WHO knew that carcinogens had their own lobby in Washington? Just consider formaldehyde, which is found in everything from nail polish to kitchen countertops, fabric softeners to carpets. Largely because of its use in building materials, we breathe formaldehyde fumes when we’re inside our homes......The basic strategy is an old one. As David Michaels notes in his book “Doubt Is Their Product,” the first evidence that asbestos causes cancer emerged in the 1930s. But three decades later, industry executives were still railing about “ill-informed and exaggerated” press reports, still covering up staggering cancer rates, and still denouncing regulation of asbestos as “premature.” Huge numbers of Americans today are dying as a result.
Do we really want to go through that again?
Sometimes it seems that it is more cost effective to buy a politician than to invent a new process or substance that would meet health or environmental regulations. Thoughts?
Clearly an issue, whether it's buying a politician or a lack of regulation. Lobbying in general is an issue, one that is often criticized and demonized, especially in cases such as this. But after reading this, the only solution I could deduce was to elect Obama, because "these are the kinds of issues at stake." Thus, the only solution to lobbying in general is to elect Obama. Maybe a gross exaggeration, but that's my two cents.
ReplyDeleteWhile I think that simply voting for Obama and hoping for the best are probably not enough to make sure that our society remains intact and vibrant, I think the greater question here is whether the public is better suited by allowing some potentially harmful products on the market, or by removing some potentially safe ones. When it comes to carcinogens, I think it would be better to err on the side of caution. Cancer is serious, and once carcinogens are distributed throughout society, it will be difficult to reverse the process. If industry has doubts about the danger of a product, the public should still be informed of the scientific consensus, while the chemical companies finance bigger, double blind studies so as to remove any doubt about the safety of their products. If they can show with good science and data that the products are more likely to be safe than otherwise, they should be reintroduced to the market. Up to the point where science overwhelmingly points to safety, however, we must be diligent in protecting the health of our citizens, especially if we may one day be footing the bill from their asbestos-induced cancer.
ReplyDelete