Quote:

---

Scotts Miracle-Gro products are known for zapping weeds dead. But it turns out they could be killing decidedly more attractive creatures — birds.

Scotts pled guilty this Tuesday to charges that the company illegally put insecticides in its “Morning Song” and “Country Pride” brands of bird seed. That’s right: The company knowingly coated products intended for birds to eat with substances toxic to birds and wildlife.

According to court records, in 2008, Scotts distributed 73 million packages of bird seed coated with the insecticides Storcide II, containing the active ingredient chlorpyrifos, and and Actellic 5E, containing the active ingredient pirimiphos-methyl, intended to keep insects from destroying the seed.

The company continued to produce and market the insecticide-coated seeds despite being alerted to toxicity dangers by a Scotts staff chemist and ornithologist.


And here’s the icing on the toxin-loaded cake: Storcide II, one of the insecticides in Scotts seed, comes with a huge warning label that reads: “Toxic to birds, toxic to wildlife” and “Exposed treated seed may be hazardous to birds.” Must be that a senior exec at Scotts got shat on by a pigeon one day and took it real personal.

In addition to the bird seed, Scotts is in big trouble for selling chemical-loaded gardening products without first obtaining registration from the EPA. The federal government alleges that a Scotts manager even went so far as to fabricate documents and correspondence with the agency. It seems they find forgery easier than just not poisoning wildlife.

The judge hasn’t decided what, exactly, Scotts’ punishment will be yet, but the company has proposed paying a $4 million fine and donating $500,000 towards wildlife conservation. Maybe all the house finches, sparrows, and mourning doves Scotts has poisoned over the years will file a class-action lawsuit and push for a lot more than that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Hello,

I used to be an absolutist in my opinion that government needed to stay away from business. I used to feel that business should regulate itself, and the consumer could decide what they wanted to buy without interference.

I am no longer of that opinion.

Now I believe that the government does have roles in assuring

1) Claims made or implied about a product are factual.
2) Full disclosure of relevant product facts are made and in an understandable fashion.
3) The product does not pose undisclosed dangers to people, animals, or the environment.

I've come to this conclusion after noting that corporations will apparently do evil shit for no reason that I can ascertain and continue doing it in the shadows until someone forces that information into the light.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Pure evil in the name of capitalistic greed? Where's that get fun?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

Out of his mind they said, conspiracy theorist they said, it's all just salmonella they said....
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10370_12150_12220-27268--,00.
html
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-870_162-7741.html

Monday mornin imma take whatever I can find on this and cram it so far up the ass of my local DNR rep his dentist will have to fucking polish it.

ETA: This is even more apalling to those who know about the Bird Ultimatum that day.

-Frem

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Pure evil in the name of capitalistic greed? Where's that get fun?

---

How is this capitalistic 'greed' ?

---

Quote:

---

The federal government also alleged that a Scotts manager fabricated federal documents and correspondence to obtain state registrations for two products that were being marketed without U.S. EPA registration.

The government alleged that the manager "told EPA that these files proved that the products had been properly reviewed and registered by EPA when, in fact, they were not authentic EPA files and when, in fact, the products had not been approved and registered by EPA."

The government also charged that between 2005 and 2007 Scotts sold two pesticides without directions required by the EPA and making claims on labels about the product that the EPA had rejected.

On April 23, 2008, EPA Region 5 today issued a "stop sale, use or removal" order against Scotts Miracle Gro Co., Scotts Lawn Care Service and three affiliates, all of Marysville, Ohio, for illegal, unregistered and misbranded pesticides.

Identified by invalid registration number 62355-4, the two products were marketed as Garden Weed Preventer + Plant Food and Miracle Gro Shake 'n' Feed All Purpose Plant Food Plus Weed Preventer.

---

Quote:

---

Yet Rappy insists there's not a greedy thing about that...

---

Quote:

---

That it may not be long-term survivable doesn't compute in the short-term grab-fest.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"... corporations will apparently do evil shit for no reason that I can ascertain ..."

I'm guessing it's some combination of cheaper, faster and more convenient. For example, Scotts may have been set up to produce insecticided seed for lawns, and setting up for bird seed would have been too inconvenient. They may have calculated the cost of the treatment v the profit of the bird seed and decided it would cost more to reformulate than to keep going on the way they were. Or perhaps it was too bothersome to think about. Or they may have made too much insecticided lawn seed and, unable to sell it, they mixed it with other seed and repackaged it as bird seed.

It's obvious why they would sell products before being registered with the EPA - cost, time, and maybe even being unable to legally comply at all.

In any case, capitalism is like evolution - the ones who grab the most resources the fastest win. That it may not be long-term survivable doesn't compute in the short-term grab-fest.

If evolution is unthinking animal behavior which responds to the immediate advantage, and human intelligence is the pursuit of the long-term over the short-term, then corporations do what they do because they're inhuman and stupid.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:

Quote:

---

Yet Rappy insists there's not a greedy thing about that...

---

Hello,

Deficient thinking will lead some willfully blind people to overlook the fact that the insecticide was placed there to prevent shrinkage caused by insects. Hence protecting inventory for sale and thereby securing greater profits.

Damn the results.

Greed indeed, to anyone with the intellect and will to see it.

--Anthony

---

Quote:

---

A safer, cleaner and more secure method of packaging the product seems to me like it'd make more sense.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Hello,

I used to be an absolutist in my opinion that government needed to stay away from business. I used to feel that business should regulate itself, and the consumer could decide what they wanted to buy without interference.

I am no longer of that opinion.

Now I believe that the government does have roles in assuring

1) Claims made or implied about a product are factual.
2) Full disclosure of relevant product facts are made and in an understandable fashion.
3) The product does not pose undisclosed dangers to people, animals, or the environment.

I've come to this conclusion after noting that corporations will apparently do evil shit for no reason that I can ascertain and continue doing it in the shadows until someone forces that information into the light.

--Anthony

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

I'm of the mind that we need something else, independent bodies that regulate both government and business, and by regulate I mean be a watchdog. Something along the line of ombudsmen, but with expanded authority.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
...I don't have to guess that putting insecticide in was the cheapest and easiest solution. After all, the birds wouldn't die at the bird feeder, so nobody'd notice...and go right on buying the seed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

I'm of the mind that we need something else, independent bodies that regulate both government and business, and by regulate I mean be a watchdog. Something along the line of ombudsmen, but with expanded authority.

---

Because there's not enough authority in govt already, we need yet ANOTHER, bigger brother to tell us all how to live our lives ?

I like the idea from Firefly, where the Companions have their own Guild, which keeps everyone and everything in line.

Or maybe I just like the idea of there BEING Companions, in the first place ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

I'm of the mind that we need something else, independent bodies that regulate both government and business, and by regulate I mean be a watchdog. Something along the line of ombudsmen, but with expanded authority.

---

Because there's not enough authority in govt already, we need yet ANOTHER, bigger brother to tell us all how to live our lives ?

I like the idea from Firefly, where the Companions have their own Guild, which keeps everyone and everything in line.

Or maybe I just like the idea of there BEING Companions, in the first place ?

---

Do you just dismiss everything i say based on your completely partisan view of the world? What a shame you have such a limiting mind. A shame for you anyway.

I did say that such a body would have the role of ensuring government power was limited and governments were accountable. I'm basing my ideas on the ombudsman services which work pretty well. And of course, the real question would be about who makes up these organisations. I think there is latitude for developing such ideas, which may be flawed, may not be useful, but at least are ideas for possible solutions nonetheless.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

That power, the ombudsman role you speak of , is SUPPOSE to lie with 'We, the People', the voters.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

It's not the different pov that I object to, but your knee jerk partisanship and black and white views.

---