Re: Support the Anti-Scofflaw Regulation (?)

["Jon Campbell" <jon@cqs.com>]

I agree with Bill Sanjour as well. The idea that Bill Clinton would bar
Monsanto from doing business with the US Government is ludicrous on the face
of it. Monsanto seems to RUN most of the agencies having to do with its new
foray into genetically mutated (so-called "engineered") food. This includes
"lending" of a key Monsanto "scientist" to, for instance, review her own
"study" and a Monsanto lawyer to rewrite (or "reinterpret") the Delaney
Clause. The full force of the US Export Agency and Trade Representative, the
USDA, FDA, and the WTO are all in Monsanto's court. Bill Clinton PERSONALLY
called trade representatives at a recent conference to derail attempts to
require international labeling of genetically engineered grain.

FDA officials ruled that Monsanto's frankenfood (including NOVEL [new, not
natural] protein) was "substantially equivalent" to ordinary cross-bred
grains, OVER THE OBJECTIONS OF FDA SCIENTISTS, so no special testing or
labeling is required. Based on this fake finding, our pro-Monsanto Ag Sec
Dan Glickman ruled that there was no need to separate Monsanto Roundup Ready
Soybean from non-GMO soybeans. Thus it is all mixed at the grain elevator.
So quietly Monsanto and Novartis have contaminated the entire US food supply
with this crap.

Now, considering the story above, you really expect that a scofflaw like
Monsanto is going to be excluded from US Government contracts? That is not
realistic. The anti-scofflaw legislation is either a greenwash or it has
some other sinister use.

Regards
Jon
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Muller <amuller@dca.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list DIOXIN-L <dioxin-l@essential.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 1999 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: Support the Anti-Scofflaw Regulation (?)


> At 01:12 PM 10/5/99 -0400, william sanjour wrote:
>
> >Let me give you a different script, one closer to real experience.
> >Activists campaign on a certain company to gather evidence of its
> >repeated and serious violation of environmental or other laws, and
> >demand contracting officers refuse to contract with the company. The
> >President's men use this demand as leverage to extract contributions and
> >political support from the company, and if they get it they sign a
> >consent agreement where the company promises to sin no more.  End of
> >story.
>
> This, and Mr. Sanjour's previous post (below) rings true to me.  At least,
> I have felt for several years that this sort of mechanism must be common.
> Such a hypothesis fits what I have seen better than more face-value
> interpretations.  In Delaware--where I have a little experience of how the
> political system works--I have suspected that officeholders like a
moderate
> amount of token environmental activism as giving them convenient
> opportunities to get a bit more out of DuPont, Shell, Texaco, ICI, and
etc.
>  If we are going to think along these lines, the great mass of
> corporate-stooge "environmental groups" should be allocated their (large)
> share of the blame.
>
>
>
> Alan
>
> >>  I am very skeptical about this proposed anti-scofflaw regulation.
First
> > > because it would be administered by the same administration that
awards
> > > contracts to the scofflaws in the first place; the same administration
> > > that fails to take enforcement actions against known environmental
> > > lawbreakers; and the same administration that breaks the law itself a
> > > dozen times a day. Secondly it gives discretionary authority to the
> > > administration to choose which companies get punished and which do
not.
> > > Knowing how corrupt and money grubbing the White house can be, this
> > > proposed law gives the President a powerful tool to blackmail
scofflaws
> > > into making big contributions to avoid losing government contracts.
>
>
> > >
>
> "It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in
> our air and water that are doing it."
>
> former Vice-president Dan Quayle
>