|
I grimace every time I hear a politician say "Get the government off our backs", and the phrase that is now out of circulation at least for a little while: "Follow the wisdom of the marketplace".
We are aware of how drug (adrenaline) crazed traders brought down the world financial system with synthetic derivatives and credit default swaps. But here is part of a more recent article that a friend of mine from EcoChildsPlay.com pointed out. The article appeared at EatDrinkBetter.com:
Tyson Injects and Feeds Antibiotics into "Raised without Antibiotics" Labeled Chicken
The second largest chicken producer in the United States has been lying to consumers. Tyson Foods has been claiming chicken as "Raised without Antibiotics" that has been injected with drugs before hatching.
Tyson has been tricking Americans and bending USDA rules about truthful labeling regarding antibiotics in poultry. The company has spent tens of millions of dollars in advertising its chicken as "raised without antibiotics" this year. Tyson has admitted to injecting eggs with antibiotics, and the USDA has responded by asking the company to stop using the antibiotic-free label. Tyson's has filed a lawsuit to keep using the label, claiming the USDA's rules do not apply before the second day of life.
Tyson also admitted to using another "anti-microbial" agent on hatched chickens, which was also controversial and questioned by the FDA.
Well, unfortunately all this does not surprise me in the least. I remember one eye opener (literally) that came out in a study some 15 years ago: Dunkin Donuts was regularly using caffeinated, normal coffee in what it claimed was decaf coffee.
Why would they do that? I don't know of the inside evidence concerning their reasons, but three reasons do come to mind: 1) caffeinated coffee tastes better, so DD would get credit for having great decaf, 2) the caffeine in coffee is addictive, so those who are trying to cut back or quit coffee by having decaf would find themselves strangely continuing to be addicted, and 3) it is easier to stock one product than two products.
Of course there have been numerous examples of corporate malfeasance over the years and decades, and even an excellent documentary about the roots of the problem, a film called unsurprisingly, "The Corporation", derived from a book The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power by Joel Bakan.
What does all this have to do with PlanetThoughts and PlanetThoughts.org? This article is my effort to say to my readers that unless a green behavior directly aligns with short-term profits, large corporations are driven (legally and by habit) by the short-term bottom line and will ignore environmental, health, and economic consequences of their actions. Corporations will lie and cheat as much as they can while either staying just this side of the law, or wandering into the other side of the law but with confidence and hope that they will not get caught.
Is this a surprise to anyone reading here? I think if you have been reading good news sources and are over, say, 30 years old, or attended a good college with some quality history or sociology classes, you would know about all this. It is for the rest of you, who are not sure what to make of corporations, that I recommend great caution when promises are made. Have a lot of doubt when those commercial interests, or those paid secretly by the commercial interests, claim to have the benefit of the "average" person at heart. Have strong doubts when the commercial interests claim that government is big, incompetent, and most likely run by Socialist bureaucrats who are eager to start throwing bombs (note the Obama / Ayers smear as an example of this).
I am in business (writing software and consulting about technology), and I like capitalism pretty much. As I have said before, what I dislike strongly is out of control, unregulated, immoral capitalism that has transmuted, like a cancer, into an agent that attacks the members of society purely for its own profit. What I dislike is a philosophy that would have an each-person-for-himself philosophy with absolutely no effective safety net. The lack of universal health insurance in the United States is just the most obvious example of the problem.
With that understanding of the typical large corporation, what person in her or his right mind, and in good conscience, would trust environmental decisions to the recommendations of General Electric or to the coal industry or to the oil companies? We can talk to them a bit, that is fine, and then check with environmentalists and with scientists, and dig in for the facts, until the real picture emerges and guides policy.
Hopefully that is the process that is now starting in our new, soon-to-be administration. Let's see what happens; we will know very soon what the new direction will be.
| 
Fossil Fuel
