good business, bad business

by Matt DeNoto

At the office where I work, we get a weekly delivery of the ‘Los Angeles Business Journal,’ a newspaper aimed at people with business-related interests. As I flip through the paper, one thing becomes very clear:

These people love their money, and anything that stands in the way is considered bad.

Obvious, I know. But it never really sank in for me until I started reading these stories about how much it hurt a busines s to have to follow this regulation or negotiate with that union. There was a story about how much it was costing a company to revise its balance sheets after an independent auditor found out how off their books were.

“Awwww, too bad,” I thought, “A company is losing money because it has to actually tell the truth.” Break out the violins.

But stepping back, the disparity between my perspective (as someone who puts the wellness of the world above the bottom line) and theirs shows just how far there is to go before we’re all living in a world where everyone considers the consequences of their actions. To me, it just seems fundamentally wrong to fight so hard against something as obvious as not emitting noxious fumes into the air or dumping harmful chemicals into the ground.

So how do we bridge the gap? In a twist that may or may not be ironic, they may actually be doing some of the work for us.

The uncertainty comes from whether or not you believe that a company’s media campaign actually represents the perspective of the company, or merely the image that company is trying to portray. Over the past few months, large corporations have been advertising themselves as Green, trying to tell us how they’re making the world a better place. GE has been promoting a commitment to the environment it calls Ecomagination. FOX Broadcasting has launched a series of PSAs with the tagline ‘Green it. Mean it.’ Even oil companies like Shell and BP have been putting up spots hoping to encourage the minds of consumers to link those companies with environmentalism.

For the sake of cynicism, let’s say that these companies are not actually interested in saving the planet. They’re just typical corporations that would happily dump their garbage in your pool if it would save them money. Even if all this ‘Green Branding’ is simply companies trying to profit from the enviro-‘fad’ going on right now, it’s still putting the Green philosophy out there, into the minds of the public. If it keeps up, even those in the population who have been resistant to change are going to find that those messages of change have worked their way in. Then the public will start to throw around the power it has always had: the power to vote with its wallet. After that, companies are going to have to practice what they preach.

Until then, there are still businesses out there now founded on principles of responsibility. And thanks to the internet, we can all start voting with our wallets now. For a whole marketplace of sustainable goods, visit World Of Good.

pharm animal

It’s like a one, two punch… in the stomach.

The FDA approved a drug today that is used for people with a rare condition that creates fatal blood clots.  But, in doing so, they also approved the genetically altered goats that were used to make the drug, thereby opening the way for other companies to use GMO animals in pharmaceutical products.  

Proponents claim that this is a means of producing pharmaceuticals at a lower cost and will be reflected on the consumer price, that it is safe, and there is no way the animals can be released out of captivity.

However, opponents feel that “it is a mechanistic use of animals that seems to perpetuate the notion of their being merely tools for human use rather than sentient creatures,” the Humane Society of the United States says in its position paper on the practice.

There are other concerns: that the animals could be harmed, that animal germs might contaminate the drug, that the milk or meat from genetically engineered drug-producing animals might enter the food supply or that the animals might escape and breed with others, spreading the gene, with unpredictable consequences.

In any case, they are now approved for use and time will tell if it is going to be harmful.  

* This was originally reported by the New York Times

genetically engineered approval

 

Last week, federal health officials announced plans for an approval process of genetically engineered (GE) animals used for food.  However, consumer groups say the plan is not enough to ensure the safety of the consumer, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Genetic engineering, already widely used for crops, is on the threshold of producing animals that can grow faster or even yield drugs that treat human illnesses. Although the potential benefits — and profits — are huge, many individuals have qualms about manipulating the genetic code of other living creatures.

The FDA has stated that it will not allow for the approval of GE animals without severe scrutiny.  But, many criticize the policy because, approving an GE animal, does not mean it will be labeled as such.  In other words, because of lack of labeling consumers, without knowing about or wanting to, may be ingesting GE animals.

There is also criticism that the evaluation of the animals does not include what might happen to the environment.  Of particular concern, is the possibility of am animal escaping and mating with a non-GE animal.

And, while many talk about the eating of GE animals, there is also debate from drugs made from GE animals.  Last week, a product made from the milk of a GE goat was before the FDA for approval.  At this point, it was deemed safe and effective for human use.  But, is it?

Many are urging the upcoming Obama administration to reconsider the current FDA policy on genetically engineered animals.  Although, the biotechnology industry welcomed the announcement from the FDA, and as we all know, the lobbying power of that group is strong in D.C.