Report on BPA Use – Coca-Cola Company (2012)

WHEREAS:

The value of Coca-Cola’s brand is based on consumer trust. Coca-Cola’s canned beverages use linings containing Bisphenol A (BPA), a potentially hazardous chemical.

BPA can leach out of the epoxy lining of canned foods and beverages resulting in human exposures.  BPA can mimic estrogen in the body; a number of animal studies link BPA, even at very low doses, to potential changes in brain structure, immune system, male and female reproductive systems, and to tissue associated with increased rates of breast cancer. Experts are particularly concerned about exposure to BPA by the very young and pregnant women.

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association associated BPA with increased risk for human heart disease and diabetes. The US Food and Drug Administration has expressed concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and young children, and supports additional research.

The proponents believe that Coca-Cola has misrepresented the scientific consensus. For example, its Bisphenol A Assessment (11/11) claims “current levels of exposure to Bisphenol A (BPA) through beverage packaging pose no health risk to the general population, including children.” Yet, ten US states and several local governments have banned BPA in children’s reusable food and beverage containers. The European Union, China and Malaysia instituted bans on BPA in baby bottles in 2011. Canada added BPA to its list of toxic substances in 2010. Japan took BPA out of can linings in the 1990’s.

Proponents believe the use of BPA poses regulatory, reputational and legal risk. More than 20 states and multiple federal bills have introduced legislation to ban or limit the use of BPA.  Coca-Cola has received considerable media coverage over its use of BPA. Health organizations including the Breast Cancer Fund have conducted high profile consumer campaigns targeting food companies over their use of BPA in their can linings. Class action lawsuits against other companies contend that manufacturers and retailers failed to adequately disclose BPA’s risks.

Companies, including Hain Celestial, ConAgra, and H.J. Heinz use BPA-free can linings for certain products, and have timelines to transition to BPA-free packaging across all products.  Nestle and Kroger also publicly stated they will remove BPA from their products. General Mills and Campbell’s have publicly stated that they are conducting hundreds of tests looking for alternatives to BPA can linings.

RESOLVED:  Shareholders request the Board of Directors to publish a report by September 1, 2012, at reasonable cost and excluding confidential information, updating investors on how the company is responding to the public policy challenges associated with BPA, including summarizing what the company is doing to maintain its position of leadership and public trust on this issue, its role in adopting or encouraging development of alternatives to BPA in can linings, and any material risks to the company’s market share or reputation in staying the course with continued use of BPA.

Coca-Cola Company – BPA

WHEREAS

Coca-Cola is the world’s largest beverage company, selling 1.6 billion servings of beverages per day. A significant part of Coca-Cola’s business includes selling beverages in aluminum cans. Our company has developed a valuable premium brand based on the trust of consumers and our company’s market leadership.

Coca-Cola’s Product Safety Policy states that Coke uses “the highest standards and processes for ensuring consistent product safety and quality.” Yet, Coca-Cola’s canned beverages use linings containing Bisphenol A (BPA), a potentially hazardous chemical.

BPA has received media attention for its use in polycarbonate plastic bottles, which Coca-Cola does not use. However, BPA is also used in the epoxy lining of canned foods and beverages. BPA can leach out of these containers and into food and beverages, resulting in human exposures. BPA is known to mimic estrogen in the body; numerous animal studies link BPA, even at very low doses, to potential changes in brain structure, immune system, male and female reproductive systems, and changes in tissue associated with increased rates of breast cancer. Exposure to BPA by the very young, as well as pregnant women, are among the greatest concerns to experts.

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association associated BPA with increased risk for human heart disease and diabetes. In January 2010, the US Food and Drug Administration reversed its stance on the safety of BPA, concluding that the agency has “some concern” about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and young children, and supports additional research. Most recently, Canada’s health and environmental agencies added BPA to its list of toxic chemicals.

Several food companies, including Hain Celestial, ConAgra, and H.J. Heinz are using BPA-free can linings for certain products, and have developed timelines to transition to BPA-free packaging across all products. In contrast, the Washington Post reported in May 2009 that Coca-Cola was involved in meetings to “devise a public relations and lobbying strategy to block government bans” of BPA in can linings.

The US Congress, as well as some US states and cities, have proposed legislation banning BPA in certain food and beverage packages. In addition to potential bans, proponents believe our company faces liability or reputational risks from defending and continuing to use BPA in cans. For instance, class action lawsuits against other companies already contend that manufacturers and retailers of BPA-containing products failed to adequately disclose BPA’s risks.

RESOLVED
Shareholders request the Board of Directors to publish a report by September 1, 2011, at reasonable cost and excluding confidential information, updating investors on how the company is responding to the public policy challenges associated with BPA, including summarizing what the company is doing to maintain its position of leadership and public trust on this issue, the company’s role in adopting or encouraging development of alternatives to BPA in can linings, and any material risks to the company’s market share or reputation in staying the course with continued use of BPA.

Coca-Cola Company – Toxic Chemicals in Products: Bisphenol A (BPA)

WHEREAS

Coca-Cola is the world’s largest beverage company, annually selling almost 570 billion servings of beverages. A significant part of Coca-Cola’s business includes selling beverages in aluminum cans. Our company has developed a valuable premium brand based on the trust of consumers and our company’s market leadership.

Coca-Cola’s Product Safety Policy states that Coke uses “the highest standards and processes for ensuring consistent product safety and quality.”  Yet, Coca-Cola’s canned beverages use linings containing Bisphenol A (BPA), a potentially hazardous chemical.

BPA has received media attention for its use in polycarbonate plastic bottles, which Coca-Cola does not use.  However, BPA is a chemical also used in the epoxy lining of canned foods and beverages.  BPA can leach out of these containers and into food and beverages, resulting in human exposures.  BPA is known to mimic estrogen in the body; numerous animal studies link BPA, even at very low doses, to potential changes in brain structure, immune system, male and female reproductive systems, and changes in tissue associated with increased rates of breast cancer. Exposure to BPA by the very young as well as pregnant women are among the greatest concerns to experts.

A recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association also associated BPA with increased risk for human heart disease and diabetes. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is reviewing the safety of BPA after significant concerns were raised by its own scientific subcommittee about the validity of its previous analysis of the chemical.

Manufacturers of baby and sports bottles have been eliminating BPA-containing plastics due to consumer concerns. According to US News & World Report, US-based Eden Organics has developed a can lining that does not contain BPA, and has been using it for several years.  In contrast, the Washington Post reported in May 2009 that Coca-Cola was involved in meetings to “devise a public relations and lobbying strategy to block government bans” of BPA in can linings.

The US Congress, as well as some US states and cities, have proposed legislation banning BPA in certain food and beverage packages.   Canada’s health agency has already banned BPA-containing baby bottles.

In addition to potential bans, proponents believe our company faces liability or reputational risks from defending and continuing to use BPA in cans. For instance, class action lawsuits against other companies already contend that manufacturers and retailers of BPA-containing products failed to adequately disclose BPA’s risks.

RESOLVED

Shareholders request the Board of Directors to publish a report by September 1, 2010, at reasonable cost and excluding confidential information, updating investors on how the company is responding to the public policy challenges associated with BPA, including summarizing what the company is doing to maintain its position of leadership and public trust on this issue, the company’s role in adopting or encouraging development of alternatives to BPA in can linings, and any material risks to the company’s market share or reputation in staying the course with continued use of BPA.