Picking our poisons: Risk ethics, pesticides, and American environmentalism

Capitalism, Nature, Socialism

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 115-152

  Stroshane, Tim ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL APPLICATION; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; FOOD QUALITY; PESTICIDE;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 0032872447     PISSN: 10455752     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10455759909358861     Document Type: Article

References (122)

1. The Delaney clause specifically stated the government "shall not approve for use in food any chemical additive found to induce cancer in man, or, after tests, found to induce cancer in animals." The 1958 amendments include the Delaney clause, originally passed in Public Law 85-529, Chapter 4, 72 Stat. 1785; codified at 21 U.S. Code Annotated, 348 (1981).
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, FQPA Implementation Plan, March 1997, p. 21. The use of benefits in establishing or maintaining tolerances (legally allowable levels of pesticide residues on foods) applies to existing tolerances for carcinogenic pesticides that otherwise meet the new FQPA safety standard. Benefits cannot be considered on other types of pesticides, such as organophosphates, which may not be carcinogenic, but have wide usage in U.S. agriculture.
3. The question arises as to whether "negligible" means "mathematically zero" or "insignificant but still present." A related question also arises whether there is a threshold below which pesticide exposure will cause harm, or whether there is no dose too small, especially when cumulated, to cause harm. Some pesticide supporters quote Paracelsus, the Roman physician, approvingly: "The dose makes the poison." This essay acknowledges there are unknowns that exceed Paracelsus' grasp, particularly regarding exposures of infants and children to pesticide residues in food, but will not presume to resolve the matter scientifically.
4. National Research Council, Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1993), p. 9. This passage is also quoted approvingly in Richard Wiles, Kert Davies, and Christopher Campbell, Overexposed: Organophosphate Insecticides in Children's Food (Washington, DC: Environmental Working Group, January 1998), pp. 7 and 43.
5. National Research Council, Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1993), p. 9. This passage is also quoted approvingly in Richard Wiles, Kert Davies, and Christopher Campbell, Overexposed: Organophosphate Insecticides in Children's Food (Washington, DC: Environmental Working Group, January 1998), pp. 7 and 43.
6. As an example of what this implicit policy means, suppose the "negligible risk" level is set by EPA at "one death per million per year" attributable to pesticide residues on a food crop. With a population of over 250 million Americans, some 250 deaths per year would be legally allowed from pesticide use.
7. Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1944, 1957), p. 152.
8. Arnold L. Aspelin, Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage: 1994 and 1995 Market Estimates, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 1997, Table 10. Obtained March 1999 from EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs website, www.epa.gov/opp/, by searching through Information Resources.
9. Charles M. Benbrook, with Edward Groth III, Jean M. Halloran, Michael K. Hansen, and Sandra Marquardt, Pest Management at the Crossroads (Yonkers, NY: Consumers Union, 1996), p. 42.
10. An excellent summary of the difficulties of pesticide-dependent industrial agriculture is found in Miguel Altieri, "Ecological Impacts of Industrial Agriculture and the Possibilities for Truly Sustainable Farming," Monthly Review, 50, 3, July/August 1998, pp. 60-71.
11. Benbrook, et al., op. cit., p. 31.
12. Aspelin, op. cit., "Numbers of Pesticide Producers and Users."
13. John Wargo, Our Children's Toxic Legacy: How Science and Law Fail to Protect Us From Pesticides (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996), p. 102. Wargo has been in the thick of pesticide politics over the last half generation. He served as a staff consultant to two key National Research Council panels on pesticides and the Delaney clause. The first panel he advised released Regulating Pesticides in Food: The Delaney Paradox in 1987. The second panel resulted in publication of the report Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children in 1993.
14. John Wargo, Our Children's Toxic Legacy: How Science and Law Fail to Protect Us From Pesticides (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996), p. 102. Wargo has been in the thick of pesticide politics over the last half generation. He served as a staff consultant to two key National Research Council panels on pesticides and the Delaney clause. The first panel he advised released Regulating Pesticides in Food: The Delaney Paradox in 1987. The second panel resulted in publication of the report Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children in 1993.
15. John Wargo, Our Children's Toxic Legacy: How Science and Law Fail to Protect Us From Pesticides (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996), p. 102. Wargo has been in the thick of pesticide politics over the last half generation. He served as a staff consultant to two key National Research Council panels on pesticides and the Delaney clause. The first panel he advised released Regulating Pesticides in Food: The Delaney Paradox in 1987. The second panel resulted in publication of the report Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children in 1993.
16. Ibid., p. 70.
17. Ibid., p. 71.
18. Ibid. See Chapter 2, "The Urgency of Malaria." DDT is the acronym for dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane. The remarkable and dangerous characteristic of DDT is its chemical stability, which means that its toxicity to animals and humans can be long-lived. When consumed most mammals and birds metabolize it into another toxic form, DDE. Ecologically speaking, bioaccumulation of pesticides is greater in species found at higher trophic levels in the food chain. See also Wargo, op. cit., p. 71 and 75. It should be recalled that much of the information reported by Rachel Carson in her book drew on research in publicly available government reports and news articles, most of which were produced in the 1950s.
19. Ibid. See Chapter 2, "The Urgency of Malaria." DDT is the acronym for dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane. The remarkable and dangerous characteristic of DDT is its chemical stability, which means that its toxicity to animals and humans can be long-lived. When consumed most mammals and birds metabolize it into another toxic form, DDE. Ecologically speaking, bioaccumulation of pesticides is greater in species found at higher trophic levels in the food chain. See also Wargo, op. cit., p. 71 and 75. It should be recalled that much of the information reported by Rachel Carson in her book drew on research in publicly available government reports and news articles, most of which were produced in the 1950s.
20. Ibid. See Chapter 2, "The Urgency of Malaria." DDT is the acronym for dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane. The remarkable and dangerous characteristic of DDT is its chemical stability, which means that its toxicity to animals and humans can be long-lived. When consumed most mammals and birds metabolize it into another toxic form, DDE. Ecologically speaking, bioaccumulation of pesticides is greater in species found at higher trophic levels in the food chain. See also Wargo, op. cit., p. 71 and 75. It should be recalled that much of the information reported by Rachel Carson in her book drew on research in publicly available government reports and news articles, most of which were produced in the 1950s.
21. Ibid., p. 75. The 1954 amendments are now known as the Miller Amendment to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, Public Law No. 83-518, Ch. 559, 68 Stat. 511, codified at 21 U.S. Code 346a (1981).
22. Bruce S. Wilson, "Legislative History of the Pesticide Residues Amendment of 1954 and the Delaney Clause of the Food Additives Amendment of 1958," Appendix A, in National Research Council, Regulating Pesticides in Food: The Delaney Paradox (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1987), pp. 167-68.
23. Ibid., pp. 40-43; James D. Wilson, "Making the World Safe for Strawberries," Resources, 125, Fall, 1996, pp. 16-17, a publication of Resources for the Future.
24. Ibid., pp. 40-43; James D. Wilson, "Making the World Safe for Strawberries," Resources, 125, Fall, 1996, pp. 16-17, a publication of Resources for the Future.
25. James D. Wilson, ibid.
26. Wargo, op. cit., pp. 103 and 108-114.
27. Ibid., pp. 114-120. An example: Tolerances for new and reregistered pesticides must be set on both raw food and processed food. The Delaney ban is invoked if the pesticide residue in question increases in concentration (and therefore in its presumed toxicity) as it goes from raw food (for example, apples or oranges) to a processed form (e.g., apple or orange juice). The trick for manufacturers then becomes to optimize the raw food tolerance at a level that permits its use and marketing (and by extension, how much should be produced) but does not increase in concentration as it reaches its processed food form.
28. Ibid., pp. 120-123.
29. See the following editorials: "The Civil Rights of Pesticides," Washington Post, March 18, 1993; "Pesticide War Cease-Fire," Los Angeles Times, October 16, 1994; "Crossing Delaney," Wall Street Journal, October 24, 1994.
30. See the following editorials: "The Civil Rights of Pesticides," Washington Post, March 18, 1993; "Pesticide War Cease-Fire," Los Angeles Times, October 16, 1994; "Crossing Delaney," Wall Street Journal, October 24, 1994.
31. See the following editorials: "The Civil Rights of Pesticides," Washington Post, March 18, 1993; "Pesticide War Cease-Fire," Los Angeles Times, October 16, 1994; "Crossing Delaney," Wall Street Journal, October 24, 1994.
32. Les v. Reilly, 965 F. 2d 985, decided July 8, 1992. Monsanto appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which chose not to review the case.
33. Les v. Reilly, at 990.
34. National Research Council, op. cit., pp. 46-48.
35. Testimony of Dean Kleckner, President American Farm Bureau Federation, before the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Hearings on S.1166, The Food Quality Protection Act, June 12, 1996, pp. 119-122.
36. Pesticide Reform Agenda, Pesticide Coalition testimony before the U.S. Congress House Committee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on Department Operations and Nutrition, 1st Session, Hearing on H.R. 1627, Food Quality Protection Act of 1993, Serial No. 103-29, pp. 158-168. The Pesticide Coalition included among its members NRDC, the Environmental Working Group, the National Audobon Society, World Wildlife Fund, the National Coalition Against Misuse of Pesticides, Consumers Union, United Farm Workers, and the AFL-CIO.
37. Ibid.
38. Ibid., Testimony of Jay Feldman of the National Coalition Against Misuse of Pesticides, August 2, 1993, pp. 144-45.
39. Ibid., p. 146.
40. Ibid. For clear statements of the opposition to negligible risk, see Sandra Steingraber, Living Downstream: An Ecologist Looks at Cancer and the Environment (Palo Alto, CA: Addison-Wesley, 1996); Ben Lilliston, "How Many Deaths for a Dollar?" Food & Water Journal, Spring 1996, pp. 24-25; and "Cancer: Are the Experts Lying?" in a special issue of The Ecologist, 28, 2, March-April 1998.
41. Ibid. For clear statements of the opposition to negligible risk, see Sandra Steingraber, Living Downstream: An Ecologist Looks at Cancer and the Environment (Palo Alto, CA: Addison-Wesley, 1996); Ben Lilliston, "How Many Deaths for a Dollar?" Food & Water Journal, Spring 1996, pp. 24-25; and "Cancer: Are the Experts Lying?" in a special issue of The Ecologist, 28, 2, March-April 1998.
42. Ibid. For clear statements of the opposition to negligible risk, see Sandra Steingraber, Living Downstream: An Ecologist Looks at Cancer and the Environment (Palo Alto, CA: Addison-Wesley, 1996); Ben Lilliston, "How Many Deaths for a Dollar?" Food & Water Journal, Spring 1996, pp. 24-25; and "Cancer: Are the Experts Lying?" in a special issue of The Ecologist, 28, 2, March-April 1998.
43. Quoted in Mark Dowie, Losing Ground: American Environmentalism at the Close of the Twentieth Century (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995), p. 75. Hair was then Executive Director of NWF.
44. Michael Parrish, "White House Seeks Pesticide Use Reforms," Los Angeles Times, August 20, 1993, p. A28.
45. Ibid. "Health-based" standards mean identifying some threshold past which health fails, when individuals are literally poisoned (either fatally or merely sickened). It does not mean a "standard of good health."
46. Even the legitimacy of alternative toxicological methods and theories have to be negotiated, such as the debate over whether pesticides have threshold effects or "no dose is safe," as against Paracelsus' observation. See James D. Wilson, "Thresholds for Carcinogens: A Review of the Relevant Science and Its Implications for Regulatory Policy," Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 96-21, June 1996. Wilson states in his acknowledgements to this study that he began his research for it while employed by Monsanto Company, a major chemical and pesticide manufacturer. EPA calls these sorts of decisions "science policy." The American Crop Protection Association and the American Farm Bureau Federation have demonized EPA's implementation practices as "political science."
47. Mary O'Brien, "Alternatives to Risk Assessment," in Charles Levenstein and John Wooding, eds., Work, Health, and Environment: Old Problems, New Solutions (New York, NY: Guilford Publications, 1997), pp. 275-282.
48. Jennifer Curtis and Tim Profeta, After Silent Spring: The Unsolved Problems of Pesticide Use in the United States (Washington, DC: Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., June 1993), p. 45.
49. Parrish, op. cit.
50. Mark Sagoff, "Choosing Sides on Pesticides: Should Environmentalists Give up the Delaney Clause?" Amicus Journal, Winter, 1994, p. 10.
51. Ibid., p. 11.
52. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, January 6, 1996, p. 31.
53. Albert Meyerhoff, "How Did Pesticide Reform Come to Pass?" at http://www.nrdc.org/nrdc/ article/agpeshow.html, n.d.
54. Pesticide Action Network Updates (PANUPS), "U.S. Food Safety Under Attack," July 1, 1996, San Francisco, CA. Available through PAN's home page through its PESTIS database at http://www.panna.org/panna/.
55. Ellen Hickey, Research Director, Pesticide Action Network North America, personal communication, November 9, 1998. See also Michael Gregory, "Compromising Disease and Pollution: The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996," Pesticides and You, 16, 3-4, 1997, pp. 26-28; and Adam Kirshner, "New U.S. Food Quality Protection Act: Does it Protect Consumers?" Global Pesticide Campaigner, 6, 3, September 1996, posted by PANNA on its web site, and available through its PESTIS database by searching for FQPA.
56. Ellen Hickey, Research Director, Pesticide Action Network North America, personal communication, November 9, 1998. See also Michael Gregory, "Compromising Disease and Pollution: The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996," Pesticides and You, 16, 3-4, 1997, pp. 26-28; and Adam Kirshner, "New U.S. Food Quality Protection Act: Does it Protect Consumers?" Global Pesticide Campaigner, 6, 3, September 1996, posted by PANNA on its web site, and available through its PESTIS database by searching for FQPA.
57. Ellen Hickey, Research Director, Pesticide Action Network North America, personal communication, November 9, 1998. See also Michael Gregory, "Compromising Disease and Pollution: The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996," Pesticides and You, 16, 3-4, 1997, pp. 26-28; and Adam Kirshner, "New U.S. Food Quality Protection Act: Does it Protect Consumers?" Global Pesticide Campaigner, 6, 3, September 1996, posted by PANNA on its web site, and available through its PESTIS database by searching for FQPA.
58. Jeffrey St. Clair and Alexander Cockburn reported in their column "Nature & Politics": "You wouldn't know it from the papers, from the radio or from TV, but this Food Quality Protection Act signals a retreat as momentous as the one on welfare, and once again, children will be paying much of the price" (St. Clair and Cockburn, "Eve, Don't Touch that Apple: Pesticides, Politics, and Acceptable Death," Anderson Valley Advertiser, August 7, 1996, p. 8).
59. Jeffrey St. Clair and Alexander Cockburn reported in their column "Nature & Politics": "You wouldn't know it from the papers, from the radio or from TV, but this Food Quality Protection Act signals a retreat as momentous as the one on welfare, and once again, children will be paying much of the price" (St. Clair and Cockburn, "Eve, Don't Touch that Apple: Pesticides, Politics, and Acceptable Death," Anderson Valley Advertiser, August 7, 1996, p. 8).
60. Erik Olson, staff attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council, personal communication, May, 19, 1998.
61. Larry Hodges, senior registration manager for Rhone Poulenc Ag Corporation, quoted in Harry Cline, "Delaney Replacement Troubling EPA Now; Registrations May Lag," California-Arizona Farm Express, March, 18, 1997. Available at www.ecologic-ipm.com.
62. Food Quality Protection Act, Public Law 104-170, Title IV, Section 405, amending 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, August 3, 1996.
63. Olson, personal communication, May 19, 1998.
64. David Wallinga, MD, Putting Children First: Making Pesticide Levels in Food Safer for Infants and Children (Washington, DC: Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., April 1998), p. vii.
65. James D. Wilson, op. cit., p. 16.
66. Indicative of the sublimated politics of the FQPA, The New York Times reported: "The President...said in his weekly radio address that the Food Quality Protection Act was passed because Congress 'turned away from extremism' and gave it bipartisan support." New York Times, August 4, 1996, p. 17.
67. Indicative of the sublimated politics of the FQPA, The New York Times reported: "The President...said in his weekly radio address that the Food Quality Protection Act was passed because Congress 'turned away from extremism' and gave it bipartisan support." New York Times, August 4, 1996, p. 17.
68. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (hereafter EPA), 1996 Food Quality Protection Act Implementation Plan, p. 10.
69. David Hosansky, "Pesticide, Food Safety Law," Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, September 7, 1996, pp. 2546-50.
70. As noted, FQPA responds partially to this critique of risk assessment for pesticides by requiring use of a safety factor that protects infants and children from pesticide residues on food. EPA's implementation efforts attempt to address this critique by examining pesticide tests to use Monte Carlo probability distributions to describe risk probabilities for pesticides with common mechanisms of action. See EPA's Science Advisory Panel, Final Report, "A Set of Scientific Issues Being Considered by the Agency in Connection with Suggested Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methodology for Evaluating Pesticides that Exhibit a Common Mechanism of Action," March 1998. Available on the EPA website at www.epa.gov/pesticides/ SAP/march/common.htm.
71. "When government agencies permit the intentional, unnecessary discharge of toxics that they estimate will cause some individuals to die of cancer, they are getting away with...premeditated murder because it is anonymous," writes O'Brien, op. cit., p. 277.
72. Ibid., p. 278.
73. Mary O'Brien, "Facing Down Pesticide Risk Assessments," Global Pesticide Campaigner, 4, 1, March 1994, p. 17.
74. James D. Wilson, op. cit., pp. 16-17.
75. Kert Davies of Environmental Working Group in Washington, DC, quoted in St. Clair and Cockburn, op. cit.
76. Ibid.
77. Gary Lee, "In Food Safety Changes, Victories for Many," Washington Post, July 28, 1996. For Meyerhoff quote, see Hearings, S. 1166, Food Quality Protection Act, 104th Congress, Second Session, p. 59.
78. Gary Lee, "In Food Safety Changes, Victories for Many," Washington Post, July 28, 1996. For Meyerhoff quote, see Hearings, S. 1166, Food Quality Protection Act, 104th Congress, Second Session, p. 59.
79. Michael Colby, "The Great Pesticide Compromise: Deaths vs. Dollars," Food & Water Journal, Summer 1996, p. 25.
80. EPA, "Pesticide Program Highlights from Fiscal Year 1998," November, 1998, p. 3. Many of the revocations were for inactive uses. EPA also reported registering 27 new pesticides, 13 of which were conventional pesticides, 2 were biopesticides, and 2 antimicrobial pesticides. The agency also reported registering "over 100 new food uses for previously registered pesticides."
81. The New York Times, December 29, 1997.
82. Richard Wiles, Kert Davies, and Christopher Campbell, Overexposed: Organophosphate Insecticides in Children's Food (Washington, DC: Environmental Working Group, January 1998), p. 5.
83. EPA, Implementation Plan, p. 14.
84. Quoted in "US EPA Official Warns of OP Losses," AGROW 298, February 13, 1998, p. 12.
85. A sampling of two topics from over a dozen "science policy documents" compiled by EPA staff and consultants, August 1998.
86. EPA, Implementation Plan, p. 4.
87. Peter N. Spotts, "How Ethical Is Testing Pesticides on People, EPA Asks," Christian Science Monitor, January 14, 1999. See also Steve Stecklow, "New Food-Quality Act Has Pesticide Makers Doing Human Testing: Firms Say Tougher Standards Force Them to Prove Safety of Toxic Chemicals," Wall Street Journal, September, 28 1998.
88. Peter N. Spotts, "How Ethical Is Testing Pesticides on People, EPA Asks," Christian Science Monitor, January 14, 1999. See also Steve Stecklow, "New Food-Quality Act Has Pesticide Makers Doing Human Testing: Firms Say Tougher Standards Force Them to Prove Safety of Toxic Chemicals," Wall Street Journal, September, 28 1998.
89. Ibid. The bioethicist quoted was Eric Meslin, Executive Secretary of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission.
90. "US Farmer Call to Thwart FQPA," AGROW, 321, January, 29, 1999, p. 14.
91. "U.S. Organic Farmer Survey," PANUPS, February, 15, 1999.
92. Letter from Kenneth Cook, President of Environmental Working Group, to Vice-President Albert Gore, October, 26, 1998; posted on Internet at http://www.ewg.org.
93. "Group quits White House pesticide panel," October, 28, 1998, Reuters News Service, posted at EWG's web site, ibid.
94. Peter Montague, "A Pact with the Devil: Revisiting the Great Pesticide Compromise," Food & Water Journal, Spring 1998, p. 33.
95. Dowie, op. cit., see his preface.
96. Recent works in this vein include Dowie, op. cit., and Laura Pulido, Environmentalism and Economic Justice: Two Chicano Struggles in the Southwest (Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press, 1996); and Brian Tokar, Earth For Sale: Reclaiming Ecology in the Age of Corporate Greenwash (Boston, MA: South End Press, 1997). Many American social movements since the 1950s, left and right, have been helped by active philanthropic investments in strategic forethought. See Gregg Easterbrook, "Ideas Move Nations," Atlantic Monthly, January, 1986, pp. 66-80; and Joan Roelofs, "Foundations and the Supreme Court," Telos, 62, Winter 1984-85, pp. 59-87. The largest three foundations funding environmental organizations include the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Rockefeller Family Fund and the W. Alton Jones Foundation. The investment portfolios from which much of their endowments are maintained rely substantially upon investments in securities (mostly stocks) in mining interests, oil companies, timber interests (including Alton Jones' bondholding of Scotia Pacific Holdings Company, a subsidiary of Charles Hurwitz' Maxxam Corporation which owns the notorious Headwaters forest, an old-growth redwood grove in northern California). See Jeffrey St. Clair and Alexander Cockburn, "Shaking the Money Tree: Greens and Foundations," Anderson Valley Advertiser, December 6, 1995, p. 10. See also the two-part series by Scott Allen, "The Greening of a Movement: Big Money is Bankrolling Select Environmental Causes," and "Environmental Donors Set Tone: Activists Affected by Quest for Funds," Boston Globe, October, 19 and 20, 1997.
97. Recent works in this vein include Dowie, op. cit., and Laura Pulido, Environmentalism and Economic Justice: Two Chicano Struggles in the Southwest (Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press, 1996); and Brian Tokar, Earth For Sale: Reclaiming Ecology in the Age of Corporate Greenwash (Boston, MA: South End Press, 1997). Many American social movements since the 1950s, left and right, have been helped by active philanthropic investments in strategic forethought. See Gregg Easterbrook, "Ideas Move Nations," Atlantic Monthly, January, 1986, pp. 66-80; and Joan Roelofs, "Foundations and the Supreme Court," Telos, 62, Winter 1984-85, pp. 59-87. The largest three foundations funding environmental organizations include the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Rockefeller Family Fund and the W. Alton Jones Foundation. The investment portfolios from which much of their endowments are maintained rely substantially upon investments in securities (mostly stocks) in mining interests, oil companies, timber interests (including Alton Jones' bondholding of Scotia Pacific Holdings Company, a subsidiary of Charles Hurwitz' Maxxam Corporation which owns the notorious Headwaters forest, an old-growth redwood grove in northern California). See Jeffrey St. Clair and Alexander Cockburn, "Shaking the Money Tree: Greens and Foundations," Anderson Valley Advertiser, December 6, 1995, p. 10. See also the two-part series by Scott Allen, "The Greening of a Movement: Big Money is Bankrolling Select Environmental Causes," and "Environmental Donors Set Tone: Activists Affected by Quest for Funds," Boston Globe, October, 19 and 20, 1997.
98. Recent works in this vein include Dowie, op. cit., and Laura Pulido, Environmentalism and Economic Justice: Two Chicano Struggles in the Southwest (Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press, 1996); and Brian Tokar, Earth For Sale: Reclaiming Ecology in the Age of Corporate Greenwash (Boston, MA: South End Press, 1997). Many American social movements since the 1950s, left and right, have been helped by active philanthropic investments in strategic forethought. See Gregg Easterbrook, "Ideas Move Nations," Atlantic Monthly, January, 1986, pp. 66-80; and Joan Roelofs, "Foundations and the Supreme Court," Telos, 62, Winter 1984-85, pp. 59-87. The largest three foundations funding environmental organizations include the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Rockefeller Family Fund and the W. Alton Jones Foundation. The investment portfolios from which much of their endowments are maintained rely substantially upon investments in securities (mostly stocks) in mining interests, oil companies, timber interests (including Alton Jones' bondholding of Scotia Pacific Holdings Company, a subsidiary of Charles Hurwitz' Maxxam Corporation which owns the notorious Headwaters forest, an old-growth redwood grove in northern California). See Jeffrey St. Clair and Alexander Cockburn, "Shaking the Money Tree: Greens and Foundations," Anderson Valley Advertiser, December 6, 1995, p. 10. See also the two-part series by Scott Allen, "The Greening of a Movement: Big Money is Bankrolling Select Environmental Causes," and "Environmental Donors Set Tone: Activists Affected by Quest for Funds," Boston Globe, October, 19 and 20, 1997.
99. Recent works in this vein include Dowie, op. cit., and Laura Pulido, Environmentalism and Economic Justice: Two Chicano Struggles in the Southwest (Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press, 1996); and Brian Tokar, Earth For Sale: Reclaiming Ecology in the Age of Corporate Greenwash (Boston, MA: South End Press, 1997). Many American social movements since the 1950s, left and right, have been helped by active philanthropic investments in strategic forethought. See Gregg Easterbrook, "Ideas Move Nations," Atlantic Monthly, January, 1986, pp. 66-80; and Joan Roelofs, "Foundations and the Supreme Court," Telos, 62, Winter 1984-85, pp. 59-87. The largest three foundations funding environmental organizations include the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Rockefeller Family Fund and the W. Alton Jones Foundation. The investment portfolios from which much of their endowments are maintained rely substantially upon investments in securities (mostly stocks) in mining interests, oil companies, timber interests (including Alton Jones' bondholding of Scotia Pacific Holdings Company, a subsidiary of Charles Hurwitz' Maxxam Corporation which owns the notorious Headwaters forest, an old-growth redwood grove in northern California). See Jeffrey St. Clair and Alexander Cockburn, "Shaking the Money Tree: Greens and Foundations," Anderson Valley Advertiser, December 6, 1995, p. 10. See also the two-part series by Scott Allen, "The Greening of a Movement: Big Money is Bankrolling Select Environmental Causes," and "Environmental Donors Set Tone: Activists Affected by Quest for Funds," Boston Globe, October, 19 and 20, 1997.
100. Recent works in this vein include Dowie, op. cit., and Laura Pulido, Environmentalism and Economic Justice: Two Chicano Struggles in the Southwest (Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press, 1996); and Brian Tokar, Earth For Sale: Reclaiming Ecology in the Age of Corporate Greenwash (Boston, MA: South End Press, 1997). Many American social movements since the 1950s, left and right, have been helped by active philanthropic investments in strategic forethought. See Gregg Easterbrook, "Ideas Move Nations," Atlantic Monthly, January, 1986, pp. 66-80; and Joan Roelofs, "Foundations and the Supreme Court," Telos, 62, Winter 1984-85, pp. 59-87. The largest three foundations funding environmental organizations include the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Rockefeller Family Fund and the W. Alton Jones Foundation. The investment portfolios from which much of their endowments are maintained rely substantially upon investments in securities (mostly stocks) in mining interests, oil companies, timber interests (including Alton Jones' bondholding of Scotia Pacific Holdings Company, a subsidiary of Charles Hurwitz' Maxxam Corporation which owns the notorious Headwaters forest, an old-growth redwood grove in northern California). See Jeffrey St. Clair and Alexander Cockburn, "Shaking the Money Tree: Greens and Foundations," Anderson Valley Advertiser, December 6, 1995, p. 10. See also the two-part series by Scott Allen, "The Greening of a Movement: Big Money is Bankrolling Select Environmental Causes," and "Environmental Donors Set Tone: Activists Affected by Quest for Funds," Boston Globe, October, 19 and 20, 1997.
101. Recent works in this vein include Dowie, op. cit., and Laura Pulido, Environmentalism and Economic Justice: Two Chicano Struggles in the Southwest (Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press, 1996); and Brian Tokar, Earth For Sale: Reclaiming Ecology in the Age of Corporate Greenwash (Boston, MA: South End Press, 1997). Many American social movements since the 1950s, left and right, have been helped by active philanthropic investments in strategic forethought. See Gregg Easterbrook, "Ideas Move Nations," Atlantic Monthly, January, 1986, pp. 66-80; and Joan Roelofs, "Foundations and the Supreme Court," Telos, 62, Winter 1984-85, pp. 59-87. The largest three foundations funding environmental organizations include the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Rockefeller Family Fund and the W. Alton Jones Foundation. The investment portfolios from which much of their endowments are maintained rely substantially upon investments in securities (mostly stocks) in mining interests, oil companies, timber interests (including Alton Jones' bondholding of Scotia Pacific Holdings Company, a subsidiary of Charles Hurwitz' Maxxam Corporation which owns the notorious Headwaters forest, an old-growth redwood grove in northern California). See Jeffrey St. Clair and Alexander Cockburn, "Shaking the Money Tree: Greens and Foundations," Anderson Valley Advertiser, December 6, 1995, p. 10. See also the two-part series by Scott Allen, "The Greening of a Movement: Big Money is Bankrolling Select Environmental Causes," and "Environmental Donors Set Tone: Activists Affected by Quest for Funds," Boston Globe, October, 19 and 20, 1997.
102. Recent works in this vein include Dowie, op. cit., and Laura Pulido, Environmentalism and Economic Justice: Two Chicano Struggles in the Southwest (Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press, 1996); and Brian Tokar, Earth For Sale: Reclaiming Ecology in the Age of Corporate Greenwash (Boston, MA: South End Press, 1997). Many American social movements since the 1950s, left and right, have been helped by active philanthropic investments in strategic forethought. See Gregg Easterbrook, "Ideas Move Nations," Atlantic Monthly, January, 1986, pp. 66-80; and Joan Roelofs, "Foundations and the Supreme Court," Telos, 62, Winter 1984-85, pp. 59-87. The largest three foundations funding environmental organizations include the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Rockefeller Family Fund and the W. Alton Jones Foundation. The investment portfolios from which much of their endowments are maintained rely substantially upon investments in securities (mostly stocks) in mining interests, oil companies, timber interests (including Alton Jones' bondholding of Scotia Pacific Holdings Company, a subsidiary of Charles Hurwitz' Maxxam Corporation which owns the notorious Headwaters forest, an old-growth redwood grove in northern California). See Jeffrey St. Clair and Alexander Cockburn, "Shaking the Money Tree: Greens and Foundations," Anderson Valley Advertiser, December 6, 1995, p. 10. See also the two-part series by Scott Allen, "The Greening of a Movement: Big Money is Bankrolling Select Environmental Causes," and "Environmental Donors Set Tone: Activists Affected by Quest for Funds," Boston Globe, October, 19 and 20, 1997.
103. Dowie, op. cit., p. 116.
104. Ulrich Beck, "From Industrial Society to Risk Society," Theory, Culture, and Society, 9, 1992, p. 99.
105. Most environmentalists and pesticide makers thrash risk assessment as half art/half science with regularity. Consider whether risk assessment would hold up in court if its practitioners were held liable for their assumptions and methods when compared with actual harm caused. For an industry view of state of the art as a liability defense, see James Boyd and Daniel E. Ingberman, "Should 'State of the Art' Safety Be a Defense Against Liability?" Resources For the Future Discussion Paper 96-01, October, 1995. For other pesticide reform critiques of risk assessment and pesticide registration see Caroline Cox, "No Guarantee of Safety," Journal of Pesticide Reform, 17, 2, Summer, 1997, pp. 2-9; O'Brien, "Facing Down Pesticide Risk Assessment," op. cit.; and Jay Feldman, "Zero Tolerance for Harm vs. the Hazards of Risk Assessment: Selected Amendments of the Pesticide and Food Safety Laws Under the Food Quality Protection Act," Pesticides and You, 16, 3-4, 1997, pp. 19-25.
106. Most environmentalists and pesticide makers thrash risk assessment as half art/half science with regularity. Consider whether risk assessment would hold up in court if its practitioners were held liable for their assumptions and methods when compared with actual harm caused. For an industry view of state of the art as a liability defense, see James Boyd and Daniel E. Ingberman, "Should 'State of the Art' Safety Be a Defense Against Liability?" Resources For the Future Discussion Paper 96-01, October, 1995. For other pesticide reform critiques of risk assessment and pesticide registration see Caroline Cox, "No Guarantee of Safety," Journal of Pesticide Reform, 17, 2, Summer, 1997, pp. 2-9; O'Brien, "Facing Down Pesticide Risk Assessment," op. cit.; and Jay Feldman, "Zero Tolerance for Harm vs. the Hazards of Risk Assessment: Selected Amendments of the Pesticide and Food Safety Laws Under the Food Quality Protection Act," Pesticides and You, 16, 3-4, 1997, pp. 19-25.
107. Most environmentalists and pesticide makers thrash risk assessment as half art/half science with regularity. Consider whether risk assessment would hold up in court if its practitioners were held liable for their assumptions and methods when compared with actual harm caused. For an industry view of state of the art as a liability defense, see James Boyd and Daniel E. Ingberman, "Should 'State of the Art' Safety Be a Defense Against Liability?" Resources For the Future Discussion Paper 96-01, October, 1995. For other pesticide reform critiques of risk assessment and pesticide registration see Caroline Cox, "No Guarantee of Safety," Journal of Pesticide Reform, 17, 2, Summer, 1997, pp. 2-9; O'Brien, "Facing Down Pesticide Risk Assessment," op. cit.; and Jay Feldman, "Zero Tolerance for Harm vs. the Hazards of Risk Assessment: Selected Amendments of the Pesticide and Food Safety Laws Under the Food Quality Protection Act," Pesticides and You, 16, 3-4, 1997, pp. 19-25.
108. Most environmentalists and pesticide makers thrash risk assessment as half art/half science with regularity. Consider whether risk assessment would hold up in court if its practitioners were held liable for their assumptions and methods when compared with actual harm caused. For an industry view of state of the art as a liability defense, see James Boyd and Daniel E. Ingberman, "Should 'State of the Art' Safety Be a Defense Against Liability?" Resources For the Future Discussion Paper 96-01, October, 1995. For other pesticide reform critiques of risk assessment and pesticide registration see Caroline Cox, "No Guarantee of Safety," Journal of Pesticide Reform, 17, 2, Summer, 1997, pp. 2-9; O'Brien, "Facing Down Pesticide Risk Assessment," op. cit.; and Jay Feldman, "Zero Tolerance for Harm vs. the Hazards of Risk Assessment: Selected Amendments of the Pesticide and Food Safety Laws Under the Food Quality Protection Act," Pesticides and You, 16, 3-4, 1997, pp. 19-25.
109. Robert D. Bullard, ed., Unequal Protection: Environmental Justice and Communities of Color (San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books, 1994), p. 11.
110. Jim Schwab, Deeper Shades of Green (San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books, 1994), p. 390, cites a position paper drafted by Bullard and Dana Alston of the Panos Institute in Washington, DC, specifying three kinds of equity issues: procedural equity in enabling access of all people to participation in decision-making (private sector not specified); geographic equity in avoiding obvious excessive burdens imposed on minority communities; and social equity in the amelioration of environmental and public health hazards in minority communities.
111. Nicholas Freudenberg and Carol Steinsapir, "Not in Our Backyards: The Grassroots Environmental Movement," Society and Natural Resources, 4, 3, 1991, pp. 235-245.
112. Pesticide reform groups produced numerous reports in the 1990s, including: James Liebman, Rising Toxic Tide: Pesticide Use in California, 1991-1995 (San Francisco, CA: Californians for Pesticide Reform, 1997); Ronnie Cohen and Jennifer Curtis, Agricultural Solutions: Improving Water Quality in California Through Water Conservation and Pesticide Reduction (New York, NY: Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., March 1998); Ted Schettler, Gina M. Solomon, Jonathan Kaplan, and Maria Valenti, Generations at Risk: How Environmental Toxicants May Affect Reproductive Health in California (San Francisco, CA: Physicians for Social Responsibility and California Public Interest Research Group, 1998); Gina Solomon, Trouble on the Farm: Growing Up with Pesticides in Agricultural Communities (New York, NY: Natural Resources Defense Council, October 1998); Jeannine M. Kenney, Edward Groth III, and Charles M. Benbrook, Worst First: High-Risk Insecticides, Children's Foods & Safer Alternatives (Washington, DC: Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., September 1998); and Edward Groth III, Charles M. Benbrook, and Karen Lutz, Do You Know What You're Eating? An Analysis of U.S. Government Data on Pesticide Residues in Foods (Washington, DC: Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., February 1999).
113. Pesticide reform groups produced numerous reports in the 1990s, including: James Liebman, Rising Toxic Tide: Pesticide Use in California, 1991-1995 (San Francisco, CA: Californians for Pesticide Reform, 1997); Ronnie Cohen and Jennifer Curtis, Agricultural Solutions: Improving Water Quality in California Through Water Conservation and Pesticide Reduction (New York, NY: Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., March 1998); Ted Schettler, Gina M. Solomon, Jonathan Kaplan, and Maria Valenti, Generations at Risk: How Environmental Toxicants May Affect Reproductive Health in California (San Francisco, CA: Physicians for Social Responsibility and California Public Interest Research Group, 1998); Gina Solomon, Trouble on the Farm: Growing Up with Pesticides in Agricultural Communities (New York, NY: Natural Resources Defense Council, October 1998); Jeannine M. Kenney, Edward Groth III, and Charles M. Benbrook, Worst First: High-Risk Insecticides, Children's Foods & Safer Alternatives (Washington, DC: Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., September 1998); and Edward Groth III, Charles M. Benbrook, and Karen Lutz, Do You Know What You're Eating? An Analysis of U.S. Government Data on Pesticide Residues in Foods (Washington, DC: Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., February 1999).
114. Pesticide reform groups produced numerous reports in the 1990s, including: James Liebman, Rising Toxic Tide: Pesticide Use in California, 1991-1995 (San Francisco, CA: Californians for Pesticide Reform, 1997); Ronnie Cohen and Jennifer Curtis, Agricultural Solutions: Improving Water Quality in California Through Water Conservation and Pesticide Reduction (New York, NY: Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., March 1998); Ted Schettler, Gina M. Solomon, Jonathan Kaplan, and Maria Valenti, Generations at Risk: How Environmental Toxicants May Affect Reproductive Health in California (San Francisco, CA: Physicians for Social Responsibility and California Public Interest Research Group, 1998); Gina Solomon, Trouble on the Farm: Growing Up with Pesticides in Agricultural Communities (New York, NY: Natural Resources Defense Council, October 1998); Jeannine M. Kenney, Edward Groth III, and Charles M. Benbrook, Worst First: High-Risk Insecticides, Children's Foods & Safer Alternatives (Washington, DC: Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., September 1998); and Edward Groth III, Charles M. Benbrook, and Karen Lutz, Do You Know What You're Eating? An Analysis of U.S. Government Data on Pesticide Residues in Foods (Washington, DC: Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., February 1999).
115. Pesticide reform groups produced numerous reports in the 1990s, including: James Liebman, Rising Toxic Tide: Pesticide Use in California, 1991-1995 (San Francisco, CA: Californians for Pesticide Reform, 1997); Ronnie Cohen and Jennifer Curtis, Agricultural Solutions: Improving Water Quality in California Through Water Conservation and Pesticide Reduction (New York, NY: Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., March 1998); Ted Schettler, Gina M. Solomon, Jonathan Kaplan, and Maria Valenti, Generations at Risk: How Environmental Toxicants May Affect Reproductive Health in California (San Francisco, CA: Physicians for Social Responsibility and California Public Interest Research Group, 1998); Gina Solomon, Trouble on the Farm: Growing Up with Pesticides in Agricultural Communities (New York, NY: Natural Resources Defense Council, October 1998); Jeannine M. Kenney, Edward Groth III, and Charles M. Benbrook, Worst First: High-Risk Insecticides, Children's Foods & Safer Alternatives (Washington, DC: Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., September 1998); and Edward Groth III, Charles M. Benbrook, and Karen Lutz, Do You Know What You're Eating? An Analysis of U.S. Government Data on Pesticide Residues in Foods (Washington, DC: Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., February 1999).
116. Pesticide reform groups produced numerous reports in the 1990s, including: James Liebman, Rising Toxic Tide: Pesticide Use in California, 1991-1995 (San Francisco, CA: Californians for Pesticide Reform, 1997); Ronnie Cohen and Jennifer Curtis, Agricultural Solutions: Improving Water Quality in California Through Water Conservation and Pesticide Reduction (New York, NY: Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., March 1998); Ted Schettler, Gina M. Solomon, Jonathan Kaplan, and Maria Valenti, Generations at Risk: How Environmental Toxicants May Affect Reproductive Health in California (San Francisco, CA: Physicians for Social Responsibility and California Public Interest Research Group, 1998); Gina Solomon, Trouble on the Farm: Growing Up with Pesticides in Agricultural Communities (New York, NY: Natural Resources Defense Council, October 1998); Jeannine M. Kenney, Edward Groth III, and Charles M. Benbrook, Worst First: High-Risk Insecticides, Children's Foods & Safer Alternatives (Washington, DC: Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., September 1998); and Edward Groth III, Charles M. Benbrook, and Karen Lutz, Do You Know What You're Eating? An Analysis of U.S. Government Data on Pesticide Residues in Foods (Washington, DC: Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., February 1999).
117. Pesticide reform groups produced numerous reports in the 1990s, including: James Liebman, Rising Toxic Tide: Pesticide Use in California, 1991-1995 (San Francisco, CA: Californians for Pesticide Reform, 1997); Ronnie Cohen and Jennifer Curtis, Agricultural Solutions: Improving Water Quality in California Through Water Conservation and Pesticide Reduction (New York, NY: Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., March 1998); Ted Schettler, Gina M. Solomon, Jonathan Kaplan, and Maria Valenti, Generations at Risk: How Environmental Toxicants May Affect Reproductive Health in California (San Francisco, CA: Physicians for Social Responsibility and California Public Interest Research Group, 1998); Gina Solomon, Trouble on the Farm: Growing Up with Pesticides in Agricultural Communities (New York, NY: Natural Resources Defense Council, October 1998); Jeannine M. Kenney, Edward Groth III, and Charles M. Benbrook, Worst First: High-Risk Insecticides, Children's Foods & Safer Alternatives (Washington, DC: Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., September 1998); and Edward Groth III, Charles M. Benbrook, and Karen Lutz, Do You Know What You're Eating? An Analysis of U.S. Government Data on Pesticide Residues in Foods (Washington, DC: Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., February 1999).
118. In the American setting, major pesticide-oriented groups include the National Coalition Against Mis-Use of Pesticides (NCAMP), Pesticide Action Network, and the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides. Among major national, multi-issue environmental groups, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Working Group, and Environmental Defense Fund are major actors in national pesticide politics. In addition, NRDC recently published a new report, Fields of Change presenting numerous case studies of American farmers who have devised ways of substantially reducing or eliminating pesticide use from their operations.
119. Langdon Winner, "On Not Hitting the Tar-Baby," in his The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1985), p. 145.
120. Hickey, personal communication, November 9, 1998.
121. Rachel Carson, Silent Spring (New York, NY: Fawcett Crest Edition), 1962, p. 165.
122. Ibid., p. 167. The Borgias were a powerful Italian dynasty who earned a reputation for dispatching their political and military rivals by inviting them to feasts and tainting their portions.