Cancer and the Environment: An Ounce of

Spring 2003 Newsmagazine
Volume 33, Number 1
Cancer and the
Environment:
An Ounce of
Prevention
P R E S I D E N T ’ S
C O L U M N
New Challenges,
Better Strategies
I
n an effort to convince
the American people that
he is protecting our environment, President Bush
has increasingly resorted
to Orwellian doublespeak. He
uses phrases like “clear skies”
and “healthy forests” to cloak his
attempts to weaken the Clean Air
Act and to open up our national
forests to the timber industry.
Worse, real dangers to longterm improvements in
environmental quality lie in
Bush’s budget and tax proposals.
The financial resources needed to
protect our air and water from
pollution and safeguard our public lands will not be available if
the president’s tax and budget
plans are approved. The federal
budget and tax code may seem like
no more than numbers, but they have
a real impact on our health and environment.
For example, the number of
cleanups at toxic sites has dropped
nearly 50 percent below the number
completed in the final years of the
Clinton administration due to Bush’s
failure to fund the Superfund program.
The tax code should penalize
pollution instead of paying the polluter, but the president’s tax
proposals do the opposite. Bush
refuses to reinstate the Superfund tax
on polluters, forcing taxpayers to
foot the bill for toxic cleanups. At
the same time, he, supports new tax
2
Brent Blackwelder
subsidies for oil, coal, gas and
nuclear power. And most recently, he
proposed a new tax break for businesses that buy gas-guzzling SUVs.
Some people have asked: Is
George Bush doing all these antienvironmental actions by himself?
He isn’t. He has put former special
interest lobbyists in key agency positions.
The Interior Department, which
is responsible for managing more
than 500 million acres of public
lands, is a perfect example. Our last
issue profiled Steven Griles, the
number two person at the department, who has violated his ethics
agreement on numerous occasions
even as he is receiving over one
million dollars from his former
firm.
Other agencies dealing with
energy, agriculture and forests are
similarly under the control of
people who are conducting the
public’s business for private gain.
Thanks to your support
Friends of the Earth is carrying
out many activities to prevent the
weakening of environmental protections. Last year, one of our
biggest successes was the defeat
of a gigantic energy bill. Our
report Running on Empty
exposed the bill’s scandalous
giveaway of billions of tax dollars to big oil, coal and nuclear
companies.
This year we are publicizing
harmful actions being planned by
various federal agencies, strategizing
with pro-environment members of
the House and Senate about environmental opportunities, working with
our Friends of the Earth International
network in 70 countries, going forward with creative legal challenges
to the administration’s failure to act
on climate change and pursuing
innovative corporate and consumer
campaigns. Because cancer is striking an alarming number of American
families, we are launching a new
campaign to get at the root causes of
cancer.
Table of Contents
Environmental Causes of
Cancer Go Unexplored . . . .Pg. 4
Volume 33, Number 1
Spring 2003
Friends of the Earth (ISSN: 1054-1829) is published quarterly by Friends of the Earth, 1025
Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20005-6303, phone 202-783-7400, 877-843-8687
(toll free), fax 202-783-0444, e-mail: foe@foe.org, Web site: www.foe.org. Annual membership dues
are $25, which includes a subscription to Friends of the Earth.
Northeast Office: 87 College Street, Burlington, VT 05401, phone 802-951-9094, fax 802-8601208, e-mail: foene@foe.org.
The words “Friends of the Earth” and the FoE logo are exclusive trademarks of Friends of the
Earth, all rights reserved. Unless otherwise noted, articles may be reprinted without charge or special
permission. Please credit Friends of the Earth and the article author; send us a copy. Friends of the
Earth is indexed in the Alternative Press Index. Periodicals postage paid at Washington, DC.
Postmaster: Send address changes to Friends of the Earth, Membership Dept. 1025 Vermont
Avenue, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20005-6303.
Board of Directors
Publications Staff
Ed Begley, Jr.; Jayni Chase; Harriett Crosby; Clarence
Ditlow; Dan Gabel; Alicia Gomer; Michael Herz; Ann
Hoffman, Chair; Marion Hunt-Badiner, Secretary; Doug
Legum; Patricia Matthews; Avis Ogilvy Moore, Vice
Chair; Charles Moore; Edwardo Lao Rhodes; Arlie
Shardt; Doria Steedman; Rick Taketa; David Zwick,
Treasurer
Keira Costic, Editor
Design by JML Design
Dain Roose-Snyder
Carisa Torres
Jennifer Villemez
Staff
Brent Blackwelder, President
Norman Dean, Executive Director
Sandra Adams-Morally, Membership Associate
Lisa Archer, Safer Food, Safer Farms Grassroots
Coordinator
Larry Bohlen, Director, Health and Environment
Campaigns
Michelle Chan-Fishel, International Policy Analyst
Hugh Cheatham, Chief Financial Officer
Keira Costic, Publications Manager
Leslie Fields, Director, International Program
Colleen Freeman, International Grassroots Coordinator
Rosemary Greenaway, Director of Membership and
Marketing
Lisa Grob, Executive Assistant
Vonetta Harris, Accountant
Steve Herz, International Policy Analyst
David Hirsch, Director, Economics for the Earth
Program
Yasmeen Hossain, Executive Assistant
Cheryl Johnson, Receptionist/Office Assistant
Diane Minor, Chief Development Officer
Sherri Owens, Office Manager
Chris Pabon, Director of Foundation Relations
Erich Pica, Economics Policy Analyst
Jon Sohn, International Policy Analyst
Kristen Sykes, Interior Department Watchdog
David Waskow, Trade and Investment Policy Coordinator
Chris Weiss, Director of D.C. Environmental Network
Carol Welch, Deputy Director, International Program
Sara Zdeb, Legislative Director
Friends of the Earth is printed with soy ink on
100% recycled paper, 30% post-consumer
content. Bleached without chlorine.
Pharmaceutical Plants
in the Field? . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pg. 8
Farmer Calls for GE Corn
to Be Investigated . . . . . . . .Pg. 9
Campaign Victory! Washington
State Bans Genetically
Engineered Fish . . . . . . . . .Pg. 9
SUVs: Danger on
the Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pg. 10
Interns
Dana Breen
Melissa Hishmeh
Josh Melissari
Edward Sharon
Green Scissors for
Washington D.C. . . . . . . . . .Pg. 7
Consultants/Advisors
Brian Dunkiel
Bill Freese
John W. Jensen
Dorothee Krahn
Member Groups
Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium,
Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria,
Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia,
Costa Rica, Croatia, Curacao, Cyprus,
Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, El
Friends of Salvador, England-Wales-Northern
the Earth Ireland, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia,
International
Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Haiti,
Honduras, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan,
Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malaysia,
Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Nepal, Netherlands, New
Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Papua New
Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Scotland,
Sierra Leone, Slovakia, South Africa, South Korea,
Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Togo, Tunisia,
Ukraine, United States, Uruguay.
Board Members
Up for Re-election
This Summer . . . . . . . . . . .Pg. 11
Corporate Accounting Schemes:
Still Hide Environmental
Liabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pg. 12
Socially Responsible
Investing Leader . . . . . . . .Pg. 13
New Hill Leaders
to Watch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pg. 14
Affiliates
Africa: Earthlife Africa; Australia: Mineral Policy Institute;
Australia: Rainforest Information Centre; Brazil: Amigos
da Terra Amazonia - Amazônia Brasileira; Brazil: Grupo de
Trabalho Amazonico; Czech Republic: CEE Bankwatch;
Japan: Peace Boat; Latin America: REJULADS; Middle
East: Friends of the Earth (Israel, Jordan and Palestine);
Netherlands: Action for Solidarity, Equality, Environment
and Development Europe; Netherlands: Stichting De
Noordzee (North Sea Foundation); Netherlands: Corporate
Europe Observatory; United States: International Rivers
Network; United States: Project Underground; United
States: Rainforest Action Network
UNION
BUG
EarthShare giving campaigns allow
you to designate a donation to
Friends of the Earth. To set up an
EarthShare campaign at your workplace, contact Diane Minor at
202-783-7400 ext. 287.
Spring 2003 • Volume 33, Number 1
3
C O V E R
S T O R Y
Environmental Causes of
Cancer Go Unexplored
Corporations that profit from cancer treatment drugs are sometimes the same ones that release environmental toxins. Cancer treatment is
a $40 billion a year industry.
By Lisa Archer and Lisa Grob
“I
n all the years I have
been under medical
scrutiny, no one has
ever asked me about
the environmental
conditions where I grew up, even
though bladder cancer in young
women is highly unusual,” says cancer
survivor Sandra Steingraber. “I was
once asked if I had ever worked with
dyes or had been employed in the rubber industry. (No and no.) Other than
these two questions, no doctor, nurse,
or technician has ever shown interest
in probing the possible causes of my
disease – even
when I have introduced the topic.
From my conversations with other
cancer patients, I
Sandra Steingraber gather that such
4
While great strides
have been made in
reducing cancer
mortality, we are
seeing an increase
in the percentage of
people afflicted
with the disease.
lack of curiosity in the medical community is usual.”
Steingraber is a cancer survivor,
scientist and activist. Her book, Living
Downstream, details the growing body
of evidence linking cancer to environmental contamination. She is from
rural Illinois, and grew up with three
dozen industries in her backyard,
including an ethanol distillery and a
coal burning power plant. At age 20,
she was diagnosed with bladder cancer, which is a highly unusual
diagnosis in a young woman, a nonsmoker and a nondrinker.
Money for Detection and
Treatment, Not Prevention
Tremendous strides have been made in
the area of cancer mortality reduction,
but commonsense tells us it is not
enough. Living through cancer treatment can be debilitating, costly and
life-altering. It seems obvious that cancer prevention – more specifically,
“primary” prevention that inhibits cancer before it starts – should be a
priority for medical researchers and
philanthropists alike.
“Like a jury’s verdict or an adoption decree, a cancer diagnosis is an
authoritative pronouncement, one with
the power to change your identity. It
sends you into an unfamiliar country
C O V E R
where all the rules of human conduct
are alien. In this new territory, you disrobe in front of strangers who are
allowed to touch you. You submit to
bodily invasions. You agree to be poisoned. You have become a cancer
patient,” said Steingraber.
Unfortunately, the majority of
funding and efforts geared toward prevention is often for “secondary”
prevention – screening and diagnosis.
When experts do concern themselves
with primary prevention, they often
focus narrowly on what are called
“lifestyle factors” such as cigarette
smoking, exercise and diet.
Much of the public education
about cancer prevention focuses on the
lifestyle factors also, but ignores environmental and occupational causes
such as pollution and pesticides. Yet,
for example, when all known risk factors and characteristics are added
together, more than 50 percent of
breast cancer cases remain unexplained.
S T O R Y
Cosmetic Products
Containing Chemicals
Classified as Possible
Carcinogens:
■ Arrid Extra Dry – Maximum
Strength Solid, Ultra Clear
Ultra Clean Spray, Ultra Clear
Ultra Fresh Spray
■ Red Door (fragrance)
■ Lancome Paris Tresor (fragrance)
■ White Diamonds (fragrance)
■ Charlie Cologne Spray
■ Salon Selectives Hold Tight
Style Freeze Maximum Hold
Finishing Spray
■ Jergens Skincare Original
Scent Lotion
■ Degree Original
Solid AntiPerspirant &
Deodorant
Source: Environmental Working Group
Lessons Not Learned
When Rachel Carson challenged government and industry to acknowledge
the ecological and health impacts of
the use of pesticides, a movement was
born. Her book, Silent Spring, published in 1962, changed public
perception about the safety of pesticides.
Her research of available science
in the United States and Europe
unequivocally linked the use of certain
pesticides to the deaths of many
species. Her findings also demonstrated the need for more thorough
testing of the effects of chemicals on
human health and the environment.
Forty years later, despite continuing efforts to eliminate the worst
pesticides and other hazardous manmade chemicals from our food, air and
water, these chemicals continue to be
produced and used at an alarming rate.
At the same time, we are facing a
growing epidemic: By 2050, 1 out of 2
men and 1 out of 3 women will contract some form of cancer during his or
her lifetime.
Chemical Soup
There are 85,000 different synthetic
chemicals currently registered for use.
More than 90 percent of these chemicals have never been tested for their
effects on human health and the connection between exposure to these
chemicals and cancer remains virtually
unknown and unstudied.
Despite this, every day we are
exposed to an array of countless chemicals – at work, in our food, in
cosmetics, in household insecticides
and cleaners – with little to no understanding of their cumulative effects on
our health.
According to the most recent data,
40 possible carcinogens appear in
drinking water, 60 are regularly released
by industry into ambient air and 66 are
routinely sprayed on food crops as pesticides – and even more may be hidden.
In fact, more than 80 percent of commonly used pesticides are carcinogenic.
These chemicals are absorbed and often
stored in our bodies and sometimes
passed onto our children.
In a 1995 study in Denver, children whose yards were treated with
pesticides were four times more likely
to have soft tissue cancer than children
living in households that did not use
yard chemicals. More than 200 foreign
chemicals have been found in women’s
breast milk, including dioxin, a carcinogen that disrupts children’s
endocrine systems.
Losing the War on Cancer
In 1971, President Nixon declared a
“War on Cancer” with the enactment
of the National Cancer Act. More
than three decades and $25 billion
into the “war” the results are mixed.
While great strides have been made
in reducing cancer mortality, we are
seeing an increase in the percentage of
people afflicted with the disease.
The Mount Sinai School of
Medicine reported that the incidence
of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has
increased 30 percent since 1950 and
multiple myeloma has increased 300
percent since 1950. Moreover, there is
a strong link between exposure to persistent organic pollutants and
non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and multiple myeloma.
Every year 1.4 million Americans
are diagnosed with cancer, and
540,500 die. That’s about 1,500 people
a day, and 45,000 a month. And it
doesn’t count the emotional and logistical toll those cancer deaths take on
millions of family members and
friends.
Within the next 10 to 15 years,
unless there is a dramatic medical
breakthrough, cancer will become the
Continued on Page 6
Spring 2003 • Volume 33, Number 1
5
C O V E R
leading cause of death in America,
overtaking heart disease.
An Ounce of Prevention
Epidemiologists John Bailar and
Heather Gornik wrote recently in the
New England Journal of Medicine,
“the most promising approach to the
control of cancer is a national commitment to prevention, with a
rebalancing of the focus and funding
of research.”
The Breast Cancer Fund charges
that funding for environmental
research represents only a fraction of
the government’s budget for disease
research. Of the National Institutes of
Health’s $15.7 billion budget last
year, just $382 million, or 2.4 percent,
went to the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences, the
primary agency conducting research
on environmental health. Similarly,
the Centers for Disease Control’s
National Center for Environmental
Health received just $172 million for
1999.
It is clear that the government
needs to better regulate the release of
toxics in our environment and establish a testing regimen that can protect
the public. Very little is spent on
actual prevention strategies because
preventing cancer isn’t lucrative for
the medical industry. Billions are
poured into research on costly treatments by huge pharmaceutical
companies, and their dollars drive the
focus of cancer research. Cancer
treatment was a $41 billion industry
in 1995 (the last year figures were
available).
Toxic Polluters Profit from
Cancer Treatments
Companies that profit from cancer
treatment drugs are sometimes the
same ones that release environmental
toxins. Corporate giant AstraZeneca,
maker of tamoxifen (a leading anti-
6
S T O R Y
Cancer Prevention
Agenda for Progress
■ Ask your federal and state
legislators to ban the 10 most
dangerous cancer-causing
chemicals.
■ Get your state to pass a Toxic
Use Reduction Act similar to
the Massachusetts law passed
in 1989, which reduced toxics used in manufacturing by
40 percent.
■ Demand that more than a
token amount of cancer
money be spent on stopping
carcinogens in commerce.
breast cancer drug), sponsors Breast
Cancer Awareness month. It’s a month
that focuses on detection and treatment, but not prevention.
In addition to producing tamoxifen, AstraZeneca makes pesticides,
plastics, other pharmaceuticals and
paper. AstraZeneca is the third-largest
producer of pesticides in the United
States and produced acetochlor, a carcinogenic herbicide (which Dow
AgroSciences acquired the rights to in
2000). New York banned the use of
acetochlor because of concerns about
human health effects. AstraZeneca,
meanwhile, is a spin-off company of
Imperial Chemical Industries, which
was sued in 1990 by state and federal
agencies for dumping DDT and PCBs
(polychlorinated biphenyls) in
California’s harbors.
Like AstraZeneca, General
Electric is a major industrial polluter.
But General Electric also manufactures mammography machines.
Mammography has been one of the
most heavily endorsed methods for
early detection of breast cancer; however, it has been shown to have little
to no value to women under the age
of 50.
Winning the War on Cancer
While we can do little to recall the tens
of thousands of chemicals and radiation already released into the
environment and our bodies, we can
start reducing the most hazardous carcinogens from industrial processes and
consumer products.
Friends of the Earth, the Breast
Cancer Fund and many others are
working on new, innovative strategies
to combat the cancer epidemic by
addressing its root causes.
Unfortunately, key Bush
appointees may prove hostile to better
cancer prevention strategies. John
Graham, a controversial senior official
at the White House’s Office of
Management and Budget, is requiring
agencies like the Environmental
Protection Agency to do cost-benefit
analyses on proposed regulations.
The cost-benefit analysis that
Graham advocates puts less value on
lives lost in the future. It does not
attribute a benefit to preventing probable risks. Thus, a proposal to regulate
the release of toxins may be abandoned because it prevents disease in
the future, not now.
It is unconscionable for our government to continue to give a green
light to carcinogens today because they
won’t kill until tomorrow. Friends of
the Earth and our coalition partners
will bring new pressure to bear on
government and industry leaders who
are in a position to help us stop cancer
before it starts.
Sources
30 Years of War on Cancer, Cox News Service,
Nov. 2001.
American Cancer Society
Breast Cancer Fund
Cancer Undefeated, NEJM, 1997, 336 (22):
1569-74
Earth Island Journal, Spring 1998
Environmental Working Group
Dr. Samuel Epstein
Mount Sinai School of Medicine
National Cancer Institute
Dr. Sandra Steingraber
■
D . C .
E N V I R O N M E N T A L
N E T W O R K
Green Scissors for
Washington D.C.
By Edward Sharon
A
Photo credit: Mark Gardner Young
Existing programs such as the
Long Term Control Plan will help
first-ever Green
to rid over 3.2 billion gallons of
Scissors report for
raw sewage and polluted
the District of
stormwater that is dumped into
Columbia offers
the rivers surrounding the district
environmentally
each year.
sound fiscal solutions to a city in
One new proposal is for the
desperate need of them. The disdistrict to implement a $1 parking
trict’s budget has been rife with
fee that would generate income for
inefficiencies for decades.
the city and encourage the use of
In the face of a projected
public transportation. Employees
budget deficit of over
would be charged a $1 per day fee
$323 million, the D.C.
on all parking spaces used for
Government seems poised to conemployment purposes in the distinue the district’s long-standing
trict. This fee would generate over
practice of wasteful spending and
$111 million in annual revenues
lucrative yet environmentally damfor the district, based on a study
aging business deals.
by the Washington Metropolitan
In addition to waste, the govThe D.C. Environmental Network had an early victory
Council of Governments. “For
ernment faces serious obstacles in when the Cadillac Grand Prix, a polluting event in an
work, there’s no question that it’s
established neighborhood, was cancelled for 2003.
its ability to generate sufficient
my incentive to drive — because
revenues to cover its long-term
of
the parking space. If I didn’t
attempt to bring the Cadillac Grand
expenditures. Without a balance
have
that
space, I’d be on the Metro,”
Prix to the district. The Grand Prix, a
between revenue generation and
said Jim Forbes, press officer for the
major part of Mayor Williams ecoexpenditure allocation, the district will
U.S. House of Representatives
nomic revitalization, is estimated to
face budget deficits for many years to
Administration Committee, in a
cost D.C. taxpayers at least $9 million
come.
Washington Post article.
over the next nine years. “…the noisy,
Modeled after the national Green
Overall, there is $642 million in
noxious, fume-spewing Cadillac Grand
Scissors Campaign led by Friends of
savings
that would easily solve the
Prix…was insensitively and stealthily
the Earth, the D.C. Environmental
district’s
current budget crisis.
imposed on a stable, predominantly
Network’s 2003 D.C. Green Scissors
Through
better fiscal spending and
black Northeast Washington neighborreport analyzes budgetary inefficienresponsible environmental managehood over the residents’ strong
cies and pork-barrel contracts that
ment, the nation’s capital will be a city
objections,” said D.C. resident Colbert
harm the environment and divert funds
to be proud of.
I. King in a Washington Post editorial.
away from the unmet needs of the city.
This D.C. Green Scissors report is
This report highlights numerous proFor more information,
unique,
however, in that it also highgrams that, if modified or cut, would
contact
the D.C.
lights existing and new programs that
save D.C. taxpayers over $642 million,
Environmental
Network
are positive both fiscally and environand result in a budget surplus.
■
at
202-783-7400
x120.
mentally.
One example of a pork-barrel contract is the D.C. Sports Commission’s
Spring 2003 • Volume 33, Number 1
7
S A F E
F O O D
U P D A T E
Pharmaceutical Plants
in the Field?
A blood clotting agent, aprotinin, grown in several outdoor field trials in corn belongs to a class of substances known to cause pancreatic
disease in test animals.
By Bill Freese
T
he biotech food industry
suffered two very embarrassing and very public
setbacks in recent
months. First, a corn
crop genetically engineered to produce
a pharmaceutical or industrial chemical contaminated 500,000 bushels of
soybeans in Nebraska destined for
human consumption. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
purchased the soybeans for $2.7 million and put them in quarantine.
The USDA refused to reveal what
chemical or drug was grown in the
biopharmaceutical corn or divulge the
exact location of the contaminated
food crop. Perhaps most disturbing is
the fact that the USDA was unable to
ensure a 100 percent containment of
the contaminated crop, or offer
specifics on this gross failure of their
regulatory system.
Two days after, the USDA
revealed a second incident of contamination, this time in Iowa, the agency
had to burn 155 acres of corn adjacent
8
to the biopharm test site. The USDA
fined the nation’s leading biopharm
company, Prodigene, $250,000 for
both contamination incidents and is
requiring that ProdiGene reimburse
them for the soybean purchase.
“Biopharmaceuticals
usually elicit responses at
low concentrations, and
may be toxic at higher ones.
Many have physiochemical
properties that might cause
them to persist in the
environment or
bioaccumulate in living
organisms, possibly
damaging non-target
organisms…”
— Dr. Glynis Giddings,
“Transgenic plants as factories
for biopharmaceuticals,”
Nature Biotechnology
“We warned the USDA earlier this
year this was going to happen, but
ProdiGene said it never would. We
were right, they were wrong, yet the
USDA still isn’t hearing our concerns,” said Larry Bohlen, Friends of
the Earth’s director of Health and
Environment Programs.
Biotechnology companies have
conducted over 300 biopharm field
trials across the country since 1991.
It is probable that contamination of
the U.S. food supply with genetically
engineered pharmaceuticals has
already occurred. Shaken by the contamination incidents, the food
processing industry has joined its
voice with environmental and consumer-advocates in calling for the
end of drugs engineered into food
crops. Some biopharm companies
even responded with a compromise
plan vowing not to plant in the grain
belt.
For more information visit
www.foe.orge/biopharm.
■
S A F E
F O O D
U P D A T E
Farmer Calls for
GE Corn to Be Investigated
F
riends of the Earth, along
with the Iowa Farmers
Union, is concerned that
the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) sold
corn suspected of containing a toxic
mold that made pigs infertile. The corn
in this case also happens to be genetically engineered to resist pests and to
tolerate heavy treatments of pesticides.
Jerry Rosman, a Harlan, Iowa,
farmer, had alerted the Agriculture
Department to problems with the corn
after hogs at his farm and others in the
area became sterile. Twenty farmers,
most of them in Iowa, have complained that the biotech corn may have
made their livestock infertile. In
response, a senior USDA researcher
wrote, “Studies, especially with swine,
will require considerable quantities of
the suspect corn.”
We sent a letter to Agriculture
Secretary Ann Veneman asking her to
block 950 bushels of the suspicious
corn from being used as livestock feed
and to save it for research. But
Veneman ignored our warning: we have
the receipt that proves the corn was sold
to G&R Elevator in Portsmouth, Iowa.
According to
Friends of the
Earth’s Larry
Bohlen, “When the
USDA’s own
researchers are
looking for a novel
Farmer Jerry
Rosman
toxin in this corn,
why on earth would
they sell it into feed channels and put
unsuspecting farmers at risk.”
For more information visit:
www.foe.org/suspectcorn
■
Campaign Victory! Washington State
Bans Genetically Engineered Fish
The state of Washington adopted
sweeping new regulations permanently banning genetically engineered
fish from aquaculture operations (fish
farms) in all its marine waters. The
move comes in the wake of repeated,
large-scale escapes of farmed fish,
and heavy media coverage of recent
biotech industry blunders, including
food crop contamination incidents.
Several hundred thousand
Atlantic salmon have escaped from
fish farms in Washington state in
recent years, crowding out native
Pacific salmon and spreading disease.
Our wild salmon populations are
already struggling to survive – the last
thing they need is more competition
from engineered species escaping
from fish farms.
Engineering designer fish and introducing
them into our public waterways would put
already endangered salmon at greater risk
of extinction.
Genetically engineered, or “transgenic,” fish are made-to-order
creatures, custom designed to possess
certain “desirable” traits otherwise
impossible to acquire in nature by
breeding of any kind. One company,
A/F Protein, has developed an
Atlantic salmon genetically super-
charged to grow four to six times the
rate of normal salmon.
Scientists from Purdue University
found that if just 60 transgenic salmon
escaped from fish farms, wild salmon
populations could be driven into extinction. A new study by the National
Academy of Sciences has also recognized the immediate and serious
human health, environmental and ethical concerns associated with the use of
genetically engineered animals, including fish, in the food supply.
Volunteers and staff from
Friends of the Earth led the campaign
pressing for the new rules. State
agencies are now required to implement significant new enforcement
and oversight measures to address the
serious negative impacts of poorly
■
regulated fish farms.
Spring 2003 • Volume 33, Number 1
9
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N
SUVs: Danger on the Road
Sport utility vehicles can spew 30 percent more carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons and 75 percent more nitrogen oxides than passenger
cars – these pollutants are precursors to ground level ozone, which causes asthma and lung damage.
By David Hirsch
S
port Utility Vehicles
(SUVs): They are unsafe,
bad for the environment
and subsidized by generous
tax breaks. People are starting to realize that it’s not “in style”
anymore to be driving these behemoth
vehicles around – in fact soon it may
be embarrassing to be seen driving an
SUV through city streets.
SUV owners across the country
are finding “traffic tickets” on their
windshields charging them with driving a gas-guzzling vehicle. And
Friends of the Earth’s bumper stickers,
with slogans like, “Support OPEC,
Drive an SUV” are making appearances across the country.
The backlash began with the ad
campaign by the Evangelical
Environmental Network. The ads posed
the question, “What would Jesus
drive?”, and this provocative question
seemed to get peoples’ attention.
Late in 2002, a new book was published: High and Mighty: SUVs – The
World’s Most Dangerous Vehicles and
How they Got that Way by Keith
10
Bradsher – former Detroit bureau chief
of the The New York Times. This fascinating book exposes the truth about the
dangers of SUVs.
The book led to a wave of media
attention on SUVs, which was capped
by columnist and author Arianna
Huffington’s ads that likened driving
an SUV to helping terrorists.
Even the new head of the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
Jeffrey Runge, recently stepped up to
the plate and spoke honestly about the
risk of rollovers and other SUV-related
hazards.
Safety Last
Even though SUVs are frequently marketed as safer than cars, they are in fact
more dangerous. Government studies
have found that the occupant death rate
for mid-sized SUVs is 6 percent higher
than cars. For large SUVs, the death
rate is 8 percent higher than minivans
and mid-sized cars like the Ford Taurus.
Since SUVs ride higher off the
ground and have a higher center of
gravity, their rollover rate is three times
worse than for cars. In addition, current
government safety standards do not
require SUVs to have reinforced roofs,
which would help protect occupants in
case of a rollover. Rollovers account for
about 1,000 deaths each year – deaths
that would have been prevented if the
accident occurred in a car.
Given that SUVs are built with
stiff frames, they are more likely to kill
other drivers in an accident.
Department of Transportation scientists study the “kill rate” – how many
other people certain vehicle models are
responsible for killing each year in
crashes. Looking at SUVs, these scientists came to a frightening conclusion.
For every one life saved by driving an
SUV, five others will be taken. In one
specific instance, they found that the
SUV Chevy Tahoe kills 122 people for
every 1 million models on the road. In
comparison, the Honda Accord kills 21
people.
Public Health Problem
SUVs burn more gas, and spew out
more pollution. Many of the big SUVs
pollute three times as much as cars,
which greatly contributes to climate
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N
change and smog. But for many of us,
it is difficult to connect our actions at
the gas pump with the temperature
outside, or with the quality of the air.
Since we don’t really see the immediate impacts of our gasoline use – or
our vehicle choice – it is easy to ignore
the repercussions.
In the Washington, D.C. region,
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency recently declared the area’s
ozone levels “severe,” after a summer
with the worst ozone pollution in a
decade. Last year, an official with the
Maryland Department of
Transportation publicly blamed the
explosive growth in SUV sales as the
main reason pollution in the region
dramatically increased.
The Need for Stronger
Regulations
Our government allows SUVs to be
dirty and dangerous, and they get a
huge break from lax fuel economy standards. And yet that’s not the worst of it.
These oversized behemoths actually
qualify for oversized tax breaks as well.
SUVs are exempt from the federal
gas-guzzler tax, which is usually
assessed on low-mileage cars. This
saves automakers as much as $10 billion a year. Another ridiculous tax
break lets small businesses take a
$25,000 tax deduction when they buy
an SUV. The doctors and real estate
agents taking advantage of this tax
break would get nowhere near this
sweetheart deal if they bought a car.
Amazingly, President Bush has pro-
Purchase your SUV bumper stickers at
www.foe.org or use the order form on
page 15.
posed raising this deduction to
$75,000. Suddenly a new Hummer
would cost just pocket change.
You can find out more about
the problems with SUVs on
our Web site, www.suv.org. ■
Board Members Up for Re-election This Summer
F
riends of the Earth will host its annual board
meeting May 27 at noon in the Washington,
D.C. office. Jayni Chase and David Zwick are
running uncontested for open slots on Friends of
the Earth’s board of directors. Members may
cast votes at the annual meeting. If you would like to attend,
contact Yasmeen Hossain at yhossain@foe.org or by phone at
202-783-7400 ext. 256. Members may also vote by proxy
ballot for the candidates or for write-in candidates. To do so,
copy or clip the mailing label on this newsmagazine and
mail your vote to Board Election, Friends of the Earth, 1025
Vermont Ave., NW, Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 200056303 or fax your ballot to 202-783-0444.
David Zwick, President,
Clean Water Action
David’s work over the past 20 years has
focused on helping grassroots citizen organizations form and continue to grow. He is the President of
Clean Water Action and the Executive Vice President of the
Clean Water Fund. He is the author of Water Wasteland,
which helped shape the Clean Water Act, and co-author of
the bestseller, Who Runs Congress. He holds a J.D. from
Harvard Law School. David has been on the board of
Friends of the Earth since 1974 and currently serves as
Treasurer.
Jayni Chase, Founder, Center
for Environmental Education
The Center for Environmental Education is a
national non-profit organization that
advances environmental education. Jayni is
the author and managing editor of the first full-coverage
environmental education resource guidebook, Blueprint for a
Green School. She has served on numerous advisory boards
including: the Antioch New England Institute, Mothers &
Others for a Livable Planet; Global Green USA and the
Rainforest Alliance. She has received awards from the
National Resources Defense Council, ‘Women For’, U.S.
Environmental Film Festival, the Crittenton Center,
Environmental Media Awards and the Earth
Communications Office. In May 2003, Antioch New
England will award Jayni with an honorary master’s degree
in environmental education. Jayni has served on the board of
Friends of the Earth since 1994, and just finished a two-year
term as chair. Jayni is married to actor/comedian, Chevy
Chase and is the mother of three daughters. Her children
have been the force behind her dedication to reversing the
■
world’s rush toward environmental tragedies.
Spring 2003 • Volume 33, Number 1
11
C O R P O R A T E
A C C O U N T A B I L I T Y
Corporate Accounting Schemes:
Still Hide Environmental Liabilities
The protesters called the World Economic Forum, which attracted some 2,000 high-ranking representatives from the world of politics and
economics, a “secret oil meeting.”
By Michelle Chan-Fishel
O
ne year ago, at the
height of the Enron
and Arthur Andersen
accounting scandal,
President Bush
unveiled his “Ten-Point Plan to
Improve Corporate Responsibility and
Protect America’s Shareholders.” It
was a weak proposal that largely relied
on self-policing by the very actors who
proved themselves incapable of acting
in the public interest.
The public soon rallied behind the
more aggressive corporate corruption
bill sponsored by Sen. Paul Sarbanes
(D-Md.) and Rep. Michael Oxley
(R-Ohio); and in July 2002, Bush
bowed to political pressure and signed it
into law. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act still
does not go far enough to curb corporate corruption and shady accounting.
For companies that want to dupe
shareholders, legal but misleading
accounting gimmicks can still hide the
12
truth. And while investors are familiar
with some accounting ploys, such as
the creation of special purpose entities
(à la Enron), they may not be aware of
other creative accounting methods
companies use to obscure losses, overstate earnings and hide environmental
liabilities.
Lowballing Toxic Waste
Liabilities
One example of how environmental
liabilities can be manipulated to manage earnings relates to toxic waste
liabilities such as Superfund cleanup
costs. Companies can put off these
remediation expenses by drawing out
litigation to delay booking these costs.
They can also use accounting loopholes to minimize their cleanup cost
estimates.
Accounting rules state that a company has to provide the best cleanup
cost estimate that it can, but if it can-
not arrive at such a number, it can
report a minimum cost estimate.
Companies can easily lowball their
estimates so that they fall under the
threshold of materiality, or significance, and therefore are not subject to
disclosure.
One company that employed this
trick is Viacom, formerly Gulf +
Western. This large conglomerate
owned New Jersey Zinc, a mining
company, which created numerous
toxic waste sites during its nearly 100
years of operation.
According to local environmental
groups, Viacom delayed cleaning up a
contaminated site in Palmerton, Pa.,
for over a decade. They tied up matters
in court, so they could keep the
charges off their books. Meanwhile,
the generation of children growing up
around the site tested for higher than
average levels of lead in their blood,
which can cause brain damage.
C O R P O R A T E
Hiding Asbestos Liability
Another way companies use environmental health issues to manage
earnings is by minimizing the impact
of asbestos claims. Asbestos liabilities
are currently estimated at $200 billion,
and many companies are on the hook
for tens of millions of dollars worth of
these claims. However, some companies exploit loopholes in
environmental disclosure rules.
Halliburton is one company that
hid its asbestos liability. It urged its
shareholders in 1998 to approve a
merger with rival Dresser Industries,
and downplayed Dresser’s environmental liabilities.
Halliburton portrayed Dresser as
basically having no litigation or environmental problems except for those
outlined in other referenced documents. If shareholders had actually
looked at these other documents they
would have found that Dresser actually
had 66,000 pending asbestos claims!
For the next three years,
Halliburton continued to assert that
asbestos claims wouldn’t have a material impact on their business, but
investors didn’t believe it.
The company was finally forced
to come clean in July 2002 by releasing an independent report that told the
A C C O U N T A B I L I T Y
real story on asbestos claims. That
quarter Halliburton reported a loss for
the first time in four years – tarnishing
the glowing financial picture that the
company painted by lowballing
asbestos liabilities for so long.
However, at the end of the day,
Halliburton’s shares rose because
investors, who were operating among
rumors of asbestos-induced bankruptcy, rewarded the company for
telling the truth rather than hiding it.
Painting a Rosy Picture
SEC rules require companies to fairly
and accurately describe known trends
or uncertainties that could pose risks.
Many companies get away with painting rosy pictures of the future by
neglecting to identify pending environmental or labor regulations, consumer
trends and scientific evidence that
could adversely impact them.
Sometimes, a company may even
lobby against a particular regulation,
claiming that it would have a devastating effect on the bottom line, but not
mention a word to investors about the
allegedly disastrous risk to the company.
Climate change is a good example
of a trend that could impact many
companies, such as automobile mak-
ers, oil companies and petrochemicals
manufacturers. A recent Friends of the
Earth survey of company SEC filings
found that certain companies disclosed
the impact the Kyoto Protocol could
have on their businesses.
Multinational chemical company
DuPont even described the steps it is
taking to reduce its carbon dioxide liabilities. In contrast, Dow Chemical,
which produces similar products and is
subject to similar regulations and markets as DuPont, did not address its
impacts on climate change in its 2001
annual report.
New SEC rules created in
response to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
fail to bring clarity to vague accounting rules, which combined with
companies’ desire to boost the bottom line, can harm investors and in
some cases, the environment and
communities as well. Telling the truth
may not be pretty, but putting these
environmental, labor and public
health issues on company balance
sheets will create a permanent and
strong incentive to cease engaging in
activities that cause environmental
and social harm.
For more information visit
www.foe.org/camps/intl.
■
Socially Responsible Investing Leader
Michelle Chan-Fishel
spearheads Friends
of the Earth’s Green
Investments
Program, which campaigns for corporate
transparency and accountability. For
the past six years she has been an
indispensable part of the organization.
She is also essential to the
Socially Responsible Investing (SRI)
community. Michelle recently won
the SRI Service Award, for outstanding contributions to the field.
“We have much to thank Michelle
for and have learned much from her
over the years. Before we were thinking about environmental accounting,
she was working with the banking
and financial communities to integrate environmental thinking into
their daily practices,” said Steven
Lydenberg principal of Domini Social
Investments at the award presentation.
She serves as co-chair of the
Corporate Sunshine Working Group,
which monitors the Securities &
Exchange Commission, and on the
Advisory Committees on the
Shareholder Action Network and the
Environmental Fiduciary Project. She
has served on the board of the
Coalition for Environmentally
Responsible Economies and has written an on-line guide to shareholder
■
advocacy.
Spring 2003 • Volume 33, Number 1
13
L E G I S L A T I V E
U P D A T E
New Hill Leaders to Watch
By Sara Zdeb
L
ast November’s elections
didn’t just bring GOP
majorities in both chambers of Congress. They
have dramatically changed
the makeup of environmental committees, elevating conservative lawmakers
to key leadership positions. These upand-coming chairmen will shape their
party’s environmental agenda.
No to Clean Air,
No to Clean Water
Sen. James Inhofe (ROkla.) assumes the
helm of the Senate’s
powerful Environment
and Public Works
Committee. Inhofe is
Sen. James
a two-term senator
with a lifetime League Inhofe (R-Okla.)
Chairman of the
of Conservation
Environment and
Voters score of zero. Public Works
He has likened the
Committee
Environmental
Protection Agency to the Gestapo.
Inhofe is expected to push legislation weakening the Clean Air Act, and
will be a strong supporter of the Bush
administration’s plans to dramatically
curtail the jurisdiction of the Clean
Water Act. When the Environment and
Public Works Committee takes up bills
authorizing new highway and water
projects, Inhofe will likely push for
reduced environmental review and
more pork-barrel spending.
Endangering Endangered
Species
Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Calif.)
leapfrogged over seven more-senior
representatives to take control of the
House Resources Committee. Known
for his cowboy hats and western attire,
14
Pombo typifies the
strident, private property rights mentality
that many
Republicans on the
committee share.
Pombo is a fifth-term Rep. Richard
member from Central Pombo (R-Calif.)
Chairman of the
California, and he has House Resources
taken strong positions Committee
against protections for
endangered species and other natural
resources.
Under his leadership, the
Resources Committee is expected to
launch numerous attacks on the
Endangered Species Act.
Environmentalists also worry that
other national treasures – including
monuments, national parks and wilderness areas – could be next on the
chopping block.
Drill the Arctic!
More Nuclear Power!
Sen. Pete Domenici
(R-N.M.) takes over
from Sen. Jeff
Bingaman (D-N.M.)
as chair of the Energy
and Natural
Sen. Pete
Resources
Domenici (R-N.M.)
Committee.
Chairman of the
Domenici’s lifetime
Energy and
League of
Natural Resources
Conservation Voters Committee
rating is below
10 percent, and he is well known as a
friend of the oil, gas, nuclear and grazing industries.
He made an early mark this session by successfully sneaking a
provision exempting grazing on public
lands from environmental review into
an omnibus spending bill. Domenici is
expected to push an aggressive agenda
in the Energy Committee, and an
energy bill that includes drilling in
Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge is at the top of his list.
The News Isn’t All Bad
There are bright spots on both sides of
the aisle, upon whom environmentalists will count to stem the tide of
pro-polluter legislation.
In the Senate,
moderate Sen. Lincoln
Chafee (R-R.I.) takes
the helm of the
Environment and
Public Works subcommittee on Superfund, Sen. Lincoln
where he will advoChafee (R-R.I.)
Chairman of the
cate funding to fix
leaking underground Environment and
Public Works
storage tanks and to
Subcommittee
strengthen the
Superfund cleanup
program.
In the House,
Rep. Rod
Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.)
takes over as chair of
Rep. Rod
the D.C. appropriaFrelinghuysen
tions subcommittee,
and environmentalists (R-N.J.)
Chairman of
concerned about
the D.C.
cleaning up our
Appropriations
nation’s capital can
Subcommittee
take heart in his moderate voting record.
Second-term Rep.
Hilda Solis (D-Calif.)
was recently
appointed ranking
Democrat on the
Rep. Hilda Solis
Energy and
(D-Calif.)
Commerce subcom- Ranking Democrat
on the Energy and
mittee on
Commerce
Environment and
Hazardous materials, Subcommittee
where she will be a strong voice on
issues including safe drinking water
■
and toxic waste cleanups.
F R I E N D S
O F
NEW! “Getting More
From Less” T-Shirt
T H E
E A R T H
M E R C H A N D I S E
Anti-SUV Bumper Stickers
$15 members, $18 non-members
This v-neck tee reminds us, “the less
we need, the less we use, the less damage we cause.” It is made from fairly
traded Indian organic cotton that feels
like silk. Available in sizes medium
and x-large
$2 each, $5 for three
Show the world how you feel about
high-polluting Sport Utility Vehicles.
The slogans came from a contest held
at www.suv.org.
NEW! Large Tote Bags
$10 members,
$15 non-members
Friends of the Earth’s roomy natural
canvas bag features a large Friends of
the Earth logo. It
is the perfect
alternative to
paper or plastic.
“Off the Books” Video
$18 each
“Off the Books:
How Corporations
Hide Environmental
and Human Rights
Liabilities” is a new
30-minute film that describes the
potential and limits of an enforceable,
disclosure-based strategy for corporate
accountability.
Reuse Envelope Labels
$5 members, $7 non-members
Save trees! Reuse your envelopes
with Friends of the Earth’s labels. Just
stick the 3” x 5” label over the old
address and you can reuse old
envelopes, reducing the amount of
waste that you produce. 100 labels
per pad.
O RDER F ORM
Shipping costs:
$0 - $5.99:
$6 - $9.99:
$10 - $14.99:
$15 - $19.99:
$20 - over:
NA M E
ADDRESS
C I T Y / S TAT E /Z I P
E-MAIL
ITEM
Start/Renew my Membership!
PHONE
SIZE
QUANTITY
COST
TOTAL
x
=
x
=
x
$25
❏ VISA ❏ MASTERCARD
$2
$3
$3.50
$4
$5
=
Subtotal:___________________________
____________________________________________________________Exp. date: ________________
Shipping:___________________________
Signature: ______________________________________________________________________________
Grand Total:___________________________
Allow 4 to 6 weeks for delivery.
Contact info: Make checks payable to “Friends of the Earth” and mail to Friends of the Earth Merchandise Department, 1025 Vermont Ave., NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC
20005-6303. To expedite your order, call toll-free 1(877) 843-8687, ext. 289 or order on-line from our secure web page at www.foe.org.
Our Ads in Top Magazines
A series of ads aimed at 20-somethings debuted in Rolling Stone, Men’s Journal and US
Weekly thanks to pro bono support of Jann Wenner and New York ad agency D’Arcy,
Masius, Benton & Bowles.
Our ads caught the eye of Creativity Magazine, which wrote, “Friends of the Earth is
getting hip, with a funky, funny print campaign aimed at the next generation of SUV drivers. The ads direct traffic to the aggressively-URL’d foe.org.”
We Don’t Inherit the Earth from Our Parents…
…We Borrow It from Our Children.
Estate planning experts suggest reviewing your will annually. As a service to our members, Friends
of the Earth is offering a free and concise booklet on tips to consider in preparing or updating your will.
As you think about your will, please consider remembering Friends of the Earth in your plans. Help to leave this world
an even better place for our children and our children’s children.
❑ Please send me a free copy of How to Make a Will That Works.
❑ I’d like to learn more about how to include Friends of the Earth in my estate plans. Please send me the appropriate
wording to bring to my attorney.
❑ I have already included Friends of the Earth in my estate plans.
NAME (please print)
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
PHONE
E-MAIL
Or call Diane Minor toll-free at 877-843-8687x 287 or e-mail dminor@foe.org.
PERIODICALS
POSTAGE PAID AT
WASHINGTON, DC
AND ADDITIONAL
Spring 2003, Volume 33, No. 1
Printed with soy ink on 100% recycled paper,
30% post-consumer content. Bleached without chlorine.
MAILING OFFICES