Chemical industry figures consciously planned benefit-framing propaganda to defuse hazard concerns

Evidence

At an industry meeting discussing a proposed speech on “Industrial Problems in Environmental Health,” Dr. A. Fleming advocated reframing the issue in the public debate: “[T]he speech should cite the benefits to mankind through chemicals. Hazardous chemicals can be used safely… . Feeding the world will depend on the use of chemicals. We should work in some propaganda along this line. Chemicals are important for both protection and production of food” (Manufacturing Chemists’ Association, 1960). — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 1779

Categorization

• XREF: Documents how an industry rationalizes harm by accenting benefits — a concrete instance of the mechanism the reader is connecting to Cooper-style social conservatism, where policy harm is framed by its intended goods. — connects to: Waste firms sold toxic proposals to impoverished Tribes as green job schemes — Luke W. Cole and Sheila R. Foster, From the Ground Up: Environmental…, 599; Fossil fuel companies knowingly obscure climate science rather than believe their denial — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying: The New…, 247
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 1779