ATS: U.S. Administration's Plan To Thwart Chemical Laws

E-mails and memos brought to light by a congressional investigation have helped reveal the extent of a Bush administration plot to undermine the European Union�s new regulations covering the use of toxic chemicals in industry.


Sunday Herald

US officials talked of how to �target� the UK, how to �get to� the president of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, and how to �take on� the Environment Commissioner, Margot Wallstrom. They also wanted to �neutralise� the environmental arguments of the Swedish and Finnish governments.

Now a report for the senior Democratic Congressman from California, Henry Waxman, has uncovered the Bush administration�s behind-the-scenes campaign against Europe for the chemicals industry. For two years officials from the Secretary of State Colin Powell downwards lobbied countries all over the world to oppose Reach.

�The Bush administration mounted an intense and one-sided campaign to undermine an important environmental initiative,� Waxman told the Sunday Herald.

�The administration did not respect the rights of other nations to act to protect their public health and environment. And I have not received any response from the administration to clarify or explain its lobbying efforts.�


On this, I�m thinking along the same lines as this guy :

�The US�s undemocratic and protectionist meddling in European affairs is outrageous and Tony Blair�s complicity in it is a disgrace. If Bush gets his way we will be stuck with the same old free-for-all system which has poisoned every corner of the planet and contaminated every one of us.�

Some may give the tired old excuses of �harmful to industry� etc but at the end of the day I�m far more concerned with what is harmful to me. This whole thing just stinks of yet another example of the extent of corporate control on this administration and it�s sicking. It's not surprising however, and neither is the strongarming and meddling in other nations affairs.






[Edited on 2-5-2004 by kegs]

[Edited on 2-5-2004 by SkepticOverlord]

I'm not a Bush fan anymore, but, after reading the Herald article, the whole thing sounds pretty thin to me. Where's the investigative work that was done prior to the story. And Waxman, he's not on the short list for exceptional credibility. The writer of the Herald's story is their Environment Editor. Giime a break, a story this big would be handled by the real pros at the paper.

Besides, we've all seen what kind of sway Bush has with the EU. This Heralds story's not worth the time it takes to read it.



[Edited on 2-5-2004 by CommonSense]

I guess they were worried that if the laws took place in Europe it would affect exports from the US and the laws may have eventually extended to the US.

I know the US challenged an EU law that would have affected the American beef industry, they were banning the import of beef from cattle treated with hormones that are linked to cancer. They won the WTO case and imposed sanctions on the EU for not meeting its rulings.

It seems like BS but in this global economy, one countries regulations can affect another countries economy.



[Edited on 2-5-2004 by AceOfBase]

Originally posted by CommonSense Giime a break, a story this big would be handled by the real pros at the paper.

Besides, we've all seen what kind of sway Bush has with the EU. This Heralds story's not worth the time it takes to read it.

It doesn't seem like the story is false to me.
Here's an article from Chemical & Engineering News:

The Bush Administration has lobbied heavily on behalf of the U.S. chemical industry, pushing the EU to modify REACH. But far more influential than the U.S. lobbying effort, Wallstr�m said, have been detailed suggestions from the European chemical industry, especially German companies, on ways to improve REACH.

pubs.acs.org...


[Edited on 2-5-2004 by AceOfBase]

Commonsense, whatever you think, the Herald wouldn't have printed the story if they didn't think it was based in fact. The overall story isn't new, just the E-mails and memos that have emerged so that�s probably why it isn't �front page� material.
Here's a couple more anyway that I could quickly find without subscriptions:

International Herald Tribune
KTOK
Christian Science Monitor

Ace of Base, I agree Laws and regulations in one area can affect another, but these regulations were for the regulation of dangerous substances and for protecting the health of people in Europe, which were attacked by the U.S to protect their own corporate interests. I doubt if the situation were reversed Americans would be too happy. As I said I�m more concerned for my own and other peoples health and for some strange reason can�t really work up much sympathy for faceless conglomerates. Anyway, The more alarming part of the story is how the U.S went about achieving their aims.


[Edited on 2-5-2004 by kegs]

Originally posted by kegs
Commonsense, whatever you think, the Herald wouldn't have printed the story if they didn't think it was based in fact. [Edited on 2-5-2004 by kegs]

I guess the National Enquirer would say the same thing... "wouldn't have printed the story if they didn't think it was based in fact."

Let's use a little common sense. Waxman is about as biased as you can get. He certainly doesn't come to the table with clean hands.

The Herald's story is still as thin as it was after your first post. Nothing's changed. As for me, I don't like Bush. But the fact is, I'm not going to let that bias cloud my judgement to everything else I evaluate.

If I did that I'd be nothing more than a democratic moron or a blind follower of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft & Co.

What's the ATS motto? Deny Ignorance!



[Edited on 2-5-2004 by CommonSense]

The Herald is about as far away from the National Enquirer as you can get. It's a multi award winning paper (just won newspaper of the year again a couple of days ago) and is by far the best paper in the U.K, IMO. It's one of the few papers I respect so when I say they wouldn't have printed it without knowing the facts it's not out of gullibility.

Don't get me wrong, I don't blindly take one version of a story over another, but these e-mails and memos are just really adding credence to the stories of what a lot of people thought was going on anyway. I don't know much about this Waxman guy, but the report states the memos and e-mails were uncovered by a congressional investigation (albeit commissioned by him), and the rest of the story is pretty well known.

I'm curious as to what exactly about the stories you find erroneous? If you take out the opinions (which is always the best idea) of Waxman and the rest there Is still plenty to be concerned about IMO.