>Yes, and we in Canada should do the same to Ethyl, eh? > >They set the precedent that will now serve Methanex. > >See: http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/ethyl.htm > > >Edward Beggs, BES, MSc >www.biofuels.ca
How about Gerber? ... Chiefly because of this false advertising, according to UNICEF, 1.5 million infants die each year because their mothers unwittingly prepare infant formula with contaminated water, causing fatal diarrhea. During the 1970s, a world-wide grass-roots campaign focused attention on this problem, boycotting products made by Nestle, a major manufacturer of infant formula. Partly because of the Nestle boycott, the World Health Organization (WHO) developed and published a Code on Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes. The WHO code prohibits words like "humanized breastmilk" and "equivalent to breastmilk." Furthermore, to protect illiterate women from being duped, the WHO code prohibits pictures on labels "that idealize the use of bottle feeding." In 1983, Guatemala passed a law and regulations incorporating the WHO code. The goal of the Guatemalan government was to encourage new mothers (1) to breast-feed their infants and (2) to fully understand the threats to their babies of using infant formula as a substitute for breast milk. The Guatemalan law prohibited the use of labels that associated infant formula with a healthy, chubby baby; specifically, the law prohibited pictures of idealized babies on packages of baby food intended for children younger than 2 years. Furthermore, the Guatemalan law required labels to carry a statement that breast-feeding is nutritionally superior. The law also prohibited baby food manufacturers from providing free samples of their products (if a baby starts taking free samples the mother stops lactating, thus converting mother and infant into full-time, paying customers). And finally the law prohibited baby food manufacturers from directly marketing their products to young mothers in the hospital. The regulations went into effect in 1988 and all domestic and foreign manufacturers of baby foods -- with one notable exception -- came into compliance. Infant deaths attributable to bottle feeding declined, and UNICEF began highlighting Guatemala as a model for what works. However, the U.S. baby food manufacturer, Gerber (motto: "Babies Are Our Business"), objected to Guatemala's new law. Although the Guatemalan Ministry of Health made numerous attempts to negotiate with Gerber, the company reportedly continued to market its infant formula directly to mothers in the hospital, and continued to give free samples to doctors and day care centers. Most importantly Gerber refused to remove its trademark picture of a chubby, smiling baby from its product labels, and it refused to add a phrase saying breast milk was superior. In sum, Gerber thumbed its nose at Guatemalan health authorities, who were trying to protect their most vulnerable citizens, infants, against harm. In November, 1993 -- ten years after Guatemala passed its law, and five years after its regulations went into effect -- Gerber lost its final appeal. A Guatemalan Administrative Tribunal ruled in favor of the Ministry of Health and it looked as though even Gerber would have to comply with the Guatemalan law. But Gerber opened a new line of attack on Guatemala, arguing that the Guatemalan law was illegal under international statutes because the law was really an "expropriation of Gerber's trademark." This tactic bought Gerber some time while the World Trade Organization was being created. Then in 1995, when the WTO came into being, Gerber dropped its claim about illegal expropriation of its trademark and began threatening to challenge Guatemala before a WTO tribunal. Within a short time, Guatemala realized it was now up against immense power and the Guatemalan government changed its law to allow Gerber to have its way. Gerber won without ever having to formally request that the U.S. take its case to the WTO. Just a few letters containing the WTO threat were sufficient. [more] http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/bulletin.cfm?Issue_ID=1646&bulletin_ID=48 Rachel's Weekly #677 - Corporate Rights vs. Human Need, November 18, 1999 etc etc etc - not NAFTA indeed, NAFTA's big brother (everybody's!!), but so what if you die of cancer or Parkinson's disease (MMT) or dishonest advertising? You're dead anyway. Keith >on 4/30/02 1:45 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] >wrote: > > > Hello Keith and everybody > > > > I read the links you sent, it kinda leaves a man speechless. > > Wouldn't you think that California could counter sue Methanex for >the cost of > > cleaning up the pollution and for endangering human lives. >Couldn't Menthanex > > be held accountable for what it's chemical did to the enviroment. > > > > George > > > > > > > > Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Hello George > >> > >> Good points you make. The company's called Methanex. Here's some >background: > >> > >> http://ens-news.com/ens/sep2001/2001L-09-07-09.html > >> NAFTA used to challenge environmental laws - September 7, 2001 > >> > >> http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011015&c=1&s=greider > >> The Right and US Trade Law: Invalidating the 20th Century - >October 15, 2001 > >> > >> http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12233 > >> Trading Democracy - January 15, 2002 > >> > >> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-000009237feb06.story?coll=la-headli > >> nes-business > >> Ban on MTBE Induces Suit Using NAFTA Provision - February 6, 2002 > >> > >> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101020325-218330,00.html > >> Toxic Trade? A Canadian chemical firm says California's pollution > >> controls violate NAFTA rules - Mar. 25, 2002 (Access ain't free.) > >> > >> Best > >> > >> Keith > >> > >>> I heard sometime back that the company that made MTBE was going to > >>> sue the state of California because they had banned MTBE. This was > >>> a Canadian company and that the MTBE ban was in violation of the > >>> NAFTA agreement. I would take this to mean that MTBE is imported > >>> from Canada. California Senator Feinstein says the ethanol provision > >>> in the energy bill will cause a gasoline price skyrocket in > >>> California because the state will not be able to ship in enought > >>> ethanol to meet needs. Why is it any easier to meet MTBE needs from > >>> Canada than ethanol from the Midwest. > >>> > >>> Or maybe MTBE is manufactured in state. If plants to produce MTBE > >>> can be constructed to make MTBE in large enought quanities, then why > >>> not ethanol plants. California is one of the largest milk > >>> produceing states in America so apparently they have cows. If they > >>> have cows then they should have some cow feed, right. That should > >>> be about all that is needed to produce ethanol. > >>> > >>> Or maybe a little closer to the truth. Everybody knows that the > >>> American government is in bed with big oil. Maybe Feinstein and the > >>> N.Y. senators as well, are simply coming up with every excuse they > >>> can to protect their true interests. Apparently big oil own some > >>> Democrats as well as all Republicans. The hell with America, the > >>> hell with California and New York, these people are just out to do > >>> what is best for themselves. Typicial politicians. > >>> > >>> I read somewhere that for every million dollars we spend to buy > >>> foreign products we lose so many jobs in the US. I forget the > >>> numbers but it was staggering how many jobs are lost because of > >>> America's dependence on foreign oil. I would have to think that > >>> this would include MTBE from Canada as well. The people who wrote > >>> this report didn't say just jobs in the Midwest or on the coasts. > >>> Just that they were American jobs. Even if it was only produced in > >>> the Midwest it would be good for the whole country. > >>> > >>> George > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Why are there no ethanol plants in NY,CA? does nothing grow in these > >>>> states???? Do they not have ports to import "cheap" corn to make ETOH? > >>>> Does California produce all their own dino-fuel, or did they support > >>>> building a pipeline down from Alaska. > >>>> > >>>> I think there ought to be an added tax on any Ethanol shipped out of > >>>> a state else the people that paid for these plants are not going to > >>>> realize the cost savings of local production. Why doesn't CA have > >>>> enough ethanol plants, the Federal Gov't has been begging and paying > >>>> for them for a while and its only getting better. > >>>> > >>>> Come on "Coasties" put on your thinking caps and figure out ways to > >>>> make ethanol and biodiesel and get with the program. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/k6cvND/n97DAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
