Document jgXzLMX0Rdz4Jzb3vNGdOBnvQ

4 STURGEON LITIGATION FROH THE FILES OF THIS FILE HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY LikjPr FOR: - Documents describing the presence or p o t e n t i a l p r e s e n c e of d i o x i n in M o n s a n t o products. - Documents r e f e r r i n g to the t o x i c i t y of any Isomer of dioxins. - Documents referring to the to x ic i t y of any Chlorophenol or Chlorophenol product. - D o cu me n ts r ef er r i n g to health e f f e c t s as they r e late to the above. Monsanto FROM (N A M E -- LOCATION -- PHONE j D. R. Bishop - F3E - (4-2891) July 1, 1983 S U B JE C T TO : R. T. Berendt - E2ND T. M. Bistline - E2ND A. M. Ford - EISA W. R. Gaffey - G2WE G. D. Ingenthron - F3EB W. J. McCarville - G3WG P. S. Park - G3WB G. Roush - G2WG J. F. Hussey - F3EA J. T. Nolan - D1A L. J. O'Neill - F3EE M. C. Throdahl - DID W. H. Westendorf - F3EE F.Y.I., attached is a July 1 PostrDispatch editorial and my response which was messengered today. end. nf `Daff R. Bishop J j Fri., July 1 ,1 9 8 3 S I LOUIS POST-DISPATCH The AMA Withdraws As Media Doctor A spokesman for the American Medical Every day new sites of dioxin contamination Association, appearing before a House are turning up, including one recently in a subcommittee in Washington, has now heavily populated area of New Jersey. A disavowed a part of a recent AMA resolution, federal report has listed hundreds of sites in sponsored by Dr. George Bohigian of St. 33 states where dioxin may be found. At the Louis, which condemned the news media for U.S. Centers for Disease Control, a key making "dioxin the focus of a 'witch hunt' by official said most of what he had seen in the dissem inating rum ors, hearsay and media had been "a fairly reasonable unconfirmed, unscientific reports . . Hi e statement of caution." W m edia does at times engage in What is known about dioxin is that it has sensationalism. But Dr. Bohigian,. as he proved toxic to virtually every major organ appeared on the CBS Morning News, had system in various laboratory animals and virtually no substantiating examples to has caused both cancer and reproductive support his own sensationalism. About all he abnormalities in various species. It causes a did was to refer to a TV reporter talking skin disease in humans and is believed to about government reports saying dioxin cause a soft tissue cancer. Given the "won't hurt you," while in the background, possibility that serious ill effects in humans . he said, a man "in a white spacesuit with may not show up for years, a warning is gloves" is shown picking up dirt at a dioxin better than acting as if there is no danger site. The doctor didn't identify what because complte proof is not available. government report said dioxin "won't hurt Sensibly the AMA, while noting the need to you." Is there one? avoi(| the dissem ination of possible Who can really say that the public has erroneous information, is now affirming that been unduly alarmed by media reports? dioxin poses a health problem. ' S U B i-C i ^_____ t - r - T ' ^ C1Q159 Monsanto Monsanto Company 800 N. Lindbergh Boulevard St. Louis. Missouri 63166 Phone: (314) 694-1000 July 1, 1983 PUBLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT Letters to the Editor St. Louis Post-Dispatch 900 North Tucker Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63101 If you'd like a "substantiating" example of the dis semination of unconfirmed, unscientific reporting of dioxin by the news media, take another look at your own July 1 editorial, "The AMA Withdraws As Media Doctor," in which you state: "(dioxin) is believed to cause a soft tissue cancer." "Believed" by whom? While it is true that a Swedish scientist has reported a possible (and highly questionable) link between exposure to dioxin and soft tissue cancer in forestry workers, four other studies of workers similarly exposed in Finland, New Zealand, Washington State and the U.S. Air Force have failed to find any evidence to support this conclusion. So your statement on dioxin and soft tissue cancer begs several questions: 1. Why did the Post-Dispatch elect to ignore this counterbalancing evidence? 2. What is the public suppose to conclude from your statement about soft tissue cancer? 3. Is the public (especially those Missourians from Times Beach) unduly alarmed by this kind of one-sided editorializing? Director, " Environmental Communications /mo