|
Wal-Mart and Environmental Defense: Strange Bedfellows--UPDATED: CSPI vs. Biotech??
By Jeff Stier, Esq.
Environmental Defense, Inc. announced that they are opening an office near Wal-Mart headquarters in Bentonville, Arkansas so they can better "advise" the leading retailer. Under a multi-front attack from unions and other anti-business groups, Wal-Mart is in this case happy to accept guidance from Environmental Defense on matters such as how to lower energy consumption, especially because Environmental Defense portrays itself as a "business-cooperative" environmental group. Perhaps in the same way the IRS is cooperative with tax-payers. But does Wal-Mart really need advice on how to lower costs? We're all for saving gas, but if history is any guide, Environmental Defense will go a lot farther than efficiency suggestions. We are talking about a group that still takes "credit" for the DDT ban, a move which cost millions of African lives by depriving that continent of the malaria-combating pesticide. Environmental Defense is not an environmental group -- they are anti-industry, anti-consumer environmental extremists funded by far-left, ideologically-motivated foundations with ties to the plaintiffs' bar. Wal-Mart should stand up to the onslaught of junk science-driven scares hyped by left-wing activist groups. --For instance, Wal-Mart should continue to sell safe products like Teflon pots, plastic baby bottles, and products with brominated fire-retardants, which despite activist claims do not cause cancer in humans. Activists recently persuaded the San Francisco City Council to ban common baby bottles because they claim the bisphenol A in them is a carcinogen. But it just isn't so, and Wal-Mart should stand up for consumers by dismissing such claims. Instead, with its huge buying-power, Wal-Mart should take steps to encourage the use of technologies which (unlike its foray into organic food) can actually improve public health. They should not let activists frighten them away from useful products. --There's little doubt that automatic defibrillators (AED) can save lives when used appropriately. But they cost too much for widespread ownership. If Wal-Mart stocked AEDs, prices could drop from $1,400 to, say, $800 almost overnight. More lives would be saved by this one move than banning every synthetic chemical ever sold in Wal-Mart's history.
--Critics claim that obesity is caused by the low price of food, and Wal-Mart is partially to blame. Short of artificially increasing food costs to combat obesity, as some have seriously proposed (through fat taxes), there is something Wal-Mart can do to fight the obesity crisis. They can take the lead in embracing food technology to give consumers tools to get their weight under control.
For example, they can invest in promising biotechnology -- often vilified by Environmental Defense's compatriots among the food police such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Sell biotech innovations such as the high-starch potato, which would absorb less fat. Without any activist "advice," Sam's Club chips could become both profitable and low-calorie.
--And judicious use of over-the-counter pharmaceuticals such as Alli (orlistat) -- opposed by the activist group Consumers Union -- could also help certain people reduce fat absorption.
Wal-Mart should reject the ideology of the scaremongers and sell safe and effective products that benefit consumers. But first they'll have to get some mainstream scientists to advise them instead of activists and cranks. Jeff Stier, Esq., is an associate director at the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org, HealthFactsAndFears.com).
Dr. Michael Jacobson (August 2, 2006)
Dear Dr. Whelan: A recent ACSH article criticizes the Center for Science in the Public Interest for opposing agricultural biotechnology: "For example, they can invest in promising biotechnology -- often vilified by Environmental Defense's compatriots among the food police such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest." I am puzzled why ACSH alleges that CSPI opposes biotechnology when, in fact, we have supported it (if not every application of it)--and been criticized by some opponents for doing so. CSPI, which has criticized countless foods, companies, and food additives, believes that genetically engineered foods should be examined individually: ones that are unsafe to consumers or the environment should not be used, while safe ones (including all GE foods currently on the market) should be used to reap the benefits." We have vigorously supported Sen. Richard Durbin's legislative proposal that would have the FDA formally approve the use of biotech crops so as to ensure safety and buttress public confidence in them. His carefully written bill, not yet re-introduced in 2006, protects consumers without requiring onerous tests (indeed, industry has long claimed that it voluntarily provides the FDA with all necessary data). Four articles that reflect CSPI's position on ag biotech (the first three are from 2001, the fourth is 2005): Nutrition Action: http://www.cspinet.org/nah/11_01/ Christian Science Monitor: http://www.cspinet.org/biotech/gecrops_article.html Wall Street Journal article: http://www.cspinet.org/new/biotechnology.html National Agricultural Biotechnology Council: http://www.cspinet.org/biotech/proper_environment.pdf Sincerely, Michael F. Jacobson, Ph.D. Executive Director Center for Science in the Public Interest
Henry Miller (August 2, 2006)
If you favor unnecessary, excessive, debilitating, anti-innovative regulation of something -- especially when it's superior to the alternatives -- you're not really a "supporter" of it. Like everything that comes out of Dick Durbin's mouth, his (anti-) biotech legislation (which was drafted by Washington-based, anti-biotech activists) is rubbish. His approach would create regulation in which the degree of scrutiny is inversely proportional to the perceived risk. Henry Miller, M.D. (ACSH Trustee) Hoover Institution
Ruth Kava (August 2, 2006)
It is true that CSPI doesn't paint the fruits of genetic engineering as uniformly dangerous. By calling for mandated safety testing that is way beyond expectations for conventionally altered crops, however, you imply that gene spliced crops are inherently less safe, which is certainly not true. Simply mentioning that there are current benefits to producers and the environment, but emphasizing the need for excessive testing is hardly a supportive stance. Ruth Kava, Ph.D., R.D. Director of Nutrition ACSH
Mark Sofman (August 8, 2006)
Wal-Mart's been of interest to me since the brouhaha about the "Wal-Mart bill" here in the Not-So-Free State earlier this year. It's too bad that the Left continues to denigrate business success, but then that's no surprise given the Marxian heritage of their policy prescriptions. It's also ironic when you consider the sources of funding ("philanthropic" foundations, wealthy individuals like Soros, Lewis, etc.) for their armada of "public interest"
organizations are due to (surprise!...Not!) business success.
I'd also add a comment to the last paragraph that Wal-Mart also needs to drop the firm providing PR counsel because Wal-Mart's moves to mollify its foes and burnish its reputation only seem to further inflame the critics. Appeasement doesn't work. A business has the right, if not a moral and fiduciary obligation, to defend itself and to do so unapologetically.
Long story short, I doubt Mr Sam would have put up with this bulls**t.
Mark Sofman (August 8, 2006)
Wal-Mart's been of interest to me since the brouhaha about the "Wal-Mart bill" here in the Not-So-Free State earlier this year. It's too bad that the Left continues to denigrate business success, but then that's no surprise given the Marxian heritage of their policy prescriptions. It's also ironic when you consider the sources of funding ("philanthropic" foundations, wealthy individuals like Soros, Lewis, etc.) for their armada of "public interest"
organizations are due to (surprise!...Not!) business success.
I'd also add a comment to the last paragraph that Wal-Mart also needs to drop the firm providing PR counsel because Wal-Mart's moves to mollify its foes and burnish its reputation only seem to further inflame the critics. Appeasement doesn't work. A business has the right, if not a moral and fiduciary obligation, to defend itself and to do so unapologetically.
Long story short, I doubt Mr Sam would have put up with this bulls**t.
|
