Bridgestone tire

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgestone">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgestone</a>

 </p>

<ul>

<li>Winners: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgestone" title="Bridgestone">Bridgestone</a> (Global), <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novartis" title="Novartis">Novartis</a> (Swiss)</li>

<li>Positive Award: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coop_%28Switzerland%29" title="Coop (Switzerland)">Coop (Switzerland)</a></li>

</ul>

<p>Bridgestone received the Global Award for the disastrous working conditions at a subsidiary in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia" title="Liberia">Liberia</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-10" class="reference"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Eye_Awards#cite_note-10"><span>[</span>10<span>]</span></a></sup> The workers lived in mud huts, the children were forced to work, and they had to handle highly toxic materials without protection.<sup id="cite_ref-11" class="reference"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Eye_Awards#cite_note-11"><span>[</span>11<span>]</span></a></sup> Novartis received the Swiss Award for the patenting of the cancer drug Imatinib, forcing a halt in production of Indian generics. As a result, ten thousand patients worldwide could no longer afford medication that slowed the spread of leukemia.<sup id="cite_ref-12" class="reference"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Eye_Awards#cite_note-12"><span>[</span>12<span>]</span></a></sup> The product from Novartis is ten times more expensive than the generics.<sup id="cite_ref-13" class="reference"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Eye_Awards#cite_note-13"><span>[</span>13<span>]</span></a></sup></p><p>=</p><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" /><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Harper's Magazine</font></div><div>June 1, 2003 | Urstadt, Bryant | Copyright</div><div>
</div><div>Permalink</div><div>Where can a corporate lobbyist hide thirty-two lines of stealth legislation? Right here, between a land transfer to the Gerald R. Ford Foundation and some details about cost-of-living allowances at the Office of Personnel Management, on pages 153 and 154 of the 712-page federal budget for the year 2001. Christened the "Data Quality Act"--one of the many euphemisms employed by the law's supporters--Section 515 presents itself as an innocuous call for federal agencies to improve the accuracy of their data. But the act, which became effective in October 2002, is in fact designed to encumber those agencies and, over time, to hamper their ability to regulate. Passed with no debate and with little public scrutiny, the law is intended not to improve data but, through constant contention, to suppress it.</div><div>
</div><div>Although technically an extension of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Data Quality Act forces regulatory agencies to produce reams of extra paperwork. …</div><div>
</div><div>https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-103124297.html</div><div>
</div><div>uc</div><div><p class="body-paragraph" data-auto="body_paragraph" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1.2em; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 16.8px; text-align: justify; background: transparent;" xmlns:translation="urn:EBSCO-Translation">Where can a corporate lobbyist hide thirty-two lines of stealth legislation? Right here, between a land transfer to the Gerald R. Ford Foundation and some details about cost-of-living allowances at the Office of Personnel Management, on pages 153 and 154 of the 712-page federal budget for the year 2001. Christened the "Data Quality <strong data-auto="strong_text" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Act</strong>"--<strong data-auto="strong_text" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">one</strong> of the many euphemisms employed by the law's supporters--Section 515 presents itself as an innocuous call for federal agencies to improve the accuracy of their data. But the <strong data-auto="strong_text" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">act</strong>, which became effective in October 2002, is in fact designed to encumber those agencies and, over time, to hamper their ability to regulate. Passed with no debate and with little public scrutiny, the law is intended not to improve data but, through constant contention, to suppress it.</p><p class="body-paragraph" data-auto="body_paragraph" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1.2em; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 16.8px; text-align: justify; background: transparent;" xmlns:translation="urn:EBSCO-Translation">Although technically an extension of the Paperwork Reduction <strong data-auto="strong_text" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">Act</strong>, the Data Quality <strong data-auto="strong_text" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">Act</strong> forces regulatory agencies to produce reams of extra paperwork. The <strong data-auto="strong_text" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">act</strong> required that the Office of Management and Budget issue guidelines "ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information... disseminated by Federal agencies." When the OMB released these guidelines in February 2002, they consumed some 10,000 words and included definitions of the terms at issue. (Philosophers may be interested to know that "quality" now is officially "an encompassing term comprising utility, objectivity, and integrity.") By October 2002 the individual agencies were required to produce their own guidelines and, more important, to establish "administrative mechanisms" to respond to, keep track of, and deliver reports on any complaints concerning the objectivity, utility, and integrity of their data. If disputed information is found to be out of compliance with these vague requirements, it may now be struck from government use.</p><p class="body-paragraph" data-auto="body_paragraph" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1.2em; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 16.8px; text-align: justify; background: transparent;" xmlns:translation="urn:EBSCO-Translation">Who would conceive of such a thing? As the only person listed in the <strong data-auto="strong_text" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">act</strong>, the director of the OMB--Mitch Daniels Jr., previously a senior vice president at pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly--would be a natural guess, but an inaccurate <strong data-auto="strong_text" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">one</strong>. Nominally, the <strong data-auto="strong_text" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">act's</strong> sponsoring representative was Jo Ann Emerson, Republican of Missouri, a former lobbyist who gained her seat in 1996 after the death of her husband, eight-term congressman Bill Emerson, from lung cancer. But in reality, the <strong data-auto="strong_text" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">act</strong> was written by Jim Tozzi, a current lobbyist whose clients include such corporate citizens as Philip Morris, Bridgestone/Firestone, and Synagro Technologies, a leading disposer of sewage sludge. For Tozzi, the <strong data-auto="strong_text" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">act</strong> is the opening salvo of his latest venture, the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness, a for-profit lobbying group whose actual purpose is to render regulations ineffective.</p><p class="body-paragraph" data-auto="body_paragraph" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1.2em; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 16.8px; text-align: justify; background: transparent;" xmlns:translation="urn:EBSCO-Translation">For data to be "objective" under the OMB's definition, independent scientists should agree on its validity. In practice, this offers limitless opportunity for complaint, because a friendly scientist can always be found to dispute an inconvenient finding. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, for example, has filed a petition under the <strong data-auto="strong_text" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">act</strong> demanding that all references to the National Assessment on Climate Change, which affirmed the existence of global warming, be expunged. The CEI's filing leans heavily on Patrick Michaels, a scientist who has argued for years against global warming on behalf of corporations, most recently through the "Greening Earth Society," which is funded by the coal industry. Jim Tozzi himself has used the <strong data-auto="strong_text" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">act</strong> to demand that the EPA rescind statements about the reproductive effects of atrazine, an herbicide made by his client Syngenta. Tozzi's filing draws on studies paid for by Syngenta and peer-reviewed by a group called EcoRisk, which was founded, according to its website, "with the encouragement [sic] and support of various... private chemical corporations." EcoRisk deems the EPA's data irreproducible.</p><p class="body-paragraph" data-auto="body_paragraph" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1.2em; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 16.8px; text-align: justify; background: transparent;" xmlns:translation="urn:EBSCO-Translation">The agencies will report to John D. Graham, the administrator of the OMB's information and regulation division. Previously, Graham was the founding director of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, the bulk of whose funding comes not from Harvard but from more than 100 corporations. The center's "risk analysis" is chiefly economic, and with few exceptions it has argued that the risks posed by corporate products or pollution are outweighed by the evils of regulation. For example, in 2000, after AT&T Wireless gave $300,000 to study the dangers of handheld cell-phone use while driving, the center found that no regulations were warranted. In elaborating on the OMB's guidelines, Graham has demanded special scrutiny for "influential" data--i.e., data that might prompt regulation--and has noted that even peer review by a scientific journal may not be sufficient to prove quality.</p><p class="body-paragraph" data-auto="body_paragraph" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1.2em; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 16.8px; text-align: justify; background: transparent;" xmlns:translation="urn:EBSCO-Translation">Finally conservatives and corporate lobbyists have found a bureaucracy they like. With the law in effect, its author, Jim Tozzi, now can devote himself to filing complaints under it. Beyond his attack on the EPA's atrazine study, he has also come to the aid of <b>Bridgestone/Firestone,</b> Goodyear, and the Rubber Manufacturers Association against the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration, which is planning to distribute information about tire defects. In his petition, Tozzi demands predissemination review by the manufacturers themselves--perhaps this is "integrity"--and argues, under the "utility" clause, that NHTSA must actually prove that releasing data about unsafe tires is useful. The end result: more paperwork, less information, weaker controls on manufacturers, and fewer safeguards for the public. This, to corporations, is "quality" legislation.</p></div></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div><p>==</p>