The Brockovich Report

Made in America

Once upon a time, we looked at a product and were able to draw certain generalizations-- whether or not these were completely correct, there were axioms we generally could consider true:

Electronics "made in Japan" were superior.
Small parts "made in China" were inexpensive.
"Made in Germany" meant items that were mechanically efficient and usually overpriced.
"Made in Italy" usually referred to expensive, fashionable and frequently hand-made shoes that wore badly but looked great before they fell apart; specifically "Made in Venice" would refer to hand-blown glass.
"Made in France" meant something artistic, avant garde, or gourmet" cheesy" like Camembert de Normandie or Roquefort.
"Made in America" meant something.

Maybe you bought different products from other countries and developed other impressions. Your mileage may vary based on your shopping/consumption history.

But what about "Made in America?"

John Ratzenburger's Made in America" notwithstanding, now, we can't generalize. It's not that Americans don't manufacture--American's still invent, create, build and distribute.

It's just that to know who that is, now we have to read the fine print. The tag "Made in America" has been largely replaced by "Assembled in America." Sure, the Federal Trade Commission enforces what that means. (Follow the link to see their very specific guidelines to what is and is not required. I won't go into the political sleight of hand that lowered consumer costs and reduced American jobs by moving many of them out of the country into cheaper, less regulated labor forces.)

I don't know if it is the FDA or the immense power of the American Consumer, but it becomes increasingly obvious that American manufacturers recall stuff. They do so VOLUNTARILY. They voluntarily pull items for "possible contamination with the bacteria Shigella," "potential contamination with Salmonella," "undeclared drug ingredient sibutramine," "potential contamination with Clostridium botulinum,"--all direct quotes from the FDA.

There are things you don't find.

You don't find that American manufacturers regularly pump up the quality of rice with poisonous melamine as a food additive, as has been discovered in China. Internationally, China is getting the reputation of being the Wild West of manufacturing standards.

We're not alone in struggling to protect and maintain a nation-wide standard in spite of imported ingredients. Switzerland with its highly reputable FDA has had similar ingredient importation issues; in July 2007, Swiss manufacturer Unipektin recalled guar gum (a thickening agent) because its Indian supplier provided ingredients contaminated with dioxin.

So much product is imported, parted out, or purchased that it is becoming increasingly obvious there are differences between items "Made in America" versus items made outside of the country.

It's not that our products are innately superior (though they may be), or that the standards are higher (though they may be.)

It is that our manufacturers--like Switzerland's Unipektin--voluntarily recall. If they find something is wrong, they don't wait until hundreds of dogs die from poisoning, or dozens of consumers are stricken with unwarranted allergy attacks from hidden "peanut" tainted ingredients. At great cost, they pull products that have "possible" contamination.

For the consumer, it doesn't matter if these manufacturers are recalling in compliance with the law, or because they fear our litigious society. Motive is invisible. It's the result that matters, and that result is safer consumer goods.

It is a sad development when a company like Mattel has to recall 18.2 million toys because of lead-based paint potentially threatening children's health. Since that recall, if you search the internet, you can find hundreds of articles blaming the recall on new guidelines, Chinese suppliers passing the buck, etc....

Even so, I haven't lost confidence in Mattel. I can only point out to them that in this case, the weakest link in their chain of operations originated out of the country. At the risk of sounding sentimentally patriotic, I can only hope that in the future, they too will perhaps consider returning to "building American."

Mythologically speaking, the Asopos River is said to
have been born a son of Oceanus and Tethys--or
Poseidon and Pero --or Zeus and Eurynome. There are,
in fact, five rivers of that name, four in Greece and
one in Turkey. All of these rivers have been
historically significant to the populations residing
on their banks; but the one I'm talking about is
possibly the most historically relevant, and currently
the most endangered.

Because death flows in the Asopos River, straight to
the town of Oinofyta.

Death by specific toxins. The river's fish are dead,
and those villages who get their water from the river
will soon be dead or dying. The river runs red-not
just a symbol of death, but literally from the heavy
hexavalent chromium content. The 30,000 residents of
the town of Oinofyta who depend on the river for
drinking water and everything else are trapped by
circumstance; they are suffering, and although the
mayor of that town has declared the water unsafe, they
have no other sources.

Statistics show cancer rates in Oinofyta have risen
from 6% in 1989 to 32% (most current available). The
water's chromium content has tested to be 400,000
times above the permissible maximum.

A number of heavy industry, paint manufacturers and
food manufacturers- at least 85 separate
industries -use the river to dispose of waste. And
even though this past year, six manufacturers were
found guilty of pollution and fined, the rivers still
run with poison.

This is not something we can ignore. The Greek people
should know their own government is turning a blind
eye to this disaster. The whole world should know.

A threefold effort must be put into place:

First, alternative potable water sources must be
secured for those residents who depend on the Asopos.

Second, the pollution must stop.

Third, the polluters must clean up the mess they have
made of the river, AND the poisoned fields whose
cultivation has for centuries depended on that
now-lethal water. For justice to be served, they must
clean up the injuries they caused in people's lives.

I will be accepting the invitation of Oinofyta's mayor
to see this for myself.

Because the crisis of Oinofyta and the Asopos River is
clearly an environmental disaster, I contacted one of
my myspace friends, "Friends of the Earth." They have
been very helpful, and I hope may be working with me
on this, in the name of humanitarian justice. I will
do my best to keep my friends here informed.

Look what's going on now...

Rocket fuel in the water.

That's right, Rocket fuel.

It's called Perchlorate. Ammonium Perchlorate is the main ingedient in rocket fuel and its been in the water of Rialto California since 1997.

The people of Rialto are understandably upset. On August 21, 2007,
the California State Water Resources Control Board has scheduled a hearing to determine who will be responsible for cleaning up the Perchlorate contamination in the drinking water of Rialto.

This is how the situation stands now. Low levels of perchlorate have been detected in 35 states in the US. What is confusing is that it occurs naturally; but that it also can show up in larger and potentially dangerous doses as a result of contamination from industrial sites that use or manufacture perchlorate, or in the soil dating back from 19th century use of Chilean fertilizer imported to the U.S..

For half a century, Perchlorate has been used as a medicine to treat thyroid because it can temporarily inhibit the thyroid gland's ability to absorb iodine. However, there is no evidence that it causes brain damage, birth defects, cancer, or even thyroid damage.

The EPA has not determined a national safe level, partly because science has not adequately defined whether or not it is harmful, or if it is harmful, how harmful it is.

With 35 states having low levels of percholates in the water, isn't it PAST time to answer these questions?

And this leaves the people of Rialto hanging in the balance. Is their Perchlorate the result of industrial contamination, hundred year old fertilizer or is it naturally occurring? How will they be able to determine the truth? Who will be paying for the cleanup? The whole country will be watching and waiting to see what happens next.

What is government's responsibility to its people?
When we have governmental organizations like the EPA,
we should follow where they lead, right?

The Environmental Protection agency sets licensing
guidelines to keep communities safe. What is a
community supposed to do when they find out that for
fifteen years, a large refinery has been non-compliant
regarding the conditions of their licensing? What if
they admit they won't even be compliant for the next
fifteen years? This is where the situation stands in
Australia, regarding the Shell Australia's Corio Bay
oil refinery. Not only that, Shell Australia's Corio
Bay oil refinery's flouting of the EPA authority has
gone on since the seventies.

But you can't completely blame Shell. It reminds me
of something I see all of the time, like I saw
recently at the grocery store.

There I was, waiting in line along with all the other
people, and here came this woman with a wild child.
He was running up and down the aisles, grabbing food,
whining and screaming at his mother who was
frantically trying to go about getting her shopping
done. Even when she managed to corral him, and put
him in the basket, he kept up the screaming, the
noise, the whining, the begging, the extended tantrum.
Finally she left, dragging her son with her.

The instant she was gone, all of the parents in the
store started chiming in with their advice-after she'd
left, remember.

"She should have popped him one. She should have taped
h is mouth shut. She never should have brought him to
the store; she should have left him at home. She
should have fed him meds, the kid is obviously
hyperkinetic."

No one really had anything helpful to say. Everyone
had an opinion that something should be done, but no
one agreed on how to do it. In the meantime, the
person who could have and should have handled the
situation just went on about her business as if
nothing at all was going on. It was just like
government.

So why does this remind me of the Corio Bay situation?

There we all were in the store, minding our business,
and something was wrong. Something was really wrong;
and no one did anything about it. Not the people who
were being subjected to the wild child's unruliness.
Not the people who ran the store. Not the child's
mother. In fact, everyone got out of the way and made
it extra easy for her to get her business done and get
out. We all got out of the way so she wouldn't have
to wait in line.

Someone needs to do something when there's something
running amuck.

The EPA was just like the mother in that grocery
store. She's the one who had the power in the
situation. She's the one who could have said "No" when
she put the child in the basket; she's the one who
could have--who should have said "No" made it stick.
It wasn't just her right. It was her
responsibility--to the people in the store, to the
store itself, even to the child. She knew she should
say no, but that would take time, and distract her
from her business. But she didn't.

And everyone suffered for it, including the child.

The EPA sets the guidelines, but who has been NOT
enforcing them?

The EPA.

Non-compliance since the seventies? That's carrying
EPA's "sympathetic culture to business" a bit too far.

In 2004, when Shell could not comply, they lucked out
with an amendment giving them six more years to
comply. Six more years for Shell's benzene emissions
to freely pollute the locals, and cause aplastic
anemia and who knows what else. Because benzene just
happens to be one of the toxins they test for. There
are more chemicals being released into the environment
that aren't being tested for.

The Australian government is relying on corporations
to do their own emissions testing--even when the
corporation itself admits it hasn't, won't and isn't
going to be able to comply. So activists are
collecting samples themselves, and having them
analyzed. And hopefully the analysis well help get
the EPA back in step with its directives to ensure the
health of not only the corporate community and the
environment, but also the little people who have to
live within breathing distance of industry legally
spouting toxic benzene--and who knows what else--into
the very air the people breathe.

It's not surprising that Alcoa's alumina refinery was hit by a strike in 2001 by workers who were sick of being sick from working conditions.

We hear a lot about companies not protecting the environment--toxic waste left behind, toxic emissions poisoning the locals. Do we consider that some of the
locals work there?

Toxic chemicals make locals and workers sick. There are known carcinogens in the mix, nasty chemicals like alkaline dust, caustic mist, carbon disulfide,
and benzene. Science argues about how much poison it takes for poison to be poisonous, and in the meantime,people continue to get exposed, get sick, some of them dying. These chemicals have been connected to asthma, bronchitis, lymphomas, cancers.

So...how much poison IS safe?

Workers are getting sick. Workers at the Wagerup refinery, workers at the Kwinana refinery near Perth.

Don't forget, workers ARE the locals.

Sometimes this is just so much deja vu. Because, just like in the Hinkley case, documents have been found showing that Alcoa has known about the connection
between these toxins and disease--since 1990. In 2001, there were thirty or so documented illnesses resulting from this deliberate corporate carelessness.

How many are there now?

But things may be looking up. Perhaps we are a little optimistic, but we are hoping for at least a two step effort from the company. First, we are hoping that Alcoa will establish a buffer zone in Wagerup, moving residents to a safer proximity. And then, we are hoping they will reduce toxic emissions.

We have seen formaldyhyde in the news a lot lately.
Remember our old friend, "sick building syndrome?"
Translate this into a euphemism for indoor air pollution.

Ironically, the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the
Environmental Protection Agency was one such facility
affected and abandoned because for just such a reason.




Sealed office or home areas result in unhealthy build-ups
of chemical vapors including formaldehyde, bacteria, and
foul odor. Burning eyes, nausea, lethargy, grogginess,
headaches, coughing, and chest tightness or congestion are
just some of the symptoms reported.




One component of this sick building syndrom results from
formaldehyde in the furnishings. Carpet, pads, draperies,
particle board, laminated furnishings, paneling, and
insulation are potentially guilty of emitting carcinogenic
formaldehyde, and need to be replaced. Also, make certain
cleaning compounds do not contain formaldehyde. OSHA does
not regulate sick buildings, but it does investigate
complaints and invoke the General Duty Clause:

"Each employer shall furnish to each of his (sic)
employees employment and a place of employment which are
free from recog nized hazards that are causing or are
likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his
employees."

So while house members–including House Majority Whip James
E. Clyburn, State Rep. Juan LaFonta, New Orleans and House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi –are still touring the South to view
Katrina damages, keep in mind that
formaldehyde is not exclusive to FEMA trailers; indeed
it can be found in your own home, especially if it is
new, and tight (as opposed to old and drafty.)




Do you have a formaldehyde horror story? If you do, let me
know here on my formaldehyde contact page.