can someone help me summarize this, i am so stress, can’t write anything, i need help please?
Posted by James on June 20, 2012 · 4 Comments
Question by : can someone help me summarize this, i am so stress, can’t write anything, i need help please?
when it comes to the safety of young chidren, fire is a parent’s nightmare. just the thought of their young ones trapped in their cribs and beds by a raging nocturnal blaze is enough to make most mothers and fathers take every precaution to ensure their children’s safety. little wonder that when fire-retardant children’s pajamas first hit the market, they proved an overnight success. within a few short years more than 200 millíon pairs were spld, and the sále of millíon more were all but guaranteed. for their manufacturers, the future could not have been brighter. then, like a bolt from the blue, came word that the pajamas were killér. the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) moved quickly to ban their sale and recall millions of pairs. Reason: the pajamas contained the flame-retardant chemícal Tris (2,3-dibromoprophyl), which had been found to cause kidney cancer in children. because of its toxicity, the sleepwear couldnt even thrown away, let alone sold. indeed, the CPSC left no doubt about how the pajamas were to be disposed of buried or burned or used as industrial wiping cloths. whereas just months earlier the manufacturers of the Tris-impregnated pajamas couldnt fill orders fast enough, suddenly they were worrying about how to get rid of the millions of pairs now sitting in warehouses. soon, however, ads began appearing in the classified pages of WOMEN’S WEAR DAILY. “Tris,tris… we will buy any fabric containing Tris,” read on. another said, “Tris- we will purchase any large quantities of garments containing Tris.” the ads had been placed by exporters, who began buying up the pajamas, usually at 10 to 30 percent of the normal wholesale price. their intent was clear: to dump the carcinogenic pajamas on overseas markets. Tris is not the only êxampl of dumping. there were the 450,000 baby pacifiers, of the type known to have caused choking deaths, that were exported for sale overseas, and the 400 Iraqis who died and 5000 who were hospitalized after eating wheat and barley treated with a U.S.-banned organic mercury fungicide. Winstrol, a synthetic male hormone that had been found to stunt the growth of American children, was made available in Brazil as an appetite stimulant for children. DowElanco, although the Environment Protection Agency forbade its sale to U.S. farmers because Galant may cause cancer. after the U.S Food and Drug Administration banned the painkiller dipyrone because it can cause a fatal blood disorder, Winthrop Product continued to sell dipyrone in Mexico City. Manufacturers that dump products abroad clearly are motivated by profit, or at least by the hope of avoiding financial losses resulting from having to withdraw a product from the U.S market. for government and health agencies that cooperate in the exporting of dangerous products, sometimes the motives are more complex. for example, when researchers dôcumented the dangers of the Dalkon Shield intrauterine device-among the adverse reactions were pelvic inflammation, blood poisoning. tubal pregnancies, and uterine perforations-its manufacturer, A.H.Robins Co., began losing its domestic market. as a result, the company worked out a deal with the office of population within the U.S Agency for International Development, whereby AID bought thoúsand of the devices at a reduced price for use in population-control programs in forty-two countries. why do government and population control agencies approve for sale and use overseas a birth control device proved dangerous in the U.S? They say their motives are humanitarian. because the rate of dying in childbirth is high in third world countries, almost any birth control device is preferable to none. analogous arguments are used to defend to export of pesticides and other products judged too dangerous for use in the U.S: foreign countries should vague or ambiguous or too technical to understand.but even if communication procedures were improved or the export of dangerous products forbidden, there are ways that companies can circumvent these threats to their profit- for example, by simply changing the name of the product or by exporting the individual ingredients of a product dumped. the U.S does prohibit drugs banned in this country, but sidestepping the law is not difficult. ” unless the package bursts open on the clock,” one drug company executive observes, “you have no chance of being caught”. unfortunately for us, in the case of pesticides, the effects of overseas dumping are now coming home. in U.S the EPA bans all crop uses of ?DT and dieldrin, which kill fish, cause tumór in animals, and build up in the patty tissue of human. it also bán heptachlor, chlordane, leptophos, endrin, and many other pesticides, including 2,4,5-T (which contains the deadly poíson dioxin, the active ingredient in Agent Orange, the notorious defoliant used in Vietnam) because they are dangerous to human being. no law, however, prohibits the sale of ?DT and these other U.S-banned pesticides overse
continue “no law..overseas, where thanks to corporate dumping they are routinely used in agriculture. in one three-months period, for example, U.S chemical companies exported 3.9 million pounds of banned and withdrawn pesticides. the FDA now estimates, through spot checks, that 10% of our imported food is contaminated with residues of banned pesticides. and the FDA’s most commonly used testing procedure does not even check for 70% of the pesticides known to cause cancer. with the doubling of exports of Mexican produce to the U.S since the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the problem of pêsticid-laced food has only grown worse.
Best answer:
Answer by harvinab
Exactly what do you mean by summarize, it would be helpful if you could say what your word count is for the summary and the style your summary is required to be written in such as APA format. If you can answer that I might be able to help you out.
Add your own answer in the comments!
when it comes to the safety of young children, no law, however, prohibits the sale of DDT and these other U.S-banned pesticides overseas
Dear Girl,
This is the main point I got out of the article:
Manufacturers that dump products abroad clearly are motivated by profit, or at least by the hope of avoiding financial losses resulting from having to withdraw a product from the U.S market.
It was deep in the middle. Did you write this, or is it something you were asked to review?
Hope this helps.
This is too difficult to summarize. If you contact any and all agencies having to with health, safety, trade regulations and contact the district office of your congressman,, I am sure you will have enough information to distill into what you want.All of these agencies can direct you to other places and all numbers are toll free. To contact your congressional representative, call 202 224 2131 if you cannot find his name in a local phone book.
Products that were once commonly sold in the USA are found to be dangerous to children or adults and the products are withdrawn from the market. The government agencies who require those products to be withdrawn from sale do not have the power to prevent those products from being sold overseas. Manufacturers whose products have been recalled, or who are prevented from selling a formerly profitable item, often export these dangerous, unsellable products to other countries. Exporting these items is usually illegal, but no agency supervises the sale and companies know they can get away with overseas dumping. The problems are now coming back to haunt us: pesticides forbidden in the USA are used in other countries then come back on imported food, killing fish, causing tumors in animals and building up in fatty tissue of US citizens.