Hey Arnie, it's not just in the Japanese system where there is a "revolving chair" with executives going to work for the regulator and the regulators going to work for the companies they are supposed to be regulating.
Only difference is we usually refer to it as a revolving door.
From POGO (Project on Government Oversight):
NRC Needs Nuclear Power Regulators, Not PromotersFebruary 3, 2010
POGO is opposing President Obama's nomination of William Magwood for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Along with two other of the President's nominees to the NRC, Mr. Magwood will come before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee for a confirmation hearing on February 9, 2010. POGO is urging readers to contact the Committee and express opposition to Mr. Magwood’s nomination on the grounds that he does not have the independence from the nuclear power industry to regulate it, nor the security oversight background.
In his State of the Union address, President Obama outlined a plan to build a new generation of nuclear power reactors. POGO does not take a stance on nuclear power, but does strongly believe that the regulatory body that licenses and inspects nuclear power reactors should be independent, active, and unconflicted. Mr. Magwood does not satisfy those key criteria.
Given his more than a dozen years promoting nuclear power, Mr. Magwood is not cut out to be a regulator of the industry. He served as the Director and Associate Director of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy. There he promoted the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, a program to restart reprocessing of nuclear waste, which President Obama canceled because of nuclear proliferation concerns. (The NRC was created when the Atomic Energy Commission was abolished in 1974 and split into two agencies because its dual missions of promotion and regulation of nuclear power was recognized as an inherent conflict of interest. As a result, DOE was given the role of promoting nuclear power — largely in the office that Magwood ran for seven years — while the NRC was created to regulate, inspect, and enforce regulations upon the nuclear power industry.)
Since leaving government service in 2005, Mr. Magwood has been actively involved in efforts to advance the nuclear industry domestically and abroad. He founded Advanced Energy Strategies, which provides "expert advice and analysis of U.S. and international energy policy activities; nuclear industry developments and prospects; and supporting business development efforts." Mr. Magwood has also been an investor in and president of Secure Energy North America Corporation, a company that is "working with industry and investors to develop novel approaches to finance new nuclear power stations in the United States." There is very little public information on the web about either of these two companies.
http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/alerts/government-corruption/gc-rd-20100204.html Edited to add,
Magwood's appointment as an NRC commissioner has been confirmed.
And in another area of regulatory non-oversight, the FDA:
Revolving Doors.....Rachel's Hazardous Waste News adds a few details, "It is no accident that the FDA and Monsanto are speaking with one voice on this issue. The FDA official responsible for the agency's labeling policy, Michael R. Taylor, is a former partner of King & Spaulding, the Washington, D.C. law firm that has brought the lawsuits on behalf of Monsanto.... In 1984 he joined King & Spaulding and remained there until 1991; during that time the law firm represented Monsanto while the company was seeking FDA approval of rBGH.... Taylor signed the FEDERAL REGISTER notice warning grocery stores not to label milk as free of rBGH, thus giving Monsanto a powerful boost in its fight to prevent consumers from knowing whether rBGH produced their milk" <17>.
"Taylor did not simply fill a vacant position at the agency", says Jeffrey M. Smith in his book Seeds of Deception, "In 1991 the FDA created a new position for him: Deputy Commissioner for Policy. He instantly became the FDA official with the greatest influence on GM food regulation, overseeing the development of government policy. According to public interest attorney Steven Druker, who has studied the FDA's internal files, 'During Mr. Taylor's tenure as Deputy Commissioner, references to the unintended negative effects of bioengineering were progressively deleted from drafts of the policy statement (over the protests of agency scientists (1)), and a final statement was issued claiming (a) that
foods are no riskier than others and (b) that the agency has no information to the contrary" <18> <19>. After his stint at the FDA Taylor went back to work as Monsanto's vice-president for public policy <20>.
In disappointing news however, Taylor was again appointed to the FDA, this time for the Obama administration in July of 2009 as an "Advisor to FDA Commissioner" as a "food safety expert" <21>. His new duties include, "Assess current food program challenges and opportunities", "Identify capacity needs and regulatory priorities" and "Plan implementation of new food safety legislation".
Another example of the Government-industry revolving door is Margaret Miller, "In order for the FDA to determine if Monsanto's growth hormones were safe or not, Monsanto was required to submit a scientific report on that topic. Margaret Miller, one of Monsanto's researchers put the report together. Shortly before the report submission, Miller left Monsanto and was hired by the FDA . Her first job for the FDA was to determine whether or not to approve the report she wrote for Monsanto. In short, Monsanto approved its own report. Assisting Miller was another former Monsanto researcher, Susan Sechen" <22>. Here <23> you can read Robert Cohen's testimony before FDA on the subject of rBGH including the disclosure that, while at the FDA and in response to increasing sickness in cows on the stuff, Miller increased the amount of antibiotics that farmers can legally give cows by 100 times. See also <24>. "Remarkably the GAO determined in a 1994 investigation that these officials' former association with the Monsanto corporation did not pose a conflict of interest. But for those concerned about the health and environmental hazards of genetic engineering, the revolving door between the biotechnology industry and federal regulating agencies is a serious cause for concern" <25>.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Labeling_Issues%2C_Revolving_Doors%2C_rBGH%2C_Bribery_and_Monsanto
Public health and safety be damned, whether in the USA or Japan, its apparent that government regulators' priorities too often appear to be ensuring increases in corporate profits over
ensuring the safety and well being of the citizens they are supposed to be safeguarding.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
