Rachel's #913: The Responsibility Gap

[Guest guest]

At 11:41 AM 7/5/07, you wrote:

>Rachel's Democracy & Health News #913, Jun. 28, 2007

>[Printer-friendly version]

>

>THE RESPONSIBILITY GAP

>

>By Steven G. Gilbert

>

> From his uncle Ben, Spiderman learned that " With great power comes

>great responsibility. " Humans now have incredible power to reshape the

>environment and affect human health, but we have yet to fully

>acknowledge the responsibility that this implies. One area in which we

>need to take more responsibility is around the manufacture, use, and

>disposal of chemicals.

>

>It is estimated that there are more than 80,000 chemicals in commerce

>and 2,000 new chemicals are added each year. Unfortunately, we know

>very little about the specific health effects of these chemicals

>because industry has not generated or made available the data. We do

>know, however, that children are more vulnerable to the effects of

>these chemicals and that annual costs of childhood related disease due

>to environmental contaminates is in the range of $55 billion.[1]

>

>Children and adults are exposed to a wide range of chemicals at home,

>school, workplace and from the products we use. Exposure to some of

>these chemicals can cause significant adverse health effects such as

>cancer, Parkinson's disease, immunological disorders and

>neurobehavioral deficits, resulting in a needless loss of potential

>for both the individual and society.

>

>A significant report on chemical policy was developed by Mike Wilson

>and others that both defined the problem and suggested a more rational

>approach.[2] Their report identified three gaps that contribute to the

>current failed chemical policy: a data gap, a safety gap and a

>technology gap. The data gap addresses the need to have health effects

>information on chemicals and the public's right to know this

>information. The safety gap results from the government's inability to

>prioritize hazardous chemicals and its inability to obtain the needed

>information. The technology gap reflects the failure by either

>industry or government to invest in the development of more

>sustainable chemical processes such as green chemistry. To these three

>identified gaps, I suggest adding a fourth: the responsibility gap.

>

>Responsibility -- An Overview

>

>Humans have amassed an enormous amount of power to change the physical

>environment as well as affect human and environmental health. Aldo

>Leopold, America's first bioethicist, summarized our ethical

>responsibilities in a simple statement in 1949: " A thing is right when

>it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the

>biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise. " [3] When we

>expose our children to lead, mercury, or alcohol we are robbing them

>of their integrity, stability, and beauty. In essence we robbing them

>of their potential, reducing their ability to do well in school and to

>contribute to society.[4] We have the knowledge and must accept the

>responsibility to preserve the biotic community, which will preserve

>us and future generations. Key institutions in our society, as well as

>individuals, must address different aspects of a shared responsibility

>to ensure a sustainable biotic community.

>

>Precautionary Principle and Responsibility

>

>The precautionary principle is defined in the Wingspread Statement as:

> " When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the

>environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause

>and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. " It

>both acknowledges our power and implies responsibility.[5,6]

>

>One of the central elements of the precautionary principle is that

>proponents of an activity or product must take responsibility to

>demonstrate its safety. This concept is applied to the development of

>new drugs. The Food and Drug Administration requires the

>pharmaceutical or biotech corporations to demonstrate both efficacy

>and safety of their products before they are approved for use by the

>public. This precautionary approach was adapted after several high

>profile disasters with drugs, such as thalidomide. The same concept

>and responsibility could be required of chemical manufactures, which

>would result in data-driven decisions on health and would drive a

>shift toward sustainable and safer chemicals.

>

>Corporate responsibility

>

>Under current corporate rules and regulations the primary

>responsibility of a corporation is to make money for its shareholders.

>Corporate management's primary responsibility is to increase the value

>of the corporation for its shareholders, which is accomplished by

>increasing revenue or product sales and by reducing or externalizing

>costs.

>

>In 1994 an array of suited white male tobacco executives stood before

>the U.S. Congress Subcommittee on Health and the Environment and swore

>that nicotine was not addictive. This was clearly false, but they were

>protecting the interest of their corporations and shareholders to

>profit at the expense of people's health. The health effects of

>tobacco are borne by the individual and collectively through taxes and

>health care costs.

>

>The tobacco companies have a long history of externalizing the health

>costs of their product onto tax payers while reaping profits for the

>executives and shareholders. Other corporations have also externalized

>or not accounted for the costs of dumping chemicals into the air,

>water or land, which results disease and environmental damage. For

>example, the Asarco smelter in Tacoma, Washington spewed lead and

>arsenic across a wide area. Devra Davis brilliantly documented how

>industry poisoned the air and environment, which sickened the people

>of Donora, Pennsylvania. While the U.S. has tightened pollution laws,

>Doe Run Peru, an affiliate of the St. Louis-based Doe Run Resources

>Corp., continues the practice of externalizing costs by spewing lead

>from their smelters which sickens children, depriving them of their

>innate abilities. Our government, through the Departments of Defense

>and Energy, has created some of the most contaminated sites in the

>world, such as Hanford, Washington.

>

>Corporations contaminate the environment because it is cost effective

>and our laws shield executives from personal responsibility. In other

>words, they operate this way because they can make larger profits by

>not investing in pollution control or adapting sustainable practices

>and they can get away with it. Of course not all corporations operate

>irresponsibly, but enough do, which creates problems for everyone. A

>new form of capitalism is needed that motivates corporate

>responsibility to the biotic community and greater social good. Peter

>Barnes explores some of these ideas in his recent book Capitalism 3.0:

>A Guide to Reclaiming the Commons.[7] The thrust of the book is the

>idea to create public trusts that are responsible for and account for

>the value of the common wealth such as that in the land, air, and

>water. Capitalism must change to account for using this wealth.

>

>Government responsibility

>

>The primary responsibility of the government is to protect and

>preserve the common wealth for the greater good of the people.

>

>Government has a duty and responsibility to ensure the " integrity,

>stability, and beauty of the biotic community " . In essence government

>must ensure that future generations have an environment in which they

>can reach and maintain their full genetic potential. The U.S.

>Government has made various attempts to control chemicals while the

>governments of many developing countries such as China are just

>beginning to consider the problems of uncontrolled corporate

>exploitation of the environment and people.

>

>A failed effort by U.S. Congress was the passage of Toxic Substances

>Control Act of 1976 (TSCA). This law was meant to empower the

>Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to control the introduction of

>new chemicals into the environment. Unfortunately, corporations are

>not required to generate or make available health effects data (thus

>the data gap), which impedes the government or the public from making

>informed decisions on safety of products (thus the safety gap). Our

>representatives in the government must take seriously their

>responsibility to protect common wealth for the greater good of all. A

>first step would be to fix TSCA by requiring greater chemical testing

>and disclosure of this information. Our legislatures can take

>responsibility by supporting the Kids Safe Chemicals Act.[8]

>

>Media Responsibility

>

>The primary responsibility of the media is to create an informed and

>engaged public not just inform the educated public. The media has an

>obligation to produce socially responsible material that is fair,

>objective, and balanced. This does not mean giving equal time to

>clearly very minority views as was the case with global warming. Most

>importantly the media has a responsibility to be open and transparent

>about sources of information and acknowledge any potential conflicts

>of interest. The burden and obligation of the media to be responsible

>must also be shared with the listeners, viewers, and readers. The

>media has great power to inform and influence people, and with that

>comes a grave responsibility.

>

>Academic Responsibility

>

>The academic community, particularly those engaged in issues related

>to public health, have a responsibility to be thoughtful public health

>advocates and share their knowledge beyond narrow academic journals

>and conferences. Being a scientist includes the obligation to seek the

>truth and question the facts, there is also an obligation and

>responsibility to speak out on public health issues. Scientists and

>educators have tremendous amounts of knowledge that can be shared with

>K-12 students, media, legislators, and the general public. Educators

>and researchers have a responsibility to help create an informed

>public by sharing their knowledge and being thoughtful public health

>advocates.

>

>Individual responsibility

>

>Individuals have the greatest burden of responsibility because we must

>take into account not only the above responsibilities of our

>professional lives, but we must also address the responsibilities of

>our personal lives. We must confront individually and collectively

>that we have the power, and the means to reshape or even destroy the

>world. Individually it may seem as if we have little control over

>global warming, nuclear weapons, or the food imported from other

>countries. We have a responsibility to consider how our individual

>actions combine to collectively shape the world and society around us.

>This extends from who we elect for office to what we buy in the store,

>to the temperature in our homes, and the pesticides on our farms and

>lawns. We also have a responsibility to stay informed and demand that

>the media inform us. Democracy is a participatory sport and we must be

>well informed to participate. Our corporations run on and will respond

>to what we purchase. Our government and corporations will respond to

>our opinions and demands for a fair, just, and sustainable society. We

>must translate responsibility into action to create a just and

>sustainable world.

>

>References

>

>[1] P.J. Landrigan, C.B. Schechter, J.M. Lipton and others,

>Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 110, No. 7 (2002), pg. 721 and

>following pages..

>

>[2] Michael P. Wilson and others. Green Chemistry in California: A

>Framework for Leadership in Chemicals Policy and Innovation.

>Berkeley, Calif.: California Policy Research Center, University of

>California, 2006.

>

>[3] Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac, 1949.

>

>[4] Steven G. Gilbert, " Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues: Our

>Children's Future, " Neurotoxicology Vol. 26 (2005), pgs. 521-530.

>

>[5] Peter Montague, The Precautionary Principle In A Nutshell. New

>Brunswick, N.J.: Environmental Research Foundation, 2005.

>

>[6] Steven G. Gilbert, " Public Health and the Precautionary

>Principle, " Northwest Public Health (Spring/Summer, 2005), pg. 4.

>

>[7] Peter Barnes. Capitalism 3.0 -- A Guide to Reclaiming the

>Commons. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2006, pg. 195.

>

>[8] Kids Safe Chemical Act. Senate Bill 1391, 109th Congress.

>Introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg. See discussion here and get

>the original text of the bill here. Reportedly, the bill is

>presently undergoing significant revisions with input from a broad

>range of stakeholders.

>

>Steven G. Gilbert, Ph.D., DABT, directs the Institute of

>Neurotoxicology & Neurological Disorders (INND), 8232 14th Ave NE,

>Seattle, WA 98115; phone: 206.527.0926; fax: 206.525.5102; E-mail:

>sgilbert.

>

>Web: www.asmalldoseof.org ( " A Small Dose of Toxicology " ) Web:

>www.toxipedia.org -- connecting science and people

 

******

Kraig and Shirley Carroll ... in the woods of SE Kentucky

http://www.thehavens.com/

thehavens

606-376-3363

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.859 / Virus Database: 585 - Release 2/14/05