BPA: The Bad and the Ugly.. There is No Good
I have had a hard time figuring out how to start this essay, because I need to find a blend of addressing the severity of this issue, while also trying to keep calm.
If you are a frequent reader, you know that I have made it a goal to educate as many people as I can about two things: Bisphenol-A and media manipulation. I am about to write about the convergence of the two: the minutes from a meeting held by major corporations, whose purpose was to discuss how best to change the perception of BPA, were released and they aren’t pretty.
In the meeting, which was attended by Coca-Cola, Grocery Manufacturer’s Association (a lobbying group), and Del Monte, amongst others, it was discussed how to get people to not believe the data that shows that BPA is harmful. The strategy: FEAR. But I will get to that in a moment.
I want to first remind everyone about Bisphenol-A, or BPA, as it is more commonly known. This is an additive used in the manufacture of plastic and canned goods. For plastic, it is used during the synthesis of the plastic into components like water and baby bottles, toys, to-go food containers, and other similar items. In canned goods, it is used as a liner, to limit the contact between the food or drink item and the metal materials used to make the can.
BPA came onto the scene in the 1930’s and has grown to be a $6-10 billion industry. Even though there were indications when it was first manufactured, growing concern of the effects to the body increased in the 1990’s. This is when some of the first studies came to light about the possible estrogenic effects of the component onto the body.
Data is conclusive that BPA is a hormone mimicker. This means when it enters our system, the body interprets it as estrogen and reacts accordingly. This has increased cancers, created premature reproductive development, sterility, and the feminization of males. It has a greater influence on the bodies of children, which is why having it in baby bottles and toys, makes it so detrimental. They have found that BPA leaches into every product that is stored in the various containers, and is transferred to our bodies. In fact, 95% of all Americans have BPA in their blood stream and urine.
There is a lot of conflict about the research into BPA, so I will try to make it as understandable as possible. Everyone should know that BPA has been approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration. Since that time, there have been independent research studies that call into question the data used in approval of the chemical. Aside from conflicting results, more importantly, there is evidence of negligent activity on the part of the FDA. First, they approved BPA using two non-multi-generational studies that were funded by the American Chemical Council, who are the same folks that make money off of BPA. Secondly, the FDA also allowed the American Chemical Council to write the safety and efficacy reports affiliated with the approval documentation. Bottom line, there are allegations that FDA knowingly approved an unsafe chemical because it best served corporate interest instead of citizen interest.
In light of the new evidence, and because of consumer awareness, many countries, including the United States, have or are looking into legislation that bans the use of BPA. One catch, the are banning it in bottles. Most people are unaware that BPA is used in canned goods; sodas, soups, canned fruits and vegetables. These are all lined with BPA.
Which brings us to the topic at hand.
Last week, a meeting was held sponsored by the North American Metal Packaging Alliance, Inc. Attendees, including Coca Cola and Del Monte, “discussed the need to be more proactive in communications to media, legislators, and the general public to protect industries that use BPA, prolong the life of BPA, put risks from chemicals in proper prospective, and transcend the media and the blogosphere.”
The meeting minutes were obtained and released by EnviroBlog and Environmental Working Group. Excerpts are as follows:
- Attendees suggested using fear tactics (e.g. “Do you want to have
access to baby food anymore?”)
- The committee doubts obtaining a scientific spokesperson is attainable. Their “holy grail” spokesperson would be a “pregnant young mother who would be willing to speak around the country about the benefits of BPA.”
- The members are focusing on more legislative battles and befriending people that are able to manipulate the legislative process.
- Focusing on the impact of BPA bans on minorities (Hispanic and African American) and poor is also important.
There is much more to the three page long minutes, but you get the idea.
Here it is, in black and white, big corporations discussing how to manipulate the consumers to use something that is harmful to themselves and their children because it might hurt their bank account.
Bottom line, I believe that these companies do not care about you. When you see advertising, I think it is important for everyone to understand, that the executives have made the decision that the particular campaign is felt to be the most effective way to convince you to buy the product, so that they make more and more money, but they don’t really believe or stand behind that advertising. It is manipulation to get you to buy, buy, buy.
And this is the most abhorrent version of that. They are going to manipulate you and your family to putting poison into your body for the good of their pocket books.
Coca-Cola products: Coke, Sprite, Dasani, MinuteMaid, Bacardi, Fanta, Dr. Pepper, Nestea
Del Monte: Del Monte, S&W, Contadina, 9Lives, MilkBone
LG and Nobu: hypocrites
I was sent a link to an ad campaign that I would like to share with you. It is a partnership between Nobu, famed sushi chef, and LG’s new energy efficient refrigerator.
On the surface, this doesn’t seem like that bad of a partnership, I suppose. You may not even know who Nobu is or care about any LG products. But, in reality, this ad is very, VERY wrong and giving you a false impression of this man and this company.
An excerpt from the same ad:
Do you see that line about the environment being better off? Keep that in mind as I tell you the next thing….
Nobu is a very famous sushi chef. His fame competes with the celebrities created on Food Network. He has 20 restaurants across the globe, with co-owner Robert DeNiro, amassed friendships with any and every known celebrity, and is under harsh criticism for refusing to stop selling endangered bluefin tuna in his restaruants.
Yes. The man peddling the energy efficient fridge sells a critically endangered species on his menu.
The Sunday Telegraph reports this morning that, thanks to Greenpeace investigative work*, we now know that London’s Nobu restaurants, among the capital’s favourite celebrity hangouts, are serving up endangered bluefin tuna as sushi.
The official response from Nobu on whether they sell bluefin has been a repeated, resounding ‘no comment’. But now we know clearly that they are serving bluefin, and the fish can be traced back to endangered Atlantic and Mediterranean stocks, through their supply chain and the DNA evidence.
Why am I sharing this with you? A great part of being better to the environment is being a better consumer. Because you trust an ad campaign that is selling an energy efficient appliance, touting benefits to the environment, you may also be unknowingly adding to the financial gain of a man who is ensuring the demise of another living, and endangered, species.
Shame on you LG for asking such a man to be a part of your campaign. Same on you, Nobu, for thinking you can get away with it.
Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts
You are The System
by Matt DeNoto
Corporations are scary things. Mindless, soulless profit machines that want above all else growth. They’re a bit like the viruses of the financial world, and for the last few decades they’ve been getting their way. Profit and growth have been priority number one, with everything else a distant second, including treating their employees fairly and taking environmental responsibility. They are powerful, and their power makes them extremely intimidating. It often seems futile to try and beat the system.
But corporations are ultimately controlled by people. And that may be their saving grace.
An idea came to me as I read about the recent Chevron shareholder’s meeting, where a small but passionate group of environmental activists tried to bring about change in Chevron’s policies, particularly regarding the legal suit Chevron is fighting in Ecuador over the pollution committed by Texaco, which Chevron acquired in 2001.
Unfortunately, as has traditionally been the case, the great majority of shareholders do not care about Chevron’s pollution in Ecuador and they do not care about Chevron’s commitment to human rights. They care only about the pieces of paper they own labeled ‘shares,’ and how much money those pieces of paper are worth. Anything which might lessen the value of those pieces of paper, be it the cost of cleaning up years worth of sludge poured into the water supply of an innocent village or acknowledging the environmental impact of current practices, is considered to be unacceptable. Shareholders, by and large, have no emotional stake in a company. They do not care if it does business fairly, or if it produces goods the world truly needs in a responsible manner. It’s all about those little pieces of paper.
The thing about it is, anyone can buy shares in a company. I began to imagine a movement whereby responsibly minded individuals banded together, chose a corporation in need of a reality check, and began purchasing shares of said corporation en masse. It might be difficult for the group to acquire a majority ownership, but simply the influence that might be exerted by a group not focused solely on profits could have a very interesting impact on the concept of a corporation as we know it.
Corporations are very good at making profits. And that’s okay. We want them to be able to make profits. We need companies to provide goods and services. We need them to compete and to innovate.
And we need them to take responsibility for their actions. We need them to stop fighting tooth and nail every time they’re forced to clean up a mess they’ve made, and then we need to put in place a system that encourages them not to make any messes in the first place. We need corporations to equate making money with making the world a better place.
We can do it. We can change the system. We are the system.
In case you’re feeling inspired, the web address www.environmentalshareholders.com is available for purchase.
Stumble it!