The New York Times CD-ROM
Article Count (as of 1/15/2000), Boolean Search
With Historical/Philosophical Commentary
Here is an article count, boolean search of The New York Times CD-ROM:
|*||Search Fragment #1||Search Fragment #2||1994||1995||1996||1997||1998||1999|
|Sarin ("similar to parathion")||2||1||48||33||44||19|
|x||Geigy and Monsanto||1||3||11||1||5||0|
|Geigy and genetic||3||9|
|x||Novartis and Monsanto||0||0||0||5||17||17|
|toxic and malathion||0||1||1||0||2||10|
|toxic and parathion||0||0||1||1|
|toxic and pesticides||53||32||44||46||37||39|
|toxic and birds||24||30||23||29||18||23|
|toxicology and birds||0||0||3||1||1||0|
|toxicology and pesticides||2||2||5||4||0||2|
|x||toxicology and malathion||0||0||1||0||0||2|
|toxicology and parathion||0||0||0||0||0||0|
|malaria and mosquitoes||10||10||20||19||18||17|
|epidemiology and pesticides||2||3||1||3||1||3|
|malaria and new york||48||24||31||32||39||32|
|x||carbofuran and birds and||Manhattan||sb1||3|
|5||Ward, Stone (NYSDEC)||[wards98.txt]||2||4|
|of Environmental Conservation||109||121|
|Plum Island1||7/0 relev||24 book||13 book/1||7/6|
|and New York||32||23|
|and New Jersey||5||0|
|and Long Island||0||3|
|malathion and asthma||[mala_ast.txt]||0||6|
|Gubler (CDC virus scientist)||1||10|
|West Nile and St. Louis||0||16|
|Kilgannon||[NYT journalist, 2 articles in this table have her name]||37||104|
|West Nile and virus||0||50|
1) Listed as irrelevant, i.e., some articles are about Plum Island, MA, or a real estate deal, or the murder mystery book entitled "Plum Island...", which has a parallel relation to the issues. Most of the bioterrorism oriented articles came up on or after 9/22/99, when the federal government began to announce considerations to upgrade Plum Island to handle virus-terrorist monitoring surveillance. This seemed to be a way of phasing away from the ever-increasing irrationality of the WNV virus articles, and providing a red-herring. Plum Island stories are secondary, for the purposes of this treatise. 2) E. coli articles in 1998 were general, and focused upon meat contamination. 3) "Malathion was developed by the Swiss chemical giant Ciba-Geigy back in the 1950s..."
4) "Ritalin was developed by Elan Pharmaceutical Technologies, the drug delivery division of Elan Corporation, plc., and was licensed to Novartis. Novartis submitted a new drug application (NDA) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in November 2000 and recently received an approvable letter from the FDA. Upon approval, Ritalin LA will join the Novartis ADHD product portfolio, which will include Ritalin, Ritalin SR (methylphenidate HCl sustained-release tablets), and dexmethylphenidate HCl, a refined formulation of Ritalin. Novartis licensed the worldwide (excluding Canada)..." www.pharma.us.novartis.com/newsroom/pressReleases/releaseDetail.jsp?PRID=160 5 Ward Stone is the Wildlife Pathologist for NYSDEC. "WNV" viral epidemic began in 1999 officially, yet massive bird death was noticed in 1998. And according to toxicology literature from 1995 onward, with the advent of rising MTBE levels.
Developments Since 1995
Some things you may want to keep in mind while viewing the chart:
In 1996, Ciba-Geigy mega-merged with Sandoz to become Novartis, the #1 company in agricultural companies and #3 (as I recall) in pharmaceuticals.
I discovered in two dusty internet articles that "malathion is a Novartis product". Currently (1999), researchers have been writing that malathion is a "Monsanto product" and a "Cheminova product". Probably, Novartis (the old king of the mosquito killing industry) leases malathion to manufacturers worldwide, as it has been doing with DDT, while retaining options and royalities.
www.earthisland.org/journal/malathion.html "Malathion is a Ciba-Geigy product" (1994)
www.gpnj.org/970619b.html "Novartis makes malathion" (1996)
These article counts in the table suggest that the same "press agent" is being used for both Monsanto and Ciba-Novartis and that these chemical companies don't like their name associated with their products. However, upon glancing at some of the articles, it is apparent these corporations don't mind being associated with eye-care products, gadgets, stock market, and real-estate articles.
In an NYT's short history of recent pesticide regulation, "Pesticides and Politics" (9/9/99), Congress unanimously voted in 1996 for EPA to review 500 pesticides in terms of child susceptibilty. Testing for adult susceptibility had been the previous norm. Susceptibility factors differ for various poisons; roughly the child susceptibility factors commonly range from 2x to 40x or more, as high as 750x (Hayes & Laws).
In 1995, Ciba-Geigy began to sell GE corn with a 'natural' self-produced insecticide (BT). In 1997, 39 organophosphate pesticides were put on top of the EPA review list.
Just before the malathion spraying of NYC, about 8/2/1999, the EPA administrator, Carol Browner, announced harsh restrictions on 2 market-dominant organophosphate pesticides, parathion, and azinphos methyl. (Note: Parathion metabolites are over 9,000 times more toxic than parathion, and according to Dr. R. K. Simon's findings in standard texts, malathion metabolites are 1,300 times more toxic than malathion. The New Orleans environmental lawyer stated that Japan banned malathion in 1960. So parathion and malathion are in the same league.
In July, 2000, environmentalists expected malathion to be reviewed negatively by the EPA as a carcinogen according to the EPA's own preliminary announcements. The expectation was shattered, after a much criticized meeting between Cheminova and the EPA, when an expected EPA announcement re the carcinogenity of malathion was held back by the EPA.
The following excerpt, from the Sightings website, containing a list of poison manufacturers, shows the dominance of Novartis and Monsanto. Many of these companies are vertically organized and dominant in pesticides, pharmaceuticals and vaccines, which evidences a motive for, and bolsters Lynn Gannet's (and others) theories regarding, manipulation of the media images and government to optimize the sales of each sector, using each sector to create a need for the other. While that may not be a proven strategy, it is the result.
|"PANUPS noted on 4/30/97 that the top ten agrochemical companies all showed an increase in both dollar and national currency sales in 1996. Monsanto had the highest rate of growth, with a 22.8% increase over 1995 sales. Zeneca also showed double digit growth -- an 11.3% increase in dollar sales with a 9% increase in volume. Bayer had the smallest growth in sales (1.2%) and fell from third place in 1995 to sixth. After last year's merger of the Ciba Geigy and Sandoz, the newly formed multinational corporation Novartis entered the ranking in first place."|
Sales of Top Ten Companies
Company Sales (US$ mill.) % change vs. 1995
|1. Novartis 4,527 + 4.5
2. Monsanto 2,997 + 22.8
3. Zeneca 2,630 + 11.3
4. AgrEvo 2,493 + 6.4
5. Du Pont 2,472 + 6.5
6. Bayer 2,360 + 1.2
7. Rhone-Poulenc 2,210 + 5.7
8. DowElanco 2,000 + 1.9
9. Cyanamid 1,989 + 4.1
10. BASF 1,541 + 8.4
Many common pharmaceuticals are derived from pesticide formulas, which in turn are derived from homicidal war formulations. Society is caught in an economic/toxic pincer -- "Toynbee's concept of a 'sufficient but not overpowering challenge' in connection with human history", according to toxicologists Hayes and Laws.
The Industrial Offensive
The large international chemical companies were described as a government-culture-mind-controlling cartel in Joseph Borkin's, Germany's Master Plan; The Story Of Industrial Offensive (1943). Many people see these corporations as competing against each other, however, according to Borkin, and Charles Higham (Trading With The Enemy, Barnes and Nobles (1983)) these companies also have allegences and cooperative strategies. Additionally, court settlements against pesticide companies are often settled with a gag order, so that the information gathered cannot be used in future cases or transmitted in any media (Fagin et al, Toxic Deception (1992)). "Science" is admittedly controlled by chemical companies: a Dupont executive stated that "Science is what Dupont says it is." Dissemination to the public of pesticide production data is illegal.
The present situation in New York is historically similar to the Ciba-Geigy (now Novartis) dominated pesticide scene of the mid-1950s, when the earlier generation of pesticides (DDT and other organochlorines) were "allowed" to be castigated, i.e., brought to court, and eventually banned, as organophosphates were phased in. I say "allowed", because of an article I found found regarding an early DDT citizens' suit which was dismissed by the judge because, as he wrote, pesticide regulations were strictly government territory. It seems that when government and industry were ready, lawsuits were allowed.
Historically, lead/arsenic was phased out by the advent of DDT. The organophosphates then phased out DDT. Genetically engineered crops, pesticides and GE schemes will interact with and phase out the organophosphates. The following is an accurate portrayal of U.S. production of pesticides. Organophosphate production is estimated by me from literature.
Each generation of pesticides phases out the previous. Inferring from the language of the EPA's Administrator Carol Browner comments regarding a recent, more stringent reevaluation of the organophosphates, it is organophosphates turn to leave the market.
"Ms. Browner promised today that her agency would be finished with the most worrisome chemicals by next year. 'Many of these are 1950's-era chemicals,' she said. 'We can do better.'" -- NYT 8/3/1999
Such a phase-out would not necessarily be due to the dangers of organophosphates as much as the advent of the new GE products ready to go on the shelves and the EPA being pressured to facilitate the phase-over. In the future we can expect the organophosphates to be safely castigated like an out-going U.S. president as the new wonder technology is brought in. We will all be outraged over organophosphates and GE will be our solution (organic ideas will be played down). The resulting "improvements" via GE will be our "choice".
We will be proud of our democratic process -- as we were when Rachel Carson attacked DDT and her whole book was printed as a cover series in The New Yorker magazine in 1962. Rachel Carson, and other prominent critics of pesticides focused on environmental aspects, and thus, were allowed to be published, with human health considerations minimized. Humans can sue.
Clinicians who brought up the dangers of DDT in terms of human health found themselves unable to be published. These doctors had been regularly published in leading medical journals and testified before the Senate. This is according to my research into the writings of Biskind, Scobey, and Mobbs who were published during the 1950s. Biskind complained of slander and "boycott", and eventually self-published hand-stapled articles.
By 1968, DDT was legally being banned in developing countries, but had already been phased out by industry in those same countries. The outgoing "bad" pesticides can serve political and market purposes before they are officially declared passe.
In 1999, the major environmental groups that usually crow about pesticides and the bald eagle were silent when NYC citizens were innundated with malathion. Note the silence of New York City's Public Advocate Mark Green and many other politicos.
The psychology of the poison market is complex. As Novartis states on their website, "We know our consumers best." Consumers of all types, qualities, and professions seek at least a sense of empowerment. An easy way to exploit this demand is by selling poisons and supplying the enculturating hype that goes with any consumer product. The words "Warfarin", "Anvil", "Roundup", say it.
I see our future (fighting organophosphates) as partially determined by Novartis for their eventual benefit in GE sales as they promote the benefits of GE and allow the their older poisons to be attacked in the court and in the press, but what choice do we have? What will be their next move with genetic engineering?