Ethics and Social Responsibilities PaperEssay title: Ethics and Social Responsibilities PaperEthics and Social Responsibilities PaperIn the United States, it should not be about “self-interest” but rather our moral and ethical obligation not to sell items to other countries that could harm others. Therefore, I disagree with the statement “it is acceptable to sell products banned in the United States in other countries (i.e. where permitted by other countries due to differences in national policies).”
One example of unethical behavior is a case back in 1978, involving a company called Troxler Hosiery who was found to be selling children’s sleepwear treated with a chemical called TRIS. TRIS, a flame-retardant chemical was found by the national cancer institute to be a hazardous substance to humans. The US government ordered that the sleepwear be seized and destroyed. Faced with a financial loss of almost $200,000, Troxler Hosiery Company decided to export the garments to Venezuela. Troxler Hosiery Company exported 22,246 of these garments to Venezuela with full knowledge that they were treated with the harmful substance TRIS, and that the sleepwear was to be destroyed. The company claims that they were forced to export the sleepwear in order to avoid serious financial reversals. This situation was morally and ethically unconscionable. Troxler Hosiery Company was ultimately found guilty of criminal contempt for exporting this merchandise although the damage had already been done.
’
As one of the very first public health officials to receive a written order that contained a warning not to reuse their products for human consumption (he stated the “risk to health” associated with the product was “about twice that of any other source of the material and one of the sources for a chemical from sleepwear that has not been specifically tested for human consumption”), he concluded that his directive “required every person, company, agency and other public health agency to take all steps to promote safety in, and eliminate risks to human health from a wide range of sleepwear products.”
In 1986, a group of the World Health Organization (WHO) members in the Western Asia region decided to have the UNODA established a standard for its protection from food and pharmaceutical exposure to human health hazards. The WHO also made the decision to issue special permits to companies that produce food for human consumption.
At the same time that the WHO had developed a new method of monitoring and preventing the foodborne diseases that were so prevalent in many parts of the world, and to prevent people from contracting harmful, potentially dangerous infectious diseases, and from obtaining pharmaceutical drugs to kill them, the WHO also announced that it was taking steps to reduce global trade of dangerous or deadly pharmaceutical poisons, and to establish strict compliance procedures for new pharmaceutical products.
In December 1988, when the WHO reported the establishment of standards that allowed the WHO to impose the new regulations after a series of meetings between leading scientists and senior public health officials, President Clinton announced that the Organization was initiating a review of all international trade practices—including trade treaties such as the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA)—that would “undermine the very basis of free trade that is in place today.” As the article further explains, this is because the U.S. imposed the same trade rules that had existed in other countries and had been widely practiced at the time.
Following the WHO’s announcement, the United States began its own trade inquiry, developing new products and developing new guidelines for the safe and lawful use of pharmaceuticals. It also initiated a national database of what products and methods were sold to Americans in the U.S., the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands (where the product safety issue was a major issue), China, Russia, Argentina, Mexico, India—the United States, with the aim of eliminating any possible future trade concerns—with potential benefits that could include increased access to pharmaceutical products.
While U.S. policymakers began to focus on the dangers arising from trade with Japan, Australia, and Mexico, the U.S. also began to focus on potential trade relations with other countries of the hemisphere. Some of these were the Netherlands, Korea, the U.K., and Canada—where trade deals and trade enforcement took place and some of these countries, particularly Mexico, were also developing countries. While the U.S. continues to lead an aggressive economic and foreign policy toward the world, some of these countries are still developing countries. Thus, most of these countries and some of these countries are still developing countries.
Despite the recent change in how things have been done, certain aspects of trade and investment have remained virtually unchanged over the past two decades. By 1993 there were 454 countries—in addition to the four developed and one developing countries—in the World Trade Organization’s International Trade Commission. In 1992 there had been no further increase in this number.
A few more nations in the 1980s saw record levels of industrial growth. In fact, after 1980, the number of individuals at “major” nations had increased by 30.3% in order to meet growing demand from those who were part of that growing population. In 2007, for example, countries with a GDP of $300 billion had an average GDP rate of 27.7% in 2006—not only the only one that had increased and now is
’
As one of the very first public health officials to receive a written order that contained a warning not to reuse their products for human consumption (he stated the “risk to health” associated with the product was “about twice that of any other source of the material and one of the sources for a chemical from sleepwear that has not been specifically tested for human consumption”), he concluded that his directive “required every person, company, agency and other public health agency to take all steps to promote safety in, and eliminate risks to human health from a wide range of sleepwear products.”
In 1986, a group of the World Health Organization (WHO) members in the Western Asia region decided to have the UNODA established a standard for its protection from food and pharmaceutical exposure to human health hazards. The WHO also made the decision to issue special permits to companies that produce food for human consumption.
At the same time that the WHO had developed a new method of monitoring and preventing the foodborne diseases that were so prevalent in many parts of the world, and to prevent people from contracting harmful, potentially dangerous infectious diseases, and from obtaining pharmaceutical drugs to kill them, the WHO also announced that it was taking steps to reduce global trade of dangerous or deadly pharmaceutical poisons, and to establish strict compliance procedures for new pharmaceutical products.
In December 1988, when the WHO reported the establishment of standards that allowed the WHO to impose the new regulations after a series of meetings between leading scientists and senior public health officials, President Clinton announced that the Organization was initiating a review of all international trade practices—including trade treaties such as the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA)—that would “undermine the very basis of free trade that is in place today.” As the article further explains, this is because the U.S. imposed the same trade rules that had existed in other countries and had been widely practiced at the time.
Following the WHO’s announcement, the United States began its own trade inquiry, developing new products and developing new guidelines for the safe and lawful use of pharmaceuticals. It also initiated a national database of what products and methods were sold to Americans in the U.S., the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands (where the product safety issue was a major issue), China, Russia, Argentina, Mexico, India—the United States, with the aim of eliminating any possible future trade concerns—with potential benefits that could include increased access to pharmaceutical products.
While U.S. policymakers began to focus on the dangers arising from trade with Japan, Australia, and Mexico, the U.S. also began to focus on potential trade relations with other countries of the hemisphere. Some of these were the Netherlands, Korea, the U.K., and Canada—where trade deals and trade enforcement took place and some of these countries, particularly Mexico, were also developing countries. While the U.S. continues to lead an aggressive economic and foreign policy toward the world, some of these countries are still developing countries. Thus, most of these countries and some of these countries are still developing countries.
Despite the recent change in how things have been done, certain aspects of trade and investment have remained virtually unchanged over the past two decades. By 1993 there were 454 countries—in addition to the four developed and one developing countries—in the World Trade Organization’s International Trade Commission. In 1992 there had been no further increase in this number.
A few more nations in the 1980s saw record levels of industrial growth. In fact, after 1980, the number of individuals at “major” nations had increased by 30.3% in order to meet growing demand from those who were part of that growing population. In 2007, for example, countries with a GDP of $300 billion had an average GDP rate of 27.7% in 2006—not only the only one that had increased and now is
Unfortunately, the Consumer Product Safety Commission allows American-based companies to export products, which have been deemed unsafe here. In 2006, a California company exported 16,520 art sets, which were deemed unsafe. A company in Miami also exported to Jamaica 5,184 unsafe wax crayons. From 1993 to 2006, the CPSC received 1,031 requests from companies to export products deemed unsafe for American consumer. Of the 1,031 requests received, 991 were approved for exportation. In the US, when we receive products that have been imported with poisonous lead, GHB and other harmful substances we become outraged and do not understand how this could happen even though in the US, we are exporting poisonous and harmful substances everyday. The CPSC Commissioner sees the hypocritical nature of this. “Our agency, through our governing statues, cannot claim much moral superiority over the Chinese, or any other foreign country, when it comes to our own export policy”, Moore said in a list of his legislative proposals submitted to Congress in July. “Our export