Legends, Hoaxes and the Big Lie: What a Difference a Change Made

In order to understand the nature of the hoax that WTVT played upon its viewers for the sake of a major sponsor, one has to see the editing which completely changed the story's meaning. On their website, Akre and Wilson posted the twenty-eighth version that they approved, and a script closer to what Monsanto wanted, and what Fox News aired. They also provided commentary to highlight the differences between the scripts, and to explain why the changes severely compromised the truth. I will show just a few of the examples, to give you the gist. If you wish to read to read their commentary in its entirety, click here.

In order to highlight the comparisons, I will put both versions side-by-side. Underneath will appear Akre and Wilson’s comments in italics, followed by my own observations after the quote.

Topic 1: Badmouthing the experts

Akre and Wilson’s version:

[Pt. 1] Narration 3: Dr. Epstein is a scientist at the University of Illinois School of Public Health. He's earned three medical degrees, written eight books, and is frequently called upon to advise Congress about things in our environment which may cause cancer. He and others like Dr. William von Meyer point to what they say is a growing body of scientific evidence of a link between IGF-1 and human cancers which might not show up for years to come.

Dr. Samuel Epstein, Scientist, University of Illinois: …there are highly suggestive if not persuasive lines of evidence showing that consumption of this milk poses risks of breast and colon cancer."

Monsanto-friendly version:

[Pt. 1] Narration 3: The drug some Florida farmers don't want you to know they're using is a laboratory version of a hormone cows produce on their own. So is there something to worry about in the milk produced by Florida cows getting extra doses of this new product called Posilac?

Dr. Samuel Epstein, Scientist, University of Illinois: …there are highly suggestive if not persuasive lines of evidence showing that consumption of this milk poses risks of breast and colon cancer."

Pt 1., Narration 4: Dr. Samuel Epstein, a scientist at the University of Illinois School of Public Health, is an expert on the environmental causes of cancer.... He is opposed to Posilac going into cows that produce the milk your family drinks. His view is based on what he says is a body of peer-reviewed research, including many studies he cited in an article published in last year's International Journal of Health Services, that raises some troubling questions. And Dr. Epstein is not alone:

Response:

Reporters were repeatedly instructed to remove information that more completely details Dr. Epstein's widely acknowledged expertise. The deliberate omission of those known facts minimizes the credibility of this BGH critic and thereby slants the story in favor of the product.

Cancer warnings from ‘experts’ with dubious qualifications have left viewers skeptical of all such claims. It is important for that reason, as well as proof of responsible documentation, that viewers understand Dr. Samuel Epstein's background and qualifications to reach such the conclusions he voices in the report. But despite his three medical degrees, a professorship of Occupational and Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health, his frequent Congressional testimony as an expert on public health and environmental causes of cancer, his authorship of seven books, and countless editorials appearing in some of America's leading newspapers, reporters were repeatedly blocked from describing him more completely.

Original references to him as a "reputable scientist(s)" which was acceptable in Versions 1-3, was later changed to "respected scientist(s)" which was acceptable in Version 11, and then "well-credentialed M.D." which was okay in Versions 10-18 until, ultimately, reporters were told no such reference was acceptable, making him sound like a run-of-the-mill academic with no specific or relevant expertise.

Reporters have located and confirmed more than a dozen independent studies of the artificial hormone published post-FDA-approval. These raise legitimate concerns about the risk of cancer to adults and children who drink milk from cows injected with BGH. Nonetheless, reporters were first instructed to mischaracterize the available research simply as "publicly available at the time of approval". When reporters demonstrated how that mandated language was inaccurate, they were instructed to call it "a body of peer-reviewed research". This is also inaccurate and deliberately misleads the viewer by presenting a distorted picture that fails to more accurately and fully report that many of the troubling findings are from recent research, and that the evidence of a cancer link appears to be growing more clear.

Monsanto, on the other hand, contends the latest research confirms the overall safety of its synthetic hormone. In fact, the research Monsanto most frequently refers to is a study of the synthetic hormone's effects on BGH-treated cows monitored by Monsanto, not people who drink the cows' milk. Reporters were not allowed to make this fact clear in the report.

As with Dr. Epstein, the sanitized version of this report also understates the credentials of another leading scientist, Dr. William von Meyer. So, when pitted in the report against Monsanto’s Chief Scientist, Dr. Robert Collier, it appears that Collier has far more expertise than Epstein and von Meyer, when in fact the reverse is true. Moreover, since Drs. Epstein and von Meyer aren’t on Monsanto’s payroll, we could naturally see them as more objective. Dr. Collier, in saying “what he [meaning Epstein] says is a body of peer-reviewed research” misleads the public into thinking that Epstein could be exaggerating or in error, when there is actually a body of peer-reviewed research supporting his position. Naturally, as a Monsanto employee, Dr. Collier doesn’t offer us any surprises when he characterized rBGH as safe:

Dr. Robert Collier, Monsanto chief scientist for BGH product: In fact, the FDA has commented several times on this issue after there were concerns raised. They have publicly restated human safety confidence...so this is not something knowledgeable people have concerns about.

By inference, Dr. Collier is saying that Drs. Epstein and von Meyer are not knowledgeable persons. Because the viewer has been prevented from knowing their credentials, Dr. Collier’s snideness now seems reasonable.

One more thing: although Dr. Collier cited the FDA as an authoritative source that confirmed the safety of rBGH, the Agency’s tests were incomplete. In fact, the FDA’s only known test on rBGH lasted for ninety days, and involved only thirty rats. FDA policy requires a minimum of two-years, using hundreds of rats, before declaring something non-carcinogenic.


Topic 2: Academic complicity

Akre and Wilson’s version:

[Pt. 2] Narration 5: Right after he started using the drug on his herd near Wachula three years ago, [farmer Charles] Knight says his animals were plagued with those problems and serious infections of his cows’ udders. Troubles he attributes to Posilac eventually caused him to replace the majority of his herd. He says when he called dairy experts at the University of Florida and at Monsanto, they both had the same response.

Farmer Knight: It was like overwhelming because they said you’re the only person having this problem so it must be what you’re doing here you must be having management problems.

Narration 6: The University of Florida, by the way, did much of the research on BGH and has received millions in gifts and grants from Monsanto. Knight says neither the university nor the company ever mentioned Monsanto research that showed hundreds of other cows on other farms were also suffering hoof problems and mastitis, a painful infection of the cow’s udders. If untreated, the infection can get into the cow’s milk so farmers try to cure it by giving the cow shots of antibiotics…more drugs that can find their way into the milk on your table, which could make your own body more resistant to antibiotics.

Monsanto-friendly version:

[Pt. 2] Narration 6: Knight later learned his troubles were not unique. Monsanto never mentioned its own research that showed hundreds of other cows on other farms were also suffering hoof problems and mastitis, a painful infection of the cow's udders. If untreated, the infection can get into the cow's milk so farmers try to cure it by giving the cow shots of antibiotics...more drugs that can find their way into the milk on your table, which could make your own body more resistant to antibiotics.

Response:

Deleted from these reports is all reporting of the involvement of the University of Florida in the research development, promotion, and approval of BGH. These facts include the university's role in minimizing adverse BGH effects (UF people reportedly told Knight and others they were unaware of animal health problems which were, in fact, being reported to them), significant financial support from Monsanto to UF in the form of research grants and gifts including the Monsanto Dairy Barn facility, and the hiring of former UF BGH researchers and professors now in key positions with Monsanto and the FDA.

By deleting the reference to the University of Florida, and its financial dependence on Monsanto, we can now see a conflict of interest at best, and downright fraud at worst. The deceptive response the University gave to Knight indicates that it had at least some complicity in helping Monsanto maintain the fiction that rBGH had received thorough testing. Given the superfluous nature of the FDA’s testing, one has to wonder how extensive the UF testing was, especially since a growing body of peer-reviewed literature show rBGH to be unsafe.

Click here to see later posts in this series.