'Junkman', Our Swollen Future (parody of Theo C. et al) - and Big Tobacco (TM)

[Guest guest]

I ran across mention of the parody " Our Swollen Future " on a page

that debunks thGreenpeace and PCB/hormone links in general (using

what I think is questionable science - it doesn't seem to say

anything about low-dose hormone-disruptive effects) at http://

home.scarlet.be/chlorophiles/Eng/ChlorineHorm.html.

I notice that " junkscience.com' is no longer up? Were they sued

our of existence by Colburn et al. over the parody Our Swollen Future

or something?

I think a superset the the Bruno Awards is in order - The Ostrich

Award..

Then I found this:

http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2000Q3/junkman.html

that says that junkman was created by the same people involved in

Big Tobacco.. Reminds me of what people say about the " Quackwatch

Conspiracy " . I'm still not sure about that one - it just seems a bit

too big (involving the Usenet, wikipedia, etc, etc) to be completely

plausible as a " intentional conspiracy " (unintentional though,

certainly).

Interesting read:

by Sheldon Rampton and Stauber

In the biographical sketch that accompanies " The Fear

Profiteers " (see cover story of this issue), Milloy describes

himself as the publisher of the Junk Science Home Page and an adjunct

scholar at the Cato Institute. " Milloy appears frequently on radio

and television; has testified on risk assessment and Superfund before

the U.S. Congress; and has lectured before numerous organizations, "

it adds, noting that he has also " written articles that have appeared

in the New York Post, USA Today, Washington Times, The Chicago Sun-

Times, and the Investors' Business Daily. "

These facts are all accurate as far they go, but they say nothing

about how Milloy came to be a prominent debunker of " junk science. "

This omission is undoubtedly by design, because it would certainly be

embarrassing to admit that a self-proclaimed scientific reformer got

his start as a behind-the-scenes lobbyist for the tobacco industry,

which has arguably done more to corrupt science than any other

industry in history.

Early in his career, Milloy worked for a company called Multinational

Business Services, a Washington lobby shop that Philip

described as its " primary contact " on the issue of secondhand

cigarette smoke in the early 1990s. Later, he became executive

director of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), an

organization that was covertly created by Philip for the

express purpose of generating scientific controversy regarding the

link between secondhand smoke and cancer.

The Whitecoat Project

One of the forerunners of TASSC at Philip was a 1988 " Proposal

for the Whitecoat Project, " named after the white laboratory coats

that scientists sometimes wear. The project had four goals: " Resist

and roll back smoking restrictions. Restore smoker confidence.

Reverse scientific and popular misconception that ETS is harmful.

Restore social acceptability of smoking. "

To achieve these goals, the plan was to first " generate a body of

scientific and technical knowledge " through research " undertaken by

whitecoats, contract laboratories and commercial organizations " ; then

" disseminate and exploit such knowledge through specific

communication programs. " Covington & Burling, PM's law firm, would

function as the executive arm of the Whitecoat Project, acting as a

" legal buffer . . . the interface with the operating units

(whitecoats, laboratories, etc.). "

The effort to create a scientific defense for secondhand smoke was

only one component in the tobacco industry's multi-million-dollar PR

campaign. To defeat cigarette excise taxes, a Philip strategy

document outlined plans for " Co-op efforts with third party tax

organizations " --libertarian anti-taxation think tanks, such as

Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Citizens for

Tax Justice and the Tax Foundation. Other third party allies included

the National Journalism Center, the Heartland Institute, the

Claremont Institute, and National Empowerment Television, a

conservative TV network.

In one memo to Philip CEO A. Miles, vice president

Craig L. Fuller noted that he was " working with many third party

allies to develop position papers, op-eds and letters to the editor

detailing how tobacco is already one of the most heavily regulated

products in the marketplace, and derailing arguments against proposed

bans on tobacco advertising. "

Through the PR firm of Burson-Marsteller, Philip also created

the " National Smoker's Alliance, " a supposedly independent

organization of individual smokers which claimed that bans on smoking

in public places infringed on basic American freedoms. The NSA was a

" grassroots " version of the third party technique, designed to create

the impression of a citizen groundswell against smoking restrictions.

Burson-Marsteller spent millions of dollars of tobacco industry money

to get the NSA up and running--buying full-page newspaper ads, hiring

paid canvassers and telemarketers, setting up a toll-free 800 number,

and publishing newsletters and other folksy " grassroots " materials to

mobilize the puffing masses.

The NSA's stated mission was to " empower " smokers to reclaim their

rights--although, behind closed doors, industry executives fretted

that they didn't want this rhetoric to go too far. They were well

aware of opinion polls showing that 70 percent of all adult smokers

wish they could kick the habit. " The issue of 'empowerment of

smokers' was viewed as somewhat dangerous, " stated a tobacco strategy

document. " We don't want to 'empower' them to the point that they'll

quit. "

Due to the publicity associated with Burson-Marsteller's role in

setting up the NSA, Philip executives felt that it was best to

select some other PR firm to handle the launch of TASSC. They settled

on APCO Associates, a subsidiary of the international advertising and

PR firm of GCI/Grey Associates, which agreed to " organize coalition

efforts to provide information with respect to the ETS issues to the

media and to public officials " in exchange for a monthly retainer of

$37,500 plus expenses.

The purpose of TASSC, as described in a memo from APCO's Tom Hockaday

and Neal Cohen, was to " link the tobacco issue with other more

'politically correct' products " --in other words, to make the case

that efforts to regulate tobacco were based on the same " junk

science " as efforts to regulate food additives, automobile emissions

and other industrial products that had not yet achieved tobacco's

pariah status.

" The credibility of EPA is defeatable, but not on the basis of ETS

alone, " stated a Philip strategy document. " It must be part of

a larger mosaic that concentrates all of the EPA's enemies against it

at one time. "

Originally dubbed the " Restoring Integrity to Science Coalition, " the

Advancement of Sound Science Coalition was later renamed to resemble

the venerable American Association for the Advancement of Science.

After APCO's planners realized that the resulting acronym was not

terribly flattering--ASSC, or worse, the ASS Coalition--they began

putting a capitalized article " the " at the beginning of the name, and

TASSC was born, a " national coalition intended to educate the media,

public officials and the public about the dangers of 'junk science.' "

In September 1993, APCO President Margery Kraus sent a memo to Philip

Communications Director Vic Han. " We look forward to the

successful launching of TASSC this fall, " she stated. " We believe the

groundwork we conduct to complete the launch will enable TASSC to

expand and assist Philip in its efforts with issues in

targeted states in 1994. "

APCO's work would focus on expanding TASSC's membership, finding

outside money to help conceal the role of Philip as its

primary funder, compiling a litany of " additional examples of unsound

science, " and " coordinating and directing outreach to the scientific

and academic communities. "

APCO would also direct and manage former New Mexico governor Garrey

Carruthers, who had been hired as TASSC's spokesman. " This includes

developing and maintaining his schedule, prioritizing his time and

energies, and briefing Carruthers and other appropriate TASSC

representatives, " Kraus wrote, outlining a " comprehensive media

relations strategy " designed to " maximize the use of TASSC and its

members into Philip 's issues in targeted states. . . . This

includes using TASSC as a tool in targeted legislative battles. "

Planned activities included publishing a monthly newsletter, frequent

news releases, drafting " boilerplate " speeches and op-ed pieces to be

used by TASSC representatives, and placing articles in various trade

publications to help recruit members from the agriculture, chemical,

biotechnology and food additive industries. In addition to APCO's

monthly fee, $5,000 per month was budgeted " to compensate Garrey

Carruthers. "

Considerable effort was expended to conceal the fact that TASSC was

created and funded by Philip . APCO recommended that TASSC

first be introduced to the public through a " decentralized launch

outside the large markets of Washington, DC and New York " in order to

" avoid cynical reporters from major media. "

==========================

" Increasingly today, one can find examples of junk science that

compromise the integrity of the field of science and, at the same

time, create a scare environment where unnecessary regulations on

industry in general, and on the consumer products industry in

particular, are rammed through without respect to rhyme, reason,

effect or cause. "

-- A. Miles, former CEO of the Philip tobacco company

==========================

In smaller markets, APCO reasoned, there would be " less reviewing/

challenging of TASSC messages. " Also, a decentralized launch would

" limit potential for counterattack. The opponents of TASSC tend to

concentrate their efforts in top markets while skipping the secondary

markets. This approach sends TASSC's message initially into these

more receptive markets--and enables us to build upon early successes. "

The plan included a barnstorming media tour by Garrey Carruthers of

these secondary markets. " APCO will arrange on-the-ground visits with

three to four reporters in each city. These interviews, using TASSC's

trained spokespeople, third-party allies (e.g., authors of books on

unsound science), members of the TASSC Science Board, and/or Governor

Carruthers, will be scheduled for a one to two day media tour in each

city. "

To set up the interviews, APCO used a list of sympathetic reporters

provided by Boltz, a manager of media affairs at Philip .

" We thought it best to remove any possible link to PM, thus Boltz is

not making the calls, " noted Philip public affairs director

Jack Lenzi. " With regard to media inquiries to PM about TASSC, I am

putting together some Q and A. We will not deny being a corporate

member/sponsor, will not specify dollars, and will refer them to the

TASSC '800-' number, being manned by Sheon (APCO). "

Other plans, developed later, included creation of a TASSC internet

page that could be used to " broadly distribute published studies/

papers favorable to smoking/ETS debate " and " release PM authored

papers . . . on ETS science and bad science/bad public policy. "

Carruthers began his media tour in December, with stopovers in cities

including San Diego, Dallas and Denver. News releases sent out in

advance of each stop described TASSC as a " grassroots-based, not-for-

profit watchdog group of scientists and representatives from

universities, independent organizations and industry, that advocates

the use of sound science in the public policy arena. " As examples of

unsound science, it pointed to the asbestos abatement guidelines, the

" dioxin scare " in Times Beach, Missouri, and " unprecedented

regulations to limit radon levels in drinking water. "

In Texas, local TASSC recruits involved in the launch included Dr.

Margaret Maxey and Floy Lilley, both of the University of Texas. " The

Clean Air Act is a perfect example of laboratory science being

superficially applied to reality, " Lilley said. Carruthers took the

opportunity to inveigh against politicized uses of science by the

Environmental Protection Agency " to make science 'fit' with the

political leanings of special interests. " EPA's studies, he

complained, " are frequently carried out without the benefit of peer

review or quality assurance. "

In Denver, Carruthers told a local radio station that the public has

been " shafted by shoddy science, and it has cost consumers and

government a good deal of money. " When asked who was financing TASSC,

Carruthers sidestepped the question. " We don't want to be caught

being a crusader for a single industry, " he said. " We're not out here

defending the chemical industry; we're not out here defending the

automobile industry, or the petroleum industry, or the tobacco

industry; we're here just to ensure that sound science is used. "

Virtually every news release made some reference to the so-called

" Alar scare, " in which consumers mobilized to stop apple growers from

using the pesticide Alar. The U.S. EPA has classified Alar as a

" probable carcinogen, " and subsequent reports from the World Health

Organization and the U.S. Public Health Service had concurred with

that judgment. Pro-industry groups continue to defend the chemical,

however, as does former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop.

In its news releases, TASSC made a point of invoking Koop's name

whenever possible. In an " advertorial " titled " Science: A Tool, Not a

Weapon, " TASSC noted that " respected experts, including then-Surgeon

General C. Everett Koop, said the scientific evidence showed no

likelihood of harm from Alar. . . . This is not an isolated case of

bad science being used by policymakers, " it added. " It's happened

regarding asbestos, dioxin and toxic waste. . . . It's happening in

the debate over environmental tobacco smoke, or second-hand smoke.

The studies done so far on the topic do not demonstrate evidence that

second-hand smoke causes cancer, even though that is the popular

wisdom. "

To the casual reader, it would almost appear as if Dr. Koop were a

defender of environmental tobacco smoke, rather than one of its most

prominent public critics.

EuroTASSC

In 1994, Philip budgeted $880,000 in funding for TASSC. In

consultation with APCO and Burson-Marsteller, the company began

planning to set up a second, European organization, tentatively named

" Scientists for Sound Public Policy " (later renamed the European

Science and Environment Forum). Like TASSC, the European organization

would attempt to smuggle tobacco advocacy into a larger bundle of

" sound science " issues, including the " ban on growth hormone for

livestock; ban on [genetically-engineered bovine growth hormone] to

improve milk production; pesticide restrictions; ban on indoor

smoking; restrictions on use of chlorine; ban on certain

pharmaceutical products; restrictions on the use of biotechnology. "

The public and policymakers needed to be " educated, " Burson-

Marsteller explained, because " political decision-makers are

vulnerable to activists' emotional appeals and press campaigns. . . .

The precautionary principle is now the accepted guideline. Even if a

hypothesis is not 100 percent scientifically proven, action should be

taken, e.g. global warming. "

Companies that B-M thought could be recruited to support the European

endeavor would include makers of " consumer products (food, beverages,

tobacco), packaging industry, agrichemical industry, chemical

industry, pharmaceutical industry, biotech industry, electric power

industry, telecommunications. "

A turf war broke out between Burson-Marsteller and APCO over the

question of which PR firm should handle the European campaign. Jim

Lindheim of Burson-Marsteller laid claim to the account by stressing

his firm's already-proven expertise at defending tobacco science in

Europe. " We have the network, much of which is already sensitized to

PM's special needs, " he stated. " We have a lot of experience in every

country working with scientists. . . . We've got a large client base

with 'scientific problems' whom we can tap for sponsorship. "

APCO's Margery Kraus responded by reminding Philip regulatory

affairs director Winokur that Burson-Marsteller's long

history of tobacco industry work was public knowledge and therefore

might taint the endeavor.

" Given the sensitivities of other TASSC activities and a previous

decision not to have TASSC work directly with Burson, due to these

sensitivities in other TASSC work, I did not feel comfortable having

Steig or anyone else from Burson assume primary responsibility for

working with TASSC scientists, " Kraus stated. As for experience

handling " scientific problems, " she pointed to her parent company's

work for " the following industries impacted by science and

environmental policy decisions: chemical, pharmaceutical, nuclear,

waste management and motor industries, power generation, biotech

products, packaging and detergents, and paint. They have advised

clients on a number of issues, including: agricultural manufacturing,

animal testing, chlorine, dioxins, toxic waste, ozone/CFCs, power

generation, coastal pollution, lead in gasoline, polyurethanes,

lubricants. "

TASSC was designed to appear outwardly like a broad coalition of

scientists from multiple disciplines. The other industries and

interests--biotech, chemical, toxic waste, coastal pollution,

lubricants--served as protective camouflage, concealing the tobacco

money that was at the heart of the endeavor. TASSC signed up support

from corporate executives at Santa Fe Pacific Gold Corporation,

Procter & Gamble, the Louisiana Chemical Association, the National

Pest Control Association, General Motors, Lawrence Livermore National

Laboratory, Exxon, W.R. Grace & Co., Amoco, Occidental Petroleum, 3M,

Chevron and Dow Chemical.

Many of its numerous news releases attacking " junk science " made no

mention of tobacco whatsoever. It objected to government guidelines

for asbestos abatement; said the " dioxin scare " in Times Beach,

Missouri was a tempest in a teapot; scoffed at the need for an EPA

Superfund cleanup in Aspen, Colorado; dismissed reports of health

effects related to use of the Norplant contraceptive; denounced the

Clean Water Act; and orchestrated a letter-writing campaign to oppose

any government action aimed at limiting industrial activities linked

to global warming.

Trash Talk With the Junkman

In February 1994, APCO vice president Neal Cohen made the mistake of

boasting candidly about some of the sneaky tactics his company uses

to set up front groups. His remarks were made at a conference of the

Public Affairs Council (PAC), an exclusive association of top-ranking

lobbyists and PR people. New York Times political reporter Jane

Fritsch later used his remarks as the basis for a March 1996 article

titled " Sometimes Lobbyists Strive to Keep Public in the Dark. "

Shortly after APCO suffered this embarrassment, the responsibility

for managing TASSC was quietly transferred to the EOP Group, a well-

connected, Washington-based lobby firm whose clients have included

the American Crop Protection Association (the chief trade association

of the pesticide industry), the American Petroleum Institute, AT & T,

the Business Roundtable, the Chlorine Chemistry Council, Dow Chemical

Company, Edison Electric Institute (nuclear power), Fort Corp.

(a paper manufacturer), International Food Additives Council,

Monsanto Co., National Mining Association, and the Nuclear Energy

Institute.

In March 1997, EOP lobbyist Milloy, described in a TASSC news

release as " a nationally known expert and author on environmental

risk and regulatory policy issues, " became TASSC's executive

director. " brings not only a deep and strong academic and

professional background to TASSC, but he brings an equally deep,

strong and passionate commitment to the principle of using sound

science in making public policy decisions, " said Garrey Carruthers.

" The issue of junk science has become the topic of network news

specials, major articles in newspapers, and a key topic in Congress

and legislatures around the country. I look forward to working with

to continue to drive home the need for sound science in public

policy making. "

Although the news release referred to Milloy's work " over the last

six years " on " environmental and regulatory policy issues, " it did

not mention that he had worked specifically for the tobacco industry.

During 1992 Milloy worked for Tozzi at Multinational Business

Services. Tozzi, a former career bureaucrat at the U.S. Office of

Management and Budget who had spearheaded the Reagan-era OMB campaign

to gut environmental regulations, is described in internal Philip

documents as the company's " primary contact on the EPA/ETS

risk assessment during the second half of 1992. " During that period,

it noted, " Tozzi has been invaluable in executing our Washington

efforts including generating technical briefing papers, numerous

letters to agencies and media interviews, " a service for which Philip

paid an estimated $300,000 in consulting fees.

Philip also paid Tozzi's company another $880,000 to establish

a " nonprofit " think-tank called the Institute for Regulatory Policy

(IRP). On behalf of Philip , the IRP put together " three

different coalitions which support sound science--Coalition for

Executive Order, Coalition for Moratorium on Risk Assessments, and

Coalition of Cities and States on Environmental Mandates. . . . IRP

could work with us as well as APCO in a coordinated manner, " PM's

Boland and Borelli had noted in February 1993.

After leaving Tozzi's service, Milloy became president of his own

organization called the " Regulatory Impact Analysis Project, Inc., "

where he wrote a couple of reports arguing that " most environmental

risks are so small or indistinguishable that their existence cannot

be proven. " Shortly thereafter, he launched the " Junk Science Home

Page. " Calling himself " the Junkman, " he offered daily attacks on

environmentalists, public health and food safety regulators, anti-

nuclear and animal rights activists, and a wide range of other

targets that he accused of using unsound science to advance various

political agendas.

Milloy was also active in defense of the tobacco industry,

particularly in regard to the issue of environmental tobacco smoke.

He dismissed the EPA's 1993 report linking secondhand smoke to cancer

as " a joke, " and when the British Medical Journal published its own

study with similar results in 1997, he scoffed that " it remains a

joke today. " After one researcher published a study linking

secondhand smoke to cancer, Milloy wrote that she " must have pictures

of journal editors in compromising positions with farm animals. How

else can you explain her studies seeing the light of day? "

In August 1997, the New York Times reported that Milloy was one of

the paid speakers at a Miami briefing for foreign reporters sponsored

by the British-American Tobacco Company, whose Brown & on

unit makes popular cigarettes like Kool, Carlton and Lucky Strike. At

the briefing, which was off-limits to U.S. journalists, the company

flew in dozens of reporters from countries including Brazil,

Argentina, Chile and Peru and paid for their hotel rooms and

expensive meals while the reporters sat through presentations that

ridiculed " lawsuit-driven societies like the United States " for using

" unsound science " to raise questions about " infinitesimal, if not

hypothetical, risks " related to inhaling a " whiff " of tobacco smoke.

The Legacy

In 1999, University of Pennsylvania professor S. Herman

surveyed 258 articles in mainstream newspapers that used the term

" junk science " during the years 1996 through 1998. Only 8 percent of

the articles used the term in reference to corporate-manipulated

science. By contrast, 62 percent used the term " junk science " in

reference to scientific arguments used by environmentalists, other

corporate critics, or personal-injury lawyers engaged in suing

corporations.

" What's starting to happen is that this term, 'junk science,' is

being thrown around all the time, " says Lucinda Finley, a law

professor from the State University of New York at Buffalo who

specializes in product liability and women's health. " People are

calling scientists who disagree with them purveyors of 'junk.' But

what we're really talking about is a very normal process of

scientific disagreement and give-and-take. Calling someone a 'junk

scientist' is just a way of shutting them up. "

Like other corporate-funded front groups, the organizations that

flack for sound science are sometimes fly-by-night organizations.

Called into existence for a particular cause or legislative lobby

campaign, they often dry up and blow away once the campaign is over.

The tendency of groups to appear and disappear creates another form

of camouflage, making it difficult for journalists and everyday

citizens to sort out the bewildering proliferation of names and

acronyms.

This was indeed what happened with The Advancement of Sound Science

Coalition, which was quietly retired in late 1998. Its legacy,

however, continues. Dozens, if not hundreds, of industry-funded

organizations and conservative think tanks continue to wave the sound

science banner. Milloy's Junk Science Home Page remains active,

claiming sponsorship from " Citizens for the Integrity of Science, "

about which no further information is publicly available.

The tone of the Junk Science Home Page appears calculated to lower

rather than elevate scientific discourse. That tone is particularly

notable in its extended attack on Our Stolen Future, the book about

endocrine-disrupting chemicals by Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski and

Myers. Milloy's on-line parody, titled " Our Swollen Future, "

includes a cartoon depiction of Colborn hauling a wheelbarrow of

money to the bank (her implied motive for writing the book), and

refers to Dianne Dumanoski as " Dianne Dumb-as-an-oxski. "

Casual visitors to Milloy's Junk Science Home Page might be tempted

to dismiss him as merely an obnoxious adolescent with a website. They

would be surprised to discover that he is a well-connected fixture in

conservative Washington policy circles. He currently holds the title

of " adjunct scholar " at the libertarian Cato Institute, which was

rated the fourth most influential think tank in Washington, DC in a

1999 survey of congressional staffers and journalists.

Milloy is also highly visible on the internet. In addition to

publishing the Junk Science Home Page and a website for the No More

Scares campaign, Milloy also operates a " Consumer Distorts " website

devoted to attacking Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer

Reports magazine, which Milloy accuses of socialism, sensationalism,

and " scaring consumers away from products. "