by John C. Stauber and Sheldon Rampton

PR executive Jack Mongoven has a new name for
the leftist/environmentalist conspiracy that threatens to destroy civilization
as we know it. He calls it the "Precautionary Principle."

align="BOTTOM">"The Precautionary Principle holds that
a manufacturer must prove that its product does no harm, before it can
be marketed," Mongoven wrote in the March 1995 issue of Eco-logic,
an anti-environmentalist newsletter.

by John C. Stauber and Sheldon Rampton

For seven years the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the multi-billion
dollar animal livestock industry have cooperated in a PR cover-up of huge
health risks to animals and people in the United States.

align="BOTTOM">For 10 years, even preceding the British outbreak
of Mad Cow Disease, the USDA has had scientific evidence that a version
of the disease exists in U.S.

USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
1991 Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Public Relations

The following extracts are from a government PR strategy document
for handling the Mad Cow Disease problem in the United State. The document
was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act investigation.

With BSE there are two issues where agriculture
is vulnerable to media scrutiny. These are the practice of feeding rendered
ruminant products to ruminants and the risk to human health.

by John C. Stauber and Sheldon Rampton

1985

Dr. Richard F. Marsh, a TSE expert and researcher at the University of
Wisconsin in Madison, investigates a Wisconsin mink herd wiped out by
a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) disease picked up from
their feed--"downer" dairy cattle. He notifies colleagues of
the apparent presence in dairy cows of a TSE agent, publishes peer-reviewed
papers and launches a decade of continuing research.

1986

Seven cases are reported of a new spongiform encephalopathy called "Mad
Cow Disease" in British cattle.

1987

England reports 413 new cases of Mad Cow Disease.

height="257" naturalsizeflag="3">

Incineration of British cows infected with Mad Cow Disease.

Photo (c) David Jackson

1988

Another 2,185 cases of the disease are confirmed.

1989

The USDA quietly forms a committee to review the situation in the United
States.

by John C. Stauber and Sheldon Rampton

Reporting in PR Watch

USDA's Mad Cow PR Coverup

The 1st Quarter 1996 issue of PR Watch reviews a decade of efforts by the British and U.S. governments to deny BSE-related public health risks.

Shut Up and Eat: The Oprah Winfrey Lawsuit Brings Food Censorship to America

A lawsuit by Texas cattlemen against Oprah Winfrey marks the first test in court of new "agricultural product disparagement" laws which give the food industry unprecedented new powers to sue, harass and silence its critics. The lawsuit accuses Oprah and one of her guests of harming beef sales by publicly discussing industry practices such as animal cannibalism which created the mad cow epidemic in England. The 2nd Quarter 1997 issue of PR Watch examines the background of "disparagement laws" and also provides a full transcript of what was said on the Oprah show.

Swallowing Anything: The Hype Behind Alternative Remedies

The 3rd Quarter 1997 documents the use of risky materials such as bovine brain tissue in over-the-counter "health food supplements," in the context of PR and lobbying by the food supplement industry aimed at escaping government oversight and labeling requirements. It also documents a number of little-known risk factors in the United States related to a potential TSE disease outbreak here.

One Hundred Percent All Beef Baloney: Lessons of the Oprah Trial

Oprah Winfrey has won her case in court against Texas cattlemen, but the deeper issues behind the trial remain unresolved. For an analysis of the trial and its chilling impact on public discussion of food safety, read this PR Watch report.

by John C. Stauber and Sheldon Rampton

Once reviled as corporate villains, the manufacturers
of silicone breast implants have made a stunning comeback recently in
the court of public opinion. A series of scientific studies and news stories
have emerged, arguing that breast implants are in fact harmless, and that
companies such as Dow Corning and Bristol-Myers are hapless victims of
misguided women, greedy attorneys and manipulated juries.

align="BOTTOM">This turnaround is no accident.

by John C. Stauber and Sheldon Rampton

Breast implant makers and plastic surgeons have spent vastly more money on PR, attorneys, and lobbying than the women who are suing them for damages. Thanks to PR, the industry has achieved a remarkable reversal, persuading large sectors of the news media that it is the victim of politics, greed and "junk science."

New York Times reporter Gina Kolata has typified the trend, penning stories such as "Implant Lawsuits Create a Medical Rush to Cash In," which portrays the 400,000 women who have joined a class-action lawsuit against the industry as greedy opportunists goaded on by slick attorneys.

by John C. Stauber and Sheldon Rampton

Juries which have issued multi-million-dollar
judgments against Dow Corning have based their verdicts on evidence beginning
with the first known instances in which silicone was used for breast enlargement.

align="BOTTOM">Following World War II, Japanese bargirls found
that their G.I. customers preferred big bosoms, so they attempted to enlarge
their breasts with injections of industrial-grade liquid silicone.