Speaking of cosmetic corporations and speaking of breast cancer. . . A while back I read of studies that drew a connection between deodorant and breast cancer. Most major brands of deodorant contain lead and is it mercury? and since the mammary glands are located close to the armpit, well, you can guess what may happen. As far as I know, these research results were squelched in a large way by those who stood to lose big. The concept makes perfect sense to me -- anyone else? Did anyone else run across those studies as well? The studies must have meant something because several deodorant manufacturers ceased the use of these metals. Still, if you do use regular deodorants, read that label. It is frightening. Natalie >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Nov 1 09:53:14 MST 1994 Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1994 08:58:00 -0800 (PST) From: Faith BarrGlover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Negotiation To: Jayne S Docherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Mon, 31 Oct 1994, Jayne S Docherty wrote: > Speaking of fascism and halloween.... in Virginia we now have the same > Christian right that is advocating the return of school prayer telling us > that we cannot have halloween in the schools because it is a pagan > holiday... I have decided that at the next PTA meeting where they say > they want school prayer I am going to say, "OK, but only if every full > moon and every Thursday the kids pray to the godess and engage in pagan > rituals!" Oh yes!!!! If I had the bucks, I'd want to be there when you do it! Go get 'em. Faith >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Nov 1 11:14:20 MST 1994 Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1994 13:16:35 -0500 (EST) From: Wainwright Joel David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Cancer and Beauty Products To: Natalie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > A while back I read of studies that drew a connection between deodorant and > breast cancer. Most major brands of deodorant contain lead and is it mercury? Aluminum, I believe. Joel >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Nov 1 11:21:25 MST 1994 Date: Tue, 01 Nov 94 13:21:55 EST From: Natalie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Cancer and Beauty Products To: Wainwright Joel David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 1 Nov 1994 13:16:35 -0500 (EST) Yes, Joel, aluminum not mercury. Thanks for the correction. >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Nov 1 15:05:52 MST 1994 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1994 17:08:33 -0500 (EST) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Profit: Good or bad? Jon wrote: >Also, profit IS necessarily bad. Profit is defined in our culture >as taking more resources than you need. Given that we already take too >much from the earth to sustain our activities profit is by definition >destructive. Sure, if you *define* profit this way it looks bad. Who is in favor of taking more than we need? But, what is the definition of need? Are you arguing that the whole world should strive for a subsistence standard of living? If we can do better without harming the environment, why not do it? Profit is nothing more than the measure of how much more one produces over the inputs. In other words, if I can take $1 worth of materials, and change them in some way so that people now value it at more than $1, I have made a profit. What is inherently wrong with that? It looks to me as if I have done a service for myself *and* for others. Who has been harmed? It is, ironically, not profit itself that is harmful, but rather allowing people to make excess profits by not forcing them to account for all the costs they create, especially harm to the environment. No matter how much we of good will try to convince others that they should do what is good for the environment, such as purchase locally grown food, they won't do it unless it is cheaper to do it. This requires making the producers pay for the harm they cause. If, as Amy wrote, we wish to solve the problems of >use of ground- >water to water the animals, the disposal of their feces, the disposal of their >entrails upon slaughter, the amount of land it takes to raise the feed or the >destruction of land by grazing? What about the clear-cutting of rainforest for >cow farming? then we should insist that these activities not show false profits, i.e., profits without all the environmental costs subtracted. >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Nov 1 15:47:30 MST 1994 Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1994 17:49:46 -0500 (EST) From: Wainwright Joel David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Profit: Good or bad? To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > if I can take $1 worth of materials, and change them in some way so that > people now value it at more than $1, I have made a profit. What is inherently > wrong with that? It looks to me as if I have done a service for myself *and* > for others. Who has been harmed? It all depends on the process by which the profit was created. The Marxist argument is that the source of surplus value is human labor, and a problem with capitalism is that the capitalist is driven to pay the workers less than the value of their contribution to the surplus value. I think the same analysis could be applied to the Earth, as others in this discussion group have done. So if one derives profit by taking a commodity and using humans to transform it, while depleting resources which others depend on, I would say there is something wrong. Importantly, I would also argue that the burdon of proof is always on the profiter to show that the profits were gained ethically. Joel >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Nov 1 16:41:18 MST 1994 Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1994 18:43:28 -0500 (EST) From: Jayne S Docherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Profit: Good or bad? To: Wainwright Joel David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Tue, 1 Nov 1994, Wainwright Joel David wrote: > > if I can take $1 worth of materials, and change them in some way so that > > people now value it at more than $1, I have made a profit. What is inherently > > wrong with that? It looks to me as if I have done a service for myself *and* > > for others. Who has been harmed? > > It all depends on the process by which the profit was created. The > Marxist argument is that the source of surplus value is human labor, and a > problem with capitalism is that the capitalist is driven to pay the > workers less than the value of their contribution to the surplus value. > I think the same analysis could be applied to the Earth, as others in > this discussion group have done. So if one derives profit by taking a > commodity and > using humans to transform it, while depleting resources which others depend > on, I would say there is something wrong. Good point! And we need not restrict the "others" to: a) only humans, or b) only the already living. The former caveat takes into account Brian's concern about animals (inhumane production of meat products being a source of profit built upon ... what the surplus value of animal "welfare"... something like that) and the latter takes into account the unacceptability of production for which the environmental "bill" will not come due until some future time -- in which case our grandchildren will be compelled to pay it. > > Importantly, I would also argue that the burdon of proof is always on the > profiter to show that the profits were gained ethically. Absolutely. Does anyone know of profitable "agribusiness" (loosely defined) enterprises which *do* in fact base themselves on ecologically sound (as well as economically just -- for the workers, etc) practices? Are they large scale? Small scale? Or somewhere in between? How does gender play into this? Anyone have research on the role of women in agriculture? It seems to me a lot of large scale agriculture depends on the exploitation of migrant farmworkers as well as the exploitation of the environment. Surely, this has a large impact on women.... Jayne
