Infact Changes Name to Corporate Accountability International, Expands Organizing
Leading Campaign Organization Challenges Abuses by Water, Food and Agribusiness, and Oil Industries
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
November 17, 2004

CONTACTS:
Patti Lynn/Corporate Accountability International 617.695.2525
David Lerner/Riptide Communications 212.260.5000

Boston -- Building on 27 years of successful campaigns challenging irresponsible and dangerous actions of corporations like Nestlé, General Electric and Philip Morris/Altria, Infact is expanding its organizing and changing its name to Corporate Accountability International. As it launches new initiatives challenging the water, food and agribusiness, and oil industries, the organization will continue to build its campaign for the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC)-the first global health and corporate accountability treaty. Corporate Accountability International's new website, launched this week, is www.stopcorporateabuse.org.

"For nearly three decades we've been pressuring some of the most powerful and dangerous corporations in the world, and winning changes that save lives and protect people. By changing our name, we will reach and mobilize millions more people to take action and pressure corporations to stop abusive practices," says Corporate Accountability International Executive Director Kathryn Mulvey.

In collaboration with allies around the world, this month Corporate Accountability International is launching new pressure on corporations that threaten our water resources, with a particular focus on Coca-Cola. The soft drink giant is draining water from some of the world's poorest communities. As a result of Coke's water extraction, at least five communities across India face severe water shortages and health problems. In Plachimada, in southern India, Coke's water extraction has dried up hundreds of hand-pumped wells, leaving people without enough water for basic needs. In Mehdiganj, in northeastern India, Coke has decreased the level of groundwater by 40 feet, leaving small farmers without enough water to irrigate their crops.

"We cannot allow corporations to steal our water, and turn it into an unaffordable luxury in India-or anywhere else. This month thousands of people are supporting a 150-mile march in India, from one Coke bottling facility to another, to demand an end to the corporation's abuses. The courage of our Indian allies is inspiring action around the world," says Corporate Accountability International Campaigns Director Patti Lynn.

The United Nations estimates that two-thirds of the world's population will not have enough water by 2025 if current trends are not reversed. According to a former Vice President of the World Bank, "The wars of the 21st century will be fought over water." Coke's water depletion contributes to this problem, and is making water shortage a reality right now for some communities.

With global brand recognition, Coke wields tremendous economic and political clout. In the US alone, Coke reportedly spent $1.7 million on federal lobbying in 2003, and Coke's PACs poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the 2004 election. Coke is a prime example of a corporation that does not abide by Corporate Accountability International's Standards of Political Conduct for Corporations.

Through its expanded organizing, Corporate Accountability International will be exposing abuses by a range of corporations and trade associations in the water, food and agribusiness, and oil industries. Activists will challenge target corporations and trade associations engaging in practices that threaten people and the environment, and using their economic and political clout to get away with irresponsible and dangerous actions.

Meanwhile, with growing global support, the FCTC has now been ratified by 36 countries. On November 8, Thailand became the latest to do so. The treaty, which will save millions of lives, will become international law once 40 countries have ratified.

# # #

Corporate Accountability International, formerly Infact, is a membership organization that protects people by waging and winning campaigns challenging irresponsible and dangerous corporate actions around the world. Through bold campaigns and a commitment to win, Corporate Accountability International and its members have scored major victories that protect people and save lives. For over 25 years, we've forced corporations-like Nestlé, General Electric and Philip Morris/Altria-to stop abusive actions. For more information visit www.stopcorporateabuse.org.

http://www.stopcorporateabuse.org/cms/page1189.cfm

HIGH COURT RULES TO ALLOW COCA-COLA TO RE-OPEN FACILITY
Activists Urge Coke to Close Plant Permanently Despite Court Ruling
For Immediate Release:
April 8, 2005

Contacts:
Patti Lynn, Corporate Accountability International/617-695-2525
David Lerner, Riptide Communications/212-260-5000


This is a hand-pumped well in Utter Pradesh, where communities are challenging similar abuses by Coke. Near Coke's bottling plant in Plachimada, wells have run dry leaving community members without enough water.

BOSTON--In the state of Kerala in Southern India, the High Court has ruled that Coca-Cola can continue operations of one of its most controversial bottling plants. The Plachimada plant was shut down over a year ago by local authorities for draining hundreds of the village's public wells. In solidarity with communities that are resisting Coke's abuses, Corporate Accountability International is calling on the corporation to respond to community concerns and shut down the Plachimada plant, despite the court ruling.

"The High Court ruling is a great disappointment to everyone concerned with Coke's abusive practices around the world. Coke may have won a legal battle here, but the soft drink giant does not have the moral authority to continue its operations in Plachimada. In the face of the court ruling, resistance to Coke's practices in Plachimada and throughout India will continue to grow. We join with community leaders and allies around the world in calling on Coke to close the Plachimada facility permanently, and to pay back the community for the damage it has caused," says Corporate Accountability International Executive Director Kathryn Mulvey.

Corporate Accountability International stands with the courageous people of Plachimada who have been challenging Coke's irresponsible and dangerous practices. Across the US, activists are expressing solidarity with Indian communities, and directly calling on Coke to stop stealing water.

In 2003, the High Court found that Coke's bottling operations in Plachimada threatened the constitutionally protected right to life. Today's court ruling is a step backward from that ruling. Coke's abuses in India are part of an increasing pattern of corporations seeking to exploit water resources around the world amidst a growing water crisis. The United Nations estimates that if current trends continue, two-thirds of the world's population will not have enough water by 2025.

# # #

Corporate Accountability International, formerly Infact, is a membership organization that protects people by waging and winning campaigns challenging irresponsible and dangerous corporate actions around the world. For over 25 years, we've forced corporations--like Nestlé, General Electric and Philip Morris/Altria--to stop abusive actions. Corporate Accountability International is an NGO in Official Relations with the World Health Organization (WHO). For more information visit www.stopcorporateabuse.org.

http://www.stopcorporateabusenow.org/stopc...abuse/home.html

Time Warner settles SEC fraud charges
Media company to pay $300 million amid AOL allegations

The Associated Press
Updated: 12:49 p.m. ET March 21, 2005


NEW YORK - Time Warner Inc., the world’s largest media company, is paying $300 million to settle fraud charges by the Securities and Exchange Commission for overstating online advertising revenues and the number of its Internet subscribers.

As part of the agreement announced Monday, Time Warner has restated its financial results to reduce the amount of online advertising revenues it reported by about $500 million from the fourth quarter of 2000 through 2002, the SEC said.

Time Warner will neither admit nor deny any wrongdoing under the settlement. However, it has agreed to appoint an independent examiner who will further review the company’s accounting for several previous transactions. That report, which is expected to be done within six months, could result in further restatements.

The details of the deal are in line with a settlement that the company had proposed to the SEC and disclosed last December. At that time, the company also said it agreed to pay $210 million to settle charges of criminal securities fraud in a separate investigation by the Department of Justice.

Together, the two settlements lifted a cloud of uncertainty that had been hanging over the company for more than two years. Time Warner is now hoping to use its improving balance sheet to pursue acquisitions, primarily the cable assets of Adelphia Communications Corp.

“We’re pleased to have resolved the SEC’s investigation of the company based on the proposed settlement announced late last year,” Time Warner spokeswoman Mia Carbonell said. “We’re committed to cooperating with the independent examiner as well as fulfilling all of our other obligations under the settlement.”

Time Warner agreed to be bought by AOL at the height of the Internet bubble in early 2000, resulting in a disastrous merger that shattered the company’s share price. The company’s stock is still about 75 percent below the level it reached prior to the merger.

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
© 2005 MSNBC.com

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7256768/

The Real Price of Spam
By Tim Beyers (TMF MileHigh)
April 13, 2005

It hurts to write this. Seriously. My arms, gut, hands, and head -- all of them -- are pounding as I patter away at the keyboard. That's because I'm about to defend -- gulp -- a spammer. Ugh. I feel dirty just saying that.

How did it come to this, you ask? How did I find myself actually needing to defend one of the slimeballs probably responsible for filling my inbox with some 300,000 useless messages a year? I'll tell you how: Because the guy I'm going to tell you about isn't Bernie Ebbers. But you'd think he was. Follow along, please.

Last week, 30-year-old Jeremy Jaynes was sentenced to nine years in prison for bombarding us Web users with millions of unwanted e-mail. That's right, folks: nine years. Maybe that's because Jaynes was doing pretty well. A report from the Associated Press says he grossed up to $750,000 a month pushing digital come-ons, including pornography and fake products such as the "FedEx refund processor." Authorities also think Jaynes was responsible for sending upwards of 10 million spam messages a day. (It should be noted, however, that the prosecution produced only 53,000 messages.)

The problem isn't really with the crime, though I find it odd that Jaynes was found guilty not of spamming so much as hiding his identity in sending the ads. I mean, isn't pushing fake products fraud? Seems so to me but, then again, I'm not an attorney. Foolish colleague Rich Smith is, however. When I asked him what he thought of all this, his response mirrored mine. In a word: outrage.

Let's face it: Jaynes played the starring role in a show trial designed to demonstrate to the public that the government is doing something about spam. Yeah, OK, I get the point. And I do want my tax dollars spent well. But again, I have to ask: Do nine years in the slammer really fit this crime? And if it does, then what of dear old Bernie? He gets sentenced June 13 for an $11 billion fraud that bilked millions of investors. I have a feeling he won't be asked to serve nine years, let alone nine months, especially after he was able to merely walk away and hail a cab following his conviction. If that happens we'll all be forced to conclude what many have suspected all along: Corporate fraud doesn't matter. Or, at least, not as much as spam does.

For related Foolishness:

Foolish colleague Seth Jayson rejoiced at Jaynes' conviction in November. Can you blame him? I can't.
Ironically, we just don't care about spam anymore.
Learn about spam's ugly cousin, spim.

http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2005/mft05041306.htm

The New Economic Warriors

By Robert J. Samuelson

Wednesday, April 13, 2005; Page A17


They've gone from heroes to bums. Hardly a day passes when the press or prosecutors don't thrash some corporate CEO for alleged managerial blunders or accounting illegalities. The insurance mogul Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, lately of American International Group Inc., is only the most recent target. Then there are those familiar symbols of scandal: the former bigwigs of Enron and WorldCom. A few years ago American chief executives were celebrated as architects of the New Economy. Now they inspire scorn or rage. What we have is a corporate Watergate, says management consultant John Challenger. It's that -- and more.

Like the preceding glorification, the present vilification obscures a larger reality. The true transformation of CEOs is not the recent plunge from public grace. It's a slow-motion evolution that, despite many excesses, mistakes and some crimes, has served the nation rather well. To oversimplify, CEOs have changed from bureaucrats to warriors. You can glimpse the effects in a couple of statistics. The first: In the fourth quarter of 2004, after-tax business profits were 9.2 percent of national income, the highest since at least 1950, says Mark Zandi of Economy.com. The second: From 2001 to 2004, annual growth in productivity (output per hour worked) averaged 4.3 percent, the best since -- again -- 1950.

In our mind's eye, we see CEOs as a ruthless and selfish bunch, closing factories, squeezing health insurance coverage and slashing wage increases -- even while arranging lavish pay packages for themselves. To some extent, the stereotype unfairly dehumanizes CEOs. But like many stereotypes, it contains much truth. In 2004 the CEOs of 179 major companies were paid an average of $9.84 million, up 12 percent from 2003, reports a survey done by Pearl Meyer & Partners for the New York Times. By contrast, average labor compensation rose only 4.5 percent.

But the obsessive drive to improve profits, though cold-blooded, also creates often-overlooked social benefits. It's not simply that growing profits bolster the stock market or finance new investment. The broader point is that advancing productivity -- a fancy term for efficiency and a byproduct of the quest for profits -- is the wellspring of higher living standards. Without it, we'd quarrel ferociously over pieces of a fixed economic pie (heck, even with it, we quarrel).

What moves productivity is a mystery, subject to many influences: new technologies, workers' education, the level of inflation and corporate management, among others. From 1973 to 1995, productivity growth averaged a lackluster 1.5 percent a year. Mediocre management was partly to blame. Small wonder. In the 1960s and 1970s, the prevailing idea was that CEOs should mediate among a company's various "stakeholders" -- workers, customers, shareholders, communities and governments. CEOs were usually "company men," promoted from within. Their main mission was to protect the organization and polish the public reputation of corporations. They were compensated like tenured bureaucrats without much incentive pay. Growing profitability and productivity were taken for granted, because American management was assumed to be so superior.

It wasn't. Competition -- foreign and domestic -- intensified. Hostile takeovers threatened lagging companies. Worried CEOs focused more on the bottom line. Directors increasingly picked outsiders as CEOs, "searching for a corporate savior," writes Rakesh Khurana of the Harvard Business School in his book by that title. The talents, temperaments and values of CEOs shifted. The new breed is more individualistic, more "charismatic" (Khurana's label), more profit-driven. They're not "company men"; they're corporate "change agents." They're devoted to improving the firm's economic performance; other goals come second or third.

This broad transformation -- even if it doesn't apply to everyone -- illuminates today's CEO paradox. At worst it leads to abuse and fraud. The abuse consists of all those inflated pay packages, reached in uncompetitive negotiations with directors. CEOs are often overpaid in the sense that they would work just as hard for less. From 1993 to 2003, the average compensation of CEOs of the Standard & Poor's 500 companies rose 146 percent after inflation, report Lucian Bebchuk of Harvard Law School and Yaniv Grinstein of Cornell University. Unlike bureaucrat CEOs, today's warriors feel little self-restraint; having been charged to maximize corporate profits, they feel entitled to maximize their own. The fraud occurs when this mind-set causes executives to resort to accounting deceits to prop up profits and stock prices.

But headline outrages are not the only story. A vibrant economy requires someone to screen out inefficiencies and promote change. In the 1980s U.S. companies were compared unfavorably with Japanese and German rivals that supposedly focused more on the "long term." In reality the "long term" was often an excuse to stand pat. The American economy has done better -- achieved higher living standards, adapted more smoothly to change -- in part because most CEOs faced problems when they arose and didn't wait for the long term.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer

Cloned Cattle's Milk And Meat Seem Safe, Study Says

By Drog (Canada), Section International
Posted on Tue Apr 12th, 2005 at 08:10:59 AM PST

A National Academy of Sciences report (.pdf) last year said that while the milk and meat from cloned animals would not likely make anyone sick, more research should be performed. Now, a new US-Japan study published in the April 11 online issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences says that milk and meat from cloned cattle does indeed appear to meet industry standards and appears to be safe for human consumption.

As BBC News reports, the scientists, led by Professor Jerry Yang from the University of Connecticut, compared the produce from two beef and four dairy clones, all derived from a single Holstein dairy cow and a single Japanese black bull, with the produce from normal animals of similar age and breed.


The meat was analysed against more than 100 physiological, tissue and cellular components, while the milk was analysed for protein, fat and other variables. No significant differences between the produce of cloned and normal cattle were found. Higher levels of fat and fatty acids were found in the cloned cow meat, but they still fell within beef industry standards.


While the study showed the cloned produce to be within the range approved for human consumption, the scientists stressed that the research was still in its early stages. Their findings, they said, provide "guidelines" for further research with larger numbers of clones from different genetic backgrounds.


Cloning livestock may one day increase yields by copying those animals that are especially productive especially resistant to disease.

"The milking production levels in the US are three to four times higher than levels in China; maybe even five times or more compared to cows in India and some other countries," Professor Jerry Yang told BBC News. "Therefore cloning could offer technology for duplicating superior farm animals. However, all the products from these cloned animals must be safe for human consumption. ...and it is a major issue for scientists to provide a scientific basis for the data and information to address this question."


As USA Today reports, there is currently no law governing the sale of meat or milk from the estimated 1,000 to 2,000 cloned farm animals in the USA. But since 2003, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has asked producers to voluntarily keep the meat and milk of these animals, and that of their offspring, out of the food supply.


Wired News reports that companies like ViaGen and Cyagra, which offer livestock-cloning services, have also been waiting for several years for a final say from the FDA.


"For the United States agricultural industry, (cloning) can reduce the number of cows necessary for milking," said Jerry Yang "They can have a pleasant environment and produce even more milk." He also said that cloning the cattle from United States, where genetic breeding is more advanced, could save developing countries 50 years of breeding.


The idea of cloning animals for human consumption is not without its critics. First, there are the welfare concerns, as most cloned animals do not make it to term before being born, and many of those that do are born deformed or prone to illness. The Humane Society of the United States has asked for a ban on milk and meat from clones for just this reason. Second, there is still the concern that healthy clones may have subtle defects that could make their food products unsafe to eat.


As the Washington Post reports, some critics are asking why it is necessary to clone cows that produce huge amounts of milk when surpluses, rather than shortages, are the main problem facing the U.S. dairy industry today.

There was also a surplus of milk back when Monsanto introduced their genetically engineered recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) to the marketplace a couple of years ago. It is reported to have caused all sorts of problems. The dairy cows became much more susceptible to udder infections called mastitis, resulting in pus in the milk, and great pain for the cows. Those cows must be treated with antibiotics, which of course make their way into the milk that we drink. That is a matter for public concern, especially when resistance to antibiotics is becoming a major health issue for us all.

Could the cloning of cattle be another example of a risky, high-tech solution in need of a problem?

The world could use more dialogue about its differences -- a little understanding goes a long way. There are many online forums where people with different perspectives yell at each other and hurl abuse. There aren't so many where completely different points of view are expressed rationally and constructively. That's why The World Forum was created.


Tell the world what YOU think about this story. You can post anonymously now by clicking on the "Post A Comment" link below, or sign up for your free account first, so that your chosen username appears next to your comments.

http://www.theworldforum.org/story/2005/4/12/8113/78917

DVDs

"Corporation" takes a hard look at big business

By Mark Rahner

Seattle Times DVD writer
"The Corporation" is new on DVD.

Joseph Campbell wasn't just blowing smoke from his ivory tower when he said you could tell what a society worships by looking at its tallest buildings — first churches, then state edifices and now corporate towers.

The myth scholar wouldn't find much heroism in "The Corporation" (Zeitgeist, $29.99, unrated), the award-winning and infuriating documentary about the force currently driving ... well, almost everything. Its clever conceit: If corporations are legally considered the same as a person (which a loophole of the 14th Amendment allows), then many of them behave like a prototypical psychopath in their sharklike pursuit of the bottom line: no empathy, morality or feelings of obligation to obey the law or social conventions.

Co-director Mark Achbar was also responsible for "Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media." And with Chomsky and Michael Moore as two of the talking heads here, don't expect a corporate love fest. But other experts — such as a CEO who had an environmental-guilt epiphany — add balance. You don't have to be a big pinko to find the wide-ranging material eye-opening.

There are familiar touchstones — pollution, exhaustion of natural resources, exploitation of Third World workers, diabolical child-targeted advertising.

Other whoppers include a corporate plot to overthrow FDR, and a Fox reporter sacked after allegedly refusing to lie about a Monsanto bovine growth hormone story.

Skillful crafting that employs vintage cartoons and clips makes for a bracing 145 minutes. And the double-disc set has more extras than a downtown block has Starbucks: deleted scenes, assorted media interviews with the filmmakers (including a long, interesting one on Air America radio), two audio commentaries, and more than five hours of extra footage. I zeroed in on info about IBM's punch-card machines used in concentration camps — and gave a second thought to the milk in my iced mocha.

Mark Rahner: 206-464-8259 or mrahner@seattletimes.com

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/arts...poration09.html

FDA Studies Show Aspartame Link to Brain Tumors

Mission Possible is seeking New York and New Jersey plaintiffs for litigation on aspartame.

ATLANTA (PRWEB via PR Web Direct) April 12, 2005 -- Consumer rights advocacy group Mission Possible is leading a campaign to fill a product liability lawsuit with New York and New Jersey residents whose brain tumors may be linked to the consumption of the artificial sweetener aspartame (NutraSweet/Equal/Spoonful, etc.).

"Neither congressional hearings or repeated petitions calling for a ban have stopped aspartame manufacturers from exposing the public to this sweet poison. In fact, aspartame producers are reporting increased sales and boasting the marketplace addition of 'neotame,' a new aspartame product," explained Mission Possible International Founder Betty Martini.

For 16 years, the FDA resisted pressure to approve aspartame due to safety studies linking the artificial sweetener to numerous adverse reactions, including the development of brain tumors in animal studies. In 1977, FDA investigator Jerome Bressler released a report describing how, in clinical studies submitted to the FDA, Searle removed aspartame-induced brain tumors that developed in lab rats and placed them back into the study. If the rats died, Bressler reported, Searle would resurrect them on paper.

In a personal conversation with Martini and prominent aspartame experts, Doctors H. J. Roberts and Russell Blaylock he admitted the studies were so bad FDA removed 20% of the most damaging data of his report.

Three years after Donald Rumsfeld became CEO of Searle, aspartame was approved for use in dry goods. To find out how he accomplished this feat, click into the new movie, “Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World” and hear the words of renowned Washington Consumer Attorney James Turner as he speaks about President Reagan's Executive Order: http://www.soundandfury.tv/pages/Rumsfeld2.html

Since its 1981 approval, the FDA has published a list of 92 symptoms of aspartame poisoning, which includes headaches, vision loss including blindness, seizures, neurological problems, cardiovascular problems and death. The FDA admits adverse reactions to aspartame comprise about 80 percent of consumer complaints it receives each year. Martini has been networking victims, scientists, and physicians under an umbrella of scientific data and published medical literature that has been growing since Mission Possible formed in 1992.

Having exhausted her executive and administrative remedies regarding the removal of aspartame from the marketplace, Martini is convinced that, "Litigation is the only way to spare consumers the misery of aspartame poisoning." Martini's reasoning is supported in the outcomes of recent product liability controversies. It was class action lawsuits -- not government agency intervention -- that forced the epidemic of Vioxx-induced heart attacks out into the open where the FDA had to take administrative action, banning sales of the dangerous pain relief drug. Information from the experts and in medical texts show aspartame is actually a neurotoxic drug that interacts with other drugs and vaccinations.

The story of how aspartame was discovered and approved by the FDA has been pieced together over the years through documents obtained by Mission Possible. That aspartame overcame FDA neurotoxicity concerns and is now found in over 7,000 commonly consumed foods, beverages and medical preparations is a case study of how power politics trumps science and public safety in the product approval process.

In one set of documents, aspartame producer G.D. Searle used poor people from six third-world countries as test subjects for a study conducted in 1983/84. The data shows that, over the 18-month duration of the study, some of the subjects developed brain tumors; others began to experience seizures. In one case, a pregnant woman spontaneously aborted, began hemorrhaging and then disappeared from the study.

The study showed that the numbers of people whose brains and central nervous systems are adversely affected by aspartame are statistically significant enough to warrant a review of its status as an FDA-approved artificial sweetener. But the FDA was not provided with the results of the Searle study nor was it allowed to review the clinical data.

A study was done at Kings College in England by Dr. Peter Nunn in 1999 on aspartame and brain tumors. Monsanto insisted that aspartame could not cause brain tumors because it doesn't get in the blood stream even though Martini says industry's own studies shows it does and released this information in a report, which can be read at http://www.rense.com/health3/asptumor.htm.

In the result of this study it said: "Interestingly, when we exposed human brain tumour cells to nitrosated DKP the cells became more motile and their rate of proliferation was significantly elevated. While it is somewhat early to speculate, it is possible that the aspartame breakdown product may be capable of enhancing the rate of malignant progression of pre-existing (and possibly clinically silent, undiagnosed) tumours in the brain." This was exactly what the famed neuroscientist Dr. John Olney said when he made world news in l996 over the aspartame/brain tumor association.

Monsanto, the maker of the controversial bovine growth hormone that has been linked to the development of cancer in humans and cattle, bought Searle (and the rights to produce aspartame) in 1985. They sold in l999 to other companies.

The prevalence of brain tumors in the U.S. has been increasing steadily since the early 1980s. Today, about 70 percent of adults and 40 percent of children are regular consumers of products that contain aspartame.

"There is not one shred of evidence to suggest that aspartame is safe. Yet, our files are overflowing with studies and reports proving that aspartame is a not a food additive but a neurotoxic drug that breaks down to a brain tumor agent, DKP. And now, 25 years later, we have epidemic proportions of people developing brain tumors and a full spectrum of other neurological disorders," Martini said.

Aspartame's road to marketplace approval and its effect on public health is extremely well documented. The aspartame story has been described in the 1,038-page medical text "Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic" by H.J. Roberts, MD. (http://www.sunsentpress.com). Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills by neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, M.D., also describes these problems. http://www.russellblaylockmd.com

Former aspartame-induced multiple-sclerosis sufferer Cori Brackett traveled over 7,000 miles to interview physicians, scientists, attorneys and FDA investigators about aspartame neurotoxicity and how then former (and now current) Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld used his political muscle to achieve aspartame's FDA approval. The result is the powerful video documentary "Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World" (www.soundandfuryproductions.com).

The largest collection of aspartame-related studies, reports and case histories available anywhere in the world can be found online at http://www.dorway.com, the Mission Possible website. Aspartame Toxicity Center is http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame

New York and New Jersey residents who believe they may qualify as a plaintiff in a product liability lawsuit against aspartame producers are encouraged to contact Mission Possible at (770) 242-2599. To qualify, one must be able to establish themselves as an aspartame consumer prior to developing a brain tumor and fall within the three-year statute of limitations.

Contact:

Dr. Betty Martini
770 242-2599
Mission Possible International
9270 River Club Parkway
Duluth, Georgia 30097


http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/4/prweb228424.htm

Published on TaipeiTimes
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worldbiz/a...4/14/2003250463

Nike reveals details about its factories for first time

DISCLOSURE: According to the company's corporate responsibility report, cases of `abusive treatment' were found in more than a quarter of its South Asian factories

AP , BEAVERTON, OREGON
Thursday, Apr 14, 2005,Page 12

Advertising After years of criticism over its labor practices abroad, Nike Inc has disclosed for the first time the names and locations of more than 700 factories that produce its sneakers, apparel and other products.
Industry experts said the disclosure, included as part of the company's corporate responsibility report, makes the sneaker giant the first major apparel manufacturer to voluntarily disclose its entire supply chain.

In the report, which was released yesterday, Nike also acknowledges that factories with which it contracts to produce goods have harassed workers and forced some to work overtime.

For years, activists have demanded that Nike and other major companies reveal where factories are located, so that independent observers could go and assess the labor conditions.

Corporations have been reluctant to do so, arguing that the plants are where the company's trade secrets are laid bare and that advanced products could be leaked to rivals.

In its 108-page corporate responsibility report, Nike discloses the names of 124 plants in China contracted to make its products, 73 in Thailand, 35 in South Korea, 34 in Vietnam -- with others elsewhere in Asia, as well as in South America, Australia, Canada, Italy, Mexico, Turkey and the US.

While the competitive risk still exists, Nike spokesman Lee Weinstein said, "that's something we're willing to take on if this disclosure will in fact move the industry forward in addressing some of these endemic issues."

The "endemic issues" are past allegations of sweatshop conditions.

Nike's report acknowledges that those issues still exist in some overseas operations.

According to the report, Nike audited 569 factories in 2003 and last year and found abuses it has previously identified. Monitors found cases of "abusive treatment" -- either physical or verbal -- in more than a quarter of its South Asian factories, and between 25 percent and 50 percent of the contract factories in the region restrict access to toilets and drinking water during the work day.

The monitors found that in more than half the South Asian factories, and in over 25 percent of factories overall, the normal course of business led to work hours in excess of 60 hours per week. In more than one-tenth of all the plants surveyed, refusal to work overtime led to a penalty of some kind, the report said.

The business world is embracing "corporate responsibility," with many companies hoping to win over customers by showing greater transparency. According to a survey last year by the London-based think tank AccountAbility, 72 of the world's 100 highest-grossing companies produced annual corporate responsibility reports.

As part of that trend, one of Nike's main rivals -- Reebok Inc of Canton, Massachusetts -- has already revealed the names and addresses of nearly two-thirds of its footwear factories on its Web site, Reebok spokesman Dan Sarro said.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worldbiz/a...003250463/print

Corporate manipulation also means media outlets they have to much power they can brainwash the public and sway votes. Did you know crime is down yet the media wants to push for longer sentences and it happens. The whole time selling adds and crime shows are on the rise.

I am for crime reduction just keep it real.

People react to former FBI agent's claim of 'Deep Throat' WCAX

I recently read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman (Unabridged)" by John Perkins.

Mr. Perkins proves what I've believed but could not prove. The urban ledgend is no longer a ledgend.

The Corporatocracies of the world are at work at you read this.

The author has taken extended liberties to recount very old conversations during his various encounters with local nations, political super powers, and the corporate world or he kept a massive highly detailed log/diary of every encounter. His resume supports his opportunities to do what he claims and current events and history supports the majority of his allegations.

The sad part is from 1971 - 1981 he continued doing what he did knowing the impact.

Through out the book he's looking for sympathetic hearts to his plight of being an Economic Hitman (EHM) and his subsequent benefits from the many exposures and contacts he had as an EHM.

I believe the book is largely non-fictional with the exception of detailed recounted conversations.

I don't want the author to financially benefit more from his loathsome activities that may have contributed to the political blight our country is in today. Get it from your local library for FREE.


After you read the book, get a copy of Financial Times and you determine why 9/11 happen and if another 9/11 event will happen.

It's always easy to have morals and values while making money.

The book is scary.

Had yer brainwashed lately? Merck, where the Patient comes first. Kinda gives you that warm and fuzzy feeling all over. Thank goodness for NPR who takes money from the ONDCP. I guess it won't be so bad when congress cut funding for PBS because then Pfizer and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, (see Johnson & Johnson, a family company) can backfill the loss. RWJF incidently has been a very large contributor to the Partnership for a Non-Corporate Drug Free America. Whitewash, brainwash and hogwash all share a lot in common, in that they typically describe the coporate influenced main stream media drivel that most of amerika is subjected to an a more or less continual basis.