Wyatt HR, Hill JO. Obesity: overview of an epidemic. Psychiat Clin N Am 2011;34(4):717–32.10.1016/j.psc.2011.08.005Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

41. Bigelow DP, Borchers A. Major uses of land in the United States, 2012. In: US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2017.Search in Google Scholar

42. Aviv R. A valuable reputation: after Tyrone Hayes said that a chemical was harmful, its maker pursued him. The New Yorker, 2014.Search in Google Scholar

43. Wu M, Quirindongo M, Sass J, Wetzler A. Still poisoning the well: atrazine continues to contaminate surface water and drinking water in the United States, 2010. Available at: https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/atrazine10.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

44. Naidenko O, Evans S. Hormone-disrupting weed killer taints drinking water for millions of Americans: water utility tests commonly underreport atrazine contamination spikes. In: Environmental Working Group, 2018. Available at: https://cdn3.ewg.org/sites/default/files/u352/EWG_AtrazineReport_C04.pdf?_ga=2.134475253.566762080.1556476617-1226425132.1556476617.Search in Google Scholar

45. Sass JB, Colangelo A. European Union bans atrazine, while the United States negotiates continued use. Int J Occup Environ Health 2006;12(3):260–7.10.1179/oeh.2006.12.3.260Search in Google Scholar

46. Crain DA, Guillette LJ, Jr., Rooney AA, Pickford DB. Alterations in steroidogenesis in alligators (Alligator mississippiensis) exposed naturally and experimentally to environmental contaminants. Environ Health Perspect 1997;105(5): 528–33.10.1289/ehp.97105528Search in Google Scholar

47. Hayes TB, Collins A, Lee M, Mendoza M, Noriega N, Stuart AA, et al. Hermaphroditic, demasculinized frogs after exposure to the herbicide atrazine at low ecologically relevant doses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002;99(8):5476–80.10.1073/pnas.082121499Search in Google Scholar

48. Hayes TB, Haston K, Tsui M, Hoang A, Haeffele C, Vonk A. Atrazine-induced hermaphroditism at 0.1 ppb in American leopard frogs (Rana pipiens): laboratory and field evidence. Environ Health Perspect 2003;111(4):568–75.10.1289/ehp.5932Search in Google Scholar

49. Hayes TB, Khoury V, Narayan A, Nazir M, Park A, Brown T, et al. Atrazine induces complete feminization and chemical castration in male African clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010;107(10):4612–7.10.1073/pnas.0909519107Search in Google Scholar

50. Hayes TB, Anderson LL, Beasley VR, de Solla SR, Iguchi T, Ingraham H, et al. Demasculinization and feminization of male gonads by atrazine: consistent effects across vertebrate classes. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 2011;127(1–2):64–73.10.1016/j.jsbmb.2011.03.015Search in Google Scholar

51. Hayes TB. There is no denying this: defusing the confusion about atrazine. BioScience 2004;54(12):1138–49.10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[1138:TINDTD]2.0.CO;2Search in Google Scholar

52. Holiday Shores v. Syngenta, Southern District of Illinois, 2012.Search in Google Scholar

53. Carr JA, Gentles A, Smith EE, Goleman WL, Urquidi LJ, Thuett K, et al. Response of larval Xenopus laevis to atrazine: assessment of growth, metamorphosis, and gonadal and laryngeal morphology. Environ Toxicol Chem 2003;22(2):396–405.10.1897/1551-5028(2003)022<0396:ROLXLT>2.0.CO;2Search in Google Scholar

54. Hayes TB. Atrazine has been used safely for 50 years? In: Elliott JE, Bishop CA, Morrissey CA, editors. Wildlife Ecotoxicology: Forensic Approaches, Spring Science + Business Media, LLC, New York, NY, 2011:301–24.10.1007/978-0-387-89432-4_10Search in Google Scholar

55. Goleman WL, Carr JA. Data evaluation report on response of larval Xenopus laevis to atrazine exposure: assessment of metamorphosis and gonadal and laryngeal morphology. In: T.T.U. The Institute of Environmental and Human Health, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, T.S.S.C.P. Lubbock, Inc., 2003:1–42. Available at: https://archive.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/web/pdf/derresponseoflarvalxenopuslaevisatrazinegoleman.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

56. Reeves C. Of frogs and rhetoric: the Atrazine Wars. Technical Comm Quart 2015;24(4):328–48.10.1080/10572252.2015.1079333Search in Google Scholar

57. Vandenberg LN, Colborn T, Hayes TB, Heindel JJ, Jacobs Jr DR, Lee DH, et al. Hormones and endocrine-disrupting chemicals: low-dose effects and nonmonotonic dose responses. Endocr Rev 2012;33(3):378–455.10.1210/er.2011-1050Search in Google Scholar

58. Ackerman F. The economics of atrazine. Int J Occup Environ Health 2007;13(4):437–45.10.1179/oeh.2007.13.4.437Search in Google Scholar PubMed

59. Calafat AM. The U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and human exposure to environmental chemicals. Int J Hyg Environ Health 2012;215(2):99–101.10.1016/j.ijheh.2011.08.014Search in Google Scholar PubMed

60. Capstick S, Whitmarsh L, Poortinga W, Pidgeon N, Upham P. International trends in public perceptions of climate change over the past quarter century. Wiley Interdisciplinary Rev: Climate Change 2015;6(1):35–61.10.1002/wcc.321Search in Google Scholar

61. Fisher DR, Waggle J, Leifeld P. Where does political polarization come from? Locating polarization within the US climate change debate. Am Behav Scientist 2013;57(1): 70–92.10.1177/0002764212463360Search in Google Scholar

62. Saad L. A steady 57% in U.S. blame humans for global warming, Gallup, 2014. Available at: https://news.gallup.com/poll/167972/steady-blame-humans-global-warming.aspx.Search in Google Scholar

63. Saad L. Americans as concerned as ever about global warming. Gallup; 2019. Available at: https://news.gallup.com/poll/248027/americans-concerned-ever-global-warming.aspx?g_source=link_NEWSV9&g_medium=TOPIC&g_campaign=item_&g_content=Americans%2520as%2520Concerned%2520as%2520Ever%2520About%2520Global%2520Warming.Search in Google Scholar

64. Lahsen M. Experiences of modernity in the greenhouse: a cultural analysis of a physicist “trio” supporting the backlash against global warming. Global Environ Change 2008;18(1):204–19.10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.10.001Search in Google Scholar

65. Bradley RS. Global warming and political intimidation: how politicians cracked down on scientists as the earth heated up. Amherst, MA, USA: University of Massachusetts Press; 2011.Search in Google Scholar

66. National Research Council. Changing Climate: Report of the Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 1983.Search in Google Scholar

67. Wigley TML. Climate change report [Letters]. Science 1996;271(5255):1481–2.10.1126/science.271.5255.1481Search in Google Scholar PubMed

68. Gelbspan R. Boiling point: how politicians, big oil and coal, journalists, and activists are fueling the climate crisis – and what we can do to avert disaster. New York: Basic Books; 2004.Search in Google Scholar

69. Zou JJ. Brokers of Junk Science? The Center for Public Integrity, 2016. Available at: https://publicintegrity.org/environment/brokers-of-junk-science/.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2019-01-18
Accepted: 2019-05-18
Published Online: 2019-07-04
Published in Print: 2019-12-18

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Reviews
  3. Epigenetic modifications associated with in utero exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals BPA, DDT and Pb
  4. Cadmium toxicity: effects on human reproduction and fertility
  5. An overview on role of some trace elements in human reproductive health, sperm function and fertilization process
  6. Distract, delay, disrupt: examples of manufactured doubt from five industries
  7. A review of the application of sonophotocatalytic process based on advanced oxidation process for degrading organic dye
  8. The effect of occupational exposure to petrol on pulmonary function parameters: a review and meta-analysis
  9. Using human epidemiological analyses to support the assessment of the impacts of coal mining on health
  10. Arsenic exposure with reference to neurological impairment: an overview
  11. Current management of household hazardous waste (HHW) in the Asian region
  12. Integrating DMAIC approach of Lean Six Sigma and theory of constraints toward quality improvement in healthcare
  13. Mini Reviews
  14. Assessment of water, sanitation and hygiene in HCFs: which tool to follow?
  15. Can your work affect your kidney’s health?
  16. A review on characteristics of food waste and their use in butanol production
https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2019-0004
Keywords for this article
dietary fat; endocrine disruptor; ghostwriting; global warming; public relations; true doubt principle; uncertainty

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Reviews
  3. Epigenetic modifications associated with in utero exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals BPA, DDT and Pb
  4. Cadmium toxicity: effects on human reproduction and fertility
  5. An overview on role of some trace elements in human reproductive health, sperm function and fertilization process
  6. Distract, delay, disrupt: examples of manufactured doubt from five industries
  7. A review of the application of sonophotocatalytic process based on advanced oxidation process for degrading organic dye
  8. The effect of occupational exposure to petrol on pulmonary function parameters: a review and meta-analysis
  9. Using human epidemiological analyses to support the assessment of the impacts of coal mining on health
  10. Arsenic exposure with reference to neurological impairment: an overview
  11. Current management of household hazardous waste (HHW) in the Asian region
  12. Integrating DMAIC approach of Lean Six Sigma and theory of constraints toward quality improvement in healthcare
  13. Mini Reviews
  14. Assessment of water, sanitation and hygiene in HCFs: which tool to follow?
  15. Can your work affect your kidney’s health?
  16. A review on characteristics of food waste and their use in butanol production
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 6.11.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2019-0004/html?lang=en
Scroll to top button