Rachel's Precaution Reporter #104
Wednesday, August 22, 2007

From: North Shore Times (New South Wales, Australia) ......[This story printer-friendly]
August 17, 2007

COUNCIL TELLS FISH TO 'GLO AWAY'

[Rachel's introduction: The Willoughby municipal council in New South Wales, Australia has voted against allowing the glofish to be sold in its local government area because the idea was "frivolous and against precautionary principle."]

By Katrina Adamski

Imagine taking one of these glofish home to join your regular coloured fishy friends.

Would the genetically-engineered glofish be an outcast? And just wait until you see its party trick an inserted gene produces a protein that makes them fluorescent.

But don't hold your breath waiting for them to appear in pet shops in Willoughby. On Monday the council voted against allowing the glofish in its local government area because the idea was "frivolous and against precautionary principle."

Councillors instead voted for staff to prepare a draft policy to guide the council in future issues relating to genetic engineering.

They were responding to a letter from the Commonwealth Government Office of Gene Technology, seeking their position on releasing the glofish to the public.

The fish, produced by Yorktown Technologies in America, is a small aquarium fish with an inserted gene from coral or anemones.

Councillor Tony Mustaca said he was angered when he heard about the brightly-coloured fish.

"I am against artificially creating things and I believe we should have respect for all life forms," Cr [Councillor] Mustaca said.

"Creating new organisms can get out of hand and it is pushing the evolution process too far I believe the risks outweigh the benefits."

Mayor Pat Reilly voted in favour of drafting new policy to prevent council being "inundated with even stranger requests."

"There are concerns about the glofish we will have to look into," Cr Reilly said. "But as a person who has been genetically modified myself (a liver transplant), I realise that science can bring about a continuance of life.

"I acknowledge it is a different issue, but there is someone else's genes in me and that is the way I look at it." homesite.com.au

Copyright 2005-2006 Cumberland Newspaper Group

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

From: ANU (Australian National University) Reporter .......[This story printer-friendly]
August 17, 2007

MAKING THE MOST OF SMALL DOSES

[Rachel's introduction: "Those of us familiar with the precautionary principle feel cautious about this," says Dr Tom Faunce. "We don't want to be naysayers and doomsayers and unnecessarily raise public concern, but there is a certain amount of concern that industry is pushing things ahead too rapidly."]

Take a quick glance down Dr Tom Faunce's CV and the phrase Renaissance man is likely to spring to mind. How could it not? He's worked as a judge's associate to a High Court Justice, as a barrister and as a senior registrar in an intensive care unit. His expertise in law and medicine is also buttressed by a love of history, humanist philosophy and art. The culture of the Renaissance and its antecedents, as it happens, must also permeate his home life, given his wife's career as a professor in medieval art.

Yet instead of viewing these fields as independent travellers, Faunce aims to get law, medicine and ethics walking together on a common path. The title of his prize-winning PhD thesis referred to the trio as fellow pilgrims, drawing on humanist values to inform medicine and human rights law. Faunce is a joint lecturer in law and medicine at ANU, but such appointments haven't limited his movements to the lecture hall and the lab. He's organised groups of his medical students on field trips to the National Gallery of Australia because looking at paintings, he argues, is an excellent way to awaken humanist sensibilities.

"It helps to generate conscience," Faunce says. "Once you've got conscience generated, it's easy to achieve coherence between ethics, law and human rights. Part of the way I teach is to say that conscience, ethics and international human rights are calibration systems of the law. Then if students decide that the law is unjust, that gives them an opportunity to debate it."

Just as he advocates a certain fluidity between different fields of expertise, Faunce also manages a fluidity of scale in his research interests. He's currently leading two projects funded by the Australian Research Council (ARC). One is concerned with a major document that spans nations -- the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between Australia and the US. The other is narrowing in on miniscule technologies in medicine -- nanotechnology.

"I was awarded an ARC grant in 2004 to look at the impact of international trade agreements on medicines policy in Australia. I interviewed almost all the pharmaceutical companies in Australia and most of the members of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. I came to the conclusion that the FTA with the US had altered the regulatory environment so that there was an advantage for companies that could promote themselves as 'innovative'.

"While a lot of that research was designed to protect the role of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme's cost effectiveness system as a social equaliser -- one of the important components of egalitarianism in Australian health policy -- I also felt that I wanted to look ahead as to how we might take advantage of the trade deal, rather than just being defensive about it."

Thinking about how the FTA could best serve Australia's interests, Faunce became fascinated by the agreement's treatment of the word 'innovation'. In what sense was this four-syllable noun being used? How was it to be interpreted? But before he started to grapple with these questions, he decided to take the word at face value. After all, there was an emerging field in which Australian innovations could make a big splash on the world stage.

Faunce became aware of nanotechnology while helping to promote the case of Richard White, an industrial sandblaster who'd contracted silicosis because of exposure to toxic dust in the workplace. The plight of silicosis sufferers was the subject of a Senate inquiry in May 2006. Faunce says this was his first real exposure to the world of nanoparticles, those tiny bits of matter that exist on a scale almost beyond human comprehension. One nanometre is one billionth of a metre, so many tens of millions of the things would easily fit on the full stop at the end of this sentence. Just as they can be present in industrial by-products, such as toxic dust, nanoparticles can also be engineered into miniscule machines and structures for medical purposes. While talking to the pharmaceutical companies for his ARC project, Faunce became aware of new developments in nanomedicines. One example is a patch that, when applied to the skin, would deliver thousands of small doses of a medicine. Such a device would reduce the need for syringes, earning the approval of the squeamish. By capitalising on developments such as this, Faunce believes Australia could propel itself to the forefront of the international nanomedicine market.

But wait a minute. Is it a good idea to let armies of diminutive devices go traipsing around inside our bodies? Given how close the world of nano is to the quantum level, how are we to deal with the inherent uncertainties of anything so small? What if the medicines turn against us or escape into the environment? In a recent paper for the Medical Journal of Australia, Faunce struck a note of caution. It would be wise to proceed carefully, he advised, "given the novelty and variety of products, high mobility and reactivity of engineered nanoparticles, and blurring of the diagnostic and therapeutic classifications of 'medicines' and 'medical devices'."

"Those of us familiar with the precautionary principle feel cautious about this," he says. "We don't want to be naysayers and doomsayers and unnecessarily raise public concern, but there is a certain amount of concern that industry is pushing things ahead too rapidly."

Such concerns are being given a good airing by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), the Federal body that oversees pharmaceutical regulation in Australia. Faunce says the TGA is tending towards the approach taken in the US, where the Federal Drug Administration adapts existing regulatory processes to deal with nanomedicines. The argument runs something like this: we've been dealing with substances with nano components for some time, therefore the existing regulatory frameworks are sufficient.

"On that basis they approved the use of nanoparticles in sunscreens, saying they couldn't get beneath the dead outer layers of skin. But what about kids with cuts, people with hairy or damaged skin, or skin diseases like psoriasis? We know that nanoparticles preferentially accumulate in the mitochondria, release free radicals and cause DNA damage."

But Faunce argues that it would be wrong to simply look at the safety risks of nanotechnology in isolation. "We should look at cost- effectiveness as well. These new products are perhaps technically innovative, but they're definitely going to be more expensive. Take a plastic cannula, used to administer intravenous fluids, which may cost you 25 cents. If you coat it with nanoparticles to make it less likely that it's going to cause infection, that might be a great boon, but it's going to be a lot more expensive. Something that was 25 cents is now going to cost you five or ten dollars. Who's going to pay?"

In some ways, whether or not nanomedicines are safe and cost-effective is less of a concern to Faunce than another question -- how can Australian industries working in nanomedicine take advantage of the changed regulatory architecture coming out of agreements like the FTA? Back to that word 'innovation'.

It's possible to think of the FTA between Australia and the US as a skyscraper, where the individual sections on topics like agriculture, customs and telecommunications would be the various floors of the tower. The subsections and clauses within those topics would make up the hallways, walls and partitions. Take the elevator to the second floor, forebodingly titled 'National Treatment and Market Access for Goods', and wander down the hall, past the sections and schedules. Way down the back, you'd eventually stumble on an unassuming room, labelled Annex 2C. This small space might seem inconsequential viewed in the context of the multi-levelled artifice. But Faunce believes this veritable broom cupboard is much more important to Australia's medical industry than one might suspect. In such a free trade agreement, an annex allows an obligation to be imposed on one of the parties -- in this case, mostly Australia. Annex 2C.1 requires that drug regulatory processes have greater recognition for 'innovation'.

"What does recognition of innovation in medicine mean? Because it's not defined, it can mean whatever industry claims it means," Faunce says. "In the US, innovation is primarily an industry lobbying principle for deregulation and markets called 'free', but really controlled by those corporations powerfully able to enforce monopolies and organise collusion towards a fiduciary agenda to enhance profits with only peripheral interest in broader social values. Organisations will label their own products and processes as 'innovative' in order to pressure government officials and elected representatives into creating favourable regulatory environments for pharmaceutical producers, possibly to the detriment of consumers. Such a process hasn't been sufficiently tested by democratic processes to become a major driver for health policy in this country.

"Even though innovation is not defined in the trade deal, Annex 2C.1 of the Australia-US FTA does mention two approaches. One is the US approach, where you determine innovation just by the operation of competitive markets. If you use that approach in Australia, the implication would be that you'd have to have much stronger involvement of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in the pharmaceutical industry to make sure it was actually competitive.

"The Australian approach to defining innovation is to use objectively demonstrated therapeutic significance, which means published research scrutinised by experts. If we are going to encourage an innovative industry, maybe arguing that the Australian definition of innovation is the way to go because it creates a much fairer playing field. The US model would always place us at a disadvantage, because the US market is so much bigger. But the Australian model means that measuring innovation is really just a question of asking: how good is our science?"

In order for Australia to take advantage of the FTA, Faunce says the government must put enough effort into creating good science and good published research.

"This is what concerns me most about the new Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme changes. They seem to be acquiescing to a US agenda to gradually dismantle reference pricing and not to adequately focus on linking our own generic and biotech pharmaceutical sector to the education revolution in our universities. We have to have systematic process of industry renewal, to make sure that industry has the right sort of depreciation rates, taxation breaks, the right facilitation of research clusters, and the right encouragements to attract and encourage high-level staff. All of these things need to be put in place and I'm not sure if enough attention has been paid to this.

"It would be a shame if we saw Australian start-up companies bought out by larger overseas players and we really never had major industry development here. It's not just the question of industry development in Australia for its own sake, because we're nationalistic or something, but because the Australian regulatory system is a really good model for the rest of the world. We have a balance between public goods and innovation in our regulatory processes that really needs to be strengthened and preserved."

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

From: Warrnambool Standard (Victoria, Australia) ..........[This story printer-friendly]
August 17, 2007

DEVELOPER BLASTS COUNCIL

[Rachel's introduction: "The divisive issue is the introduction of new planning controls that apply a 'precautionary principle' to development outside the city centre. Brought in for two years, the measure restricts larger shops setting up in the city's east, effectively stifling Gateway's planned development."]

By Shane Fowles

The Warrnambool City Council has been accused of reneging on an agreed Gateway Plaza expansion that has cost developers about $8 million.

AMP Capital Investors (AMPCI) said the council had done a backflip on a land deal under which the company helped fund a $1.75 million council road project.

The company will meet with the council later this month to discuss the backdown prompted by Warrnambool's draft retail strategy.

All legal avenues are being kept open ahead of the high-level talks.

The revelations followed the firm's warning that its $60 million plan to bring Big W and Safeway to the plaza was seriously threatened by the retail strategy.

In the agreement, AMPCI paid half the cost of Gateway Road and ceded some of its land to the council.

In return, AMPCI agreed to rezone a 5100-square-metre block to allow retail development.

The land is essential to facilitate the $60 million plans to set up Big W and Safeway in the enlarged plaza.

That deal was struck in January after 18 months of negotiations.

When roadworks began in April, the council even cited the area's significant expansion in needing the upgrade.

Now, before the north-south route has even been built, the council has been accused of breaking its end of the bargain.

Having spent millions of dollars and years preparing for its major expansion, AMPCI is seething.

"The removal of those development rights via the imposition of interim planning controls... is unprecedented," its response to the council's strategy said.

"Such a radical departure from established council policy undermines investor confidence.

"That is an issue which AMPCI will be addressing appropriately beyond this response."

The divisive issue is the introduction of new planning controls that apply a "precautionary principle" to development outside the city centre.

Brought in for two years, the measure restricts larger shops setting up in the city's east, effectively stifling Gateway's planned development.

AMPCI claims it had no reason to foresee the eastern precinct development freeze which was imposed without warning.

Having been in talks for five years, the council never raised any concerns about AMPCI's expansion strategy or its purchase of additional land.

It was also fully aware that it needed a further 6000 square metres to facilitate its vision, AMPCI said.

The company now fears the investment and 1700 jobs will be forced into the hands of another south-west city because of planning mismanagement.

The city's chief executive officer, Lindsay Merritt, has previously said the next major anchor store's location would have a profound impact on the future of the city.

The council has long argued that the CBD is the city's primary retail area and its standing should be protected. Mr Merritt did not return calls to The Standard yesterday.

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

From: 940Montreal.com .....................................[This story printer-friendly]
August 20, 2007

ONTARIO HEALTH COALITION CALLS FOR PRECAUTION ON CARCINOGENS

[Rachel's introduction: "Pesticides, cosmetics, industrial cleaners and other products containing potentially toxic chemicals should face tougher scrutiny and regulation, said a coalition consisting of Cancer Care Ontario, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Ontario Medical Association and others."]

TORONTO (CP) -- A coalition of health groups challenged the Ontario government Monday to become the first jurisdiction in Canada to aggressively target environmental carcinogens that they say will continue to kill tens of thousands if politicians fail to act.

Pesticides, cosmetics, industrial cleaners and other products containing potentially toxic chemicals should face tougher scrutiny and regulation, said a coalition consisting of Cancer Care Ontario, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Ontario Medical Association and others.

The group's report also said manufacturers should be encouraged to switch to alternatives that are less or not-at-all toxic.

Ontario lacks a strategy to reduce the poisons in our air and food and revamping the system to be more progressive could cause a ripple effect in other provinces, said Sarah Miller of the Canadian Environmental Law Association, one of the groups involved.

"I think public opinion surveys demonstrate again and again that people are very concerned about the environment," said Miller. "They want more choices, and the right to know about what they're being exposed to."

Toxins listed by the coalition include tobacco smoke, pesticides, industrial soot and tar, asbestos, and exhaust. Even products found in barbershops and hair salons are included.

The coalition wants to see labels on all products outlining which carcinogens are present and a campaign to educate the people on the risks of being around hazardous substances.

Health Canada has already put a related program in place -- as of November, cosmetics will have to show a list of ingredients.

While a list of ingredients is a great first step, it still puts the onus on the consumer to research whether the chemicals listed are potentially toxic, said Jordan Beischlag of the Canadian Cancer Society's Ontario division.

Given that the average person can't pronounce many of the chemicals being cited, let alone identify them, the society is also calling for a visual symbol that immediately identifies a potential toxin -- much like "recyclable" or "flammable" symbols.

"By having this user-friendly, well-known visual symbol that's consistent across the province, it would be an easy way for a consumer to make a healthy decision in what products they're buying," Beischlag said.

The groups are working on the so-called "precautionary principle," which says that if a substance presents a potential threat to human health, it's not worth taking a chance on.

An estimated 159,900 new cancer cases will be diagnosed in Canada this year, of which 59,500 will be in Ontario, the report says.

If the toxins are unchecked, the study says, they will contribute to tens of thousands of new cancer diagnoses each year. The most vulnerable are pregnant women, fetuses, children, seniors and aboriginals.

The report also calls for a surveillance system to estimate and monitor people's levels of exposure to specific substances, and a need to identify substances for action.

The findings have been presented to the three major political parties in Ontario, just weeks before the Oct. 10 election, and each has said a program to reduce the use of dangerous toxins will be central to their platforms, Miller said.

The group also calls for the creation of a government-funded body that would be dedicated to researching substitutes for toxic chemicals and assisting industry in making the switch.

Copyright Copyright -- 940Montreal.com 2007

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

From: U.S. News & World Report ........................[This story printer-friendly]
August 8, 2007

HOW TO AVOID A CONTROVERSIAL PLASTICS CHEMICAL

[Rachel's introduction: "The definitive study may not be possible," says Hugh Taylor, chief of the division of reproductive endocrinology and infertility at Yale University School of Medicine. "Why not protect ourselves and the next generation from this threat?"]

By Adam Voiland

Scientists aren't in full agreement about whether the chemical known as bisphenol A, which is used in the production of certain plastics and can leach into food and drink, poses health hazards. Today, an expert panel organized by the National Institutes of Health concluded that the hormone-mimicking chemical poses minimal health risks overall. But a statement made last week by 38 independent scientists warned of a wide range of adverse health effects.

For people who want to play it safe and minimize their exposure to the controversial chemical, experts have some tips: Avoid storing food or beverages in polycarbonate plastic, which is often used to make baby bottles and "sippy" cups, 5-gallon water cooler jugs, and hard, transparent water bottles, among other products. And avoid canned goods, since the linings of metal cans often contain bisphenol A. For people who continue to use polycarbonate food and drink containers, not heating them should also reduce exposure, says Frederick vom Saal of the University of Missouri, who is a vocal critic of bisphenol A. The acidity of a container's contents and the age and condition of the polycarbonate can also affect how much of the chemical leaches into food or drink, he adds.

Alternatives to polycarbonate include polyethylene and polypropylene plastics, as well as glass. Both alternative plastics are usually identifiable by recycling code, a number that should appear inside a triangular symbol on each plastic container. The number 2 marks polyethylene and the number 5, polypropylene, vom Saal says. Polycarbonate doesn't have a unique recycling code, but it tends to be assigned the code 7, a category for miscellaneous plastics. Various online resources -- for examples, see here and here -- list products said to be bisphenol A free.

Metal cans, according to studies, are a significant source of human exposure to bisphenol A. And finding alternatives isn't simple. The most reliable way to avoid bisphenol A from cans is to avoid using them at all, according to vom Saal. "The breakdown of the plastic lining of cans, or any [bisphenol A]-based product, is greatly accelerated by acidic substances or alcohol," he says. For many canned products, there are fresh or frozen alternatives, as well as products that come packaged in glass.

Trade groups such as the American Chemistry Council and the Can Manufacturers Institute stand behind the safety of polycarbonate. Nevertheless, some manufacturers are seeking alternatives, and a few are actively capitalizing on consumers' concern over bisphenol A. Born Free touts its plastic baby products, including sippy cups, as being free of the chemical. And Valspar, one of the largest makers of plastic coatings, has been developing bisphenol A-free coatings for cans.

Eden Foods, a Clinton, Mich.-based natural-foods company, sells beans and tomato products in bisphenol A-free cans. The company switched in 1999 when its officers first learned of concerns about bisphenol A, according to spokeswoman Tonya Martin. The manufacturing partner that provides its cans, she says, seemed "taken aback" when Eden first requested a bisphenol A-free product; now it provides Eden with custom-made cans lined with an alternative material. The catch: That material costs 14 percent more and can't be used with the tomato products, which are acidic enough to corrode the lining and limit shelf life. As a result, Eden's canned tomatoes still contain trace amounts of bisphenol A, Martin says.

Whether such traces pose a risk to people remains unclear. The NIH- organized expert panel that concluded its meeting today in Washington registered some concern about bisphenol A's possible neurological and behavioral effects, particularly in children and developing fetuses. Its chair, Roger Chapin of pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc., acknowledged that concerned people may want to apply a "precautionary principle" and take steps to avoid the chemical. But he and the panel's other members, who reviewed hundreds of relevant studies, said the chemical's health risks appear to be "minimal" overall. And many regulatory agencies and numerous industry-sponsored studies say there's no significant cause for worry.

Other experts remain unwilling to let the chemical off the hook. There's enough evidence from animal studies to warrant concern, especially for women who are pregnant or attempting to conceive, they say. "The definitive study may not be possible," says Hugh Taylor, chief of the division of reproductive endocrinology and infertility at Yale University School of Medicine. "Why not protect ourselves and the next generation from this threat?"

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

From: Environment News (Heartland Institute) ..............[This story printer-friendly]
September 1, 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVIST FUNDING, AGENDAS EXPOSED

[Rachel's introduction: "In this David and Goliath battle, it is American industry that is the David and the environmental activists, with their vast resources, who are the Goliath."]

By Jay Lehr, Ph.D.

Review of The Green Wave: Environmentalism and Its Consequences by Bonner Cohen

T.S. Eliot once said, "half of the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm-- but the harm does not interest them. Or they justify it, because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves."

Eliot said that long before real environmentalism existed, but can anyone describe the environmental activist movement better?

Misguided Activism

Some people, observed columnist George Will, "use environmental causes and rhetoric not for the purpose of environmental improvements, but rather, for them, changing society's politics is the end, and environmental policies are mere means to that end."

No one has ever exposed this movement better than Bonner Cohen in his brief, 240-page paperback book. The text is actually less than 180 pages, as the rest contains tables of wonderful data exposing the funding and power connections of the environmental fear-mongering groups.

There are more than 8,000 environmental advocacy--or should we say "obstacle"--groups in the United States today. This book deals with the largest few dozen, not because the others are not important, but to imprint upon the reader that in this David and Goliath battle, it is American industry that is the David and the environmental activists, with their vast resources, who are the Goliath.

This is a studious work not to be read quickly. It is in fact the detailed history of an environmental scare industry intent on defeating capitalism and pushing the world toward another socialist experiment that they suppose will not renew the murderous treachery and ultimate failure of the previous version.

Deadly DDT Ban

Cohen's summary of the terrible impact of withdrawing DDT from the world's battle with malaria is as good as it gets. He notes that global malaria death rates of 1,740 per million in 1930 were reduced to 160 per million by 1970 primarily through the use of DDT.

In Sri Lanka, a hotbed of malaria in the 1940s, there were only 17 cases in 1963, but in 1968, after DDT was banned, there were more than a million cases.

Cohen tells the sad story of how U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator William Ruckelshaus caved in to environmental advocates' pressure when he banned DDT against the better judgment of his own research investigators.

I knew Ruckelshaus from my days at Princeton University. When years later I confronted him about this horrendous decision, he stuck to his guns, ignoring the devastation it caused. I wonder if the man ever sleeps at night.

Activist Agenda Debunked

Cohen's brief discourse on the Precautionary Principle, an absurd, artificial, and unscientific policy intended to stifle human progress, is excellent. He also exposes the concepts of sustainable development and corporate social responsibility for the shams they are.

He does a great job explaining the importance of genetically modified foods, which hold the primary hope of feeding future generations of an expanding population. Cohen exposes the environmental activists' strategy of depriving the world of genetically improved foods by dividing their work among the more radical groups such as Greenpeace-- which insists on the removal of all bioengineered foodstuffs--and the more moderate groups that claim to believe genetically improved crops may have value but should not be released until more research is completed.

Cohen points out there will never be enough research to satisfy these groups.

None of us needs to read any more about global warming than what we are now subjected to daily, but The Green Wave includes a nice summary of what we do know, which is that man has not warmed the planet to any significant degree and is totally incapable of altering its temperature.

Activists' Distortions

A less well-known subject is how environmental activists distort the facts about environmental mercury to suppress the building and use of coal-fired power plants. Cohen explains mercury is a naturally occurring element that is ubiquitous in the environment. Coal-burning power plants account for less than 1 percent of total global mercury deposition.

A well covered-up fact that exonerated coal-fired power plants was mentioned in an EPA research project carried out at Princeton University, where they discovered methylmercury levels in tuna were the same in 1998 as they were in 1971, even though the number and output of coal-burning power plants increased dramatically.

Similarly, Cohen does a good job explaining the endangered species follies and conservation claims. Species protection, he explains, is often just a ruse to slow economic growth and market activity. Similarly, most of today's conservation movement does not provide the common-sense cost/benefit ratios many expect.

Green Funding Exposed

While technically the book is excellent, economically it is magnificent. Cohen exposes the budgets and sources of funding for the major environmental fear-mongering groups. He points out most of the groups are financed by once-levelheaded if not conservative foundations, which upon the passing of their founders were hijacked by their more liberal board members.

Bonner Cohen has made a fine contribution to honest environmental issue literature. I recommend The Green Wave highly.

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

Jay Lehr, Ph.D. (lehr@heartland.org) is science director for The Heartland Institute.

HEARTLAND INSTITUTE 19 South LaSalle Street Suite 903 Chicago, IL 60603 312.377.4000 think@heartland.org

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

Rachel's Precaution Reporter offers news, views and practical examples of the Precautionary Principle, or Foresight Principle, in action. The Precautionary Principle is a modern way of making decisions, to minimize harm. Rachel's Precaution Reporter tries to answer such questions as, Why do we need the precautionary principle? Who is using precaution? Who is opposing precaution?

We often include attacks on the precautionary principle because we believe it is essential for advocates of precaution to know what their adversaries are saying, just as abolitionists in 1830 needed to know the arguments used by slaveholders.

Rachel's Precaution Reporter is published as often as necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the subject.

As you come across stories that illustrate the precautionary principle -- or the need for the precautionary principle -- please Email them to us at rpr@rachel.org.

Editors:
Peter Montague - peter@rachel.org
Tim Montague - tim@rachel.org

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

To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Precaution Reporter send a blank Email to one of these addresses:

Full HTML edition: rpr-subscribe@pplist.net
Table of Contents edition: rpr-toc-subscribe@pplist.net

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

Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 160
New Brunswick, N.J. 08901
rpr@rachel.org

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