=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #480
February 8, 1996
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net
==========
Back Issues | Index | Search All Issues | Official Gopher Archive
To subscribe, send E-mail to rachel-weekly-request@world.std.com
with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It’s free.
===Previous Issue==========================================Next Issue===
CAMPAIGNING IN THE ’90S
How can environmental justice advocates win in the ’90s?
Will the techniques of the ’70s work, when lobbying Congress
resulted in passage of a dozen environmental laws such as the
Clean Water Act? Probably not. This Congress hardly seems in a
mood to pass new legislation to protect people or wildlife.
Will the techniques of the ’80s work? During the ’80s,
activists learned to use visible (and photogenic) protests
–combined with the issuance of well-researched reports –as a
way of getting their story into the mainstream media. Publicity
sometimes led to the collapse of bad projects (such as nuclear
power plants and solid waste incinerators) or at least to
compromises and improvements in bad projects.
Certainly these publicity techniques may still have some merit in
particular instances, but mostly they don’t work any more and
therefore the ’90s require something different. The ’90s require
the building of a large base of support among people who are
being harmed or frightened or in some way screwed by “the
system.” And those people have to be convinced that their
support will lead to some real demands for real change –not just
another law that can’t (or won’t) be enforced, not just another
picture on page 28 of the newspaper. As the big environmental
organizations have started emulating corporate polluters in
almost every way, activist-oriented people have become disgusted
and have turned away from them–with good reason.
So something new is needed for winning in the ’90s. As the
environmental justice movement meets in Baton Rouge March 15-17
to discuss a strategy for ending the poisoning of Americans by
dioxin (see REHW #479), it makes sense to think generally about
campaigning in the ’90s.
We have previously described a campaign style developed by Food &
Water, Inc., in Walden, Vermont (see REHW #401, #419). To defeat
food irradiation (the proposal to zap food with large quantities
of radiation, as a preservative), Food & Water placed placards in
health food stores around the country, and they mailed out
hundreds of thousands of “pledge cards,” asking people to send
back the cards, pledging that they would take several actions to
prevent the irradiation of the American food supply. The goal of
the campaign was to stop food irradiation –not to “regulate” it
or “control” it, but to kill it, plain and simple.
Tens of thousand of people sent back pledge cards, often with a
hand-written note, such as “Great! Finally someone who is
unwilling to compromise! Count me in!” Food & Water sees the
American people divided into three groups: ones, twos and threes.
The threes wear black hats. They are the environmental
destroyers, and we all know who they are. Although they
personally may be very nice people who are merely trapped inside
a corporate structure that has deprived them of the freedom to
make decisions based on their own consciences, from the viewpoint
of campaigning for environmental justice, they are hopeless and
should be ignored.
The twos are “on the fence.” They are often good-hearted people
who “want more information.” They are not ready to act. They
want to be convinced. These people, too, are hopeless from the
viewpoint of campaigning in the ’90s. They too should be
ignored. Talking to them or sending them information will sap
precious resources and will not lead to any action. (If a two is
in a position of power, such as a reporter, it may be worthwhile
spending some time trying to convince him or her –but ordinary
twos should be ignored by campaigners.)
Ones are people who “get it” and are ready to take action. These
are the people who mail back the pledge cards –especially those
who write personal notes on the cards. These are the “troops”
for a campaign. Their names go into a database. When asked,
they will write a letter, make a phone call, or take some other
action.
What do the troops do? In the case of food irradiation, Food &
Water threatened to boycott supermarkets that said they would
place irradiated food on their shelves. Furthermore, Food &
Water threatened to boycott particular food producers who were
leaning toward adopting food irradiation, such as Frank Perdue,
the chicken magnate. Food & Water asked ones to phone Mr. Perdue
explaining that they were about to start a national boycott of
Perdue products, starting with a picket line at their local
grocery store. After a few dozen phone calls, Mr. Perdue did an
about-face on food irradiation and wrote Food & Water a letter
pledging to abandon irradiation plans.
This strategy has another component: purchased media. Food &
Water hires advertising agencies and publicists to produce print
ads and radio spots. The results are slick, professional work.
The print ads appear in such places as the NEW YORK TIMES and in
industry newspapers and magazines read by executives of
supermarkets and food-industry trade associations. The ads are
blunt and hard-hitting. The ads send several messages, in
addition to whatever appears in the text: they convey that Food &
Water is sophisticated, savvy, aggressive, capable, and
well-heeled. They convey that a serious campaign –including
punishing boycotts –has begun. And they convey a sense that
there is more to come. Radio spots are mass-produced on audio
tape, and are mailed to several thousand executives in the food
industry, with a note saying, “You should listen to this tape.
We plan to run it on radio stations in your area soon, unless you
pledge to turn your back on irradiated food.” The tape explains
in 30 seconds why food irradiation is dangerous and how a
supermarket boycott can succeed. Naturally, the executives do
listen to the tapes, and they immediately recognize that their
slim profit margin is about to disappear. (Supermarkets run on a
1% to 2% profit margin, so even a modestly successful boycott can
throw them into the red.) Suddenly, irradiated food doesn’t look
as profitable as it used to. Taking the Food & Water pledge
begins to make sense.
The only food irradiation plant ever built was called Vindicator,
in Florida, and as a result of Food & Water’s campaign,
Vindicator went bankrupt. There are now rumors of new plans to
irradiate food in Illinois, but for now Food & Water has a total
victory. The basic technique that worked was forcing the food
industry to adopt Food & Water’s position, thus giving Food &
Water economic clout that it otherwise lacked.
Now Food & Water has taken on pesticides, using the same
strategy. The goal is to end pesticide use on food. Not
regulate it. Not reduce it. End it. Pledge cards have gone out
to hundreds of thousands of people, and professionally-done
placards are appearing near the check-out counters at health food
stores across the country. The ones are being identified.
Simultaneously, a media campaign has begun. This summer, ads
began appearing in the NEW YORK TIMES, sponsored by Food & Water
and by Environmental Research Foundation. The ads were written
and produced by the advertising firm Montague &, in Westport,
Connecticut. The first two ads ran in the NEW YORK TIMES and
didn’t seem to attract much notice. The third ad ran in
SUPERMARKET NEWS December 11, 1995, and it got the food
industry’s attention. The ad is dominated by a large black
silhouette of an assault rifle. The headline says, “More people
are killed by their salad.” The text reads, “The assault rifle
ban is a good law, and it will save hundreds of lives. But every
year, literally thousands of men, women, and children die from a
silent and invisible assault: Toxic pesticides on fruits and
vegetables. So we’ve launched a nationwide campaign to alert
food industry professionals and everyday consumers to the dangers
of toxic pesticides. As we all work hard to promote the
increased consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables for better
health, we had better make sure that the produce is really
healthy. And that means produce that is free of toxic
pesticides. To join us, or for more information on what you can
do right now, call 1-800-EAT-SAFE. Because telling children to
eat their vegetables shouldn’t be a death sentence.”
The ad ran in SUPERMARKET NEWS December 11th. THE PACKER,
another food industry newspaper, refused to run the ad. However,
on December 18, THE PACKER wrote a news story announcing that the
ad had run in SUPERMARKET NEWS, thus conveying to food industry
executives the very message that the ad was intended to
convey. [1] A week later THE PACKER reported that “three major
produce industry associations wasted no time” in responding to
the ad. THE PACKER reported that the Produce Marketing
Association (PMA) had faxed the ad to all of its “retailer and
service wholesaler members”–thus spreading the message further
inside the industry. [2] The ad space had been purchased as a
“two for one holiday special.” SUPERMARKET NEWS readers
complained about the ad, and the NEWS decided not to run the ad a
second time; they also did not charge Food & Water for the first
placement, so the ad ran free.
On January 3rd, the PMA announced they had formally requested the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate Food & Water and
Environmental Research Foundation for “unfair and deceptive
advertising.” The PMA asked the FTC to “enjoin” further
dissemination of the ad, and to enter a “cease and desist order
declaring the Food & Water advertisement to be unfair and
deceptive.” The PMA has further asked the FTC to “issue a cease
and desist order to prohibit Food & Water, Inc. from
representing, directly, or indirectly, that produce treated with
agricultural chemicals in compliance with EPA regulations is
unsafe.” [3]
Michael Colby, executive director of Food & Water, responded
saying, “1996 is going to be filled with new ads and efforts to
tell people at the grass roots about pesticides and chemical
residues.” Colby promised radio ads targeted at 7 Supermarket
chains –Shaw’s, Grand Union, Winn-Dixie, Kroger, Hy-vee, Safeway
and Albertson’s. The aim is to mobilize ones to pressure their
supermarket managers to offer pesticide-free (and preferably
locally-grown) foods, thus putting “market forces” to work
protecting human health and the environment (while helping local
farmers and the local economy).
Do pesticides really kill people? And what has all this got to
do with dioxin strategy? Next week.
                                                                    
–Peter Montague
===============
[1] Larry Waterfield, “Ads take aim at produce supply,” THE
PACKER December 18, 1995, pg. 3A.
[2] Dave Swenson, “Ad stirs quick response,” THE PACKER Dec. 25,
1995, pg. 4A.
Descriptor terms: environmental justice; campaign strategy;
pesticides; food irradiation; food safety; vindicator; food &
water; environmmental research foundation; lobbying; media;
dioxin;