Connect With Us

“Activist groups like Project Censored . . . are helping to build the media democracy movement. We have to challenge the powers that be and rebuild media from the bottom up.” —Amy Goodman
“Those who read and support Project Censored are in the know.” —Cynthia McKinney
“Censored 2014 is a clarion call for truth telling. Not only does this volume highlight fearless speech in fateful times, it connect the dots between the key issues we face, lauds our whistleblowers and amplifies their voices, and shines light in the dark places of our government that most need exposure.” –Daniel Ellsberg, The Pentagon Papers
Buy it, read it, act on it. Our future depends on the knowledge this col-lection of suppressed stories allows us.” —San Diego Review
“Project Censored brings to light some of the most important stories of the year that you never saw or heard about. This is your chance to find out what got buried.” –Diane Ravitch, author of The Death and Life of the Great American School System.
“For ages, I’ve dreamed of a United States where Project Censored isn’t necessary, where these crucial stories and defining issues are on the front page of the New York Times, the cover of Time, and in heavy rotation on CNN. That world still doesn’t exist, but we always have Project Censored’s yearly book to pull together the most important things the corporate media ignored, missed, or botched.” –Russ Kick, author of You Are Being Lied To, Everything You Know Is Wrong, and the New York Times bestselling series The Graphic Canon.
“Project Censored shines a spotlight on news that an informed public must have . . . a vital contribution to our democratic process.” —Rhoda H. Karpatkin, president, Consumer’s Union
“Hot news, cold truths, utterly uncensored.” —Greg Palast
“Most journalists in the United States believe the press here is free. That grand illusion only helps obscure the fact that, by and large, the US corporate press does not report what’s really going on, while tuning out, or laughing off, all those who try to do just that. Americans–now more than ever–need those outlets that do labor to report some truth. Project Censored is not just among the bravest, smartest, and most rigorous of those outlets, but the only one that’s wholly focused on those stories that the corporate press ignores, downplays, and/or distorts. This latest book is therefore a must read for anyone who cares about this country, its tottering economy, and–most important– what’s now left of its democracy.” –Mark Crispin Miller, author, professor of media ecology, New York University.
“[Censored] offers devastating evidence of the dumbing-down of main-stream news in America. . . . Required reading for broadcasters, journalists, and well-informed citizens.” —Los Angeles Times
“Project Censored interrogates the present in the same way that Oliver Stone and I tried to interrogate the past in our Untold History of the United States. It not only shines a penetrating light on the American Empire and all its deadly, destructive, and deceitful actions, it does so at a time when the Obama administration is mounting a fierce effort to silence truth-tellers and whistleblowers. Project Censored provides the kind of fearless and honest journalism we so desperately need in these dangerous times.” —Peter Kuznick, professor of history, American University, and coauthor, with Oliver Stone, of The Untold History of the United States
“In another home run for Project Censored, Censored 2013 shows how the American public has been bamboozled, snookered, and dumbed down by the corporate media. It is chock-full of ‘ah-ha’ moments where we understand just how we’ve been fleeced by banksters, stripped of our civil liberties, and blindly led down a path of never-ending war.” –Medea Benjamin, author of Drone Warfare, cofounder of Global Exchange and CODEPINK.
“At a time when the need for independent journalism and for media outlets unaffiliated with and untainted by the government and corporate sponsors is greater than ever, Project Censored has created a context for reporting the complete truths in all matters that matter. . . . It is therefore left to us to find sources for information we can trust. . . . It is in this task that we are fortunate to have an ally like Project Cen-sored.” —Dahr Jamail
“[Censored] should be affixed to the bulletin boards in every newsroom in America. And, perhaps read aloud to a few publishers and television executives.” —Ralph Nader
“The staff of Project Censored presents their annual compilation of the previous year’s 25 stories most overlooked by the mainstream media along with essays about censorship and its consequences. The stories include an 813% rise in hate and anti-government groups since 2008, human rights violations by the US Border Patrol, and Israeli doctors injecting Ethiopian immigrants with birth control without their consent. Other stories focus on the environment, like the effects of fracking and Monsantos GMO seeds. The writers point out misinformation and outright deception in the media, including CNN relegating factual accounts to the “opinion” section and the whitewashing of Margaret Thatcher’s career following her death in 2013, unlike Hugo Chavez, who was routinely disparaged in the coverage following his death. One essay deals with the proliferation of “Junk Food News,” in which “CNN and Fox News devoted more time to ‘Gangnam Style’ than the renewal of Uganda’s ‘Kill the Gays’ law.” Another explains common media manipulation tactics and outlines practices to becoming a more engaged, free-thinking news consumer or even citizen journalist. Rob Williams remarks on Hollywood’s “deep and abiding role as a popular propaganda provider” via Argo and Zero Dark Thirty. An expose on working conditions in Chinese Apple factories is brutal yet essential reading. This book is evident of Project Censored’s profoundly important work in educating readers on current events and the skills needed to be a critical thinker.” -Publisher’s Weekly said about Censored 2014 (Oct.)
“One of the most significant media research projects in the country.” —I. F. Stone
“Project Censored is one of the organizations that we should listen to, to be assured that our newspapers and our broadcasting outlets are practicing thorough and ethical journalism.” —Walter Cronkite
“Project Censored continues to be an invaluable resource in exposing and highlighting shocking stories that are routinely minimized or ignored by the corporate media. The vital nature of this work is underscored by this year’s NSA leaks. The world needs more brave whistle blowers and independent journalists in the service of reclaiming democracy and challenging the abuse of power. Project Censored stands out for its commitment to such work.” —Deepa Kumar, author of Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire and associate professor of Media Studies and Middle Eastern Studies at Rutgers University

20. Legalizing Carcinogens in Our Food

Source: IN THESE TIMES, Date: 3/21/94, Title: “Risky Business: A Proposed EPA reform may leave Americans even more exposed to the dangers of pesticides,” Author: William K. Burke

SSU Censored Researcher: Paul Giusto

SYNOPSIS: The only U.S. law that entitles Americans to a carcinogen­-free food supply is being threatened by the Environmental Protection Agency and Congress.

The law is known as the Delaney Clause after Rep. James Delaney (D-NY) who insisted in 1958 that the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act include language that prohibits cancer-causing chemicals in

America’s processed food. While the law has threatened the multi­billion-dollar pesticide industry during the past 36 years, it has rarely hampered it.

Under Delaney, if a pesticide is shown to be a carcinogen, the gov­ernment must ban it from use in all processed foods. And while it is quite specific, the pesticide industry (with the government’s help) had found ways around the law until 1992 when the Natural Resources Defense Council won a federal lawsuit that compelled the EPA to begin enforcing Delaney.

To avoid doing this, and to appease the chemical industry, the Clinton EPA proposed a legislative reform package that would replace Delaney with a system known as “risk assessment.” Under this system, the government weighs the “risks” posed by a given pesticide against the chemical’s “benefits.” In this case, a risk is negligible if only one in a million consumers develop cancer from a pesticide-­treated food.

Critics point out that Americans already consume the residues of more than 300 EPA-registered pes­ticides-about 70 of which are known to cause cancer. Yet the pro­posed risk-assessment process falsely assumes that ill effects from exposure to a single toxin from a single source can be precisely calcu­lated and then regulated. But this risk assessment process ignores the fact that causes of cancer can’t be pinpointed that exactly. A typical American already runs a one-in-­four risk of cancer.

Jay Feldman, of the National Coalition Against Misuse of Pesticides, points out that “Delaney is the building block to a sound public policy to prevent cancer.” In fact, Feldman argues that the need for stringent restric­tion of cancer-causing agents has never been greater.

Nonetheless, environmentalists warn that once the Delaney Clause becomes history, which some expect to happen in 1995, the right of U.S. agribusiness to spread cancer will be secured. Congress and the EPA will be left to squabble over how many cancer deaths are too many.

Environmental writer William K. Burke concludes that “Without strong, unequivocal laws to guide it, the EPA has tended to negotiate with polluters rather than regulate their pollution. By proposing to replace the Delaney Clause with the dubious science of risk assess­ment, the Clinton EPA risks repeating that sorry history.”

When the 103rd Congress adjourned on October 8, 1994, there already were two bills in Congress that would eliminate the Delaney Clause.

COMMENTS: Environmental writer William Burke reports, “Efforts to repeal the Delaney Clause and promote the `risk assessment’ approach to regulating environmental hazards were not heavily covered last year. The Washington Post has run editorials favoring the replacement of strict consumer protection laws like Delaney with risk assessment.”

One of the problems in per­suading editors to cover the issue, Burke said, is “that the risk assess­ment story lacks a sexy hook until you understand some of the com­plexities behind the concept. Over the last seven years freelancing I have learned that there is no better way to make an assignment editor’s eyes glaze over and ears slam shut than to explain to him or her the complexities of environmental policy.

“The fact is that the promotion of risk assessment is an attempt by corporations addicted to pollution to use false science to promote poli­cies that are bad for the nation’s long-term economic and physical health. But the idea of balancing `risks versus benefits’ sound pseudo­scientific enough to pass through a political system ruled by centrists and right wingers who think prag­matism means fulfilling the desires of the most powerful lobbyists.

“One in four Americans will die prematurely from cancer. Yet few Americans know that the industry and government scientists who assure them their food supply is safe have no idea how the 70 car­cinogenic pesticides legally applied to America’s food interact. The effects of these combined expo­sures are difficult if not impossible to study, therefore the risks of such combined exposures are simply ignored in the regulatory process. As a result most mass media reports on pesticides focus on the risk from one pesticide in one use. So we get stories about pesticides being regu­lated because they cause cancer in a few rats. This lack of depth of coverage provides grist for the mills of the writers leading the current anti-environmental charge. It also prevents any serious discussion of what it means to our country to have a food supply system addicted to pesticides.”

Burke charges that the grocers, food production lobbyists and pes­ticide companies that are paying for the effort to kill the Delaney Clause in Congress will all directly benefit if the law is changed.

Burke concludes, “If the Delaney Clause is overturned it will not rep­resent a-step towards an updated and sensible pesticide policy, which seems to be how the mainstream press intends to help sell risk assess­ment. Rather the end of Delaney will be one more marker that America’s food supply has become one of history’s great chemistry experiments.”

Facebook Comments