This is a brilliant article!
I agree with Jim that the article is a model of how to respond to a corporate
hit piece, but I have to disagree that it's not a showcase for the writer's
anger.
The article is a perfect example of channeling anger into useful form. It's
motivated by anger; suffused with anger; would not have been written without
anger.
Anger is not to be denied, hidden, or apologized for, IF it's used to
motivate useful, non-violent, action.
For Iowa List readers: rBGH is recombinant bovine growth hormone, produced by
Monsanto and marketed under the trade name Posilac. It is injected into cows
and causes them to produce more milk. Posilac is produced through a genetic
engineering process.
Tom
=============================================================
Subj: Excellent op-ed
Date: 3/31/2005 8:11:09 PM Central Daylight Time
From: [log in to unmask] (Jim Diamond)
Sender: [log in to unmask] (Biotech Forum)
Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A> (Biotech Forum)
To: [log in to unmask]
This very well written Op-Ed is in response to a typical hit piece (I was
sure you've seen Avery's work often enough and wouldn't want it in Biotech
Forum). I think it's almost a writing lesson in how to respond: reframe the
issue because the hit piece will have misrepresented it, then accentuate the
positive rather than showcasing your anger. This was published in today's
Oregonian.
Jim Diamond, M.D.
Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee
Falsities, half-truths and smears marred essay on Tillamook milk
Thursday, March 31, 2005
IN MY OPINION
Rick North
Dr. Martin Donohoe
A recent op-ed piece by Alex Avery and Terry Witt ("Contriving a controversy
concerning Tillamook's milk," March 25) questioned the legitimacy of Oregon
Physicians for Social Responsibility's campaign to discontinue recombinant
bovine growth hormone -- rBGH or rBST -- in dairy products.
Our organization, which prides itself on sound science, has intensively
researched the scientific data and historical/political information on rBGH.
We discovered a deeply disturbing web of undue corporate influence in the
Food and Drug Administration, where several of the agency's own scientists
questioned the validity of the data and safety of rBGH. We learned why rBGH has been
banned in most industrialized nations of the world and we saw how Monsanto,
rBGH's sole manufacturer, intimidated many who opposed it.
Last week's op-ed was more than an attempt to silence the continuing
controversy about the safety of this drug. It was an assault on citizen participation
in democracy, on activism itself.
Our dictionary defines an activist as someone who takes "positive, direct
action to achieve an end." In the past few years, the meaning of this word has
been turned on its head to imply a negative, self-serving person. The prevailing
definition disparages citizens who question corporate power or official
government policy. It's illuminating to track those people criticizing activism and
recognize their tactics.
One such tactic is the half-truth. Their op-ed gave the impression that our
campaign had targeted Tillamook County Creamery with thousands of complaints
and was wholly responsible for its decision. Actually, Tillamook had received
comments about rBGH and had begun discussions about banning it before our
campaign had even started. In the past year, we have asked consumers to urge
Tillamook and other dairies to stop using the hormone. However, the thousands of
comments we helped generate in the 10 days leading up to the membership vote were
thanking Tillamook for its previous rBGH-free decision.
The op-ed also contained numerous totally false statements. One example: rBGH
doesn't harm cows? Monsanto's own package insert lists more than a dozen
harmful medical conditions that rBGH increases, including painful mastitis, foot
disorders and reduced pregnancy rates. It's no wonder both the Humane Society
of the United States and the Humane Farming Association have condemned rBGH.
Monsanto has funded, directly or indirectly, both Avery's Hudson Institute
and Witt's Oregonians for Food and Shelter. In fact, Monsanto has a
representative sitting on the board of Witt's group.
Activists are more than just watchdogs. They have produced some of this
nation's greatest accomplishments. Without them, 10-year-old children would still
be working 12 hours a day in coal mines and sweatshops. Blacks would still be
barred from schools, hotels and swimming pools. Women would still be denied the
right to vote. In Oregon, activist William Steel spearheaded a 17-year
struggle that led to the creation in 1902 of Crater Lake National Park. Activist
Richard Chambers led the three-year battle for the 1971 Bottle Bill that became a
nationwide model.
It is the right and responsibility of citizens to question government policy
and challenge abuses of corporate power. When activism is attacked or
neglected, democracy itself is in peril.
Avery and Witt got one thing right -- we are activists. And we're proud of
it.
Rick North of Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility is project director
for its Campaign for Safe Food. Dr. Martin Donohoe, a physician, is the
campaign's chief science adviser.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp