NEXT PAGE -->
|
Updated Daily!
| * * * IN-HOUSE RESOURCES * * * |
|---|
May 13, 1999
CLEAN PRODUCTION, PART 1
Over the past decade, a loose-knit group of environmental activists, progressive business people and government officials has developed a new concept for sustainable living. It is called "clean production" and it is an exciting idea because it offers hope in a world of bad news, and it offers activists something to be FOR instead of AGAINST.
Until now, it has not been clear exactly what the phrase "clean production" might mean. Some people speak of "industrial ecology" while others discuss "zero waste systems." Now, FINALLY, a new organization in Canada, called Clean Production Action, has published a first-rate CITIZEN'S GUIDE TO CLEAN PRODUCTION[1] and suddenly everything is clear. Written by Beverley Thorpe, the CITIZEN'S GUIDE tells us what "clean production" is, why it is important, what organizations are working to achieve it, and the main strategies that citizens can pursue at the local level to promote the needed shift to clean production.
Here we are quoting Beverley Thorpe:
What is Clean Production?
Clean Production is not just about producing things in factories in a "clean or cleaner way" as some people think. Instead it is a holistic way of looking at how our design and consumption of products is causing severe ecological problems. Clean production offers a way to reverse our current non-sustainable use of materials and energy.
Clean Production is rooted within circular concepts of product life cycle and
** implements the Precautionary Approach to material selection and system and product design;
** questions the need for products in the first place;
** designs products for durability and reuse;
** minimizes the use of renewable energy, water and raw materials;
** uses non-toxic or safer inputs in production processes;
** re-circulates ecologically safe materials;
** reduces consumption in current material-intensive economies while maintaining quality of life and materials;
** assures sustainable work;
** protects biological and social diversity;
Clean Production ultimately means the use of renewable energy and materials, the minimal use of resources, the design of sustainable products, the production of sustainable food and the generation of waste that is benign and returnable back into the process.
Clean Production begins with a systems look at material flows in society. In particular it looks at the Product Chain: where raw materials come from, how and where they are processed, what wastes are generated along the product chain, what products are made from the materials and what happens to these products during their use and at the end of their commercial life.
It also questions the need for the product itself. Often the service that the product provides can be supplied by other means, using less consumption of materials and energy.
For example, one-use aluminum beverage cans -- even if they are recycled -- are highly energy intensive and displace tons of minerals in bauxite mining compared to refillable glass bottles that are reused on a local basis. Similarly, good reliable public transport is more efficient than cars because it moves more people with the same amount of resources and energy. Better still, we can redesign our systems of habitation to be even more effective. We can design cities and towns to incorporate a mix of residential, commercial and retail service that reduces the need to move from the suburb into the city and back every day.
The Four Elements of Clean Production
According to various definitions developed over the years, there are four main elements that make up the concept of Clean Production:
1. The Precautionary Approach
When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. [See REHW #586.] This places the burden of proof on proponents of an activity to prove there is no safer way of proceeding, rather than on victims or potential victims of the activity to prove it will be harmful.
2. The Preventive Approach
It is cheaper and more effective to prevent environmental damage than to attempt to manage or "cure" it. Prevention requires examining the entire product life cycle from raw material extraction to ultimate disposal. It encourages the exploration of safer alternatives and the development of cleaner products and technologies. For example, prevention requires process and product changes to entirely avoid the generation of incinerable waste streams by designing non-toxic products made from materials that can be safely recycled or composted.
3. Democratic Control
Clean Production involves all those affected by industrial activities, including workers, consumers and communities. Access to information and involvement in decision-making, coupled with power and resources, will help to ensure democratic control. Clean Production can only be implemented with the full involvement of workers and consumers within the product chain.
4. Integrated and Holistic Approach
Society must adopt an integrated approach to environmental resource use and consumption. We need to think in a systems way. For each product we buy, we need to have information accessible about the materials, energy and people involved in making it. Access to this information would help build alliances for sustainable production and consumption. Integration also means taking a holistic approach whereby we don't shift risks between media or the environment and workers or consumers and don't create new problems while addressing an older one (e.g., genetic engineered plants as a replacement for pesticides).
Clean Production Criteria
1. Clean Production systems for food and manufactured products are
** Non-toxic;
** Energy efficient;
** Made using renewable materials which are routinely replenished and extracted in a manner that maintains the viability of the ecosystem and community from which they were taken;
** Made from non-renewable materials previously extracted but able to be reprocessed in an energy efficient and non-toxic manner.
2. The products are
** Durable and reusable;
** Easy to dismantle, repair and rebuild;
** Minimally and appropriately packaged for distribution using reusable or recycled and recyclable materials; or
** compostable at the end of their life.
3. Above all, Clean Production systems
** Are non-polluting throughout their entire life cycle;
** Preserve diversity in nature and culture;
** Support the ability of future generations to meet their needs.
4. The life-cycle includes
** The product/^technology design phase;
** The raw material selection and production phase;
** The product manufacture and assemblage phase;
** The consumer use of the product phase;
** The societal management of the materials at the end of the useful life of the product.
[Now we skip two excellent sections of the CITIZEN'S GUIDE, the 8 reasons why clean production is important, and a brief section describing some key actors in the field of clean production research and advocacy. The CITIZEN'S GUIDE then describes 5 strategies that activists can use:]
1. Measuring Resource Use and Working to Reduce Materials and Waste
Several methods exist for advocates to measure resource and material use that can serve as excellent tools for campaigning for Clean Production. They provide easily understood visual or numerical estimates of unsustainable practices and allow advocates to engage in discussions for change.
Ecological Footprint is one way of measuring the amount of space we need in a year to supply all our material use and absorb all our waste. [See REHW #537 and see https://www.edg.net.mx/- ~mathiswa and related links.] The results are displayed on a map as a "footprint" to show how big an area is needed to provide for the needs/demands of the citizenry of that area Global calculations show that we are consuming over one third more than nature can reproduce. For industrialized countries this rate is even faster. As mentioned earlier, North American consumption and waste generation would necessitate 2 extra planet Earths if the rest of the world copied our production and consumption model.
[The CITIZEN'S GUIDE describes other techniques for measuring just how unsustainable our lifestyles have become, and for determining specific steps we can take to bring them back into line with the constraints of nature.]
2. Consumer Right to Know: Life Cycle Assessments?
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool to holistically evaluate the environmental consequences of a product across its entire life, or from its "cradle to grave." It can be used to support a decision about a purchase, innovation of production processes or product approval. LCA is a method to evaluate the environmental effects associated with any given activity from the initial gathering of raw material from the earth until the point at which all residuals are returned to the earth....
Life cycle assessments are not perfect by any means:
** In some ways the pitfalls of LCAs mirror the pitfalls of attempting to do a "scientifically sound" risk assessment for chemicals. It depends on the assumptions used and the availability of data.
** LCAs never factor in social criteria such as who is impacted and where the materials are extracted or where the product is made. This is seen as too difficult to quantify on top of all the other assumptions necessary in analyzing material and energy flows. Worker and consumer health are included to some degree in environmental assessments of the data.
Why should we demand life cycle assessments? Because
** Public availability of this type of information will promote environmental responsibility on the part of producers leading to process and product innovation and more environmentally sound product design, rather than a simple focus on facility specific impacts.
** It will allow consumers and public interest groups to independently verify environmental claims made by producers to ensure that they are not merely "greenwash."
** It allows us to form new coalitions with people affected along the chain of production, such as trade unions and consumer groups. In particular it allows advocates, as well as producers, and government agencies, to identify hot spots during the life-cycle of a product.
BIOTECH: THE PENDULUM SWINGS BACK
In recent months, opposition to genetically modified (GM) foods has exploded in both Europe and Asia.[1] A powerful consumer/farmer backlash has spread across Europe and the Indian subcontinent, raising eyebrows even in the somnolent U.S.
** In April, the seven largest grocery chains in six European countries made a public commitment to go "GM free" and now they are lining up long-term contracts with growers who can provide GM-free corn, potatoes, soybeans and wheat.
** The Supreme Court of India has upheld a ban on the testing of GM crops even as activists are torching fields suspected of harboring GM plants.
** The third-largest U.S. corn processor, A.E. Staley Co. of Decatur, Illinois, has announced that in 1999 it will refuse to accept genetically modified corn varieties that have not been approved by the European Union. Europeans create a huge market for U.S. crops and the European backlash forces U.S. farmers to think twice about planting GM seeds.
The bellwether event was the announcement last month by seven European supermarket chains that they intend to jointly patronize growers who can deliver food that is 100% free of genetically modified (GM) organisms.[2] Tesco, Safeway, Sainsbury's, Iceland, Marks & Spencer, the Co-op, and Waitrose grocery chains make up the consortium. Last week Unilever, the huge transnational (and aggressive supporter of GM foods), announced it was throwing in the towel and joining the GM-free consortium. One day after Unilever capitulated, the Swiss firm Nestle made the same commitment. The following day Cadbury-Schweppes joined the ranks of the GM-free. It was a complete and unexpected rout for the genetic engineering industry.
According to the London INDEPENDENT, the only major players still supporting GM foods in England are Monsanto Corporation and the Blair government. Just a few months ago, British Prime Minister Tony Blair had told members of parliament that opposition to GM foods would be "a flash in the pan." Now popular support for the Blair government itself has dwindled as opposition to GM foods has swelled. In his last election, Mr. Blair was supported financially by Monsanto, the leading proponent of genetically modified crops (see REHW #637, #638, and #639).
Several factors seem to be at work in Europe:
1) Older people can still remember Nazi eugenics experiments -- Hitler's plan to create a "super race" by genetic selection. As a result, any genetic manipulation of living organisms to produce "super organisms" is suspect.
2) The recent "Mad Cow Disease" scare in England and France -- which has killed several dozen people so far and was brought on by the unnatural practice of feeding cows to cows -- has seriously undermined government credibility and has made Europeans wary of all unnatural farming practices.
3) Many Europeans -- as distinct from many Americans -- care about the taste and nutritional quality of their food and drink. Many Americans seem happy to subsist on french fried potatoes and iceberg lettuce accompanied by huge portions of low-grade, fat-laden beef. Many Europeans consider such fare barbaric.
4) On February 12 of this year, the first tentative evidence of health damage from GM foods emerged. Beginning in 1996, Dr. Arpad Pusztai of the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland had been feeding genetically modified potatoes to rats and observing stunted growth and damaged immune systems, including damage to several major organs (kidney, spleen, thymus and stomach). Dr. Pusztai was a senior scientist at the Rowett Institute, having conducted research there for 35 years, during which time he published 270 scientific papers.
In January, 1998 and again in April, 1998, Dr. Pusztai received permission from Philip James, the director of the Rowett Institute, to speak on British television. Although he is not categorically opposed to genetic engineering, in his April TV appearance, Dr. Pusztai said he would not eat genetically modified foods himself and he said it was "very, very unfair to use our fellow citizens as guinea pigs."
Proponents of genetically modified foods protested loudly against this expression of informed opinion. On the first day of the controversy, Philip James defended Dr. Pusztai's right to speak his mind, but on the second day Mr. James suspended Dr. Pusztai, condemned his research, made him sign a gag order, and forced him to retire.
An audit report by the Rowett Institute in August, 1998, vindicated Dr. Pusztai's research methods. At that point Dr. Pusztai was once again given access to his own research data and he vigorously reconfirmed his original conclusions. Dr. Pusztai's studies have not yet been published, so details remain unknown.
The "Pusztai affair" lay dormant until February 12th of this year when a group of 20 scientists from 13 countries published a manifesto demanding the reinstatement of Dr. Pusztai and expressing support for his tentative conclusions.
Only later was it discovered that the Rowett Institute is partly funded by Monsanto.
The "Pusztai affair" lit a fire of public outrage that has since grown into a raging conflagration.
For its part, Monsanto has admitted that no one knows -- or can know -- what will happen when genetically modified organisms are put directly into the human food chain and are released into the natural environment, as is the case with genetically modified crops. Robert Shapiro, the chief executive officer of Monsanto, said October 28, 1998, "We don't seek controversy, but obviously it has been thrust on us. It is a direct consequence of a role we have chosen. And it is a role which we can blame only ourselves for.... we realize that with any new and powerful technology with unknown, and to some degree unknowable -- by definition -- effects, then there necessarily will be an appropriate level at least, and maybe even more than that, of public debate and public interest."[3]
It is clear that Monsanto's best-laid plans are coming unraveled. In the mid-1980s Monsanto convinced the U.S. government to agree that genetic engineering would not be subject to any new regulations, on the theory that a genetically modified potato is nothing more than a potato. Monsanto contributes bountifully to presidential candidates of both parties, and to key members of Congress who sit on food safety committees. Not surprisingly, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have taken a "hand off" approach to the introduction of this powerful new technology whose consequences are unknown and unknowable. And President Clinton -- who has been amply rewarded by Monsanto at election time -- has named Monsanto's Shapiro a "special trade representative" of the U.S. In sum, the U.S. federal government is forcefully aiding Monsanto as the corporation prepares to conduct a large-scale, uncontrolled experiment on the general public here and abroad.
A key part of the Monsanto strategy was to mix genetically modified foods with traditional foods, and keep them all unlabeled so that no one would know what they were eating. By the time anyone figured out that they were eating "Frankenstein food" -- as it is now known in Europe -- it would be a done deal.
Europeans are now hell-bent on reversing this mixture. As a spokesperson for the Tesco chain of supermarkets in England said recently, "We will remove GM ingredients where we can and label where we can't. In the short and medium term I expect the number of products containing GM ingredients to decline steadily, quite possibly to zero." And Fernanda Fau, a spokesperson for Eurocommerce, the association of European food retail chains said, "...the principle that segregation of GM ingredients is possible has now finally been accepted. We first lobbied for this two years ago and were told it was impossible."
With GM foods identified, labeled and segregated, it will be possible for consumers to exercise choice in the grocery store. Then the future of genetically modified foods will be imperiled by the marketplace. Robert Shapiro has bet the entire future of the Monsanto corporation on unknown and unknowable GM foods, so informed choice by consumers is the company's worst nightmare.
Monsanto's plans have gone awry in the Third World, too. Monsanto planned to introduce its genetically modified seeds accompanied by its patented "technology protection system" which makes the seeds from this year's crop sterile. Critics call Monsanto's seed sterilizing technology "terminator" and "suicide seeds." Wherever suicide seed technology is adopted, farmers will have to go back to Monsanto year after year to buy a new ration of genetically modified seeds.
"By peddling suicide seeds, the biotechnology multinationals will lock the world's poorest farmers into a new form of genetic serfdom," says Emma Must of the World Development Movement. "Currently 80 per cent of crops in developing countries are grown using farm-saved seed. Being unable to save seeds from sterile crops could mean the difference between surviving and going under," she says. "More precisely," says Canadian journalist Gwynne Dyer, "it would speed the consolidation of small farms into the hands of those with the money to engage in industrialized agribusiness -- which generally means higher profits but less employment and lower yields per [unit of land]."[4]
In February in Cartagena, Colombia diplomats from 175 countries met to hammer out a "biosafety protocol" to control the flow of genetically modified organisms across international borders. The U.S. and Canada favored a weak treaty that would not allow any country to prevent the import and release of genetically modified organisms merely to shelter its population from the socio-economic impact of industrialized, capital-intensive forms of farming, or merely on health or environmental grounds.
The "other side" at Cartagena favored a strong treaty that gives countries the right to say no to GM organisms, requires a full study of the effects of GM foods on farmers' livelihoods, as well as health and environmental impacts, and makes biotech companies responsible for the legal and financial consequences if something goes wrong.
The Third World fought Monsanto and the U.S. government to a draw in Cartagena and no biosafety protocol was adopted. But the whole process helped the Third World figure out where it stands on these issues, and this kind of informed, thoughtful deliberation bodes ill for Monsanto's plan for domination of global food supplies.
As Canadian writer Gwynne Dyer sums it up, "The strategy for the high-speed introduction [of genetically modified foods] throughout the world is shaping up as one of the great public-relations disasters of all time. Public suspicion outside North America is reaching crippling proportions, and the reason is not at all mysterious. It is because the biotech firms literally tried to shove the stuff down peoples' throats without giving them either choice or information."[4]
--Peter Montague
NEXT PAGE -->
|
| * * * IN-HOUSE RESOURCES * * * |
|---|