IBJNews

Group says billboard companies rejected anti-Lilly ad

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Health advocacy group Breast Cancer Action said Wednesday its campaign against Eli Lilly and Co.’s animal growth hormone won’t be seen in Indianapolis after it couldn’t find a billboard company to carry the message.

The message, “Eli Lilly is making us sick. Tell them to stop,” was rejected by about 10 billboard companies in Indianapolis, said Angela Wall, a spokeswoman for the San Francisco-based not-for-profit.

Clear Channel Outdoor Advertising, Lamar Outdoor Advertising and CBS were among the companies that rebuffed the group, she said.

“Short of a face-to-face conversation with them, a billboard would be a way for us to have that virtual face-to-face conversation with" Lilly officials, she said.

Lilly markets Posilac, a recombinant bovine growth hormone—or rBGH—used to boost cows’ milk production. Breast Cancer Action contends the hormone has been linked to cancer in humans. Lilly acquired the rGBH business from St. Louis-based Monsanto in 2008 for $300 million.

Breast Cancer Action’s “Milking Cancer” campaign demands Lilly stop manufacturing the artificial hormone.

Joan Todd, a spokeswoman for the Indianapolis-based pharmaceutical firm, said the hormone has proven to be safe. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved its use in 1993.

“When we’ve offered to sit down with [Breast Cancer Action] and go over the science, they’ve rejected the opportunity,” Todd said.

Wall, with Breast Cancer Action, argued that they declined the opportunity because Lilly refused to “open the books” on the hormone.

Billboard companies, meanwhile, overwhelmingly declined its message because of it was “too political,” she said.

Officials of a few of the billboard companies Breast Cancer Action approached could not be immediately reached for comment.

But Bruce Bryant, president of locally based Promotus Advertising, understands their tentativeness.

“With a statement that broad, where it could be damaging to Lilly as a second party without factual evidence presented, could be inflammatory,” he said. “If you’re making a claim against another company, the facts have to be presented.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. President Obama has referred to the ACA as "Obamacare" any number of times; one thing it is not, if you don't qualify for a subsidy, is "affordable".

  2. One important correction, Indiana does not have an ag-gag law, it was soundly defeated, or at least changed. It was stripped of everything to do with undercover pictures and video on farms. There is NO WAY on earth that ag gag laws will survive a constitutional challenge. None. Period. Also, the reason they are trying to keep you out, isn't so we don't show the blatant abuse like slamming pigs heads into the ground, it's show we don't show you the legal stuf... the anal electroctions, the cutting off of genitals without anesthesia, the tail docking, the cutting off of beaks, the baby male chicks getting thrown alive into a grinder, the deplorable conditions, downed animals, animals sitting in their own excrement, the throat slitting, the bolt guns. It is all deplorable behavior that doesn't belong in a civilized society. The meat, dairy and egg industries are running scared right now, which is why they are trying to pass these ridiculous laws. What a losing battle.

  3. Eating there years ago the food was decent, nothing to write home about. Weird thing was Javier tried to pass off the story the way he ended up in Indy was he took a bus he thought was going to Minneapolis. This seems to be the same story from the founder of Acapulco Joe's. Stopped going as I never really did trust him after that or the quality of what being served.

  4. Indianapolis...the city of cricket, chains, crime and call centers!

  5. "In real life, a farmer wants his livestock as happy and health as possible. Such treatment give the best financial return." I have to disagree. What's in the farmer's best interest is to raise as many animals as possible as quickly as possible as cheaply as possible. There is a reason grass-fed beef is more expensive than corn-fed beef: it costs more to raise. Since consumers often want more food for lower prices, the incentive is for farmers to maximize their production while minimizing their costs. Obviously, having very sick or dead animals does not help the farmer, however, so there is a line somewhere. Where that line is drawn is the question.

ADVERTISEMENT