NEXT PAGE -->
|
| * * * COMPANIES & PRODUCTS * * * |
|---|
Updated Daily!
| * * * IN-HOUSE RESOURCES * * * |
|---|
As everyone now knows, the World Trade Organization's (WTO) meeting in Seattle was interrupted by protestors who were mostly peaceful. Over-reaction by local police led to the "Battle of Seattle." As an acknowledgment of this over-reaction, the Seattle chief of police has now resigned.[1]
The main goal of the WTO's Seattle meeting was to begin a new round of international talks, the so-called "millennium round," which was expected to last 3 years. That goal was thwarted. Emboldened partly by protestors in Seattle's streets, Third World envoys to the WTO rejected a new round of talks.[2] So the millennium round will not begin, at least not right away. Delaying the new talks was a sweet victory for the protesters and an important assertion of independence by Third World countries.
But we should not fool ourselves. The WTO is still entirely intact. It was not changed in any fundamental way by the protests. More importantly, the goals and the power of those who created the WTO remain untouched.
The people who created the WTO have one main goal: an integrated global economy unencumbered by government restrictions. This economic goal has two parts: globalized and unencumbered.
The globalization of the world's economies is proceeding steadily and cannot be stopped. The world's economies are being laced (or yoked) together by communication technologies (radio, TV, telephones, fiber optic cables, satellites and computers, among others). A flood of invention is inexorably weaving (or chaining) the strands of the world's economies into a single huge network of relationships.
No one can stop globalization from happening. However, governments could take many steps to reduce the harmful consequences for human societies.[3] Unfortunately the people who created the WTO are ideologically opposed to any government involvement. They have their own utopian vision, a globalized economy unencumbered by government restrictions -- global free trade. Economists have a name for such an economy: LAISSEZ FAIRE. In a LAISSEZ FAIRE economy, the owners of capital are free to make all the important decisions -- they decide what to make, how to make it, where to get the raw materials, whom to employ (under what conditions and at what wages), and where to sell their products or services. In a LAISSEZ FAIRE economy, the role of government is limited to enforcing property rights, assuring a stable currency, providing a system of justice for resolving disputes, and maintaining a military apparatus to enforce civil and international peace.
Government has one other key role in a LAISSEZ FAIRE economy: to maintain such an economy, government must relentlessly thwart democratic tendencies among the governed. (For example, When President Reagan destroyed the Air Traffic Controllers union in 1981, he was using the powers of government to bolster a wannabe LAISSEZ FAIRE regime.) If governments don't relentlessly oppose democratic tendencies, people will soon direct their government to (for example) limit the length of the workday, guarantee their right to form a trade union, insist that everyone deserves health care, and set minimum wages, all of which doom laissez faire. This is why laissez faire economies are incompatible with political democracy: laissez faire economies do not arise spontaneously and can only be sustained if the state aggressively suppresses democratic tendencies.
In sum, the WTO isn't mainly about trade. It is mainly about establishing the kind of economy, worldwide, in which the owning class gets to make all important decisions without interference from governments or from anyone else. Today the key institution of the owning class is the corporation, so the aim of the WTO is to ensure that corporations are empowered to make all the important decisions without interference.
To put it another way, the main work of the WTO isn't promoting world trade -- it is getting rid of rules made by governments, rules that restrict the freedom of corporations to make decisions affecting production and labor. Government rules are described as "restrictions on trade" but this "trade" language is a euphemism for "restrictions on corporate freedom." To summarize, then, the WTO isn't chiefly concerned with trade -- it is chiefly concerned with "Who gets to decide?" When governments are weakened, corporations are strengthened. The WTO was set up to weaken governments.
There are two other realities that we need to remember, if we want to make sense out of the WTO: (1) The developed countries have exhausted many of their reserves of raw materials, and (2) they have built too much productive capacity, so there aren't enough customers for all the goods they can produce.[3] Thus, to maintain reasonably profitable operations, corporations need to mine the Third World's raw materials, and they need to sell goods and services to people in the Third World.
Take the U.S. as an example. The U.S. has depleted many of its domestic reserves of raw materials, such as petroleum, chromium, cobalt, manganese, nickel, and tin, among others.[4] Therefore, it is important for U.S. corporations to be free to extract such materials from Third World countries and ship them elsewhere. Furthermore, the U.S. produces far more food each year than Americans can eat. So agribusiness corporations need to "open new markets" in the rest of the world to sell our excess production, competing head-to-head with local farmers abroad.[5] When foreign governments are reluctant to import hormone-treated meat, or genetically-modified corn oil from the U.S., our agribusiness corporations insist that those governments are restricting their corporate freedoms and they turn to the WTO to whittle those governments down to size.
And of course the U.S. is not alone in this need: Japan, Canada, and the European Union (EU) have exhausted many of their own raw materials and/or have built excess capacity, so they too need access to the mineral reserves and markets of the Third World.
The WTO has established numerous ground rules that facilitate extraction and marketing in Third World countries. Under WTO rules,
(1) governments are not allowed to pass laws that favor local firms and discriminate against foreign-owned corporations;
(2) governments are not allowed to prevent foreign nationals from buying a controlling interest in local companies;
(3) governments are not allowed to subsidize domestic industries. For example, Canada is considering asking the WTO to outlaw the U.S. food stamp program because Canada views the U.S. program as a government subsidy to U.S. farmers. (Food stamps create a market for food among poor people that would not exist in a true LAISSEZ FAIRE economy).[6,pg.164] For its part, the U.S. is demanding that the WTO outlaw subsidies to farmers in many European countries. These various claims before the WTO may seem contradictory, but they all serve to weaken governments, thus enhancing the freedom of corporations. That is the key idea that elucidates the purpose and behavior of the WTO.
(4) The WTO's tariff schedules provide for rising tariff rates as value is added to a product. A tariff is a tax on imported goods. The lowest tariff rate is set for a raw material. The tariff rate increases for processed and manufactured goods.[6,pg.137] Thus, furniture manufactured from local timber in a Third World country faces a relatively high tariff when it is imported into a developed country. On the other hand, raw logs exported from a developing country face a relatively low tariff when they cross the border into a developed country. Thus the WTO's tariff schedule promotes policies of "rip and ship" in Third World countries, and discourages those countries from manufacturing. These WTO tariff schedules can be viewed as a way of "recolonizing" nations that had won political freedom in recent decades.
(5) Governments are not allowed to pass laws that would provide favorable terms of trade to particular trading partners. For example, through the Lome Convention the European Union (EU) created favorable terms of trade for some of its former colonies in Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific. Now this arrangement has been successfully overturned by the WTO.
The EU agreed to buy 8% of all its bananas from Caribbean countries. These banana sales are crucial to the economies of some of the Caribbean nations involved. For example, in the Windward Island nations of St. Lucia, Dominica, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, 94% of all banana exports go to the EU and bananas account for 63% to 91% of all export earnings. Caribbean bananas are grown on small family farms set on hilly terrain, so they are more costly than bananas grown by low-wage labor on huge Central American plantations.
The Chiquita company -- a U.S. firm which produces no bananas in the U.S. but employs thousands of people at rock-bottom wages on plantations in Colombia, Costa Rica, Honduras and Panama -- supplies 50% of the EU's banana imports each year. But Chiquita wanted even more market share, so the corporation donated $500,000 to the U.S. Democratic Party. A few days later the Clinton/Gore administration filed a complaint with the WTO on behalf of Chiquita.
St. Lucia and St. Vincent did not have local experts they could send to Geneva, Switzerland to argue their case before the WTO, so they hired outside counsel to represent them. The WTO ruled that only official government representatives -- not hired experts -- could appear before WTO tribunals. So St. Lucia and St. Vincent were unrepresented in the WTO proceedings.
To no one's surprise, the WTO ruled in favor of the U.S. The EU initially refused to comply with the WTO ruling, insisting it had a right and a moral duty to aid its former colonies by providing a market for their bananas.
Chiquita then donated $350,000 to the Republican Party and the Republican-dominated Congress prepared legislation to impose tariffs on goods imported from the EU as punishment for refusing to comply with the WTO's ruling. Not to be outdone by the Republicans in currying favor with corporations, the Clinton/- Gore administration then pressured the EU into revoking its Lome Convention preferences for Caribbean bananas.
The Caribbean nations that produce bananas are democratic countries with long-established traditions of human and worker rights. They have been good friends to the United States. Now their economies have been devastated and destabilized by "globalized free trade," basically sacrificed on the alter of LAISSEZ FAIRE economics and corporate freedoms.
ADHD AND CHILDREN'S ENVIRONMENT
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects somewhere between 10% and 15% of all school children in the U.S. (1.8 million to 2.7 million children). The estimate is uncertain because the behavior of children can be erratic under the best of circumstances and therefore the disorder is not simple to diagnose. Indeed, many cases are thought to go undiagnosed.[1,2]
According to recent estimates, as many as 1.5 to 2 million children in the U.S. diagnosed with ADHD are currently taking Ritalin (methylphenidate hydrochloride), a prescription drug with cocaine-like characteristics, to calm them down and/or help them focus their attention.[1,pg.1;2,pg.3] In 1997, more than 10 tons of Ritalin were ingested by U.S. children to control ADHD. It was recently found that Ritalin causes liver cancer in mice (though not in rats), so the long-term consequences of Ritalin use by millions of children need to be considered.[2,pgs.13-14]
Much evidence suggests that the ADHD problem is growing. Last month, at a medical conference devoted to the disorder, the organizers of the conference estimated that occurrence of ADHD among children in the U.S. is doubling every 3 to 4 years.[3] The use of Ritalin quadrupled between 1990 and 1997.[1,pg.1]
Children with ADHD often continue the symptoms into adulthood, with unhappy consequences for job performance. According to one 1997 estimate, somewhere between 6.5 million and 9 million adults in the U.S. have ADHD -- making it as large a problem as clinical depression or drug abuse. In 1997, about 730,000 adults in the U.S. were taking Ritalin by prescription for ADHD.[4]
The causes of ADHD are not known, but they are thought to be a combination of hereditary predisposition and environmental factors. Research in recent years has focused on prenatal exposures to agents such as lead, cigarette byproducts, and alcohol. Since the 1970s, researchers have been studying the effects of certain foods and food additives such as dyes and colorings; over the past 25 years, 16 out of 23 studies have found that food additives exacerbate the symptoms of ADHD in some children.[2] Poor diet (malnutrition) undoubtedly contributes to ADHD.[2,pgs.23,37] Most recently, research has implicated pesticides and exposure to low levels of industrial chemicals that may interfere with hormones, especially thyroid.[2,pgs.53,59] Obviously, combinations of all these factors could be important.
ADHD was first identified as a specific disorder in 1902. The definition of the disorder has changed over time. In 1902, George Still described 43 children with aggression, defiance, emotionality, limited sustained attention, and deficient rule-governed behavior. From the 1930s to the 1950s, the term "minimal brain damage" was used to describe the syndrome, even though there was no evidence of brain damage in most of the children so labeled. During the late 1950s, hyperactivity began to dominate the description of the disorder and the official name was changed to "hyperkinetic reaction of childhood" or hyperkinesis. The use of stimulant drugs, like Ritalin and amphetamines, to treat ADHD began in the 1960s. (Some drugs that act as stimulants or "speed" in most adults can have a calming effect in children and even in some adults.) In the 1970s, researchers considered inatten- tion as central to the syndrome, and it became officially known as attention deficit disorder or ADD. In the 1980s and 1990s, the combination of attention deficits and hyperactivity have both been highlighted, thus the current name, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).5
The DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS IV, published by the American Psychiatric Association, describes 3 patterns of behavior that may indicate ADHD: consistent inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsive behavior, or combinations of these three behaviors.
Signs of inattention include:
(1) the person fails to give close attention to details or makes careless mistakes in schoolwork, work, or other activities;
(2) the person has difficulty sustaining attention in tasks or play activities;
(3) the person often does not seem to listen when spoken to;
(4) the person often does not follow through on instructions and fails to finish schoolwork, chores, or duties in the workplace;
(5) the person often has trouble organizing tasks and activities;
(6) the person avoids or dislikes or is reluctant to engage in tasks that require sustained mental effort;
(7) the person often loses things necessary for tasks or activities, such as pencils or tools;
(8) the person is easily distracted by extraneous stimuli -- the honk of a car's horn, or a bird flying by.
A person with 6 or more of these inattention symptoms for more than six months might be a candidate for an ADHD diagnosis.
Signs of hyperactivity and impulsiveness include:
(1) feeling restless, often fidgeting with hands or feet, or squirming in a seat;
(2) running or climbing excessively at inappropriate times;
(3) leaving a seat early in the classroom or in other situations;
(4) the person has difficulty engaging in leisure activities quietly;
(5) the person is often "on the go" or acting as if driven by a motor;
(6) the person often talks excessively;
(7) the person blurts out answers before hearing the whole question;
(8) the person has difficulty waiting in line or for a turn;
(9) the person often interrupts or intrudes on others.
A person with 6 or more of these hyperactivity symptoms for more than six months might be a candidate for an ADHD diagnosis.
Because everyone exhibits some of these behaviors from time to time, the DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL specifies additional guidelines for determining when they indicate ADHD:
(1) Some of the behaviors must have begun early in life, before age 7;
(2) In children the behaviors must be more pronounced than in others the same age;
(3) Above all, the behaviors must create a real handicap in at least two areas of a person's life, such as school, home, work, or social settings. So, for example, a child would not be diagnosed with ADHD if he or she seems overly active at school but functions well elsewhere.
Studies of identical twins reveal that environmental factors contribute significantly to ADHD. It is not known whether environmental factors can cause ADHD in an otherwise normal person, or whether environmental factors only exacerbate ADHD among those who are genetically predisposed. In either case, people with ADHD often do poorly in school (many drop out early), have low self-esteem, and have difficulty making connections with other people. People with ADHD are often described as messy, disorganized, inattentive, irritable, and aggressive. Because their lives can be frustrating and unrewarding, some ADHD sufferers may become hostile and even violent. In May of this year, T.J. Solomon, 15, shot six of his schoolmates at Heritage High School in Conyers, Georgia, a suburb of Atlanta.[6] At the time, the Solomon boy was taking prescription Ritalin for ADHD.
Malnutrition can trigger ADHD, and large numbers of U.S. children are malnourished. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) publishes "recommended daily allowances" (or RDAs) for various nutrients. USDA considers that RDAs exceed the average nutritional requirements of average people; a person is assumed to be malnourished if he or she receives less than 60% of an RDA for a particular nutrient. Notably, the number of U.S. children consuming less than 50% of RDAs has been reported as follows: vitamin A (9%); vitamin E (15%); vitamin C (6%); calcium (7%); and zinc (6%).[7] There are roughly 18 million children in the U.S., so these percentages represent large numbers of malnourished individuals. These percentages may even be somewhat optimistic; many scientists consider RDAs inadequate measures of nutritional status because nutritional requirements vary considerably from one individual to the next, so averages may be misleading. Furthermore, the chemical form of a nutrient is important but is often not considered in typical assessments of nutrient status.[8]
There is considerable evidence that food dyes can worsen the symptoms of ADHD in some children, but government authorities deny the evidence. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has published a pamphlet called FOOD COLOR FACTS which states that "there is no evidence that food color additives cause hyperactivity or learning disabilities in children." The pamphlet, though published by the FDA, was actually written by the International Food Information Council, a trade association representing many makers of food additives including General Mills, Kraft, Procter and Gamble, Pepsi-Cola, Coca Cola, Monsanto (maker of aspartame), and Ajinomoto (maker of monosodium glutamate).[2,pg.25] To make the statement that there is no evidence that food dyes cause hyperactivity or learning disabilities in children, the FDA had to ignore 16 double-blinded studies that have shown that food dyes do worsen the symptoms of ADHD in some children.[2] (A double-blinded study is one in which neither the participants, nor those observing and recording the children's behavior, know which children have been exposed to food dyes and which have not, the purpose being to avoid bias.)
In 1976, a study of U.S. children between the ages of 6 and 11 found they ingested an average of 76 milligrams of food dyes per day (mg/day). Ten percent of those studied ingested twice that amount, or 146 mg each day. Since that time, the quantity of food dyes manufactured per person in the U.S. has increased 50%.[2,pg.11]
At a time when Americans are searching for causes of aggression and violence among children, it would make sense to consider malnutrition, food additives, tobacco additives, toxic metals, pesticides and other endocrine-disrupting industrial toxicants -- all of which many U.S. children are exposed to from the moment of conception onward.
NEXT PAGE -->
|
| * * * COMPANIES & PRODUCTS * * * |
|---|
| * * * IN-HOUSE RESOURCES * * * |
|---|