Re: Pesticide law (FIFRA) reinterpreted
Posted by ff on 10/08/03
FIFRA preemption and suppression bias are simply two tools that
manufacturers use for purposes of damage control because they
apparently are unable (or unwilling) to keep their shop in order.
The end result will be a continuing decline in product quality.
On 9/09/03, ff wrote:
> On 8/28/03, curious wrote:
>> There has been some discussion of 'suppression bias' and all
>> its nuances; translation, it's just good business.
>> In other words, the insurance companies and chemical
>> companies would be overwhelmed and the system couldn't
>> afford the compensation. Sucks, no?
> Actually, I think in the long term there would be a positive
> effect on the system. Suppression bias is a method used by
> manufacturers to deal with liability resulting from defects in
> their products. Essentially, these defects are a reflection of
> the organization and product quality, or a compromise in
> quality. For example: inherent design flaws, tires that blow,
> products that contain toxic contaminants due to sloppy
> manufacturing practices, fuel tanks that explode on impact,
> When you look at the total costs associated with these and
> other problems, it would be cheaper (and more responsible) to
> produce a true quality product in the first place. Compromise
> quality in the organization once, and it spreads like cancer.
> As for the system, we're all part of it and we all bear the
> costs. We are in trouble today because the system cannot
> afford the consequences of manufacturers' screw-ups. It can
> afford a clean-up.
> To give an example of sloppy manufacturing practices or poor
> quality spreading like cancer and becoming a part of the
> corporate culture, here is one CEO's approach to waste
> handling, hazardous or not:
> "I want us to create a corporate culture in which there is no
> such thing as industrial waste. I believe anything that goes
> out the waste pipes may well be something that can be recycled,
> reused or sold."
> It sounds great, but in actuality the "waste" simply became a
> part of the "product," increasing bulk quantity at no cost,
> saving disposal costs, and initially increasing profits. In
> the end, it cost the manufacturer, the customers, the agencies,
> consumers, etc.
> The system cannot afford it.
Posts on this thread, including this one