Th e Ecologis t Mar/Apr 1998 Campaigns & News
Free Speech Under Attack in US Talk show celebrity Oprah Winfrey was dragged into court this month over allega tions that her show suggested that BSE ("Mad Cow" disease) could appear in US cows thanks to beef industry practices.
In a programme broadcast on April 16, 1996, a guest on the show - Howard Lyman of the Humane Society of the United States - warned that the practice of grinding up dead cows to use as cattle feed, common in the beef industry (though since banned), was likely to have led to the emergence of Mad Cow disease in British herds. After hearing Lyman's graphic description of BSE and its roots in industrial factory-farming, Winfrey declared: "It has just stopped me cold from eating another burger." Share prices for beef subsequently plummeted on Wall Street and remained depressed for two months.
off alarms bells in the corridors of power. Citing a Texas statute which allows law suits to be filed against individuals who publicly criticize the way foods have been grown, transported, processed, distrib uted or sold, a group of wealthy cattle ranchers sued Howard Lyman, Oprah Winfrey, and her show's producers for $6.7 million. The ranchers are led by Paul Engler, president of Cactus Feeders Inc. The Amarillo, Texas cattleman is the largest cattle feeder in the nation, and has an extensive background in corporate agribusiness.
The so-called "food disparagement" laws which are being used against Lyman and Winfrey have been passed by 13 states, and are being considered in nine more. This will be the first time such a statute has ever been tested in court.
While large industries have no qualms about using mass media to advance their own agenda, the rare dissenting voice sets
Critics point out that the laws weaken the ability of consumer groups, farm workers, scientists and the media to publicly express concerns over food safety,
and could stifle debate on public health issues. There are also fundamental con cerns over free speech and constitutional rights. "These laws are a disaster for any one who wants to exercise free speech rights regarding food safety issues," said John Stauber of the Center for Media and Democracy. Sandra Baron, executive director of the Libel Defence Resource Center, agrees. "Most of the (food dispar agement) bills have been written in such a way that they undermine basic elements of the old common law and libel law. I don't think they'll withstand constitu tional scrutiny."
I f the plaintiffs are successful in their suit against the show, the outcome may also have wider, more disturbing implica tions. "I f the food industry can change libel laws, why not the chemical indus try?", muses Stauber. "Why not the auto industry?" Would "landmine disparage ment" laws be next?
book but environmentalism generally was the first negative press for Steingraber's book, which had otherwise received widespread praise for its clear discussion of environmental contami nants and their links to cancers. The
The Cost of Objectivity A recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) looking into the influence of corporate funding on sci entific and medical opinions revealed a disturbing, i f unsurprising, fact: the views of the specialists were likely to be heavily influenced by the source of their funding. Canadian researchers examined the opin ions of 86 medical experts who had all written on the use of calcium-channelblockers - somewhat controversial drugs used to treat patients suffering from high blood pressure and heart disease. The study found that of those coming out in favour of the drugs, 96% had financial relationships with manufacturers. In con trast, just 37% of those against their use had financial ties to the companies, while 60% of those neutral on the issue had links.
As industry money floods research institutions and academia, the process of deciding which sources can be trusted and which must be viewed with a generous pinch of salt has become increasingly dif ficult. The NEJM itself has had trouble identifying potential conflicts of interest, as demonstrated by a review of Sandra Steingraber's book, Living Downstream: An Ecologist Looks at Cancer, in the Journal's November 1997 issue. The review - a scathing attack not only on the
"Chemophobia, the unreasonable [sic] fear of chemicals, is a common
public reaction to scientific or media reports suggesting that exposure to various environmental contaminants may pose a
threat to health/'
article was signed "Jerry H. Berke, M.D., M.PH., 49 Windsor Ave., Axton MA 01720", the way an unaffiliated medical practitioner would sign a review. As i t turns out, Berke is actually director of toxicology for W. R. Grace - a major chem ical manufacturer that was responsible
for contaminating the drinking water sup ply in Woburn, Massachusetts, a town where a group of children subsequently contracted childhood leukaemia.
Although all correspondence to Berke from the magazine was addressed to him at WR. Grace, and the conflict-of-interest form he signed for the NEJM identified his connection to the company, the journal initially claimed ignorance of Berke's affiliations. Eventually, the NEJM editor-
Continued on page 2.
The Ecologist Campaigns & News This section highlights current campaigns, reports activist news, and provides brief updates on topical issues, compiled by Julian Oram and Janey Francis. Send news items and/or cam paigns to: ISEC Campaigns, Apple Barn, Week, Dartington, Devon TQ9 6JI* UK. E-mail: ; Fax. +44 (0)1803 868651 No copyright on campaigns.
The Ecologist, Campaigns & News, March/April 1998
