Registered" POISONS and how they got in your water---
 
Previous Current Articles Next
Subject: Registered" POISONS and how they got in your water---
Date:      Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:41:21 -0500
From:     Stephen Tvedten <steve@getipm.com>
Organization:     Get Set Inc. (www.getipm.com)
To:     Lyndon Hawkins <hawkins@empm.cdpr.ca.gov>
Lyndon, Several friends of mine just sent me the following articles on some of the "registered" POISONS and the "registrants" you are or have been promoting - I thought you might find them of interest.

CALIFORNIA TAP WATER CONTAMINATED BY TOXIC PESTICIDE

SACRAMENTO, California, November 16, 1999 (ENS) - The tap water of more than 1 million Californians is contaminated with a banned pesticide, according to an Environmental Working Group (EWG) analysis of state data. DBCP, or dibromochloropropane, is a potent carcinogen and perhaps the most powerful testicular toxin ever made . The chemical has been banned nationwide for 20 years. EWG’s analysis of water utility test results found that DBCP contaminates tap water in 38 water systems in nine counties. In all  38 communities, the tap water delivered to homes, schools and businesses contains levels of DBCP well above the levels considered safe by the state for other cancer causing compounds. In 19 communities, infants fed formula mixed with tap water receive a  lifetime's "safe" dose of DBCP by their first birthday.

Current state standards for DBCP allow exposure to 100 times the "safe" adult dose and almost 300 times the "safe" dose for infants and children. The state is scheduled to announce new limits for the amount of DBCP allowed in tap water next month. "There's no known safe level of exposure to DBCP," said Bill Walker, California director of EWG. "It's going to take many millions of dollars to make these communities' water safe again or find new supplies. The state should take immediate action to protect public health and take legal action to recover damages from the manufacturers of DBCP." University of  California researchers say a single dose can cause permanent  testicular malfunction in lab animals. Researchers have found a high  rate of sterility or abnormal testicles among former pupils in Bakersfield who drank DBCP tainted water. EWG's complete report is  available online at www.ewg.org.

Another Friend Sent: Dow Doing Great Things (and/or how they do it to you)-------

Dow Chemical (Dow), the second-largest US-based chemical corporation with over $20 billion in revenues, will celebrate its 100th anniversary this year. The chemical giant's history is blemished with the production, marketing, or cover-up of information related to dangerous products such as Agent Orange and the pesticides DBCP (Lyndon, this poison is in your water too.) and Dursban.  Today Dow faces thousands of lawsuits related to silicone breast implants. The corporation is also under fire as the world's largest producer of chlorine (a byproduct of which is dioxin), and as a major source of chemicals that contribute to global climate change and other health and environmental problems.

On the surface, Dow is not among the biggest spenders in Washington.  However, the chemical giant wields enormous influence in public policy, particularly on environmental and consumer issues. Much of this influence is well-hidden from the public because Dow operates through trade associations and corporate coalitions. Such deliberate concealment makes it nearly impossible to track Dow's influence and access over key public health issues and just how much the company has interfered with public policymaking.

CASE STUDY: HIDING BEHIND CORPORATE FRONT GROUPS

The Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA), of which Dow is a leading member, is one of the key arms through which Dow exerts control over environmental and public health policy. The CMA has its own PAC, which contributes at least $25,000 per year.  The CMA has a  lobbying force of some 50 people, in addition to Dow's 51 lobbyists at the federal level alone. The CMA spent $4.68 million lobbying in Washington in just the first half of 1996. Dow spent an additional $1 million lobbying in the first half of 1996.

Dow and its front groups are also a force at the state level. Dow has 36 registered lobbyists in just 13 states. The CMA, Chemical Industry Council, and Chemical Specialty Manufacturing Association have at least 23 lobbyists in just eight states. (How many in California?)

When the Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994, the chemical industry helped shape the legislative agenda, to create a more "business-friendly" regulatory environment. The  objectives included Superfund reform, regulatory reform, product liability reform, OSHA reform, undermining the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, and defunding the Environmental Protection Agency and other regulatory agencies.

TRADE ASSOCIATIONS AND LOBBYING FRONTS

Corporate coalitions and trade associations, many with their own lobbyists, influence public policy at both the state and the federal level. With this convenient corporate veil, Dow can maintain its environmentally-friendly image while working to undermine environmental and public health protections. The following are a few of the trade associations and corporate front groups of which Dow is a member:

Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations
American Tort Reform Association
Business Roundtable
Chemical Manufacturers Association
Chlorine Chemistry Council
Global Climate Coalition
The Coalition for Improved Environmental Audits

Each of the above groups is working to undo public health or environmental legislation, through US or international bodies like the World Trade Organization. Dow is also one of the leading contributors to conservative think tanks behind a campaign to roll back the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) authority to protect public health.  DowElanco, a subsidiary, gave $52,500 between 1992 and 1995 to think tanks orchestrating the anti-FDA campaign.

Recently, Dow has turned to radio and TV advertising to promote its "corporate citizenship." The ads include a TV spot promoting the benefits of silicone products, which is airing in New Orleans, where a breast implant trial is being held. This ad, sponsored by Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, was produced by the American Tort Reform Association (see above list of front groups). University of Houston law professor Joseph Sanders said, "It may be that [corporate defendants] are able to buy themselves something that should not be for sale."

"ASTROTURF" LOBBYING

Dow has developed software that can rapidly identify employees in key Congressional districts in order to generate "grassroots" political pressure by its plant workers.

REVOLVING DOOR

In 1995 Dow "loaned" one of its scientists, Dale Humbert, as staff for the House Commerce Committee–the same committee that oversees the EPA and the FDA.

Dow has a representative, Dave Buzzelli, on the unelected President's Council on Sustainable Development. Jonathan Lash, president of the World Resources Institute and member of Dow's Corporate Environmental Advisory Council, also serves on the President's Council.  The Council on Sustainable Development was set up to develop policies on manufacturing, managing natural resources, and sustainable communities.
 

(Safe2Use Note:  Update 2000 under the heading "Revolving door": for instance Mr. Jim Wells former Director of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation now is employed by Jellinek, Schwartz & Connolly, Inc. which works to get more poison pesticides and chemicals registered and approved.  Pretty cozy don't you think?)


TELL BIG BUSINESS: "YOU CAN'T BUY DEMOCRACY" JOIN INFACT's HALL OF SHAME CAMPAIGN! Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Another friend asked: "Ever wonder just how they do it?  Just how corporations can twist science to support a pack of lies?" In "Toxic Deception: How the Chemical Industry Manipulates Science, Bends the Law and Endangers Your Health," Dan Fagin and Marianne Lavelle provide a useful roadmap. If you've lost your scruples and want to sell your soul, here's a recipe:

1. CHEAT. The U.S. regulatory system for chemical products is tailor-made for fraud: The subjects are arcane, the results subjective, the regulators overmatched, and the real work conducted by--or for--the manufacturers themselves.

In the mid-1970s, IBT, the nation's largest toxicology laboratory (performing 35 to 40 percent  of all toxicology testing in the U.S. at the time) was riddled with fraud. After an alert FDA  pathologist questioned a rat study for the drug Naprosyn, evidence emerged that dozens of studies had been faked. Some reports were total fabrications based on no studies at all. Paul  Wright had been a research chemist at Monsanto before working at IBT in 1971 as its chief rat  toxicologist. Eighteen months later he returned to Monsanto as manager of toxicology. Government investigators concluded his stay at IBT was long enough for him to be in the middle of a series of apparently fraudulent studies that benefited Monsanto products. Despite investigators writing that there was evidence Monsanto executives knew the studies were faked, Monsanto denied any involvement, and fired Wright after he was convicted for his role in the IBT scandals.

Cheating in the studies apparently included: adding extra lab mice to skew the sample in a  rice-herbicide test; two rodent studies involving a chemical in swimming pool chlorinators seemed to have raw data replaced with after-the-fact invented records; animal deaths were deliberately concealed; and final reports included claims about procedures and observations that never happened.

It's tempting to see any given example of cheating or skewing results as an isolated aberration. But corporate culture is rife with the practice. In another example, Monsanto spent $4 million in 1985 testing water in wells to see if the chemical alachlor had leaked into groundwater. Richard  Kelley of the Iowa Department of Water, Air and Waste Management pointed out that Monsanto was sampling deep wells in clay soils, where the chemical was unlikely to turn up, foregoing sampling shallow wells in sandy soil. "The study was systematic--it was systematically designed not to find the product," he recalls.

2. MANIPULATE RESULTS. (Aka: blame the rats.) When forest product company Georgia Pacific conducted studies on formaldehyde in 1980--a key ingredient in its popular  waste-board products found in millions of homes--rats in the study breathing air mixed with the substance developed tumors in their nasal passages. Clifford T. "Kip" Howlett, in charge of safety and environmental affairs for the company at the time, first blamed the tumors on  the rats' "weak" condition, even though identical rats given no formaldehyde were tumor-free. Then he blamed the rats for being "dumb." Mice in a similar study slowed their breathing and "tucked their noses under their legs," resulting in fewer tumors. The rats were said to be too dumb to do this… Scientists then pursued a four-pronged plan: conduct a new rat study constructed to minimize these results; hire academics to give independent testimonials claiming formaldehyde is safe; attack any scientist who said formaldehyde is dangerous; and steer research in directions to play down the chemical's risk.

They won. There is no real regulation of formaldehyde to this day.

3. CREATE A FRONT GROUP. When it comes time to defend a product, it's always better to have an "independent" group do it rather than be seen to be doing so directly. The soothingly-named American Crop Protection Association does most of the talking for the pesticide industry. The Center for Indoor Air Research works for the tobacco industry; the Risk Science Institute is financed by a variety of chemical companies. Scientists from these institutes testify before Congress, government hearings and in courtrooms. To cite a  particularly ridiculous example, the largest client of Healthy Buildings International is--the  tobacco industry.

4. BUY RESEARCH. Most safety studies are financed by corporations or industry groups (like the Formaldehyde Institute). Take the four chemicals covered in "Toxic Deception": alachlor and atrazine (weed killers used on farms), formaldehyde and perchloroethylene (dry cleaning), which had at least 43 studies assessing their safety, financed by corporations or industry organizations. Six returned results unfavorable to the chemicals involved; five had ambivalent findings. The other 32 all returned results favorable to the chemicals studied. In short, the manufacturers were batting .744 when they paid for research.

But get this: when non-industry scientists did the research, the results were quite different. While a labor group that had a stake in the outcome sponsored two of the 118 non-industry studies the rest had sponsors who had nothing to gain or lose from the outcomes. These included the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Air Force, and the United Nations. About 60 percent of the studies (71) returned results unfavorable to the chemicals involved; 27 were favorable and 20 were ambivalent or difficult to characterize.

5. ATTACK OTHER SCIENTISTS. As Lavelle and Fagin write, "Scientists who cross the industry often run a gauntlet of criticism. In congressional hearings, politicians grill them with questions helpfully supplied by industry lobbyists. In scientific meetings, industry scientists pepper them with hostile queries. If they submit their findings to a journal to be published, their work is often attacked in letters to the editor written by industry researchers."

6. When all else fails, try this game plan described by David Ozonoff from Boston University, who served as a witness in asbestos litigation, describing the series of defenses used by the asbestos industry:

Asbestos doesn't hurt your health. OK, it does hurt your health but it doesn't cause cancer. OK, asbestos can cause cancer but not our kind of asbestos. OK, our kind of asbestos can cause cancer, but not the kind this person got. OK, our kind of asbestos can cause cancer, but not at the doses to which this person was exposed. OK, asbestos does cause cancer, and at this dosage, but this person got his disease from something else, like smoking. OK, he was exposed to our asbestos and it did cause his cancer, but we did not know about the danger when we exposed him. OK, we knew about the danger when we exposed him, but the statute of limitations has run out. OK, the statue of limitations hasn't run out, but if we’re guilty we'll go out of business and everyone will be worse off. OK, we'll agree to go out of business, but only if you let us keep part of our company intact, and only if you limit our liability for the harms we have caused.

These facts came from Dan Fagin and Marianne Lavelle's "Toxic Deception: How the Chemical Industry Manipulates Science, Bends the Law and Endangers Your Health,"  http://www.commoncouragepress.com/toxicd.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well Lyndon, I still want to know when will it ever be "legal' (in your opinion) to use safe, non-polluting, unregistered alternatives that actually control pests better than your "registered" pesticide poisons in California?  How long will you continue to ignore the facts?  Your "registered" POISONS KILL AND CONTAMINATE  - they do not "protect" us.  The pests are not being "controlled" - we are!

Respectfully,  Stephen L. Tvedten
 

If you would like to be included in our mailing list for continuing information on pesticides, Email Us. with "subscribe" in the subject line.

Nontoxic Products Recommended by Steve Tvedten

Now Available
Safe 2 Use Products and Services