River Watch www.trwnews.net
Can I trust Dow?
NO, NO, NO Dow is concerned about 1 thing, their stockholders.
Read the document links below for examples of how Dow spends MILLIONS of dollars to work
behind the scenes to disrupt, delay, and misinform the public all levels of local,
state, and federal government. They also like to buy University support. Would
the University suggested for their version of a Health Study be one of them? Below
are a few editorials and facts on Dow's & other polluters underhanded tactics:
Dow Articles of Interest
The YES MEN present Dow with "Gilda"
the Golden Skeleton award,
The Dow web of deceit
The next time you hear about a Health Study being proposed by ANYONE, read this editorial and then read the proposal again. There are many design criteria which can included that make the studies outcome inconclusive before it even starts.
Here is the general game played by Dow for years.
It's happening in our community right now. Read the tactics
below and then review the local newspaper articles to see their
plan in action:
Note: on January 1, 2003, Jennifer Granholm replaced John Engler as governor of Michigan. Many of the political appointees that drove the campaign to cover-up the dioxin contamination left with Engler. It's to early to tell if the new administration will take the citizens side in these matters, however, recent news out of the MDEQ indicate a change may be coming. We will wait and see...
Dow Front Groups, don't be deceived
The following is an excerpt from www.infact.org, a watch group who monitors big corporation antics. The information is 4-5 years old, do you think they have changed their tactics?
Since 1977, Infact has been exposing life-threatening abuses by transnational corporations and organizing successful grassroots campaigns to hold corporations accountable to consumers and society at large. We are a non-profit, national membership organization building an active, aware public and a core of well-trained organizers to lead the grassroots challenge to unwarranted corporate influence.
Dow Chemical--Multiple Personalities: Front Groups
Why was Dow Chemical inducted into the Hall of Shame? Read the historical excerpts from Infact's 1997 People's Annual Report:
Dow Chemical (Dow), the second-largest US-based chemical corporation with over $20 billion in revenues, will celebrate its 100th anniversary this year. The chemical giant's history is blemished with the production, marketing, or cover-up of information related to dangerous products such as Agent Orange and the pesticides DBCP and Dursban. Today Dow faces thousands of lawsuits related to silicone breast implants. The corporation is also under fire as the world's largest producer of chlorine (a byproduct of which is dioxin), and as a major source of chemicals that contribute to global climate change and other health and environmental problems.
On the surface, Dow is not among the biggest spenders in Washington. However, the chemical giant wields enormous influence in public policy, particularly on environmental and consumer issues. Much of this influence is well-hidden from the public because Dow operates through trade associations and corporate coalitions. Such deliberate concealment makes it nearly impossible to track Dow's influence and access over key public health issues and just how much the company has interfered with public policymaking.
CASE STUDY: HIDING BEHIND CORPORATE FRONT GROUPS
The Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMAhttp://www.chej.org/report.html), of which Dow is a leading member, is one of the key arms through which Dow exerts control over environmental and public health policy. The CMA has its own PAC, which contributes at least $25,000 per year. The CMA has a lobbying force of some 50 people, in addition to Dow's 51 lobbyists at the federal level alone. The CMA spent $4.68 million lobbying in Washington in just the first half of 1996. Dow spent an additional $1 million lobbying in the first half of 1996.
Dow and its front groups are also a force at the state level. Dow has 36 registered lobbyists in just 13 states. The CMA, Chemical Industry Council, and Chemical Specialty Manufacturing Association have at least 23 lobbyists in just eight states.
When the Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994, the chemical industry helped shape the legislative agenda, to create a more "business-friendly" regulatory environment. The objectives included Superfund reform, regulatory reform, product liability reform, OSHA reform, undermining the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, and defunding the Environmental Protection Agency and other regulatory agencies.
TRADE ASSOCIATIONS AND LOBBYING FRONTS
Corporate coalitions and trade
associations, many with their own lobbyists, influence public policy at both the state and
the federal level. With this convenient corporate veil, Dow can maintain its
environmentally-friendly image while working to undermine environmental and public health
protections. The following are a few of the trade associations and corporate front groups
of which Dow is a member:
Each of the above groups is working to undo public health or environmental legislation, through US or international bodies like the World Trade Organization. Dow is also one of the leading contributors to conservative think tanks behind a campaign to roll back the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) authority to protect public health. DowElanco, a subsidiary, gave $52,500 between 1992 and 1995 to think tanks orchestrating the anti-FDA campaign.
Recently, Dow has turned to radio and TV advertising to promote its "corporate citizenship." The ads include a TV spot promoting the benefits of silicone products, which is airing in New Orleans, where a breast implant trial is being held. This ad, sponsored by Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, was produced by the American Tort Reform Association (see above list of front groups). University of Houston law professor Joseph Sanders said, "It may be that [corporate defendants] are able to buy themselves something that should not be for sale."
Dow has developed software that can rapidly identify employees in key Congressional districts in order to generate "grassroots" political pressure by its plant workers.
In 1995 Dow "loaned" one of its scientists, Dale Humbert, as staff for the House Commerce Committeethe same committee that oversees the EPA and the FDA.
Dow has a representative, Dave Buzzelli, on the unelected President's Council on Sustainable Development. Jonathan Lash, president of the World Resources Institute and member of Dow's Corporate Environmental Advisory Council, also serves on the President's Council. The Council on Sustainable Development was set up to develop policies on manufacturing, managing natural resources, and sustainable communities.
Conceptual shifts in scientific thinking - Dow scientists stuck in the old world ?
An essay which first appeared on the San Francisco Medical Societies web site in November 2002 provides an excellent review of current scientific thinking in the area of environmental toxicology. Rachel's Environment & Health News ( www.rachel.org ) article #757 provides a review of the essay. Dow Chemical's behavior concerning toxic chemicals seems to be consistant, i.e. promote "Corporate Science" and ignore (at least publicly) this NEW shift in thinking by the rest of the worlds scientist. The following is an excerpt from the essay, just substitute the word DOW for OLD in the 9 points listed below.
"We're in the Midst of a Scientific Revolution...The revolution arises from scientific discoveries which establish that many chemicals -- both from the natural world and synthesized in laboratories -- interfere with the biochemical messaging systems that direct the biological development of plants and animals, including humans." These discoveries "are forcing a series of conceptual shifts upon toxicology as it integrates these new findings with long-standing assumptions".
Conceptual Shifts in Scientific Thinking:
According to a recent API story, The International Life Sciences Institute , funded by hundreds of corporations including Dow Chemical, was barred by the World Health Organization (WHO) from helping set global standards for protecting food and water supplies because of its funding sources.
Are your ready to visit the other side?
Just remember, the MDEQ, EPA, WHO, and many others seem to think dioxin is MUCH more of a health hazard. Consider the closing quote from the MDCH/DEQ Dioxin Fact Sheet: "... recent studies suggest that dioxins may be far more harmful to human health than was previously believed and these standards as well as others set for soil, sediment, and food may change in the future."
All right, if you really want to see's Dow's Dioxin Information web site, click here. :-(