Oil Tycoons and the Anti-Regulatory Fervor They Fund
A few of you have asked me what I think of Lee Doren’s video response to the Story of Cosmetics. I questioned the guy’s credibility in an email, which then became the subject of its very own attack video (aren’t we having fun!).
In this email, I pointed out that the principle source for Doren’s critique was “a newsletter editor who works for George Mason University, which does not have a reputation for unbiased independent work, and also happens to be heavily funded by oil interests.” I was talking about Trevor Butterworth of GMU’s STATS.org, which is notorious for its assaults on climate change and environmental health science.
Here’s back-up for my description of GMU: an explosive story in the Aug. 30 New Yorker by Jane Mayer about “the billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama.” Everyone who cares about America should read this article.
Also see Frank Rich’s NYT piece, “The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party.”
Mayer’s 10,000-word exposé reveals how David and Charles Koch – who own a conglomerate of oil, chemical and consumer product companies and who have a combined worth of $35 billion – have funneled staggering amounts of money to “grassroots” groups, think tanks, climate science deniers and other efforts to demonize government, confuse the science and derail environmental regulations. (Read more about the environmental record of Koch Industries.)
According to Mayer, Koch family foundations have donated more than $30 million to George Mason University and its Mercatus Center, a non-profit organization described by Wall Street Journal as “the most important think tank you’ve never heard of” and by Democratic strategist Rob Stein as “ground zero for deregulation policy in Washington.”
The head of lobbying for Koch Industries in DC, Richard Fink, is also the founder of the Mercatus Center, which happens to promote the interests of Koch Industries (such as the time they argued against EPA efforts to reduce smog from oil refineries on the grounds that smog might protect people from skin cancer).
Koch Industries has also lobbied to prevent EPA from classifying formaldehyde as a “known carcinogen” in humans; meanwhile, David Koch sits on the advisory board for the National Cancer Institute, which published a major study last year that found significantly higher rates of leukemia in people exposed to higher amounts of formaldehyde (the same formaldehyde found in low levels in leading baby shampoos).
I recommend some deep breathing exercises or having a shot of whiskey handy as you read the Mayer piece.
Speaking of oil tycoon weirdness, John Stewart takes on Fox News for hyping the sinister terrorist funding behind the Ground Zero mosque – but neglecting to mention that the head of this sinister funding group is the same Saudi prince who is part owner of Fox News. What’s a little conflict of interest among friends! Check out Stewart’s hilarious follow-the-money clip featuring Team Stupid vs. Team Evil.
And speaking of following the money, I’ve been wondering where the funding is coming from for Personal Care Truth, a website devoted to opposing the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 and environmental health science in general. Headlined by two small business owners, the website’s narrative closely tracks talking points used by the likes of STATS.org and the trade associations that represent big chemical and cosmetic corporations. People close to the group have asked about funding and been told it’s “donated web work.”
Hmmm.
Next up: I will be reporting from the road on my South African adventure! Also check out: Round II of my debate with John Bailey of the Personal Care Products Council about the Safe Cosmetics Act on LA’s KPCC.
UPDATE: I’ve heard from Kristen Cotte and Lisa Rogers that they are personally funding Personal Care Truth from their own pockets. Good to know. I remain concerned about the ideological similarities to this massively funded effort to seed doubt about environmental health science in order to confuse the public and keep toxic chemicals on the market. Frank Rich had a great point when he wrote, “The Koch brothers must be laughing all the way to the bank knowing that working Americans are aiding and abetting their selfish interests.”
Here are a couple good books about how science has been manipulated to support corporate interests and stop government regulations: “Deceit and Denial: The Deadly Politics of Industrial Pollution,” by Gerald Markowitz and David Rosner; and “Doubt is their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health,” by David Michaels.
September 2nd, 2010 at 7:01 am
Hey Stacy -
Hope this comment finds you doing well.
Well…..you can ponder no more. Kristin and I funded Personal Care Truth with personal money. Hard to believe, I know.
Our experts are not paid for their posts or the time they dedicate to educating consumers on personal care products. Again, hard to believe.
Pretty boring there isn’t a conspiracy theory there, huh?
Have a great day!
Lisa
September 2nd, 2010 at 7:15 am
Stacy,
Does it ever occur to you that not everyone has money or book sales in mind when they defend a position, or try to put the record straight?
Even better, does the funding source really matter, if the facts are being stated? Of course, much of what is written on Personal Care Truth conflicts with your beliefs, but the majority of it is written by scientists, and without any financial reward. (If the others are getting paid, then I would like some cash as well, though!). Many of your beliefs are not based on fact, but are just that – beliefs.
The PCT site was not set up to oppose the SCA, and nor is it entirely devoted to attacking this piece of legislation, but it would be a little strange if it wasn’t mentioned, given the appalling science involved in the proposed Act. There are far more posts that don’t even mention the SCA – read them, you may learn something!
September 2nd, 2010 at 7:27 am
hi Stacy,
If you are wondering where the money came from for Personal Care Truth, please read this post where your question is answered http://personalcaretruth.com/2010/07/who-is-personal-care-truth/
Every dime came straight from Lisa and myself; 2 small biz owners who believe in educating the public about the industry based on scientific research. Our experts have signed on and write for free- they believe in spreading the latest truth in cosmetic research rather than scare tactics and happily contribute their work. We encourage dialogue and publish every comment on the site, so feel free to ask away rather that “wondering where the funding is coming from for Personal Care Truth”
For the record, the site is not “devoted to opposing the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010.” It is specifically devoted to spreading the truth about cosmetics based on scientific research.
Thanks,
Kristin
September 2nd, 2010 at 8:40 am
Stacy,
I will tell you where the money behind Personal Care Truth is. Lisa and Kristin have funded the web operations themselves out of their own pocket. As for the writers such as myself, I take time away from my business to write scientifically backed articles about skin care and ingredients. Having been a college instructor for so long, I find it hard not to write the truth and educate others. Yes, my business suffers as a result of not putting that time there, but since you have attempted to take that business away from me I find it even more important. Personal Care Truth was not set up to oppose the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010, but the truth certainly needs to be brought up about it. However, for your information, the site http://www.opposesca.com was set up to oppose the Safe Cosmetics Act. Break free from the EU emissaries pushing the WTO Precautionary Principle and lets talk about what is good for the US. Oh, and fyi-Personal Care Truth allows anyone to post comments there for discussion unlike Not Just a Pretty Face who not only won’t listen themselves to opposing views but will not allow their followers to hear opposing views either.
September 2nd, 2010 at 9:29 am
Hi Lisa, Thanks for clarifying, I’m glad to hear that’s the case. I will update my blog post. I remain concerned about the many ideological similarities that seem to tie back to this massively funded effort to seed doubt about science for the purpose of keeping polluting industries unregulated.
Stacy
September 2nd, 2010 at 10:05 am
Dene,
“Does the funding source really matter, if the facts are being stated?” I think so yes, especially when the funding is a decades-long, billion-dollar effort to seed an anti-regulatory ideology (that appears as a grassroots movement) based on information generated by this funding for the direct benefit of the funders.
September 2nd, 2010 at 10:55 am
Stacy, I have seen both your video and Mr. Doren’s REBUTTAL (not attack) video.
The problem I have with your video is that it’s all sizzle and no steak. Forget the hype and emotionalism (scare tactics NEVER work). Let the science speak for itself. IF the argument is valid the facts will speak for themselves
September 2nd, 2010 at 11:03 am
Stacy,
As one seeking the truth on the subjects of Mr. Doren’s rebuttal of “the story of cosmetics”, your statements against George Mason University and STATS.org are far from cogent. We want to know the facts, and shots at someones credibility is a moot point. Is the information true or not? It’s that simple. Post peer reviewed scientific studies that show the contrary of what STATS, George Mason, or the FDA is saying. The funding is also a moot point if we are really seeking the truth…
you also mentioned “STATS.org..which is notorious for its assaults on climate change”
Once again, as someone seeking the truth, environmental groups also have a reputation of distorting or withholding scientific data in order to press the environmental agenda. This isn’t helpful.
I think there is an inherent understanding that people on either side of some of these issues are just out of touch and have irreconcilable differences. I think it’s a load of garbage. no one wants to bathe in carcinogens! But we don’t want to be manipulated by weak arguments, questionable studies, and propaganda.
Just my 2 cents
September 2nd, 2010 at 11:50 am
Stacy, do you have any research that contradicts the cosmetic claims made by George Mason? “Who said what” is obviously irrelevant to the truth.
September 2nd, 2010 at 12:19 pm
You know, i lost the will to finish reading this article about half way through. I don’t care about big oil companies demonizing this and that. I’m worried about what and how you present in your videos. I’m from a post communistic country, and your presentation is completely the same we use get here 20 years ago. Not just the presentation, but also your solutions are very close to what the read flag dictated “for our own” good.
I’m also not interested in anyone’s credibility. Discrediting your opponent is not how civilized discussions are made. Mr. Doreen has made fair arguments, which you never answered. For example your lipstick example. Is he right about the trace amount of PB in each one of them and virtually no impact on human body or not?
Your reactions (the email and this article) make impression that you don’t go back to the argued points, that are really important for us people and consumers, but discredit your opponent.
Please! Start proper discussion and also clear answers. How can you believe that normal people will take you seriously if you use stuff like the high heels thing in the Story of Stuff, or the silly $5 radio example which could have been used only by someone doesn’t have a clue how trade and business work! It made me laugh so hard i could stop only by crying because of what you essentially propose in your videos, and that is socialism and total control of government (and “approved” agencies) over the human race! I really hope you do not really understand what you’re saying or you haven’t thought through the way you present your opinions and ideas. But if you continue your work the way it is done so far, i will start buying high heels in all shapes, and i’m a man!
Please stop trying to popularize idea of binding us in rules! Start teaching people how to be self responsible!
Thank you
Tomas
September 2nd, 2010 at 1:03 pm
There will always be room for the well educated, to tear ones good efforts apart. I think you give them way to much credit, just by posting this response to Lee Doran’s CEI funded homevideos.
I fund this, from his facebook group. From witch I’m actually banned, for asking him to give one true to life example of privitazation benfitting the public at large. The same thing on his youtube. In the end, I actually got him responding to an email titled hatemail. I found that absolutely hilarious. All within an hour or so.
But, amongst his victims of illiterate youtube bashing, you can find some very prominent activists and other do-gooders. Take it has a compliment to the quality of your work.
Sorry for my poor english, I’m from Europe
September 2nd, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Intellectual neutrality is a myth. You claim George Mason University is biased and then go on to quote Frank Rich of the New York Times. Is Frank Rich a neutral source of information?
September 2nd, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Great article, Stacy. It brought some perspective to this side of the controversy. Following the money trail uncovers so much.
I do support the idea of more legislation protecting consumers from cosmetic chemicals. I encourage staying away from most chemicals. However, the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 is not the answer with the way that it has been written.
Time and again we have seen that the FDA can be corrupted. Ex-executives of drug companies on FDA approval committees, pushing drugs through the approval process that should not be on the market, that end up hurting tens of thousands of people.
The way that the bill is written currently, there is so much room for corruption. The bill does not outline a list of banned substances, but leaves this up to the proposed “secretary.” What happens when the secretary has deep ties with big corporations? Harmful chemicals can be approved, while other safe ingredients not. Additionally, the specific testing requirements are not outlined in the bill. If it becomes a law, the testing requirements are left up, again, to the secretary. What if P&G or Unilever, or one of these other multi-national corporations have sway with the secretary…testing becomes imposed that the big guys can afford, but small companies cannot. With a simple payoff of the secretary, the big companies have wiped out all of their small competition.
The bill needs to be re-written with more specific testing requirements, banned substances, specific labeling requirements and other loopholes that need to be closed. Leaving the fate of thousands of small companies in the hands of a career politician–not a scientist or doctor or expert–is a dangerous move, especially when dealing with the government. We have the chance, right now, to make a change. We can get some very harmful substances banned. Phthalates, tolulene, etc. Let’s re-write the bill so there is no room for interpretation and corruption!
September 2nd, 2010 at 10:33 pm
You raise some good points Stephanie. I agree we have a huge opportunity right now to move the industry toward safer practices. The small businesses that are committed to healthy products and environmental groups that are trying to protect public health should be working together to figure out how to make the most of this chance. Please contact me and let’s talk.
September 2nd, 2010 at 11:55 pm
First of all, I have to admit to a renewed respect for the way you seem to have permitted all the (adverse) comments to be posted. As we both know, this has not always been the case!
Secondly, there are a lot of good points made by many of the contributors so far.
“Does the funding source really matter, if the facts are being stated?” I think so yes, especially when the funding is a decades-long, billion-dollar effort to seed an anti-regulatory ideology (that appears as a grassroots movement) based on information generated by this funding for the direct benefit of the funders.
So the facts are secondary to the source? How on earth can you justify this statement? Facts are facts.
Very few people are completely against the cosmetics industry being regulated. The sticking point is on how is it best done. The SCA is unworkable, for all businesses, large AND small. It is very badly written and would effectivelhy end the cosmetics industry in the USA. Scaremongering, I hear you say. Not at all, I respond – the clause about getting substances on the list for testing is ridiculous and unworkable. It invites “malicious listing” by competitors, and it is all too easy to submit thousands of substances for listing which can never be evaluated within the 18 month period (after which the bill proposes that they are automatically banned if they have not been reviewed) This is not just a bad clause – it is stupidity of the highest order. What possible scientific basis is there for banning an ingredient simply because there wasn’t time to properly evaluate its toxicology(an entirely random time period allocated for no apparent reason). This clause alone makes the bill a nonsense, and there are many others. By all means legislate, but do it properly, and effectively.
September 3rd, 2010 at 8:29 am
Dene, that is a wild misreading of the bill. There is no ban proposed for chemicals not evaluated within 18 months. Regarding the facts, my point was that it is not the facts that are being stated.
September 3rd, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Sorry, it was 24 months, and I quote from Section 3 – Priority Assessment List:
‘(D) DETERMINATION OF WHETHER INGREDIENT MEETS SAFETY STANDARD-
‘(i) IN GENERAL- Not later than 24 months after the date on which an ingredient is placed on the priority assessment list under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall issue, by rule, a determination of–
‘(I) whether the ingredient meets the safety standard (as defined in section 611(5)) and can be placed on the safe without limits list under paragraph (2);
‘(II) whether to include the ingredient in the prohibited and restricted ingredients list under paragraph (1), to ensure that the safety standard is not violated.
So, if no decision has been made after 24 months, it HAS to be placed on one of the lists, whether or not it has been assessed (and it won’t be the “safe without limits” list). If this is not correct, please put your interpretation on this clause for me.
Regarding the facts – you avoid the question. I repeat: “Does the funding source really matter, if the facts are being stated?” My point refers to the fact that if it IS FACTS that are being stated, the funding source is irrelevant. What you seem to be saying is that if the funding source is one of which you don’t approve, then you don’t accept the facts. All sources of information are funded in some way, either in personal time and effort (Personal Care Truth, to use a highly pertinent example), or in donations, such as EWG. What is the difference between the “facts” emanating from the EWG and the “facts” emanating from some institution funded by “oil tycoons”? Again, my point is that if the facts are correct, the funding source is irrelevant.
I salute Tom Krop for his comment:
“Your reactions (the email and this article) make impression that you don’t go back to the argued points, that are really important for us people and consumers, but discredit your opponent.”
You tried the discrediting tactic with Personal Care Truth, and faced with several people responding with the truth, you offered to amend the blog – you have not yet done this. There are several other points raised that have not been addressed. The only person you have responded to directly (other than Lisa and me) has been Stephanie – because she agrees with you, but there are many other comments that have been left hanging.
Finally, to emphasise John Salmeier’s excellent point – you do Lee Doren a disservice by choosing to refer to his video as an attack video. To describe his rebuttal as an attack video is disingenuous. Why does everyone who disagrees with you have to be seen as attacking? This is a typical EWG tactic. If you are under attack, you gain the sympathy of the uninformed consumer – is this how it works? Unneccessarily aggressive language, IMO.
September 3rd, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Dene,
The bill doesn’t state that chemicals not reviewed in the timeline are automatically banned. I did amend my blog, scroll down to the note at the end for an update about the funding for Personal Care Truth, which I posted immediately upon getting the comments from Kristen and Lisa.
As for the “facts” on Personal Care Truth, statements like this from a recent post by a cosmetic chemist seem more like conjecture to me: “So to answer her question. Do we know what the cumulative effect of the chemicals used in cosmetics in the body is? Well compared to what you eat, it is pretty obvious that cosmetics can only make a tiny contribution to what is in your body.” (pretty obvious because..? the studies are where… ? how does speculating about absorption tell us anything about the cumulative effect..? ) Followed in the same article by, “Most cosmetic ingredients are derived from natural sources.” (maybe he is talking about oil?).
I stand by my assessment that there is a coordinated effort to discredit environmental health science and manufacture doubt to keep the public confused and keep toxic chemicals on the market — it’s been ongoing for a long time and has been well documented in the sources I cite in my blog. Dene, I am sorry to disappoint you but I will be traveling and unable to post your daily comments for a while.
Cheers, Stacy
PS: You may have a point about referring to the Doren thing as an attack video – that makes it seem way more interesting than it actually is. Also you inspired me to clarify my views about Personal Care Truth at the end of my blog.
September 4th, 2010 at 8:04 am
Cindy Jones of Personal Care Truth,
Could you please elaborate on your views about needing to “break free from the EU emissaries pushing the WTO Precautionary Principle”? I suppose you are talking about the EU’s stricter regulations of toxic chemicals. It’s true that EU has banned hazardous substances such as lead and mercury from electronics, and coal tar and lead acetate from cosmetics. In both these cases, industries complied, prices didn’t go up and huge populations were protected from unnecessary toxic exposures.
Europe, Japan and even China have also restricted formaldehyde levels in wood products to such low levels that manufacturers figured out how to make kitchen cabinets and similar products with formaldehyde-free glue. But if you buy new kitchen cabinets in the U.S., chances are they are saturated with formaldehyde. They may have been made in China, and in this case, China actually has two different manufacturing streams for wood particle board products: the stuff from formaldehyde factories goes to the U.S. and formaldehyde-free products go to EU, Japan and China.
You have figured out my agenda: I love America, most of my loved ones live here, and I want Americans to be just as protected from unnecessary toxic exposures as the people in other countries.
September 4th, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Thanks for the dialogue and speaking up for us Americans who just want to live a clean life. It shouldn’t have to be hard to keep us safe from toxic chemicals.
September 8th, 2010 at 11:31 am
Stacy,
I am happy to see that you are now having an open discussion on your blog. As others have stated no one is making money from Personal Care Truth. No money was donated. It was started and funded by two small business owners who set up PCT to share the truth about cosmetics.
Since you are asking about where the money came from for Personal Care Truth — are you willing to share where the money comes from to fund The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics?
September 8th, 2010 at 11:46 am
Kayla, The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics is funded entirely by private foundations and donations under the 501-c3 status of the Breast Cancer Fund. We take no money from companies. Contrary to what has been stated on Personal Care Truth and/or by your writers, the campaign is not funded by EWG, nor is EWG the fiscal sponsor, nor is EWG starting a personal care products company. Thank you.
September 9th, 2010 at 1:26 am
ps to everyone: thanks for the comments! I’m out of the country for a while and not online to post comments or respond.