436 THE POLITICS OF CANCER ical plants' carcinogenic discharges, to curb toxic sulfates and nitrate particles from coal combustion, has come only after protracted political and legal struggles. Industry demands for deregulation in pollution and preventive health areas are in interesting contrast with their insistence on continued economic regulation to protect monopolistic practices.14 In spite of all the praise lavished by industry and its publicregulations machinery on the concept of free competition in a deregulated market, industry fights vigorously to foster "economic socialism" whenever its interests are threatened, as illustrated by the opposition of the trucking industry to proposed deregulation by the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the American Medical Association (on behalf of the medical industry) to advertising. As Chairman Michael Pertschuk of the Federal Trade Commission commented in October, 1978: Such regulations are not sanctioned by law, but rather are carried on in defiance of the law-not as government regulation of business, but as anti-competitive and inflationary business regulation of business. And where these forms of business-inspired regulation do remain inbedded in the law, it is because those businesses and professions regulated have stoutly defended their ancient right to be shielded from the discomforts of free competition. In recent Congressional testimony, Secretary of Commerce Juanita Kreps emphasized that every industry leader agitated by "government intrusion" should understand that industry cannot responsibly demand less regulation without also addressing those social issues that prompted the need for regulation. To the extent business helps [through improved corporate social performance] to deal with issues that might otherwise prompt government regulation, it serves its own economic interests.* * However, a December 20, 1978, draft report on "Environmental Health and Safety Regulations" of a Department of Commerce Advisory Subcommittee (of the Advisory Cornmittee on Industrial Innovation) demonstrated lack of comprehension of Secretary Kreps' warning. The committee (which in its exclusive composition of industry appears to violate at least the intent of the Federal Advisory Committee Act) claimed that federal regulations have a severe negative impact on industrial productivity and industrial inno 594 REFERENCES CHAPTER 10 Non-governmental Policies 1. Monsanto Co., "The Chemical Facts of Life" (St. Louis, Mo., n.d.), p. 1. 2. F. de Lorenzo et al., "Mutagenicity of Diallate, Sulfallate, and Triallate and Relationship between Structure and Mutagenic Effects of Carbamates Used Widely in Agriculture," Cancer Research 38 (1978), pp. 13-15. 3. National Cancer Institute, "Bioassay of Sulfallate for Possible Carcinogenicity," DHEW Publication (NIH) 78-1370 (Washington, D.C., March 24, 1978). 4. P. Kotin, Address to the American Occupational Medicine Association, Denver, Colo., October, 1977. 5. C. Mittman et al., “Prediction and Potential Prevention of Industrial Bronchitis," American Journal of Medicine 57 (1974), pp. 192-99. 6. J. O. Morse et al., "A Community Study of the Relation of AlphaAntitrypsin Levels to Obstructive Lung Diseases," New England Journal of Medicine 292 (1975), pp. 278–81. 7. See, for example, "How They Shaped the Toxic Substances Law," Chemical Week, April 27, 1977, p. 52. 8. American Industrial Health Council, "AIHC Recommended Alternatives to OSHA's Generic Carcinogen Proposal" (Scarsdale, N.Y., January 9, 1978). 9. B. Castleman (1738 Riggs Place, N.W., Washington, DC 20009), "The Export of Hazardous Factories to Developing Nations," Congressional Record, June 29, 1978. 10. R. Nader, M. Green, and J. Seligman, "Constitutionalizing the Corporation: The Case for the Federal Chartering of Grant Corporations" (Washington, D.C.: Corporate Accountability Research Group, 1976); G. Speth (Council on Environmental Quality), "Towards a Better Bull's Eye: Corporate responsibility and Accountability," speech to the American Bar AssociationNational Resources Section, November 28, 1978. 11. "Federal Chartering of Giant Corporations," Commission for the Advancement of Public Interest Organizations, Proceedings of a Conference held on 16 June 1976, Washington, D.C., p. iii. REFERENCES 595 12. M. Weidenbaum and K. Chilton, "All Hazards Are Not Equal," The Sciences 18 (1978), pp. 8–32; J. Palmer, "The Rising Risks of Regulation," Time, November 27, 1978, pp. 85-87. 13. R. B. Du Boff, "Environment and the G.N.P.," New York Times, July 10, 1978; C. S. Bell, "The Benefits of Regulation," New York Times, July 25, 1978. 14. G. Speth, "Towards a Better Bull's Eye." 15. University of Michigan, Survey Research Center, "Survey of Working Conditions: Final Report on Univariate and Bivariate Tables" (Ann Arbor, Mich., November, 1970). 16. L. Stein, The Triangle Fire (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1962). 17. B. Hume, Death and the Mines (New York: Grossman, 1971). 18. B. Weisberg, Our Lives are at Stake (San Francisco: United Front Press, 1973). 19. New York Times, May 2, 1973. 20. J. M. Stellman and S. M. Daum, Work Is Dangerous to Your Health (New York: Pantheon, 1973), p. 22. 21. R. Nader, "Professional Responsibility Revisited," in Proceedings of the Conference on Science Technology and the Public Interest, October 8, 1973. Brookings Institutions, Washington, D.C. (Jeannette, Pa.: Monsour Medical Foundation, 1977). 22. L. I. Moss, "Pulling Together," EPA Journal 4 (1978), pp. 11-37. 23. Quoted in L. E. Demkovich, "Ralph Nader Takes on Congress as Well as Big Business," National Journal 10 (1978), p. 390. 24. G. Lanson, "Industry Doubted as Cancer Cause," [New Jersey] Record, March 9, 1978. 25. National Information Bureau, Inc. (N.Y.), "American Cancer Society," December 16, 1976; D. S. Greenberg and J. E. Randal, "Waging the Wrong War on Cancer," Washington Post, May 1, 1977; R. Rosenbaum, "Cancer Inc.," New York Times, November 25, 1977; P. B. Chowka, "The Cancer Charity Ripoff: Warning, The American Cancer Society May be Hazardous to Your Health," East/West Journal, July, 1978; M. Daniel (Center for Science in the Public Interest), "Voluntary Health Organizations," in press, 1979. 26. F. Greve, "Cancer Society's Efforts Are Found Wanting," Philadelphia Inquirer, April 30, 1978. 27. American Cancer Society, "1979 Cancer Facts and Figures," New York, 1978. CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1980 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m., in room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Conyers, Jr. (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Conyers, Gudger, Miller, Hyde, and Sensenbrenner. Also present: Representative George Miller. Staff present: Hayden W. Gregory, counsel; Steven G. Raikin, assistant counsel; Diane Clarke, assistant counsel; Deborah K. Owen, associate counsel; and Phyllis Henderson, secretary. Mr. CONYERS. The Subcommittee on Crime will come to order. Today, we begin our third hearing on H.R. 4973 to amend title 18 of the United States Code to impose criminal penalties for nondisclosure by business entities on lethal defects in products and business practices. Our hearing today will consist of two panels of distinguished leaders of the consumer and church-sponsored corporate responsibility movement who will offer their analysis of H.R. 4973 and discuss ethical and legal issues and specific cases relevant to the legislation. May I draw attention to the fact that since this bill has been introduced, a number of leaders of the business community have begun to forthrightly step forward to endorse the general concept behind the legislation. The chairman and president of Monsanto, John Hanley, has had this to say very recently, and I quote him: "I believe we should strongly support harsh legal penalties for chiseling managers who willfully and unreasonably endanger the lives or health of others." There have been cases-too many of them-which have given industry a black eye. Individual managers who knowingly and recklessly concealed clear and ongoing conditions of serious worker or consumer dangers should be recognized as the villains they are. The associate director of Government Regulation for the National Association of Manufacturers, Mr. Howard Byne, has stated, and I quote again: "It would be almost un-American to oppose the intent behind the Miller bill." The Business Round Table, recognizing the growing public demand for governmental action, has recently reached an agreement with the Department of Justice on a similar criminal provi sion which the Senate Judiciary Committee has incorporated into their criminal code legislation. Today's distinguished panel of witnesses, representing as they do the religious and consumer communities, are not by any means alone in their support of the legislation, and I would like to introduce Mr. Timothy Smith, the executive director of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, an organization related to the National Council of Churches. The Interfaith Center is a coalition of 180 Roman Catholic orders and dioceses and 17 Protestant denominations and institutions. These churches have incredible amounts of money and investments in major American corporations and for the last 10 years have been using the leverage afforded by their investment to encourage corporations in which they own stock to act more in accordance with the public interest. Mr. Smith has been working with the church on these issues since the late 1960's. Father Michael Crosby is a member of the Midwest Capuchin Franciscans, a group of Roman Catholic brothers headquartered coincidentally in Detroit, Mich. He is project coordinator of the National Catholic Coalition for Responsible Investment which coordinates corporate responsibility projects through the Justice & Peace Center in Milwaukee, Wis. Father Crosby has studied and analyzed these kinds of concerns for a long period of time. He has authored a book on the subject and has been active in the areas of corporate responsibility since 1973. Ms. Patricia Young is a member of the Committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment, the United Presbyterian Church. She represents the United Presbyterian Church on the Board of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility. She has been active for nearly 15 years on issues of hunger and malnutrition and for the past several years has worked on corporate responsibility issues. Her work has taken her to the African Continent twice and most recently to the United Nations meeting in Geneva last October. Before we begin, the Chair has received a request to cover this hearing in whole or in part by television broadcast, radio broadcast, photography, or by other similar methods, and in accordance with committee rule v(a), permission will be granted unless there is no objection. Hearing none, such coverage will be permitted. PANEL: TIMOTHY SMITH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INTERFAITH CENTER ON CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY, NEW YORK, N.Y.; REV. MICHAEL H. CROSBY, O.F.M. CAP., PROJECT COORDINATOR, NATIONAL CATHOLIC COALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT, MILWAUKEE, WIS.; PATRICIA YOUNG, COMMITTEE ON MISSION RESPONSIBILITY THROUGH INVESTMENT, UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, U.S.A. Mr. CONYERS. We welcome you all. Our first witness will be the executive director, Mr. Timothy Smith. You may begin in your own way, sir. Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. I and my colleagues are pleased to be here today to testify on this important piece of |