MONSANTO AND FOX AND CONSUMERS' RIGHT TO KNOW

Well here's a howdy-do.  TV station in Florida prepares hard-hitting series
questioning safety of grocery-store milk.  Large biotech company threatens
station with libel suit.  Station cancels broadcast, orders reporters to
rewrite series.  Reporters refuse.  Station fires reporters.  Reporters sue
station.

It's easy to post one of two well-worn headlines over this story -- CORPORATION
AND MEDIA CONSPIRE TO HIDE TAINTED MILK FROM PUBLIC or PIT-BULL REPORTERS
DISTORT EVIDENCE TO PANIC CONSUMERS. Having talked with the protagonists on
both sides, I'm unwilling to jump to either conclusion.  I'm reminded of a Jane
Austin novel where the plot thickens and no character is flawless -- but the
language being used lacks Jane Austin's gentility.

"Some of the points clearly contain elements of defamatory statements which, if
repeated in a broadcast, could lead to serious damage to Monsanto and dire
consequences for Fox News."

"We paid $3 billion for these television stations.  We will decide what the
news is.  The news is what we tell you it is."

Monsanto has put years and millions into a hormone, which, when injected every
two weeks into a cow can raise her milk production by 10-20 percent.  Posilac
is the trade name; it is also called rBGH (for bovine growth hormone) and rBST
(for bovine somatotropin, a name Monsanto made up, critics say, to avoid
negative associations with hormones).  The "r" stands for "recombinant,"
because the hormone is produced in vats by bacteria into which a cow gene has
been transplanted.  The genetic engineering is in the bacteria, not the cows,
not the milk.

All along the company has met with resistance to this product.  Some people
hate the very idea of tinkering with genes.  Some are worried about
artificially cranking up the metabolism of the cow.  (The program quotes a
taunt used by critics, "crack for cows," but that is not a good metaphor; rBGH
is more like the steroids that Olympic athletes are not allowed to use.)  Some
say the last thing the glutted U.S. market needs is more milk -- this product
does nothing for the consumer, it just helps some farmers beat out other
farmers in a cutthroat competition.  But the hot-button concern from a
marketing point of view is the fear that milk from hormone-injected cows may be
harmful to human health.

The squashed series, made by reporters Steve Wilson and Jane Akre for Fox-owned
WTVT in Tampa, hits that concern hard.  It does quote a Monsanto spokesman who
cites the long approval process Posilac had to go through and the assurance of
regulators that rBGH-produced milk is indistinguishable from any other.  But it
quotes rBGH skeptics harder and longer, and, as is typical in TV reporting, one
has no idea whether they are representative scientists or a few selected
cranks.

Wilson and Akre do document unsettling facts about corporate heavy-handedness,
suppressed data, even an attempted bribe of regulatory officials in Canada. 
(Monsanto claims it was an offer of "research support;" a Canadian official on
camera calls it a bribe.)  The company does speak in weasel words.  ("Every
scientific, medical or regulatory body in the world which has reviewed and
approved this product has come to the same conclusion: milk from rBST treated
cows poses no risk to human health."  No mention of the fact that regulatory
bodies in Canada, New Zealand, and the European Union, have reviewed and not
approved the product.)

The series shows clearly that Florida supermarkets claiming to have rBGH-free
milk have taken no steps to assure that result.  Monsanto says the claim would
be impossible to test, because there is no difference in the milk.  But
Monsanto's own numbers show elevated hormone levels in rBGH-treated milk, and
when I ask about the statistics, I get surprisingly devious answers.  I have to
conclude that this company has invested so much into its product that it can't
see or tell the full truth, even if it wants to.

On the other hand, the reporters, though they've done a lot of research and
exposed significant corporate sloppiness, make rBGH-treated milk sound much too
ominous.  They harp on a possible link with cancer, for instance, which is a
long way from proved (or disproved).  The WTVT lawyers, scared by a threatening
letter from Monsanto's lawyers, went too far in the other direction, however,
when they ordered the word "cancer" cut out throughout the series and replaced
with "adverse human health effects."

What deeply disturbs me about this story has nothing to do with milk.  It has
to do with consumers getting straight information.  A series on rBGH could have
been properly cautionary, but this one was overdramatic, designed to pull in
viewers during "sweeps week."  On the other hand, it is chilling to know how
easily a big company can squelch information.  Just two tough-sounding letters
and the show is canceled.

It would be nice to live in a world where we could trust the assurances of
large corporations, trust public regulators, trust what we see on TV -- but
such a world seems increasingly remote.  As to trusting the milk supply, I
don't think rBGH-treated milk will give us cancer, though I don't know for
sure, nor does Monsanto, nor do those hotshot TV producers.  Personally I don't
want to find out by participating in an experiment conducted upon a poorly
informed public, nor am I interested in revving up cows or hooking farmers on
an unnecessary product.  

 Fortunately I do trust a local dairy that does not use rBGH.

(Details on this story, including the TV script before and after editing, can
be found at www.foxbghsuit.com.  Monsanto's website on Posilac is at
www.monsanto.com/protiva/.)

(Donella H. Meadows is an adjunct professor of environmental studies at
Dartmouth College.)

On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, HIX KORNYESZ wrote:
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> Mar megint elmelaztam. Sajnos nem tudok leszokni errol a karos
> szenvedelyemrol.
Engem melazasod re-melazasra kesztetett
> 
> Velemenyem szerint az emberi technologiai civilizacio iranya az elvegzett
> munka hatekonysaganak novelese. Az elvegzett munka hatekonysagat pedig a
> munkafazis minel rovidebb idon beluli elvegzesekent lehetne definialni.

Az eredeti cel szerintem az lett volna, hogy a homo sapiens minel tobb
idot tolthessen elmeje epitesevel-szepitesevel. A jelenlegi cel az, minel
rovidebb ido alatt minel tobb anyagi hasznot, ill. fogyasztasi lehetoseget
mint jutalmat realizalhasson, tekintet nelkul barmire. A definicio
szerintem nem jo ebben a formaban, reszletezes helyett csak egy
ellenpelda, amit mindenki ismer, aki a legegyszerubb postai muveletet a
hivatalban a szamitogepesites elott vagy utan ohajtott elvegezni.

> Tehat minel gyorsabban elvegezni egy feladatot, vagy egysegnyi ido alatt
> (pl. munkanap) minek tobb munkat elvegezni. Ez pedig nem kepzelheto el
> energia befektetes nelkul. Minel rovidebb ido alatt akarunk valamit
> elvegezni, annal tobb energia kell hozza. Kerdes, hogy van-e valami fizikai
> torveny, mely leirja az ido es energia kapcsolatat. Szerintem az eisteini
> hires egyenlet ( E=m*c2) ezt is megteszi.

Szerintem eleg erre a newtoni W = P*t is, marcsak azert is, mert ahhoz,
hogy valaminek energiaja legyen, ahhoz munka kell, ill. ha valaminek
leszivjuk az energiajat, azt azert tesszuk, hogy munkat kapjunk.

>  Talan az ember eredendo
> lustasaga. Mindezek egyben azt is jelentettek, hogy az a keves befektett
> emberi energia igen felertekelodott.

A fizikai le (tulsagosan is), a klasszikus fizikailag nehezen leirhato
szellemi viszont fel, de igen ellentmondasosan. Ma annak a tudasa van
felertekelve, aki tudja, hogyan kell sok-sok vasarlo-fogyasztoerot = penzt
csinalni AKARHOGY.

> Namost a fenntarthato fejlodes elmelete kimondja, hogy a fejlodesnek nem
> lehet gatat szabni. Ami azt jelenti, hogy mindent meg gyorsabban akarunk
> megcsinalni.

Az a gyanum, hogy ennek semmi koze nincs a fenntarthato fejlodeshez, amely
azt mondja ki, hogy a fejlodesnek olyannak kell lennie, hogy emberhez
melto letfelteteleket biztositson a jelenlegi es eljovendo generacioknak.
Ebben mar implicite benne van, hogy korlatos rendszerben ez csak minosegi
es nem mennyisegi fejlodes lehet.

 Ennek iskola peldaja az informatikai szektor fejlodese (egyre
> gyorsabb is gyorsabb szamitogepek latnak napvilagot). Ez pedig egyre tobb es
> tobb energiat fog igenyelni a fenti levezetes alapjan.

Vajon miert ? Peldaul azert, mert a monopolhelyzetben levo 
MICROSOFT-softwerek (Windows-akarhany
es stb) a meroen formai elemek miatt egyre gyorsabb es nagyobb kapacitasu
gepeket igenyelnek. No meg az Internet, az Internet 2, meg az Internet
akarhany.. Egy atlagos kodolt attachment-levelben a formai elemek
az informaciotartalom 80%-a. Minek kell ez ? Van ennek
racionalis-technikai stb. indoka ? Igen ! A monopolista profit !

> Ebbol pedig - szerintem - logikusan az kovetkezik , hogy a fejlodes es az
> energiatakarekossag egymasnak ellentmondo fogalmak.
> 
Igen, amennyiben a felvilagosodas koratol a valodi fenntarthato fejlodes
gondolatrendszere kialakulasa elotti gondolatrendszereket nezzuk. Azok
elkerulhetetlenul belecsusznak ebbe. Ma az emberek 99%-a meg ezt tarja
evidensnek- sajnos.

> Kerdes: tenyleg igy van, vagy valahol logikai hibat vetettem? Remelem, hogy
> az utobbi az igaz. 
> Balint Tamas

En is remelem. Udv: Kobor Jozsef

Szeretnek kerni az ujsagbol.

E-mail cim: 

Kossz