The United States of America is not a democracy. Hopefully, this statement won’t shock the average reader in this age of information. Our country operates as a ‘Republic’, meaning that we elect people to make decisions for us instead of voting directly to create the laws by which we live. We use an electoral college and complex legislative procedures instead of a ‘one man, one vote and majority rules’ methodology. Our elected representatives don’t have free reign however; insofar as we hold them to that major outline of American legal principles referred to as the Constitution. This was written by the founding fathers to ensure we wouldn’t move too far from their original vision during the centuries of legal evolution expected to follow their initiatives. This made the courts an invaluable part of our system of government. Leaders might come and go but the principles of government to which they must adhere would endure.

Unfortunately, the founding fathers didn’t quite foresee the extent to which money would be used to overturn the basic principles of our constitutional republic.

At some point, primarily through a chance remark made in 1866 regarding the rights of railroads to enjoy the due process of law, corporations obtained official status as ‘citizens’. Once imbued with their own set of constitutional rights those newly created citizens, whose corporeal bodies are really made of paper, began to alter the nature and future of this Republic. The privileges accorded to our ‘Paper Citizens’ are eroding the foundation upon which American society is uniquely based and explains why we have lost the ability to get ‘back on track’. Our courts have become inaccessible to the average individual, whose life experiences would promote legal evolution in the direction most related to the daily lives of our diverse population, including business owners. Instead, the courts have become the playthings of conglomerates with interests far beyond our borders.

The NAFTA trade agreement permits corporations to sue governments, if they suffer a loss of profits through any restraint upon trade, even if their products are being regulated by communities due to health concerns (e.g. pesticides banned in Canadian provinces provoked a suit). One might presume that such bans safeguard citizens’ rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but the apparent form of happiness protected by this treaty appears limited to profits for paper citizens. Interestingly, these ‘citizens’ aren’t necessarily ‘American’. The transnational corporations in particular, would appear to have no particular allegiance to any government. This outside form of interference in our domestic court system can even bypass those venues and be done by tribunals. This avoidance of public hearings would indicate that corporations are disposed to view human citizens as capable of realizing they have a stake in such matters which might enlighten us as to the conflict of interest that exists with paper citizens who appear entitled to multiple justice systems. The question must then be asked, why such an agreement was made which undermines our system of jurisprudence. We send our youth abroad to fight perceived threats to our constitutionally prescribed way of life. Perhaps it’s time to face the internal forces which threaten that very system of governance we are brought up to believe is “American”.

Lawyers exist in abundance yet few see the inside of a courtroom. The litigation process is the way in which we bring meaningful issues to judicial attention. Public access is granted by means of the right to attend hearings and trials as well as obtain access to record of those proceedings. Such records set precedents for future generations and prevents injustices from repeating themselves unnecessarily under a veil of secrecy. Professor of law, Marc Galanter describes this in his brilliant essay, “The Vanishing Trial”, illustrating how the business of law has been transformed into the law business. Lawyers make more money by settling all their cases instead of trying them, even those which might appear to garner easy, profitable victories. After all, why should a fledgling attorney openly display their still-developing skills? Why would a veteran at the craft risk public defeat in an open courtroom and jeopardize their reputations and fund of future clients? Transcripts of these processes live on forever. Juries are not always predictable. Judges have been known to vacate or reduce awards from time to time.

Still, individuals filing law suits are under the impression that they will have their day in court to air their grievances and obtain compensation for damage to their persons or property. This isn’t about huge wins in the millions of dollars but far smaller amounts made large by the costs involved. The costs of conducting depositions, hiring expert witnesses, devoting many hours to legal research and eventually, the court costs are not to be lightly undertaken. However, it is well worth the price of admission if–as intended– it provides us with a blue-print of the circumstances and prevents the need for future litigation on similar principals through precedents.

Unfortunately, settlements are usually ‘sealed’ and the presented circumstances and arguments unavailable for public review. Severe penalties can be meted out should a participant decide to open that knowledge to benefit others. That renders these private battles useless to society. Even if a particular malefactor paying out large sums in settlements chooses to learn from their errors and change their practices, there is still no precedent leading others employing similar policies to make the same changes. Even worse is the opportunity to reach a settlement in which significant concessions are made without any acknowledgment of fault by the payee. Our legal system has turned into just another day at the office for huge numbers of people, both real and those made of paper. We can all participate in the justice system without actually advancing the cause of justice.

We ought to be viewing the practitioners of law as we do those practicing medicine or entering into the clergy. These are career choices requiring a ‘higher calling’ than, say, a person drawn to work at the local bar and grill. The future of a constitutional government depends upon it and the oaths taken by those entering into the Bar Associations of their states all affirm a commitment to defend the Constitution. In stark contrast, the settlement process may lead innocent people (or their insurance companies), to pay out penalty assessments simply because they have lawyers advising them it will avoid the more costly processes of proving their innocence. Most Americans are familiar with the saying, “Quit while you’re ahead.”. In these situations, it’s more closely resembles a case of “Quit while you’re behind.”.

How can we return the courts to the people they are supposed to serve? Bringing a case to trial is a Herculean task requiring resources most injured parties no longer possess. One needs a reasonable degree of health and energy to look after such matters. Monetary support during the years of delays in prosecuting a suit is crucial, assuming you have an attorney able to take the case on contingency and bear the costs of litigation for the plaintiff. Last, but not least, one needs to be able to judge the competency of their own counsel’s performance. Are their efforts are being expended in good faith for the benefit of the client and not just their own coffers? Are special interests delaying or preventing your case from proceeding? Few people are in a position to press legitimate and important suits because the most harmed have the least power.

When did Americans lose this power to use our own system of justice? An examination of a country’s economics is usually a good predictor of how readily citizens will relinquish their rights in return for the illusion of economic stability, if not prosperity. Preoccupation with keeping a roof over one’s head is a big part of the problem. We appear to be in a period of civil war between classes largely established by businesses. In this reprise of the feudal system, citizens compete for their spot inside the castle perimeter because there are no paychecks, (with or without benefits), to be found outside of the moat. Even the invention of part time employment as a means of avoiding benefits packages didn’t cause unions to launch a large-scale assault upon the castle walls. As living costs rose and wages fell, thoughts of advancement in the workplace was replaced by hopes for retaining one’s current job or similar position. We ceased to be an upwardly mobile society or even a mobile society for that matter, with fewer jobs to spur movement around the country.

The myth of secure employment remains prevalent among hopeful citizens. The Bureau of Labor tells us workers now change jobs about ten or eleven times in their working careers – a practice which used to bring suspicion upon workers for failing to keep a ‘steady; job. There is a widespread illusion that corporate ‘emergency measures’ to promote survival in a rough economy, will change when times improve. The assumption of a return to older standards of loyalty to a long-term, devoted workforce appears to be unfounded optimism. The NAFTA agreement may be philosophically valid in its pursuit of global cooperation in business but the reality of this particular agreement subverts that endpoint. Instead of increasing respect and remuneration for workers globally, it appears to prescribe a challenge to corporations to enrich their Boards of Directors through excessive cutting of costs for labor and quality materials.

Classic capitalism envisioned a world in a firm collaboration between workers and employers, essential to efficiency in production and beneficial to both sides. However, Peter Drucker corrected that pipe-dream when he redefined the status of workers to that of a commodity. Training enables productivity to increase even where wages remained at low levels in modern society. This was adequately demonstrated in developing countries and the recent suicide of a Chinese worker tells the tale in this article by the NY Times detailing enormous profits generated through the regimentation of labor in a life maximizing hours devoted to repetitive tasks through provision of living quarters and mandatory overtime, among other methods of concentrating the working experience. The ‘sweat shop’ mentality is not unknown in the US – ask the child of any immigrant about their parent’s and grandparents experiences. Any degradation of the individual via labor abuses is itself a mirror of the degradation of judicial systems. Business has become ‘transnational’, without loyalty to any particular government and largely immune from traditional legal remedies for injuries or injustices. Governments are placed under the regime of businesses outside of their borders.

The general public is comprised of workers. Workers, reduced to commodity status, cannot attain the goals set for sustainable business practices. Our citizens are becoming a subsidiary of the corporation I refer to as America Ltd. The ‘unlimited’ promise of a constitutional government became lost when law ceased to be an instrument for justice. Now, it is a quick buck for a few lawyers and is held in contempt by the general public without an actual understanding of why the legal process has become so reviled by the very people it is supposed to serve. Until, that is, someone realizes they’ve been harmed. Let’s look at that next over a hot cup of McDonald’s coffee in Part II here.

(revised, 8/7/10)
Interesting link here to the Trial Warrior Blog by a Canadian lawyer for an international perspective on law practice.

GETTING THE BUGS OUT: Pesticides and Your Child’s School by Barbara Rubin

Michael Eash went through the first grade in his Pennsylvania school with frequent flu-like illnesses. His pediatrician noted that he missed 30 days out of the school year. His mother, Connie, watched his symptoms worsen during the week, only to improve on weekends and holidays when he wasn’t in school. The cycle began to repeat itself the following fall. Connie and two other mothers noticed an insecticide odor in the classroom. The teacher reported that many in her class were suffering from symptoms similar to MIchael’s.

Michael’s doctor tested him for exposure to organophosphate pesticides, finding him abnormally low in concentrations of the red blood cell cholinesterase, an indication of pesticide poisoning. Connie removed Michael from the classroom and began to teach him at home. In time, his blood levels returned to normal, but he showed a heightened sensitivity to pesticides, fragrances, cleaning products and other household chemicals. It was clear to Connie that Michael required a school environment that was free of toxins in order to remain well.

Doesn’t every parent want a toxin-free school for their child?

THE TRUTH ABOUT PESTICIDES

Pesticides, like the organophosphate product used in Michael’s school, are designed to kill targeted pests by destroying their central nervous systems. Non-targeted organisms, such a beneficial insects,pets and humans , can also be adversely affected. Acute and chronic exposure to pesticides has been associated with many major and minor health problems, eliciting asthmatic and dermatological reactions, as well as symptoms of toxicity affecting gastrointestinal, endocrine, immune, reproductive and/or neurological systems. Exposure to pesticides is also linked to increased rates of cancer.

According to Dr. Sheldon Wagner of the Department of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology at Oregon Stte University, the organosphosphate class of pesticides is of the highest order of toxicity. Dr. Wagner has served in a variety of advisory capacities to EPA and is now administrator of the National Medical Monitoring Program. “Misapplied organophosphate pesticides can mimic asthma,” says Dr. Wagner, emphasizing that more serious effects are possible under conditions of chronic exposure.

Lower toxicity pesticides, like the natural pyrethrums, are not without their own dangers. “Pyrethrum is a known allergen which can cause asthma and skin reactions,” Wagner said, adding that too little is known about the possible adverse effects of pyrethroids, the synthetic versions of pyrethrums. “Certain groups of children, such as the ‘atopic’ or allergic youngster, are at greater risk for adverse effects from contact with both the active and inert ingredients of these chemicals.” He recommends that parents be informed before these material are used on school sites, so they can make choices regarding undesirable exposures.

ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM

Recognizing that we are all exposed to pesticides in multiple ways in our day-to-day lives and that this exposure is problematic, particularly for vulnerable groups like children, the chronically ill, pregnant women and the elderly, Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act in 1996. The Act requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to review and reduce permitted levels of pesticide residues on foods. The Act’s focus is on foods, however; it does not address pesticides use in homes, gardens, offices and schools.

The U.S. Senate has twice passed the School Environment Protection Act (SEPA), which contains a policy known as “integrated pest management” or IPM. IPM promotes pest control using a variety of least toxic methods, such as blocking pests’ entry into buildings with caulk and window screens and cleaning up likely sources of food and water. It recommends common sense solutions to pest control problems which do not necessarily involves the use of poisons, such as removing pests with a HEPA vacuum or using gel baits and other materials which do not become airborne. If stronger pest control is warranted, IPM allows targeted applications of more toxic pesticides but requires that special precautions be taken, such as notifying affected people within the vicinity. Opponents argued that the bill is expensive, burdensome and unnecessary, and SEPA died in a House Committee.

According to the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides, four states- Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan and Pennsylvania- now have regulations which contain all the SEPA provisions. Other states have one or two of the EPA requirement, but there is no uniformity among them.

Until now, pesticides have been a ubiquitous, if unconscious part of the national landscape. The SEPA debates have helped to increase public awareness of this issue, and concern about pesticide use is growing internationally. Canada has taken a leadership position in adopting a precautionary approach to chemical exposures. Many communities there have passed laws that restrict the cosmetic use of pesticides and herbicides on public lands and privately owned lawns where children and other bystanders can be affected.

SAFE SCHOOLS

The Eash family moved to Connecticut , where they enrolled Micheal in a school district that uses strategies to promote a healthy school environment. Facility managers maintain school grounds and buildings using a careful selection of “least toxic” products. For example, the use of pesticides and herbicides on turf is reduced by sowing multiple seed types in high concentrations to help ensure survival of healthy grasses. Application of certain soil amendments, along with a variety of aeration and mowing techniques, all promote lawn health and reduce pest infestation. in addition, effective water management (e.g. reducing amounts used for irrigation during humid weather) limits the growth of fungi.

The same thoughtful attention is given to indoor maintenance. The entry of pests into buildings is prevented by sealing cracks in foundations and installing screens. The facility managers keep buildings in good shape and promptly repair leaks. They make certain that all food is properly stored and disposed of and that facilities are kept clean. As a result, the school provides necessary maintenance while it reduces the costs normally associated with pest control. A pest control company inspects school buildings every month. If pests are noted in large number, the least toxic measures, such as gel baits or boric acid, are used. In rare cases where a more toxic product is recommended, advance notification goes out to all concerned staff and parents.

Applications are then made outside of school operating hours. When the state of Connecticut adopted laws to reduce pesticide use in its schools, this district already exceeded the provisions of the new statutes.

Advance notification of chemical applications on school property is still not required in most states. Fortunately for Micheal Eash, such notification had become policy in his new school district. However, until such policies become standard, parents are well advised to be aware of school maintenance policies and procedures. only a healthy school environment can foster learning and personal growth.

Public concern continues as more unwelcome ingredients, such as asbestos and lead in children‘s toys, are discovered in a variety of imported products. A longer-running dispute continues domestically between consumers and vendors of many products boasting undisclosed ingredients.

Among them is the class of widely marketed products known as synthetic fragrances. The older question about consumers’ right to know about the contents of any purchase is now entering a new realm of debate about the need to know all about the chemically laden manufactured goods on the market.

As reports about the adverse health impacts of commonly encountered products mount, the current American version of “free” enterprise seems to be traveling a collision course with the growing public outcry for greater regulatory oversight. Basic marketing philosophy for materials concocted in modern laboratories appears to be in conflict with the original vision of capitalism as a consumer-driven process, in which demand shapes supply. What happens to the nature of consumer demand in an era of consumer ignorance regarding the items they buy? Let’s examine this question using as a microcosm the debate surrounding the production of synthetic fragrances.

As many as 5,000 different chemicals are incorporated within various fragrance formulas, according to the American Academy of Dermatology. Industry asserts that fragrances have been used safely for hundreds of years. Such claims are belied by the fact that chemical compounds appearing in the products (e.g., benzaldehyde and linalool found to be present in a 1992 EPA laboratory study), have not been known for very long. Today’s fragrances rarely contain only those natural ingredients used in earlier centuries; hence the adjective, “synthetic.”

The public is prone to assume that all these chemicals have been thoroughly vetted for their safety prior to sale. Many chemicals have multiple uses across industries, appearing in cosmetics, medications, cleaning products and even food flavorings. The intended use of a product determines what agency, if any, has jurisdiction for inquiring into its business.

For instance, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration states that it has no oversight duties with regard to the ingredients used in cosmetics. These consist of products intended to enhance attractiveness whether the product is ingested, topically applied or inhaled. The only exception is with colorants (as in hair dyes). Otherwise, unless some claim is made regarding benefits to health, as opposed to self-esteem, there is no requirement for registration of these products with the FDA. This means that recalls of products suspected of containing potentially harmful ingredients are essentially a voluntary act on the part of vendors.

How complex is the task of developing appropriate testing protocols for fragrance chemicals? There are multiple avenues for their internalization apart from direct application and absorption through the skin. Fragrances are intended to be inhaled, which would seem to make assessment of their potential as respiratory irritants or sensitizers a priority at least equal to the more commonly cited skin testing. Once airborne, fragrance chemicals are going to be absorbed by all in their vicinity, not just the intentional user. A class of secondary, unintentional fragrance consumers is created via the same mechanisms by which secondhand cigarette smoke has become an issue before the general public. Therefore, the societal impact of these products is far greater than basic consumer demand summarized in sales statistics.

Measurable reductions in lung function, to a moderate degree, have been observed upon exposure to the chemical 1,4 dichlorobenzene, which is commonly found in deodorizing compounds. Ninety-six percent of subjects in a 2006 study (Elliot et. al.) showed evidence of exposure via blood sampling. Exposure by persons with pre-existing respiratory problems or by healthy individuals in combination with other common environmental irritants would have an even greater impact upon intentional and unintentional consumers.

A thoroughly tested synthetic chemical can provide data accounting for factors of carcinogenicity, central nervous system effects, reproductive and developmental toxicity, cardiovascular and endocrine effects, and specific organ vulnerabilities (e.g. liver or kidney damage). While the industry may have dispensed with a few harmful substances formerly incorporated in fragrances, manufacturers do not speak of the thousands currently in use. These include petrochemicals, aldehydes, phenols and esters, which are all known to have wide-ranging adverse effects when studied in isolation. Their effects in combinations have yet to be addressed in research models.

A newer area of concern is that of “mutagen” effects, or how chemicals around us alter the ongoing activity of our genes, cuing them to turn themselves on or off as they go about the daily business of regulating our bodily functions. The interactions of the environment with gene functions (referred to as gene expression), indicates that one need not have a genetic predisposition or defect for harm to occur.

The identification of hazardous or potentially hazardous ingredients in a product is usually followed by assurances that the amount present is negligible. Unfortunately, the determination of how much is too much is highly variable. Relevant factors include age, gender, weight, general health status and cumulative levels of exposure to multiple chemicals.

Practically speaking, this position is irrelevant to the very large numbers of people who report that a product has harmed, rather than enhanced, their quality of life. Science has also progressed beyond the old saw “the dose makes the poison.” It is now recognized that small amounts of a substance can sneak under the radar of one’s physical defenses while larger amounts of the material would alert the body to implement damage control procedures.

The American Academy of Dermatology also informs us that fragrance ingredients, along with preservatives, are respectively the first and second most frequent causes of contact dermatitis. Physicians warn us that contact can be from airborne particles and not just occur in primary users of a product. Between 40 and 50 million Americans (20 percent of the population) have allergies to one or more substances. Health care costs and losses in productivity are estimated at $6 billion annually from this widespread problem.

Approximately 35 million Americans suffer from some form of chronic lung ailment. The majority are diagnosed with asthma (over 22 million) and a majority report fragrance as being a common trigger for attacks. Asthma costs the public over $19 billion per year in direct healthcare costs and lost productivity. It is the most frequent cause of missed school days in children.

Migraine headaches are experienced by some 28 million Americans at an annual cost of $14 billion in medical costs and lost productivity. Among the majority, who report triggering events for their attacks, a sizable percentage count olfactory stimuli among them (perfume and/or strong odors).

Subgroups of chronically ill persons like those on chemotherapy and people who became ill following incidents of exposures to toxic chemicals are particularly vigilant in attempting to avoid such products. There is a sizable body of evidence that synthetic fragrances are a burden upon very large numbers of people.

According to sufferers, reactivity ranges in severity from annoying to disabling. Advice by vendors to individuals with adverse reactions to such products has simply been to avoid them. These consumers may choose to leave fragranced products untouched on store shelves, yet are still exiting stores, offices, hospitals, schools and libraries with molecules from these products left adhering to their nasal passages and lungs. These particles may later be deposited in other organs or stored in adipose (fatty) tissue and subject to gradual release over time. The indoor air of our typical environments is heavily laced with fragranced products emitted from store merchandise, cleaning products, air fresheners and the individuals we encounter throughout the day. Residues from various laundry and personal care products cling to their skins and clothing articles. Products may now include phthalates, those plasticizers which can act as perfume “fixatives,” making them longer lasting. The FDA plans to assess their safety in the near future, although other researchers classify them as endocrine disruptors.

Since general avoidance of fragrance chemicals is frankly impossible, consumers are left to try to identify key offending ingredients. This, too, is impossible, since industry is legally permitted to label the often-complex conglomeration of ingredients with a single term, namely “fragrance.” This does not allow individuals to collaborate with their physicians and isolate causes for environmentally triggered problems. It does not allow proactive, health-conscious individuals to discriminate among the varieties of fragranced products on the market today.

Only disclosure of ingredients offers consumers the opportunity to select preparations which are truly benign. The absence of such information makes it impossible to select products best suited to an individual’s particular health challenges, even by the expensive process of trial and error. Some adverse effects may be delayed and therefore not easily recognized.

Ostensibly, this withholding of information from consumers is done to protect trade secrets. One wonders what consumers are expected to do with such revelations if they became available. Certainly, competitors already analyze one another’s products in their own laboratories as a matter of course. In Europe, where labeling is required, companies do not appear to be going out of business because of competition from the man (or woman) on the street, who might choose to make such products at home!

Clearly, we need greater assistance from the fragrance industry to help consumers make appropriate selections from among thousands of fragranced products. These were created to enhance the quality of life rather than detract from it. Patents serve to protect industry interests, but only full disclosure of product ingredients will allow consumers to protect their own interests. Of course, this raises the question of why the interests of consumers and vendors would ever truly come into conflict with one another. Satisfied, healthy consumers generate more disposable income. This in turn enriches the makers of products that satisfy the demand for that level of quality in composition. If competition relies less on consumer ignorance and more on informed consumer preference, the marketplace can only become a source of healthy competition in a capitalist society.

———————————-

Barbara Rubin holds an MA in speech/language pathology and worked in the field of developmental disabilities for 25 years within educational and medical settings. In addition to her role as a therapist and supervisor of clinical programs, she also taught in several colleges and universities in her field of expertise.

Following her retirement in 2000, Rubin became a freelance writer about the human health effects of pollutants commonly encountered within indoor settings. She has published several magazine articles and numerous commentaries in various newspapers and journals. She would like to thank Barb Wilkie and Alison Johnson for their gracious editorial assistance with this article.

Americans are a funny group. Our arrival on these shores, originally rooted in the search for religious freedom, led to concepts of an entrepreneurial culture in which social strata were based upon success rather than birthright. However, our industrial orientation has evolved to the point where it can no longer be correctly referred to as capitalism. A component of “gangsterism”, resulting from the successful collusion among corporations and between government and business, has diminished consumer control of the marketplace. ‘Demand’ no longer regulates supply in an era of subsidies for unsustainable businesses (e.g. agriculture) and consumer ignorance of product quality due to incomplete and misleading labels.

One holdover of our religious roots is the resigned acceptance by Americans to the burdens of life’s less pleasant aspects. This is evidenced in the lack of overt response to our increasing rates of ill health. Alternately viewed as a burden we are “meant ” to bear or evidence of our own faulty lifestyles and weak minds, we can be sure such factors were not bred into us by our hardy forefathers. We have failed to see the effects of the degradation of capitalism as an inciting factor in our apparent acceptance of chronic illness and pain as our heritage. Yet these are intimately related events.

We shudder to recall the black death, which claimed a quarter of Europe’s population. Yet we ignore the statistics of the Census Bureau which tell us that one-fifth of American adults (16-64 years of age) suffer chronic illness/disability. This alarming number does not include the enormous numbers of disabled children born each year or account for institutionalized adults, disabled military personnel and the elderly infirm. Those additions raise that statistic to astronomical proportions for a “modern” society.

The suffering of the multitudes is no longer heralded by a smell of smoke, the squealing of rats and cries to “Bring out your dead.” Instead, this photo’s caption is written on tickertape stemming from Wall Street’s acknowledgement of health care as our fastest growing industry, comprising 15% of the GNP. We are simply not that weak a species and this explosion of allergies, cardiac and respiratory ailments, chronic fatigue, cancers, autoimmune diseases and premature central nervous system degeneration (e.g. Alzheimers) is recent in our history. It does not appear attributable to living longer. We simply live longer with our illnesses. Case after case of poisoned towns (e.g. Anniston, Love Canal, Woburn) indicate the race is on to make Forest Lawn our best selling realty company.

The reason for this is a decades-long, illicit affair between industry and government. Industry provides the ads needed to whitewash the reputation of that union’s bastard child – preventable disease and disability. Numerous administrations told us we possessed a free market system which needs no regulation since capitalism is self-regulating: If the product is no good, no one will buy it. This mistaken view of capitalism as practiced in this country has actually destroyed our health and, subsequently, the economy. We turn a blind eye to the fact that nearly a third of our work force will experience disability PRIOR to reaching retirement age and yet still expect the GNP to recover. We also returned the spiritual outlook of a modern nation to a feudal acceptance of suffering as either a normal state of being or a by-product of a weak mind/soul which cannot purge itself of self-destructive tendencies. Stress must be the author of all ills. Pass the prozac please.

Industries band together to lobby for the right to keep toxic ingredients off product labels under the guise of “trade secrets”. We are not allowed to know what is in our fragrances (e.g. toluene), pesticides (e.g. inert ingredients often more toxic than the active ones), foods (e.g. fish DNA in our tomatoes introduced by means of a viral carrier organism), building materials (e.g. formaldehyde in our wood products), fertilizer (e.g. containing a large percentage of industrial waste products permitted by law) and so forth. Industry refrains from competing to make the best product possible, opting instead for reducing competition by using similar quality of formulation and relying upon price wars (and price fixing) to share the consumer marketplace. Losses can be made up through government tax breaks, creative bookkeeping and slashing salaries and benefits for workers. If workers go out on disability, so much the better – more where they came from. And don’t forget the dead peasant’s insurance policy.

Conventional farming only continues by virtue of subsidies, given the expenses of GMO production costs in patented seeds and expensive chemicals – not because “modern” farming is economical. Attempts to educate the consumer and increase production of unadulterated food yields harassment by the FDA and law suits by corporate giants. One must not advertise foods as being free of GMOs lest one suggest to the consumer that GMOs might be undesirable. Truth in labelling has become an actionable offense in our economy and the US seeks redress for this criminal truthfulness via the WTO in international arenas when Europe bans or labels their US imports to reflect their higher standards. The USDA has forbidden a meat producer from testing each head of their cattle for Mad Cow Disease, even thought it would be at the company’s own expense. Foreign markets demand such care and would more than make up the expense in paying custom to a good producer they could trust…a basic capitalistic choice. No, says our government. What happened to laissez faire policies?

The EPA warns us that indoor air quality is now our worst enemy with 2 to 5 times the concentration of contaminants than outdoor air supplies. The pollutants are brought into our homes by ignorant consumers who assume the EPA would not let sources of these contaminants remain on the market to be brought into our homes. Denial becomes a way of life.

Genuine capitalism requires variety and true competition to create a “better mousetrap”. Then consumer choice supports the superior industries who can expand etc.. Capitalism was not intended to support a huge trough from which all manufacturers can feed. Happy and heathy consumers earning a decent wage are required to support the best industries in a “trickle up” model of economics. This country is losing its consumer base to poverty, illness and ignorance.

A dwindling tax base will not cover the costs of medical benefits for those who cannot work and require housing vouchers, food stamps and other supports. Social security/medicare was designed as a cushion for the elderly with inadequate means for a lengthy retirement and to sustain the disabled who lacked sufficient time to build up a retirement nest egg. It was not meant to sustain a society where a third of us cannot produce and another third has lowered productivity due to failing health on their way to disability or retirement. The remaining third is left to bear the burden of a country betrayed by empty promises of their right to pursue life, liberty and happiness while their pension funds are raided by CEOs who pay no taxes. Even Ayn Rand would be nauseated by what passes for a “free” market under this system.

What is done to one is done to all in the final analysis, a fact well known to the founding fathers. It is time to include the Bill of Rights in our litmus test of commerce issues to insure that disease and poisoning are recognized as impediments to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Full disclosure of product ingredients and corporate structures is required to restore capitalism to its original checks and balances…choice by consumers to support the best run companies with the best product lines with their dollars.

The first ten amendments, below, is the portion of the Constitution referred to as the Bill of Rights. These are violated daily in the lives of poisoning victims and those yet to be poisoned – we know it is just a matter of time for the majority of citizens. I suggest revising these protections since they modify federal authority which usurps basic tenets of individual freedoms. Here is a very rough draft of some of the possibilities to be pursued by more talented writers.

Barbara Rubin

———————————————-

Preamble to the constitution:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

To be rewritten as:

We the victims and/or witnesses to the government sanctioned poisoning of these United States, in order to preserve the ideals of our forefathers for a perfect union, the preservation of justice, insurance of domestic health and safety, for promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty in the teeth of scientific advances which they could not have envisioned, do hereby issue this Bill of Rights to prevent further harm, degradation and loss of life/property from occurring.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Rewritten as:

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of “sound science” as a religion for the national worship and justification of industrial profits, or prohibiting the free excercise of “true” science in judging whether products violate the natural laws of biochemistry; or abridging the individual’s freedom to breathe fresh air, or eat pure foods, or the right of the people to assemble in communities with local ordinances intended to free them of industry or municipally imposed toxins; and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Rewritten as:

A well regulated body of independent scientists, free of loyalties to industry, being necessary to the practice of true science; the right of the people to determine what is an “acceptable risk” to them, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

To be rewritten as:

No poisons at any dosage, shall, in times of peace, be forcibly introduced into any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of health emergencies, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particurlarly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

To be rewritten as:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses and effects against unreasonable contamination, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon the most dire health emergencies, supported by non-industry scientists of diverse backgrounds, probable cause to introduce toxins into personal environments.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

To be rewritten as:

No person shall be held to suffer the consequences for the environmental crimes of industry and pay, with their lives and the health of their families, for such infamous crimes; nor shall any person be subject to being twice put in jeopardy of life and limb – first by offending individuals or corporations and then by government agencies failing to remedy the danger pending legal challenges to the source of injury; nor shall be compelled to participate in biological experiments through the premature marketing of inadequately tested products, without due process of law, nor shall private property be contaminated without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, an d to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

To be rewritten as:

In all criminal prosecution of poisoners, the victim shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial with testimony from impartial panels of appropriately credentialed witnesses who have personally borne witness to the resultant health effects of toxic exposures in the victim; to be provided with the full disclosure of industry documents pertaining to the nature of the toxic substances in question; to have compulsory process for obtaining qualified medical help and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

To be rewritten as:

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall be comprised of issues in human health, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States in such a manner as to deny relevant scientific evidence presented by those with no conflicts of interest.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

To be rewritten as:

Damage to the health and property of individuals by action of industry or by the state, in excess of the ability of the damaged party to remedy during the implementation of legal process shall be alleviated immediately for later reimbursement by those judged at fault at the time of verdict.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

To be rewritten as:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage the facts that science has progressed beyond the ability of the originators of our Constitution to foresee future events of this nature. Their understandable lack of foresight will not restrict the rights of the people to defend themselves against novel threats presented by technology in the name of profits.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

To be rewritten as:

The natural laws of biochemistry and of the heterogeneity of our species in our tolerance for chemicals introduced into our environments shall not be subjugated to man-made laws at federal or state levels. The individual’s health and well being shall be the final arbiter of what “levels” of contamination are “tolerable” in each case.

Yet that means critical decisions about your life are left in the hands of those who have no idea how you live it!

When one is disabled, disenfranchisement from the culture and society are typical. Nearly a third of Americans have chronic illness or a disability yet we have so little “clout” or say in our society. But most of us can have a voice if we take pen or keyboard in hand and express ourselves as members of a voting block, as active participants and thinking Americans no matter the physical limitations.

We need more Armchair Activists!

Instead of watching the news, read a paper or subscribe to one (they are usually free) on line. I read the NY Times and Washington Post headlines daily as they are emailed each morning. I choose stories which impact upon my philosophy or directly upon my life itself and write letters to the editor and letters to congressional representatives about my views.

As major papers are very selective about what they print, I then often go to more local sources around the country for similar stories and write those papers. I have had letters printed everywhere from here at home to England, to Australia and to Canada. It is surprising how similar human problems are around the globe.

Sometimes my letters get printed and make others think about things they may not have looked upon before. Sometimes they result in an article being written as a followup on the original from a new vantage point (I always copy my letters to the reporters writing the articles).

And lots to our representatives in governement! They take counts of yeas and nays on issues and it counts! Personal responses are exciting to receive and one can write to whole congressional committees by looking them up on THOMAS, where all legislative activity can be followed depending upon one’s interest and one’s time allowance.

Be Heard. Count. Your citizenship does require some participation to earn the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nothing ever came free.

The facts and figures show an economy all askew as the fastest growing industry in America is the one guaranteed to be a drain on the GNP rather than a boost. Over 14% of our economy is now reported to belong to the health care sector.

The response by government officials is automatic: ” We must reign in the costs of health care.” This is political-speak for the process of transferring more costs to the patient who now is miraculously transformed from a sick person into a “consumer”. Being ill does tend to take some of the fun out of bargain hunting and drastically reduces the amount of time one has to devote to that favorite American pastime.

There is a wonderful cure for increased demands for health care services. Healthy people don’t need them. They are out there working hard, increasing the GNP and spending their hard earned dollars on goods and services that promote a healthy economy. A sick population leads to a sick economy.

Oh, Dr. Frist? Why are we so sick?

We have been looking at the wrong statistics. The numbers which represent the source of all this health care spending are more important that how much is spent answering the call of chronic illness, suffered by 90 million Americans. Yes, we have an aging population but the majority of disabilities in this country arise during our working years, not as ailing retirees.

The CDC tells us one in five adult has a disability or chronic health problem. This count does not include the outrageously high numbers of children with developmental disabilities, institutionalized adults or disabled military personnel – all of which raise the numbers even more alarmingly.

The Social Security Administration tells us that three of every ten workers will become disabled, before hitting their retirement years. Why would thirty percent of our nation’s workforce be decimated by injury or illness? Our workforce is further crippled by legions of persons who struggle to maintain their status as workers while walking the slippery slope of declining productivity from chronic ill health. Is there anyone who does not either have, or know someone who has asthma and digestive problems?

Perhaps it is time to look at the dollars which are not going to EPA enforcement of clean air and water regulations. It might be nice if the FDA could afford to independently test some of those drugs and cosmetics they approve instead of trusting the thoroughness of the manufacturer’s purchased scientists. Perhaps we can interest Congress in funding (and empowering) the USDA to actually require clean meat packaging plants and end the adulteration of our foods with residues from pesticides, antibiotics and hormones.

OSHA could do with some more money to ensure that some real air gets into our sealed office buildings. Most of us breathe in recycled molecules of carbon dioxide mixed with emissions from copiers, fax machines, heating and cooling units, carpets, compressed wood furniture; fumes from cleaning products, extermination efforts and personal products worn by colleagues.

Employers don’t have to worry because if worker are injured on the job, those cost effective worker’s compensation premiums ensure no liability to them. Even if an injured worker is able to get the state to part with some small degree of remuneration after years of legal wrangling, he or she will even have to pay their own attorney’s fees for the privilege of becoming disabled. Illness is rather cost effective for industry, saving on pensions and medical insurance premiums. Only the government and the public pay the price in the short run. Long term, the economy topples.

Dr. Frist, to surgery please! Cut out the perks to industry and use the savings to suture the gaping wounds in our public health programs. It seems to be the right time to have a physician in the majority seat of our senate. There is a lot of healing to be done.

To the Editor,

The Homeland Security Act’s provision protecting the manufacturers of a wide array of vaccines, not just those implicated in biological warfare. Any threat to industry must automatically be assumed a threat to national security in these times. The implications raised by Susan Warner’s article printed on 12/9/02 about the government’s role in “approving” vaccines and manipulating litigation around the use of mercury in vaccines are crucial for the American public to analyze. Similarly, the research article in the recent Lancet journal about thiomersal requires similar scrutiny as it alters the very nature of medical research in our society.

The use of mercury in vaccines solves an industry problem in mass production and cost analysis. It does not represent a necessary ingredient in the vaccine per se to make it medically effective. Mercury is a known poison which is seen, as per the study published by Dr. Pichichero et al., in The Lancet, to accumulate in blood and be evacuated primarily in stool via the gastrointestinal tract. There is an unproven assumption in this manner of studying toxicological issues that poisons which are “rapidly” excreted from the body do no harm along the way. It assumes the poison and any by-products of its chemical breakdown are not thereafter circulated, stored or otherwise able to do some damage to the host. In effect, this type of toxicological study is not so much a medical study but a product safety inquiry. Medicine is rapidly becoming an arm of the pharmaceutical industry on an intellectual level while tax dollars fund this type of research in the hope that independent scientists will show us that medicine continues to embrace the Hippocratic oath claiming it will do us NO HARM.

The determination of how much poison one can “safely” inject, feed or expose a “subject” is a question totally out of line with the tenets of medicine unless we are discussing issues in chemotherapy or other medical procedure requiring the destruction of tissue. The obvious answer is not to expose people to toxic chemicals if one wishes to DO NO HARM.

Another false assumption is the ludicrous idea that the government can mandate “federal limits” on how much poison is safe to have in one’s blood, urine, fat cells, etc. Biochemistry cannot be legislated. Further, legislation is incorrectly based upon studies which presume all humans have equal abilities to remove toxins from their bodies. It has been proven that such abilities vary with age, gender, size, health status, environment and some genetic factors.

Infants with digestive tract problems (diagnosed or undiagnosed) should not be presumed to be able to excrete mercury efficiently. The question also fails to address the fact that mercury will continue to enter children’s bodies from exposures to pollution and adulterated foods throughout their lifetimes. We do not know if damage is a result of cumulative exposure or synergy with other absorbed contaminants. There may be a statute of limitations on the filing of liability suits for harm by vaccines but nature may not be aware of this factor. Apparently nature is resistant to legislation as well.

In any event, there can be no satisfactory proof of harm done with research on infants and young children because you cannot measure a loss of potential. These children have not yet developed the skills we need to examine in order to prove loss of abilities as a result of poisoning. We will never know if their IQs, social skills, motor dexterity or other developmental attainments could have been higher in the absence of such exposures. “Normal” is a spectrum with a wide range of abilities. A 10 or 15 point difference in achievement between children can still cause both to be rated in the normal range of function and satisfy researchers that subjects are “normal” A difference in potential should not be ruled out as making a significant difference for the individual or society as a whole. Society is presently inundated with the need to address learning problems in huge numbers while test scores reflect general underachievement in our schools. Are our children different in learning capacity and styles due to early exposures to heavy metals, pesticides, solvents and the myriad other toxins that come our way pre-natally and on an hourly basis after birth?

If lead exposure leads to underachievement, what does mercury do?
There do not appear to be any financial incentives for either proving harm or for inventing alternatives in vaccine preservatives. Consumers are responsible for funding the claims successfully prosecuted by the injured. The POST article points out that, “Congress created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in 1986 to address growing concerns about vaccine safety. Claims…funded by a 75-cent surcharge on every child vaccination.” The ceilings suggested for damages may save the fund money but permits the risk to the population to continue while ensuring injured parties lack the funds to pay for long term care needed by those with permanent damage of a substantial nature. There is certainly no diminution of profit to the injurer who might reasonably be expected to fund the lives of the persons who are “acceptable risks” to the vaccine industry.

Technology must not be confused with science any longer. The ability to do something does not mean the product or process is compatible with human health and safety. Facts are in short supply and safety testing is actually conducted after marketing…on the American public at our expense. Capitalism is based upon the theory that if one builds a better mousetrap, the financial rewards will follow. That cannot happen when all mousetraps are built the same and unhappy consumers are consigned to the category of dispensable citizens. The concept of “acceptable risk” belongs on the battlefield, not in a doctor’s office.

Barbara Rubin
P.O. Box 224
Locust Valley, N.Y. 11560
Raisyl@webtv.net
516-643-5594

I was a special educator who became disabled from pesticide exposures. I am now a free lance writer on environmental issues.

“Hello, I am an acceptable risk.”

The Society for Risk Analysis joins with government agencies in conferences which ask its participants to ponder how many of us can be crippled or killed in the interests of industrial interests. As our own President describes himself as the CEO of the United States, one wonders when our elected officials will begin to view us as citizens rather than as employees. The Bill of Rights guarantees that we, the people, should have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This was not intended to be an employee benefit, awarded only during contract negotiations in more profitable times.

The Bill of Rights does not mention that the pursuit of life is only permissible if the cost to industry does not exceed X amount of dollars to preserve that life. Mr. Bush nominated John Graham for the position of Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Mr. Graham is known for his “Harvard Center for Risk Analysis”, a group heavily funded by industry as it “researches” the amount of money it takes to prevent individuals from death or damage by various and sundry products on the market. This office is a gateway to the adoption or delay of many rules which affect health and environmental concerns. Our CEO feels he is the best party to serve in that capacity. I doubt a presidential view of the situation would be in agreement.

I became relegated to the ranks of the disabled on September 16, 2000 after a long battle to remain in the workforce with a chronic illness called, for lack of a better term, Chemical Injury.  This is a result of multiple exposures to the proliferation of legally applied poisons in occupational, residential and “common” areas open to the public. It appears I am among a group of persons for whom exposures to such products as pesticides and formaldehyde (as present in carpets, some new furnishings etc.) can cause/contribute to lasting harm. I become severely ill upon exposure to many synthetic products and must lead a life of significant isolation.

Diminution of IQ, language facility, motor skills and other neurologically based areas of performance have occurred. Industry is fond of pointing out that this ailment is controversial and poorly documented. As industry is the main source of funding for medical research, I am not surprised that “documentation” is lacking or termed controversial for any condition which asserts them to be the cause. Yet some chemicals even have warnings on them, denoting the risk of becoming sensitized to them and related chemicals from initial exposures.

The research on pesticides, which are safety tested based upon what the average healthy and genetically uniform crop of lab rats can tolerate without dying (LD50 standard), fails to tell you that the surviving rats probably don’t feel too good about having made it through the “cut”. Survivors may be brain damaged, unable to speak well (in whatever language rats communicate with one another), may be the last rats on the block to get through that darn maze, may have one heck of a time digesting food and may feel like hell warmed over on their best days. But they survived, so the chemicals must be safe and the test subjects will never contradict the findings (the rat press is highly censored). Independent researchers are just getting around to the question of impaired performance in affected lab animals and persons exposed to such materials at sublethal dosages.

Researchers under the direction of Dr. Clement Furlong at the University of Washington in Seattle, have been experimenting for many years on the manner in which our bodies process out certain pesticides utilizing an enzyme called PON 1. His mice, bred to have none of this vital enzyme, are decimated from exposures to the toxins requiring this item for safe elimination of the poison from the body. Yet the PON 1 test is not commercially available in labs even though many documented cases of pesticide poisoning have occurred in persons lacking this substance. Dr. Haley, a Gulf War Syndrome researcher at the University of Texas in Dallas, has noted that some of his subjects with extensive exposure to pesticides prior to becoming ill, are low on measures of PON 1.

Pesticides which appear to require PON 1 mediated responses to “safely” leave the systems of exposed animals include Dursban (recently removed from the market following extensive negotiation with the EPA) and Malathion, still used in the wars against mosquitos within heavily populated areas. The popular lawn chemical, Diazanon, is another which will soon go the way of Dursban.

Exposures to combinations of pesticides have been shown to penetrate the blood-brain barrier by Dr. Abou-Donia of Duke University. The data is clear on the dangers these chemicals present. We do not screen our population to determine whose immune system is at risk for becoming overwhelmed by a given product, much less the combined effects of bombardment by the hundreds of synthetic chemicals surrounding us and being ingested/inhaled daily. Yes, some will be safe while others will not be safe. How is “risk” measured? Women, children, the elderly and the infirmed do not fit the resistance model of the average healthy 35 year old male. Yet they make up the majority of the exposed population! The EPA was commissioned to consider the risks to children as being much greater than that of adults to pesticide exposures and the resulting Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 calls for the re-registration of most pesticides under a new and more stringent definition of toxicity.

Nonetheless, ever since the passage of the FQPA, industrial lobbying and a hefty concentration of our elected officials (with campaign contributions from industry), have been trying to derail the act. The EPA’s budget for enforcement is cut each year forcing them to beg companies to withdraw products from the marketplace based on their estimates of harm to the public. Of course, the products can be withdrawn without prejudice or admission of harm done to anyone so the cycle of market – harm – product revision/withdrawal just repeats itself. The fact that industry is permitted by government to keep information about toxic ingredients off the labels of their products ensures that we cannot answer direct questions like, “Do you have proof of harm from these products?”. How are statistics to be kept when people do not know when they have been exposed to particular materials?

We are an ill society with one of every five adults demonstrating some chronic ailment which is generally acquired during our working years, not in our old age. This statistic, courtesy of the CDC, does not even include children with disabilities, institutionalized adults or military personnel. The Social Security Administration says that 3 of every 10 persons entering the workforce will become disabled prior to retirement age.

Why do we constantly hear about the prohibitive costs to industry in making safer products when it is the public who bears the huge cost of medical care and support of persons who cannot work? Productivity will certainly decline as we continue to lock ourselves into sealed buildings to save on energy costs of heating and cooling while depriving ourselves of oxygen.

The three or four o’clock slump in office workers is not a reflection upon our need to rest after a vigorous day at the conference table. It is a commentary on how many hours of contact with toxic byproducts of pesticides, particle board furniture, carpets, carbonless copy paper, fumes from faxes and copiers, fragrances containing unlabelled petrochemicals etc., are necessary to drive us to fatigue, confusion, indigestion, aches and pains, respiratory complaints and more severe conditions of asthma and auto-immune disorders. When law requires only 10 percent of air intake consist of “fresh air” (your requirements may vary from one locality to another), we must assume this design is intended for some new human who has not been genetically bred as yet to withstand this onslaught. Perhaps Monsanto can manufacture a person who can withstand lower concentrations of oxygen just as they engineered soy which can withstand larger concentrations of herbicide and still survive. Of course, we don’t know whether the new human will be able to eat that soy.

Copyright, 2002 Barbara Rubin

Your editorial section (3/15/03) is replete with tales of unconcern for AIDS patients in the third world and environmental principles. I am afraid that it is time to stop looking at the abuse of our ailing citizens and our environment as neglectful. It is time to call it what it is…a policy.

The tragedy of millions of dying AIDS victims must not overshadow the slower dying of millions in this country under more diverse diagnostic labels: autoimmune diseases like Multiple Sclerosis, Lupus and Parkinsons, cardiovascular ailments, COPD, Asthma, cancers with environmental links as with Lymphoma, the surge in premature senility as in Alzheimers etc. The CDC tells us that one fifth of adults have a chronic health condition which does not include the count of disabled children, institutionalized adults or disabled military personnel. The Social Security Administration tells us that three in ten new workers will become disabled during their working years, requiring SSD benefits. Are we such a weak species?

Let’s take our message from the one sent by the tobacco industry to the Czeck government: in premature illness and death, there is profit. That politically incorrect message intended to prevent passage of anti-smoking legislation in that country informs us that our ruling industries applaud savings on workers who leave the workforce (lost/reduced pensions, reduced use of medical benefits and lower salaried replacement personnel). The costs are transferred to the overburdened taxpayers who must fund SSDI payments, medicare and medicaid costs etc. as well as the price of cleaning up environmental messes responsible for the increasing rates of disability and chronic illness.

Let’s not estimate the power of greed solely in terms of it’s effect upon third world countries. Let us just use that obvious piece of inhumanity for as a marker for a broader agenda. When heads of state call themselves “CEOs” instead of “Presidents”, we should all listen to the underlying message and the legislative agenda which enforces it.