Legends, Hoaxes and the Big Lie: What a Difference a Change Made, Pt. 2

Topic 3: Cancer turns into long-term human health effects

Wilson and Akre’s version:

[Pt. 4] Narration 1: It’s one of the big reasons Ben and Jerry, makers of some of America’s favorite ice cream, are so opposed to farmers injecting their dairy cows with Bovine Growth Hormone genetically engineered in a Monsanto chemical lab. It's now used throughout Florida and elsewhere to rev up the cows so they'll produce a lot more milk…but some well-respected scientists are worried. They cite studies which show injecting cows with BGH changes the milk we drink and that it contains a higher level of another hormone believed to promote cancer in humans.

Monsanto says there is absolutely no cause for worry, its product is entirely safe.

Monsanto-approved version:

Narration 1: It's one of the big reasons Ben and Jerry, makers of some of America's favorite ice cream, are so opposed to farmers injecting their dairy cows with Bovine Growth Hormone genetically engineered in a Monsanto chemical lab. They do it to rev up the cows to produce a lot more milk...but there are fears the government may have approved synthetic BGH without testing potential long-term human health effects on you and your family....Monsanto says there is absolutely no cause for worry, its product is entirely safe.

Response:

Here again, reporters are instructed to delete any reference to the true cause for concern: the possibility of a link between BGH milk and cancer. Viewers are misled and the story distorted when the cause for concern is not clearly reported.

The studies cited by the reporters made a very specific and clear link between rBGH and cancer, not to some nebulous “potential long-term human health effects.” The latter term would include anything from cancer to temporary bloating, or other minor maladies. By cloaking the potential dangers in doublespeak, the public cannot fairly judge the risks that they might be taking with their product.


Topic 4: Peddling influence

One last example. Wilson and Akre’s version:

[Pt. 2] Dr. Collier: There are no human or animal safety issues that would prevent approval in Canada once they’ve completed their review, not that I’m aware of.

Narration 10: But long-term human safety is exactly the concern expressed by a Canadian House committee on health. Here are the minutes of a 1995 meeting where members voted to ask Canada's Health minister to try and keep BGH off the market for at least two more years. Why? '…to allow members of Parliament to further examine the human health implications' of the drug.

It's still not legal to sell the unlicensed product north of the border despite the company's efforts to gain the approval of government regulators....

Narration 11: In the Fall of 1994, Canadian television quoted a Canadian health official as reporting Monsanto offered $1-2 million if her government committee would recommend BGH approval in Canada without further data or studies of the drug. Another member of her committee who was present when Monsanto made the offer was asked: 'Was that a bribe?'

File video clip of CBC documentary, CBC Correspondent to committee member: Is that how it struck you?

Dr. Edwards [Dr. Michele Brill-Edwards]: Certainly!

Reporter Jane Akre on camera: Monsanto said the report alleging bribery was 'a blatant untruth,' that Canadian regulators just didn’t understand the offer of the money was for research. Monsanto demanded a retraction. The Canadian Broadcasting Company stands by its story.

The Monsanto-approved version:

Dr. Collier, Monsanto scientist: There are no human or animal safety issues that would prevent approval in Canada once they've completed their review, not that I'm aware of.

Narration 10: For more than three years now, Monsanto has fought an uphill battle to get Canadian government approval. It is still not legal to sell the unlicensed product north of the border.

Clip of CBC documentary: Monsanto Canada whose representative allegedly raised the subject of money...

Narration 11: In the Fall of 1994, Canadian television quoted a Canadian health official as reporting Monsanto offered $1-2 million if her government committee would recommend BGH approval in Canada without further data or studies of the drug. Another member of her committee who was present when Monsanto made the offer was asked: 'Was that a bribe?'

Clip continues, CBC Reporter to committee member: Is that how it struck you?

Dr. Edwards, Health Canada: Certainly!

Reporter Jane Akre on camera: Monsanto said the report alleging bribery was 'a blatant untruth,' that Canadian regulators just didn't understand the offer of the money was for research. Monsanto demanded a retraction. The Canadian Broadcasting Company stands by its story.

Response:

In letters to Fox management, Monsanto has insisted upon characterizing as a "voluntary moratorium" the fact that BGH cannot be legally sold in Canada because government regulators have refused to approve it. Reporters contended there is nothing voluntary about not selling BGH in Canada because all unapproved drugs are banned. Reporters even provided evidence that Canadian border agents have confiscated BGH as a banned substance. Nonetheless, reporters were instructed to minimize the significance of Canadian non-approval by simply reporting 'an uphill battle to get Canadian government approval' and that 'is not legal to sell the unlicensed product' there. Adopting Monsanto's corporate spin which suggests there are other reasons for non-approval in Canada, misleads viewers about the significance and true reasons the product is banned there and in many other countries.

In other words, Monsanto characterized Canada’s ban on rBGH only as a current or temporary ban, and pressured (partly though what would appear to most of us as bribes) officials to try to raise an issue Health Canada was about to put to rest. This is kinda like a super-scuzzy guy, after getting turned down several times--in no uncertain terms--by the prettiest woman in the room for sex , going back to his buddies and saying, ‘She just hasn’t said ‘yes’ yet.' But Canada wasn’t the only nation saying no. The European Union also banned rBGH, as did Australia and Japan. And the appearance of bribery didn’t end there, either. One must also take into account the $200K Fox offered Akre and Wilson to walk away from the report.

In summary, Steve Wilson and Jane Akre wrote a report on the use of rBGH in Florida dairies. In order to put that report together, they consulted farmers, grocers, government officials, scientists and rBGH producer Monsanto. They carefully identified the position and qualifications of each speaker. They let everyone have their say, but didn’t allow anyone on either side to make unchallenged statements. What emerged is that Florida farmers were being compelled to use an inadequately tested substance that has at best questionable effects on humans, and undeniably devastating effects on cattle. This position is confirmed by peer-reviewed research, the opinions of such leading experts as Dr. Epstein and Dr. von Meyer, and the experience of farmers who actually used the stuff. Moreover, rBGH also made substantial changes in the nutritional and chemical quality of the milk produced by cows treated with it. This was affirmed by a number of other studies, including one done by Monsanto. Worse yet, the company that made rBGH available resorted to political pressure not only to remove bans on the substance in local jurisdictions, but managed to lobby states to pass laws that prohibited products from promoting themselves as rBGH free.

The report eventually aired by WTVT, by comparison, depicted rBGH as a thoroughly tested substance that had received the blessing of the Food and Drug Administration. Those protesting its use were uniformed, didn’t have the qualifications to cast aspersions on it, and most likely had commercial (e.g., Ben & Jerry’s) or political (e.g., the EU ban) motives for banning it. While it’s true the company made some mistakes, such as offering research grants in such a way that appeared to be a bribe, these were just innocent misunderstandings. And while nobody can predict what complications might arise in the future, Monsanto did its due diligence in making sure rBGH was safe.

In essence, by airing the lopsided report, and by preventing massive and solid contradictory evidence, Fox News perpetrated a hoax in order to mollify and promote a favored client. Understanding the fraudulent nature of the whole deal, Wilson and Akre sued Fox News for wrongful termination in April 1998. As Wilson explained:

This isn’t about being fired for no cause. This is about being fired because we refused to put on the air something we knew to be false and misleading. We were given those instructions after some very high-level lobbying by Monsanto and also, we believe, by Florida’s dairy and grocery industries.

When the dust settled, this suit became one for the books. Literally.

Click here to read earlier posts in this series.