"CULTURE OF FEAR" at US Interior Department

Source: Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)
Posted by: Public Employees for Envir. Responsibility - archive
Posted on: Monday, August 2, 2004 at 12:32 PM
Contact: Chas Offutt (202) 265-7337

Agency-wide Survey Shows Wide Expectation of Retaliation & Unfairness

Washington, DC - Workers within the U.S. Department of Interior live
in a "culture of fear" where "hatchet people" mete out punishment
based on office politics, according to an agency-wide survey and
investigative report quietly posted by the agency's Office of
Inspector General (OIG) late last week.

Survey results mirror reports from Interior staff received daily at
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) from
employees ranging from rank and file staff to park superintendents and
other top managers who feel that they cannot disclose problems without
facing retribution.

OIG sent its survey sent out to more than 25,000 employees, including
supervisors, human resource managers and lawyers in agencies such as
the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management and the Fish &
Wildlife Service. Nearly 40% of those who received surveys responded,
with key results including-

· More than one quarter of staff fear retaliation for reporting
problems;

· A solid majority do not see the disciplinary system as being fairly
administered on a consistent basis; and

· Nearly half believe that discipline is taken on the basis of whom
the person knows rather than what they did.

The Department of Interior is engaged in several high-profile cases of
discipline against employees who have spoken out about problems, such
as U.S. Park Police Chief Teresa Chambers. Yet in his transmittal
letter to Interior Secretary Gale Norton, Inspector General Earl
Devaney states without explanation "many, if not most, of our findings
in this report pre-dated your tenure as Secretary." Devaney reports
directly to Secretary Norton. Devaney recommends that steps be taken
to reduce "the fear of reprisal" and to improve the consistency of
disciplinary actions taken.

"The culture of fear in Interior starts at the top," stated PEER
Executive Director Jeff Ruch whose organization's attorneys will be
questioning Secretary Norton and other top Interior officials under
oath later this month in the Chambers case. "The Inspector General
only goes halfway with his report by finding a 'culture of fear' but
refusing to name who the employees fear."

4. And now MORE about the USDA…..

PDF of the full report at this link:
www.agribusinessaccountability.org/page/325/1

http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0723-02.htm FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JULY 23, 2004 10:49 PM CONTACT: Organization for Competitive
Markets
Ben Lilliston (202) 223-3740
John Lockie (406) 698-3043
Mark Smith (617) 354-2922
Philip Mattera (202) 626-3780 ext. 32

USDA Hijacked by Agribusiness

OMAHA - July 23 - A new report released today finds that regulatory
policy at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been
"hijacked" by the agribusiness industry, which has seen to it that
many key policymaking positions at the agency are now held by
individuals who previously worked for the industry.

The report, titled USDA INC., was commissioned by the Agribusiness
Accountability Initiative (AAI), a network of family-farm and
public-interest groups concerned about the growing power of the big
agri-food corporations. It is being released today at a conference in
Omaha sponsored by the Organization for Competitive Markets. The
report can be found online after 9am Eastern Time at
www.agribusinessaccountability.org/page/325/1.

"In its early days, USDA was known as the People's Department," said
Fred Stokes of the Organization for Competitive Markets, which first
proposed the paper. "Today, it is, in effect, the Agribusiness
Industry's Department, since its policies on issues such as food
safety and fair market competition have been shaped to serve the
interests of the giant corporations that now dominate food production
and distribution."

"It is not surprising that USDA is slavishly following the agenda of
agribusiness when you consider who holds many of the top jobs at the
Department," said Philip Mattera, Director of the Corporate Research
Project of Good Jobs First and author of the report. "The upper ranks
of USDA are filled with industry veterans, while people formerly
associated with family-farm, consumer or public-interest groups are
just about nowhere to be found."

In addition to working directly for agribusiness companies such as
ConAgra and Campbell Soup, top USDA officials came to the Department
from industry trade associations (such as the Food Marketing
Institute) and producer groups (such as the National Cattlemen's Beef
Association and the National Pork Producers Council), which are
closely aligned with big processing companies and are partially funded
by them. Even Secretary Ann Veneman, who has spent most of her career
as a public official, has a past industry connection: she served on
the board of directors of Calgene Inc., a biotechnology company that
was later taken over by Monsanto.

"It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that agribusiness has packed
USDA with its people," said Peter O'Driscoll of the Center of Concern,
coordinator and co-sponsor of AAI.

The report illustrates the hijacking of USDA policymaking through five
case studies:

· USDA's refusal to adopt strict safety and testing measures for
bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), despite the appearance of a
case in Washington State last year.

· USDA's refusal to vigorously enforce rules against anti-competitive
practices in the cattle industry, despite the growing tendency of the
big meatpacking companies to force independent ranchers into so-called
captive supply arrangements.

· USDA's promotion of weakened slaughterhouse inspection practices in
the face of a resurgence of health hazards such as E.coli bacteria and
listeria. The Department also continues to promote dubious "solutions"
such as irradiation.

· USDA's continuing boosterism for agricultural biotechnology, despite
a lack of consumer acceptance and the plunge in exports due to
international resistance to genetically modified crops.

· USDA's support for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs),
despite the growing evidence of serious public health effects of these
factory farms. The Department has also supported the misguided policy
of using conservation dollars to subsidize the futile attempts of
CAFOs solve their manure problems.

In each of these cases, the report notes the presence of industry
veterans among the chief officials responsible for adopting or
maintaining these questionable policies.

The report concludes with a set of recommendations on how to begin
loosening the grip of agribusiness on USDA's policies. These include:

· Reappraisal of ethics rules to prevent government officials from
overseeing policies that directly affect the interest of their former
employers;

· Enhancement of Congressional oversight over regulatory appointees;

· Evaluation of whether USDA can continue to serve both as a promoter
of U.S. agricultural products and a regulator of food safety; and

· Further research on revolving-door conflicts of interest at USDA.

Progress on these measures, the report argues, will begin to turn USDA
Inc. back into an arm of government that represents the public
interest.

The report was commissioned by a working group of the Agribusiness
Accountability Initiative. The following working group members helped
research and edit the paper:

Scotty Johnson, Defenders of Wildlife
Ben Lilliston, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
Patty Lovera, Public Citizen
Larry Mitchell, American Corn Growers Association
Peter O'Driscoll, Center of Concern
Mark Smith, Farm Aid
Fred Stokes, Organization for Competitive Markets

Both your posts are political BS. The mercury one is really crap. I've got
more mercury in one tooth in my mouth than 1,000,000 fish combined and I'm
still hear to talk about it. Get serious and tell me what to do with my
hydrangea cuttings
Frank

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 18:01:36 GMT, "Frank Logullo"
wrote:

The mercury one is really crap. I've got
more mercury in one tooth in my mouth than 1,000,000 fish combined and I'm
still hear to talk about it.


Yes, you are, but working with an obviously addled brain! One of the
primary effects mercury on already delusional sub-adults.

In article , remove munged
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 18:01:36 GMT, "Frank Logullo"
wrote:

The mercury one is really crap. I've got
more mercury in one tooth in my mouth than 1,000,000 fish combined and I'm
still hear to talk about it.

Mercury contamination is a growing problem in game fish, but nothing
compared to the growing problem of dioxin, but harmful levels have only
been found in farm-raised fish. A more injurious problem in wild
populations is the growing levels of dioxins that transfer up the
foodchain & is already killing off killer whales & increasing tumors in
sharks; as humans are also at the top of the food chain, we're inheriting
double-doses of dioxins from eating seafoods as well as from
pesticide-dependent crops. Human behaviors provide the source of these
dioxins: chemical pesticides that find their way into rivers, lakes, &
oceans, plus dioxin as byproduct of waste treatment plants pumping
brownwater right into the oceans.

As for tooth fillings....

Mercury fillings require removal of the middle third of the tooth,
weakening the tooth structure by 75%. At some point the repaired tooth
will fracture. So even if it weren't toxic, new modern methods of
composite fillings exist which preserve tooth strength so the tooth can
last a lifetime, as mercury fillings cannot.

Dangerous side-effects of mercury fillings have been documented since the
1840s, but there were "compelling economic reasons" to overlook the high
incidence of tooth loss & sickness. Economic reasons are still the only
reason mercury is still used. In terms of permanancy, better modern
methods are not actually more expensive; the mercury filling will have to
be redone or the tooth removed later in life, so the "more expensive"
composites are a better bargain in the long run. But people aren't
thinking long-term, they're looking at it being done cheaply up-front.
Today fewer & fewer people are getting mercury fillings who are not too
impoverished for better; it is still almost exclusively the filling
welfare dental patients will receive. But no child born today really
needs to be subjected to mercury from fillings for any reason other than
poverty, unless secondarily from mothers who can pass mercury
contamination to neonatal tissue.

Yes, you are, but working with an obviously addled brain! One of the
primary effects mercury on already delusional sub-adults.

"For more than 160 years dentistry has used silver amalgam, which contains
approximately 50% Hg metal, as the preferred tooth filling material.
During the past decade medical research has demonstrated that this Hg is
continuously released as vapor into mouth air; then it is inhaled,
absorbed into body tissues, oxidized to ionic Hg, and finally covalently
bound to cell proteins. Animal and human experiments demonstrate that the
uptake, tissue distribution, and excretion of amalgam Hg is significant,
and that dental amalgam is the major contributing source to Hg body burden
in humans. Current research on the pathophysiological effects of amalgam
Hg has focused upon the immune system, renal system, oral and intestinal
bacteria, reproductive system, and the central nervous system. Research
evidence does not support the notion of amalgam safety." [Lorscheider,
Vimy, & Summer, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, in FASAB
JOURNAL, April 1995]

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

paghat wrote:

In article , remove munged
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 18:01:36 GMT, "Frank Logullo"
wrote:

The mercury one is really crap. I've got
more mercury in one tooth in my mouth than 1,000,000 fish combined and
I'm still hear to talk about it.

Mercury contamination is a growing problem in game fish, but nothing
compared to the growing problem of dioxin, but harmful levels have only
been found in farm-raised fish. A more injurious problem in wild
populations is the growing levels of dioxins that transfer up the
foodchain & is already killing off killer whales & increasing tumors in
sharks; as humans are also at the top of the food chain, we're inheriting
double-doses of dioxins from eating seafoods as well as from
pesticide-dependent crops. Human behaviors provide the source of these
dioxins: chemical pesticides that find their way into rivers, lakes, &
oceans, plus dioxin as byproduct of waste treatment plants pumping
brownwater right into the oceans.

As for tooth fillings....

I asked my dentist about mercury fillings last week when I was having a
tooth filled.

He said that there is a lot of controversy surrounding the use of mercury
filling, many claims by people about mercury poisoning but nothing
substantiated.

He says his own teeth are filled with the mercury filling, and he recommends
the mercury filling for all teeth except where the "smile" is affected!

Obviously he would make more money with the composite filling.

The Hawke

The fact that every lake and river in the United States of
America holds toxic levels of mercury is somewhat old news.

Some Sears stores were given maps detailing the contanimation.
The whole country was marked as contaminated in 1991, and
the Sears store that I worked at was required to keep a warning
handy to show to customers if any customers came in to buy
fishing tackle and inquired about the safety of fishing. If your
local tackle shop or Sears store doesn't have such a map, then
you might want to contact a lawyer and see if you can sue.

--
Jim Carlock
Post replies to the newsgroup.

"remove munged" wrote:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 18:01:36 GMT, "Frank Logullo"
wrote:

The mercury one is really crap. I've got more mercury in one
tooth in my mouth than 1,000,000 fish combined and I'm
still hear to talk about it.

Yes, you are, but working with an obviously addled brain! One of the
primary effects mercury on already delusional sub-adults.

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 18:01:36 GMT, "Frank Logullo"
wrote:

Both your posts are political BS. The mercury one is really crap. I've got
more mercury in one tooth in my mouth than 1,000,000 fish combined and I'm
still hear to talk about it. Get serious and tell me what to do with my
hydrangea cuttings
Frank

WOW! Do you ever read the data from your former employer, Dupont?
Could it be your vested interest that clouds your thinking and
encourages you to cover up the truth by calling it political BS?

Koch won't be responsible for mercury
Invista division sold, not pollution
By Bonnie Naumann/staff





WAYNESBORO -- They'll take the industrial plant, but pass on the
pollution.
When subsidiaries of Koch Industries announced in November it will pay
$4.4 billion for Invista, including the Waynesboro plant, the public
began wondering who would hold responsibility for the mercury
pollution in the South River.
"People wonder if DuPont will keep any responsibility," said Jim
Donovan, president of the Shenandoah Valley chapter of Trout
Unlimited, which stocks the river. "It's something that you really
can't get rid of."
According to Rick Straitman, corporate remediation spokesman for
DuPont, the company doesn't plan to leave town. They will maintain all
responsibility for mercury pollution deposited between 1929 and 1950.
DuPont also will retain responsibility for all deposits found in the
future, Straitman said. EPA officials said the plant does not use
mercury, as it no longer has a state permit to do so.
"They will allow DuPont to continue remedial efforts," Straitman said.
"(Koch will) own the plant itself, but won't receive ownership of the
land until after this has been resolved."
Koch officials declined to comment on the contract, which is pending
government approval.
Koch is the nation's second-largest privately owned firm and owns
companies in more than 30 countries. It produces specialty polyester
fibers.
Invista, a business unit of DuPont, makes fibers and related chemical
treatments. The company's 2002 annual revenues were $6.3 billion and
it employs about 18,000 people in 50 sites worldwide. It manufactures
well-known trademarked brands including Lycra, Stainmaster and
Coolmax.
Closing on the sale is estimated for mid-2004, the companies announced
in November.
Charles Holliday, chief executive officer of DuPont cited marketplace
realities and an ongoing company transformation as reasons to sell the
Invista division. In November, DuPont called the Invista division the
company's least profitable unit.
"This acquisition is an excellent fit with our capabilities and vision
for long-term growth," Koch Chief Executive Officer Charles Koch said
in a press release.
Future in Waynesboro
DuPont's participation in the South River Science Team will keep
company scientists working on the South River. The chemical firm's
monitoring contract with the EPA extends into 2092.
Corporate scientists are working with the science team to understand
the extent of the mercury pollution. They know mercury is in the South
River between the plant site and Port Republic, but need to figure out
if mercury still on or near the plant site continues to pollute the
river.
"Soil under the pavement could be getting into the storm water systems
because they are so old," said Mike Jacobi, with the Environmental
Protection Agency. Storm water pipes eventually empty into the South
River.
If ongoing pollution sources are found, DuPont will pay to remedy the
situation, Straitman said.
That could include further scientific studies or attempts to abate
future pollution, Straitman said. If soil under a paved area is found
to contain mercury, DuPont scientists will be allowed by Koch to do
whatever is necessary to study it or limit contamination.
Complete clean up and removal often is difficult with mercury, because
of its unusual chemical properties, scientists said at a recent
science team meeting.
"When you touch it, (mercury) breaks into more parts and becomes
harder to contain," said John Rudd, a nationally recognized mercury
expert.
New York state's Lake Onondaga is contaminated by mercury, despite
efforts by environmentalists and scientists to remedy the lake's
problems, according to Nancy Sticht of the lake's partnership for
research and development.
Like the South River, the lake is among the few bodies of water across
the country where mercury did not settle out naturally over time,
according to DuPont's Straitman. The EPA usually takes this hands-off
approach with mercury sites and many scientists still prefer to use
it, including those on the South River Science Team.
In 1979, an independent consulting firm of Lawler, Matusky and Skelly
Engineers studied the feasibility of rehabilitating the rivers. They
determined that was not feasible at that time to remove mercury from
the environment.
The scientists regularly monitor mercury levels in fish, soil and
water because the toxin typically is buried in sediment at the bottom
of waterways and becomes harmless.
The EPA outlined a monitoring schedule for DuPont, which the company
has followed. DuPont set up a trust fund to pay for required studies.
The company paid the state $1.5 million, plus spent another $1.5
million for additional studies. The research money was spent from
1999-2004, Straitman said, adding that the number will continue to
rise until the pollution is abated.
Fiscal responsibility typically falls to state governments if
corporations dodge their duties. Virginia suffers from many pollution
problems statewide. About 14 percent are polluted, the DEQ announced
this month.
"The state's under an obligation to clean up these rivers, and
unfortunately there's no money to do that," said Glen Besa, state
director for the Sierra Club.
The Sierra Club announced plans to sue DuPont in October 2003, but
have not yet. The company and the club are discussing the issue, said
Nancy Marks, senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense
Council.
Law professors and lawyers said it isn't unusual for corporations
guilty of environmental pollution to take an interest in the latest
scientific studies. It makes sense for a company that may face
litigation if everything possible isn't done. But few have formed
groups like the South River Science Team.
"This is an innovative way to bring scientists and experts together,"
said Mike Jacobi of the EPA.
So far, the team has made steps toward understanding the problem and
developing plans to fix it.
"They have been very good about looking into this," said Don Kain with
the DEQ. "They seem very dedicated