Scientists Identify Corporate Structure as Bad for Public Health.
Source: International Journal of Occupational and Environmental
Health, http://www.ijoeh.com, November 15, 2004
Corporate power is a major cause of health problems, according to
the October/December 2005 special issue of the International Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Health. Contributions to the issue
reveal how corporate structure results in pressure to influence science
and place the public at risk from pesticides, lead, asbestos, toxic
municipal sewage sludge, and other harmful substances.
"Occupational and environmental health diseases are in fact an
outcome of a pervasive system of corporate priority setting, decision
making, and influence," state guest editors David Egilman and Susanna
Rankin Bohme. "This system produces disease because political,
economic, regulatory, and ideological norms prioritize values of wealth
and profit over human health and environmental well-being."
Skip Spitzer, Program Coordinator at PAN North America and a
contributing author to the journal notes that, "In market economies,
private corporations play such a decisive role in the economic sphere
that they are often able to secure more rights than people.
Corporations deeply influence politics, law, media, public relations,
science, research, education and other institutions. It's no surprise
that corporate self interest routinely supersedes social and
environmental welfare."
In his article "A Systemic Approach to Occupational and
Environmental Health", Spitzer describes how corporations are part of a
"structure of harm", meaning that the very way in which corporations
are structured produces social and environmental problems and
undermines reform. The pressure to compete in the marketplace and
create demand for their products creates incentives for corporations to
shape the political system, the mass media, and science for commercial
ends. Corporations use this power to avoid taking responsibility for
the larger environmental and social impacts of their actions (or
"externalities"), including the public health impacts of developing
dangerous new technologies. Spitzer quotes Reagan administration
economist Robert Monks describing the corporation as "an externalizing
machine, the same way that a shark is a killing machine - no
malevolence...just something designed with sublime efficiency for
self-preservation, which it accomplishes without any capacity to factor
in the consequences to others."
This "structure of harm" creates incentives for corporations to
seek political influence over institutions designed to protect and
serve the public good. Corporations often use this power to influence
scientific debates so as to avoid regulation and litigation. "Science
is a key part of this system," note Egilman and Bohme, "there is a
substantial tradition of manipulation of evidence, data, and analysis
ultimately designed to maintain favorable conditions for industry at
both material and ideological levels." Independent scientists whose
findings counter corporate interests often face pitched battles to
obtain funding, publish their research, and gain academic tenure.
The corporate "structure of harm" undermines health protections not
only domestically, but also by influencing the international agreements
and treaties that shape the global economy. In her article "Who's
Afraid of National Laws?", Erika Rosenthal, a frequent consultant to
PAN in North, Central and South America, identifies how pesticide
corporations are using trade agreements to block proposed bans on
pesticides identified as the worst occupational health hazards in
Central America. Through privileged access to closed-door negotiations,
agrichemical corporations inserted deregulatory mechanisms into the
draft Central American Customs Union and the Central American Free
Trade Agreement. These agreements undermine health-based national
pesticide registration requirements, weaken health ministries' role in
pesticide control, block marketing of cheaper and less toxic
pesticides, and have a chilling effect on future pesticide regulation.
Rosenthal argues that as long as corporations have privileged access to
trade negotiations and civil society is excluded, the resulting
agreements will benefit special interests at the expense of public
health.
The editors conclude that corporate corruption of science is
widespread and touches many aspects of our lives, as indicated by the
range of articles in the issue. In "Genetic Engineering in Agriculture
and Corporate Engineering in Public Debate", Rajeev Patel, Robert
Torres, and Peter Rosset analyze Monsanto's efforts to convince the
public of the safety of genetically modified crops. Other articles
describe how industry pressure on government agencies such as EPA have
influenced cancer research and resulted in approving toxic municipal
sewage sludge as crop fertilizer.
Corporate corruption of science represents a real threat to the
health and well-being of people and to the environment the world over.
"The negative social impacts of corporate structures deserve a
concerted response on the part of conscientious public health
researchers," note Egilman and Bohme. Spitzer sees this analysis as a
call for researchers to join movements working for fundamental change
of corporate structure and power. "We need to build bigger, more
integrated social movements with the popular wherewithal to make deep
change," he states. "This means combining multiple issues, connecting
local work nationally and internationally, and building long-term
change goals into action for more immediate change." |