GMW: Corporate rights and power

[Guest guest]

GMW: Corporate rights and power

" GM WATCH " <info

Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:25:05 +0100

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

------

Excellent articles with constant references to the biotech industry.

------

Addressing structure of rights and power

Skip Spitzer

Finacial Express, 9/16/2005

http://financialexpress-bd.com/index3.asp?cnd=9/16/2005 & section_id=4 & newsid=704 & \

spcl=no

 

A transition to genuinely sustainable agriculture must

confront the problem of corporate power. The growth of the corporate

sector

and the accumulation of extraordinary amounts of private wealth have

radically transformed the role of the corporation. Large corporations

have, in fact, become decisive players in determining the organisation of

society overall.

 

In the US, corporations produce 88% of private sector output, leaving

basic decision-making about product development, resource use,

production processes, and use of labour largely in corporate hands.

Just 1.0% of

US corporations produce 80% of private sector output, and worldwide,

only 200 corporations -- 82 of them US-based and mostly larger than many

national economies -- control well over a quarter of the world's

economic activity. In addition, many corporations are linked with

other firms

via owners, board directors, and senior managers who also own, direct

and manage other corporations.

 

Corporations seek to maintain and expand their dominance via financial

Support for political candidates and office holders. One internal

document of the Chemical Manufacturer's Association revealed the

association's strategy of using, political action committees to

" upgrade the

Congress " and " improve access to members. " Big companies also influence

ballot initiatives with financial support, such as the more than 4.0

million dollars agribusiness spent to defeat the 2002 Oregon citizens

initiative to label genetically engineered food.

 

High-level employees commonly rotate through a " revolving door " between

industry and the public agencies that regulate them, providing insider

know-how and friendly connections through which rules can be bent and

loopholes exploited. Through trade associations, consultants, and

in-house specialists, corporations lobby government decision-makers

and even

provide them with policy drafts. For example, in 2000, Representative

Richard Pombo introduced a House bill on pesticide regulation that was a

nearly word-forward duplicate of a 1999 draft by an industry consulting

firm. To discourage liability suits and silence critics, large firms

sometimes file SLAPP suits-so-called " strategic lawsuits against public

participation. " Even where corporations do not actively exert influence,

holders of high office themselves frequently have significant holdings

in large corporations or other financial ties or histories that

predispose them to industry-friendly positions. For example, US

Secretary of

Agriculture Ann Veneman was a director of the biotech company Calgene

(now owned by Monsanto) and served on the International Policy Council on

Agriculture, Food and Trade, a group funded by Caraill, Nestle, Kraft,

and Archer Daniels Midland.

 

Corporations influence media reporting by providing press releases and

" expert " sources, lobbying reporters, and threatening legal action. For

example, Monsanto repeatedly pressured Fox News over a story about the

health risks of its recombinant (genetically engineered) Bovine Growth

Hormone (BGH). Fox killed the project and ultimately fired the

reporters. The average adult in the US watches 21,000 television ads

annually,

75% of them paid for by the 100 largest corporations. Thus, the public

is far more likely to know Archer Daniels Midland as the " supermarket

to the world, " rather than as a multinational grain giant with a history

of political contributions and favours, price fixing, and government

subsidies.

Corporations influence science and research by funding university

research and by funding research institutes and policy think tanks. The

American Council on Science and Health-a think tank receiving 40 to

76% of

its funding from corporations Such as Dow Chemical, DuPont, and

Monsanto -- promotes the idea that concerns about pesticides like DDT

and Alar

are " unfounded health scares. " Many researchers sit on corporate

boards, own stock and have other financial ties to the companies to which

their research relates.

Corporations provide schools with educational material, advice,

teachers, presentations, exhibits, contests, and awards. Lifetime

Learning

Systems advertises: Coming from school, all these materials carry an

extra

measure of credibility that gives your message added weight. Imagine

millions of students discussing your product in class. Imagine their

teachers presenting your organisation's point of view.

 

What are the implications of allowing enormous companies around the

world, pursuing little more than their own profitability, to exert such

broad influence nationally and globally and to create and maintain an

industrial food system that deeply afflicts nature and people?

 

Rachel Carson is often credited with sparking the modern environmental

movement in the US and elsewhere by raising awareness about DDT and

other chemicals in her book Silent Spring. But many environmental

movements may have missed an essential message when she wrote of " an era

dominated by industry, in which the right to make money, at whatever

cost to

others, is seldom challenged. "

 

Tackling the threat to public and environmental welfare is not just a

matter of curbing particular corporate harms, or even creating and

promoting sustainable alternatives. Ultimately, the structure of

corporate

rights and power must be addressed. Learning how to make meaningful

change in the short-term while advancing the longer-term task of

corporate

reform is one of the key challenges for progressive movements today.

 

 

 

 

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