April
2001
Editorial:
The “Duh!” Factor: Chemicals and Common Sense
By Catherine Clyne
|
|
|
I recently watched “Trade Secrets: Rendering a
Guilty Verdict on Corporate America,” an exposé of the
chemical industry by Bill Moyers aired on PBS (3/26/01). I had been
hearing things
about it for some time and was curious to see just what this investigative
report might expose. Moyers and his crew gained access to a labyrinth
of documents that reveal in no uncertain terms that major companies
knew as far back as the 1950s and 60s that chemicals they were producing
were harmful. Damning memoranda between industry executives explicitly
show how this information was kept from employees and that measures
were decidedly not taken to reduce their exposure to the toxins.
One worker after another tells the horrific story of their life-threatening
illness and how their employers abandoned them. Dan Ross spent years
working with vinyl chloride (used in PVC plastic) and his wife Elaine
narrates how the love of her life wasted away and died from a rare form
of brain cancer at the age of 46. She sued the company, an action which
opened the doors to the reams of damning documents revealed in the program.
Bernard Skaggs spent years working with vinyl chloride for B. F.
Goodrich, and watched as the bones of his fingertips deteriorated
as a result
of overexposure. Another man tells how he and his co-workers all
became sterile. “Confidential” documents show how companies shielded
themselves from liability with denial and, in some cases, outright manipulation
and misrepresentation. When they learned that their employer knowingly
did not protect them from hazardous material and neglected to inform
them that substances they were handling were harmful and that their
conditions were a direct result of exposure, each man felt deeply betrayed.
They had put their trust in a company that they had worked for their
entire lives. They are of a generation that experienced the boom of
the chemical revolution, when new products and technology emerged—exciting
signs of progress. Like most people, they believed it when companies
told them that these products were safe. There is certainly truth in
the industry’s slogan, “better living through chemistry.” Today,
thousands of chemicals make our lives easier in products ranging
from disposable diapers to computers, photographs to refrigerators,
medicines to automobiles. But there are limits. We now know that
many
chemicals are harmful and downright poisonous. And unfortunately,
the ugly reality of a mercenary industry is something we see more
and more
of.
For many, this comes as no surprise: the 1984 Union Carbide catastrophe
in Bhopal, India—where nearly 10,000 residents died and some 200,000
were seriously injured—was swept under the carpet and the company’s
financial hits minimal; in fact, their stock value rose after the Indian
government settled its lawsuit. Then there are the protectionist gyrations
of “Big tobacco” and movies like The Insider, Silkwood, Erin
Brockovich and A Civil Action to drive the point home. These all demonstrate
what we’ve known all along, which is that a company that profits
by selling poison will continue to do so until it becomes unprofitable.
Moral or ethical qualms don’t factor into the equation unless,
of course, there is public outrage; then the damage control team are
called in to clean up the mess—like Harvey Keitel’s character
“Wolf” in Pulp Fiction—and restore the public’s
“trust” in the company, returning us to a comfortable cocoon
of preferred ignorance.
The Bottom Line
“Chemicals have more rights than people,” as one interviewee
put it. This is particularly true since the industry has fought off
efforts to regulate what they do every step of the way. For what little
regulation there is, the government “watchdog,” the Environmental
Protection Agency, has embarrassingly little authority to hold offenders
accountable. Basically, chemicals are deemed harmless until proven
otherwise;
and are released to the public and the environment with little to
no idea of what the long-term effects might be.
A primary theme that Moyers kept returning to in the documentary
was his incredulity over the reality that the effects of the various
chemicals
on human beings are unknown—never mind what their combined effects
may be. Not 60 seconds into the program, and the camera focused on hundreds
of mice trapped in rows of plastic boxes. The program closes with an
image of children in a playground: “The laboratory mice in this
vast chemical experiment are the children,” Moyers narrates. “They
have no idea what is happening to them, and neither do we.” Predictably,
the implication here is that only with further testing will we know
how harmful these toxins really are. Underlying is the misguided presumption
that the lives of rats and mice will save our children from the negative
effects of chemicals. Preying on our deepest fears, it reinforces that
erroneous yet prevalent “your daughter or your dog” myth
and the belief that live sacrifices must be made in order for science
to
progress. This is one of the more irresponsible things that people
assume. Irresponsible, of course, because more and more scientists
are questioning
the relevance of animal models to human health. But irresponsible
more so because it removes all responsibility from parents and consumers
who passively expect the industry to monitor itself.
One of many eye-opening documents revealed in “Trade Secrets”
is the agenda for a 1987 meeting of the Board of Directors of the Chemical
Manufacturers Association. “The problem,” it notes, “is
very little data exists to broadly respond to the public’s perception
and the charges of our opponents” (that chemicals have a negative
impact on health and the environment). So, how to deal with this? The
following section suggests, “Objective: Develop data and credible
studies to show that chemicals generally do not pose a significant threat
to public health.” When in doubt, “develop” (executive-speak
for “fabricate”) test results to support your claim. Dump
money into “fuzzy” science where the final outcome is predetermined
and it’s simply a matter of finding the factors that prove the
desired results. Genetic similarity and environmental factors normal
to human beings are of no concern: if one breed of mice isn’t successful,
try another. If that doesn’t work, try dogs, monkeys, or whatever.
As another industry document unabashedly concludes: “Gentlemen,
this is a campaign that has the dimension and detail of a war. The dollars
expended in offense are token compared to future costs.” This response,
reminiscent as it is of Bugs Bunny, would seem comical if it didn’t
underscore the sinister reality that, like in all wars, unscrupulous
tactics will be used to advance the objective—in this case,
the bottom line.
Here’s the “Duh!” factor: we don’t need more testing;
we need to use the non-toxic alternatives that are already available.
There are hundreds of companies that have been around for decades that
sell products that are not toxic—at a profit. The industry fears—that
they will go out of business if they replace toxins with alternatives—are
simply unjustified. We need to encourage companies to use safer ingredients
and demand that they stop pushing poison on us for profit. Our government
needs to stop cow-towing to industry interests and hold companies accountable
for their actions. Give me one good reason why we should continue to
allow the bottom line to determine our safety. In the bigger picture,
the financial worries of the industry are irrelevant when it compromises
our health and the fate of future generations; that’s the real
bottom line. Duh!
Catherine Clyne
To read the stories of workers and specialists, to see documents
revealed in “Trade Secrets,” and to learn about the toxins
in your daily life and find safer alternatives, visit www.pbs.org/tradesecrets.
The Environmental Working Group (www.ewg.org)
has an archive of millions of documents from the chemical industry on-line.
To see the response of the chemical industry to the Moyers report: www.abouttradesecrets.org.
