Environmental Health News

What's Working

  • Garden Mosaics projects promote science education while connecting young and old people as they work together in local gardens.
  • Hope Meadows is a planned inter-generational community containing foster and adoptive parents, children, and senior citizens
  • In August 2002, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Board voted to ban soft drinks from all of the district’s schools

#504 - How They Lie, Part 2, 24-Jul-1996

The NEW YORK TIMES leveled another biased, dishonest attack at the
nation's environmental protection programs last month. On June 30,
TIMES staff writer John Tierney made the front cover of the Sunday
TIMES MAGAZINE with the catchy title, "Recycling is Garbage."[1]
Tierney's piece is a typical example of work being done now by the Good
News industry, which set out 10 years ago to prove that environmental
problems don't exist, or have been greatly exaggerated, and that any
government effort to solve those problems is a waste of money. Mr.
Tierney's latest effort is a classic amalgam of half-truths, outright
fabrications, and ideologically-biased reporting.

As we saw last week, in the mid-1980s, companies that annually pump out
billions of pounds of poisonous wastes (and products) started funding a
small group of writers who have developed a set of techniques for
"proving" that government interference in the free market --even for
the purpose of protecting the environment --is bad for everyone. As we
will see, Mr. Tierney's work is a typical product of the Good News

Writers for the Good News industry serve two masters. First, they
directly protect the interests of the corporations that discharge
billions of pounds of poisons into the public's air and water each
year. Secondly, they provide support for the extremist libertarian view
that any government intervention in the free market is harmful and a

Serving the interests of the poisoners is straightforward. For example,
in the 1980s, Monsanto Corporation got a bad name for polluting every
square foot of the planet with noxious PCBs, dioxin, and harmful
pesticides. In truth, no single corporation has ever done greater
damage to the planet than Monsanto (though Waste Management, Inc., or
WMX, is challenging Monsanto's record.) To rehabilitate its image,
Monsanto has successfully employed a good-cop, bad-cop strategy.
Monsanto announced, for example, that it is cutting its toxic waste
emissions 90%, at the same time donating hundreds of thousands of
dollars to support libertarian anti-environmental propagandists like
Elizabeth Whelan, some of whose work we examined briefly last week.
(See REHW #503). Monsanto is Ms. Whelan's biggest supporter[2] and Ms.
Whelan has made herself famous defending Monsanto's products such as
PCBs, the cancer-causing herbicide 2,4,5-T, the artificial sweetener
Nutrasweet, and the company's genetically-engineered hormone, rBGH,
which is now being added to much of the nation's milk supply (by
injection into dairy cows). (See REHW #483.) As we saw last week, Ms.
Whelan's contribution to the Good News industry is her bold discovery
that, if particular historical facts are inconvenient, completely new
ones can be manufactured and will be readily accepted by the nation's
media. This technique was pioneered in Nazi Germany and perfected in
the former Soviet Union but has recently been developed under free
market conditions by the Good News industry. John Tierney of the TIMES
uses it repeatedly, as we shall see.

While Monsanto's approach keeps the public confused (Are they good? Are
they bad? Aren't they really trying to do better?), Monsanto has
quietly developed an entirely new line of genetically-engineered
creations, products it has begun to broadcast directly into the
environment while denying that any harm will ensue. (Monsanto has
repeated similar denials for decades.) The corporation's pledge to cut
its toxic wastes 90% is long overdue, but it is also beside the point.
It is this firm's PRODUCTS, not its WASTES, that have covered the earth
with poisons and soon will disrupt the planet's ecosystems with
genetically-finagled forms of life. Good News writers like Elizabeth
Whelan serve as a cover for the main source of harm from a corporation
like Monsanto, which is its perfectly-legal pursuit of the purposes for
which it was created: consolidation of wealth and power, promoting
dangerous products, eluding liability and passing as many costs as
possible on to the public.

Secondly, of course, writers like Elizabeth Whelan and John Tierney
serve a purely ideological master. Most Good News writers are dedicated
to the extremist libertarian proposition that government's only valid
role is to enforce private property laws, to establish conditions under
which the free market can operate without restriction. Monsanto
broadcasting genetically-finagled creatures into the environment, while
insisting that nothing can go wrong, is the libertarian model.
Government sits by while Monsanto populates the environment with forms
of life that the Creator saw fit to not make, and the public will be
required to "prove harm" before government will lift a finger to
protect the environment as it was originally created. By that time, of
course, it will be too late to put things right.

Mr. Tierney's work in the June 30 TIMES fits the mold of the Good News
writer perfectly: it is a tapestry of lies, half-truths, distortions,
and misinformation, woven together by a thread of libertarian
ideological bias.

Examples abound. For instance, Mr. Tierney's section on plastic could
have been written by the Chemical Manufacturers Association or the
American Plastics Council: "Plastic packaging and fast-food containers
may seem wasteful, but they actually save resources and reduce trash.
The typical household in Mexico City buys fewer packaged goods than an
American household, but it produces one-third more garbage, chiefly
because Mexicans buy fresh foods in bulk and throw away large portions
that are unused, spoiled, or stale." In this view, plastics are an
unmitigated good and Mexico should adopt them. Mr. Tierney forgets to
mention that spoiled or stale foods, when thrown away, harm no one. The
Earth re-absorbs them and turns them back into nutrients for the next
generation of plants. Plastics, however, are an entirely different

Because plastics degrade so slowly (some will take an estimated 400
years to disappear, even in bright sunlight), the world's surface is
becoming littered with plastic bottles, wrappers, lids, rope, cigarette
lighters, six-pack rings, jugs, gloves, caps, sheets, bags, sponges,
boxes, handles, knobs, toys, and so on. This is the true cost of our
devotion to the free marketing of plastic. Will these things improve
life in Mexico? Earlier this year I had occasion to visit the village
of San Carlos, on Mexico's Pacific coast, where American-style goods
are now coming into widespread use. Already the entire town and
surrounding countryside are pocked with thousands of ragged clumps of
plastic rubbish blown across the desert by Pacific winds, garish
plastic intrusions into a traditional setting. Families in San Carlos
burn their garbage in open heaps which perpetually emit sickening
fumes, toxic gases that suffuse this fishing village with the acrid
reek of smoldering plastic. This is not progress.

Where I live in Maryland, the Chesapeake Bay is filled with thousands
of tons of plastic garbage. Along the entire 8100-mile shoreline of the
Bay, the reeds and grasses are interlaced and layered with broken
pieces of styrofoam cups and plates, polyethylene bottles,
polypropylene rope, nylon fishing line and netting, PVC pipe, and all
manner of unidentifiable chunks of colored plastic bottles, lids, bags,
sheets, toys, and who-knows-what. Hurricane Bertha passed through a
couple of weeks ago, dislodging tons of plastic from among the reeds,
much of it now still floating on the surface in quiet coves. It will
eventually be deposited on the shores again, and will be re-mobilized
the next time a storm comes through --an eternal, floating garbage dump
of indestructible plastic rubbish, a permanent eyesore, a perpetual
desecration of the nation's largest estuary, and a continual, ongoing
hazard to threatened wildlife throughout the Bay.

Not only are plastics making the entire world resemble a huge, ill-kept
garbage dump --seriously degrading the visual environment, making an
anti-social public statement just like graffiti --plastics in the
oceans also pose life-and-death challenges to turtles, birds, mammals
and fish.[3] No ocean waters are exempt.[4] Even the remotest parts of
the planet, islands in the arctic seas, are littered with plastic, an
omnipresent reminder of corporate power and a rigid devotion to
unfettered free markets. While they are large, these chunks of plastic
endanger amphibians, birds, and mammals who mistake them for food. As
they break down into microscopic dimensions, these plastics become a
hazard to fin fish, lodging in their gills.

Plastics are a major source of dioxins, perhaps the major source. And
of course medical researchers have identified clusters of disease in
humans living near the petrochemical plants where plastics are
manufactured. (See REHW #168.) Recently, it has been learned that many
plastic products exude chemicals that disrupt the hormones of reptiles,
amphibians, birds, fish and mammals, including humans. (See REHW #501.)
No doubt about it, plastics make living things, including people, sick,
and they kill.

In his paean to plastic, Mr. Tierney neglected to mention any of these
serious, intractable problems created by the plastics-manufacturing
corporations exercising their free-market "right" to dump their anti-
social and life-destroying wares on all of us. Plastics are a kind of
corporate graffiti celebrating the consolidation of wealth and power,
and the arrogant human-centeredness, which, together, lie at the heart
of the libertarian vision. No wonder Mr. Tierney esteems plastics so.

Good news writers can't ever pass up an opportunity to re-write
history. Indeed, that is their main purpose for writing. For example,
Mr. Tierney says, "Today's landfills for municipal trash are filled
mostly with innocuous materials like paper, yard waste, and
construction debris. They contain small amounts of hazardous wastes,
like lead and mercury, but studies have found that these poisons stay
trapped inside the mass of garbage even in the old, unlined dumps that
were built before today's stringent regulations."

This is a stunning example of history re-written to serve libertarian
ideology. The message is that today's "stringent regulations" for
landfills are not needed because poisons stay trapped inside landfills.
This would be a powerful argument for getting government off the backs
of the dumpers, if it were true. But it's not. The U.S. Superfund list
of contaminated sites contains 184 municipal solid waste landfills, all
leaking dangerously.[5] Municipal dumps contain 1% to 2% legally-
hazardous chemicals, but 1% of a huge quantity of waste represents a
substantial danger. And all evidence indicates that landfills
eventually leak their toxic contents into the surrounding environment.
To prevent toxic wastes from leaking out of municipal dumps, we would
have to repeal the second law of thermodynamics. Since the laws of
physics cannot be repealed, libertarian writers like John Tierney must
content themselves with merely re-writing history, trying to trick the
public into believing that the dangerous is benign, and that government
needn't concern itself with recycling garbage because landfilling it is

As the NEW YORK TIMES said in an editorial July 19, 1996: "If
journalists lie or publications knowingly publish deceptively
incomplete stories, then readers who become aware of the deception will
ever after ask the most damaging of all questions: How do I know you
are telling me the whole truth as best you can determine it THIS TIME?"

--Peter Montague (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO)


[1] John Tierney, "Recycling is Garbage," NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE June
30, 1996, pgs. 24-27, 44, 48, 51, 53.

[2] "Public Interest Pretenders," CONSUMER REPORTS Vol. 59, No. 5
(1994), pgs. 316-320.

[3] Michael Weisskopf, "Plastic reaps a grim harvest in the oceans of
the world," SMITHSONIAN (March, 1988), pgs. 59-66. And see, for
example, "David G. Shaw and Robert H. Day, "Colour-and Form-dependent
Loss of Plastic Micro-debris from the North Pacific Ocean," MARINE
POLLUTION BULLETIN Vol. 28, No. 1 (1994), pgs. 39-43.

[4] David J. Slip and Harry R. Burton IV, "Accumulation of Fishing
Debris, Plastic Litter, and Other Artefacts on Heard and Macquarie
Islands in the Southern Ocean," ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Vol. 18, No.
3 (Autumn, 1991), pgs. 249-254. And, finally, see Christopher C. Joyner
and Scot Frew, "Plastic Pollution in the Marine Environment," OCEAN
DEVELOPMENT AND INTERNATIONAL LAW Vol. 22, No. 1 (1991), pgs. 33-69.

[5] Data on Superfund from Alex Kalinowski of U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Superfund Docket; phone (703) 603-9096.

Descriptor terms: john tierney; new york times; recycling; municipal
solid waste; landfilling; msw; libertarianism; monsanto; elizabeth
whelan; wmx; acsh; american council on science and health; genetic
engineering; plastic; mexico; oceans; wildlife; dioxin;