Atrazine, the Pinto, and Companies that Fight for What isn't Right

A friend of mine recently showed me an article about a pesticide containing a chemical called atrazine, and the company that makes it.  Tyrone Hayes, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, has been doing research on atrazine, and has found that it causes hermaphroditism in frogs.  Theorizing that it could potentially have similar effects on humans, Hayes has been battling with Syngenta.  The company, instead of acknowledging the problems with atrazine and searching for safer alternatives, has launched campaigns to discredit Hayes and his work.

The situation described bears unmistakable resemblance to that described in the 1977 article Pinto Madness.  Syngenta tries to deflect attention from the problems with its product, as did Ford.  The methods aren’t identical; whereas Ford tried to direct focus away from the problems with the Pinto by blaming drivers and roads, Syngenta tries to call into question the research and data analysis methods of Hayes and other researchers.  Both call for more studies, so that they can postpone the consequences.  Both have been sued, and both choose to weather the negative attention rather than change something.  They both use the argument that the economy will be negatively affected if their product is taken off the market.

Of course, in the case of the Pinto, changing things would not have been difficult.  Small, cheap safety features could have been added that would have done a lot to reduce the number of cars that were going up in flame.  For Syngenta, though, it doesn’t seem that there is an alternative.  Additionally, Syngenta claims that without atrazine, corn production in the US would fall drastically, so it is necessary that atrazine remain in use.  More frighteningly, it was found that Syngenta’s communications manager had written in her journal that they shouldn’t phase out atrazine until they’d found out more about paraquat, another Syngenta product that could potentially be even more harmful than atrazine.  She also wrote that the atrazine controversy focused people’s attention away from Syngenta’s other products.

Why do companies go to such great lengths and expenses to keep from being regulated?  Either of these companies could be on the leading edge of safe technological innovation, but instead they choose not only to lag behind, but to firmly entrench their feet.  Maybe they think that this is the most cost-effective strategy.  I’m not sure it is, though – they’re competing with many other companies, but they could distinguish themselves by being safe or being environmentally friendly.  Though they may have a mindset that regulation and environmental/safety concerns are fundamentally anti-business.

Also, it’s easier just to stay on the current track.  To redefine their priorities and values would mean a complete overhaul of the whole way that the companies function.  There would be more variables to take into account.  The company would have to clearly outline how decisions were to be made, something that would be difficult to do.  It wouldn’t be easy to prioritize both health and profits; when the two come into conflict, how does the company decide how to proceed?  If they deprioritize profits, the company might go bankrupt.  Perhaps the executives of these companies feel that they have no choice if they want their company to continue to exist.

If that’s the case, then shouldn’t they welcome regulation?  With regulation, they can turn to safer practices without worrying that their competition is using more profitable ones.  Maybe they distrust regulation, since it takes power away from them.  Maybe their resistance to regulation is on principle.

And yet, the company spends so much time, energy, and money on resisting regulation, when they could be putting that money into R&D.  Although I think my above reasons are plausible, I think there might be something else going on.  I think it may be that at some level they realize that no matter how safe and environmentally friendly they make their products, cars will always be dangerous and pesticides always harmful.  Eventually, people will move in some other direction, such as trains (rather than cars) and organic farming (rather than pesticide use).  They don’t want that day to come, so they want to slow progress toward this as much as possible.  But is it working?  The harmful effects of pesticides only help environmentalists and proponents of organic farming gain traction.

I’m not sure what the answer is exactly, but I think that it’s a combination of legacy thinking, an insistence on the idea that a company cannot be profitable if it is mindful of safety and environmental concerns, and a harmful prioritization of money over any other concerns.

What does the environmental movement think about this?  It seems that it focuses on encouraging organic farming, but not so much on safer pesticides.  Maybe they feel this approach is more effective, or that it is better to promote an ideal solution than an intermediate one.  But is it?  Shouldn’t the goal be to mitigate as much harm as possible?  This isn’t the only case where this thinking occurs; the environmental movement is against hydrofracturing (commonly known as fracking), despite it being a method for extracting natural gas, which is a less harmful energy source than petroleum.  Does the environmental movement often prioritize what feels “natural” (such as organic farming) over technologies (such as non-harmful pesticides) that could benefit the environment more?  Is there a tension between these ideals?  If there is, maybe that causes the environmental movement not to pressure the EPA for regulation that would lead to safer pesticides, and that is part of the problem.

What is a consumer supposed to make of these things?  Can we trust companies to have our best interests in mind?  It does not seem like we can.  But how widespread is this perception, and what effect does it have on the companies?  It doesn’t seem like it is very widespread.  Companies can do things to affect their images, such advertising campaigns touting the company’s commitment to safety and environmental well-being.  But how does a company prove that they are actually delivering?  Advertisements for specific safety features in cars can probably be believed, since we know that the company actually put that feature in the car.  Vague statements about the prioritization of safety, on the other hand, are less believable. 

Why did people continue to buy the Pinto, despite the danger involved?  In The Invisible Heart: An Economic Romance by Russell Roberts, the author argues that individuals deserve the autonomy to make their own decisions.  Adults, Roberts argues, should be allowed to weigh the risks and benefits themselves and choose a low price over safety.  But this assumes that customers were fully aware of the problems with the Pinto.  Were they?  How much of what was happening behind the scenes was known to potential buyers?  How much information does a consumer need to have in order for it to be a responsible decision to allow them to make the choice?  That is, they are adults, but if they're under a false impression that something is safe, it's not the same kind of choice.  Also, do we want a society in which everything is dangerous and individuals need to make those decisions?  A consumer in such a society can never relax and simply purchase something; they must always worry that what they are purchasing is dangerous.  A lack of regulation leads to a lack of security.  Some people argue that regulation restricts freedom, but I think that the opposite is true.

At this point, consumers do not have much information, and do not have many choices.  I think that what we need is more regulation, more information, and more innovation.  I do not know how we should go about achieving these outcomes, but an awareness of the problems is an important first step.

Why do we use toxic products?

The other day, a friend of mine sent me an article about thieves who had stolen metal from a contaminated power plant and sold it to a scrap metal yard.  The metal from the plant contains a carcinogenic chemical, and the thieves were hosed down after their arrest.  An employee who had his clothes taken from him and was sent home in what was essentially a hazmat suit was worried about bringing home the toxins to his three young children.

The irony, of course, is that the vast majority of the products we regularly interact with contain carcinogens, as well.  The plastic in the computer I am typing on and possible flame retardant in the clothes I am wearing are off-gassing harmful chemicals into the air I am breathing.  And, of course, the bus I am riding on is spewing plenty of nasty chemicals out of its tailpipe.

So, why are we so careful in the one instance and yet so careless in the other?  My guess is that in this particular case, the chemical from the power plant might have a strong immediate effect.  On the other hand, off-gassing toxins from ordinary household items won’t kill you right away; they’ll build up in your system over many years and potentially cause cancer and other ill effects.  In short, they’re easier to ignore.

When a company makes a defective product, consumers will often file a lawsuit against the company.  However, if someone gets cancer from the accumulated effects of a lifetime of toxic products, they can’t say that any single company caused it.  Thus, they wouldn’t win the case, and the companies aren’t forced to change.

But what about government regulations?  This one puzzles me.  There are consumer safety lobbying groups, but from the results (or lack thereof) I infer that this issue isn’t a priority of theirs.  Why?

I think that people resist believing that commonly used goods contain (and off-gas) so many harmful chemicals.  This is surprising, considering how many harmful production practices we’ve caught and stopped over the years – such as muckrakers’ reports of early-20^th-century meat-packing plants.  But I think people believe we have now reached an age where such things are behind us.  People look back at history and marvel at the actions of those in the past, and often believe that they took those actions because they were in the past.  That is to say, I think that many people believe that we are in an era not only of greater technoscientific knowledge, but also of greater morality.  I theorize that this may be one of the reasons why people are unwilling to believe that companies could still be manufacturing toxic products.

Also, I think it’s difficult to believe that it is so pervasive.  Even though I know about this both from our textbook and, in more depth, from the book Cradle to Cradle, it’s still difficult to internalize.  It feels as though, if this is as pervasive a problem as it’s presented as, someone would have done something about it.  Or, at least, more people would be talking about it.  But I think that one major thing is that most people are not aware of it.  People have heard of lead and asbestos, but how many people have heard of BPA, phthalates, or parabens?  Not many.

In the text, Professor Woodhouse implies that it is mostly legacy thinking that causes the problem of toxic products – what he terms Brown Chemistry.  However, I think it is more about lack of awareness than anything else.  What can be done about this?  PSA campaigns, perhaps?  Or we can find out how lead and asbestos were brought to people’s attention, and copy those methods.  Social media and traditional media (such as TV) could also be ways to make people more aware.

The other problem, I think, is that because the problem is pervasive, it seems unsolvable, at least by someone whose career does not involve solving these problems.  The average person can’t simply stop buying all conventionally made products and switch over to solely environmentally friendly and healthy products, at least without great effort and intention.  When someone walks into the stores they normally shop at, they find conventional products.  Given this, I think people find it easier to ignore the problem than to acknowledge and think about the fact that they and their loved ones are ingesting toxic chemicals on a daily basis.  It’s too stressful a thing to think about, and people have enough on their minds.  Similarly, I think many people know by know about the horrid working conditions of the people in China and other places who create iPhones and other toys of the developed world, but people are at a loss as to what to actually do about it, and so they block it out.

If more companies created environmentally friendly and non-toxic products, advertised them and made them more available, I think people would buy them, especially if they were informed of the dangers of conventional products.  Some companies are already doing this, such as Ecovative Design, a company started by RPI alumni that grows packaging from mushrooms.  Hopefully we will see more of this in the future.  Also, if there were a list of environmentally friendly and healthy brands and products, or perhaps a website where people could search in different categories, it would make it easier.  In addition, public policy needs to change and regulations need to be put in place, perhaps by raising awareness among consumer advocates and by instituting a system by which companies can benefit from creating healthy products.  I am interested to read what Professor Woodhouse’s suggestions are for fixing this problem.