A new term has been repeated in the news lately — “cost-benefit analysis.”
I believe this is the strategy to protect big business from EPA and Department of Health and Human Services regulations. July 23’s Bellingham Herald reported “cost-benefit analysis” was used to reject cutting the use of mercury in dental fillings for Medicaid and Medicare programs, the military, in prisons and on Indian reservations serving “price-sensitive patients.”
Cost-benefit analysis is why Shell is being allowed by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement to drill “only on the top sections” of wells in Alaska while not having critical emergency equipment on site and why legislators are rejecting labeling GMO foods.
Cost-benefit analysis for major industry may be critical to make commercial products more affordable and convenient, as a recent letter to the editor suggested, but I believe it restricts consumer choice, decision making and safety, both personal and environmental.
Digital Access for only $0.99
For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today.
Some CEOs who manage manipulation of public thinking are the people who are finally acknowledging their offshore savings and incumbent tax savings amounting to billions and billions of dollars. Some also head companies that are slipping “cost-benefit analysis” into regulation requirements that benefit only their companies and industries, not we the people.
Sign a petition and vote for I-735 to fight “Citizens United” control over commerce, our lives and our health.