can someone helps me summarize this?, please i really need it, thank you?

Question by : can someone helps me summarize this?, please i really need it, thank you?

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 danger to human being. no law, however, prohibits the sale of ?DT and these other U.S-banned pesticides overseas,

Best answer:

Answer by KenK
Summarizing it might involve replacing the specific examples with a general statement, such as “Numerous products have been…”. There is a sentence in the middle of this document that also gets a bit close to a summary.

Add your own answer in the comments!