The V-Fluence Scandal: Corporate Surveillance Exposed
Shocking revelations about v-Fluence's secret surveillance of 500+ critics exposes how Big Ag attempts to co-opt regenerative agriculture while maintaining toxic pesticide use.
What You'll Learn in This Article
How v-Fluence created a secret surveillance network targeting pesticide critics
Why the agrochemical industry is attempting to co-opt "regenerative agriculture"
The fundamental tension between real regenerative practices and toxic pesticides
How to identify genuine regenerative approaches versus industry greenwashing
What this scandal means for the future of food sovereignty
The corporate surveillance scandal that recently rocked the agricultural world isn't just another story of corporate malfeasance—it's a pivotal moment exposing the high-stakes battle for the soul of regenerative agriculture.
Behind the Curtain
Let's get one thing straight: the recent shutdown of v-Fluence, a Missouri-based PR firm with deep ties to the agrochemical industry, represents more than just a company closure. It marks the exposure of a calculated campaign to silence critics of industrial agriculture through methods that should outrage every American who values transparent science and food freedom.
This was no small operation. v-Fluence, founded by former Monsanto communications executive Jay Byrne, created a private online portal storing detailed profiles of over 500 critics of pesticides and GMOs, including personal details like home addresses, phone numbers, and information about family members. This "stakeholder wiki" was accessible to more than 1,000 industry executives, lobbyists, regulatory staffers, and academics.
Even more disturbing? This surveillance apparatus was partially funded by U.S. taxpayer money, with over $400,000 channeled through USAID between 2013 and 2019 for "enhanced monitoring" of critics of "modern agriculture approaches." That's right—your tax dollars were used to spy on scientists and journalists who dared question the safety of the chemicals being sprayed on your food.
"Regenerative" Agriculture Battleground
The v-Fluence scandal exposes a critical battleground that directly impacts your health, your food, and your future: the definition of "regenerative agriculture."
While regenerative agriculture is broadly understood as practices that improve soil health, increase biodiversity, and sequester carbon, a fierce struggle is underway regarding whether synthetic pesticides like glyphosate have any place in truly regenerative systems.
The agrochemical industry has strategically invested in co-opting the term "regenerative" to include continued use of synthetic pesticides. Some practitioners claim glyphosate is compatible with regenerative principles, particularly in no-till farming:
"Glyphosate allows us to grow our crops in more environmentally friendly ways. Those practicing regenerative agriculture at large-scale would have to shift to less sustainable methods with more pesticides if glyphosate were banned."
But this narrative fundamentally contradicts what legitimate soil scientists understand. Toxic pesticides fundamentally undermine soil health by destroying the very microbial life that regenerative agriculture aims to nurture. According to research from Tufts University, "glyphosate-based herbicides do not reach the bar of agricultural sustainability, with respect to humans and the environment, making the system they are part of unsustainable."
Corrupt Corporate Tactics
The v-Fluence operation reveals a coordinated effort by the agrochemical industry to control agricultural narratives and policies. This has direct implications for regenerative agriculture in several key areas:
1. Controlling the Definition of "Regenerative"
Industry attempts to co-opt the term "regenerative" appear strategic and deliberate. As Arran Stephens, founder of Nature's Path, observed:
"The conventional ag/chemical/CPG industry has, in very short order, co-opted the 'regenerative' moniker.... It is continuing to use fossil fuel, chemical-based fertilizers; cancer-causing herbicides, such as RoundUp, which is prodigiously used in 'no-till' farming; and GMO seeds (since there are no prohibitions against any of these), all while adopting some time-proven organic practices."
Without clear standards similar to organic certification, the "regenerative" label risks becoming merely another tool for greenwashing conventional farming practices that still rely heavily on synthetic inputs.
2. Silencing Critics and Shaping Research
The targeted profiling of scientists and environmental advocates who question pesticide safety has a chilling effect on critical research and discourse. As journalist Carey Gillam noted about those targeted by v-Fluence:
"It just is so wrong and seems so threatening. And this is how people get intimidated and feel vulnerable and think: Maybe I shouldn't speak out."
This suppression of critical voices distorts public and scientific understanding of how pesticides affect soil health, biodiversity, and the overall effectiveness of regenerative practices.
Two Competing Visions
The v-Fluence scandal highlights two fundamentally incompatible visions for regenerative agriculture:
The Industry-Aligned Approach
Industry-backed definitions of regenerative agriculture often frame pesticides like glyphosate as compatible with or even necessary for regenerative farming, particularly for no-till practices. An industry-funded study published in the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability promoted "flexibility" in pesticide use while suggesting that existing organic standards already provide sufficient criteria for regenerative agriculture.
The Organic-Based Approach
In contrast, many environmental organizations and organic advocates insist that true regenerative agriculture must build upon organic standards as a baseline. Organizations like Beyond Pesticides argue that "petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers have been found to undermine the benefits of healthy soil systems with microbial life, nutrient cycling, and biodiversity." Some certification systems, like Rodale Institute and Regenerative Organic Alliance's Regenerative Organic Certified (ROC) label, take this approach.
Impact on the Food Freedom Movement
For consumers, farmers, and policymakers interested in genuine regenerative solutions, this controversy highlights the importance of scrutinizing industry claims and seeking transparent standards that prioritize true soil health and ecosystem regeneration.
The path forward requires building on the established framework of organic agriculture while incorporating additional regenerative practices and ensuring these systems remain free from the influence of corporations that profit from synthetic chemical inputs.
When you fill your grocery cart, remember it's not just food you're buying—it's a vote for the kind of agricultural system you want to support. By choosing truly regenerative products that reject toxic pesticides, you're helping to build a food system that regenerates rather than degrades our soil, our health, and our planet.
Questions you might get when sharing this article…
What exactly was v-Fluence doing with the information it collected?
v-Fluence maintained detailed profiles on critics of pesticides and GMOs in a private portal called "Bonus Eventus," accessible to over 1,000 industry executives, lobbyists, and government officials. This information was used to discredit critics, undermine regulatory initiatives like the EU's Farm to Fork Strategy (which aimed to reduce pesticide use by 50%), and coordinate industry messaging to defend pesticide use.
How can I tell if a "regenerative" product is genuine or greenwashed?
Look for certifications like Regenerative Organic Certified (ROC), which builds upon USDA Organic standards and prohibits synthetic pesticides. Be wary of regenerative claims without clear standards or certification, especially from large conventional brands that continue to use synthetic inputs. Ask whether the brand rejects all synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilizers—true regenerative agriculture works with natural systems, not against them.
Why does it matter whether regenerative agriculture includes pesticides?
The inclusion of synthetic pesticides fundamentally undermines the core principles of regenerative agriculture. These chemicals damage soil microbiology, reduce biodiversity, and contribute to water contamination. A system cannot simultaneously regenerate ecosystem health while using chemicals specifically designed to kill living organisms within that ecosystem. Additionally, pesticide residues in food pose health risks to consumers, particularly children.
About the Author:
Ryan Griggs is the founder of The Regenaissance, a movement dedicated to rebuilding food sovereignty through regenerative agriculture, ancestral wisdom, and radical truth-telling. Follow him on X @RegenaisanceRyan for daily insights on food freedom and regenerative living.