ACTION ALERT

***********************************************

FOREST CONSERVATION NEWS TODAY

Enemies of Democracy Target Rainforest Protection

***********************************************

Forest Networking a Project of Forests.org, Inc.

http://forests.org/ -- Forest Conservation Portal

http://forests.org/links/ -- Forest Conservation Links

06/30/01

OVERVIEW & COMMENTARY by Forests.org

TAKE ACTION:

Take Action for the Forests - Defend Rainforest Action Network

http://www.ran.org/ran/info_center/aa/boiseattacks.html

A conservative group called the Frontier Freedom Foundation (FFF) --

heavily supported by timber, oil and tobacco money -- is lobbying the

IRS (US tax collection agency) to revoke Rainforest Action Network's

(RAN) non-profit status. This represents a concerted attack by

corporate interests on freedom of speech that if successful will have

a chilling effect upon environmental activism. As a group on the

vanguard of highlighting corporate rule and misbehavior, extremist

enemies of democracy have targeted RAN as a test case. Logging

company Boise Cascade has aggressively targeted RAN's funders with

threatening letters, trying to scare away their financial

contributors. In response, RAN says that the FFF is using the tax

codes to attack its First Amendment rights. They point out that civil

rights groups would not have been able to organize sit-ins to fight

segregation if such a standard was in place.

The real intent of these coordinated actions is to cripple RAN's

effectiveness and enable business as usual over-exploitation of

natural ecosystems. Even if the suit is not successful, defending

itself from such attacks may drain resources and weaken the

organization. It is tragic that at a time when rainforests are more

threatened than ever, one of their most dedicated and effective

defenders is on the defensive.

In my humble opinion, to some extent RAN has brought this upon itself

by recent substantial departure from their core mission of protecting

rainforests. RAN has essentially taken on the entire global economic

system. There are many causal links between the structure of the

economic system and rainforest loss. RAN's consumer campaign is an

excellent example of successful direct action that has highlighted

this fact. However, at times RAN's recent campaigns have seemed to

have rainforest protection as a secondary focus, if at all. The

global struggle to resist corporate rule is just and urgent.

However, rainforest conservation is a complex and big enough

challenge that its pursuit should not be linked in its entirety to

complete overhauling of the international economic system. By

focusing too broadly, RAN's rainforest conservation message has

become diluted, and some interests have been needlessly antagonized.

The World's Rainforests need and deserve an Action Network that

focuses exclusively on their behalf. Of course, none of these

personal observations warrant Gestapo like tactics to silence RAN

from peacefully advocating for whatever they wish.

g.b.

TAKE ACTION:

Take Action for the Forests - Defend Rainforest Action Network

http://www.ran.org/ran/info_center/aa/boiseattacks.html

*******************************

RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:

ITEM #1

Title: Green Group Comes Under Right-Wing Attack

Source: Copyright 2001 AlterNet

Date: June 26, 2001

Byline: Don Hazen

Inspired by a friendly Bush administration, a trio of anti-

environmental groups and companies is launching a multi-tiered attack

on the Rainforest Action Network (RAN). Best known for its headline-

grabbing campaigns to protect forests, RAN has a proven track record

of altering corporate behavior through a range of pressure tactics.

A conservative group called the Frontier Freedom Foundation (FFF) --

heavily supported by tobacco, oil and timber money -- is lobbying the

IRS to revoke RAN's non-profit status. At the same time, logging

company Boise Cascade has aggressively targeted RAN's funders with

threatening letters, trying to undermine the organization by drying

up its cash flow. Both are working with the anti-green Center for the

Defense of Free Enterprise to cripple RAN's effectiveness.

RAN executes highly visible, aggressive campaigns primarily against

corporations destroying old growth forests in North America and

around the world. Its tactics include consumer boycotts and symbolic

efforts designed to capture media attention, including rappelling

down corporate buildings and unleashing giant banners. Along with

Boise Cascade, RAN has also targeted Mitsubishi and Occidental

Petroleum, among other corporate giants.

The first attack came from the FFF (founded by former Wyoming Senator

Malcolm Wallup, a close associate of Vice President Dick Cheney),

which charged in a letter to the IRS that RAN routinely engages in

non-educational activity, violating the legal requirement that it be

"operated exclusively for educational purposes." The FFF's executive

director, George Landrith, called RAN "fundamentally radical, anti-

capitalist and lawless."

In response, RAN says that the FFF is using the tax codes to attack

its First Amendment rights. As many have pointed out, civil rights

groups like the NAACP wouldn't have been able to organize sit-ins to

fight segregation if such a standard was in place.

"We believe when laws are unjust, they can be broken in a symbolic

way," RAN Executive Director Christopher Hatch told the Wall Street

Journal.

Nevertheless, some other groups are expressing anxiety about the IRS

case. They fear a chilling effect on anti-corporate protests if the

FFF is successful. Indeed, the FFF's Landrith sees the RAN effort as

a test case with many more to follow if successful. Thus far, the

Bush administration hasn't been shy about employing hardball tactics

with its enemies, and the prospect of politicizing the IRS is not out

of the question. Also, experts note that the IRS language in this

arena is vague and the rulings on the books are close to 20 years

old. New language could be more narrow and restrictive.

If the FFF is successful, RAN would not be out of business, but would

have to raise what's known as "hard money" from its donors and

members. Put simply, donors wouldn't be able to claim a tax deduction

for supporting specific RAN activities, which could discourage them

from giving. Michael Klein, a business entrepreneur and one of RAN's

key funders said, "I don't think there is any merit in this case and

feel confident that the IRS will rule in RAN's favor. But I stand

behind the RAN's work in this area, and would be willing to more

than make up whatever shortfall might result."

Michael Shellenberger, a RAN spokesman, calls the whole effort with

the IRS a canard. "The only activities that would result in revoking

non-profit tax status are felonious activities, like embezzlement,"

said Shellenberger. "The FFF is trying to scare our supporters, but

they won't be scared."

"Let there be no doubt," Christopher Hatch adds, "the work to protect

our forests will not only continue, but escalate."

Exploiting IRS codes is only part of the attack on RAN. Boise Cascade

Corporation (BCC) is trying to cut off RAN's financial support in a

different way. BCC is currently RAN's public enemy number one for its

role as a "global forest destroyer." According to RAN, "data shows

that BCC engages in global rainforest timber trade and contracts with

companies that cut down old growth forests in the U.S., Chile,

Indonesia, Canada, Brazil and Russia." Furthermore, BCC was the lead

plaintiff in the effort to reverse the Clinton Administration's

Roadless Initiative for National Forests, strongly supported by the

American public in polls.

The RAN-generated negative public attention and pressure on Boise

Cascade has produced a chain reaction within the company, resulting

in threatening letters written to many of RAN's funders. Vincent

Hannity, a BCC vice president, wrote to RAN funders, "We are frankly

struggling to understand how and why RAN receives the support of

reputable, responsible, well-intentioned organizations such as

(foundation name blacked out). If RAN's lawless, radical agenda and

methodology are consistent with your organization's guidelines,

objectives and ethics we ask that you share those criteria with us."

Insiders say that BCC has even contacted principals of schools where

students have written to the company urging the protection of old

growth forests.

Students aren't the only ones worried about forest conservation. A

Los Angeles Times poll showed that nine out of ten people believe

protecting wilderness is important, and six out of ten say we

shouldn't build more roads in national forests.

According to Hatch, rather than admiting that the strong public

sentiment against irresponsible forestry might be cutting into its

bottom line, BCC is trying to blame RAN for its economic problems.

(BCC lost $35.5 million in the first quarter of 2001.) Clearly,

RAN's success in reducing demand for products made from old-growth

wood -- including its groundbreaking agreement with Home Depot and a

deal in Canada to preserve large portions of the Great Bear

rainforest -- has motivated BCC. But instead of working with RAN to

clean up their act (which numerous companies have done), BCC has

chosen a more hostile route.

BCC's aggressive strategy and denial of public opinion places it

among a group of conservative corporations that are highly resistant

to change, like oil giant ExxonMobil, which still refuses to

acknowledge global warming. Also like ExxonMobil, BCC enjoys long-

standing and close relationships with key members of the Bush

administration.

A second right-wing group, the Center for the Defense of Free

Enterprise, headed by notorious "wise use" advocate Ron Arnold, is

working with the FFF and Boise Cascade to undermine RAN's standing. A

press release from the FFF said that "Arnold would present RAN as an

attack group and not an environmental group. He will present RAN's

anti-capitalist and anti-corporate agenda of force, intimidation and

unlawful actions. Arnold will also show suspicious links between

RAN's rhetoric and Earth Liberation Front acts."

RAN denies such charges of unlawfulness, and a connection to more

militant groups. "RAN is strictly a non-violent organization strongly

opposed to property destruction of any kind," said RAN Communications

Director Shannon Wright. Coincidentally, the FFF's outrageous guilt

by association rhetoric received a major blow when police in Arizona

arrested a suspect for a series of fires that destroyed more than a

dozen homes adjacent to the desert. The suspect had apparently

written letters on behalf of a fake militant ecological group in

order to deflect attention away from himself.

It seems clear that RAN's efforts to protect old growth forests are

not going to be seriously inhibited by attacks from right-wing groups

and angry corporations. On the other hand, major companies with

billion-dollar investments in their brands are increasingly

vulnerable to the effective tactics -- advertising, public education,

and direct action protest -- employed by RAN and pioneered decades

ago by groups like INFACT and the United Farm Workers.

As more corporate money flows into the coffers of elected officials,

government often produces policies that protect corporate interests

at the public's expense. The only realistic shot at reform becomes

public campaigns aimed at the reputation and the bottom line of the

corporate behemoths. Ironically, as BCC's example may soon show,

exercising overwhelming influence in politics may lead to more

financial loses in the long run, if a company becomes a target

for activist campaigns. If only they understood the need to balance

their interests with the public and become better corporate citizens.

For more information, or to help defend the Rainforest Action

Network, visit RAN.org.

ITEM #2

Title: Conservatives Seek IRS Inquiry On Environmental Group's

Status

Source: Copyright 2001 Wall Street Journal

Date: June 21, 2001

Byline: ANNE MARIE CHAKER, Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

A conservative nonprofit group backed by tobacco and oil companies is

asking the Internal Revenue Service to revoke the tax-exempt status

it granted Rainforest Action Network, an environmental group known

for high-pressure campaigns to change corporate behavior.

The move could accelerate a war of the nonprofits, with activist

groups on the right and left challenging the tax exemptions of

opponents. Frontiers of Freedom, which calls itself the "antithesis"

of the environmental movement, says it will challenge other

environmental groups if its effort is successful.

In a letter to the IRS earlier this week, Frontiers contends that

Rainforest Action is violating federal law by using tax-deductible

donations to fund its advocacy campaigns. Under IRS rules, the funds

are supposed to go toward "public education," but Frontiers contends

that such past activities as attempting to prevent a ship from

leaving port and blocking the entrance to the San Francisco offices

of Mitsubishi Bank don't qualify.

Rainforest Action defends its activities. "We believe that when laws

are unjust they can be broken in a symbolic way," says Executive

Director Christopher Hatch. He adds that the group received a letter

from the IRS in 1997 saying that it had been audited and that it

continued to qualify for its tax exemption. He also says that less

than 1% of the group's budget goes to picketing and other activities

where laws could be broken. The group's other activities include

research and more conventional forms of education on environmental

issues.

The Rainforest case could boil down to how the IRS defines

educational. And that isn't clear, lawyers say. Under the tax code

enforced by the IRS, tax-exempt groups that support politicians or do

substantial lobbying for specific legislation don't qualify for tax-

deductible donations. But educational nonprofits that don't engage in

activity related to partisan political campaigns can qualify for tax-

deductible contributions. In addition to Rainforest Action, the

latter group -- known as 501(c)(3)s for the section of the code that

covers them -- includes charities and churches as well as such groups

as the Trust for Public Land, the Audubon Society and the Center for

the Defense of Free Enterprise.

To determine whether groups qualify, the IRS examines the methods the

organizations use to develop and present their views. Groups must

present a factual foundation for their positions, and their

presentations should avoid "substantial use" of disparaging and

inflammatory terms, the code says. In a ruling in 1975, near the end

of the Vietnam War, the IRS disqualified groups whose primary

activity was sponsoring demonstrations at which participants were

urged to block vehicles or pedestrians, prevent the movement of

supplies or disrupt the work of government.

The Rainforest Action case "locates the issue squarely in an area

where it's very indeterminate" as to where the IRS stands, says

Frances Hill, a University of Miami law professor, who notes that the

agency's most recent rulings on charities and political activism are

nearly 20 years old.

Some lawyers who specialize in tax-exempt organizations see no

problem with Rainforest Action's activities. Bruce R. Hopkins, an

attorney in Kansas City, Mo., points to the IRS's 1979 review of the

Infant Formula Action Coalition, a group he represented that

conducted a national boycott of companies that marketed infant

formula in developing countries. After an initial rejection, the IRS

granted the group's request for charity status -- in effect, saying a

group could organize a boycott to carry out an educational objective.

But Marcus Owens, a former director of the exempt organizations

division at the IRS, sees some merit in Frontiers' point of view.

"Just because you're educational doesn't mean you can achieve your

educational goal any way you choose," he says. "If indeed the

organization is encouraging and conceivably directing its members to

violate the law, then there's a potential problem."

Frontiers, which says it began looking into Rainforest's activities

last fall, was founded in 1995 by former Sen. Malcolm Wallop, a

Wyoming Republican and friend of Vice President Dick Cheney. Its

biggest contributors include Philip Morris Cos., Exxon Mobil Corp.

and RJ Reynolds Tobacco Holdings Inc. It has two components: a

501(c)(3) and a 501(c)(4), which is tax exempt but can't accept tax-

deductible donations. It says it uses grass-roots activity,

congressional lobbying, publications, media appearances and

coalition-building to further its own goals.

George Landrith, the group's executive director, says Frontiers chose

Rainforest Action for a test case because it stood out in a review of

"the workings of groups that don't agree with us" about property-

rights issues. "As a practical matter, if this had come up a year ago

I wouldn't have expected the IRS to have done much about it," Mr.

Landrith says. "But our hope is that the current administration will

expect the law to be abided by."

During the Clinton administration, the nonpartisan Americans United

for Separation of Church and State complained to the IRS about the

political activities of certain churches in 25 separate instances.

Americans United says it knows of only one group that had its

charitable status yanked as a result: Branch Ministries, which had

run newspaper ads encouraging Christians not to vote for Mr. Clinton.

Some lawyers say the strategy of challenging tax-exempt status could

be used more often, especially if the McCain-Feingold campaign-

finance bill -- which would ban "soft-money" contributions from

corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals to national

political parties --becomes law and donors start channeling their

money through advocacy nonprofits.

It's unclear how the IRS will react. "We evaluate the comments that

come in to us based on the merits they have and the substance they

contain," says IRS spokesman Don Roberts.

But even if the IRS disagrees with Frontiers, "reporting political

enemies to the IRS is an attractive tactic because it forces the

enemy to spend resources and sleepless nights," says Jeffery Yablon,

a tax lawyer specializing in exempt organizations at Shaw Pittman in

Washington who has represented a wide range of clients. "Adverse

publicity is an added bonus, particularly if it scares away

donors."

ITEM #3

Title: The Enemies of Democracy

Source: Rachel's Environment & Health News #725

Date: May 24, 2001

=======================Electronic Edition======================== .

.

. RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS #725 .

. ---May 24, 2001--- .

. HEADLINES: .

. THE ENEMIES OF DEMOCRACY .

. ========== .

. Environmental Research Foundation .

. P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403 .

. Fax (410) 263-8944; E-mail: erf@rachel.org .

. ========== .

. All back issues are available by E-mail: send E-mail to .

. info@rachel.org with the single word HELP in the message. .

. Back issues are also available from http://www.rachel.org. .

. To start your own free subscription, send E-mail to .

. listserv@lists.rachel.org with the words .

. SUBSCRIBE RACHEL-NEWS YOUR FULL NAME in the message. .

. The Rachel newsletter is now also available in Spanish; .

. to learn how to subscribe in Spanish, send the word .

. AYUDA in an E-mail message to info@rachel.org. .

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

THE ENEMIES OF DEMOCRACY

The enemies of democracy are flexing their muscles. A corporate front

group calling itself Frontiers of Freedom has petitioned U.S. tax

officials to revoke the tax-exempt status of Rainforest Action

Network (RAN), a major environmental organization (www.ran.org). If

successful, the petition would put Rainforest Action Network out of

business, and would open the door for lethal attacks on other

environmental advocates. Frontiers of Freedom acknowledged to the

WALL STREET JOURNAL that, if successful against RAN, "it will

challenge other environmental groups."[1]

Frontiers of Freedom was founded in 1995 by Malcolm Wallop, a former

U.S. Senator (R-Wyo.) and "friend of vice-president Dick Cheney,"

according to the WALL STREET JOURNAL. The JOURNAL reports that

Frontiers is funded by Philip Morris Companies, R.J.

Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., and the Exxon Mobil Corporation.

This latest corporate attack on freedom of speech, freedom of

association and freedom of assembly, is not random. It is part of an

accelerating campaign to replace representative democracy with

control by corporate elites.

Now a new book, TRUST US, WE'RE EXPERTS! by Sheldon Rampton and John

Stauber, provides a chilling, documented history of ongoing corporate

efforts to use propaganda and "public relations" to distort science,

manipulate public opinion, discredit democracy, and consolidate

political power in the hands of a wealthy few.[2]

The Big Idea behind the anti-democratic corporate-power movement is

that people cannot be trusted to make political decisions because

they are irrational, emotional, and illogical. This cynical view of

humans is widely held by the public relations industry's experts but

also by the scientific experts they employ to 'guide' the public. For

example, physics professor H.W. Lewis (University of California,

Santa Barbara), a well-known risk assessor, says people worry about

non-problems like nuclear waste and pesticides because they are

irrational and poorly educated. "The common good is ill served by

the democratic process," he says. (pg. 111)

If people are not rational they cannot be guided by reason, so they

must be manipulated through emotion, PR experts say (thus justifying

their own propaganda services). For example, a spokesperson for

Burson-Marsteller, a PR firm that manipulates the public on behalf of

Philip Morris, Monsanto, Exxon Mobil and others, told the Society of

Chemical Industry in London in 1989, "All of this research is helpful

in figuring out a strategy for the chemical industry and for its

products. It suggests, for example, that a strategy based on logic

and information is probably not going to succeed. We are in the realm

of the illogical, the emotional, and we must respond with the tools

that we have for managing the emotional aspects of the human

psyche... The industry must be like the psychiatrist..." (pg. 3)

The PR psychiatric manipulation industry is now enormous.

Corporations spend at least $10 billion each year hiring PR

propaganda experts (pg. 26) and our federal government spends another

$2.3 billion or so (pg. 27) -- and these are no doubt underestimates.

But these huge sums are not wasted -- they provide major benefits to

the clients. For example, about 40% of all stories that appear in

newspapers are planted there by PR firms on behalf of a specific

paying client. Because most radio and TV news is simply re-written

from newspaper stories, a substantial proportion of the public's

"news" originates as PR propaganda. Naturally the connection to the

PR source is edited out.

The COLUMBIA JOURNALISM REVIEW analyzed the WALL STREET JOURNAL and

found that more than half its stories are "based solely on press

releases" even though many carry the misleading statement, "By a WALL

STREET JOURNAL Staff Reporter." Thus what passes for news these days

is, as often as not, corporate propaganda. Tongue in cheek, Rampton

and Stauber refer to the major news media as the disinfotainment

industry.

Unfortunately, as Rampton and Stauber make crystal clear with example

after example, all of this manipulation has devastating consequences

for real people. The news media largely set the limits on public

discussion, and thus on public policy debate. What is excluded from

the news is often more significant than what gets inserted. For

example, approximately 800,000 new cases of occupational illness

arise each year, making occupational illness much larger than AIDS

and roughly equivalent to cancer and all circulatory diseases, but

most people have no idea that this is so. (See REHN #578.)

Combined with on-the-job injuries, work-related illnesses kill about

80,000 workers each year -- nearly twice the national death total

from automobile accidents. In 1991 former NEW YORK TIMES labor

correspondent William Serrin reported (but, notably, NOT in the NEW

YORK TIMES) that about 200,000 workers had been killed on the job

since the passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) in

1970, and that an additional 2 million workers had died from diseases

caused by conditions where they worked.[3] That's 273 work-related

deaths EACH DAY, day after day after day.

This corporate carnage is ignored by the news media, which prefer to

keep us focused on yuppie SUV crashes, and crimes of passion.

During the same 20-year period, 1970-1990, an additional 1.4 million

workers were permanently disabled in workplace accidents.

Yet during those 20 years, only 14 people were prosecuted by the

Justice Department for violation of workplace safety standards and

only one person went to jail -- for 45 days for suffocating two

workers to death in a trench cave-in.

PR experts "spin" stories for the media on the assumption that most

reporters are too overworked (or too lazy) to search out the truth

for themselves. But Rampton and Stauber exhaustively document that

"spin" goes much farther than merely providing a "news hook," a

viewpoint, or a few facts. Modern corporate propaganda involves

purchasing scientific opinions and planting them in scientific

journals (without, of course, mentioning the money connection to the

corporate benefactor). Tobacco companies invented this technique, but

now others are using it freely. For example, in the early 1990s,

tobacco companies paid $156,000 to a handful of scientists to sign

their names to letters written by tobacco company lawyers. The

letters were published in the JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL

ASSOCIATION, the LANCET, the JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER

INSTITUTE, and the WALL STREET JOURNAL, and were then cited by the

tobacco companies as if they had been written by independent

scientists. "It's a systematic effort to pollute the scientific

literature," says professor of medicine Stanton Glantz (University of

California, San Francisco), a longtime critic of Big Tobacco. (pg.

199)

In 1999 drug maker Wyeth Laboratories commissioned ghost writers to

manufacture ten medical articles promoting a combination of Wyeth

drugs called fen-fen, as a treatment for obesity. Two of the articles

actually got published in peer-reviewed journals. After fen-fen was

pulled from the market for permanently damaging peoples' heart

valves, lawyers for injured victims discovered that Wyeth had edited

the articles to play down and occasionally delete descriptions of

side effects caused by fen-fen. Prominent scientists put their names

on these articles in return for fees as small as $1000 to $1500 --

and journal editors published the articles as if they represented

independent scientific inquiry. Wyeth could then cite these

"independent" studies to convince doctors to prescribe fen-fen.

In 1996, Sheldon Krimsky of Tufts University examined 789 articles

published by 1105 researchers in 14 leading life science and

biomedical journals. In 34% of the articles, at least one of the

chief authors had an identifiable financial interest connected to the

research. None of these financial interests was disclosed in the

journals. Krimsky said the 34% figure was probably an underestimate

because he couldn't check stock ownership or corporate consulting

fees paid to researchers.

Science, like democracy, depends crucially upon the free flow of

information. When secrecy is imposed, errors go undetected and

fallacies proliferate -- only to be discovered years later, if at

all.[4] For example, secrecy has allowed the U.S. military to create

a "pattern of exaggeration and deception" in its reports to Congress,

just as secrecy allowed the military to waste more than $100 billion

(!) in failed attempts to create a workable "star wars" missile

defense system.[5] In 1993, a front-page story in the NEW YORK TIMES

began, "Officials of the 'Star Wars' project rigged a crucial 1984

test and faked other data in a program of deception that misled

Congress..."[6] Secrecy invites deception and destroys democratic

accountability.

Rampton and Stauber point out that "Corporate funding creates a

culture of secrecy that can be as chilling to free academic inquiry

as funding from the military. Instead of government censorship, we

hear the language of commerce: nondisclosure agreements, patent

rights, intellectual property rights, intellectual capital." (pg.

214)

A key feature of the corporate anti-democracy strategy of the past 20

years is reduced government funding for needed research, thus

inviting corporate funders to step in. This is what "tax cut" really

means. Tax cuts are not primarily aimed at giving families another

$300 to spend -- they are mainly intended to reduce the capacity of

governments to fund needed public services, such as medical research.

As a result, corporations are asked to provide the funds and thus

they gain an opportunity to influence the national research agenda

and the results.

In 1994 and 1995 researchers at the Massachusetts General Hospital

surveyed more than 3000 academic scientists and found that 64% of

them had financial ties to corporations. They reported in the JOURNAL

OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (JAMA), that 20% of the 3000

researchers admitted that they had delayed publication of research

results for more than 6 months, to obtain patents and to "slow the

dissemination of undesired results." "Sometimes if you accept a grant

from a company, you have to include a proviso that you won't

distribute anything except with its OK. It has a negative impact on

science," says Nobel-prize-winning biochemist Paul Berg. (pg. 215) In

1999 Drummond Rennie, editor of JAMA, said private funding of medical

research was causing "a race to the ethical bottom.... The behavior

of universities and scientists is sad, shocking, and frightening,"

Rennie said. "They are seduced by industry funding, and frightened

that if they don't go along with these gag orders, the money will go

to less rigorous institutions," he said. (pg.

217)

In this rich, deep book, Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber have

painstakingly documented the specific techniques that PR experts and

their corporate masters employ to deceive the courts, the

legislatures, the media, educators, and the public. The next time

someone accuses you of "chemophobia" or of relying on "junk science"

you'll know you're dealing with corporate manipulators who are being

guided by PR skanks. Their overriding goal is to discredit decision-

making by the public and replace it with control by corporate elites.

They know better, they're experts, trust them.

The final chapter of this important book tells us how to fight back.

If you care about democracy, science or simple truth and want to know

exactly how corporate elites subvert all three, this is the book for

you.

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

[1] Anne Marie Chaker, "Conservatives Seek IRS Inquiry On

Environmental Group's Status," WALL STREET JOURNAL (June 21, 2001)

pg. unknown.

[2] Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, TRUST US, WE'RE EXPERTS HOW

INDUSTRY MANIPULATES SCIENCE AND GAMBLES WITH YOUR FUTURE (New York:

Tarcher/Putnam, 2001). ISBN 1-58542-059-X. And check out their web

site: http://www.prwatch.org/cgi/spin.cgi.

[3] William Serrin, "300 Dead Each Day: The Wages of Work," THE

NATION Vol. 252, No. 3 (January 28, 1991), pgs. 80-81.

[4] Tim Weiner, "Military Accused of Lies Over Arms," NEW YORK TIMES

(June 28, 1993), pg. A10 quoting a 3-year investigation by the U.S.

General Accounting Office.

[5] William J. Broad, "After Many Misses, Pentagon Still Pursues

Missile Defense," NEW YORK TIMES (May 24, 1999), pgs. A1, A23.

[6] Tim Weiner, "Lies and Rigged 'Star Wars' Test Fooled the Kremlin,

and Congress," NEW YORK TIMES (August 18, 1993), pgs.

A1, A15.

################################################################

NOTICE

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 this material is

distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior

interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes.

Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic version of

RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS free of charge even though it

costs the organization considerable time and money to produce it. We

would like to continue to provide this service free. You could help

by making a tax-deductible contribution (anything you can afford,

whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send your tax-deductible

contribution to: Environmental Research Foundation, P.O. Box 5036,

Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. Please do not send credit card information

via E-mail. For further information about making tax-deductible

contributions to E.R.F.

by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL, or at

(410) 263-1584, or fax us at (410) 263-8944.

--Peter Montague, Editor

################################################################

###RELAYED TEXT ENDS###

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is

distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior

interest in receiving forest conservation informational materials for

educational, personal and non-commercial use only. Recipients should

seek permission from the source to reprint this PHOTOCOPY. All

efforts are made to provide accurate, timely pieces, though ultimate

responsibility for verifying all information rests with the reader.

For additional forest conservation news & information please see the

Forest Conservation Portal at URL= http://forests.org/

Networked by Forests.org, Inc., gbarry@forests.org