Dylan Pugliese
EXPO–Living Dangerously
Dr. Temple
Environment Inc. The Corporatization of Environmental Risk
Picture thousands of innocent baby chicks anxiously chirping while being transferred down a conveyor belt towards a sieve where there guts, eyes, and bones would be smashed and pressed together in a continuous cycle. To the average human this may seem negligent, unsettling, and even malicious. However, according to the Huffington post, this is merely one step in the process fast food kingpin McDonalds takes in the production of their chicken nuggets. While this is knowledge that is easily accessible through the Internet, this honest information is certainly not advertised at the cash register at a single one of McDonalds more than 33,000 restaurants worldwide. Because corporations withhold profit-jeopardizing information, the general public often overlooks calamitous toxic risks in our environment.
Corporations often disregard toxic measurements in the production of their goods in order to maximize their personal revenue. Often the people in charge of these corporations only envision the revenue they can obtain, and reject any evidence that will get in the way of making them money. For instance, while there was a multitude of groundbreaking research that showed DDT, a controversial pesticide used for decades in America, had substantial environmental impacts, many companies refuted this evidence. Years before DDT was considered to be a “miracle chemical”, which killed insects “immediately and almost entirely”(Oreskes and Conway 218). Because of its instant effects, DDT was such a essential commodity in every household in America. With the knowledge of its harsh side effects, companies even produced advertisements and propaganda that supported the use of DDT. This type of widespread facilitation of such an environmental toxin is proof of how corporate America refutes any evidence that will get stifle profit-maximization.
Corporations often dismiss truth-seeking researchers whose only focus is to ensure a safe, clean environment for everyone. In 1962 almost 20 years after the inception of DDT use in America, environmentalist Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, a book illustrating the immense environment effects of the use of DDT. While this work was honorable enough to win Carson a Noble Prize, and was later to be the crutch of knowledge behind the banning of DDT in America Rachel Carson was not immediately revered. Conversely Carson was presumed to be a “woman out of control” and was even compared to Adolf Hitler (Lear 17). In common sense terms this may seem very puzzling. Why would someone whose work could potentially save the lives of millions be seen as such a villain? While Rachel Carson is trying to look out for all of society with her illustrative research, corporations only take action that has their best interests in mind. Because Rachel Carson’s 1962 book Silent Spring exposed the greedy operations by major companies, she was refuted and made out to be impractical.
In an effort to facilitate production that maximizes profits, corporations often frame the information they produce, even if this information is shown to be inaccurate. The term ‘junk science’, or science that is presumed to be inaccurate or unproven is often thrown around in the world or corporate production. As political strategy, corporations often employ their own teams of scientists to establish just exactly what information being publicized is factual or rather ‘junk science’ (Oreseks and Conway 237). The problem with this situation, however, is that these teams of scientists being employed are merely just scientists that are being paid off by these resourceful corporations. In the instance where a scientist is hired and merely becomes a spokesperson for whatever the company decides to broadcast, these corporations gain a sense of control over the general public. By creating this confusion through offering many different outlets to information, the people being subjected to this information often become doubtful of what is fact and what is fiction. This sense of doubt is exactly what the corporations want because when the general public, their consumers, have doubt in different scientific research the consumers will be less likely to change their habits in response to something that hasn’t been pervasively proven, and moreover, the consumers won’t take actions that deter corporations from receiving their business, and in turn, gaining a profit. In a constant effort to make money, corporations take any action necessary to obtain revenue.
Because there are so many different corporations that are only operating on personal interests, it is up to citizens to realize their capabilities in procure environmental regulation. Whenever thinking about environmental problems, if we think of them at all, a certain delegation of action to the stereotypical “tree hugger” comes to mind. Whether it is the teachings of cartoon environmentalist super hero Captain Planet, or the colossal actions of the World Wildlife Fund, an outstanding, large-scale operation normally comes to mind when thinking about procure issues in the environment. However, with an altered mindset the mediocre human can have super-hero like impacts – something chemical safety expert Sarah Vogel calls a “new paradigm of risk”. Vogel shares this type of mindset with her team of experts at the Environmental Defense Fund, who claim this type of outlook of risk “is desperately needed”. This call to action is demonstrated by Vogel’s condemnatory tone. Within her own “paradigm of risk”, Vogel writes,
“If the timing makes the poison and low-dose exposure can manifest in long-term health problems then the disciplines of toxicology and regulatory standards have failed to protect the publics health”(Vogel 672).
Through lobbying practices, companies are able to disrupt government regulatory decision-making. According to facethefactsusa.org, in 2011 they’re a register 12,719 thousand-registered lobbyists who participated in influencing congress, the White House, and federal agencies. Through wining and dining tactics these persuasive corporate representatives do whatever they can to form close relationships with members of our government. In 2011, more than $3.3 billion dollars was spent in lobbying practices in America alone (facethefactsusa.org). When making a simple investment, wise businessman should always choose an investment that yields a favorable return. Such a sizeable monetary endowment in this area also is due to an expected return. So what really do these corporations want from the federal government? As understood by George Orwell Merchants of Doubt any person with a type of authority will always “seek to control” what they can (Oreskes and Conway 238). As in mostly all of the ventures taken by corporations discussed in this essay are all aimed to establish a sense of “control”. You see, when these corporations have the control that they want they have the authority to take any action necessary to help them yield a profit. This type of monopolized “control” is detrimental environmental action. If these companies can obtain control over influential members of the Federal Government then they can easily influence Governmental regulation. If the Governments decisions are influenced by a group of money-crazed corporations, there isn’t a doubt that our environment would not be wholly protected through regulation and it would be put at a severe risk.
Through snide information withholding practices corporations worldwide do whatever they can to prevent environmental safety that would not be advantageous to their financial reports. In an effort to insure the safest future possible for our environment, these actions need to be exposed and immobilized.
Works Cited
Cohn, Emily. “Here’s How McDonald’s Chicken McNuggets Are Made.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 04 Feb. 2014. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.
Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962. 1-13. Print.
Green, Penelope. “Domestic Detox: Extreme Home Cleaning.” www.nytimes.com. The New York Times, 26 May 2010. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.
“Latest Fact.” Face the Facts USA. George Washington University, n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.
Lear, Linda. Introduction. Silent Spring. 40th Anniversary ed. N.p.: n.p., 2002. 6-14. Print.
Oreskes, Naomi, and Erik Conway. “Denial Rides Again: The Revisionist Attack on Rachel
Carson.” Merchants of Doubt. New York: Bloomsbury, 2010. 216-39. Print.
Vogel, Sarah A. “Forum from ‘the Dose Makes the Poison’ to ‘the Timing Makes the Poison’: Conceptualizing Risk In The Synthetic Age.” Environmental History 13.4 (2008): 667-73. Print.
Living Dangerously 