TAMPA (June 28, 2000)—A second retired Florida state court judge has fizzled out as an option to try the Fox/BGH lawsuit immediately, The BGH Bulletin has learned. 
        The unidentified retired jurist from Hillsborough County was contacted by chief Judge Robert Bonanno earlier in the week but turned down the opportunity to try the high-profile case.  A court official said the decision was based partly on scheduling problems.
        The decision apparently sends court administrators back to square one.  The judicial assistant to the court's presiding judge told the plaintiffs today that news developments were unlikely before Friday at the earliest. 
        Helen Hansel, a retired judge from Clearwater in Pinellas County had first been mentioned as the judge who would hear the case but the Tampa court later withdrew her as a possibility.
        The uncertainty is causing problems for not only the litigants and their attorneys but for more than 80 witnesses who have been subpoenaed to testify at the trial.  Many complain that the lack of a firm trial date is wreaking havoc with long-standing summer vacation plans.

Tampa Newspaper Reports on Trial, rBGH

       A Tampa newspaper, meanwhile, is out with two new stories about the upcoming trial and the artificial hormone at the heart of the dispute.  OPne of the stories shows just how bitter the dispute has become.
        In a story headlined Lawyers, Lactation and Corporations, Fox's local lawyer is quoted as saying the entire dispute is "nothing other than an editing dispute with an asshole who refused to be edited."
        Said co-plaintiff Steve Wilson in response, "Not only is this yet another breach of professional conduct by Ms. Anderson, I am terribly offended that anyone would speak about Jane in that manner!"
        Elsewhere in the same article, Anderson is also quoted as saying Fox just wants this whole episode to be over. "We just want Steve Wilson to be a speck in our rear-view mirror," she said. 
        Wilson, who concedes he is overweight and not the average "pretty boy TV reporter type, asks, " Exactly how far down the road would one have to get for me to appear as only a speck in anyone's rear-view mirror?
        "Given the facts of this case, I'm sure Ms. Anderson is just trying to cover up her own fear that she and her clients are about to become road kill on the highway to justice," Wilson joked.
        The second story in Tampa's Weekly Planet, is a companion piece by the same reporter who updates the dispute about the use of Monsanto's synthetic hormone.  
        The story headlined Hormone In The Balance misidentifies Monsanto's product as Prosilac.  The brand name is actually Posilac.  The story also says "Canada and Europe have been reluctant to approve rBGH."  In fact, Canada and the European Union have been more than reluctant to approve it, they have actually formally banned its use.
        The story also includes a remark from the American Council on Science and Health which is identified as as "a consortium of 250 scientists," without mentioning that the group is frequently referred to as an industry front group supported by companies who often eschew government regulation of their businesses and products.
        "If anybody doubts the agenda of the ACSH, just visit their website," said co-plaintiff Jane Akre.  "There you will find the group's president Elizabeth Whelan whining about the removal of Scotchguard and Dursban from the market.  She calls them 'two safe and useful products (that) have been taken away from consumers'." 
        The EPA has linked Dursban to neurological disorders.  Scotchguard was voluntarily removed from the market by 3-M due to environmental concerns that the product does not easily break down in the environment.