date:Sep 14, 2012
ers argued no studies exist showing a relationship between ingestion of Alar and the incidence of cancer in humans. But that was not enough to take away the assertions about Alar made during the broadcast. Nor could the growers offer anything to take down Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) findings.
One way that Auvil v. CBS and BPI v. ABC do seem differ is the kind of factual evidence involved. From the time of the broadcast, A is for Apple was about differing views on complex scientific st