Health and safety regulations are supposed to be made based on up-to-date, solid, concrete, scientifically-based facts. Instead, they appear to be made from solid concrete itself (and to be just as tough to readjust).

As concerned citizens, we have to sound the alarm about issues, and we have to continue sounding the alarm-sometimes for decades. Regulations about the use of the toxic material asbestos, for example, took over a century to be formulated, even though concerns were raised in the 1800s. Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer [1788-1860] said, "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

I am going to make a generalization, which is not always the case, but this is the way I see it. When enough public attention is raised, the majority of elected officials (often smelling votes), make statements about their concern for the issue raised, and vow to do something about it. Committees are appointed to study these areas of public health concern and to make recommendations. Unfortunately, the so-called "independent experts" who form the committees are often drawn from the industry relevant to the issue, and here's where the journey to the truth goes off the rails.

In theory, to be a competent investigator of an issue, you must have had years of experience in the field. This generally means that the industry you've been appointed to investigate in an unbiased fashion has been paying your mortgage for years or decades. Money and past loyalties may put a thumb on the scales. For example, former US Federal Drug Administration (FDA) investigator Mays Swicord and former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expert Joe Elder are now employed with cell phone manufacturer Motorola. Many of the FDA and EPA personnel who approved Monsantos GE seeds and products now work for Monsanto.

Scientific studies are supposed to uncover the truth, eliminating researcher bias or outside influence. The recent research surrounding the safety of cell phones, for example, shows that this is not necessarily the case. Independent studies (done by bona-fide independent researchers) showed 397 statistically significant instances of negative health effects, and zero instances of no effects. Industry studies showed 96 statistically significant instances of negative health effects, and 12 instances of no effect. This industry has a big thumb.

According to Dr. George L Carlo, Chair of the Science and Public Policy Institute and co-author of Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age (Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2001), the federal governments makes more money from the sale of cell phone minutes than from any other consumer product, other than gasoline. According to the Safe Wireless Initiative (www.safewireless.org), industry-funded studies are six times more likely to find no evidence against the use of cell phones.

Once the "independent expert" committee makes recommendations, the government bureaucrats put these into regulations, either as laws or "recommendations." Often, regulations run counter to common sense or known facts. For example, Health Canada's "Safety Code 6" is supposed to set standards for exposure to radio frequency and microwave radiation of cell phones and towers. The regulations are based on the false premise that the only method of harm is tissue heating, despite the fact that research dating as far back as the 1960s, done  by Canada's National Research Council, showed harm from non-thermal mechanisms.

Unfortunately, once bureaucracies are put in charge the concrete hardens. A basic tenet of science is "change in light of new data." This runs contrary to the bureaucratic approach of "defend the status quo at all costs." This is further exacerbated by the fact that government regulators are sometimes hired as consultants for the industry that they regulated before they retired. No sense biting the hand that may feed them.

When we solve the problem of undue industry influence, we will truly have meaningful health and safety regulations that protect the public. If we continue to sound the alarm, perhaps influences will be exposed and the truth will be more easily understood. We shouldn't need a jackhammer.

Milt Bowling is President of the Clean Energy Foundation (www.cleanenergycanada.com), which works with the public, industry, and government for better regulations and safer technology. Contact information for Milt is in the HANS Wellness Directory at www.hans.org.

Want to search for other articles that may interest you?

Readers of this article also enjoyed...