Report on Chemicals With Known Links to Asthma and Other Respiratory Problems – Dow Chemical
Whereas: Approximately half of Dow’s end-use pesticide products (73 of 149) may be linked to asthma and other respiratory problems through active or inert ingredients or metabolites. Common Dow pesticide products with ingredients linked to respiratory problems include: FulTime, Dursban, Glyphomax, Tordon, Telone, Starane, Dithane, Widematch and more.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 16 million people in the U.S. suffer from asthma. Since the mid-1980s, asthma rates have reached epidemic levels.
The CDC states that nearly 1 in 8 school-aged children have asthma, the leading cause of school absenteeism due to chronic illness. Children are more susceptible than adults to asthma; lungs do not fully develop until at least the eighth year after birth, making a child vulnerable to pesticides and other pollutants linked to asthma. The number of children dying from asthma increased almost threefold from 1979 to 1996. The estimated annual cost of treating childhood asthma is $3.2 billion.
According to a 2004 study in Environmental Health Perspectives, pesticides are both a trigger and root cause of asthma. Researchers discovered that children exposed to herbicides are four and a half times more likely to be diagnosed with asthma before age five; toddlers exposed to insecticides are over two times more likely to get asthma.
In addition to its retail and wholesale pesticide products, Dow produces many active ingredients in pesticides ultimately sold by other companies. For example, Dow is the sole US producer of 2,4-D, and one of the world’s largest producers of chlorpyrifos, both of which are linked to asthma.
Data from CDC’s 2005 National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals found 76% of Americans have chlorpyrifos metabolites in their bodies. Children ages 6-11 have exposure at four times the level EPA considers acceptable for long-term exposure. Additionally, more than 25% of Americans have 2,4-D in their bodies, with highest concentrations also found in children ages 6-11. Proponents believe that CDC’s data may aid in correlation of exposures to disease, which could in turn increase legal liabilities for Dow.
Resolved: Shareholders request that the Board establish an independent panel, controlling for conflict of interest, to publish by May 2008, at reasonable cost and excluding proprietary information, a report analyzing the extent to which Dow product categories may cause or exacerbate asthma, and describing public policy initiatives, and Dow policies and activities, to phase out or restrict materials linked with such effects.
Shareholder Supporting Statement
Proponents believe the report should include any and all Dow product categories or groupings found in peer-reviewed literature to potentially cause and/or trigger asthma, including end-use pesticides (and their inert ingredients and metabolites), pesticide active ingredients and other chemicals.
Eliminating Toxic Substances in Apple Products – Apple
Eliminating Toxic Substances in Apple Products
RESOLVED: Shareholders request that the Board publish a report within six months of the 2007 annual meeting, at reasonable cost and omitting confidential information, on the feasibility of adopting a policy of becoming a leader in the use of safe materials, by eliminating persistent and bioaccumulative toxic chemicals, and all types of brominated flame retardants (BFRs) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastics, in all Apple products, including an expeditious timetable to end the use of all BFRs and PVC.
Supporting Statement
We believe that Apple wants to be perceived as the clear marketplace leader in smart design of computers and related digital products, but certain competitors may be getting ahead of our company in the deployment of safer materials; for instance, Apple competitor Dell has committed to eliminate the use of all brominated flame retardants and PVC by 2009, while Apple has only stated its intent to work over an indefinite period to eliminate these substances.
Additional action is consistent with Apple’s stated policies. For instance, excerpts from company policies state:
“Apple recognizes its responsibility as a global citizen and is continually striving to reduce the environmental impact of the work we do and the products we create..
“Apple takes pride in its history of innovation and thoughtful design…Building world-class products includes considering the materials that go into their creation…
“Our continued goal is to reduce or eliminate environmentally harmful substances from our products and processes…
“Apple is also committed to protecting the health and safety of our employees, customers, and the global community… and
“Where laws and regulations do not provide adequate controls, we [Apple] will adopt our own standards to protect human health and the environment.”
Yet, according to AppleInsider.com, Apple was forced to halt sales of certain products, including the iSight, eMac and certain AirPort Base Stations for several months in Europe because they did not comply with the European Union’s Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) directive applicable to electronic products.
Over 100 countries have signed the Stockholm Convention calling for phaseout of certain persistent organic pollutants. Some substances like PVC can lead to the generation of persistent organic pollutants (e.g. dioxins) when burned. PVC is highly polluting in its production and disposal, contains biologically available contaminants such as phthalates and heavy metals and can generate hydrogen chloride gas.
New scientific evidence has revealed the hazards of BFRs used in circuit boards among other components that has been found in home and office environment. It has been shown that TBBPA (a type of BFRs) induced neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity. The presence of TBBPA or other bromine containing chemicals in electronics products have potential to form additional toxic chemicals dispersed to the environment when smelted or burned in open air.
Toxic substances in products represent serious potential liability to our company in the form of environmental clean up and tort litigation.
The innovative use of safer, longer lasting materials is consistent with Apple’s goal of capturing a larger share of the computer market.
A Proposal Addressing the Adequacy of Chevron’s Global Environmental Policies – Chevron
Statement of Trillium Asset Management Corporation
Lead proponent of Chevron Proxy Item No. 9, A Proposal Addressing the Adequacy of Chevron’s Global Environmental Policies
This proposal is co-sponsored by the New York City Employees Retirement System, Amnesty International, and Catholic Healthcare Partners. The proponents collectively hold nearly $3 billion in Chevron stock.
Trillium Asset Management and its co-sponsors have filed this proposal because in the hope that it will encourage Chevron to do the internal work necessary to avoid future environmental liability scenarios of the type that it is facing in Nigeria, Ecuador, Angola and Burma.
Our proposal asks the Board to prepare a report on the policies and procedures that guide Chevron’s assessment of the adequacy of host country laws and regulations, with respect to their adequacy to protect human health, the environment and Chevron’s reputation.
Residents and in some cases, the governments, of the communities in which Chevron operates, have accused Chevron of harming the health and welfare of local communities.
In Nigeria, Chevron is accused of polluting land and water resources in its ongoing operations in the Niger Delta. This has fueled protests against our company and contributed to civil unrest.
In 2002, Chevron was fined $2 million by the Angolan government for oil spills from a pipeline that polluted beaches and damaged fishing in the Cabinda region. In Ecuador, Texaco is on trial Ecuador for widespread contamination of Amazonian land and water resourcesin the 1970s. Ecuador’s President RafaelCorrea has taken a highly public stand against Chevron. This case has drawn widespread international attention and is currently profiled in this month’s Vanity Fair.
Chevron has also acquired the risk of the former Unocal’s continued operations in Burma, which is ruled by a repressive and illegitimate military junta. Chevron is telling its shareholders that this proposal is really about Ecuador. In fact, we have followed all of these situations closely as they have developed over a number of years. Trillium Asset Management’s interactions with Chevron regarding Nigeria go back to 1999, and our dialogue with Unocal goes back 15 years. Prior to the Ecuador resolutions we filed, Trillium Asset Management was the lead proponent of the human rights proposal that is still on this year’s ballot, filed by the United Methodist Church.
The combined weight of Chevron’s foreign predicaments have caused us to question whether the company has either a serious or strategic approach to addressing the environmental challenges of operating in a global environment where standards vary greatly. Oil and gas extraction has become an increasingly challenging task as much of the world’s remaining reserves are located in harsh geological environments, unfriendly political environments, or controlled more tightly by foreign governments. Just this Saturday, the New York Times observed that “there are few safe places left for oil companies in the Niger Delta.”
In this hyper-competitive environment, it matters a great deal that potential partners be convinced that Chevron will operate with integrity and apply the highest environmental standards, regardless of where it operates.
Chevron’s opposition statement in the proxy falsely implies that the lead proponent of this resolution has filed it to further the agenda of the plaintiffs lawyers in the Ecuador litigation. The sponsors of this resolution have indeed received briefings from multiple sources concerning Chevron’s activities in Ecuador, including a number of meetings with Chevron management as well as advocates for the people in other affected countries. The proponents have taken extraordinary measures to research Chevron’s policies and behaviors. This has become a necessity due to Chevron’s failures to disclose sufficient information to shareholders on the ongoing and new risks described in this resolution. We have concluded that all shareholders with concern for the long term value of our investment in Chevron should support the aims of this proposal.
Contact: Shelley Alpern, Trillium Asset Management Corporation, (617) 970-8944
Disclose Costs Related to Ecuador Litigation – Chevron
WHEREAS: Between 1972 and 1992, a Texaco-Petroecuador joint venture extracted over 1.4 billion barrels of oil from the Ecuadorian Amazon. As operator, Texaco designed, built and managed all exploration, extraction and transportation facilities.
During this time, the trans-Ecuadorian pipeline spilled an estimated 19 million gallons of oil, near twice as great as the Exxon Valdez. Texaco disposed of an estimated 18.5 billion gallons of toxic wastewaters into open, unlined pits, waterways and wetlands although it was standard practice in the U.S. to re-inject such waters into the ground.
In 1998, Texaco completed a cleanup of 156 of the 627 unlined toxic waste pits pursuant to an agreement with the Ecuadorian government. Groundwater contamination, however, was not remediated.
The adequacy of the cleanup is being challenged in a third-party, class-action lawsuit in Ecuador representing 30,000 plaintiffs seeking billions of dollars of additional remediation.
Evidence gathered by both sides is showing total hydrocarbon soil contamination that greatly exceeds thresholds set by both Ecuador and the U.S. Some of these substances are carcinogenic or known to cause other serious health effects.
Independent studies of the contamination’s health impacts on neighboring communities have found:
* Exposure to and consumption of the contaminated waters has led to numerous types of infections and cancers;
* Eight types of cancer in San Carlos, a community near former Texaco wells, far exceeding historical incidence rates;
* Children under 15 are three times more likely to contract leukemia in the area where Texaco operated than in other Amazonian provinces.
The controversy surrounding the trial is receiving growing attention in the U.S. and abroad. (See “Rainforest Jekyll and Hyde?” by Bob Herbert in New York Times, 10/20/05 and International Herald Tribune, 10/21/05; “Scientists Denounce Texaco’s Academic Consultants in Ecuadorean Oil Dispute,” Chronicle of Higher Education, 4/15/05; “The Hunt for Black Gold Leaves a Stain in Ecuador; As ChevronTexaco Faces a Major Lawsuit, Evidence Portrays a Company and a Nation that For Years Showed Little Concern for the Environment,” LA Times, 11/30/03. “Chevron Would Face $5 Billion Tab For Amazon Cleanup, Expert Says,” Wall Street Journal, 10/30/03.
RESOLVED: Shareholders request that the Board of Directors report by 10/01/06, at reasonable cost and excluding confidential information, the company’s (a) annual expenditures by category for each year from 1993 to 2005, for attorneys’ fees, expert fees, lobbying, and public relations/media expenses, relating in any way to the health and environmental consequences of hydrocarbon exposures and Chevron’s remediation of Texaco drilling sites in Ecuador and (b) expenditures on the remediation of the Ecuador sites.
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
In numerous press releases, Chevron has categorically denied that the contamination that remains from Texaco’s drilling poses any risk to human health or the environment. In the shareholders opinion, Chevron is addressing these issues as a public relations problem rather than a serious health and environmental problem. We believe this damages Chevron’s reputation and credibility as an environmentally responsible corporate citizen, jeopardizes our ability to compete in the global marketplace, and may lead to significant financial costs.
Expand Disclosure Related To Breast Cancer Fundraising and Grant Distribution – Avon Products
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
Through philanthropy and product tie-ins, Avon Products has enhanced its brand reputation by becoming the largest corporate fundraiser for the breast cancer cause. The Avon Foundation’s “Breast Cancer Crusade” has raised more than $300 million worldwide since 1992, and 92% of the foundation’s program and service expenditures were directed toward the breast cancer cause in 2003. Avon merchandise benefiting breast cancer charities includes numerous “pink ribbon products” such as stuffed bears, apparel, jewelry, cosmetics, umbrellas, candles, water bottles and Christmas ornaments.
Breast cancer “cause-related marketing” has been subject to much scrutiny in the media (Business 2.0, 02/03; PR Week, 10/25/04; The Guardian, 10/11/04; Harpers, 11/01; Agence France Press, 10/08/04; St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 10/03/04; Montreal Gazette, 10/26/04; Arizona Republic, 10/09/04; numerous others). Avon has been criticized for a lack of transparency and accountability in key aspects of its fundraising and grant-making. Specifically:
· Basic information about the Avon Foundation’s research grants are unavailable, such as the scientific question they address, their purpose and duration, and the scientists to whom they are awarded. For example, although research currently suggests that hereditary factors account for only 5-10% of all breast cancer cases, it is impossible to discern whether any of the Foundation’s grants are directed toward researching the potential contribution of man-made environmental toxins.
· The Foundation has yet to disclose, on a city-by-city basis, how much money is raised by the multi-city Avon 2-Day Walk[s] for Breast Cancer (which collectively raised more than $31 million in 2003), the overhead expenses associated with each walk, and the grants dispatched to local areas from which the money is raised (the predecessor “3 Day Walks” did disclose this information).
Avon’s 2003 annual report states, “Our dream is to create the world’s largest-ever foundation for women.” In the proponent’s view, this obligates our company to adhere to the highest standards of transparency and accountability.
RESOLVED
Shareholders request that Avon Products report annually to shareholders (at reasonable cost and omitting proprietary information) on the following, beginning in 2005:
· Total contributions (itemized by in-kind contributions, product donations and staff time) of Avon Products to the Avon Foundation,
· Fundraising and administrative costs, separately stating those incurred in connection with each Avon 2-Day Walk for Breast Cancer,
· Criteria for awarding research grants, including the extent to which criteria include the role of environmental factors and the role of genetic factors,
· Geographical distribution of grants awarded for screening, treatment, patient care and support services,
· Description of the purpose of each research grant awarded, including the scientific question addressed by the grant, and,
· Description of the mission, function, and qualifications for serving on the Avon Foundation’s community advisory board.
Disclosure of Costs of Delay of Cleanup of Toxic Sites – General Electric
WHEREAS: General Electric disposed of at least 1.3 million pounds of PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) into the Hudson River. GE plants in Fort Edward and Hudson Falls, NY are also heavily contaminated with PCBs. The Environmental Protection Agency designated 200 miles of the Hudson River as a Superfund site in 1984. The plant sites are New York State Superfund sites. In February 1976, a state Department of Conservation Hearing Officer, in a case against GE, described GE’s actions as “corporate abuse” and found that the record “overwhelmingly” demonstrated that GE violated NY State law by discharging large quantities of PCBs into the Hudson River.The federal government regulates PCBs as a known animal carcinogen and probable human carcinogen. Additional independent evidence indicates that PCBs may affect the immune and reproductive systems, cause endocrine disruption and have neurological effects.
PCB concentrations in Upper Hudson fish, sediment and water continue to exceed federal and state standards, creating unacceptable health and environmental risks.
GE has historically engaged in extensive public relations efforts, suggesting that “there is no credible evidence that PCBs in the Hudson River pose a risk to people or wildlife,” (GE spokesman Mark Behan, EPA Reports Dangers in Eating Fish From Upper Hudson River, Associated Press, 8/4/99).Despite the EPA’s decision calling for the removal of PCBs from the Hudson River, GE continues to pursue its lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal Superfund. This lawsuit places the EPA’s decision and the remediation of other Superfund sites in jeopardy.
EPA’s cleanup of the Hudson River was to begin in 2005. The EPA has already announced a one year delay. GE has yet to pay the EPA approximately $20 million in past costs associated with this project and has yet to agree to perform EPA’s remedy, as public health and the environmental threats persist. GE plant sites continue to leak PCBs into the Hudson River and surrounding communities.
RESOLVED: Shareholders request the Board of Directors to report by August 1, 2005, at reasonable cost and excluding confidential information, its annual expenditures by category and specific site (where applicable) for each year from 1990-2003, on attorney’s fees, expert fees, lobbying, and public relations/media expenses, relating in any way to the health and environmental consequences of PCB exposures, GE’s remediation of sites contaminated by PCBs, and/or hazardous substance laws and regulations, as well as expenditures on actual remediation of PCB contaminated sites.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT
This resolution has been sponsored by dozens of religious, public and private pension funds. While plans to clean-up the Hudson River are under way, it is long overdue that our company discloses to shareholders the actual costs of its long term resistance to the remediation of this and other toxic sites. Shareholders have the right to this transparency.
Report on New Initiatives in Ecuador – ChevronTexaco
WHEREAS:
Between 1972 and 1992, Texaco and Petroecuador extracted over 1.4 billion barrels of oil from the Ecuadorian Amazon. As operator, Texaco designed, built and managed all exploration, extraction and transportation facilities.
During this time, an estimated 19 million gallons of oil were spilled from the trans-Ecuadorian pipeline, more than the Exxon Valdez. Texaco also systematically dumped an estimated 18.5 billion gallons of toxic wastewaters into open, unlined pits, waterways and wetlands. It was standard practice in the U.S. to re-inject such waters into the ground.
In 1998, Texaco completed a limited cleanup of 156 of the 627 unlined toxic waste pits through an agreement with the Ecuadorian government. Texaco and Petroecuador paid for and oversaw an environmental audit by an “independent” consultancy for whom full payment depended upon Texaco and Petroecuador’s acceptance of their final report and environmental management plan.
Evidence has emerged challenging the adequacy of cleanup:
A 10/03 study by Petroecuador and Frente de Defensa de la Amazonia tested soil and water samples from 323 wells and 627 waste pools left over in camps operated by Texaco. It found hydrocarbon contamination exceeding levels set by Ecuadorian environmental law, and revealed severe hydrocarbon contamination of five large wetland areas next to Texaco facilities.Waste pits designated “clean” contained hydrocarbon levels 50-500 times those permitted in the U.S.Groundwater contamination was not remediated.Findings on the contamination’s devastating health impacts on neighboring communities include:
A 1994 study conducted by Ecuador’s Center for Economic and Social Rights found that drinking, bathing and fishing water samples near contamination sites contained levels of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) 10-1,000 times greater than those considered acceptable by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. According to the Petroecuador study, exposure to and consumption of the contaminated waters has led to numerous types of infections and cancers.A 1999 study by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Ecuadorian health authorities found eight types of cancer in San Carlos, a community near former Texaco wells, far exceeding historical incidence rates.A 2004 study published in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health found that children under 15 are three times more likely to contract leukemia in the area where Texaco operated than in other Amazonian provinces. The risk of cancer is highest among children younger than four.RESOLVED: The shareholders request that the Board of Directors prepare a report on new initiatives by management to address the specific health and environmental concerns of communities affected by unremediated waste and other sources of oil-related contamination in the area where Texaco operated in Ecuador.
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
In our view, Texaco has a continuing ethical obligation to redress the environment and health consequences of its activities in Ecuador. Negative publicity generated by this situation damages our credibility as an environmentally responsible corporate citizen and jeopardizes our ability to compete in the global marketplace.
Report on Certain Toxic Chemicals From Dow Chemical Products Widely Detected in Humans – Dow Chemical
Whereas:
· The U.S. Centers for Disease Control recently reported on the testing of 9,282 people nationwide. The study found that 93% of the US population has levels of chlorpyrifos metabolites in their bodies. The average tested child aged 6-11 was found to have exposure to the neurotoxic pesticide chlorpyrifos at four times the level the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers acceptable for long term exposure. One market analysis concluded that Dow Chemical was likely to have contributed at least 80% of the chlorpyrifos exposure in the U.S. Although all residential uses of chlorpyrifos were phased out beginning in 2000, agricultural and industrial uses are still allowed.
In the opinion of the proponents, such test results will aid the correlation of exposure to disease, and increase the likelihood of liability suits against chemical producers, including our company.
· Dow’s Midland, Michigan facility releases dioxin to air, land and water. The surrounding city and floodplain are contaminated with dioxin. Levels detected downriver are up to 80 times the state’s residential cleanup standard, and blood testing has detected dioxin levels above average in some residents. State advisories warn residents to limit exposure to contaminated soil and consumption of fish and wild game. A class action lawsuit representing up to 2000 residents asserts property damages and seeks medical monitoring.
· The herbicide Agent Orange was contaminated with dioxin, exposing soldiers and residents in Vietnam. US and Vietnamese veterans and their families are suing Dow for compensation. A 2003 Supreme Court decision may allow thousands of new US veterans’ suits to proceed.
· Emerging public policies may alter markets for certain Dow product lines. The European Union proposes requiring manufacturers that sell chemicals to provide data on hazards and uses, and to require approval of certain “very high concern” chemicals, including persistent and bioaccumulative toxins (PBT), carcinogens, mutagens and reproductive toxins. The Stockholm Treaty on Persistent Organic Pollutants and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement both encourage elimination of PBT products and precursors.
In the proponents’ opinion, management’s disclosures obscure rather than clarify important policy issues confronting Dow because they fail to:
• Analyze implications for the company of the human blood testing trend, including the CDC tests showing pervasive exposures to chlorpyrifos;
• Describe how public policies may restrict markets for each category of Dow product lines, including under the Stockholm POPs treaty, emerging state programs, and the proposed European REACH program;
• List Dow products anticipated under the proposed European “REACH” program to require specific authorization or be restricted; and,
• Provide a plan and timeline for phase-out of each product involving a
PBT chemical or byproduct, or an explanation of why alternatives cannot be substituted, explaining how the company will respond to rising regulatory and market pressures to eliminate these substances.
RESOLVED: Shareholders request that the Board publish by October 2005, at
reasonable cost and excluding proprietary information, a report filling the
gaps in transparency discussed above.
Cleanup of Toxic Legacy in Ecuador – ChevronTexaco
WHEREAS:
Through its “TexPet” subsidiary, Texaco extracted over 1.5 billion barrels of oil from the Ecuadorian Amazon between 1971 and 1992. Texaco was acquired by ChevronTexaco in 2001.
An estimated 16.8 million barrels of oil were spilled from the pipeline during this time, contaminating land and water. None of the hundreds of oil spills from Texaco operations were adequately remediated.
It is estimated that over 20 years of operations in Ecuador, Texaco systematically dumped 18.5 billion gallons of toxic waste waters into open unlined pits (New York Times, 10/24/03), or directly into streams, rivers, or swamps although it was standard practice at the time in the U.S. to re-inject formation waters into the ground in the oil production process.
Texaco completed a limited cleanup of 207 of the 627 unlined toxic waste pits through an agreement with the Ecuadorian government in 1998. The baseline of this cleanup was set by an environmental audit conducted by a consultancy overseen by Texaco and Petroecuador, Ecuador’s state oil company. Texaco did not address groundwater contamination in its remediation activities.
Evidence has emerged that challenges the adequacy of Texaco’s environmental cleanup:
Waste pits approved as ”clean” contained hydrocarbon levels 50-500 times that permitted in the U.S. A 10/03 study by Petroecuador and Frente de Defensa de la Amazonia tested soil and water samples from 323 wells and 627 waste pools left over in camps operated by Texaco. It found hydrocarbon contamination exceeding levels set by Ecuadorian environmental law. The Petroecuador study also revealed the severe hydrocarbon contamination of five large wetland areas next to Texaco facilities.Studies have linked Texaco’s soil and water contamination to devastating health impacts on neighboring communities:
A 1994 study conducted by the Center for Economic and Social Rights found that water samples from drinking, bathing and fishing sources used by communities living near the contamination sites contained levels of PAHs up to 1,000 times greater than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s safety guidelines. A 2000 study by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Ecuadorian health authorities found eight types of cancer in San Carlos, a community near former Texaco wells, and that the incidences of these cancers are far exceed historical norms.According to the Petroecuador study, exposure to and consumption of the contaminated waters has led to numerous types of infections and cancers.RESOLVED: The shareholders request that ChevronTexaco’s Board prepare a report on new initiatives instituted by management to address the specific health and environmental concerns of villagers living near unremediated waste pits and other sources of oil-related contamination in the area where Texaco operated in Ecuador.
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
In our view, Texaco’s cleanup efforts were inadequate and our company has a continuing ethical obligation to redress the outstanding environment and health consequences of its activities in Ecuador. Negative publicity generated by this situation damages our credibility as an environmentally responsible corporate citizen and jeopardizes our ability to compete in the global marketplace.
Report on Feasibility of Removing Phthalates – Avon Products
WHEREAS:
According to www.Avon.com, the following Avon products contain dibutyl phthalate (DBP): NAILWEAR Nail Enamel (four shades), and NAIL EXPERTS Speed Dry Top Shine, Tough Enough Base/Top Coat, and On the Mend Nail Mender.
In March 2003, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services described DBP as “one of a group of industrially important chemicals known as phthalates…used in cosmetics and other personal care products.” Results from laboratory animal studies reviewed by the Department included reduced fertility and abnormal development of the male reproduction system. The document states: “It is reasonable and prudent to conclude that the results reported in laboratory animals indicate a potential for similar or other adverse effects on humans.” (NTP-CERHR Monograph on the Potential Human Reproductive and Developmental Effects of Di-n-Butyl Phthalate)
In January 2003, the European Parliament prohibited the use of DBP found in the products cited above, ordering member states to comply by March 2005;
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found that:
· Phthalate exposures are both higher and more common than previously suspected;
· Levels in some women of childbearing age exceed the government’s safe levels set to protect against birth defects; and,
· DBP exposures for more than 3 million women of childbearing age may be up to 20 times greater than for the average person in the population.
According to the organization Health Care Without Harm, “Using CDC sample data, an estimated 5% of women of reproductive age from the general population are contaminated with 75% or more of the amount of just DBP that may begin to impair normal reproductive trace development.” The organization believes that high levels of DBP in cosmetics could be responsible for the above-average levels of the compound found in younger women.
According to the Environmental Working Group (www.ewg.org), “Although a cause and effect relationship has not been established, the ubiquity of phthalates in the human population creates a biologically plausible presumption that phthalates may be contributing to these problems.” Until proven safe, the report asserts, phthalates should be considered as potential contributors to the following disorders in human males: declining sperm counts, and a rise in hypospadias, undescended testicles and testicular cancer (“Beauty Secrets: Does A Common Chemical in Nail Polish Pose Risks to Human Health?” November 2000).
Our competitors Aveda and nail polish manufacturer Urban Decay reformulated their products to be free of phthalates.
BE IT RESOLVED:
The shareholders request that Avon Products prepare a report to shareholders by October 2004 evaluating the feasibility of removing DBP from Avon Products. The report should be produced at reasonable cost and omit proprietary information.
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
Our company deserves high praise for its commitment to women’s health in its philanthropic activities. We believe that it would be inconsistent for Avon not to commit to finding alternative product ingredients for chemicals that may pose risks to human health.
