FLORIDA MILK SUPPLY RIDDLED WITH ARTIFICIAL HORMONE LINKED TO CANCER

[Guest guest]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

This appeared on one of my mailing lists.

-Maeve

------------

Reporters Blow Whistle On News Station

FLORIDA MILK SUPPLY RIDDLED WITH ARTIFICIAL HORMONE LINKED TO

CANCER;

REPORTERS SAY THEY WERE ORDERED TO LIE ABOUT IT ON FOX-TV TAMPA

Two award-winning investigative reporters at the Fox-owned television

station in Tampa are blowing the whistle on a story they say WTVT (Ch 13)

and its corporate bosses preferred to coverup rather than broadcast

honestly and accurately.

The story, documented in a lawsuit the reporters filed

Thursday, reveals the widespread use of a controversial bovine growth

hormone Florida dairymen have been secretly injecting into their cows.

The suit and information about use of the hormone in dairy

cattle are presented in full detail at a special Internet web site. The

site can be viewed at http://www.foxBGHsuit.com

Though legal since approved by the U.S. Food and Drug

Administration in 1993, the artificial hormone commonly known as BGH has

been linked to cancer and is banned throughout Europe and unapproved in

several other countries because of human health concerns.

The never-broadcast report also reveals how Florida

supermarkets quietly reneged on promises not to sell milk from treated cows

until the hormone gained widespread acceptance by consumers. All major

supermarkets now admit BGH has found its way into virtually all the states

milk supply.

The husband-and-wife investigative team joined with Floridas

top consumer groups=97the Florida Public Interest Research Group and the

Consumer Action Network=97to reveal the BGH story at news conferences

Thursday in Tallahassee and Tampa.

The reporters also provided details of their suit which charges

Fox television, strongly pressured by BGH-maker Monsanto, with violating

the states whistleblower act by firing the journalists for refusing to

broadcast false reports and threatening to report the station's conduct to

the FCC. Their complaint also claims the station violated the reporters

contracts in dismissing them for those reasons and it seeks a ruling from

the court to determine to what extent the reporters contractual obligations

limit their ability to speak freely about the rBGH issue.

The journalists filed the suit after struggling with Fox

executives most of last year to get the story on the air. According to

court papers, they were ultimately dismissed December 2, 1997.

" Every editor has the right to kill a story and any honest

reporter will tell you that happens from time to time when a news

organization=92s self interest wins out over the public interest, " said Steve

, the station=92s former senior investigative reporter who helped

Akre produce the story and is now one of the plaintiffs.

" But when media managers who are not journalists have so little

regard for the public trust that they actually order reporters to broadcast

false information and slant the truth to curry the favor or avoid the wrath

of special interests as happened here, that is the day any responsible

reporter has to stand up and say, No way! That is what Jane and I are

saying with this lawsuit, " said.

" We are parents ourselves, " Akre said. " It is not right for the

station to withhold this important health information and solely as a

matter of conscience we will not aid and abet their effort to cover this up

any longer, " she said. " Every parent and every consumer have the right to

know what they are pouring on their childrens morning cereal. "

" We set out to tell Florida consumers the truth a giant

chemical company and a powerful dairy lobby clearly doesn=92t want them to

know, " said. " That used to be something investigative reporters won

awards for. As we have learned the hard way, its something you can be fired

for these days whenever a news organization places more value on its bottom

line than on delivering the news to its viewers honestly.

" We filed this lawsuit because its wrong to lose your job as a

journalist for standing up for the truth, " Akre added. " We have every

confidence that a jury will agree. And when it does, after we are

reimbursed for our lost salaries and legal fees and other costs, every

nickel over and above that will be donated to a journalism organization

that can support the next journalist who has to choose between his job and

telling the truth. "

According to the suit, WTVT originally reviewed the

investigative reports and scheduled them to air in four parts beginning

February 24, 1997 and had even launched an extensive radio ad campaign to

draw attention to the series. But virtually on the eve of the broadcast,

the station pulled the reports after Monsanto hired a renowned New York

attorney to complain to a top official of Channel 13s parent company, Fox

television. The attorney=92s letter was filed with the complaint which is

now posted at the web site.

Local station management again carefully reviewed the

investigative reports, found no errors in any of the reporting,

re-scheduled them to air a week later, and even offered Monsanto the

opportunity to be

interviewed a second time, the suit says. Instead, the chemical maker

responded with another threatening letter to the President of Foxs network

news division and the WTVT reports were postponed again.

In supporting papers filed with the court, the journalists say

WTVT General Manager Boylan refused to kill the story for fear the

viewing public would learn the station yielded to pressure from special

interests. Instead, and Akre allege, Boylan ordered the reporters to

broadcast a version which contained demonstrably false information and he

threatened to fire them both within 48 hours if they refused.

Instead of being fired, the complaint continues, Boylan offered

to release both reporters from further obligations and pay them full salary

for the balance of their contracts if they would only agree never to

discuss the BGH story or how it was handled by the station. The reporters

declined the offer.

What followed was nearly nine months of writing and re-writing

the scripts more than 70 times, none of which suited Fox management

according to the complaint which says Boylan then suspended both reporters

but ordered them to write two final versions while suspended.

The journalists say despite being locked out of their offices

and the station computer system which held some of their research material,

they produced both versions. One is the version written by the reporters,

the other a version they say station management demanded they produce. Both

scripts are attached to the suit with the so-called " mandated version "

highlighted to include the reporters=92 detailed objections.

" Nowhere in any of the dozens and dozens of versions we've

written did any Fox manager or lawyer ever point to even one error of

fact, " says reporter Steve . " Also, there was never any credible

claim that either of us or anyone else who worked on the story ever

conducted ourselves with anything but the highest journalistic ethics in

researching and reporting the story. "

The original BGH investigation was sanctioned by WTVT shortly

after it hired the two reporters in December 1996. Akre says she visited

seven Florida dairy farms at random early last year where she confirmed use

of the hormone at each and every one. A photographer videotaped the mass

injections of hundreds of cows on two of the farms. The hormone is injected

every two weeks to stimulate milk production and boost dairy profits.

Many scientists have expressed strong concerns about a possible

link between cancer and the consumption of milk from cows injected with the

synthetic hormone. Those and other human health concerns have blocked its

approval in many other countries including Canada, New Zealand and every

member nation of the Europe Union.

Nonetheless, Monsanto which developed and sells the product has

always insisted use of the hormone poses no human health risk of any kind.

The FDA, whose veterinary medicine branch approved the animal drug in 1993,

agrees.

Scientists who oppose the use of BGH argue that while the drug

is said to shorten the life of the cow by speeding up its metabolism and

causing certain infections, it also leads to changes in the cows milk.

Dr. Epstein at the University of Illinois says, " There are highly

suggestive if not persuasive lines of evidence showing that human

consumption of milk from treated cows poses unnecessary risks of breast and

colon cancer. "

Epstein, an acknowledged expert on the environmental causes of

cancer, has three medical degrees, is the author of nine books, and is

frequently called to testify as an expert before Congress. Other respected

experts share his position. Some like Dr. von Meyer have stated

further concerns about whether BGH milk may cause other long-term health

problems in humans. All the critics and even some BGH supporters agree the

possibility has never been thoroughly investigated.

Consumers have also expressed concern about how use of the drug

can lead to high levels of antibiotic drugs in milk. Many farmers are

forced to inject their animals with powerful drugs to fight infections and

other side effects experienced by cows injected with the BGH.

No labeling law in Florida requires milk producers to tell

consumers when their milk or other dairy products come from cows treated

with the controversial hormone. In fact, Monsanto has fought efforts by

dairies that do not use the product from saying so on their labels. Ben and

Jerrys ice cream, which buys only from farmers who do not inject their cows

with BGH, just won a legal victory in Illinois to allow them to label their

products artificial-BGH-free.

In Wisconsin, Vermont, and elsewhere, consumers have demanded

grocers stop carrying BGH milk or at least give shoppers a choice at the

dairy case.

" This is precisely what this is all about, " said reporter Akre.

" Yes, I am an investigative reporter but I am also a mother. I and every

other mother and consumer deserve to hear all that is known about what I

pour on my daughters cereal every morning. Only then can any of us decide

for ourselves if there is any risk and whether it rises to a level we are

willing to take. "

----------------------------------------------------------------------------=