Rachel's News #858: Thu, 8 Jun 2006

[Guest guest]

rachel

Rachel's News #858: Pt. 2: As growth slows...

Thu, 8 Jun 2006 15:35:17 -0400

..

 

 

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Rachel's Democracy & Health News #858

" Environment, health, jobs and justice--Who gets to decide? "

Thursday, June 8, 2006..................Printer-friendly version

www.rachel.org -- To make a secure donation,

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

Featured stories in this issue...

 

The Context of Our Work: Slow Economic Growth, Part 2

Here we pick up the thread from last week, examining the

consequences of three decades of decelerating economic growth. The

system's responses to slowed economic growth explain much of what

passes for " the news " each day.

Humboldt County, California Passes a Law Curbing Corporate Rights

On June 6, 2006 the voters in Humboldt County, California approved

a new law prohibiting corporations headquartered outside the county

from making contributions to electoral campaigns within the county.

Activists Urge EPA to Draft Nanotech Rule to Counter Industry Views

Environmental Defense (ED), a major U.S. environmental

organization, has petitioned U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) to regulate nanotechnology under the Toxic Substances Control

Act TSCA). TSCA is widely acknowledged as one of the least-effective

government regulations ever written. ED's petition could signal a rift

between ED and some of its partners in the chemical industry. On the

other hand, it might be viewed as ED asking EPA to throw their Brer

Rabbit friends into the regulatory briar patch.

Chemical in Plastics Is Tied to Prostate Cancer

Important new research has linked prostate cancer to bisphenol A

(BPA), a common chemical that leaches out of plastic food and drink

containers. The chemical industry releases 6 billion pounds of BPA

each year into products and waste. The new work reveals that small

amounts of BPA can permanently change male animals in the womb, making

it more likely that they will develop prostate cancer later in life.

Prostate cancer has been steadily increasing among human males in

recent decades, tracking the rise in use of BPA.

Uncertainty Surrounds Plans for New Nuclear Reactors

The U.S. nuclear industry is expecting orders soon for a dozen new

nuclear power plants. It's a sweet deal because taxpayers are

subsidizing it with billions of dollars and Uncle Sam is offering

" risk insurance " for this latest military-industial adventure. If

nuclear power were not subsidized, it would fall flat on its face.

Investors reap the benefits, taxpayers bear the costs. Sweet indeed.

A Call to Youth: It's Time to Start Protesting

" The reason that youth aren't protesting about anything, let alone

the war in Iraq, is because there is no longer a serious youth

political culture in this country. And the reason for that is because

this generation does not believe in its ability to alter, or even

slightly disrupt, the status quo. "

Correction: Rachel's News #857 -- Hormone-in-milk Story

Our story last week about Monsanto's hormone-treated milk was

accurate, but the introduction we added to the story was not.

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::

 

Rachel's Democracy & Health News #858, Jun. 8, 2006

[Printer-friendly version]

 

THE CONTEXT OF OUR WORK: SLOW ECONOMIC GROWTH, PART 2

 

By Peter Montague

 

Introduction: We began last week examining the effects of slowed

economic growth on U.S. society. The argument is simple: since 1970,

each decade has brought slower economic growth while at the same time

there is a glut of capital seeking a decent return on investment. More

capital accrues each year; that's what " economic growth " means. Each

year it gets a little harder to find safe places to invest the ever-

growing supply of capital to provide decent returns. As a result,

corporate-governmental policies are increasingly aimed primarily at

helping investors achieve their goals. Don't misunderstand: This is

not about greedy individuals demanding to get rich -- this is about

" system responses " from a complex system that cannot continue

unmodified without a hefty rate of growth because, as the system is

currently set up, the only alternative to substantial growth is

recession or depression. The economy either grows or it stalls and

goes into a decline -- a steady state is not an option. Those who are

doing their best to pump up returns for investors believe that what

they are doing is essential for saving the modern economy, and they

may be right. Unfortunately, on a finite planet, perpetual growth of

material production is impossible to sustain, so the current path is,

without doubt, a dead end. Ecological limits have already begun to

appear.

 

System response No. 14: Relax environmental standards

 

As growth slows, environmental standards are being relaxed on the

assumption that they retard economic growth. This is the main force

driving the current bipartisan move to extinguish all meaningful

environmental regulations, to the extent that any ever really

existed.[26]

 

For reasons that escape me, environmentalists want to see

environmental regulations as a partisan issue. Angry books have been

written about the way the George W. Bush administration has relaxed

environmental standards,[27] so I won't go into it here. But let's not

forget to examine the Clinton/Gore administration's fudging and

waffling on environmental controls in the name of stimulating economic

growth. And let's not forget that it was Republican Richard Nixon who

created the EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).

 

Both Republicans and Democrats have an identical interest in returning

the economy to historical rates of growth, and to the extent that

protecting nature is seem as an impediment to growth, to that extent

regulations to protect nature will be ignored, repudiated,

reinterpreted or placed within the purview of a " regulatory " system

the main purpose of which is to keep the public at bay, give the

appearance that people's concerns are being addressed, and meanwhile

leave corporations free to do what they need to do to make the economy

grow.[28]

 

Most importantly, let's ask ourselves whether the nation's labyrinth

of environmental laws and regulations -- at least 12,000 pages of fine

print in the Federal Register -- is adequate to resolve the problems

it was presumably intended to fix. If we are honest, we will

acknowledge that the regulations are hopelessly inadequate. An

overwhelming body of scientific and medical evidence -- much of it

available to every reader of a daily newspaper -- demonstrates that

damage to nature and human health is steadily increasing.[29] As

Donella Meadows observed shortly before her death, the best that can

be said after 40 years of environmental regulation is that things are

growing worse at a slower rate.

 

System response No. 15: A Social Insecurity Program

 

The cumulative effect of the previous 14 system responses has been to

stabilize and regularize American society by making middle- and

working-class Americans more insecure, and at the same time busier,

each passing year.

 

Insecure people do not start revolutions or even ask too many

questions. They tend to assume that change will be for the worse --

and for at least three decades they have been right. As Eric Hoffer

has observed, " Fear of the future causes us to lean against and cling

to the present... " [30, pg. 19] And: " In a modern society, people can

live without hope only when kept dazed and out of breath by incessant

hustling. " [30, pg. 24] In sum, keeping people insecure and ever-busier

keeps them in line, holds them in thrall.

 

As a result of slow economic growth -- and the 14 system responses

described above -- Americans are working longer hours for the same or

less pay. They are traveling further in worsening traffic to find a

tolerable job. They are borrowing more -- a lot more -- and taking

extra work to pay off their loans. Many are not sure they will have a

job next year; they are not even sure their employer will exist next

year, perhaps the victim of a hostile takeover, perhaps simply moved

to Mexico where labor is cheap and rules are few. For the U.S.

workforce, benefits like health insurance and retirement benefits are

getting scarcer. Overtime pay is under attack. Rollbacks and givebacks

are demanded of the nation's workforce at every turn.

 

We are constantly reminded that food and water are laced with cancer-

causing chemicals, which corporate/governmental risk assessors assure

us are " completely safe " (wink, wink). Everyone knows someone who has

had, or now has, cancer. The cost of college tuition rises each year,

at the same time we are told thriving in the " information age " will

require a college degree. With libraries closing and most schools

overcrowded and many downright dangerous, how will the kids survive in

a world of unbridled competition? It's enough to keep you awake at

night -- which may be the point.

 

In sum, the net result of the past 30 years is a huge increase in

anxiety and insecurity. Perhaps in response, people are turning to

crime[31] or escaping into addictions (drugs, alcohol, TV) and

apocalyptic visions of a divine end to earthly distress. In late 2004,

a Newsweek poll found that one out of every six Americans -- some 51

million people -- now expect the world to end during their

lifetime.[32] Far from being a lunatic fringe, these people now form

the electoral base of the ruling political party in the U.S. If the

country is not run in a way that measures up to their other-worldly

preconceptions, they threaten to turn the Republicans out of office,

and most likely they have the power to do it. In deference to this

contingent, both President Bush and Senator Hillary Clinton are

presently stumping for a Constitutional amendment to outlaw burning

the American flag as a political statement (while retaining the right

of their wealthier, politically-satisfied supporters to blow their

noses on American-flag cocktail napkins or kerchiefs).

 

Everyone knows the system is rigged against the average person. The

people who run the system no longer even try very hard to hide that

fact. The response of most people in the face of widespread corruption

and cronyism is to withdraw into weariness, resignation, cynicism --

and flashes of anger.[31]

 

That anger draws a response because its politically dangerous. There's

now a whole industry devoted to deflecting that anger away from the

Masters of Our Fate and onto " welfare queens " (shorthand for poor

black single mothers and, by extension, all black women); " Willie

Horton " (shorthand for black male criminals, and, by extension, all

black men); physicians who perform abortions; homosexuals; so-called

" liberal elites, " and other scapegoats, now including most recently

Muslims and foreigners, especially those with brown skin. The science

of scapegoating -- which entered world consciousness via the work of

Paul Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's minister of propaganda -- is now a very

highly developed set of techniques. In the U.S. the science of

scapegoating was refined to greatest effect by Lee Atwater, political

advisor to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and by

Atwater's best-known student, Carl Rove, political advisor to

President George W. Bush.[33] The lineage from Goebbels to Rove is

direct and unlikely to be broken because these techniques really do

work.

 

System response No. 16: Divide and Rule

 

As noted above, five percent of the population owns 2/3rds of all

private wealth in the U.S., and the other 95% of the population makes

do by divvying up the remaining one-third of the nation's private

wealth.

 

Naturally this astonishing inequality in wealth gives rise to enormous

disparities in income, quality of life (employment, health, education,

leisure time, and life span), and overall opportunities. Each year

these economic inequalities grow greater as the 5% become a little

wealthier and the 95% a little less so. You can think of the U.S.

economy now as a kind of Rube Goldberg conveyor belt, lifting money

out of the pockets of the middle class and the working poor and moving

it, by circuitous routes, into the pockets of the super rich. Lights

flash, whistles shriek, gizmos pop and spin, gears and belts carry

weights and buckets to and fro -- all highly amusing and distracting,

as all of Rube Goldberg inventions were. But beneath it all runs a

steady conveyor, relentlessly moving money from the have-lesses to the

have-mores. It's not greed; it's the way the system functions in order

to survive.

 

The first thing we might notice here is that, by definition, the super

rich 5% are outnumbered 19 to 1 -- yet each year that tiny minority

manages to retain (and even strengthen) social and economic policies

that keep that conveyor belt chugging along, steadily transferring

rewards upward.

 

Since the 95% could readily outvote the 5%, the only ESSENTIAL

strategy for the 5% is divide and rule. If 54% of the 95% ever got

together, rule by the 5% would end. Indeed, divide and rule, or divide

and conquer, is really the ONLY thing the 5% have going for them. It

is their lifeline, and therefore also their major vulnerability.

 

To maintain the status quo, the 5% must divide the 95% (or convince

them that voting will not change anything and is therefore pointless).

This is the essential function of " social issues " like abortion

rights, gun control, prayer in school, amendments to prohibit flag

burning, women's liberation, " liberal elites, " " pointy-headed

intellectuals " (as former Vice President Spiro Agnew liked to call his

adversaries), the " Eastern establishment, " godless communists, Muslim

evil-doers, bunny huggers, labor bosses, welfare queens, homosexuals

-- name your favorite pariah. The reason your favorite pariah exists

as an " issue " is to keep the pot boiling, to ensnare 48% of the 95%

into voting with the 5% (or staying home on election day), so the 5%

can continue to have their way with us all.

 

The divide-and-rule strategy has a noble lineage. The British

discovered in 1610 that they could divide Ireland and thus finally

bring it under British rule after 250 years of failed effort. King

James I realized that he could split northen Ireland along Protestant-

Catholic lines and thus allow a foreign power to dominate both

Protestants AND Catholics who could never combine forces to confront

their common enemy. It worked like a charm and thus entered the book

of tricks used ever since by the few to rule the many.

 

The Brits went on to use " divide and rule " to subjugate India, Africa,

and the Middle East. By pitting one group of subjects against another

group (offering one group special privileges, for example) and

constantly whipping up ethnic, religious and class or caste

animosities, tiny numbers of Brits were able to dominate enormous

numbers of colonials for 400 years, exacting tribute for the mother

country all the while. The threat of violence by the British military

always lay in the background during these colonial adventures but it

was generally not needed. The Brits used a combination of carrots and

sticks -- plus leadership jealousies, religious fractures, tribal

disputes, regional differences, and cultural animosities -- to get

half a population to help them subjugate the other half. I am reminded

of the strategic advice given by U.S. financier and railroad

businessman, Jay Gould: " I can hire one half of the working class to

kill the other half. "

 

SUMMARY

 

Using nature as a toilet in the name of economic stimulus is not

restricted to one political party or the other -- let us acknowledge

that, to gain election, both parties must feed at the same trough and

therefore serve the same master.

 

Some might say that real campaign finance reform is the only hope for

fixing this. But it goes far deeper than that.

 

Given an economic system that derives investment capital from

investors who have a right to expect a substantial annual return on

investment, and given that such a system requires growth to produce

the return for those investors, and given that environmental harm is

roughly proportional to economic growth, it seems silly and naive to

think that nature can be protected from this ever-growing juggernaut

by a set of rules negotiated between the juggernaut and a central

bureaucracy created by the juggernaut.

 

If I am entitled to a 7% annual return on my investment (or even a 3%

return), that return must come from somewhere without much delay, and

that requires stuff to be dug up or grown, moved, processed, moved

again, packaged, promoted and sold, moved again, used, moved again,

perhaps recycled a few times, and eventually discarded (at which point

nature starts moving it once again, into waterways and food webs). The

second law of thermodynamics tells us that each of these steps will

inevitably be accompanied by waste, disorder and other disruptive

unintended consequences. Environmental regulations are not going to

change any of that, no matter who negotiates them.

 

The pattern of the U.S. regulatory system was designed by business

interests in the early 20th century to serve business interests by

stabilizing and regularizing the social/governmental environment

within which business operates.[28] Environmental regulation followed

that same pattern when it evolved in the 1970s. As Tom Linzey and

Richard Grossman point out, the social purpose of environmental

regulation is not so much to regulate business as it is to restrict

the objections that can be raised by dissenters (whether small

business competitors or angry citizens). Regulation limits and

channels the responses anyone can make to corporate harms and thus

environmental regulations mainly serve to make citizens predictable

and manageable. The same could be said of labor regulations, financial

regulations, and all the other regulatory constraints placed on

business enterprises. The purpose is the regularize and stabilize the

business environment, which means restricting the responses of those

who are (inadvertently or not) harmed, taken advantage of,

shortchanged, cheated or otherwise abused.

 

Real protection of nature and human health will require reforms far

more fundamental than trying to curb the flow of corrupt money into

elections and creating bureaucracies in Washington to try to police

the behavior of corporations that can operate in 120 countries on all

continents simultaneously in outer space if they choose to. The simple

fact is that the owners of capital want decent returns, this requires

economic growth, and they will not be denied their due. Against this

ever-growing juggernaut, regulations are powerless to protect nature

or human health. Harm will be done, and it will be judged justifiable

as the cost of doing business.

 

It is now clear that continued growth is incompatible with the need to

protect the ecosystems on which all humans (and all other creatures)

depend -- so human survival requires that growth must slow and then

stop. In this essay, I have described 16 system responses to a slow-

down in the rate of growth, so this should give us some idea of the

task we face and the intensity of the opposition that will develop if

we proceed down this road. It could easily turn ugly.

 

The global south needs growth (of roads, ports, and power plants) to

give people the basics, and the global north already suffers from too

much growth (and a glut of basics, which is one reason return on

investment has diminished in recent decades). So growth in the north

will need to stop -- or even go negative -- so that growth in the

global south can proceed apace. Many in the investor class are

unlikely to sit idly by as this unfolds, especially if they are made

to feel unwelcome in the global south.

 

Perpetual growth on a finite planet is a logical and physical

impossibility. In recent decades it has become indisputably clear that

an irresistible force (the human-animal need to protect the Earth, its

habitat) has met an immovable object (the need for economic growth to

reward investors so that the modern economic system can survive

unmodified). Let's at least acknowledge that this is the nub of " the

environmental problem " and that the environmental movement hasn't yet

begun to bark up this particular tree.

 

============

 

[26] Richard W. Stevenson, " The 2004 Campaign: The Issues: President

Has Aggressively Pursued 'Pro-Growth' Ideas Nurtured in the Texas Oil

Fields, " New York Times Oct. 8, 2004, pg. A20. And see

http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/

 

[27] For example, Donald C. Lord, Dubya: The Toxic Texan : George W.

Bush and Environmental Degradation (N.Y.: iUniverse, 2005); ISBN

0595351034.

 

[28] Gabriel Kolko, The Triumph of Conservatism; A Reinterpretation of

American History, 1900-1916. NY: The Free Press, 1963, describes the

historical development of the regulatory system as a necessary adjunct

to the growth of corporate influence over the nation's political,

commercial, and cultural life.

 

[29] I have been documenting this since 1986 in Rachel's News

(www.rachel.org).

 

[30] Eric Hoffer, The True Believer; Thoughts on the Nature of Mass

Movements. NY: Harper and Row, 1951. Edition cited here is Mentor

paperback published by New American Library, 1958.

 

[31] Kate Zernike, " Violent Crime Rising Sharply in Some Cities, " New

York Times February 12, 2006, pg. A1, reports, " Milwaukee -- One woman

here killed a friend after they argued over a brown silk dress. A man

killed a neighbor whose 10-year-old son had mistakenly used his dish

soap. Two men argued over a cellphone, and pulling out their guns, the

police say, killed a 13-year-old girl in the crossfire.

 

" While violent crime has been at historic lows nationwide and in

cities like New York, Miami and Los Angeles, it is rising sharply here

and in many other places across the country.

 

" And while such crime in the 1990's was characterized by battles over

gangs and drug turf, the police say the current rise in homicides has

been set off by something more bewildering: petty disputes that hardly

seem the stuff of fistfights, much less gunfire "

 

[32] According to a Newsweek poll, 17 percent of Americans (one in

every six) expect the world to end in their lifetime. Cited in Frank

Rich " Now on DVD: The Passion of the Bush, " New York Times Oct. 3,

2004.

 

[33] In his book, What's the Matter With Kansas (NY: Henry Holt, 2004;

paperback 2005; ISBN 0-8050-7774X), Thomas Frank " reveals how the

political right continues to win elections, despite the fact that its

economic policies hurt the vast majority of ordinary people, by

portraying itself as the defender of mainstream values against a

malevolent cultural elite. The right 'mobilizes voters with explosive

social issues, summoning public outrage which it then marries to pro-

business economic policies. Cultural anger is marshaled to achieve

economic ends. " This is showmanship at its best. Politicians talk

about 'traditional values, " but their true loyalty is to economic

policies intended to primarily benefit the wealthiest 5%: 'Vote to

stop abortion; receive a rollback in capital gains taxes. Vote to

stand tall against terrorists; receive Social Security privatization. "

It may seem far-fetched, but so far it's working. " writes Paul

Krugman, " Kansas on My Mind, " New York Times Feb. 25, 2005.

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::

 

The Nation, Jun. 7, 2006

[Printer-friendly version]

 

CITIZENS 1, CORPORATIONS 0

 

By John Nichols**

 

In states across the country Tuesday, primary elections named

candidates for Congress, governorships and other important offices.

But the most interesting, and perhaps significant, election did not

involve an individual. Rather, it was about an idea.

 

In Northern California's Humboldt County, voters decided by a 55-45

margin that corporations do not have the same rights -- based on the

supposed " personhood " of the combines -- as citizens when it comes to

participating in local political campaigns.

 

Until Tuesday in Humboldt County, corporations were able to claim

citizenship rights, as they do elsewhere in the United States. In the

context of electoral politics, corporations that were not

headquartered in the county took advantage of the same rules that

allowed individuals who are not residents to make campaign

contributions in order to influence local campaigns.

 

But, with the passage of Measure T, an initiative referendum that was

placed on the ballot by Humboldt County residents, voters have

signaled that they want out-of-town corporations barred from meddling

in local elections.

 

Measure T was backed by the county's Green and Democratic parties, as

well as labor unions and many elected officials in a region where

politics are so progressive that the Greens -- whose 2004 presidential

candidate, David Cobb, is a resident of the county and a active

promotor of the challenges to corporate power mounted by Democracy

Unlimited of Humboldt County and the national Liberty Tree Foundation

-- are a major force in local politics.

 

The " Yes on T " campaign was rooted in regard for the American

experiment, from its slogan " Vote Yes for Local Control of Our

Democracy, " to the references to Tuesday's election as a modern-day

" Boston Tea Party, " to the quote from Thomas Jefferson that was

highlighted in election materials: " I hope we shall crush in its birth

the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to

challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to

the laws of our country. "

 

Just as Jefferson and his contemporaries were angered by dominance of

the affairs of the American colonies by King George III and the

British business combines that exploited the natural and human

resources of what would become the United States, so Humboldt County

residents were angered by the attempts of outside corporate interests

to dominate local politics.

 

Wal-Mart spent $250,000 on a 1999 attempt to change the city of

Eureka's zoning laws in order to clear the way for one of the retail

giant's big-box stores. Five years later, MAXXAM Inc., a forest

products company, got upset with the efforts of local District

Attorney Paul Gallegos to enforce regulations on its operations in the

county and spent $300,000 on a faked-up campaign to recall him from

office. The same year saw outside corporations that were interested in

exploiting the county's abundant natural resources meddling in its

local election campaigns.

 

That was the last straw for a lot of Humboldt County residents. They

organized to put Measure T on the ballot, declaring, " Our Founding

Fathers never intended corporations to have this kind of power. "

 

" Every person has the right to sign petition recalls and to contribute

money to political campaigns. Measure T will not affect these

individual rights, " explained Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, a resident of

Eureka who was one of the leaders of the Yes on T campaign. " But

individuals hold these political rights by virtue of their status as

humans in a democracy and, simply put, a corporation is not a person. "

 

Despite the logic of that assessment, the electoral battle in Humboldt

County was a heated one, and Measure T's passage will not end it. Now,

the corporate campaign will move to the courts. So this is only a

start. But what a monumental start it is!

 

Sopoci-Belknap was absolutely right when she portrayed Tuesday's vote

as nothing less than the beginning of " the process of reclaiming our

county " from the " tyranny " of concentrated economic and political

power.

 

Surely Tom Paine would have agreed. It was Paine who suggested to the

revolutionaries of 1776, as they dared challenge the most powerful

empire on the planet, that: " We have it in our power to begin the

world over again. A situation similar to the present hath not happened

since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of the new world is at

hand, and a race of men, perhaps as numerous as all Europe contains,

are to receive their portion of freedom from the events of a few

months. "

 

It is time to renew the American experiment, to rebuild its battered

institutions on the solid foundation of empowered citizens and

regulated corporations. Let us hope that the spirit of '76 prevailed

Tuesday in Humboldt County will spread until that day when American

democracy is guided by the will of the people rather than the campaign

contribution checks of the corporations that are the rampaging

" empires " of our age.

 

** John Nichols is the Washington Correspondent for The Nation.

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::

 

Environmental Policy Alert, Jun. 7, 2006

[Printer-friendly version]

 

ACTIVISTS URGE EPA TO DRAFT NANOTECH RULE TO COUNTER INDUSTRY VIEWS

 

A key environmental group, Environmental Defense (ED), is calling on

EPA to issue guidance and possibly initiate a rulemaking regulating

nanomaterials as new chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act

(TSCA) in an effort targeting recent chemical industry arguments that

the agency lacks authority under the toxics law to regulate the

materials.

 

The group sent a letter May 22 to EPA's general counsel arguing that

engineered nanomaterials are " new " substances under TSCA, which would

mean industry would have to submit information to the agency in a pre-

manufacture notice (PMN) on the makeup of a nanomaterial. Such an

application can slow the process of bringing a product to market, but

allows EPA to review and assess the potential for risks from a new

material and allows the agency to limit use of, and exposure to, the

material. Relevant documents are available on InsideEPA.com.

 

The dispute suggests a breakdown in joint efforts by the group and the

American Chemistry Council (ACC) to develop consensus policies on

nanomaterials. But ED and DuPont officials are still working on a

joint nanotech policy process, sources say.

 

Nanotechnology is an emerging technology that is expected to have

widespread uses in industry, medicine and consumer products. But

activists are concerned about the potential risks to the environment

and human health, and industry officials have called for a regulatory

framework to limit future liabilities posed by nanomaterials. The

unique makeup of the materials, however, poses challenges to EPA in

determining how to regulate the technology and whether current

statutes and regulations can adequately apply to nanomaterials.

 

EPA's general counsel is expected to release later this year a

guidance on the scope of EPA's authority under TSCA to regulate

nanomaterials and what materials require PMNs. EPA sources were

unavailable for comment.

 

ACC and ED issued a joint statement last year at an EPA-convened

public meeting on nanotechnology in which the two organizations

outlined common principles for developing policies for the emerging

technology. The statement called for, among other things, increased

government investment in research on nanotechnology; development of

international standardized testing protocols; regulation of

nanomaterials in a " transparent process " that will minimize risks to

human health and the environment; and a " multi-stakeholder dialogue "

that will " assure the development of an effective program for

nanoscale materials. "

 

But last March, ACC's Nanotechnology Panel sent a document to EPA

arguing that the definition of a " chemical substance " under TSCA

limits the information EPA can seek on a chemical's makeup. This would

minimize the volume of PMNs industry may have to submit before brining

a nanotechnology product to market.

 

In its response to ACC's document, ED argues that it is " entirely

consistent with both the language of TSCA and EPA's own regulations

and practice to designate engineered nanomaterials as 'new' substances

under TSCA and thus subject to PMN review, even where a material has a

chemical structure that is identical to a substance already included

on the [TSCA] Inventory, unless the nanomaterial's chemical and

physical properties are demonstrably identical to an existing

conventional substance with the same chemical structure. "

 

The letter also argues that EPA can consider a broad range of

information when it defines a " chemical substance " under TSCA,

refuting a number of statements the ACC panel makes. The

environmentalists point to a number of longstanding agency practices

under which it considers factors beyond the basic chemical structure

to define a substance.

 

" In short, EPA can and routinely does consider factors beyond chemical

structure in order to define a chemical substance, and it does so in

particular when chemical structure alone is insufficient, " the letter

says. " Engineered nanomaterials are perfect examples of such chemical

substances: Their enhanced or novel properties, which in many cases

are a direct function of the means by which they are produced, are

what make them new, giving them their own molecular identify and

distinguishing them from existing chemical substances possessing the

same molecular structure. To ignore such factors would be to ignore

the very nano-ness of engineered nanomaterials. "

 

Meanwhile, ED and DuPont in recent weeks have been seeking verbal

comment from scientists, industry and others on how to move forward

with a framework for the development, production, use and disposal of

nanomaterials that " identifies, manages and reduces potential risks

across all lifecycle phases. "

 

The framework, which was first outlined last year, hopes to identify

potential hazards; assess the potential for exposure to such

materials; demonstrate the application of the framework on at least

one nanotechnology product; apply the framework to all of Dupont's

involvement in nanotechnology; and promote the principles of the

framework so that it will adopted broadly by government, industry,

public interest groups and others.

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::

 

Los Angeles Times, Jun. 1, 2006

[Printer-friendly version]

 

CHEMICAL IN PLASTICS IS TIED TO PROSTATE CANCER

 

Bisphenol A, found in baby bottles and microwave cookware, permanently

altered genes in newborn lab rats, a study finds.

 

By Marla Cone

 

Linking prostate cancer to a widespread industrial compound,

scientists have found that exposure to a chemical that leaks from

plastic causes genetic changes in animals' developing prostate glands

that are precursors of the most common form of cancer in males.

 

The chemical, bisphenol A, or BPA, is used in the manufacture of hard,

polycarbonate plastic for baby bottles, microwave cookware and other

consumer goods, and it has been detected in nearly every human body

tested.

 

Scientists and health experts have theorized for more than a decade

that chemicals in the environment and in consumer products mimic

estrogens and may be contributing to male and female reproductive

diseases, particularly prostate cancer.

 

The new study of laboratory rats suggests that prostate cancer, which

usually strikes men over 50, may develop when BPA and other estrogen-

like, man-made chemicals pass through a pregnant woman's womb and

alter the genes of a growing prostate in the fetus. One in every six

men develops prostate cancer, a rate that has increased over the last

30 years.

 

Researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the

University of Cincinnati exposed newborn rats to low doses of BPA and

found the structure of genes in their prostate cells was permanently

altered, a process of reprogramming in early life that promotes cancer

in adulthood. One key gene was switched on, producing too much of a

cell-damaging enzyme that has been detected in cancerous prostate

cells but not normal cells.

 

Also, as the rats aged, they were more likely than unexposed animals

to develop precancerous lesions, or cellular damage, in the prostate

that have been known for years to lead to prostate cancer in humans.

" The present findings provide the first evidence of a direct link

between developmental low-dose bisphenol A... and carcinogenesis of

the prostate gland, " according to the researchers. Results from the

team, led by Gail S. Prins, associate professor of andrology at the

University of Illinois at Chicago, and Shuk-mei Ho, chair of

environmental health at the University of Cincinnati, are reported

today in the journal Cancer Research.

 

Exposure to the chemical " may provide a fetal basis for this adult

disease " in humans, the report said.

 

Dr. Rebecca Sokol, a USC medical school professor who specializes in

male hormone research, called the study " cutting-edge. " She said it

added to a growing body of research, called epigenetics, that

suggested environmental chemicals could alter how DNA sequences turned

on and off in a fetus, permanently imprinting the genes of a child and

sensitizing him or her to disease in adulthood.

 

Such findings could have major implications for human disease and

could, in part, explain why the prostate cancer rate has surged. BPA,

used for about half a century, is a key building block in the

manufacture of polycarbonate plastic and ranks among the world's most

widely used industrial chemicals.

 

Prins, Ho and other researchers cautioned that the study was conducted

on rats, which sometimes reacted differently to chemicals than humans

did. Replicating the work in humans is virtually impossible because 50

or more years usually pass from exposure in the womb to the onset of

prostate cancer.

 

" You can't say from the results of this study that this is going to

affect humans, " Sokol said. But she said the results were in line with

previous animal research that showed chemicals could induce genetic

changes that altered sperm and other reproductive functions. The

prostate gland, which develops in human males when they are fetuses,

is extremely sensitive to natural estrogen. As a result, scientists

have long theorized that prostate cancer could be increasing in men

because of their exposure to estrogen-like chemicals in the womb.

 

Unlike carcinogenic chemicals that can cause profound damage to DNA,

BPA seems to inflict subtle changes that are passed from one

generation to the next, Sokol said.

 

" The big focus today is whether or not environmental toxicants will

induce heritable changes in gene function.... In other words, is there

something that happens to alter genes without actually altering the

genetic code? " asked Sokol, who studies the effects of chemicals on

sperm. " This [new study] is cutting-edge research in this field and

the role that environmental toxicants may play in altering the

genetics of exposed offspring. "

 

Steve Hentges, a representative of the American Plastics Council,

called it " fascinating research, a good piece of research " that should

be studied further. But he said the " real question is what does this

mean for human health, " because there are too many limitations in the

study for it to apply to humans.

 

" No one has actually observed prostate cancer after any treatment with

BPA, " he said.

 

The study's authors said the animals developed the precancerous

lesions and genetic changes when exposed to low concentrations of the

chemical similar to the amounts found in human blood and fetuses. But

Hentges said the rats were injected with doses 100 to 1,000 times

higher than the most recent human testing done by federal officials in

2004.

 

In recent years, evidence has been building that BPA causes changes in

the hormones and reproductive tracts of male and female animals. Lower

sperm counts, decreased testosterone and enlarged prostates were

reported in male animals, and early puberty and disrupted hormonal

cycles in female animals.

 

Of more than 100 studies that examined low doses of the chemical, 94

funded by government agencies found harmful effects in lab animals,

and 11 funded by industry reported no effects, according to a 2005

review by Frederick vom Saal of the University of Missouri.

Polycarbonate, which cannot be manufactured without BPA, is a clear

and shatter-free plastic. In addition to beverage bottles, utensils

and food packaging, it is used in automobiles, medical equipment and

compact discs.

 

Small amounts of the chemical can leach from plastic containers,

especially when heated, cleaned with harsh detergents or exposed to

acidic foods or drinks. It also is used in children's dental sealants

and as a resin lining metal food cans.

 

Last year, the California Legislature considered a bill, introduced by

Assemblywoman Wilma Chan (D-Oakland), that would have banned

children's products that contained BPA or other plastic compounds

called phthalates. It died in an Assembly committee after sparking a

scientific debate and intense lobbying by the plastics industry.

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::

 

New York Times, Jun. 4, 2006

[Printer-friendly version]

 

UNCERTAINTY SURROUNDS PLANS FOR NEW NUCLEAR REACTORS

 

By Matthew L. Wald

 

WASHINGTON, June 3 -- The nuclear industry is poised to receive the

first new orders for reactors in three decades, but what remains

unclear is whether the smartest buyers will be those at the head of

the line or a little farther back.

 

The industry expects orders for a dozen or so new reactors. Since the

last completed order was placed in 1973, much has changed. There are

new designs, a new licensing system, new federal financial incentives,

new costs and new risks, and no one is sure how the changes will play

out as orders, or requests to build, are filed.

 

For example, the federal government is offering " risk insurance " for

the first six reactors, to protect builders against bureaucratic

delays, with the biggest share of the insurance going to the first

two. Loan guarantees are also possible, but probably only for the

first few plants.

 

Manufacturers have design costs that they will probably try to recoup

from the first few reactors sold, increasing the cost. And no one

seems eager to be the first to try out a radically different licensing

system.

 

Substantial questions remain about the predictability of the

regulatory process, said James R. Curtiss, a former member of the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission who is a lawyer at Winston & Strawn. The

firm recently helped with an application for a license for a new

uranium enrichment plant in New Mexico.

 

Long delays occurred, Mr. Curtiss said, as new issues were argued

before a three-judge administrative law panel and then went to the

five-member commission for a ruling. Licensing a second plant will go

much more smoothly, he said.

 

Progress Energy, a utility based in Raleigh, N.C., has preliminary

plans for four new reactors, and it could be the first to announce

that it is applying for a license.

 

But Keith Poston, a spokesman, said, " One can imagine the benefits of

not being first, and watching and learning from others. "

 

The industry itself has taken steps to lower the stakes.

 

For example, the energy bill created a production tax credit, a per-

kilowatt-hour benefit, for the first 6,000 megawatts of new capacity,

which would represent about five new reactors if applied on a first-

come-first-served basis.

 

The total value is about $1 billion over eight years. But the industry

persuaded the Bush administration to spread the credit around, so it

will be shared by all the plants that are announced by the end of 2008

and have construction under way by 2014, reducing the value of being

first in line.

 

Michael J. Wallace, the executive vice president at Constellation

Energy, which is also contemplating a new reactor, said the industry's

effort to spread the tax credit was intentional.

 

" This is not a race, " he said.

 

" If I end up being the first, I'm quite comfortable with that, " Mr.

Wallace said, because the incentives would offset the extra risks. " If

I'm third, I'm comfortable, because there is less incentive, but two

guys will be two or three years in front of me. "

 

The first buyer may get concessions from reactor vendors, who are

eager to end a 33-year drought and position themselves for a big slice

of the new market, which industry backers hope will include more than

a dozen reactors in the next few years.

 

But opponents of new plants predict doom for any company that tries to

build a reactor, with the first likely to draw the most opposition.

 

" It's like volunteering for an experiment, " said Paul Gunter, a

nuclear reactor expert at the Nuclear Information and Resource

Service, an antinuclear group. " These first experimenters carry a lot

of risk. "

 

One, Mr. Gunter said, is getting negative credit reviews from the bond

rating agencies.

 

Curt L. Hebert Jr., a former chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission who is now an executive vice president of Entergy, a

potential builder, sized it up the other way. " I think the financial

incentives and governmental guarantees certainly outweigh the risk, "

Mr. Hebert said. " As we look at this, we see there being more risk in

being third or fourth than being first or second. "

 

For all the companies, the biggest factor is the estimate of future

electricity requirements, executives say. Next is the cost of

competing technologies: the price of natural gas, as well as the price

of coal, which is cheap but requires expensive pollution controls.

 

Speaking of the various kinds of aid offered in last year's energy

bill, Mr. Poston said, " We would pursue incentives because they would

be beneficial to customers and lower the project cost. " That leaves

open, however, whether going first is the lowest-cost option.

 

While the risk and cost of some factors can be calculated, there are

nonfinancial considerations as well, said Richard J. Myers, executive

director of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade

association. " It reflects the C.E.O.'s personality, " he said. " Some

corporations want to be the pioneer, want to be the first one out

there. They earn a footnote in the history books by doing so. "

 

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::

 

International Herald Tribune, May 31, 2006

[Printer-friendly version]

 

MEANWHILE: WHERE HAVE ALL THE PROTESTERS GONE?

 

By Sam Graham-Felsen

 

NEW YORK The greatest disappointment of my generation has been its

failure to truly stand up to the Bush administration -- and

particularly, its refusal to actively oppose the war in Iraq.

 

We are the youth who are living through what will perhaps be

remembered as the most scandal-plagued, secretive, privacy-invading,

rights-infringing, incompetent administration in American history -

and we have barely made a peep.

 

How is it possible, that during a time of unprecedented promise for

youth mobilization that this generation has remained so silent, so

acquiescent?

 

Many point to the lack of personal threat; there is, as of now, no

draft to frighten us into action. Others suggest that the pressures of

an unstable and uncertain economy have caused my generation to look

inwards, focusing on creating a solid economic future for themselves

rather than dilly-dally with Utopian visions.

 

All of these explanations have merit, but I want to offer an

alternative hypothesis. The reason that youth aren't protesting about

anything, let alone the war in Iraq, is because there is no longer a

serious youth political culture in this country. And the reason for

that is because this generation does not believe in its ability to

alter, or even slightly disrupt, the status quo.

 

Community service and volunteering is at an all-time high, so young

people do, in fact, care. But this generational shift from activism to

volunteerism reflects our lack of faith in our ability to affect broad

social change.

 

We were force-fed the ideology that there is no alternative to the

existing model of neoliberalism and corporate-controlled

globalization. If we tried to suggest that we could play a role in

molding our own destinies, we were laughed at. What's best for

business is what's best for the world, we were told, and if you

disagree with the bosses, too bad, because no one's going to listen.

 

All you can do is face this cold reality, get a good job, and try to

keep as warm as possible within the confines of your isolated,

insulated home.

 

Idealism died in this country because the doctrine of " There Is No

Alternative " killed it. We don't dream of utopia anymore. So it's no

wonder that our parents, not us, are showing up to protest the war in

Iraq. They believe in the power of social movements because they saw

the civil rights movement and the anti-Vietnam War movement shape

history before their very eyes.

 

I grew up with the belief that the only people who had real power were

CEOs. When you grow up in an age of tax cuts for corporate bosses and

slashed social programs, this is what happens.

 

But we are not asleep. We realize, plainly, that we're inheriting a

profoundly precarious world. We know our economy is on the verge of

collapse, that the climate crisis will soon leave our cities under

water, that nuclear weapons will soon find themselves in the hands of

willing detonators.

 

We know that the current course is unacceptable. We know that the

future they want to hand us is far from what we want. And we are

finally beginning to channel this anxiety into action.

 

This month, in one of the most significant moment of youth opposition

to the war yet, New School undergraduate Sara Jean Rohe boldly

challenged commencement speaker and uber-hawk John McCain. " I am

young, " Rohe stated after scrapping her original speech, " and although

I don't profess to possess the wisdom that time affords us, I do know

that pre-emptive war is dangerous and wrong, that George Bush's agenda

in Iraq is not worth the many lives lost. " Her speech created a buzz

on the blogosphere and Internet news sites, where those of us who do

follow the news read it.

 

Because the war in Iraq embodies nearly every problematic aspect of

the " There Is No Alternative " doctrine, it is the natural starting

point for a youth social movement in this country.

 

If America's young are ever going to shape their own futures, they

must first help put an end to this costly, bloody, directionless war.

 

And if millions of young people take to the streets -- as they have in

other countries, and as they have in the past in this country -

policies will change, the status quo will shift, and young people will

once again believe in their own power.

 

Sam Graham-Felsen writes about youth and campus politics for The

Nation.

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::

 

Rachel's Democracy & Health News #858, Jun. 8, 2006

[Printer-friendly version]

 

CORRECTION: RACHEL'S NEWS #857 -- HORMONE-IN-MILK STORY

 

Last week in our introduction to the story linking Monsanto's milk

additive, bovine growth hormone (rBGH, also known as rBST), to a

five-fold increases in the chances of a woman giving birth to twins,

we mischaractertized the study described in the story. The story that

we ran was accurate, but our introduction to the story erroneously

stated that the study being reported compared women drinking Monsanto-

treated milk against women drinking normal milk. In fact the study

compared women drinking Monsanto-treated milk against women drinking

no milk.

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::::::::::::::

 

Rachel's Democracy & Health News (formerly Rachel's Environment &

Health News) highlights the connections between issues that are

often considered separately or not at all.

 

The natural world is deteriorating and human health is declining

because those who make the important decisions aren't the ones who

bear the brunt. Our purpose is to connect the dots between human

health, the destruction of nature, the decline of community, the

rise of economic insecurity and inequalities, growing stress among

workers and families, and the crippling legacies of patriarchy,

intolerance, and racial injustice that allow us to be divided and

therefore ruled by the few.

 

In a democracy, there are no more fundamental questions than, " Who

gets to decide? " And, " How do the few control the many, and what

might be done about it? "

 

As you come across stories that might help people connect the dots,

please Email them to us at dhn.

 

Rachel's Democracy & Health News is published as often as

necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the

subject.

 

Editors:

Peter Montague - peter

Tim Montague - tim

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::::::::::::::

 

To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Democracy

& Health News send a blank Email to: join-rachel.

 

In response, you will receive an Email asking you to confirm that

you want to .

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::::::::::::::

 

Environmental Research Foundation

P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, N.J. 08903

dhn

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::::::::::::::