Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
3. The proposal raised issues of 'ordinary business', which the SEC has said that, in certain cir-
cumstances (unless the proposal raises suffi ciently signifi cant social policy issues) such issues
can be excluded.
After several fi lings, to which FMC responded, the SEC determined that it would take no action
against FMC should the corporation determine to exclude the proposal. The proposal was ulti-
mately defeated by the SEC using the grounds that it raised 'ordinary business' without raising suf-
fi ciently signifi cant social policy issues. The details of the shareholder proposal, the various rebuttals/
appeals, and the SEC's ruling on the matter can be found at: http://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfi n/cf-
noaction/14a-8/2011/davidbrook022511-14a8.pdf. Mr Brook remains concerned about what he per-
ceives to be a stance of corporate profi tability over better corporate responsibility. Although it is true
that third party misuse (e.g., poisoning) is not the 'fault' of a corporation, and, as such, does not fall
within their remit, such misuse can all too easily occur, and is to an extent inevitable. If such repercus-
sions were being adequately addressed by manufacturers, they would not continue to pose a problem.
Instead, the severe repercussions of such misuse could trigger the loss of a number of species, includ-
ing Kenya's emblematic lions, which one would presume might threaten a corporation's public image.
While Mr Brook's shareholder proposal was not on the FMC annual proxy statement, he is deter-
mined to continue to raise this issue in an effort to improve the way that FMC conducts its business.
He presented his views at the shareholders annual meeting on 26 April 2011 and will continue to raise
this issue in an effort to improve the way that FMC conducts its business. He also intends to examine
ways that the United States Congress and the United Nations can be compelled to more actively
protect people and wildlife across the world from the dangers of intentional misuse and legal/labeled
use of Furadan/carbofuran. The product is manufactured by corporations in both developing and
developed nations (e.g., India and China) and, consequently, engaging with industry and its partners
within these countries will be central in developing good practice and in helping to protect wildlife
and people from misuse.
However, for such engagement to be effective, manufacturers have to show willingness to par-
ticipate in the process. Though no longer the sole manufacturer of carbofuran, FMC remains its most
prominent and vociferous advocate. Indeed, FMC has resisted the numerous rulings made within
US courts against carbofuran, addressing increasingly higher ruling authorities. In August of 2006,
the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) released its 'Interim Re-registration Eligibility
Decision' and concluded that
no
uses of carbofuran were eligible for re-registration, on the basis
of ecological and occupational risks. In response, some uses were voluntarily withdrawn and the
EPA planned to terminate the remaining uses through its cancellation process. In May of 2009,
the EPA issued a fi nal rule revoking all domestic and imported food tolerances for carbofuran, which
went into effect at the end of 2009. At this point, FMC and several food industry lobbying groups
challenged these decisions and were successful in convincing a federal court to allow some imports
containing carbofuran to continue entering the United States. FMC then appealed to the Supreme
Court to reinstate domestic food tolerances for carbofuran. In July 2010, the US Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia upheld the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) to ban toler-
ances of residues of carbofuran on domestically sourced foodstuffs. As of November 2010, then, any
formulation or use of carbofuran was therefore cancelled for registration or re-registration within
the US. On 30 March 2011, it was announced that FMC (in conjunction with agribusiness lobbyists
that included the National Corn Growers Association) intended to appeal the decision to the US
Supreme Court. The details of these proceedings can be found at (http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/
reregistration/carbofuran/carbofuran_noic.htm and http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandreports/stories/
110330.html). On 31 May 2011, the Supreme Court denied the petition put forward, effectively
refusing to hear the case and allowing the US EPA's decision to stand. A legal representative of the
US wildlife advocacy group Defenders of Wildlife stated that: 'The Court's action means that, in this
case, the health and safety of the American people and our nation's wildlife have trumped the profi ts of
powerful corporations'.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search