ENVIRONMENT  
comments_image -

What Dow Knows (But Won't Tell)

Dow Chemical's financial liabilities related to toxic chemical production would make its shareholders very nervous -- if they only knew.
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Environment headlines via email.

 
 
 
 

At this week's annual stockholder meeting, Dow Chemical will surely tout the fact that its stock has outperformed the S&P 500 for the better part of the last five years. But can a company as environmentally burdened as Dow keep it up? Dow is being sued in the U.S. and overseas for environmental damages that stem from both its core products and from the toxic chemicals that are byproducts of its big manufacturing processes.

Take Dow's dioxin liabilities. Dioxins, which are a byproduct of production of some Dow chemicals, are known to cause cancer, immune suppression, reproductive, developmental and liver damage. A class action lawsuit by Michigan residents is seeking compensation for the contamination. Residents in the region are asserting approximately $100 million in property damages and seeking medical monitoring. The medical monitoring claim is now before the Michigan Supreme Court.

Dioxin is also a severe problem in Agent Orange hotspots including Vietnam, New Zealand and Australia, where the Dow-produced herbicide was sprayed as a lethal war defoliant and released at manufacturing facilities. Roughly 100,000 claims of Agent Orange exposure-related health problems by U.S. veterans have been filed with the government since 2000. U.S. and Vietnamese veterans and their families are suing Dow for compensation.

The unfinished legacy of the 1985 Union Carbide chemical factory explosion in Bhopal, India became Dow's problem when it acquired Carbide in 2001. One hundred and fifty thousand survivors and residents of Bhopal are still suffering from the after-effects of that explosion, which has killed 20,000 people to date. These survivors are seeking additional compensation and the environmental cleanup that was never performed.

But it's not just Dow's past that should make investors, by nature a nervous bunch, more nervous. Developing legal and public policy trends raise a big question mark as to whether Dow's reliance on organochlorine chemistry is the way to go in the 21st century. Just last month a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision, Bates v. Dow Agrosciences, affirmed the right of citizens to sue chemical manufacturers for harm caused by their pesticides. Thousands of people harmed by pesticides will now be able to hold pesticide companies accountable in state courts for making and distributing dangerous chemicals.

In the last 15 years, Dow has already been sued in 300 lawsuits claiming damage from Dursban (the trade name for the neurotoxic pesticide chlorpyrifos), which can cause respiratory paralysis, convulsions, nausea, headaches and other symptoms with acute exposure. Last year, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported that 93 percent of the U.S. population had this chemical in their bodies and one market analysis indicates that Dow Chemical likely contributed at least 80 percent of public exposure to chlorpyrifos.

Just over the horizon is the European Union's REACH (Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals) policy, which will require chemical companies to provide data on their products including toxicity and exposure to humans and the environment. Toxic chemicals must be registered, and the worst could be restricted in favor of safer alternatives. Some industry associations suggest that up to 20 percent of chemicals on the market will be discontinued. Approximately one-third of Dow's revenues are derived from Europe. Other international documents such as the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the Stockholm Persistent Organic Pollutants Treaty are paving the way for the elimination or restriction of certain chemicals that Dow produces. Dow appears to be bound for a head-on collision course with changing public policies.

Incredibly, Dow's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission fail to mention any of these factors except the Dursban suits. The SEC requires discussion of "any known trends, demands, commitments, events or uncertainties" that are "reasonably likely" to have a material effect on the bottom line. Unfortunately, the Commission is notorious for failing to enforce these rules.

submit to reddit

-
Email
Print
Share
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Environment headlines via email
Advertisement
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading most read content ..
Advertisement
Fox, Breitbart, and Ricketts Try to Bring Back D'Souza's Pseudo-Birtherism

By Steve M | No More Mister Nice Blog

 
 
Activists Speak Out Against Lack of Access to Bradley Manning

By Agence France Presse

 
 
NYPD Catches Sexual Assailant, Then Lets Him Go Free Because He Didn't Feel Like Being Questioned

By Jill F | Feministe

 
 
Gov. Scott Orders Purging of Florida’s Voter Rolls - Just in Time For Prez Election

By Adele Stan | Washington Monthly

 
 
Abortion Clinics Across Country Put On Alert In Wake of Georgia Clinic Arson Cases

By Robin Marty | RH Reality Check

 
 
Former GOP Congresswoman Blasts New GOP Women’s Caucus: ‘They’re Not Voting In Best Interest Of All Women’

By Josh Israel | ThinkProgress

 
 
Debbie Wasserman Schulz is Wrong on Wisconsin

By LaFeminista | DailyKos

 
 
Pro-Coal Group Pays People to Wear Its Shirts at EPA Hearing

By Heather Moyer | Sierra Club

 
 
Kids Inundate NY Governor With Concerns About Fracking

By Seth Gladstone | Food and Water Watch

 
 
Shareholders, Top Doctors Demand McDonald's Assess its Health Impacts

By Sara Deon | Civil Eats

 
 
 
 
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
 
[ page served from web 2 ]