#485: The State Of Humanity

=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #485
March 14, 1996
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net
==========
RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com
========================Original Source========================

The recent outpouring of hefty "feel good" books has not let up. Last year the book world was buzzing about Gregg Easterbrook's 700-page A MOMENT ON THE EARTH, which tried to make the case that most of our environmental problems have already been solved. Close analysis revealed that Easterbrook's optimism was based on errors, selective omissions, and deliberate misinformation. [1] (See, for example, REHW #437.)

Now comes Julian Simon, a professor at University of Maryland with an even rosier view of the human prospect.

Simon's new book, THE STATE OF HUMANITY, concludes that, "We have in our hands now--actually, in our libraries--the technology to feed, clothe, and supply energy to an ever-growing population for the next seven billion years. Most amazing is that most of this specific body of knowledge was developed within just the past two centuries or so, though it rests on basic knowledge that had accumulated for millennia, of course.

"Indeed, the last necessary additions to this body of technology --nuclear fission and space travel --occurred decades ago. Even if no new knowledge were ever invented after those advances, we would be able to go on increasing our population forever, while improving our standard of living and our control over our environment."[2,pg.26]

As you can probably tell from this quotation, Simon is the Crazy Eddie of "feel good," and his latest book is nearly 700 pages of optimism for the human prospect, including optimism for the natural environment.

The book is divided into 58 chapters written by 67 authors, crammed with charts, graphs and tables. It is an information storehouse of prodigious proportions, particularly historical information. When I began reading it, I thought, "What a treasure! This is like finding a huge bag full of $100 bills!" However, as I read deeper into the book, I began to discover that much of the treasure is counterfeit, and many of the optimistic conclusions are bogus. Worse, most readers may not be able to distinguish what's real from what's fake.

Still the book has some value. It reminds us again and again of the real progress that humans made between 1750 and 1950. Infant mortality decreased dramatically, working conditions improved for tens of millions of people, technology opened up vast opportunities for travel, education and enjoyment of life for huge numbers. Diet improved, life expectancy increased, opportunity expanded. Democracy and freedom spread. These things are true, and it is worthwhile reflecting on the real progress humans have made.

However Simon is so determined to accentuate the positive that he ignores almost completely the serious negative counter currents that give our own age its bitter-sweet tinge: 

** We live in an age of perpetual wars, with anywhere from 20 to 30 major wars going on simultaneously around the globe. More than 90% of the people killed in these wars are civilians, [3] largely in developing nations supplied with modern weaponry by the rich nations ($36 billion worth of armaments in 1992 alone [4]). At a cost of less than half their military expenditures, developing countries could initiate basic health services and clinical care that would save 10 million lives each year. [4] For their part, the rich nations spend on armaments each year an amount equivalent to the total income of the world's poorest 2 billion people. [4] In describing historical trends, Simon hardly mentions the increase in wars, the buildup of armaments, and the anti-life priorities, all clearly major byproducts of modernity. Simon merely predicts (pg. 654) that war will be less likely in the future as "land becomes less important relative to other assets"--a prediction that seems dubious at best because human population is growing and the amount of available land is not.

** Humans now appropriate 25% of earth's total net primary production (NPP). [5] Net primary production is the amount of energy captured in photosynthesis by primary producers (blue-green plants that photosynthesize, thus turning carbon dioxide and water into carbohydrates) minus the energy used in their own growth and reproduction. NPP is thus the basic food resource for everything on earth that is not capable of photosynthesis. Humans are now thought to be using for their own purposes 25% of global NPP and 40% of NPP on the land. If this estimate is correct, it means that 2 more population doublings (which will occur in about 80 years), will leave nothing for any species besides humans--a prospect that must give pause to even those with a totally human-centered world-view. Simon simply ignores this trend. (Simon sees us migrating into outer space on nuclear-powered rockets after we have filled this planet. Interestingly, Gregg Easterbrook imagined the same "escape hatch" for a humanity that can't seem to prevent itself from fouling its own nest.)

** In the developed world, human health is declining. On this topic, Simon includes a surprising amount of bad news in an essay titled "Trends in Health in the U.S. Population: 1957-1989," by Eileen M. Crimmins and Dominique G. Ingegneri:

In 1957, the U.S. government initiated the National Health Interview Survey; each year some 100,000 non-institutionalized individuals in 40,000 households are surveyed. Two measures of health have been taken consistently since 1957: "limitation of activity" and "restricted activity days." Both are measures of the prevalence of ill health.

"Limitation of activity" is a measure of long-term disability, disability that is due to chronic conditions and diseases and usually has lasted at least 3 months. A person is limited in activity when he or she has difficulty performing his or her usual activity, or the activity that is normal for his or her age group. (pg. 73)

"Restricted activity days" is designed to measure short-term disability. The respondent is asked how many days during the past two weeks he or she had to cut down on normal activity because of health. Because restricted activity can be due to either acute conditions, like colds and sore throats, or chronic conditions, like heart disease, it is an indicator of the level of both acute and chronic illness. (pg. 73)

Among the whole U.S. population during the period 1957 to 1989, "activity limitation" has increased 43%. Between 1961 and 1989, the number of "restricted activity days" increased 28%. These measures indicate substantial increases in both chronic and acute ill health among Americans during the last 30 years.

Crimmins and Ingegneri note that, "...other empirical work has tended to confirm the idea that the health of the population has deteriorated in the United States in recent years. Findings of this nature have been reported in a large number of studies based on National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data like those presented here. These include studies of health change at all ages, as well as studies concentrating on segments of the population including children, the working-age population, and parts of the older population. Examination of health or disability change using other data, such as the decennial [every 10 year] census and the Current Population Survey, have reached similar conclusions for the working age population." (pg. 77)

Health deterioration has also been investigated in a variety of other countries where mortality is low and continuing to decline. Surveys have shown deteriorating health in Canada during the 1970s, Australia during the 1980s, Great Britain from the 1970s through the mid-1980s, and Japan from the 1950s through the 1980s. (pg. 77)

Simon's book offers only one hypothesis for this decline in health throughout the developed world: more frail people are being kept alive. This hypothesis is perhaps attractive to Simon and his colleagues at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C.,, where economic Darwinism ("only the fittest survive") is still a popular idea. But alternative hypotheses are certainly possible: the modern "junk food" diet that is so common among young people may be partly responsible, combined with a lack of exercise. In addition, chemical exposures, which are certainly occurring, seem to be degrading the immune systems of humans, giving rise to increased infections and autoimmune disorders such as asthma, arthritis and diabetes. Simon ignores these factors. (See REHW #318, #374, #414, #417, for example.)

To maintain his ever-optimistic view, Simon relies upon the same techniques Easterbrook employed: misinformation, specious comparisons, and selective omissions.

Misinformation: For example, Simon says, "Fear is rampant about rapid rates of species extinction. The fear has little or no basis." (pg. 15) But the evidence from the fossil record is that extinctions are occurring today 10 to 100 times faster than natural background (pre-human) rates of extinction, and in some regions the rate is 1000 times background. (See REHW #441.) There IS genuine cause for concern.

Selective omissions and specious comparisons: For example, Simon says, "The Great Lakes are not dead; instead they offer better sport fishing than ever." (pg. 22) First, no one ever said the Great Lakes were dead. Second, in some of the Lakes (Michigan and Erie, for example) sport fishing is only able to thrive because governments stock the Lakes with hatchery-bred fish each year. Literally hundreds of studies have shown that fish, birds, and mammals in the lakes have had their reproductive systems damaged by chemical contamination. (See REHW #263, #264.) Third, each year state and provincial governments in the U.S. and Canada issue book-length catalogs listing coves and bays throughout the Great Lakes where it is not safe to eat the fish. Fourth, there is substantial evidence that humans who often eat fish from the Great Lakes give birth to children who are stunted physically and mentally. (See REHW #411.)

Yes, humans made important progress between 1750 and 1950. Is the progress continuing? The record is clearly mixed. Good news today is nearly always accompanied by real side-effects that are genuinely bad. If we continue on our present path, does the future look rosy? Simon thinks so, but, like Gregg Easterbrook before him, to maintain this rose-colored view he is forced to ignore or dismiss important trends, ask and answer irrelevant ("straw man") questions, and make specious comparisons. It is probably very rewarding to write "feel good" books, but the way these fellows do it is intellectually dishonest.

 --Peter Montague
===============
[1] Gregg Easterbrook, A MOMENT ON THE EARTH (New York: Viking Penguin, 1995)

[2] Julian L. Simon, editor, THE STATE OF HUMANITY (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, 1995).

[3] United Nations Development Programme, HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 1995 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), pg. 13.

[4] Ruth Leger Sivard, WORLD MILITARY AND SOCIAL EXPENDITURES 1993. 15TH EDITION. (Washington, D.C.: World Priorities [P.O. Box 25140, Washington, DC 20007], 1993, pg. 5.

[5] Peter M. Vitousek, and others. "Human Appropriation of the Products of Photosynthesis," BIOSCIENCE Vol. 36 No. 6 (June, 1986), pgs. 368-373. "Appropriation" includes direct use by humans (food, fuel, fiber, timber) plus the reduction from potential NPP due to alteration of ecosystems caused by humans. The latter includes desertification, deforestation, paving over, and human conversion to less productive systems (such as agriculture).

Descriptor terms: overviews; global environmental problems; human health; juliam simon; gregg easterbrook; war; population growth; land use; loss of species; great lakes; endocrine disruptors;

#476: The Dying Of the Trees

=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #476
---January 11, 1996---
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net
==========
RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com
========================Original Source========================

If you read newspapers or magazines looking for information about forests, what do you find? You find stories about the destruction of rain forests in South America, and about the logging battle raging in the Pacific Northwest over the spotted owl. Except for these two issues, forest problems don't make the news. But forest problems are pervasive, and are as important in their own way as toxics problems. To put it bluntly, trees are sick and dying everywhere in the U.S. At first blush this seems like an extreme statement. But a new book, THE DYING OF THE TREES by Charles Little, will convince you it is true. [1]

This book gives a detailed picture --from New England to Oregon and California, from Alaska to Florida, across the upper midwest, across the southern border states, and even into the desert southwest where the giant saguaro cactus is in major decline --of trees sick and dying. It seems clear that the dying trees are one more sign of danger, one more omen warning us that something is terribly wrong.

Why are the trees dying? The reasons are many and varied. In New England, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky it's a combination of acid rain and clear cuts; in California it's killer smog; in Arizona and New Mexico and elsewhere it's excessive ultraviolet light filtering through the earth's damaged ozone shield; other places, it's pesticides, or it's toxic heavy metals released by burning coal and oil; in Alaska and Florida it's rising temperatures and rising sea levels from global warming; in Colorado, Oregon, and Washington state it's destructive forestry practices (clearcut logging, and fire suppression) that leave forests weakened, unable to withstand extremes of weather or attacks by insects or funguses. In most places, in truth, it's probably various combinations of all these factors. Scientists are playing catch-up now, conducting studies that may explain the complicated causes of widespread tree death. But, as with toxics problems, if we postpone action until the scientists have described the problems completely, we'll get the answers too late to do any good.

Answers come slowly. Hubert "Hub" Vogelmann, a botanist at the University of Vermont, wanted to study an undisturbed forest, so in 1965 he made a thorough survey of Camel's Hump, a 4083-foot peak in the Green Mountains. So far as he knew, he was describing a healthy ecosystem. He measured the types and sizes of the trees, and various other aspects of the ecosystem. He had no particular purpose in mind, other than to gather knowledge about nature.

Periodically, he re-surveyed Camel's Hump, and a pattern began to emerge. The trees were dying. His survey in 1979, compared to the baseline study of 1965, showed a 48% loss of red spruce; a 73% loss of mountain maple; a 49% loss of striped maple; and a 35% loss of sugar maple.

By examining tree rings, and by other studies, Hub Vogelmann was able to show that the health of Camel's Hump had begun to decline in the period 1950-1960. Similar studies in the Black Forest of Germany, and in southern Canada, revealed that the most likely cause was acid rain.

Acid rain occurs when coal and oil are burned, releasing sulfur which combines with rain (or fog or snow) to make acid precipitation. Acidity is measured in units called pH. Pure water has a pH of 7 --it is "neutral" --neither acidic nor alkaline. Pure rainwater has a pH of 5.6 --slightly acidic because, while in the air, rain absorbs carbon dioxide to form a weak solution of carbonic acid.

After World War II the U.S. saw a massive rise in use of fossil fuels, coal and oil. The resulting smoke was obvious, and obviously harmful; in Donora, Pennsylvania (south of Pittsburgh) in 1948, half the people in the town fell ill for 3 days because of coal smoke in the air. Twenty people died. In London, England, in 1952, coal smoke killed 4000 people during a pollution episode. [2]

The official response in the 1950s was to build smoke stacks hundreds of feet tall, to dilute the pollution. Today the Ohio River valley is still dotted by enormous coal-burning power plants with stacks as high as 700 or even 1000 feet. These tall stacks allow the sulfurous pollution to travel 1000 miles or more, where it forms acid rain across the Adirondack mountains of New York, and across northern New England and southern Canada.

In Vermont, the rain has a pH of 3.8 to 4.0. The pH scale is "logarithmic" so a change from normal (5.6) down to 4.6 means the rain has gotten ten times as acidic as normal; at 3.6 the rain is 100 times as acidic as normal.

It wasn't until 1972 that Eugene Likens (then at Cornell University) and F. Herbert Bormann at Yale discovered acid rain. But meanwhile acid rain had been falling on northern New York and New England and on southern Canada for about 20 years.

What Hub Vogelmann has been able to show by studying Camel's Hump for 30 years is that acid rain doesn't just affect the trees; it affects the soil and thus the entire ecosystem. Soil contains a large amount of aluminum, but it occurs in the form of aluminum silicates; in that form, aluminum is not available to the roots of plants. But acid rain dissolves the silicates, releasing the aluminum and making it available to plants. When plants get aluminum into their roots and their vascular system, the roots clog, which prevents the plant from taking up adequate nutrients and water. The trees are weakened, and may then fall prey to extreme cold, or to insects or pathogens.

Acid rain not only releases aluminum into the soil. It also releases other minerals --calcium, magnesium, phosphorus --which are fertilizer for the tree. Acid rain releases these fertilizers to be washed out of the soil, leaving the soil depleted of nutrients.

But that is not the end of the problem. The roots of many trees create a symbiotic (mutually beneficial) relationship with an orange-colored sponge-like fungus called mycorrhiza. The tree roots provide sustenance to the mycorrhiza, and the mycorrhiza help the tree roots gather water and nutrients from the soil. But acid rain kills mycorrhiza, thus further reducing the ability of trees to absorb water and nutrients from the soil.

But that is not all. Acid rain kills off portions of the detritus food chain. The detritus food chain is all the microscopic creatures that "compost" leaves, twigs, pine needles, dead branches and so forth, turning them back into soil. Because the detritus food chain is damaged by acid rain, forest "litter" builds up on the floor of the forest. The litter prevents new saplings from taking root --they cannot reach through the litter to make contact with the soil below. Furthermore, the litter promotes the growth of ferns, which give off substances that inhibit the growth of red spruce saplings, among others.

This is not a complete description of problems caused by acid rain, but it gives a sense of the complexity of ecosystems, and how they can become unbalanced by thoughtless human intrusions.

Given the high rates of tree death, and the widespread nature of the problem --it is occurring to one degree or another in every state in the union --one would think that the community of botanists, forest ecosystem specialists, and U.S. Forest Service employees would be up in arms, advocating change. But one would be disappointed.

Throughout the book, author Charles Little describes studies and statements by the U.S. Forest Service downplaying the importance of tree disease and death. For example, in 1991 the Procter Maple Research Center at University of Vermont pinpointed acid rain and other air pollution as an important cause of decline of sugar maples in Vermont: "We think we are looking at the early stages of an epidemic problem," the Center's report said. The following year the U.S. Forest Service issued a report saying that 90% of the sugar maples surveyed were healthy and the overall numbers and volume of sugar maples was increasing. People in the maple sugar business were stunned --their own experience was telling them something that the U.S. Forest Service was officially denying. It turned out the Forest Service had used a tricky way of counting dead trees; only the standing dead were counted--those lying on the ground were not. Here's David Marvin, who owns a commercial "sugarbush" --a maple sugar farm in Vermont: "I don't want to condemn our forest sci-entists as a group," says Marvin, "but I am very concerned that a great deal of forest research is funded by the federal government, by chemical companies, and forest industry companies --and it's very difficult for people who depend on that funding to stick their necks out or to help influence policy that might go counter to what the funders are interested in. Many scientists I talk to will not publicly say anything about the connection between air pollution and forest decline, but privately, to a person, they tell me, yes, we've got a problem."

Forest-protection activists in the Pacific Northwest have long considered the Forest Service a rogue agency, captured by the forest products industry. Under the Reagan and Bush administrations, the situation grew so extreme that when Jack Ward Thomas took over the leadership of the Forest Service in 1992, he immediately issued six "messages" to personnel throughout the agency. The first three messages were: 

(1) Obey the law; (2) Tell the truth; (3) Implement ecosystem management. 

That such orders had to be issued speaks volumes about the past performance of this federal agency.

In 1993 there was evidence of new candor in the Forest Service. A report issued that year said timber mortality [death], on a volume basis, had increased 24% between 1986 and 1991, "in all regions, on all ownerships, and for both hardwoods and softwoods." Hardwoods were particularly affected, and particularly in the south, where the mortality increase was 37%.

A new candor --and a continuing candor --among scientists and foresters will be essential. But also we need a new recognition that there are many causes of tree death, just as there are many causes of toxic poisoning. To fix these problems, whether tree deaths or toxics, will require us first and foremost to study and emulate nature, to learn to live within natural limits, and to respect the right of non-human species to inhabit the planet. For starters, we should cut waste, not trees. [3] If we don't take these lessons to heart, and soon, the trees will survive but probably we will not.

 --Peter Montague

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

[1] Charles E. Little, THE DYING OF THE TREES; THE PANDEMIC IN AMERICA'S FORESTS (New York: Viking/Penguin, 1995).

[2] Howard E. Hesketh, UNDERSTANDING & CONTROLLING AIR POLLUTION (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ann Arbor Science Publishers, 1974), pgs. 48-49.

[3] See REHW #468 for ways to stop using wood.

Descriptor terms: trees; forests; national forests; u.s. forest service; air pollution; acid rain; acid precipitation; fossil fuels; toxic heavy metals; electric power plants; aluminum; ecosystem health; wildlife;

#488: Fixing Corporations--Part 1: Legacy of the Founding Parents

=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #488
April 4, 1996
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net
========== RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com ================== Original Source ==================
by Jane Anne Morris [1]

The people who founded this nation didn't fight a war so that they could have a couple of "citizen representatives" sitting in on meetings of the British East India Company. They carried out a revolution in order to be free of oppression: corporate, governmental, or otherwise; and to replace it with democratic self-government.

It seems that things have slipped a little. Today, as soon as any group or movement puts together a coherent critique of the role of corporations, tongues start clucking. Politicians, mainstream reformers, degreed experts, and media commentators fall all over each other in an effort to dismiss such clear, practical, focused thinking as mere "conspiracy theories" cooked up by unbalanced "crackpots."

They forget that 17th century political philosopher Thomas Hobbes called corporations "worms in the body politic." [2] Adam Smith condemned them for their effect in curtailing "natural liberty." [3]And most of the so-called "founding fathers" of this nation shared an opinion of corporations that today would earn them the label "lunatic fringe" from the same mainstream tongue-cluckers. [4]

Those who won independence from England hated corporations as much as they hated the King. For it was through state-chartered corporations that the British government carried out some of its most pernicious oppression. Governments extending their power by means of corporations, and corporations themselves taking on the powers of government, are not new problems.

Because they were well aware of the track record of government-chartered corporations, and because they guarded their freedom so jealously, citizens of the newly independent United States of America chartered only a handful of corporations in the several decades after independence. [5]

On those few occasions when states did charter a corporation, "the powers which the corporation might exercise in carrying out its purposes were sparingly conferred and strictly construed." [6]

But inevitably, the generation that had fought against injustices perpetrated by corporations like the British East India Company and the Hudson Bay Company was followed by others whose memories of corporate oppression were less vivid. Still, the warnings against corporations continued.

On the eve of his becoming Chief Justice of Wisconsin's Supreme Court, Edward G. Ryan said ominously in 1873,

"[There] is looming up a new and dark power... the enterprises of the country are aggregating vast corporate combinations of unexampled capital, boldly marching, not for economical conquests only, but for political power.... The question will arise and arise in your day, though perhaps not fully in mine, which shall rule --wealth or man [sic]; which shall lead --money or intellect; who shall fill public stations --educated and patriotic freemen, or the feudal serfs of corporate capital...." [7]

The feudal serfs of corporate capital made a lot of headway during the next fifteen years. But in 1888 President Grover Cleveland echoed Justice Ryan's sentiments:

"Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people's masters." [8]

Well into the twentieth century corporate excesses were acknowledged and condemned by some pretty prominent persons. Louis D. Brandeis, a multimillionaire (from his own law practice and astute investments) by the time he became a Supreme Court Justice in 1916, referred to corporations as "the Frankenstein monster which States have created by their corporation laws." [9]

Far from being "radical," harsh criticism of corporations has a long, respectable, and mainstream political lineage. Now that you know you're in good company, let's dream a little. Imagine what grassroots environmental activism would be like if corporations were restructured to be responsive to the people and to serve the public interest.

What if...

** corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded. [10]** corporations' licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s). [11]** the state legislature could revoke a corporation's charter for a particular reason, or for no reason at all. [12]** the act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts. [13]** as a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents could be held criminally liable for violating the law. [14]** state (not federal) courts heard cases where corporations or their agents were accused of breaking the law or harming the public. [15]** directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders. [16]** corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located. [17]** corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, like 20 or 30 years (instead of being granted "in perpetuity," as is now the practice.) [18]** corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations in order to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately. [19]** corporations' real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s). [20]** corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect. [21]** corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes. [22]** state legislatures set the rates that corporations could charge for their products or services. [23]** all corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general. [24]

ALL OF THESE PROVISIONS WERE ONCE LAW IN THE STATE OF WISCONSIN And similar ones in most other states.

There is no reason why grassroots activists can not insist that we once again impose similar laws to direct corporate actions. But because education and media corporations are silent about the power of the sovereign people literally to dictate terms to corporations, we instead spend our time fighting in regulatory agencies and courts where the odds are against us from the get-go.

Much activism today concerns itself with struggling to induce government agencies to enforce their own laws, or exerting superhuman efforts to close gaping loopholes in existing laws. When we're not doing that, we're perhaps trying to add an obviously toxic chemical to a list of prohibited substances. Or maybe we're trying to coax a corporation that profited greatly from poisoning our air and water to pay for even a small portion of the cleanup costs.

One reason that we the sovereign people don't know our own strength is that too often we think of corporations and business as more or less synonymous. But corporations are not simply big businesses. You don't need a corporate charter to sell apples on the corner, or to operate a widget factory. Individuals, sole proprietor-ships, partnerships and other business forms can do business without obtaining a corporate charter from a state. Corporations are a special case.

A corporate charter granted by a state gives special privileges not possessed by other businesses. And in return, the state retains the power to alter, amend, or repeal said charter. The legislature of a state thus possesses not only the power to grant charters but to revoke them. This power is laid out in what is called the "reserved power clause," and is explicitly spelled out in the laws or constitution of almost every state. Corporations are all set up by states to serve a "public need" and act "in the public interest." This is a long-established doctrine.

The corporation, insofar as it is a legal entity, is a creation of the state... It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. [25]

Corporations are instrumentalities of the state, not independent entities. How have we strayed so far from this notion?

Next week,#489 we will outline some of the legal doctrines that were built up as obstacles to the sovereign people's ability to direct corporate actions. Then we will explore the potential of specific provisions --similar to the ones enumerated above --that we can add to state constitutions, corporation laws, or corporate charters themselves, to reclaim our historic right to make corporations serve the public interest.

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

[1] Jane Anne Morris is a corporate anthropologist working on corporation issues as part of Democracy Unlimited of Wisconsin Cooperative. [Join them: 29 E. Wilson, Ste. 201, Madison WI 53703; phone (608) 255-6629; fax (608) 255-6643]. She is author of NOT IN MY BACK YARD: THE HANDBOOK (San Diego: Silvercat Publications [(888) 299-9119], 1994).

[2] Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), English philosopher. 

[3] In his WEALTH OF NATIONS (1776), Adam Smith was concerned that people's liberty was being encroached upon through the use of corporations to restrain competition and establish monopolies.

[4] A discussion of this and related issues can be found in TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS: CITIZENSHIP AND THE CHARTER OF INCORPORATION, a pamphlet by Richard L. Grossman and Frank T. Adams, 1993, available for $4 from Charter, Ink., P.O. Box 806, Cambridge, MA 02140.

[5] See note 3.

[6] Justice Louis Brandeis in Liggett v. Lee, 1933, 288 U.S. 517.

[7] Alfons J. Beitzinger, EDWARD G. RYAN: LION OF THE LAW (Madison: The State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1960), pgs. 115-116. From an 1873 address to the graduating class of the University of Wisconsin Law School.

[8] Grover Cleveland, "Fourth Annual Message to Congress, 3 Dec. 1888," in MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS Vol. 8, pgs. 773-4 (James D. Richardson, editor, 1989)

[9] On personal finances, see Melvin I. Urofsky, LOUIS D. BRANDEIS AND THE PROGRESSIVE TRADITION (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1981), pg. 9; Brandeis, Liggett v. Lee, 288 U.S. 517 (1933).

[10] Wis. G.L. 1864, Ch. 166, Sec. 7; Wis. R.S. 1878, Sec. 1767.

[11] See the "reserved power" clause.

[12] Wis. A.G. Op. (1913), Vol. 2 p. 169.

[13] Act of Aug. 21, 1848, Wis. Laws, p. 148 (Gen. Incorp. for Plank Roads).

[14] State ex rel. Kropf v. Gilbert, 251 N.W. 478 (1934).

[15] Dudley O. McGovney, "A Supreme Court Fiction: Corporations in the Diverse Citizenship Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts," HARVARD LAW REVIEW Vol. 16 (May 1943), pgs. 853-898, 1090-1124, 1225-1260.

[16] Wis. R.S. 1878, Sec. 1776; Wis. Stat. 1931, 180.13.

[17] Wis. G.L. 1864, Ch. 166, Sec. 9.

[18] Wis. G.L. 1864, Ch. 166, Secs. 4,33.

[19] Wis. R.S. 1878, Sec. 1775.

[20] Wis. R.S. 1849, Ch. 54 Sec. 7; Wis. G.L. 1864, Ch. 166, Secs. 6, 15.

[21] And it was a felony to do so. Wis. State 1953, Ch. 346.12-346.15.

[22] For example, Wis. G.L. 1864, Ch. 166, Sec. 7. See also the author's, "America Needs a Law Prohibiting Corporate Donations," in SYNTHESIS/REGENERATION 9: A MAGAZINE OF GREEN SOCIAL THOUGHT, Winter 1996.

[23] Stone v. State of Wisc., 94 U.S. 181 (1876).

[24] Wis. R.S. 1849, Ch. 54, Sec. 22.

[25] U.S. Supreme Court Justice Henry Billings Brown, in Hale v. Henkel (1905) 201 U.S. 43, 74-5.

Descriptor terms: reforming corporations; history; controlling corporations;

#489: Fixing Corporations--Part 2: Corporations for the Seventh Generation

=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #489
---April 11, 1996---
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net
========== RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com
================== Original Source ==================
by Jane Anne Morris [1]

[Note: This is second of two articles that explore strategies for going beyond the usual calls for "corporate accountability." (Part 1 appeared in REHW #488.) The author is part of a movement, already taking root in over a dozen states, that advocates retaking the historic right of the sovereign people to determine and direct corporate action.]

In view of the historic provisions that used to govern corporations (see REHW #488), their representatives must be pleased that at least in this country, boycotts and divestment strategies are considered radical, and "dialoging" is the preferred mode of interaction. The rest of this paper is an exploration of ways to restructure today's corporation so that citizen activist efforts to eliminate corporate wrongs can amount to more than just a few hard-won needles in a corporate haystack.

As we saw last week,#488 corporations are a special form of business entity given a state charter and certain privileges in exchange for being subject to the will of the sovereign people as expressed through state legislatures.

Over the last half a dozen generations, corporation representatives have managed to set up barriers to insulate the corporation from citizen influence. Several trends have made it more difficult to direct the corporation towards serving the public interest it was created to serve. 

Among them: 

** Under cover of the U.S. Constitution's "commerce" clause [2]as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, federal regulatory agencies have usurped many of the powers once exercised regularly by state legislatures. Today's corporations are ideally suited to wage battles on the regulatory front, because it is so difficult for citizens' groups to match their resources. [3] (In many ways, the late 19th century ascendance of the "commerce" argument is an eerie foreshadowing of today's NAFTA and GATT controversies.) 

** Through a series of leveraged expansions of the "diversity clause" of the U.S. Constitution [4](allowing "citizens" from two different states to be heard in federal court instead of the presumably more biased courts of either's home state), the U.S. Supreme Court "deemed" corporations "citizens" and thus gave them nearly unrestricted access to federal courts. [5] This saved corporations the trouble of defending themselves in the courts of the state where they actually cause the harms. 

** In 1886 the U.S. Supreme Court decreed that corporations are "persons" under the 14th amendment, thus granting them protection under the Bill of Rights. [6]Such guarantees of free speech, due process, and equal protection under the law were long considered to apply to human persons. This ruling gave corporations unprecedented "rights" to question almost any law applied to them, and frustrated the ability of the people to direct corporate action in service of the public good. 

** Stockholders, who used to really run corporations, have seen their power dramatically reduced. Today the powerful corporate manager class is insulated from stockholder influence by a variety of stock voting tricks and governance structures that they themselves set up. They are protected from most liability by state corporation codes and lax laws and enforcement. And they write their own paychecks. [7]

In order to have a world that we would not be ashamed to bequeath to the Seventh Generation, we must make two major changes in the governance of the corporation. First, we must remove obstacles to citizen control of the corporation. Second, we must reinstate provisions such as those (enumerated in REHW #488) once governing corporations, and add others that are particularly suited to our times.

"Model" provisions can become part of 1) state constitutions, 2) state corporation codes and/or 3) the actual corporate "charters," which are the documents states give to corporations to formally bring them into existence. A program to institute such changes would include areas such as the following.

People's power over corporations.

1. We the people can demand that state legislatures, the most direct expression of the people's will, use their "reserved power" to revoke the charters of errant domestic corporations. (A domestic corporation is one chartered in that state.) The people of Delaware and a few other states with "easy" chartering policies would have a more exciting time than the rest of us here, since the overwhelming majority of offending (U.S) multinational corporations are chartered there.

2. In other states, citizens can demand that their attorneys general (or whatever agent is specified in their state laws and constitutions) revoke the permission of errant foreign corporations to do business in their state. (A foreign corporation is one chartered in another state in the U.S. Those chartered in other countries are called alien corporations.) Such actions have already been initiated against Weyerhaeuser, WMX (formerly Waste Management, Inc.), and CSX corporations. [8] (See REHW #455.)

** Annul "rights" given corporations by judge-made law. We can work for state constitutional amendments that underline corporations' status as subservient to the people and the legislatures, and assert that corporations are not legal constitutional "persons" and thus are not protected by the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.

** Re-open corporate affairs to legislative scrutiny. At one time, all corporate records and affairs were open to legislatures or other designated state officials so that state governments, on behalf of the people, could monitor and evaluate corporate actions. We can reinstate such provisions in state corporation codes.

** Reinstate stockholder/owner control over corporate management and policy. For decades, concerned stockholders have attempted to curb some of the worst excesses of corporate policies, only to find their efforts thwarted by corporate management. We can modify states' corporation codes to return a modicum of control of corporations to their putative owners, the stockholders. 

Some basic provisions might include 

a) a one stockholder, one vote policy,
b) prohibitions against issuing non-voting stock,
c) removal of obstacles to stockholders' access to information, initiation of policies, and removal of unsatisfactory corporate management.

** Give state courts clear authority to hear all corporation cases. State courts, more sensitive to local needs and conditions and more accessible to citizens, once heard most corporation cases. During the last years of the nineteenth century, numerous unsuccessful attempts were made at the federal level to reinstate this practice. Both federal legislation and federal constitutional amendments were proposed. Either one would do the trick.

** Reinstate historic limits on corporations. State corporation codes and/or corporate charters can be amended to include provisions such as the following: 

a) Require corporations to have a specific purpose, with a penalty of charter revocation if said purpose is either not fulfilled or is exceeded. This would include a prohibition on the kind of "look how ethical we are!" advertising that currently dissipates stockholders' dollars and discombobulates public perceptions.
b) Require a percentage of stockholders to live within the chartering state.
c) Prohibit corporations from owning stock in other corporations.
d) Issue corporate charters for only a specific term of existence, perhaps ten or twenty years.
e) Limit real estate holdings to that necessary for corporate purposes.
f) Prohibit any and all political donations by corporations.
g) Prohibit all civic, charitable, or educational donations not specifically provided for in the corporate purpose.
h) Impose strict liability for all corporate officers and/or stockholders.

** Initiate new limits on corporate activities. We can add provisions (to state codes, charters, and/or constitutions) that:

a) Forbid corporations from doing business under pseudonyms or alternative names.
b) Require corporations to use earth-friendly materials in all stages of operations, and to list all ingredients.
c) Prohibit corporations from buying up patents for the purpose of preventing others from exploiting them.
d) Require every corporate document to be signed by a human being who thereby takes responsibility for the veracity of statements and the soundness of judgments therein.
e) Require a corporation to pay for periodic health, safety, and environmental audits by independent experts selected by workers and affected communities.
f) Require that in the event of bankruptcy, corporate management pay and perks be withheld until all other debts and creditors are paid, starting with workers and small businesses.
g) Require 95% recycling.
h) Prohibit corporations from seeking or accepting "incentive" packages from any government entity.
i) Establish a maximum ratio (like 1:5) between compensation of the lowest-paid worker and the highest-paid executive.
j) Establish a process similar to "recall" procedures for elected officials, so that citizens can initiate revocation referendums for corporate charters (in the case of domestic corporations) and for certificates of authority (that allow foreign corporations to do business in one's state).
k) Require uniformity of health benefits within each corporation for all corporation employees (from CEOs to wage-laborers).

This is just a sampling of some of the options open to us. Priorities might include working to revoke corporate charters, to end the privileges granted corporations under the judicial "corporate personhood" doctrine, and to prohibit political contributions. Most of the obstacles we face are in the arena of judge-made law, but historic legislation and constitutional provisions offer us a solid body of favorable precedents. Much debate lies ahead. But it is high time we shifted the controversy from whether we control corporations to how we do so.

The sky's the limit. What are we waiting for?

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

[1] Jane Anne Morris is a corporate anthropologist working on corporation issues as part of Democracy Unlimited of Wisconsin Cooperative. [Join them: 29 E. Wilson, Ste. 201, Madison WI 53703; phone (608) 255-6629; fax (608) 255-6643]. She is author of NOT IN MY BACK YARD: THE HANDBOOK (San Diego: Silvercat Publications [(888) 299-9119], 1994).

[2] U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 8.

[3] An excellent discussion of the difficulties of relying on a regulatory strategy to actually regulate corporate action can be found in Christopher D. Stone, WHERE THE LAW ENDS: THE SOCIAL CONTROL OF CORPORATE BEHAVIOR (NY: Harper & Row, 1975.]

[4] U.S. Const. Art. III Sec. 2.

[5] See note 15 in REHW #488.

[6] Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac. R.R., 118 U.S. 394.

[7] A discussion of the historical process of taking power from stockholders and giving it to a largely independent corporate management can be found in Adolf A. Berle, Jr., "Historical Inheritance of American Corporations," in Edmond N. Cahn, editor, SOCIAL MEANING OF LEGAL CONCEPTS (New York: NYU School of Law, 1950), pgs. 189-218.

[8] CORPORATE CRIME REPORTER, Vol. 9 No. 25 (June 28, 1995).

Descriptor terms: reforming corporations; regulation; history; constitutional law;

#487: Our Stolen Future--Part 2

=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #487
March 28, 1996
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net
========== RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com
================== Original Source ==================

Humans and other animals (fish, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals) all have three great internal networks that coordinate growth, development, and behavior:

** the nervous system (brain, spinal cord, and peripheral nerves);

** the immune system (a myriad of specialized cells and tissues that protect us against bacteria, viruses, and cancers); and

** the endocrine system, which controls and coordinates the body by sending chemical messages (hormones) through the blood stream, turning on and off various functions throughout the body.

The human body is more than a mere collection of 50 trillion individual cells because our cells work together. Working together requires coordination, which requires communication.

Nerves are just one avenue of communication--the one employed for rapid, discrete messages, such as a quick instruction to a hand, to move away from a hot stove. A large part of the body's internal communication and control is carried out via the bloodstream, where hormones and other chemical messengers move about, carrying signals that not only govern sex and reproduction but also coordinate organs and tissues that work together to keep the body functioning properly.

Hormones --chemical messengers --began to be understood early in this century. Nobel prizes were awarded for the discovery of insulin in 1923, and for work on sex hormones in 1939. The best-known hormones are estrogen (the main female sex hormone) and testosterone (the main male sex hormone) but by 1987 more than 100 hormones had been identified in humans and higher mammals. [1]

The endocrine (hormone) system plays an important role starting early in life's beginnings. It is the endocrine system that controls development of the embryo. The embryo begins as a single fertilized egg cell, which divides again and again, creating new cells; these cells in turn "differentiate" into different kinds of cells, thus creating a brain, eyes, fingers, genitalia, and so forth. All of these processes are controlled by hormones.

In 1950, researchers at Syracuse University exposed young roosters to DDT and showed that their testicles only grew to 18 percent of normal size. [2] The researchers concluded, "These findings suggest that DDT may exert an estrogen-like action..."

A 1963 study in the JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE showed that cysts and cancers developed in mice treated with estrogen as newborns. In that 1963 study, author Thelma Dunn warned that her work showed "the vulnerability of the immature animal to the harmful effects of exposure to a naturally occurring hormone." [3]

The following year, in 1964, two authors writing in the JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE reported changes in vaginal tissues in mice after exposure to estrogen shortly after birth. They warned, "We feel that abnormal hormonal environments during early postnatal (and antenatal) life should not be underestimated as to their possible contribution to abnormal changes of neoplastic [cancer] significance later in life." [4]

These early warnings were ignored. From about 1940 onward, roughly 1000 new chemicals were introduced into commercial channels each year (a practice that continues today). No one asked whether any of these chemicals might exert an estrogen-like effect or might in some other way disrupt the chemical-messaging system on which we all depend for health and well-being. Still today, no one in any official capacity is asking.

Starting in the 1950s, papers began to appear in scientific journals showing declines in wildlife populations, resulting from exposures to certain pesticides. Reports of odd behavior began to appear as well --pairs of female gulls (so-called "gay gulls") sharing nests; pairs of terns (birds on the Great Lakes) failing to sit on their eggs, neglecting to defend their nests against predators. Alligators with penises so small they couldn't reproduce. As time passed, hundreds of such studies accumulated from many parts of the world.

However, it wasn't until 1991 that some scientists began to see a pattern in these studies. In July of that year, Theo Colborn, a biologist with the World Wildlife Fund, invited a group of 20 scientists to discuss their research. To their surprise, the scientists all agreed that, in their individual research, they were seeing evidence that industrial chemicals in the environment were harming the endocrine systems of fish, birds and mammals. They issued a consensus document, now known as the Wingspread statement (see REHW #263, #264), which began, [5]"We are certain of the following:

"A large number of man-made chemicals that have been released into the environment, as well as a few natural ones, have the potential to disrupt the endocrine system of animals, including humans. Among these are the persistent, bioaccumulative, organohalogen compounds that include some pesticides (fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides) and industrial chemicals, other synthetic products, and some metals." [An organohalogen is a chemical that contains carbon attached to a halogen such as chlorine; there are now 15,000 chlorine-containing organic compounds in commercial use.]

The Wingspread statement went on,

"Many wildlife populations are already affected by these compounds. The impacts include thyroid dysfunction [impaired or abnormal functioning] in birds and fish; decreased fertility in birds, fish, shellfish, and mammals; decreased hatching success in birds, fish and turtles; gross birth deformities in birds, fish and turtles; metabolic abnormalities [impaired or abnormal use of energy, manufacture of tissue, or handling of resulting wastes] in birds, fish, and mammals; behavioral abnormalities in birds; demasculinization and feminization in male fish, birds, and mammals; defeminization and masculinization of female fish and birds; and compromised [impaired] immune systems in birds and mammals." This was the first time anyone had ever put two and two together and had concluded that industrial chemicals are interfering with hormones in wildlife and, by analogy, probably in humans.

Since 1991, the journals have continued to swell with new studies showing how industrial chemicals, in low concentrations, can disrupt hormone messages.

In some instances, industrial chemicals behave like (mimic) hormones, fooling the body into responding as if natural hormones are present when in fact they are not, thus sending fake messages. In other instances, industrial chemicals block (partially or fully) the action of natural hormones, thus interfering in the receipt of messages. In other instances, industrial chemicals block the production of hormones, thus preventing the sending of messages. In still other instances, industrial chemicals interfere with the body's normal ability to break down and eliminate hormones, thus resulting in too many messages being present simultaneously and for too long.

No matter where you live today --whether in New York City, or on a remote island in the Arctic Ocean, anyone willing to put up the $2000 for testing will find more than 250 synthetic industrial chemicals in their body. [6]DDT was first reported in human milk in 1951 and by the early 1980s, 192 different industrial chemicals (pesticides, solvents, etc.) were measurable in mothers' milk. [7]

These industrial chemicals are routinely present in our tissues at levels measured in parts per billion (or, in extreme instances, parts per million). On the other hand, naturally-occurring hormones often do their work at levels that are measured in parts per trillion, one thousand times lower than parts per billion and a million times lower that parts per million. [8]

Furthermore, there is evidence that industrial chemicals at exceedingly low levels can combine together to produce additive effects. Dr. Ana Soto at Tufts University combined 10 hormone disrupters, each at one-tenth of the dose required to produce a minimal response; she found that the combination produced a response. [9] Thus combinations of chemicals must be taken into account when we try to learn how much "effective exposure" we are getting to hormone-disrupting chemicals.

Is there any evidence that humans have been harmed? Yes, there is. The medical profession exposed millions of women to drugs called thalidomide and DES (diethylstilbestrol) before it was learned that birth defects might result from such exposures. The DES exposures, particularly, provided compelling evidence that humans respond to hormone-disrupting chemicals the way other mammals do. Studies of humans exposed to PCBs (a class of hormone-disrupting industrial chemicals) shown mental and physical stunting. (See REHW #295, #372.) (We will review additional human evidence in future issues.)

OUR STOLEN FUTURE, Theo Colborn's new book, [5]presents evidence and hypotheses pointing toward a variety of effects in humans: reduced sperm count; increases in cancer of the prostate, testicles, and female breast; diminished intelligence; reduced capacity to pay attention; increased aggression and violence. Are these things all proven? They are not. Are they plausible enough and important enough to warrant thoughtful preventive action by prudent people? They definitely are.

What lessons can we learn from all this? Many. But they will to wait. For the next two weeks, we will focus on the institution that allowed our future to be stolen --indeed, made it all but certain that our future would be stolen. Stay tuned.

                                                                    
 --Peter Montague

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

[1] Anthony W. Norman and Gerald Litwack, HORMONES (San Diego, Ca.: Academic Press, 1987), pg. xi. And see Appendix A.

[2] H. Burlington and V.F. Lindeman, "Effects of DDT on Testes and Secondary Sex Characters of White Leghorn Cockerels," Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine Vol. 74 (1950), pgs. 48-51. Even earlier, the sexual development of mice had been disrupted by exposure to estrogen: R. Greene and others, "Experimental Intersexuality: The Paradoxical Effects of Estrogens on the Sexual Development of the Female Rat," ANATOMICAL RECORD Vol. 74 No. 4 (1939), pgs. 429-438. And: R. Greene and others, "Experimental Intersexuality: Modification of Sexual Development of the White Rat With a Synthetic Estrogen," PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY FOR EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE Vol. 41 (1939), pgs. 169-170.

[3] T. Dunn and A. Green, "Cysts of the Epididymis, Cancer of the Cervix, Granular Cell Myoblastoma, and Other Lesions After Estrogen Injection in Newborn Mice," JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE Vol. 31 (1963), pgs. 425-438.

[4] N. Takasugi and H. Bern, "Tissue Changes in Mice with Persistent Vaginal Cornification Induced by Early Postnatal Treatment With Estrogen," JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE Vol. 33 (1964), pgs. 855-864.

[5] Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski and John Peterson Myers, OUR STOLEN FUTURE (N.Y.: Dutton, 1996), pgs. 251-260 reprints the Wingspread statement.

[6] J.S. Stanley, [Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Mo.], BROAD SCAN ANALYSIS OF HUMAN ADIPOSE TISSUE. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. VOLUME 1. FINAL REPORT. [EPA/560/5-86/035] (Springfield, Va: National Technical Information Service [NTIS No. PB 87-177218/REB]. See also VOLUME II, NTIS No. PB 87-177226. And see: Kristin Bryan and Theo Colborn, "Organochlorine Endocrine Disruptors in Human Tissue," in Theo Colborn and Coralie Clement, editors, CHEMICALLY-INDUCED ALTERATIONS IN SEXUAL AND FUNCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: THE WILDLIFE/HUMAN CONNECTION [Advances in Modern Environmental Toxicology Vol. XXI] (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Scientific Publishing Co., 1992), pgs. 365-394.

[7] E.P. Laug and others, "Occurrence of DDT in Human Milk," ARCHIVES OF INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE Vol. 3 (1951), pgs. 245-246. And see: Edo D. Pellizzari and others, "Purgeable Organic Compounds in Mother's Milk." BULLETIN OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND TOXICOLOGY Vol. 28 (1982), pgs. 322-328, reporting 192 different industrial chemicals in samples of human milk from New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Louisiana.

[8] In their Appendix A, Norman and Litwack, cited above in note 1, list the levels at which naturally-occurring hormones are present in human blood. Many occur in the low parts per trillion range.

[9] Soto's work is reported in Paul Cotton, "Environmental Estrogenic Agents Area of Concern [sic]," JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION Vol. 271, No. 6 (February 9, 1994), pgs. 414-415.

Descriptor terms: our stolen future; theo colborn; john peterson myers; dianne dumanoski; nervous system; immune system; endocrine system; hormones; development; embryo; estrogen; endocrine disrupters; wingspread statement; pesticides; thyroid disease; infertility; wildlife; fish; birds; mammals; synergism; additive effects; ana soto; book reviews;

#486: Our Stolen Future--Part 1

=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #486
March 21, 1996
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net
========== RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com
================== Original Source ==================

The NEW YORK TIMES week declared war on the theory and evidence that synthetic chemicals, such as dioxin, interfere with hormones, causing harm in wildlife and humans--a story we have been following since 1991.[1] Under a banner headline in Tuesday's Science Times section, [2]TIMES writer Gina Kolata reviewed the new book by Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski, and John Peterson ("Pete") Myers, OUR STOLEN FUTURE. OUR STOLEN FUTURE is based on a review of literally thousands of scientific studies going back 60 years. [3] The main idea in the book is that synthetic (human-created) chemicals may be interfering with the hormones that control and regulate growth, health and behavior in wildlife and humans, leading to birth defects, problems of sexual development, breast cancer, prostate cancer, and even mental problems like attention deficit disorder, reduced IQ, and violent behavior. Both Colborn and Myers hold Ph.D. degrees in zoology and are fully-qualified scientists, yet Ms. Kolata's review begins this way:

"In a warning supported by allies who include Robert Redford and Vice President Al Gore, some environmentalists are asserting that humans and wildlife are facing a new and serious threat from synthetic chemicals."

Thus in her opening paragraph, Ms. Kolata managed to trivialize the issue and discredit the authors by giving the impression that (a) "some environmentalists" are the source of the data; (b) perhaps some other environmentalists don't buy it; (c) the book's main supporters are politicians and movie actors; (d) scientists aren't in the picture.

Not until the fourth paragraph do we learn that Theo Colborn is herself a scientist, but by that time we've already been told that the message of OUR STOLEN FUTURE is "controversial," and that "the factual basis of the book's alarms... have been refuted by careful studies," and that co-author Pete Myers heads "an environmental group" (which is Ms. Kolata's description of the W. Alton Jones Foundation in Charlottesville, Va.). Ms. Kolata never does get around to telling her readers that Dr. Myers is a fully-credentialed scientist. Nor does she describe or name a single "careful study" that refutes any of the premises of OUR STOLEN FUTURE.

Ms. Kolata's review plunges downhill from there. It is not until the sixth paragraph that we learn, "besides Mr. Gore's support, OUR STOLEN FUTURE has been endorsed by several biologists and toxicologists, who say the book deserves to be heeded." Even then Ms. Kolata never names or quotes a single biologist or toxicologist who supports OUR STOLEN FUTURE. Instead, she devotes long paragraphs to four scientists who, she says, are critical of the theory that synthetic chemicals can disrupt hormones and thus cause harm to wildlife and humans.

However, even in quoting these contrarian scientists, Ms. Kolata deceives and misleads her readers by selectively distorting their views.

For example, she quotes Dr. Michael Gallo of Rutgers University saying that OUR STOLEN FUTURE is "hypothesis masked as fact." Yet on May 15, 1990, the NEW YORK TIMES itself quoted Dr. Gallo to quite different effect. [4] Here is the context: The writer of that 1990 story (TIMES staffer Jon R. Luoma) said, "Research now appears to have established that [dioxins] can affect animals and humans by mimicking steroid hormones, which are themselves extremely potent chemicals."

Luoma concluded, in that 1990 TIMES story, that the symptoms of dioxin exposure "range from suppression of the immune system to striking disruptions in cell growth and differentiation, particularly in fetal development." This is precisely the message of OUR STOLEN FUTURE.

Then Luoma quoted Dr. Michael Gallo, Rutgers University, saying TCDD [dioxin] "is as potent as any hormone" and "it doesn't take much hormone, or dioxin, to have a tremendous effect." And Dr. Gallo said, "From a toxicological point of view, nothing we've learned has caused us to back away from the idea that these [dioxins] are very, very potent chemicals." Does Gina Kolata not read the NEW YORK TIMES?

In her zeal to undermine the credibility of OUR STOLEN FUTURE, Ms. Kolata then quotes Dr. Stephen Safe, of Texas A&M University pooh-poohing Colborn and Myers's evidence that synthetic chemicals interfere with hormones in humans.

But back in May, 1990, the TIMES quoted Stephen Safe to quite different effect. Here is the context:

Jon Luoma's May 15, 1990, TIMES story pointed out that animal studies have shown that dioxin has a "breathtaking toxicity" and in laboratory animals dioxin causes a broad spectrum of toxic responses. "With laboratory animals, it seemed as if dioxin caused just about any effect you can think of," Steven Safe, a professor of toxicology at Texas A&M University, said. "You name it and [dioxin] did it, and at extraordinarily low doses," he said. "New research has not reversed these findings, it has merely helped explain them," Dr. Safe said. Luoma then went on to point out that, "...[S]tudies of humans exposed accidentally to TCDD [dioxin] have shown unusually high levels of enzymes that are typically induced by steroid hormones, a strong clue that a hormone-like response is triggered in humans exposed to dioxin as well." This is precisely what OUR STOLEN FUTURE is about, except that now dioxin is not the only known culprit: 50 additional synthetic chemicals have been shown to have the power to disrupt hormones. 

Does Gina Kolata not read the NEW YORK TIMES?

In her zeal to discredit OUR STOLEN FUTURE, Ms. Kolata sets up Theo Colborn, then knocks her down by quoting another scientist who apparently dismisses Colborn's argument that synthetic chemicals mimic hormones and affect the brain. Watch how this plays out to discredit Colborn:

Ms. Kolata writes: "Asked for the strongest, most convincing evidence that endocrine disruptors are affecting humans, Dr. Colborn said it was studies indicating that these chemicals are causing hyperactivity in children. 'The evidence is just building up,' she said, citing animal studies.

"She added that she also worried that endocrine-disrupting chemicals were causing a decline in intelligence and said that animal studies showed that such chemicals could weaken short-term memory in rodents.

"'If you have problems with short-term memory, you have problems with intelligence,' she said. 'Remember, the thyroid fits in here,' she said. 'There are thyroid problems in practically every fish in the Great Lakes. And thyroidologists say that it takes just the slightest shift during critical times in the development of the brain and you will have behavioral problems and intelligence problems.'

"But Dr. Maria I. New, chief of pediatric endocrinology at New York Hospital-Cornell University Medical Center in New York, said there was no evidence that learning disabilities, violence or a drop in I.Q. had anything to do with prenatal exposure to estrogens or endocrine-disrupting chemicals."

NO EVIDENCE, says Dr. Maria I. New. Sounds like an open and shut case, doesn't it? Colborn must be wrong: there must be no evidence that these hormones can affect the brain.

But wait. Back on May 3, 1994, TIMES writer Natalie Angier quoted the same Dr. Maria I. New saying that she was conducting research to determine whether the amount of androgen (male sex hormone) in a female fetus affected a woman's neurological [nervous system] development. "There are definitely effects of androgens on the brain," Dr. New said. [5] Does Gina Kolata not read the NEW YORK TIMES?

In her zeal to discredit OUR STOLEN FUTURE, Ms. Kolata goes to absurd extremes. She paraphrases Pete Myers saying "the evidence was sufficient to press for at least a worldwide ban on DDT and further restrictions on PCBs" --DDT and PCBs being two of the best-documented and most harmful hormone-disrupting chemicals. But Ms. Kolata won't let Dr. Myers hold even this modest position. She insists that "[S]everal leading scientists view such position as premature at best." Premature to advocate a global ban on DDT? The U.S. banned DDT 25 years ago, in 1971. Premature to restrict PCBs? The U.S. severely restricted the use of PCBs 20 years ago, in 1976. Ms. Kolata writes that these "leading scientists" say that the case for ridding the world of DDT and PCBs "seems fueled more by hyperbole than facts and that many of the claims of demonstrable harm, when examined, turn out to be a house of cards."

Does Ms. Kolata not read the NEW YORK TIMES? 

Does she not even read stories she herself has published previously in the TIMES? On August 2, 1988, Ms. Kolata reported in the TIMES that an industrial accident in Taiwan in 1979 exposed a group of people to PCBs and those exposures "have caused an epidemic of birth defects." [6] Is it not simple common sense to advocate restrictions on a chemical that can cause an epidemic of birth defects in humans?

Gina Kolata's review of OUR STOLEN FUTURE is unfair, biased, deceptive, and distorted, clearly aimed at discrediting all of the book's ideas, even its most unremarkable, mainstream ideas. It reminds me of the crude hatchet jobs done on Rachel Carson's SILENT SPRING back in 1962. Ms. Kolata's review raises the obvious question, who in the chemical industry "got to" Ms. Kolata and how did they do it?

But the more important question is, why did the editors at the TIMES assign such a lightweight to review such an important book? OUR STOLEN FUTURE is a major work with a profoundly important message. Anyone who reads the NEW YORK TIMES knows that the issues raised in this book have been described and discussed at serious scientific meetings, and in the columns of the TIMES itself, for some years now. [7] To allow a bigoted reviewer to suggest that these ideas have no basis in fact and have little or no support in the scientific community is a desecration of the journalistic values that the TIMES is committed to upholding. Mr. Kolata's review is unfair, false, distorted, biased, and misleading. Everyone ---I mean EVERYONE --should read this book, and everyone should give a copy to their family doctor. OUR STOLEN FUTURE is well written and easily understood. It deserves a fair reading --which Gina Kolata did not have the intellectual or moral capacity to give it. The TIMES can do better. Much better.

                                                                    
--Peter Montague

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

[1] See REHW 263, #264, #322, #323, #343, #364, #365, #372, #377, #432, #438, #446, #447, #448.

[2] Gina Kolata, "Chemicals That Mimic Hormones Stir Alarm and Debate," NEW YORK TIMES March 19, 1995, pg. C1. And: Gina Kolata, "Sperm Counts: Some Experts See a Fall, Others See Poor Data," NEW YORK TIMES March 19, 1995, pg. C1.

[3] Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski, and John Peterson Myers, OUR STOLEN FUTURE (N.Y.: Dutton, 1996).

[4] Jon R. Luoma, "Scientists Are Unlocking Secrets of Dioxin's Devastating Power," NEW YORK TIMES May 15, 1990, pg. C4.

[5] Natalie Angier, "Male Hormone Molds Women, Too, In Mind and Body," NEW YORK TIMES May 3, 1994, pgs. C1, C13.

[6] Gina Kolata, "PCB Exposure Linked to Birth Defects in Taiwan," NEW YORK TIMES August 2, 1988, page unknown.

[7] See, for example, items cited in footnotes 1 through 6; and see Jon R. Luoma, "New Effect of Pollutants: Hormone Mayhem," NEW YORK TIMES March 24, 1992, pg. C1.

Descriptor terms: endocrine disrupters; dioxin; hormones; endocrine system; new york times; gina kolata; theo colborn; dianne dumanoski; john peterson myers; pete myers; book reviews; journalism; journalistic ethics;