In light of the current financial crisis facing the world, there are probably few that need additional proof of the dangers of unfettered capitalism, given the propensity of many corporations for greedy and immoral behaviour. Nonetheless, there is yet another sobering reminder of this truth in today’s Globe and Mail story about Dow Chemical’s (of Bhopal infamy) apparent intention to seek financial compensation from Canada over the fact that two provinces, Quebec and Ontario, have banned the widely used pesticide 2-4-D for cosmetic applications. Chapter 11 of the NAFTA agreement gives corporations the right to seek financial compensation if their businesses are hurt by a government’s exercise of its sovereignty, in this case the provinces’ efforts to protect the health of its citizens.
The story is reproduced here:
MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT AND LUKE ERIC PETERSON
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
October 22, 2008 at 1:12 AM EDT
Dow AgroSciences is considering using the controversial investor-protection provisions of the North American free-trade agreement to seek compensation from the federal government over Quebec's ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides.
The company, a maker of the weed-killer 2,4-D, filed a notice of intent to submit a claim to arbitration under NAFTA in late August. The 27-page legal action was posted yesterday on the Foreign Affairs website, where it is listed as a dispute to which Canada is a party.
In its notice, Dow says the Quebec ban outlawing the use of bug and weed sprays for merely appearances' sake around homes breaches legal protections owed by Canada to U.S. investors under the trade agreement.
NAFTA has provisions, known as Chapter 11, that restrict the ability of a country to take measures “tantamount to nationalization or expropriation” of an investment from a firm from another NAFA member. Besides Canada, the United States and Mexico are in the trade pact.
The Indianapolis-based company, whose 2,4-D is a standard ingredient in many commercial weed sprays, is seeking compensation of not less than $2-million, plus legal costs and yet-to-be specified damages.
Dow's legal brief accuses the Quebec government of implementing a pesticide ban that “is not based on science” and was applied to 2,4-D “without providing any meaningful opportunity” for the company to make its case that the herbicide is safe.
Quebec instituted its pesticide ban in 2006, and Dow's action could have wide-ranging impacts. Ontario has recently adopted a similar measure, as have many municipalities, based on a precautionary public-health approach of minimizing exposures to these chemicals.
Although pesticide bans are spreading in Canada, the degree of health risk posed by the sprays is highly contentious. While such respected groups as the Canadian Cancer Society have argued in favour of bans, Health Canada says the pesticides it allows on the market are safe, if used as directed.
Ironically, Health Canada issued its assessment backing the safety of 2,4-D in May, shortly after Ontario said it would follow Quebec's lead by banning the lawn and garden chemicals.
The Dow claim is the latest in a long string of disputes to arise under Chapter 11 – a legal back-channel that permits foreign investors to detour local courts and sue the federal government before an international tribunal.
Foreign Affairs lists nine active arbitrations to which Canada has been named as a party.
The government is defending against a similar Chapter 11 claim filed by another U.S.-based chemical producer over lindane, a suspected carcinogen banned or no longer used in many countries. When Canada moved to end the use of the fungicide on seed treatments, U.S.-based Chemtura Corp. sued for $100-million in damages. That arbitration is going on behind closed doors.
Many of the NAFTA Chapter 11 actions have been based on complaints that pollution regulations harm business, raising concerns that companies are trying to use the trade treaty to stop governments from taking actions to protect public health or the environment.
Kathleen Cooper, a senior researcher with the Canadian Environmental Law Association, says that the Quebec ban is backed by medical and environmental organizations, and enjoys wide support in public-opinion surveys. She says she is troubled that chemical producers can invoke NAFTA in an effort to “undermine the decisions of democratically elected governments.”
Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental Defence, says Dow is “quite transparently” trying to stop pesticide bans from spreading around the country and he predicts the company will face a public backlash for its position.
But Dow, in its submission, says Quebec has consistently ignored decisions supporting as safe the continued use of 2,4-D from Health Canada and other regulators.
Showing posts with label corporate practices. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corporate practices. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Friday, February 1, 2008
Wal-Town – A Documentary Recommendation
Wal-Town – A Documentary Recommendation
In 2004 and 2005, a group of young activists toured Canada, their goal being to inform people and perhaps change their attitude about Walmart’s presence in their community. While their mission was not altogether successful, and the first part of the film has a rather sluggish pace, probably owing to the frustrating indifference with which they are largely met, the film succeeds because of the questions the viewer is left to ponder.
By now, probably everyone knows some of the reasons many people oppose the Walmart behemoth:
• Its predatory pricing that has forced a host of manufacturers to move offshore to meet the cost expectations of their biggest buyer.
• Its use of suppliers who regularly abuse human rights and exploit child labor
• Its monumental efforts to prevent the unionization of its employees
• Its driving out of small businesses that often have a very long history in the community
• Its refusal to pay decent wages to its ‘associates’
The film doesn’t shy away from what attracts people to the store – low prices – and the fact that a cross section of people, not just those on limited income, finds ways to stretch their dollars by shopping there. Also, as one of the young activists says, people are not affected emotionally by references to such practices as sweatshop and child labor, since they don’t know anyone personally involved in such exploitation.
However the documentary’s strongest moments occur when some fundamental questions are asked. For example, why can’t a corporation that, if it were a country would be the 22nd largest in the world, choose to share with its workers a tiny amount of its many billions of dollars of profits instead of providing them what is essentially minimum wage, no benefits, and largely part-time employment? Such questions in turn force some of us, especially the more affluent, to question whether our pursuit of bargain pricing is worth encouraging such business models. It was such a question that I asked myself about five years ago after being educated about Walmart by two of my colleagues. Although I claim no special virtue, it was at that point I decided not to patronize the store any longer. This despite the fact that there are few people who enjoy a bargain more than I do.
And yet the purpose of the Wal-Town campaign was not so much to encourage a boycott as it was to educate people, with the ultimate goal, I assume, of bringing consumer scrutiny and pressure to bear on the corporation. Indeed, the documentary really invites us to ask how we define ourselves. Are we consumers first, and citizens second? If not, then we should be mindful of such democratic rights as freedom of association, which includes the right to form a union, simply a banding together of people to try to ensure better wages and working conditions for the collective.
Perhaps one of the most poignant moments of the film is the closing of the Jonquiere, Quebec Walmart as a direct result of a successful union drive. Such a move was an obvious ploy to send a strong chill throughout the Walmart chain to discourage further indulgences in democratic rights. In fact, in December of 2005 the company was found guilty by the Quebec labour board of closing the store to avoid dealing with the unionized workers, not because it was losing money as it had claimed. Compensation for the illegally fired workers was pending.
This is a film that definitely deserves your consideration. Should you wish further information on Wal-Town, or more information on Walmart’s practices, I recommend the following three sites:
http://www.uberculture.org/waltown
http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/facts/
http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/stores3.html
In 2004 and 2005, a group of young activists toured Canada, their goal being to inform people and perhaps change their attitude about Walmart’s presence in their community. While their mission was not altogether successful, and the first part of the film has a rather sluggish pace, probably owing to the frustrating indifference with which they are largely met, the film succeeds because of the questions the viewer is left to ponder.
By now, probably everyone knows some of the reasons many people oppose the Walmart behemoth:
• Its predatory pricing that has forced a host of manufacturers to move offshore to meet the cost expectations of their biggest buyer.
• Its use of suppliers who regularly abuse human rights and exploit child labor
• Its monumental efforts to prevent the unionization of its employees
• Its driving out of small businesses that often have a very long history in the community
• Its refusal to pay decent wages to its ‘associates’
The film doesn’t shy away from what attracts people to the store – low prices – and the fact that a cross section of people, not just those on limited income, finds ways to stretch their dollars by shopping there. Also, as one of the young activists says, people are not affected emotionally by references to such practices as sweatshop and child labor, since they don’t know anyone personally involved in such exploitation.
However the documentary’s strongest moments occur when some fundamental questions are asked. For example, why can’t a corporation that, if it were a country would be the 22nd largest in the world, choose to share with its workers a tiny amount of its many billions of dollars of profits instead of providing them what is essentially minimum wage, no benefits, and largely part-time employment? Such questions in turn force some of us, especially the more affluent, to question whether our pursuit of bargain pricing is worth encouraging such business models. It was such a question that I asked myself about five years ago after being educated about Walmart by two of my colleagues. Although I claim no special virtue, it was at that point I decided not to patronize the store any longer. This despite the fact that there are few people who enjoy a bargain more than I do.
And yet the purpose of the Wal-Town campaign was not so much to encourage a boycott as it was to educate people, with the ultimate goal, I assume, of bringing consumer scrutiny and pressure to bear on the corporation. Indeed, the documentary really invites us to ask how we define ourselves. Are we consumers first, and citizens second? If not, then we should be mindful of such democratic rights as freedom of association, which includes the right to form a union, simply a banding together of people to try to ensure better wages and working conditions for the collective.
Perhaps one of the most poignant moments of the film is the closing of the Jonquiere, Quebec Walmart as a direct result of a successful union drive. Such a move was an obvious ploy to send a strong chill throughout the Walmart chain to discourage further indulgences in democratic rights. In fact, in December of 2005 the company was found guilty by the Quebec labour board of closing the store to avoid dealing with the unionized workers, not because it was losing money as it had claimed. Compensation for the illegally fired workers was pending.
This is a film that definitely deserves your consideration. Should you wish further information on Wal-Town, or more information on Walmart’s practices, I recommend the following three sites:
http://www.uberculture.org/waltown
http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/facts/
http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/stores3.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
