So Many Live and Die in Crushing Poverty!

YATI leaves her shanty in a southeast Asian land for the factory where she sews bits of leather and lace for shoes. For one month’s work​—40-​hour weeks plus 90 hours overtime—​she makes less than $80. The shoe company that employs her proudly portrays itself as a conscientious promoter of human rights in the less-​developed lands. In the Western world, this company sells the shoes for more than $60 a pair. Wages account for perhaps $1.40 of that.

When Yati “leaves the clean, lighted factory,” says a Boston Globe report, “she has only enough money to rent a 10-​by-12-​foot [3-by-3.6 m] shack, with dirty walls alive with gecko lizards. There is no furniture, so Yati and two roommates sleep in fetal curls on a mud-​and-​tile floor.” Her situation is sadly typical.

“Are these people better off with me or without me?” protests a trade association chief. “The small wage gives them the ability to enjoy a decent lifestyle. They may not be living in the lap of luxury, but they aren’t starving.” They are, however, often malnourished, and their children often go to bed hungry. They face daily the hazards of dangerous workplaces. And many are dying a slow death from handling poisons and toxic wastes. A “decent lifestyle”?

Hari, a south Asian farm laborer, saw things differently. He painted with words and poetic eloquence the grim life-​and-​death cycle all around him. “Between the mortar and the pestle,” he said, “the chili cannot last. We poor are like chilies​—each year we are ground down, and soon there will be nothing left.” Hari never saw that “decent lifestyle,” nor did he have the faintest notion of the lap of luxury in which his employers probably lived. A few days later, Hari was dead​—another victim of crushing poverty.

Multitudes live and die as Hari did. They languish in misery, too weak to resist, as they are bled dry of life. By whom? What kind of people would do this? They seem benevolent enough. They say they want to feed your baby, help your crops grow, improve your life, make you rich. In reality, they aim to make themselves rich. There are products to be sold, profits to be reaped. If the by-​products of their greed are malnourished children, poisoned workers, and befouled environment, so be it. It is a price the companies are willing to pay for their greed. So as the profits mount, so do the heartbreaking casualty figures.

[Picture Credit Line on page 3]

U.N. Photo 156200/​John Isaac

Poor Nations Become Garbage Dumps for Rich Ones

LIKE an unwanted orphan, the toxic cargo had wandered from ship to ship and port to port in search of a home. Eleven thousand drums brimming with poisonous resins, pesticides, and other dangerous chemicals had been shunted from Djibouti, Africa, to Venezuela to Syria to Greece. Finally the leaking barrels began taking a toll on the crew of one of the freighters. One man died, and most of the others had skin, kidney, and respiratory illnesses from the toxic brew on board.

Ships, trucks, and trains laden with similar deadly waste are crisscrossing the planet in search of places to call home. Very often the countries already ravaged by poverty, famine, and disease become the dumping grounds for tons of poisons and contaminated trash. Environmentalists fear an ecological disaster is only a matter of time.

Old paints, solvents, tires, batteries, radioactive waste, lead- and PCB-​laden slag, may be unappealing to you, but they are attractive to the booming industrial-​waste business. Ironically, the more environmentally strict a government is, the more toxic waste its industries will dispose of abroad. “Nearly 20 million tons of poisonous chemicals are shipped annually for disposal to Third World countries by unscrupulous” companies of the industrialized nations, stated the London weekly The Observer. Legal loopholes and loose enforcement mean that thousands of tons of poisonous waste land on African, Asian, and Latin-​American soil.

Little wonder these companies find dumping the waste tempting! The cost can be cut tremendously if the right location is used. An example of this is the cruise ship United States, at one time the proud flagship of the American passenger fleet. It was purchased in 1992 to be refurbished for luxury cruising. It probably contained more asbestos than any other ship afloat. Asbestos removal would have cost $100 million in the United States. The ship was towed to Turkey, where it could be done for $2 million. But the Turkish government declined​—too dangerous to allow the more than 500,000 square feet [46,000 sq m] of carcinogenic asbestos fiber to be stripped in their country. The ship was finally hauled to another country’s port, where environmental standards are less strict.

Deadly Recycling

Western businesses in developing lands may like to think of themselves as benefactors of the poor. Harvey Alter of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce contends that “the waste export and recycling industry raises the standards of living in these countries.” But a review of some of their corporate behavior abroad found that in the majority of cases, instead of raising standards of living, these firms are “more likely to be paying no better than local minimum wages, fouling the environment and selling products that in some cases are dangerous and deceptively marketed.”

Pope John Paul II added his voice of concern at a recent workshop on pollution in the developing world. Said the pontiff: “It is a grave abuse when rich countries profit from the weak economies and legislation of poorer countries by exporting dirty technologies and wastes which degrade the environment and health of the population.”

A classic example is found in southern Africa, home of the world’s largest recycler of mercury wastes. In what was dubbed “one of the continent’s worst pollution scandals,” the toxic wastes killed one worker, another lapsed into a coma, and one third of the work force reportedly suffer some form of mercury poisoning. Governments in certain industrial nations prohibit or greatly restrict the disposal of certain mercury wastes. Ships of corporations in at least one of these countries transport the dangerous cargo to the shores of Africa. An inspection team found 10,000 barrels of mercury wastes from three foreign companies stored at the plant.

Sending materials to developing nations for recycling sounds much better than dumping wastes on them. It can produce valuable by-​products, provide jobs, and stimulate the economy. But as the above report from southern Africa shows, disastrous consequences can also result. The reclamation of valuable products from these substances can release deadly chemicals that cause pollution and sickness and sometimes death to the workers. The New Scientist magazine observes: “There is no doubt that recycling is sometimes used as a pretext for dumping.”

The strategy is described by U.S.News & World Report: “False labeling, legal loopholes and lack of expertise make the developing countries easy targets for aggressive waste traders peddling toxic sewage sludge as ‘organic fertilizer’ or outdated pesticides as ‘farm aid.’”

Foreign-​owned maquiladoras, or factories, have sprouted in Mexico. A primary objective of the foreign companies is to escape stringent pollution standards and to cash in on the endless supply of low-​paid workers. Tens of thousands of Mexicans live in hovels skirted by murky canals with polluted water. “Even the goats won’t drink it,” said one woman. An American Medical Association report called the border area “a virtual cesspool and breeding ground for infectious disease.”

Not Only the Pests Are Dying

“How can a country forbid a poison at home and yet manufacture it and sell it to other countries? Where is the morality of this?” asked Arif Jamal, an agronomist and pesticide specialist from Khartoum. He displayed photographs of barrels stamped: “Not registered for use”​—in the industrial land they came from. They were found in a Sudanese wildlife reserve. Nearby were piles of dead animals.

One rich country “annually exports about 500 million pounds [227 million kg] of pesticides that are banned, restricted or not licensed for domestic use,” reports The New York Times. Heptachlor, one cancer-​causing cousin of DDT, was banned for use on food crops in 1978. But the chemical firm that invented it continues to manufacture it.

A UN survey discovered wide availability of “very toxic pesticides” in at least 85 developing nations. About one million people suffer acute poisoning each year, and perhaps 20,000 die from the chemicals.

The tobacco industry might be called the epitome of deadly greed. An article in Scientific American entitled “The Global Tobacco Epidemic” states: “The magnitude of tobacco-​related diseases and deaths around the world cannot be overstated.” The average age for beginning smokers is sinking ever lower, and the number of women smokers is increasing dramatically. Powerful tobacco companies in league with crafty advertisers are successfully conquering the immense market of less-​developed countries. A trail of dead and disease-​ravaged bodies litters their road to riches.a

It must be said, however, that not all companies are oblivious to the welfare of developing nations. There are some companies that endeavor to conduct fair and responsible business in developing lands. For instance, one company provides retirement and health benefits and pays its workers three times the required wage. Another company has assumed a strong stance on human rights and has canceled dozens of contracts because of abuses.