Rachel's Precaution Reporter #109
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
From: The Economist (London, UK) ..........................[This story printer-friendly]
September 20, 2007
BRUSSELS RULES OK
[Rachel's introduction: According to the Economist magazine, Europe has surpassed the U.S. in setting product standards for the world because Europe has embraced the precautionary principle, while the U.S. remains wedded to cost-benefit analysis. In the U.S., chemicals and corporations are assumed innocent until harm can be proven; not so in Europe.]
A victory for consumers and the free market. That was how the European Commission presented this week's ruling by European judges in favour of its multi-million euro fine on Microsoft for bullying competitors. American observers had qualms. Would a French company have been pursued with such vigour? Explain again why a squabble among American high-technology firms ends up being decided in Brussels and Luxembourg (where Euro-judges sit)? One congressman muttered about sneaky protectionism and "zealous European Commission regulators". It certainly seemed zealous of the competition commissioner, Neelie Kroes, to say that a "significant drop" in the software giant's market share was "what we'd like to see".
More broadly, the ruling confirms that Brussels is becoming the world's regulatory capital. The European Union's drive to set standards has many causes -- and a protectionist impulse within some governments (eg, France's) may be one. But though the EU is a big market, with almost half a billion consumers, neither size, nor zeal, nor sneaky protectionism explains why it is usurping America's role as a source of global standards. A better answer lies in transatlantic philosophical differences.
The American model turns on cost-benefit analysis, with regulators weighing the effects of new rules on jobs and growth, as well as testing the significance of any risks. Companies enjoy a presumption of innocence for their products: should this prove mistaken, punishment is provided by the market (and a barrage of lawsuits). The European model rests more on the "precautionary principle", which underpins most environmental and health directives. This calls for pre-emptive action if scientists spot a credible hazard, even before the level of risk can be measured. Such a principle sparks many transatlantic disputes: over genetically modified organisms or climate change, for example.
In Europe corporate innocence is not assumed. Indeed, a vast slab of EU laws evaluating the safety of tens of thousands of chemicals, known as REACH, reverses the burden of proof, asking industry to demonstrate that substances are harmless. Some Eurocrats suggest that the philosophical gap reflects the American constitutional tradition that everything is allowed unless it is forbidden, against the Napoleonic tradition codifying what the state allows and banning everything else.
Yet the more proscriptive European vision may better suit consumer and industry demands for certainty. If you manufacture globally, it is simpler to be bound by the toughest regulatory system in your supply chain. Self-regulation is also a harder sell when it comes to global trade, which involves trusting a long line of unknown participants from far-flung places (talk to parents who buy Chinese-made toys).
A gripping new book by an American, Mark Schapiro, captures the change. When he began his research, he found firms resisting the notion that the American market would follow EU standards for items like cosmetics, insisting that their American products were already safe. But as the book neared completion, firm after firm gave in and began applying EU standards worldwide, as third countries copied European rules on things like suspected carcinogens in lipstick. Even China is leaning to the European approach, one Procter & Gamble executive tells Mr Schapiro, adding wistfully: "And that's a pretty big country."
The book records similar American reactions to the spread of EU directives insisting that cars must be recycled, or banning toxins such as lead and mercury from electrical gadgets. Obey EU rules or watch your markets "evaporating", a computer industry lobbyist tells Mr Schapiro. "We've been hit by a tsunami," says a big wheel from General Motors. American multinationals that spend money adjusting to European rules may lose their taste for lighter domestic regulations that may serve only to offer a competitive advantage to rivals that do not export. Mr Schapiro is a campaigner for tougher regulation of American business. Yet you do not have to share his taste for banning chemicals to agree with his prediction that American industry will want stricter standards to create a level playing-field at home.
Winning the regulatory race
One American official says flatly that the EU is "winning" the regulatory race, adding: "And there is a sense that that is their precise intent." He cites a speech by the trade commissioner, Peter Mandelson, claiming that the export of "our rules and standards around the world" was one source of European power. Noting that EU regulations are often written with the help of European incumbents, the official also claims that precaution can cloak "plain old- fashioned protectionism in disguise".
Europe had no idea the rest of the world was going to copy its standards, retorts a Eurocrat sweetly. "It's a very pleasant side- effect, but we set out to create the legislation we thought that Europe needed." At all events, America's strategy has changed. Frontal attempts to block new EU regulations are giving way to efforts to persuade Brussels to adopt a more American approach to cost-benefit analysis. That would placate students of rigour, who accuse some European governments of ignoring scientific data and pandering to consumer panic (as shown by European campaigns against "Frankenstein foods").
But rigour can quickly look like rigidity when it involves resisting competition. There is a genuine competition to set global regulatory standards, as Europe and America have discovered. There are also rising protectionist pressures. Perhaps zealous EU regulators may be what jumpy consumers need if they are to keep faith with free trade and globalisation. Viewed in such a light, even Microsoft's champions might hope that this week's verdict will help global competition in future.
Copyright The Economist Newspaper Limited 2007
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Fox News ............................................[This story printer-friendly]
September 24, 2007
QUESTIONS FOR THE CANDIDATES
[Rachel's introduction: A libertarian says he would ask all the presidential candidates, "What's your philosophical approach to risk assessment and the precautionary principle? Do you think government should ban products, treatments, and procedures until they're proven safe, or permit them until they show signs of being unsafe?"]
By Radley Balko
As we approach the first round of presidential primaries this January, here's a list of questions I'd ask candidates from both parties:
-- A recent study found that over half the country now derives part or all of its income from the federal government. Three of the richest counties in the country are in the D.C. suburbs, a telling indicator of just how bloated with taxpayer dollars Washington has become. Do you think these trends are healthy? Would you agree or disagree that the federal government is getting too large, too influential, and too pervasive?
-- The government is made up of people -- flawed people, just as the private sector is. But when private people make mistakes, the consequences are limited to them, and perhaps a few people around them. When a government official makes a mistake, it can affect millions. Isn't it better to let the American people make as many of their own decisions as possible? What makes a government bureaucrat more qualified to make decisions about the average Americans life than the average American?
-- Name five government agencies that are either superfluous, anachronistic, ineffective, or otherwise no longer necessary, and that you would eliminate? To make things interesting, let's take everything under the Department of Defense off the table, with the acknowledgment that there's plenty of cutting to be done there, too.
RelatedColumn Archive Questions for the Candidates Six Years Later: Bin Laden Still Free, U.S. Mired in IraqSex, Drugs & a Federal ProsecutionDrug War Crimes Kill, Incarcerate InnocentFaulty Forensic 'Experts' Sending the Innocent to Jail Full-page Straight Talk Archive -- What is your philosophical approach to federalism? What issues do you feel are best decided at the national level? What issues should be left to the states? Is there any underlying principle you use in separating one from the other, or would you make such decisions ad hoc?
-- Do you believe the U.S. military should be deployed for humanitarian missions?
-- The U.S. currently has troops on 6,000 bases spread out over 135 countries. Do you believe this is a good or bad thing? If bad, from what countries would you remove U.S. troops?
-- Do you think an atheist could be president? Do you think an atheist should be? Assuming you generally agreed with an atheist on more issues than the alternative candidates in a given election, would you vote for one?
-- Name five things you think are none of the federal government's business.
-- What is your view of the pardon power and executive clemency? Should it be used frequently? Should it be use to show mercy and forgiveness or to correct injustices that slip through the cracks? Neither? Both?
-- Do you think the criminal justice system is adequate in its present form? Do our criminal courts achieve the just outcome in an acceptable percentage of cases?
-- When the two are in conflict, do you believe a politician is obligated to vote for his own principles and values, or for the will of the people?
-- Is there any type of speech you believe should be criminalized?
-- Do you promise not to claim for yourself any of the executive powers you've criticized the Bush administration for claiming?
-- Do you think it's appropriate that the minority party in the senate can filibuster the majority? Would your position change if your party was in the minority?
-- What is your position on Kelo vs. New London? Under what circumstances would it be appropriate for a government to seize land from one private party and give it to another?
-- If elected, will you fire all of the U.S. attorneys appointed by President Bush?
-- What federal crimes will you instruct the Justice Department to make a priority during your administration?
-- Do you think a journalist should ever be tried for treason for making public classified information?
-- America by far and away has the highest prison population in the world. Does this concern you? Are there any federal crimes you feel should be repealed from the books, or devolved to the states?
-- Should violations of regulatory law be criminalized? That is, should people go to jail for violating EPA, OSHA, or other regulations? Or should they merely be fined?
-- What's your philosophical approach to risk assessment and the precautionary principle? Do you think government should ban products, treatments, and procedures until they're proven safe, or permit them until they show signs of being unsafe?
-- Do you think it's a legitimate function of government to protect people from making bad decisions or prevent them from developing bad habits? Even if those habit or decisions don't directly affect anyone else? How far should the government go in preventing bad habits and bad decisions? In other words, should the government's role be merely advisory, or should it criminalize things like gambling, pornography, drug use, or trans fats?
-- Should members of Congress be required to follow all of the laws that they pass?
-- Should members be required to read each bill before voting on it?
-- Should federal law supercede the will of the people in a given state when it comes to medical marijuana? Assisted suicide? How about the regulation of prescription painkillers?
-- Would you support a requirement that each law be limited in scope and subject, so members wouldn't be required to cast a single yes-or-no vote on bills that have multiple amendments covering a variety of issues?
-- Would you support a sunset provision requiring Congress to revisit and re-pass each law after five years?
-- Do think presidents should be term limited? What about members of Congress? If you didn't give the same answer to each question, what's the difference?
Radley Balko is a senior editor with Reason magazine. He publishes the weblog, TheAgitator.com.
Copyright 2007 FOX News Network, LLC.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: SocialistWorkerOnline (London, UK) ..................[This story printer-friendly]
September 29, 2007
ADDITIVES: FOOD FOR THOUGHT
[Rachel's introduction: "There is good reason to think that certain additives create harm well beyond hyperactivity in children -- they may also play an important role in disease and mental illness in adults.... We must demand that our government adopts the precautionary principle."]
By Malcolm Povey
The fact that many food additives are very harmful has been public knowledge for over 30 years. Two decades ago the disclosure that the red dye ponceau 4R caused allergic reactions such as skin rashes and hyperactivity led to its removal from brands such as Ribena and Smarties.
But the food industry fought back, and this month's scare over food additives is only one of many -- as these dangerous chemicals have remained legal for use in food.
This was described by the Guardian as "an embarrassment" to the Food Standards Agency (FSA), which approved the use of the following chemicals, well known for their adverse effects on many children: sunset yellow (E110), quinoline yellow (E104), carmoisine (E122), allura red (E129), tartrazine (E102) ponceau 4R (E124), and sodium benzoate (E211).
All but sodium benzoate, an antibacterial preservative, are colours with natural replacements available. The purity of the chemicals involved is controlled for industrial use but not for their use in foods.
The issue now is connected with the scapegoating of young people -- the FSA's response to the University of Southampton report which was the basis for the recent newspaper scares was called "Hyperactivity And Colours: Advice To Parents".
The FSA has not suggested that the additives in question should be banned. They say that additives are needed in food production and that the evidence is contradictory.
It is not true that all additives are "necessary". Food additives such as bright colours are added to make food visually attractive in a competitive market. Preservatives are added because food is transported over long distances and stored for a long time, thus cheapening manufacture and sales costs and increasing profits.
The use of additives is much more likely in foods consumed by the poor than by the wealthy who can afford to pay for "healthy foods".
Control by the food industry over ingredients is as complete now as it was two centuries ago in the days of the Factory Acts. In fact, the basic regulatory system over the environment of working class people has not changed substantially since the 19th century.
The bosses introduced the Factory Act and Public Health Act when they realised that unregulated capitalism was destroying the environment to such a degree that workers were dying faster than they were being born.
While a few more liberal bosses had an enlightened concern for the health of their workforce, for most it was simply a question of a fear of rising wages due to scarce labour.
Perhaps today we are seeing the start of a similar process, as modern capitalism has transformed our environment again. By providing a ready source of processed food and automating working lives it has created a very unhealthy environment.
Diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease have become the big killers.
There is good reason to think that certain additives create harm well beyond hyperactivity in children -- they may also play an important role in disease and mental illness in adults.
It is true that some additives are required for food production.
Nonetheless, we must demand that our government adopts the precautionary principle.
Where there is evidence for widespread ill effects, the ingredient should be banned until it is shown to be safe through government funded scientific investigation independent of the food companies.
There needs to be independent, provision of health and nutritional advice available to the public so that informed decisions can be made.
This is important as food labelling is an area where regulation tends to protect the producer from the consumer. By no means must all ingredients be listed and under some circumstances they need not be listed at all.
For example, butter can be dyed yellow by including yellow dye in cattle feed, and it does not have to be included on the label, which will indicate "pure" butter.
States regulate the food industry in the interests of capitalism, not in the interests of workers. But even these attempts at regulation are negated by the global market and its anarchic nature.
So the ponceau 4R, carmosine and tartrazine that were removed from children's foods in the 1980s gradually found their way back in again.
The only way to ensure the provision of healthy food and a safe environment in the long term is for production to be controlled through bottom-up democratic planning.
In the meantime, we must demand that the additives implicated by the University of Southampton study be banned for use in foods.
Malcolm Povey is professor of food physics at the University of Leeds
Copyright Copyright Socialist Worker
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Stamford (Ct.) Advocate ............................[This story printer-friendly]
September 17, 2007
MANY QUESTIONS, FEW ANSWERS ABOUT ARTIFICIAL TURF
[Rachel's introduction: In Connecticut, the Attorney General is taking a precautionary approach to artificial turf for children's playgrounds and athletic fields.]
By the Associated Press
STAMFORD, Conn. (AP) Some critics of modern technology that is being used to replace natural grass with synthetic turf on athletic fields around Connecticut are calling for a moratorium until more scientific study is done.
Some people believe there are potential environmental and health risks because the material used as cushioning in the fields -- ground-up rubber tires -- may release harmful chemicals.
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has called for $200,000 in state funding for further research after the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station in New Haven released results of a study of the materials, known as tire crumbs.
The study, which was funded with a $2,000 grant by New Haven-based Environment and Human Health Inc., found that under laboratory conditions, the crumbs released at least four compounds under slightly elevated temperatures that can irritate eyes, skin and mucous membranes.
However, the lead author of the study says the work shows that additional studies are needed, since their testing was done in the lab, not out in the field.
"What we feel this work suggests is additional studies need to be done at actual installed fields," Mary Jane Mattina said. There are a lot of these fields being installed and the answers to these questions aren't out there."
Nancy Alderman, Environment and Human Health's president, said the results of the Connecticut study show enough information to halt the installation of new fields, at least until more work is done.
Rick Doyle, president of the Synthetic Turf Council, an industry group based in Atlanta, cited various studies, including one by FIFA, the international governing body for soccer, that have not found harmful health effects from the fields.
"If Connecticut feels it needs to look at it another time, it's up to them," Doyle said.
Blumenthal, who advocates further study, said there should not be a rush to stop using or installing the fields.
"I can understand the confusion and doubt because we don't have all of the answers," Blumenthal said. "I'm simply trying to be completely honest, as a non-scientist and a non-technician, in digesting what I've read and heard from experts, which is that there are several points of view."
Copyright 2007, The Associated Press
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Asbury Park Press ..................................[This story printer-friendly]
September 21, 2007
SCHOOL DISTRICT MULLS PLANS FOR EX-CAMPGROUND
[Rachel's introduction: School officials want to use some of the 15 acres to construct a kindergarten annex building. Concerns have been raised about the proximity of the site to the former Ciba-Geigy Superfund site. "We believe in the precautionary principle: better to look for a better site," says Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Chapter of the Sierra Club.]
By Lauren O. Kidd, Toms River Bureau
TOMS RIVER -- What do a pumpkin patch, a cross-country track practice ground and a maritime academy have in common?
Those are just three of the ways that Toms River Regional school district officials said they would consider utilizing a 58-acre former campground if the district's plan to purchase that land is successful.
The land offers opportunities that "are endless, and really exciting to talk about," Michael S. Citta, assistant superintendent of Toms River schools, told a group of about 20 people who toured the site Thursday evening. Most of the tour group were members of the district's Planning and Development Committee.
The district is proposing to purchase the site, the former Albocondo Campground located off Route 571, for $7.75 million if voters approve funding in a referendum that has not yet been scheduled.
School officials want to utilize some of the roughly 15 acres that are "buildable" to construct a kindergarten annex building, according to Michael J. Ritacco, superintendent of schools. That new building is needed to provide full-day kindergarten to Toms River's youngest students by 2009, he has said.
"It is a great idea for working moms and a good concept," David Plotnick said of the full-day kindergarten initiative after seeing the "upland" portion of the property, currently an open field along 571, that the school would be built on.
But Plotnick, president of the Lake Ridge Homeowners Association, said "seniors don't want tax increases," and he attended the tour so he could present more information on the project to members of the senior community. Plotnick said his comments were his own opinion, and not the opinion of the Lake Ridge community.
Concerns have been raised about the proximity of the site to the former Ciba-Geigy Superfund site. "We believe in the precautionary principle: better to look for a better site," Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Chapter of the Sierra Club, said in an interview Thursday.
"Ciba Geigy is a very complex site with a lot of contamination," Tittel said.
During the tour, Citta used a map of the land to illustrate where the former campground is in relation to the former Superfund site.
The natural flow of water and topography is northwest to southeast, Citta said, and the land the school district wants to purchase is located northwest of the Ciba-Geigy site.
"To think your school district would want to put your kids in harm's way is quite offensive and certainly not going to happen," Citta said.
The remaining roughly 45 acres, which border the Toms River and include two lakes and various buildings like cabins and bathrooms, is the area that district officials are brainstorming about.
"It is not like just buying woods," Ritacco said. The site has utility hookups already installed, like water, electric and sewer, he said.
Norma Spice, the district's science supervisor, said the land is a prime spot for science students to explore research and field opportunities. "I see almost unlimited opportunities for science education out here," she said.
"I am very impressed with it," Toni-Ann Gannon, whose child attends Cedar Grove Elementary School, said of the land, which she called "beautiful."
"I would like to see it used all year round," she said, adding that it could be used for summer programs.
Lauren O. Kidd: (732) 557-5737 or lkidd@app.com
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
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
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::