General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Chemical industry may fight tests

Started by Ilena · · Last activity · 1 post · 211 views

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
22 November 2003
Last activity
22 November 2003
Original author
Ilena
Posts
1
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
211
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–1 of 1
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. http://www.oaklandtribune.com/cda/article/print/0,1674,82%257E1865%257E1781839,00.html

    Oakland Tribune

    Chemical industry may fight tests
    Leaked memo proposes strategy to combat push for companies to prove
    safety
    By Douglas Fischer
    STAFF WRITER

    Friday, November 21, 2003 - The chemical industry may be considering a
    covert campaign to attack a growing effort in California forcing more
    chemical testing, according to a leaked "memo" from the American
    Chemical Council obtained by the Environmental Working Group.

    The council, representing manufacturers of 90 percent of the chemicals
    and most plastic resins sold in the United States, denied such plans
    were afoot, saying Thursday the memo was instead a proposal received
    from a public relations firm and has not been enacted.

    Nonetheless the council, a spokesman said, did pass along to other
    industry groups the four-page proposal, which outlines a strategy to
    "stigmatize" the pro-testing movement and create an "independent ...
    watchdog group" acting as a pro-industry information clearinghouse.

    Industry has a lot riding on the outcome.

    Often called the "precautionary principle," the growing movement
    essentially revolutionizes how industrial and consumer chemicals get
    tested prior to their release to the market.

    Rather than force consumer groups and government agencies to prove a
    substance causes harm -- as is the case now in California -- industry
    under the precautionary principle would be required to show the
    substance was safe prior to its sale.

    "The American Chemistry Council and their manufacturers have had a
    free ride, with some exceptions, for the past 50 years," said Ted
    Schettler, science director for the Massachusetts-based Science and
    Environmental Health Network. "So that's why it's threatening.

    "The notion that one would have to produce data about the safety or
    hazards that might be associated with their product prior to exposing
    the public is not something they have any history or inclination of
    doing."

    The proposal, created sometime in July according to data embedded in
    the computer file provided by the Environmental Working Group,
    outlines a public awareness campaign with a projected cost as high as
    $15,000 per month.

    Parts of the strategy call for organizing protests timed with key
    votes in the Legislature, the creation of a "non-business led
    coalition" to provide testimony against the precautionary principle,
    and "selective intelligence gathering" of industry opponents.

    Nichols-Dezenhall, a Washington, D.C.-based crisis management and
    public relations firm known for its bare-knuckled tactics, wrote it,
    said the firm's senior vice president, Steven Schlein.

    "It was designed by us because of the business climate in California,"
    he said. "That's the way to wage a long-term public affairs campaign.
    You get supporters."

    Thomas Metzger, spokesman for the chemistry council, said the industry
    wants an "aggressive awareness campaign" but has done nothing yet.

    "We are and were very concerned about the issue. We're wanting to do
    something," he said. "The proposal we got from Nichols-Dezenhall may
    have pushed tactics we weren't comfortable with. ... I don't know that
    it was ever actively considered."

    But that the proposal got passed along shows what industry is
    considering, said Bill Walker of the Environmental Working Group

    "We don't want to get too wide-eyed at this," he said. "This goes on
    all the time. ... It's acknowledging that our (industry) group doesn't
    have any credibility to talk about this, so we're setting up
    front-groups."

    Contact Douglas Fischer at

    [email hidden] .

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.