Analyze

 In 1991, the Public Health Service articulated a vision for primary prevention in Strategic Plan for the Elimination of Childhood Lead Poisoning, a departure from previous federal policy focused on finding and treating lead-poisoned children. This publication detailed a 15-year strategy for primary prevention and offered a cost-benefit analysis to demonstrate the monetized benefits of this approach. A strong national effort to follow this strategy developed but was eventually abandoned.

The organized campaign against universal screening began in California, where letters questioning the reported prevalence of elevated BLL began appearing in pediatric journals and newspapers. These letters acknowledged receiving editorial assistance from Kaiser Permanente Foundation Hospitals and argued that money spent on screening, treatment and abatement would be harmful to more worthy public health efforts. The AAP president took up this attack on universal screening as well, and efforts for universal screening were gradually eroded. 

Needleman identifies racism and the belief that lead poisoning “is a product of poor mothering, not of environmental pollution” as a driving factor shaping lead detection and prevention efforts (or the lack thereof) … “this weighting of personal choice or behavior over environment is a tool used to shift responsibility away from health authorities or polluters and onto the victim” (1875).

The Grassroots Global Alliance provides a strategy for just transition to a regenerative economy. For the policy makers, this organizations has come up with these questions as guidance: 

1. Who tells the story? 

2. Who makes the decision? 

3. Who benefits and how? 

4. What else will this impact? 

5. How will this build or shift power? 

Framework: Protect, Repair, Invest, Transform. Under each category, this organization presents their demands and solutions. 

Five points of intervention: the Narratives, Base Building and Organizing, Policy Development, Electoralization and Implementation, Direct Action. 

Denial → {Bhopal} →  stewardship → Disavowal

Disavowal is a way out for corporations who can no longer deny - they just aggressively ignore and separate, making it possible to still shout about their “goodness” and avoid taking responsibility for their risk. The scientist-President is doing her job as a scientist but positioned structurally within the hotbed of corporate manufacturers - how does this constrain her thinking and acting?

Ad campaigns - 360*, from big-name companies like O&M. Getting involved in the scientific community that is meant to be working against them to regulate and mitigate the risk they propose to society.

Not really portrayed in that way here. The scientists are portrayed as genuinely caring about society, but being humble about what their data can and cannot say and why, and it seems they see themselves as part of the society.

In the first phase it seems it was just being modern, perhaps productive. They deny there is any risk to be responsible for. The middle is about the self-managing of risks they can no longer deny exist. The final one has disavowed responsibility but position themselves as essential for life as we know it, so we don’t focus on the ethics.

The self-governance in the stewardship phase immediately after Bhopal was positioning as authority to manage their own risk to society and environment. And the ad for India had a hint of this - the plant having the authority to usher in a particular kind of modernity back in the 50s and 60s. To the extent that the corporate position of the Exposure Science org’s president counts as CSR, they are also working to define exposure and connect it with legislation.