Spring 2003 Newsmagazine Volume 33, Number 1

Cancer and the

Environment:An Ounce ofPrevention

2

P R E S I D E N T ’ S C O L U M N

New Challenges,Better Strategies

In an effort to convincethe American people thathe is protecting our envi-ronment, President Bushhas increasingly resorted

to Orwellian doublespeak. Heuses phrases like “clear skies”and “healthy forests” to cloak hisattempts to weaken the Clean AirAct and to open up our nationalforests to the timber industry.

Worse, real dangers to long-term improvements inenvironmental quality lie inBush’s budget and tax proposals.The financial resources needed toprotect our air and water frompollution and safeguard our pub-lic lands will not be available ifthe president’s tax and budgetplans are approved. The federalbudget and tax code may seem likeno more than numbers, but they havea real impact on our health and envi-ronment.

For example, the number ofcleanups at toxic sites has droppednearly 50 percent below the numbercompleted in the final years of theClinton administration due to Bush’sfailure to fund the Superfund pro-gram.

The tax code should penalizepollution instead of paying the pol-luter, but the president’s taxproposals do the opposite. Bushrefuses to reinstate the Superfund taxon polluters, forcing taxpayers tofoot the bill for toxic cleanups. Atthe same time, he, supports new tax

subsidies for oil, coal, gas andnuclear power. And most recently, heproposed a new tax break for busi-nesses that buy gas-guzzling SUVs.

Some people have asked: IsGeorge Bush doing all these anti-environmental actions by himself?He isn’t. He has put former specialinterest lobbyists in key agency posi-tions.

The Interior Department, whichis responsible for managing morethan 500 million acres of publiclands, is a perfect example. Our lastissue profiled Steven Griles, thenumber two person at the depart-ment, who has violated his ethicsagreement on numerous occasions

even as he is receiving over onemillion dollars from his formerfirm.

Other agencies dealing withenergy, agriculture and forests aresimilarly under the control ofpeople who are conducting thepublic’s business for private gain.

Thanks to your supportFriends of the Earth is carryingout many activities to prevent theweakening of environmental pro-tections. Last year, one of ourbiggest successes was the defeatof a gigantic energy bill. Ourreport Running on Emptyexposed the bill’s scandalousgiveaway of billions of tax dol-lars to big oil, coal and nuclearcompanies.

This year we are publicizingharmful actions being planned byvarious federal agencies, strategizingwith pro-environment members ofthe House and Senate about environ-mental opportunities, working withour Friends of the Earth Internationalnetwork in 70 countries, going for-ward with creative legal challengesto the administration’s failure to acton climate change and pursuinginnovative corporate and consumercampaigns. Because cancer is strik-ing an alarming number of Americanfamilies, we are launching a newcampaign to get at the root causes ofcancer.

Brent Blackwelder

Spring 2003 • Volume 33, Number 1 3

Table of Contents

Volume 33, Number 1 Spring 2003Friends of the Earth (ISSN: 1054-1829) is published quarterly by Friends of the Earth, 1025Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20005-6303, phone 202-783-7400, 877-843-8687(toll free), fax 202-783-0444, e-mail: foe@foe.org, Web site: www.foe.org. Annual membership duesare $25, which includes a subscription to Friends of the Earth.

Northeast Office: 87 College Street, Burlington, VT 05401, phone 802-951-9094, fax 802-860-1208, e-mail: foene@foe.org.

The words “Friends of the Earth” and the FoE logo are exclusive trademarks of Friends of theEarth, all rights reserved. Unless otherwise noted, articles may be reprinted without charge or specialpermission. Please credit Friends of the Earth and the article author; send us a copy. Friends of theEarth is indexed in the Alternative Press Index. Periodicals postage paid at Washington, DC.

Postmaster: Send address changes to Friends of the Earth, Membership Dept. 1025 VermontAvenue, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20005-6303.

Board of DirectorsEd Begley, Jr.; Jayni Chase; Harriett Crosby; ClarenceDitlow; Dan Gabel; Alicia Gomer; Michael Herz; AnnHoffman, Chair ; Marion Hunt-Badiner, Secretary; DougLegum; Patricia Matthews; Avis Ogilvy Moore, ViceChair; Charles Moore; Edwardo Lao Rhodes; ArlieShardt; Doria Steedman; Rick Taketa; David Zwick,Treasurer

StaffBrent Blackwelder, PresidentNorman Dean, Executive DirectorSandra Adams-Morally, Membership AssociateLisa Archer, Safer Food, Safer Farms Grassroots

CoordinatorLarry Bohlen, Director, Health and Environment

CampaignsMichelle Chan-Fishel, International Policy AnalystHugh Cheatham, Chief Financial OfficerKeira Costic, Publications ManagerLeslie Fields, Director, International ProgramColleen Freeman, International Grassroots CoordinatorRosemary Greenaway, Director of Membership and

MarketingLisa Grob, Executive AssistantVonetta Harris, AccountantSteve Herz, International Policy AnalystDavid Hirsch, Director, Economics for the Earth

ProgramYasmeen Hossain, Executive AssistantCheryl Johnson, Receptionist/Office AssistantDiane Minor, Chief Development OfficerSherri Owens, Office ManagerChris Pabon, Director of Foundation RelationsErich Pica, Economics Policy AnalystJon Sohn, International Policy AnalystKristen Sykes, Interior Department WatchdogDavid Waskow, Trade and Investment Policy CoordinatorChris Weiss, Director of D.C. Environmental NetworkCarol Welch, Deputy Director, International ProgramSara Zdeb, Legislative Director

Publications StaffKeira Costic, EditorDesign by JML Design

Interns

Consultants/AdvisorsBrian DunkielBill FreeseJohn W. JensenDorothee Krahn

Member GroupsArgentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium,Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria,Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia,Costa Rica, Croatia, Curacao, Cyprus,Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, ElSalvador, England-Wales-NorthernIreland, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia,Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Haiti,

Honduras, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan,Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malaysia,Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Nepal, Netherlands, NewZealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Papua NewGuinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Scotland,Sierra Leone, Slovakia, South Africa, South Korea,Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Togo, Tunisia,Ukraine, United States, Uruguay.

AffiliatesAfrica: Earthlife Africa; Australia: Mineral Policy Institute;Australia: Rainforest Information Centre; Brazil: Amigosda Terra Amazonia - Amazônia Brasileira; Brazil: Grupo deTrabalho Amazonico; Czech Republic: CEE Bankwatch;Japan: Peace Boat; Latin America: REJULADS; MiddleEast: Friends of the Earth (Israel, Jordan and Palestine);Netherlands: Action for Solidarity, Equality, Environmentand Development Europe; Netherlands: Stichting DeNoordzee (North Sea Foundation); Netherlands: CorporateEurope Observatory; United States: International RiversNetwork; United States: Project Underground; UnitedStates: Rainforest Action Network

Environmental Causes ofCancer Go Unexplored . . . .Pg. 4

Green Scissors for Washington D.C. . . . . . . . . .Pg. 7

Pharmaceutical Plants in the Field? . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pg. 8

Farmer Calls for GE Corn to Be Investigated . . . . . . . .Pg. 9

Campaign Victory! WashingtonState Bans Genetically Engineered Fish . . . . . . . . .Pg. 9

SUVs: Danger on the Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pg. 10

Board Members Up for Re-election This Summer . . . . . . . . . . .Pg. 11

Corporate Accounting Schemes:Still Hide Environmental Liabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pg. 12

Socially Responsible Investing Leader . . . . . . . .Pg. 13

New Hill Leaders to Watch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pg. 14

Friends of the Earth is printed with soy ink on 100% recycled paper, 30% post-consumer content. Bleached without chlorine.

Friends ofthe EarthInternational

UNIONBUG

Dana BreenMelissa HishmehJosh MelissariEdward Sharon

Dain Roose-SnyderCarisa TorresJennifer Villemez

EarthShare giving campaigns allowyou to designate a donation toFriends of the Earth. To set up anEarthShare campaign at your work-place, contact Diane Minor at202-783-7400 ext. 287.

By Lisa Archer and Lisa Grob

“In all the years I havebeen under medicalscrutiny, no one hasever asked me aboutthe environmental

conditions where I grew up, eventhough bladder cancer in youngwomen is highly unusual,” says cancersurvivor Sandra Steingraber. “I wasonce asked if I had ever worked withdyes or had been employed in the rub-ber industry. (No and no.) Other thanthese two questions, no doctor, nurse,or technician has ever shown interest

in probing the pos-sible causes of mydisease – evenwhen I have intro-duced the topic.From my conversa-tions with othercancer patients, Igather that such

lack of curiosity in the medical com-munity is usual.”

Steingraber is a cancer survivor,scientist and activist. Her book, LivingDownstream, details the growing bodyof evidence linking cancer to environ-mental contamination. She is fromrural Illinois, and grew up with threedozen industries in her backyard,including an ethanol distillery and a

coal burning power plant. At age 20,she was diagnosed with bladder can-cer, which is a highly unusualdiagnosis in a young woman, a non-smoker and a nondrinker.

Money for Detection andTreatment, Not PreventionTremendous strides have been made inthe area of cancer mortality reduction,but commonsense tells us it is notenough. Living through cancer treat-ment can be debilitating, costly andlife-altering. It seems obvious that can-cer prevention – more specifically,“primary” prevention that inhibits can-cer before it starts – should be apriority for medical researchers andphilanthropists alike.

“Like a jury’s verdict or an adop-tion decree, a cancer diagnosis is anauthoritative pronouncement, one withthe power to change your identity. Itsends you into an unfamiliar country

4

C O V E R S T O R Y

Environmental Causes ofCancer Go Unexplored

Corporations that profit from cancer treatment drugs are sometimes the same ones that release environmental toxins. Cancer treatment isa $40 billion a year industry.

While great strideshave been made in

reducing cancermortality, we are

seeing an increasein the percentage of

people afflictedwith the disease.

Sandra Steingraber

Spring 2003 • Volume 33, Number 1 5

where all the rules of human conductare alien. In this new territory, you dis-robe in front of strangers who areallowed to touch you. You submit tobodily invasions. You agree to be poi-soned. You have become a cancerpatient,” said Steingraber.

Unfortunately, the majority offunding and efforts geared toward pre-vention is often for “secondary”prevention – screening and diagnosis.When experts do concern themselveswith primary prevention, they oftenfocus narrowly on what are called“lifestyle factors” such as cigarettesmoking, exercise and diet.

Much of the public educationabout cancer prevention focuses on thelifestyle factors also, but ignores envi-ronmental and occupational causessuch as pollution and pesticides. Yet,for example, when all known risk fac-tors and characteristics are addedtogether, more than 50 percent ofbreast cancer cases remain unex-plained.

Lessons Not LearnedWhen Rachel Carson challenged gov-ernment and industry to acknowledgethe ecological and health impacts ofthe use of pesticides, a movement wasborn. Her book, Silent Spring, pub-lished in 1962, changed publicperception about the safety of pesti-cides.

Her research of available sciencein the United States and Europeunequivocally linked the use of certainpesticides to the deaths of manyspecies. Her findings also demon-strated the need for more thoroughtesting of the effects of chemicals onhuman health and the environment.

Forty years later, despite continu-ing efforts to eliminate the worstpesticides and other hazardous man-made chemicals from our food, air andwater, these chemicals continue to beproduced and used at an alarming rate.At the same time, we are facing agrowing epidemic: By 2050, 1 out of 2

men and 1 out of 3 women will con-tract some form of cancer during his orher lifetime.

Chemical SoupThere are 85,000 different syntheticchemicals currently registered for use.More than 90 percent of these chemi-cals have never been tested for theireffects on human health and the con-nection between exposure to thesechemicals and cancer remains virtuallyunknown and unstudied.

Despite this, every day we areexposed to an array of countless chem-icals – at work, in our food, incosmetics, in household insecticidesand cleaners – with little to no under-standing of their cumulative effects onour health.

According to the most recent data,40 possible carcinogens appear indrinking water, 60 are regularly released

by industry into ambient air and 66 areroutinely sprayed on food crops as pes-ticides – and even more may be hidden.In fact, more than 80 percent of com-monly used pesticides are carcinogenic.These chemicals are absorbed and oftenstored in our bodies and sometimespassed onto our children.

In a 1995 study in Denver, chil-dren whose yards were treated withpesticides were four times more likelyto have soft tissue cancer than childrenliving in households that did not useyard chemicals. More than 200 foreignchemicals have been found in women’sbreast milk, including dioxin, a car-cinogen that disrupts children’sendocrine systems.

Losing the War on CancerIn 1971, President Nixon declared a“War on Cancer” with the enactment

of the National Cancer Act. Morethan three decades and $25 billioninto the “war” the results are mixed.

While great strides have been madein reducing cancer mortality, we areseeing an increase in the percentage ofpeople afflicted with the disease.

The Mount Sinai School ofMedicine reported that the incidenceof non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma hasincreased 30 percent since 1950 andmultiple myeloma has increased 300percent since 1950. Moreover, there isa strong link between exposure to per-sistent organic pollutants andnon-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and multi-ple myeloma.

Every year 1.4 million Americansare diagnosed with cancer, and540,500 die. That’s about 1,500 peoplea day, and 45,000 a month. And itdoesn’t count the emotional and logis-tical toll those cancer deaths take onmillions of family members andfriends.

Within the next 10 to 15 years,unless there is a dramatic medicalbreakthrough, cancer will become the

Continued on Page 6

Cosmetic ProductsContaining ChemicalsClassified as Possible

Carcinogens:

■ Arrid Extra Dry – MaximumStrength Solid, Ultra ClearUltra Clean Spray, Ultra ClearUltra Fresh Spray

■ Red Door (fragrance)■ Lancome Paris Tresor (fra-

grance)■ White Diamonds (fragrance)■ Charlie Cologne Spray■ Salon Selectives Hold Tight

Style Freeze Maximum HoldFinishing Spray

■ Jergens Skincare OriginalScent Lotion

■ Degree OriginalSolid Anti-Perspirant &Deodorant

Source: Environmental Working Group

C O V E R S T O R Y

6

leading cause of death in America,overtaking heart disease.

An Ounce of PreventionEpidemiologists John Bailar andHeather Gornik wrote recently in theNew England Journal of Medicine,“the most promising approach to thecontrol of cancer is a national com-mitment to prevention, with arebalancing of the focus and fundingof research.”

The Breast Cancer Fund chargesthat funding for environmentalresearch represents only a fraction ofthe government’s budget for diseaseresearch. Of the National Institutes ofHealth’s $15.7 billion budget lastyear, just $382 million, or 2.4 percent,went to the National Institute ofEnvironmental Health Sciences, theprimary agency conducting researchon environmental health. Similarly,the Centers for Disease Control’sNational Center for EnvironmentalHealth received just $172 million for1999.

It is clear that the governmentneeds to better regulate the release oftoxics in our environment and estab-lish a testing regimen that can protectthe public. Very little is spent onactual prevention strategies becausepreventing cancer isn’t lucrative forthe medical industry. Billions arepoured into research on costly treat-ments by huge pharmaceuticalcompanies, and their dollars drive thefocus of cancer research. Cancertreatment was a $41 billion industryin 1995 (the last year figures wereavailable).

Toxic Polluters Profit fromCancer TreatmentsCompanies that profit from cancertreatment drugs are sometimes thesame ones that release environmentaltoxins. Corporate giant AstraZeneca,maker of tamoxifen (a leading anti-

breast cancer drug), sponsors BreastCancer Awareness month. It’s a monththat focuses on detection and treat-ment, but not prevention.

In addition to producing tamox-ifen, AstraZeneca makes pesticides,plastics, other pharmaceuticals andpaper. AstraZeneca is the third-largestproducer of pesticides in the UnitedStates and produced acetochlor, a car-cinogenic herbicide (which DowAgroSciences acquired the rights to in2000). New York banned the use ofacetochlor because of concerns abouthuman health effects. AstraZeneca,meanwhile, is a spin-off company ofImperial Chemical Industries, whichwas sued in 1990 by state and federalagencies for dumping DDT and PCBs(polychlorinated biphenyls) inCalifornia’s harbors.

Like AstraZeneca, GeneralElectric is a major industrial polluter.But General Electric also manufac-tures mammography machines.Mammography has been one of themost heavily endorsed methods forearly detection of breast cancer; how-ever, it has been shown to have littleto no value to women under the ageof 50.

Winning the War on CancerWhile we can do little to recall the tensof thousands of chemicals and radia-tion already released into theenvironment and our bodies, we canstart reducing the most hazardous car-cinogens from industrial processes andconsumer products.

Friends of the Earth, the BreastCancer Fund and many others areworking on new, innovative strategiesto combat the cancer epidemic byaddressing its root causes.

Unfortunately, key Bushappointees may prove hostile to bettercancer prevention strategies. JohnGraham, a controversial senior officialat the White House’s Office ofManagement and Budget, is requiringagencies like the EnvironmentalProtection Agency to do cost-benefitanalyses on proposed regulations.

The cost-benefit analysis thatGraham advocates puts less value onlives lost in the future. It does notattribute a benefit to preventing proba-ble risks. Thus, a proposal to regulatethe release of toxins may be aban-doned because it prevents disease inthe future, not now.

It is unconscionable for our gov-ernment to continue to give a greenlight to carcinogens today because theywon’t kill until tomorrow. Friends ofthe Earth and our coalition partnerswill bring new pressure to bear ongovernment and industry leaders whoare in a position to help us stop cancerbefore it starts.

Sources30 Years of War on Cancer, Cox News Service,

Nov. 2001. American Cancer SocietyBreast Cancer FundCancer Undefeated, NEJM, 1997, 336 (22):

1569-74Earth Island Journal, Spring 1998Environmental Working Group Dr. Samuel EpsteinMount Sinai School of MedicineNational Cancer InstituteDr. Sandra Steingraber ■

Cancer PreventionAgenda for Progress

■ Ask your federal and statelegislators to ban the 10 mostdangerous cancer-causingchemicals.

■ Get your state to pass a ToxicUse Reduction Act similar tothe Massachusetts law passedin 1989, which reduced tox-ics used in manufacturing by40 percent.

■ Demand that more than atoken amount of cancermoney be spent on stoppingcarcinogens in commerce.

C O V E R S T O R Y

Spring 2003 • Volume 33, Number 1 7

D . C . E N V I R O N M E N T A L N E T W O R K

By Edward Sharon

Afirst-ever GreenScissors report forthe District ofColumbia offersenvironmentally

sound fiscal solutions to a city indesperate need of them. The dis-trict’s budget has been rife withinefficiencies for decades.

In the face of a projectedbudget deficit of over $323 million, the D.C.Government seems poised to con-tinue the district’s long-standingpractice of wasteful spending andlucrative yet environmentally dam-aging business deals.

In addition to waste, the gov-ernment faces serious obstacles inits ability to generate sufficientrevenues to cover its long-termexpenditures. Without a balancebetween revenue generation andexpenditure allocation, the district willface budget deficits for many years tocome.

Modeled after the national GreenScissors Campaign led by Friends ofthe Earth, the D.C. EnvironmentalNetwork’s 2003 D.C. Green Scissorsreport analyzes budgetary inefficien-cies and pork-barrel contracts thatharm the environment and divert fundsaway from the unmet needs of the city.This report highlights numerous pro-grams that, if modified or cut, wouldsave D.C. taxpayers over $642 million,and result in a budget surplus.

One example of a pork-barrel con-tract is the D.C. Sports Commission’s

attempt to bring the Cadillac GrandPrix to the district. The Grand Prix, amajor part of Mayor Williams eco-nomic revitalization, is estimated tocost D.C. taxpayers at least $9 millionover the next nine years. “…the noisy,noxious, fume-spewing Cadillac GrandPrix…was insensitively and stealthilyimposed on a stable, predominantlyblack Northeast Washington neighbor-hood over the residents’ strongobjections,” said D.C. resident ColbertI. King in a Washington Post editorial.

This D.C. Green Scissors report isunique, however, in that it also high-lights existing and new programs thatare positive both fiscally and environ-mentally.

Existing programs such as theLong Term Control Plan will helpto rid over 3.2 billion gallons ofraw sewage and pollutedstormwater that is dumped intothe rivers surrounding the districteach year.

One new proposal is for thedistrict to implement a $1 parkingfee that would generate income forthe city and encourage the use ofpublic transportation. Employeeswould be charged a $1 per day feeon all parking spaces used foremployment purposes in the dis-trict. This fee would generate over$111 million in annual revenuesfor the district, based on a studyby the Washington MetropolitanCouncil of Governments. “Forwork, there’s no question that it’smy incentive to drive — becauseof the parking space. If I didn’t

have that space, I’d be on the Metro,”said Jim Forbes, press officer for theU.S. House of RepresentativesAdministration Committee, in aWashington Post article.

Overall, there is $642 million insavings that would easily solve thedistrict’s current budget crisis.Through better fiscal spending andresponsible environmental manage-ment, the nation’s capital will be a cityto be proud of.

For more information, contact the D.C.Environmental Network

at 202-783-7400 x120. ■

Green Scissors forWashington D.C.

Ph

oto

cre

dit

:Mar

k G

ard

ne

r Yo

un

g

The D.C. Environmental Network had an early victorywhen the Cadillac Grand Prix, a polluting event in anestablished neighborhood, was cancelled for 2003.

By Bill Freese

The biotech food industrysuffered two very embar-rassing and very publicsetbacks in recentmonths. First, a corn

crop genetically engineered to producea pharmaceutical or industrial chemi-cal contaminated 500,000 bushels ofsoybeans in Nebraska destined forhuman consumption. The U.S.Department of Agriculture (USDA)purchased the soybeans for $2.7 mil-lion and put them in quarantine.

The USDA refused to reveal whatchemical or drug was grown in thebiopharmaceutical corn or divulge theexact location of the contaminatedfood crop. Perhaps most disturbing isthe fact that the USDA was unable toensure a 100 percent containment ofthe contaminated crop, or offerspecifics on this gross failure of theirregulatory system.

Two days after, the USDArevealed a second incident of contami-nation, this time in Iowa, the agencyhad to burn 155 acres of corn adjacent

to the biopharm test site. The USDAfined the nation’s leading biopharmcompany, Prodigene, $250,000 forboth contamination incidents and isrequiring that ProdiGene reimbursethem for the soybean purchase.

“We warned the USDA earlier thisyear this was going to happen, butProdiGene said it never would. Wewere right, they were wrong, yet theUSDA still isn’t hearing our con-cerns,” said Larry Bohlen, Friends ofthe Earth’s director of Health andEnvironment Programs.

Biotechnology companies haveconducted over 300 biopharm fieldtrials across the country since 1991.It is probable that contamination ofthe U.S. food supply with geneticallyengineered pharmaceuticals hasalready occurred. Shaken by the con-tamination incidents, the foodprocessing industry has joined itsvoice with environmental and con-sumer-advocates in calling for theend of drugs engineered into foodcrops. Some biopharm companieseven responded with a compromiseplan vowing not to plant in the grainbelt.

For more information visitwww.foe.orge/biopharm. ■

“Biopharmaceuticalsusually elicit responses atlow concentrations, and

may be toxic at higher ones.Many have physiochemicalproperties that might cause

them to persist in theenvironment or

bioaccumulate in livingorganisms, possiblydamaging non-target

organisms…”— Dr. Glynis Giddings,

“Transgenic plants as factories for biopharmaceuticals,”

Nature Biotechnology

8

S A F E F O O D U P D A T E

Pharmaceutical Plants in the Field?

A blood clotting agent, aprotinin, grown in several outdoor field trials in corn belongs to a class of substances known to cause pancreaticdisease in test animals.

Spring 2003 • Volume 33, Number 1 9

Friends of the Earth, alongwith the Iowa FarmersUnion, is concerned thatthe U.S. Department ofAgriculture (USDA) sold

corn suspected of containing a toxicmold that made pigs infertile. The cornin this case also happens to be geneti-cally engineered to resist pests and totolerate heavy treatments of pesticides.

Jerry Rosman, a Harlan, Iowa,farmer, had alerted the AgricultureDepartment to problems with the cornafter hogs at his farm and others in thearea became sterile. Twenty farmers,

most of them in Iowa, have com-plained that the biotech corn may havemade their livestock infertile. Inresponse, a senior USDA researcherwrote, “Studies, especially with swine,will require considerable quantities ofthe suspect corn.”

We sent a letter to AgricultureSecretary Ann Veneman asking her toblock 950 bushels of the suspiciouscorn from being used as livestock feedand to save it for research. ButVeneman ignored our warning: we havethe receipt that proves the corn was soldto G&R Elevator in Portsmouth, Iowa.

According toFriends of theEarth’s LarryBohlen, “When theUSDA’s ownresearchers arelooking for a noveltoxin in this corn,why on earth wouldthey sell it into feed channels and putunsuspecting farmers at risk.”

For more information visit:www.foe.org/suspectcorn ■

The state of Washington adoptedsweeping new regulations perma-nently banning genetically engineeredfish from aquaculture operations (fishfarms) in all its marine waters. Themove comes in the wake of repeated,large-scale escapes of farmed fish,and heavy media coverage of recentbiotech industry blunders, includingfood crop contamination incidents.

Several hundred thousandAtlantic salmon have escaped fromfish farms in Washington state inrecent years, crowding out nativePacific salmon and spreading disease.Our wild salmon populations arealready struggling to survive – the lastthing they need is more competitionfrom engineered species escapingfrom fish farms.

Genetically engineered, or “trans-genic,” fish are made-to-ordercreatures, custom designed to possesscertain “desirable” traits otherwiseimpossible to acquire in nature bybreeding of any kind. One company,A/F Protein, has developed anAtlantic salmon genetically super-

charged to grow four to six times therate of normal salmon.

Scientists from Purdue Universityfound that if just 60 transgenic salmonescaped from fish farms, wild salmonpopulations could be driven into extinc-tion. A new study by the NationalAcademy of Sciences has also recog-nized the immediate and serioushuman health, environmental and ethi-cal concerns associated with the use ofgenetically engineered animals, includ-ing fish, in the food supply.

Volunteers and staff fromFriends of the Earth led the campaignpressing for the new rules. Stateagencies are now required to imple-ment significant new enforcementand oversight measures to address theserious negative impacts of poorlyregulated fish farms. ■

Campaign Victory! Washington State Bans Genetically Engineered Fish

S A F E F O O D U P D A T E

Farmer Calls for GE Corn to Be Investigated

Engineering designer fish and introducingthem into our public waterways would putalready endangered salmon at greater riskof extinction.

Farmer Jerry Rosman

10

T R A N S P O R T A T I O N

By David Hirsch

Sport Utility Vehicles(SUVs): They are unsafe,bad for the environmentand subsidized by generoustax breaks. People are start-

ing to realize that it’s not “in style”anymore to be driving these behemothvehicles around – in fact soon it maybe embarrassing to be seen driving anSUV through city streets.

SUV owners across the countryare finding “traffic tickets” on theirwindshields charging them with driv-ing a gas-guzzling vehicle. AndFriends of the Earth’s bumper stickers,with slogans like, “Support OPEC,Drive an SUV” are making appear-ances across the country.

The backlash began with the adcampaign by the EvangelicalEnvironmental Network. The ads posedthe question, “What would Jesusdrive?”, and this provocative questionseemed to get peoples’ attention.

Late in 2002, a new book was pub-lished: High and Mighty: SUVs – TheWorld’s Most Dangerous Vehicles andHow they Got that Way by Keith

Bradsher – former Detroit bureau chiefof the The New York Times. This fasci-nating book exposes the truth about thedangers of SUVs.

The book led to a wave of mediaattention on SUVs, which was cappedby columnist and author AriannaHuffington’s ads that likened drivingan SUV to helping terrorists.

Even the new head of the NationalHighway Traffic Safety Administration,Jeffrey Runge, recently stepped up tothe plate and spoke honestly about therisk of rollovers and other SUV-relatedhazards.

Safety LastEven though SUVs are frequently mar-keted as safer than cars, they are in factmore dangerous. Government studieshave found that the occupant death ratefor mid-sized SUVs is 6 percent higherthan cars. For large SUVs, the deathrate is 8 percent higher than minivansand mid-sized cars like the Ford Taurus.

Since SUVs ride higher off theground and have a higher center ofgravity, their rollover rate is three timesworse than for cars. In addition, current

government safety standards do notrequire SUVs to have reinforced roofs,which would help protect occupants incase of a rollover. Rollovers account forabout 1,000 deaths each year – deathsthat would have been prevented if theaccident occurred in a car.

Given that SUVs are built withstiff frames, they are more likely to killother drivers in an accident.Department of Transportation scien-tists study the “kill rate” – how manyother people certain vehicle models areresponsible for killing each year incrashes. Looking at SUVs, these scien-tists came to a frightening conclusion.For every one life saved by driving anSUV, five others will be taken. In onespecific instance, they found that theSUV Chevy Tahoe kills 122 people forevery 1 million models on the road. Incomparison, the Honda Accord kills 21people.

Public Health ProblemSUVs burn more gas, and spew outmore pollution. Many of the big SUVspollute three times as much as cars,which greatly contributes to climate

SUVs: Danger on the Road

Sport utility vehicles can spew 30 percent more carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons and 75 percent more nitrogen oxides than passengercars – these pollutants are precursors to ground level ozone, which causes asthma and lung damage.

Spring 2003 • Volume 33, Number 1 11

change and smog. But for many of us,it is difficult to connect our actions atthe gas pump with the temperatureoutside, or with the quality of the air.Since we don’t really see the immedi-ate impacts of our gasoline use – orour vehicle choice – it is easy to ignorethe repercussions.

In the Washington, D.C. region,the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency recently declared the area’sozone levels “severe,” after a summerwith the worst ozone pollution in adecade. Last year, an official with theMaryland Department ofTransportation publicly blamed theexplosive growth in SUV sales as themain reason pollution in the regiondramatically increased.

The Need for StrongerRegulationsOur government allows SUVs to bedirty and dangerous, and they get ahuge break from lax fuel economy stan-dards. And yet that’s not the worst of it.These oversized behemoths actuallyqualify for oversized tax breaks as well.

SUVs are exempt from the federalgas-guzzler tax, which is usuallyassessed on low-mileage cars. Thissaves automakers as much as $10 bil-lion a year. Another ridiculous taxbreak lets small businesses take a$25,000 tax deduction when they buyan SUV. The doctors and real estateagents taking advantage of this taxbreak would get nowhere near thissweetheart deal if they bought a car.Amazingly, President Bush has pro-

posed raising this deduction to$75,000. Suddenly a new Hummerwould cost just pocket change.

You can find out more aboutthe problems with SUVs onour Web site, www.suv.org. ■

Friends of the Earth will host its annual boardmeeting May 27 at noon in the Washington,D.C. office. Jayni Chase and David Zwick arerunning uncontested for open slots on Friends ofthe Earth’s board of directors. Members may

cast votes at the annual meeting. If you would like to attend,contact Yasmeen Hossain at yhossain@foe.org or by phone at202-783-7400 ext. 256. Members may also vote by proxyballot for the candidates or for write-in candidates. To do so,copy or clip the mailing label on this newsmagazine andmail your vote to Board Election, Friends of the Earth, 1025Vermont Ave., NW, Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20005-6303 or fax your ballot to 202-783-0444.

David Zwick, President, Clean Water ActionDavid’s work over the past 20 years hasfocused on helping grassroots citizen organi-zations form and continue to grow. He is the President ofClean Water Action and the Executive Vice President of theClean Water Fund. He is the author of Water Wasteland,which helped shape the Clean Water Act, and co-author ofthe bestseller, Who Runs Congress. He holds a J.D. fromHarvard Law School. David has been on the board ofFriends of the Earth since 1974 and currently serves asTreasurer.

Jayni Chase, Founder, Centerfor Environmental EducationThe Center for Environmental Education is anational non-profit organization thatadvances environmental education. Jayni isthe author and managing editor of the first full-coverageenvironmental education resource guidebook, Blueprint for aGreen School. She has served on numerous advisory boardsincluding: the Antioch New England Institute, Mothers &Others for a Livable Planet; Global Green USA and theRainforest Alliance. She has received awards from theNational Resources Defense Council, ‘Women For’, U.S.Environmental Film Festival, the Crittenton Center,Environmental Media Awards and the EarthCommunications Office. In May 2003, Antioch NewEngland will award Jayni with an honorary master’s degreein environmental education. Jayni has served on the board ofFriends of the Earth since 1994, and just finished a two-yearterm as chair. Jayni is married to actor/comedian, ChevyChase and is the mother of three daughters. Her childrenhave been the force behind her dedication to reversing theworld’s rush toward environmental tragedies. ■

Board Members Up for Re-election This Summer

T R A N S P O R T A T I O N

Purchase your SUV bumper stickers atwww.foe.org or use the order form on page 15.

12

By Michelle Chan-Fishel

One year ago, at theheight of the Enronand Arthur Andersenaccounting scandal,President Bush

unveiled his “Ten-Point Plan toImprove Corporate Responsibility andProtect America’s Shareholders.” Itwas a weak proposal that largely reliedon self-policing by the very actors whoproved themselves incapable of actingin the public interest.

The public soon rallied behind themore aggressive corporate corruptionbill sponsored by Sen. Paul Sarbanes(D-Md.) and Rep. Michael Oxley (R-Ohio); and in July 2002, Bushbowed to political pressure and signed itinto law. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act stilldoes not go far enough to curb corpo-rate corruption and shady accounting.

For companies that want to dupeshareholders, legal but misleadingaccounting gimmicks can still hide the

truth. And while investors are familiarwith some accounting ploys, such asthe creation of special purpose entities(à la Enron), they may not be aware ofother creative accounting methodscompanies use to obscure losses, over-state earnings and hide environmentalliabilities.

Lowballing Toxic WasteLiabilitiesOne example of how environmentalliabilities can be manipulated to man-age earnings relates to toxic wasteliabilities such as Superfund cleanupcosts. Companies can put off theseremediation expenses by drawing outlitigation to delay booking these costs.They can also use accounting loop-holes to minimize their cleanup costestimates.

Accounting rules state that a com-pany has to provide the best cleanupcost estimate that it can, but if it can-

not arrive at such a number, it canreport a minimum cost estimate.Companies can easily lowball theirestimates so that they fall under thethreshold of materiality, or signifi-cance, and therefore are not subject todisclosure.

One company that employed thistrick is Viacom, formerly Gulf +Western. This large conglomerateowned New Jersey Zinc, a miningcompany, which created numeroustoxic waste sites during its nearly 100years of operation.

According to local environmentalgroups, Viacom delayed cleaning up acontaminated site in Palmerton, Pa.,for over a decade. They tied up mattersin court, so they could keep thecharges off their books. Meanwhile,the generation of children growing uparound the site tested for higher thanaverage levels of lead in their blood,which can cause brain damage.

Corporate Accounting Schemes:Still Hide Environmental Liabilities

C O R P O R A T E A C C O U N T A B I L I T Y

The protesters called the World Economic Forum, which attracted some 2,000 high-ranking representatives from the world of politics andeconomics, a “secret oil meeting.”

Spring 2003 • Volume 33, Number 1 13

Hiding Asbestos LiabilityAnother way companies use environ-mental health issues to manageearnings is by minimizing the impactof asbestos claims. Asbestos liabilitiesare currently estimated at $200 billion,and many companies are on the hookfor tens of millions of dollars worth ofthese claims. However, some compa-nies exploit loopholes inenvironmental disclosure rules.

Halliburton is one company thathid its asbestos liability. It urged itsshareholders in 1998 to approve amerger with rival Dresser Industries,and downplayed Dresser’s environmen-tal liabilities.

Halliburton portrayed Dresser asbasically having no litigation or envi-ronmental problems except for thoseoutlined in other referenced docu-ments. If shareholders had actuallylooked at these other documents theywould have found that Dresser actuallyhad 66,000 pending asbestos claims!

For the next three years,Halliburton continued to assert thatasbestos claims wouldn’t have a mate-rial impact on their business, butinvestors didn’t believe it.

The company was finally forcedto come clean in July 2002 by releas-ing an independent report that told the

real story on asbestos claims. Thatquarter Halliburton reported a loss forthe first time in four years – tarnishingthe glowing financial picture that thecompany painted by lowballingasbestos liabilities for so long.However, at the end of the day,Halliburton’s shares rose becauseinvestors, who were operating amongrumors of asbestos-induced bank-ruptcy, rewarded the company fortelling the truth rather than hiding it.

Painting a Rosy Picture SEC rules require companies to fairlyand accurately describe known trendsor uncertainties that could pose risks.Many companies get away with paint-ing rosy pictures of the future byneglecting to identify pending environ-mental or labor regulations, consumertrends and scientific evidence thatcould adversely impact them.

Sometimes, a company may evenlobby against a particular regulation,claiming that it would have a devastat-ing effect on the bottom line, but notmention a word to investors about theallegedly disastrous risk to the com-pany.

Climate change is a good exampleof a trend that could impact manycompanies, such as automobile mak-

ers, oil companies and petrochemicalsmanufacturers. A recent Friends of theEarth survey of company SEC filingsfound that certain companies disclosedthe impact the Kyoto Protocol couldhave on their businesses.

Multinational chemical companyDuPont even described the steps it istaking to reduce its carbon dioxide lia-bilities. In contrast, Dow Chemical,which produces similar products and issubject to similar regulations and mar-kets as DuPont, did not address itsimpacts on climate change in its 2001annual report.

New SEC rules created inresponse to the Sarbanes-Oxley Actfail to bring clarity to vague account-ing rules, which combined withcompanies’ desire to boost the bot-tom line, can harm investors and insome cases, the environment andcommunities as well. Telling the truthmay not be pretty, but putting theseenvironmental, labor and publichealth issues on company balancesheets will create a permanent andstrong incentive to cease engaging inactivities that cause environmentaland social harm.

For more information visitwww.foe.org/camps/intl. ■

C O R P O R A T E A C C O U N T A B I L I T Y

Michelle Chan-Fishelspearheads Friendsof the Earth’s GreenInvestmentsProgram, which cam-paigns for corporate

transparency and accountability. Forthe past six years she has been anindispensable part of the organization.

She is also essential to theSocially Responsible Investing (SRI)community. Michelle recently won

the SRI Service Award, for outstand-ing contributions to the field.

“We have much to thank Michellefor and have learned much from herover the years. Before we were think-ing about environmental accounting,she was working with the bankingand financial communities to inte-grate environmental thinking intotheir daily practices,” said StevenLydenberg principal of Domini SocialInvestments at the award presentation.

She serves as co-chair of theCorporate Sunshine Working Group,which monitors the Securities &Exchange Commission, and on theAdvisory Committees on theShareholder Action Network and theEnvironmental Fiduciary Project. Shehas served on the board of theCoalition for EnvironmentallyResponsible Economies and has writ-ten an on-line guide to shareholderadvocacy. ■

Socially Responsible Investing Leader

14

L E G I S L A T I V E U P D A T E

By Sara Zdeb

Last November’s electionsdidn’t just bring GOPmajorities in both cham-bers of Congress. Theyhave dramatically changed

the makeup of environmental commit-tees, elevating conservative lawmakersto key leadership positions. These up-and-coming chairmen will shape theirparty’s environmental agenda.

No to Clean Air, No to Clean Water Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) assumes thehelm of the Senate’spowerful Environmentand Public WorksCommittee. Inhofe isa two-term senatorwith a lifetime Leagueof ConservationVoters score of zero.He has likened theEnvironmentalProtection Agency to the Gestapo.

Inhofe is expected to push legisla-tion weakening the Clean Air Act, andwill be a strong supporter of the Bushadministration’s plans to dramaticallycurtail the jurisdiction of the CleanWater Act. When the Environment andPublic Works Committee takes up billsauthorizing new highway and waterprojects, Inhofe will likely push forreduced environmental review andmore pork-barrel spending.

Endangering EndangeredSpeciesRep. Richard Pombo (R-Calif.)leapfrogged over seven more-seniorrepresentatives to take control of theHouse Resources Committee. Knownfor his cowboy hats and western attire,

Pombo typifies thestrident, private prop-erty rights mentalitythat manyRepublicans on thecommittee share.Pombo is a fifth-termmember from CentralCalifornia, and he hastaken strong positionsagainst protections forendangered species and other naturalresources.

Under his leadership, theResources Committee is expected tolaunch numerous attacks on theEndangered Species Act.Environmentalists also worry thatother national treasures – includingmonuments, national parks and wilder-ness areas – could be next on thechopping block.

Drill the Arctic! More Nuclear Power!Sen. Pete Domenici(R-N.M.) takes overfrom Sen. JeffBingaman (D-N.M.)as chair of the Energyand NaturalResourcesCommittee.Domenici’s lifetimeLeague ofConservation Votersrating is below 10 percent, and he is well known as afriend of the oil, gas, nuclear and graz-ing industries.

He made an early mark this ses-sion by successfully sneaking aprovision exempting grazing on publiclands from environmental review intoan omnibus spending bill. Domenici isexpected to push an aggressive agendain the Energy Committee, and an

energy bill that includes drilling inAlaska’s Arctic National WildlifeRefuge is at the top of his list.

The News Isn’t All BadThere are bright spots on both sides ofthe aisle, upon whom environmental-ists will count to stem the tide ofpro-polluter legislation.

In the Senate,moderate Sen. LincolnChafee (R-R.I.) takesthe helm of theEnvironment andPublic Works subcom-mittee on Superfund,where he will advo-cate funding to fixleaking undergroundstorage tanks and tostrengthen theSuperfund cleanupprogram.

In the House,Rep. RodFrelinghuysen (R-N.J.)takes over as chair ofthe D.C. appropria-tions subcommittee,and environmentalistsconcerned aboutcleaning up ournation’s capital cantake heart in his mod-erate voting record.

Second-term Rep.Hilda Solis (D-Calif.)was recentlyappointed rankingDemocrat on theEnergy andCommerce subcom-mittee onEnvironment andHazardous materials,where she will be a strong voice onissues including safe drinking waterand toxic waste cleanups. ■

New Hill Leaders to Watch

Sen. JamesInhofe (R-Okla.)Chairman of theEnvironment andPublic WorksCommittee

Rep. RichardPombo (R-Calif.)Chairman of theHouse ResourcesCommittee

Sen. LincolnChafee (R-R.I.)Chairman of theEnvironment andPublic WorksSubcommittee

Sen. PeteDomenici (R-N.M.)Chairman of theEnergy andNatural ResourcesCommittee

Rep. RodFrelinghuysen(R-N.J.)Chairman ofthe D.C.AppropriationsSubcommittee

Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.)Ranking Democraton the Energy andCommerceSubcommittee

NEW! “Getting MoreFrom Less” T-Shirt$15 members, $18 non-membersThis v-neck tee reminds us, “the lesswe need, the less we use, the less dam-age we cause.” It is made from fairlytraded Indian organic cotton that feelslike silk. Available in sizes mediumand x-large

Anti-SUV Bumper Stickers

$2 each, $5 for threeShow the world how you feel abouthigh-polluting Sport Utility Vehicles.The slogans came from a contest heldat www.suv.org.

NEW! Large Tote Bags$10 members, $15 non-membersFriends of the Earth’s roomy naturalcanvas bag features a large Friends ofthe Earth logo. Itis the perfectalternative topaper or plastic.

“Off the Books” Video $18 each“Off the Books:How CorporationsHide Environmentaland Human RightsLiabilities” is a new30-minute film that describes thepotential and limits of an enforceable,disclosure-based strategy for corporateaccountability.

Reuse Envelope Labels $5 members, $7 non-membersSave trees! Reuse your envelopeswith Friends of the Earth’s labels. Juststick the 3” x 5” label over the oldaddress and you can reuse oldenvelopes, reducing the amount ofwaste that you produce. 100 labelsper pad.

NA M E

AD D R E S S

CI T Y/STAT E/ZI P E-M A I L PH O N E

ITEM SIZE QUANTITY COST TOTAL

x =

x =

x $25 =

Subtotal:___________________________

Shipping:___________________________

Grand Total:___________________________

Allow 4 to 6 weeks for delivery.Contact info: Make checks payable to “Friends of the Earth” and mail to Friends of the Earth Merchandise Department, 1025 Vermont Ave., NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC20005-6303. To expedite your order, call toll-free 1(877) 843-8687, ext. 289 or order on-line from our secure web page at www.foe.org.

Shipping costs: $0 - $5.99: $2$6 - $9.99: $3

$10 - $14.99: $3.50$15 - $19.99: $4

$20 - over: $5

❏ VISA ❏ MASTERCARD

____________________________________________________________Exp. date: ________________

Signature: ______________________________________________________________________________

F R I E N D S O F T H E E A R T H M E R C H A N D I S E

ORDER FORM

Start/Renew my Membership!

PERIODICALS

POSTAGE PAID AT

WASHINGTON, DCAND ADDITIONAL

MAILING OFFICES

Printed with soy ink on 100% recycled paper, 30% post-consumer content. Bleached without chlorine.

Spring 2003, Volume 33, No. 1

Estate planning experts suggest reviewing your will annually. As a service to our members, Friendsof the Earth is offering a free and concise booklet on tips to consider in preparing or updating your will.

As you think about your will, please consider remembering Friends of the Earth in your plans. Help to leave this worldan even better place for our children and our children’s children.

❑ Please send me a free copy of How to Make a Will That Works.❑ I’d like to learn more about how to include Friends of the Earth in my estate plans. Please send me the appropriate

wording to bring to my attorney.❑ I have already included Friends of the Earth in my estate plans.

NAME (please print)

ADDRESS

CITY STATE ZIP

PHONE

E-MAIL

Or call Diane Minor toll-free at 877-843-8687x 287 or e-mail dminor@foe.org.

We Don’t Inherit the Earth from Our Parents……We Borrow It from Our Children.

A series of ads aimed at 20-somethings debuted in Rolling Stone, Men’s Journal and USWeekly thanks to pro bono support of Jann Wenner and New York ad agency D’Arcy,Masius, Benton & Bowles.

Our ads caught the eye of Creativity Magazine, which wrote, “Friends of the Earth isgetting hip, with a funky, funny print campaign aimed at the next generation of SUV driv-ers. The ads direct traffic to the aggressively-URL’d foe.org.”

Our Ads in Top Magazines