An advertisement celebrating the 200th anniversary of the DuPont company reads, "Where do you find a 200-year-old company?" When you flip to the inside of the ad it says, "Everywhere." On the following page it states, "You don't get to be a 200-yr-old company by keeping up with the times. You do it by staying ahead of them. We listen to our customers and the market. And then we look to science for the answers." Further down it reads, "We're more than excited about what lies ahead. But of course, when it comes to the future, we have an advantage. We've been making it for 200 years now."
Anyone who has read Michaels' book Doubt is Their Product will find the statments in the advertisement chilling. The connection between industry and government and the laws that regulate the products and chemicals that can be used in the workplace is latent to the public, just like the symbolism of the DuPont advertisement. However it doesn't take much digging before one can see the blatant relationship between the three sectors and then understand that the ad communicates an ominous tone. Chapter 2 of Michaels' book discusses the DuPont company's role in the dye industry and bladder cancer. After WWI, the U.S. seized top secret formulas for creating synthetic dyes; a market that had been dominated by England, Germany and Switzerland since 1856 when the first dye, mauveine, was discovered by a British chemistry student, William Henry Perkin. The first cases of cancer in connection to dye workers were reported as early as 1895 and a report was generated by the International Labour Organization in 1921 stating the chemicals most likely responsible for the cancer cases were used by the dye factories. However, DuPont allowed its workers to be exposed to the substances even though they were aware of the dangers. In 1934, a toxicologist visited the DuPont dye factory to further understand why cases of the rare bladder cancer were popping up in DuPont workers. He was surprised to find the factory spotless but then discovered the factory had been cleaned for his visit. The toxicologist demanded to see another building and then discovered how the workers were being exposed--the benzidine powder was everywhere. He was fired never allowed back to examine the factories again. It wasn't until 1967, after 450 workers had delveloped bladder cancer, that the exposure to dangerous chemicals at DuPont stopped. However, this company still operated with employees who were dangerously exposed to harmful chemicals. DuPont manufactured organic lead for gasoline well into the 80's, covering up the 300 workers who had been poisoned by lead and the neurological effects experienced by workers who worked in the "House of Butterflies." The connection between DuPont and General Motors (which DuPont had a part-ownership in in the 20's) is no secret.
While DuPont may have been able to continue their operations with other endeavors, dangerous to their employees or not, the companies who created products using asbestos did not. Asbestos, a heat and flame retardant mineral/material, is responsible for 100,000 deaths per year. The companies who generated products containing asbestos kept the information they knew about asbestos exposure and cancer from the public for 70 years. The information of the dangers of asbestos exposure had been around long before asbestos companies went bankrupt paying out damages to disease victims. It was known in Roman times that working with asbestos affected breathing! However, asbestos was used to make thousands of products and the companies that made the products were financially successful. The cover-up of the affects on factory workers was easier than finding a new product to make or a more expensive asbestos replacement. In the 30's, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) investigated three asbestos textile plants in NC. Strangely, before the investigators showed up, 1/4 of the workforce had been fired--particularly those who had worked at the companies the longest. Despite the industries attempts, the PHS still determined the exposure levels were too high, designating the exposure level to 5 million particles per cubic foot (mppcf). Yet, the PHS had no authority to enforce the standard. At the end of the 40's, Brown, a counsel for Johns-Manville (asbestos co.), stated in a speech that he "[questioned] whether there exists sufficient data correlating the disease to the degree of exposure to warrant any determination taht will even approximate accuracy." AKA creating uncertainty. The industry never conducted studies on exposure levels so that it purposefuly wouldn't be held to a standard.
The asbestos cover-up continued until 1964 when Dr. Irving Selikoff presented the Conference on the Biological Effects of Asbestos. Even after the historic conference, the asbestos companies tried to silence Selikoff. The industry did not succeed. They then turned their attention to blaming Big Tobacco.
With all the evidence of cover-up and creation of uncertainty, why do you think government didn't step in?
With companies abilities to re-locate their factories to other countries for cheaper labor today, how do we ensure the same regulations concerning harmful chemical exposures are followed?
How do we as public health agents make sure that when reports indicate a connection between a chemical and a disease that industry doesn't have the opportunity to create uncertainty?
How do we make sure that the scientific research conducted is sponsored and paid for by a source not related to industry? Is it ethical to accept money from industry for scientific research?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
These days when people hear about a company being around for 200 years its an instant attraction. If they have been around 200 years they must be making a great product. Why not invest my money in the company? Their record obviously shows that people have had no problems with them and if they did then they would not have been around for so long. That my friend is not an educated consumer. Reading this chapter, one has to be safe when reading information, you must do your own research. to get the facts. And to read that the companies tried to clean things up so that when investigators came everything was fine, is just RIDICULOUS!!! I know that that the events of this chapter took place sometime in history, but that is not an excuse of how employees should be treated. Labor laws were in place and they should have protected the employee. If one really wants to look and worker conditions and environment, I highly recommend the The Jungle By Upton Sinclair. My question is who were this workers, what class were they from, ethnicity, age, race. Did these factors come into play with Dupont or Asbestos?
ReplyDeletewe can see lots of instances in the book is talking about how "smart" these industries. They escape the regulations from government and set up fence to protect themselves. Government supposed to have effective policy to confine these industries' product. But sometime it is not just go on what you just want it to be. Its occurrence relevant to complicated chains and others. Even the government just stops Dupont, how about the other similar product companies? The compromise should be made by all these stakeholders. If one of them disagree, no step/process can go forward.
ReplyDeleteIt is a time-consuming game, who will be the winner? workforce health care is a emergent issue for all of us. As Paula 's topic, how can we protect our employees' health from workforce?
Also, how their health care insurance going on?
Somethings special in health care list?
Great summary Mandy, some very interesting points and questions. (How are we going to ensure these policies and safeguards are continuing to take place in markets overseas?) Very relevant. My question is somewhat of a hypothetical one, but yet a very real question too. I guess it just doesn't make sense to me why all of these companies would work so hard to cover up a poor product. I know the very obvious answer is money and their reputation, but I guess that isn't enough for me. I don't think that businesses give the American public enough credit. I think we appreciate apologies, and admittance to wrong doing far better than pulling the wool over our eyes and trying to mask the truth. Again, I can understand why they wanted to cause doubt, but weren't they expending just as much resources, time, and money doing that than if they were to come and say we made a mistake, and then fix it? I feel both instances money, time, and resources are being spent, so why not try and save your name and reputation by admitting there is a problem, and be the "hero" and fix it.
ReplyDeleteFor example, let's say I was in the toy making business. I work for Santa, and I made a toy that is defective and may cause harm to children. So with this problem there are two things that will be affected, your time, money, and resources to deal with the problem, and your reputation as a business. I may be naive in saying this, but whether you decide to come out and admit to the problem and try and fix it, or you try and hide the fact that there is a problem altogether, or create doubt that it wasn't your fault you will be spending time, money, and resources. So that is spent no matter how you deal with the problem. However the reputation may be affected either positively or negatively. If you admit to the issue and apologize and fix it, more than likely you'll receive some critism about what happened, and face a poor reputation, but in the end, most people will say "Ok, they made a mistake, but admitted to it, and are trying to fix it, good for them." However in the other instance where you cover it up, and pretend it wasn't your fault, your reputation is essentially ruined. It seems quite obvious to me, but why haven't these companies realized that by covering up the issue at hand and creating doubt is probably causing them more time, money, and resources than had they owned up to it in the first place?
Plan and simple - there has been proff out there (granded in Europe - oh wait they are smart over across the pond) since 1895 that science has known that the coloring cause bladder cancer. So, what they just thought that it wouldn't happen to American's?! I like G's point, on wondering what background these empolyees came from. How where they taken care of when they got the cancer. Where there screenings to be checking for bladder cancers, to chetch it earlier? If not I sopose this was a fail proof way to get rid of sinourity empolyees.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to the asbestos, one really needs to wonder if the companies that ended up going banrupt due to paying out law suit, would still be in business today? If they would have just invested time and money in changing their product, maybe lives and money would have been saved?
There needs to be a revolt of scientist to proactively inform consumers as much as possible! This way they can make correct choice when comes to investing money in the market and products.
Again it is unfortunate to read another chapter in Michaels’ book, about industries protecting their businesses rather than caring for the American citizens. Should I be proud to be an American…with so much uncertainly? I’m not sure if I have feel safe to be American citizen. Are other countries doing to the same to their citizens? Why does it take so much time for the government to authorize law of protection!?
ReplyDeleteOn the side note…It’s not even safe to wear lipstick ladies, according to The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics!
Check this out:
http://www.safecosmetics.org/article.php?id=223
(This was dated in 2007…not sure what‘s the update, I couldn’t find much).
The reason that government didn’t step in this work-site wellness issues is because government in the United, in my understanding, are partly sponsored by companies. When we review the great election, the money that each elector spends is supported by some companies and organizations. I think there is no one will run business without considering the benefit. The money they spend for senators and parties will assume to get higher refund after while. I think it is considered as a investment instead of support. In this case, how can the government which representative to some companies’ benefit will do something may decrease their benefit? I do think it will somewhat affect the fairness of science if they accept funding from industry. However, the science research, to some extent, is the biggest driving force once we recall our history. The situation that society and industry development have to rely on science research cannot eliminate in our world. What do you think will be the power to balance this benefit relationship among science research, government and companies?
ReplyDeleteThe following are a list of questions I have while reading the Michael's chapter on workplace cancer:
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I would assume that the makers of any new product, in these cases, chemical, believe that there is a very real benefit to the product, and so I wonder what was the benefit (perceived and actual) to the chemicals in question (asbestos, benzidine and BNA)? Did these benefits ever outweigh the threat, and if so, then were the companies, perhaps, somewhat right to continue to manufacture them despite some health concern?
Along the lines of the first set of questions, I wonder if, when the benefits clearly were clouded with the morbidity and mortality data, did the manufacturing companies attempt to make any changes in the amount or type of chemical used? The book doesn't really speak to this I wonder if attempts were made to find other chemicals, less toxic, that could do the same job so to speak?
On page 25, a comment was made by the Association of British Chemical Manufacturers after studies by william hueper linked BNA to cancer in animals stating that they would agree to reduce exposure as much as possible, but they would not halt production or sales. they claimed to need more data (on humans, which Robert Case produced in england) but what would it have taken to actually stop production?
Additionally, did workplaces ever adopt any of the 'voluntary exposure limits' recommended by scientists prior to OSHA regulations?
Should I go to work for this successful business? Why or why not? What kind of contribution could I make as an employee of this company?
ReplyDeleteSome very great points Mandy for sure..an interesting topic that I also feel ties well with mine, as far as, why would there be some sort of secrecy to something that we should know? Are we just nieve as a society that we automatically put trust into a company since they have been around for so long? Sometimes I just wonder as i read this book that should I trust everything that I hear on the news even? I mean there is so much that can be conveyed into our media...I find that with this book I am finding it hard to trust? Who can we trust?
ReplyDeleteI was spending one year in chemical Lab for my undergrad program. Many of my friends were vary wanted to work in DuPont too. Caz it is the biggest chemical industry in the world. Yes, they have some sad and bad instance happened,even until now. But when they started to invent these things, they had not thought about it would be a killer. What they can do? Immediately stop it or keep on going with reducing harm and hazard for the world? Mandy, you did a very good presentation. It raised up some questions for how to keep our health beneath these chemical product? who we can trust?
ReplyDeleteAs I know, those chemical industries put a lot of money in different infrastructures in countries for compromising with government on this. They know what they are doing, but just can not stop it. What we should do is not just change police but these or those complicated relationship and human thinking.
I think corporations can be like the criminals who are grateful to get caught or like the criminals who do not want to leave prison when their sentence is completed. In the movies or newspaper accounts of real criminals, the individual knows they are wrong and wanted to be stopped or they know they are still motivated to commit crimes and they do not want to be released. Restorative justice is an effort to fit the criminal back into society in a way that recognizes both their past and the need for them to be a productive member of society in the future. I think we are in need of a restorative justice program for corporations and the individuals who play key roles in corporate wrong doing. The picture of the elder Mr. Dupont in the picture Mandy shared may be modern hype, but it might also reflect the mutual accountability that smaller business, community, and government could accomplish as they did right because they were easily aware of one anothers conduct. Mutual accountability and restorative justice in our bigger, faster, and necessarily more complex world (not just nation) presents huge challenges. As Hui pointed out Dupont is everywhere. Corporate pollution is sometimes corrected by engineering and other times by moving the plant to a less-governed state or country. My last comment on Mandy's interview responds to her noting interlocking board memberships; she noted Dupont and Lockheed. This oligarchical ruling class interacts on one anothers boards, but they also socialize at private clubs, housing developments, trade associations, and charities. I do not think this is inherently bad, but it support a value system that places the good of corporations above that of the individual. There are examples of members of this class blowing the whistle on wrong-doing, but like all oligarchies this ruling class seems antidemocratic and it is a part of our heritage to support that which is democratic.
ReplyDeleteI was very impressed with all the information you found on your topic, it definitely helped to paint the picture of the history of duPont and what they are capable of, both good and bad. Great presentation as a whole and definitely made me think of things I use in my own home and what our society may be aware of and unaware of. I feel that all these interviews open my eyes to possible controversy and makes me more knowledgable and aware of my own surroundings.
ReplyDeleteAs the other's have said- great summary and history of the company. Du Pont has an impressive past, even with the pieces of information presented by our author that show areas of imperfection. I still hold to my assumption that persons who go to work in the labs for Du Pont really believe that their science is making 'better products for better living' and that in general they are contributing wonderful, innovative things that have a positive impact on the global community. With that said, because the things they make are new- it's highly possible that they will accidentally create something that is a health hazzard and even with proper test trials, as noted in my chapter about drugs, certain hazards wont be detected until tens of thousands of people (so larger population and sample size) become the 'test subjects' so to speak. What I think needs to be in place, however, is a tighter line of recourse, internally, at Du Pont, as to how potentially toxic substances are contained either in early trials or quickly once they have been released to the public. I would also like to see, again, cost shifted to the manufacturing company for that containment and or recal happens to the public.
ReplyDeleteMandy's presentation raise me a lot of thinking. I believe there is not any business will open without pursuit maximize profit, Dupont is not an exception. It cannot deny that they provide such great contribution to make our life more convenient, save a lot of lives during these 200 years. However, it is also creat great benefit to the company at the same time. I don't think it is a bad thing when the company create profit and make controbution to our society at the same time. I think the reason we are doubting about that now is who should pay for the cost went the bad consequence came out? I think innovation is always a risk because nobody know what will happen in the next second. HOwever, withouth innovation, our society will not develop until today. So this risk is inevitable. Obviously, it is unfair for only the company to take this risk, or instead, not any company can afford this risk. I think if our society will fully understand this risk, we should take this risk together. If there is any sort of insurance will afford the consequence caused by innovation, I think that might be a compromise solution.
ReplyDeleteAgain great presentation, who knew Dupont had a book like the one you showed us published. The thing I keep thinking about, when talking about workers being exposed to dangerous things in their workplaces, is all of the lesser known companies, who employee primarily immigrants. Being from Chicago, I see this all the time. They are so many little manufacturing companies all around the city. They are filled with individuals from other countries, who may be in the country on work visas, and language skills are not anything compared to the workers I've seen presented in the videos in class. If big well known companies are doing this to theri workers, I can't imagine what is happening to individuals not from this country, working a meager wage, in an environment which is not suitable to work in. The companies have the advantage over these types of individuals.
ReplyDeleteI am getting the feeling the only way to combat products that are harful to people is with education. You know STDs, and birth defects from smoking, alcohol, and drug has dramtically declined due to educating people. If OSHA, NIOSH, FDA, and the multidude of other agancies hand are tied with testing or sifting through thoughsands of dout claims, can't we (the public) fight fire with fire. Just think there is Twitter and Facebook. Realizing thatthis would have to be a carful tool on the public's part, due to misiformation, but I just feel it would be better than just sitting here and doing nothing, or feeling like we can do nother!
ReplyDeleteMandy! How to I get to you MPH Facebook page?
A question I still think about that we talked about during your presentation. We know there is potential ill effects from using Teflon, even if industry sayes the amounts in the cookware are safe. Do we all continue to use our Teflon pots and pans? Or will we stop using them? I infact had breakfast this past weekend, off a Teflon pan, and didn't really think twice. I think it comes down to what level of risk are Americans willing to take? If it affects our convenience, I think we are willing to take more risk. In this week's reading I'll talk about how it may even affect our economy, are we still willing to crack down as hard? (hypothetical question, as yes of course we should be)
ReplyDeleteFor Britt's question ...Do we all continue to use our Teflon pots and pans? If we don't do we just throw away all the money we may have invested in them to just to not take the risk we may get cancer. I also question myself on the products I use on my body, and how hazard they are towards my health. For an example, Vaseline healthy hand and nail conditioning lotion is very hazard towards my health and will cause cancer according to website: http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/index.php
ReplyDeleteSo do I stop using these products, just like Teflon. I guess it would be easier to switch to safer products, however the question is do I want take the time to search and spend extra money for natural beauty products.
According to example of Brit, it is a model psychological phenomenon that we would not the worst one who pick up the rotten apple. The minim/ tiny step made up a big change later. We change diet for health, for protect diabetes and obesity. But no care about the chemical staff we use, the hazard is going into our life in different way.
ReplyDelete