=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #413
—October 27, 1994—
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org
==========
The Back issues and Index are
available here.
The official RACHEL archive is here.
It’s updated constantly.
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===
ACTIVIST MALPRACTICE
by Michael Colby [1]
I used to assume that all activist campaigns were designed to
win. Or, at least if the activist leaders claimed that a victory
was truly a possibility, I believed them. This, as it turns out,
is a wrong assumption. While studying recent campaigns on bovine
growth hormone and pesticides, I’ve learned that many groups
approach campaigns more as one would approach a hobby or game
than with the honesty and intensity one would expect. To develop
and initiate a grass-roots campaign with the expectation to lose
is a gross abuse of the public’s trust, time and energy. In
fact, it is nothing short of what Food & Water identifies as
ACTIVIST MALPRACTICE.
The public has certain expectations from grass-roots activists,
and honesty is certainly at the top of the list. Not just
accuracy regarding facts and figures, but also an honesty about
campaigns and expectations. For example, if the public is told
to call an elected official, there is a certain expectation that
the group requesting such a call has adequately identified a
strategic target and has a sufficient plan to secure a victory.
Likewise, if a group initiating an action knows that the desired
outcome is impossible, this fact must be honestly communicated to
the public.
But now stop and ask yourself how many times you’ve received an
update from a group that asked you to make a phone call or write
a letter that subsequently announced a victory based on your
efforts. I mean a real victory. For example, if you asked for
something to be banned or stopped, it was really banned or
stopped, not just labeled or delayed. It probably hasn’t happened
much, if it’s happened at all.
It’s not that the activists or the groups they represent are
deliberately misleading the public. I believe it’s more about
activists being negligent in picking strategic targets and,
perhaps, a disconnection from the real world problems that folks
in the grass-roots trenches experience. Activist leaders,
particularly those with a legislative focus, tend to treat the
struggles more as some kind of game than an essential struggle
for the health and well-being of the public and the environment.
Why else would groups so readily trade real reform for hollow,
watered-down compromises that do little except bolster
reputations and give the false impression of victory?
Sadly, I also believe that many in the food safety and
environmental movement approach campaigns with the expectation of
losing. With so many struggles taking place in the legislative
arena where we all know that polluting corporate interests are
clearly in control, how can we expect to win? But instead of
admitting that this arena is so skewed against us, many keep
going back, almost like they’re conditioned to lose, instead of
identifying other arenas that give the advantage to grassroots
activism. If a Democratic President cannot get his own health
care legislation through a Democratic-controlled Congress, how
can environmentalists expect to have that same Congress ban
carcinogenic pesticides, label BGH-treated milk, and extend a
helping hand to small, sustainable farms? Pinch yourselves, it’s
not going to happen. And we better start creating the
alternative paths that will allow us to secure the victories the
public is expecting. Defining Activist Malpractice
Activist malpractice is currently best exhibited by the
legislative campaigns to stop BGH and ban dangerous pesticides.
Both have chosen to focus in the legislative arena and, not
surprisingly, both are losing miserably. What makes these
campaigns prime candidates for a malpractice charge, however, is
that leaders of both campaigns have acknowledged that their
efforts have a 0% chance of securing a victory. Yes, 0%.
Take the anti-BGH campaign. Most of the coordinated activities
have been directed at federal legislation and the Food & Drug
Administration. First, the large coalition of farm,
environmental, food safety and animal welfare groups began by
pushing for legislation to ban the introduction of BGH. Despite
months of energy and who knows how much money, the effort failed
and–surprise, surprise–a compromise was reached that, instead
of banning BGH, Congress passed a 90 day moratorium on its sale.
Thus, campaign leaders stimulated grass-roots action and
expectations for a ban on BGH but could only deliver a 90 day
moratorium. Is there any better evidence to prove that we should
avoid working on federal legislation? And to think some groups
thought this was a victory.
Now the focus of the anti-BGH campaign is again on legislation.
This time it centers on legislation to label all dairy products
produced through the use of BGH. Again, there is a large
coalition of groups working to stimulate calls to Congress and
grass-roots activity around the bill.
The problem? When I called the leaders of the effort to pass
legislation to label BGH-treated dairy products and asked them to
guess on the probability that the legislation would pass, they
all said “zero.” When I then asked why they were putting so much
effort into it, one responded by saying it was “good practice.”
Practice? For what, losing?
If the chances for passing the BGH labeling bill are zero, why
aren’t people told this from the beginning? To the contrary, all
the literature requesting “urgent” calls to Congress regarding
this bill gives false hopes about its passage. To me, this
represents a certain contempt for grass-roots activism and the
public. If we are striving for an honest culture and real reform
in our country, shouldn’t we begin by being honest with our
constituents and supporters? If Food & Water sends out an action
alert, you can bet that we’ve done our homework and there is a
very, very good chance of a victory–if there’s not, we’ll tell
you.
Ironically, the same thing is happening in the
legislatively-oriented pesticide campaign. A huge coalition of
groups are calling on grass-roots leaders to stimulate calls
supporting the “Waxman bill.” Besides the serious drawbacks of
the bill itself–it calls for a flimsy five to eight year
PHASEOUT of carcinogenic pesticides–the chances of Congress
actually passing it are zero (see box below). Again, I called
several leaders of this legislative effort and, without
hesitation, everyone said that there is “no way” that the Waxman
Bill will pass anytime soon. In fact, despite having some of the
largest and most well-financed organizations supporting this
effort, there are only about 30 co-sponsors of the bill in the
House~out of 435.
These actions represent activist malpractice. These campaigns and
initiatives mislead the public and, perhaps worse, give false
expectations. The result will be an increasingly cynical public
that becomes even more reluctant to get involved in the essential
work for social and environmental justice. In other words, we
all lose from activist malpractice, even if we’re not directly
involved in these campaigns.
We don’t need focus groups and polls to tell us that the public
is deeply concerned about the real problems that confront us.
But instead of the same old legislative strategies and the same
old defeats, activist leaders need to find the creative energy to
go farther, inspire the public, secure a victory in a manner that
is possible and, by all means, BE HONEST.
Food & Water does not relish the task of criticizing our peers,
but we refuse to be accomplices in efforts that we believe are
misleading and ineffective. Besides, someone has to speak up and
offer constructive criticism. The public doesn’t need any more
“practice” calling Congress, leading activist groups need more
creative and effective strategies to secure the victories the
public so rightfully expects.
===============
[1] Michael Colby is the executive director of Food & Water, Inc.
Reprinted, with permission, from SAFE FOOD NEWS (Fall 1994), the
quarterly journal of Food & Water, Inc. To contact Food & Water,
phone 1-800-EAT-SAFE. In RHWN #401, we discussed Food & Water’s
successful campaign to stop food irradiation.
[END OF TEXT]
THE PHASEOUT: WASHINGTON’S DIRTY LITTLE SECRET
If you knew that your health was seriously threatened by a
dangerous substance, the rational response would be to
immediately remove the substance from your environment. However,
if you were like many people involved in Washington, D.C.
politics, you’d attempt to phase out the substance over the
course of many years, continuing to endanger yourself in the
meantime. Say hello to Washington’s most dangerous legislative
gimmick: the “phaseout.”
Riding on the wave of mounting public pressure for action on
dangerous pesticides, a coalition of mainstream Washington
environmental groups are [in the fall of 1993] proposing a
seven-year phaseout of carcinogenic [cancer-causing] pesticides.
This irresponsible action completely ignores the failed
legislative history of the phaseout… and accepts the callous
notion, put forth often by chemical company executives, that
human lives may be sacrificed in order to satisfy industrial
greed.
The fact that carcinogenic pesticides kill people is not being
debated: almost everyone from the chemical manufacturers to
grass-roots activists agrees on this point. Instead, the debate
centers on how our society should respond once aware that an
industrial product is killing people. The choice is between
regulation and prevention….
[The environmentalists’] proposal for a seven-year phaseout of
chemicals that are killing people right now is akin to asking
fire-fighters to wait a week before putting out a fire in a
building full of people–in short, it’s outrageous.
This is Washington environmental politics at its worst. A close
look at the history of the phaseout reveals that the likelihood
of a phaseout occurring on schedule, or at all for that matter,
is extremely small. Thus, these environmental groups have
decided on a compromise that could result in thousands of
preventable deaths of American citizens during a phaseout period
that, more likely than not, will turn out to be a cruel hoax.
Unfortunately, they seem to have fallen prey to the cynical
practice of concocting and supporting “hollow laws.” According
to William Greider’s best-selling book, WHO WILL TELL THE PEOPLE:
THE BETRAYAL OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY, hollow laws involve “promises
the government makes to the people which it does not necessarily
intend to keep.” Historically the phaseout has been central to
this legislative charade….
As Arturo Rodriguez, the head of the United Farm Workers Union,
says, “Phaseout is not an acceptable solution because of the fact
that our people are dying right now. How can we sit back and say
that it’s fine for people to continue dying? How can we be so
crass as to even think that?”
–Excerpted from: Michael Colby, “The Phaseout: Washington’s
Dirty Little Secret,” SAFE FOOD NEWS (Fall 1993).
[END OF BOX]
Descriptor terms: rbgh; bgh; pesticides; ethics; food & water,
inc; michael colby; agriculture; farming; legislation; lobbying;
citizen activism;