Green Options › Forums › What's Going On in Green? › Take Action Online › Turn up the heat on Del Monte!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Turn up the heat on Del Monte!

post #1 of 12
8/20/09 at 11:35am
Thread Starter 

Turn up the heat on Del Monte!

 
I got this in my email today and wanted to pass it along:

Dear Supporter,

Several months ago, EWG helped break news of a secret meeting convened at a fancy private club in Washington, where lobbyists from the chemical industry and food companies hatched a plot to mislead consumers about the risks of bisphenol-A (BPA), a toxic chemical used in many food containers.

EWG's online community was outraged. We urged you to call two of the companies represented by name in the memo to denounce this deceptive campaign.

You did, and one company, Coca-Cola, responded.

As for the other company? No word yet from Del Monte on the food and chemical lobby's anti-consumer campaign. Help us keep the pressure on Del Monte by calling now to demand no more BPA in its products.

Coke Disavows Industry "Fear Tactics"
In mid-July, four Coca-Cola executives traveled from Atlanta to EWG's Washington headquarters to discuss the BPA issue in a two-hour meeting. They came to discuss issues I had raised in a June 10 letter to Muhtar Kent, Chairman and CEO of The Coca-Cola Company.


They reiterated what Rhona Applebaum, the company's Vice President and Chief Scientific and Regulatory Officer, had written in a letter to me a few weeks earlier:
"The Coca-Cola company wants you to understand that it absolutely disavows any use of 'fear tactics' or any misleading marketing efforts regarding BPA, and would not support any effort by others to do so. The Company believes that consumers should be informed accurately to allow them to make knowledgeable choices."
While the Coca-Cola executives made clear that they differ with EWG on the science of BPA and have concluded based on available evidence that the material is safe as used in packaging for its products, they are interested in hearing more about our views about emerging research on BPA and other chemicals used in packaging. Coca-Cola has not found a substitute for BPA that meets its packaging needs, but will continue to assess alternatives - as we're urging it to do.


We agreed to continue our conversation with the company on a range of issues beyond BPA, including science and policy matters pertaining to packaging ingredients, bottled water, and ambitious efforts underway within the company to reduce its energy use, environmental impacts, and carbon footprint.
We feel the discussion was robust and candid, and we welcome Coca-Cola's principled stand against consumer deception regarding BPA. We look forward to further discussions.

Turn Up the Heat on Del Monte
As you may recall, this internal memo from the secret Industry meeting suggested the companies use "fear tactics," like falsely warning new parents, "Do you want to have access to baby food anymore?" The Industry representatives discussed "focusing on the impact of BPA bans on minorities (Hispanic and African American) and poor." And then there was this brainstorm: recruit as "the 'holy grail' spokesperson a 'pregnant young mother who would be willing to speak around the country about the benefits of BPA'" - a chemical many scientists consider toxic in utero to developing babies.

Finally, the lobbyists recommended "befriending people that are able to manipulate the legislative process," singling out for attack pending legislation EWG is sponsoring in California that would restrict BPA in sippy cups and infant formula containers.

Keep the pressure on Del Monte to stand up against these outrageous industry tactics and get BPA out of Del Monte products.

Together, we are holding companies accountable and making our voices heard.

Thank you for partnering with us.

Sincerely,





Ken Cook
President, Environmental Working Group
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 12
8/20/09 at 12:23pm
I will look and see if we have Del Monte here.

If so I guess I will have to buy it, whether I want the product or not. 

These kinds of campaigns, whether by the Rainbow Coalition, by EWG or others I disagree with in principle.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 12
8/20/09 at 6:27pm
Thread Starter 
can you expand on that Russ?
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 12
8/21/09 at 12:29pm
I appreciate EWG's work, particularly their efforts with Cosmetics Database.  With that though, you do have to take some of the data with a grain of salt given that on some products, they haven't been able to run new tests on re-released versions...for example, Gilden Tree has reformulated their products to be made free of parabens, however, because EWG is a non-profit and has limited resources for man power, those changes haven't been tested and re-inputed on their website.  However, I do think efforts for consumer education are important.

To tell you the truth, I don't know much about Del Monte though...

But way to go Coca-Cola PR.  :-)  While they do of course disagree on the science and may not have ready alternatives, it was definitely a good move to publicly address the concerns.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 12
8/25/09 at 8:10am
Thread Starter 
I agree that one should always do their own research, especially with the ewg cosmetic database, which we've talked about before because of the limited resources the agency has on that front- even so they are a great resource themselves. As for this I've yet to find one of their campaigns to be lacking in correct info and all i've seen have been vallid on their front- although as cola presented data can be disagreed with depending on different studies (but there's a lot more to say about what studies those are also) but i completely and totally support consumer and public awareness and activism, whether on campaigning for fair treatment or for non toxic food it's important that the public has it's say and uses it's buyig power to influence what big companies do, otherwise capitalism would become a situation where the companies had free run to do and package whatever they want without consiquence, that's why campaigns and coorperations like this are not only important but vital to our country and us as the public and consumers. It's inconcievable to me to disagree on principal with such a concept, because doing so means point blank disagreeing with public and consumer awareness and action, and even so that which is what this forum is all about and consumer awareness is what eco huddle is based on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stins View Post

I appreciate EWG's work, particularly their efforts with Cosmetics Database.  With that though, you do have to take some of the data with a grain of salt given that on some products, they haven't been able to run new tests on re-released versions...for example, Gilden Tree has reformulated their products to be made free of parabens, however, because EWG is a non-profit and has limited resources for man power, those changes haven't been tested and re-inputed on their website.  However, I do think efforts for consumer education are important.

To tell you the truth, I don't know much about Del Monte though...

But way to go Coca-Cola PR.  :-)  While they do of course disagree on the science and may not have ready alternatives, it was definitely a good move to publicly address the concerns.


 
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 12
8/26/09 at 1:29pm
Personally I don't love all these "let's get so and so company to change" campaigns all that much. There are tons of campaigns against all these traditional products like attacking Kimberly Clark or Coke, or what have you but that's money and time wasted NOT promoting products and companies that actually have been green from the start or who offer safe products.

I do like that these campaigns make people aware of safety issues, but I think if major green organizations spent as much time promoting good green companies as they did calling out bad ones, it might one, look more positive on behalf of all eco-folks and two, make people aware of the alternatives who are already doing a great job, thus maybe getting more people on board with eco companies and maybe (gasp) eventually lowering the costs of green products that these companies sell.

WOW that was the longest run on ever. Ah well. I think you gain more people into the eco-issues with sweet vs. sour (or however that old saying goes). It just seems like I see smear campaigns all the time and not nearly as much promoting of green that already exists. It's frustrating.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 12
8/26/09 at 6:24pm
Thread Starter 
I'm not sure if you are signed up to recieve ewgs emails or not, but they send out just as many positive posts and informative posts as they do these. they also do a lot of political emails to inform people about important bills to support or oppose and emails about ways to help preserve nature as well as emails informing about dangerous mining or acts that will harm natural resources- so while i totally understand what you are saying, I dont' feel it's applicable with this particular corperations campaigns since ewg does do both as well as the cosmetic database and etc.. informing people and the informative emails that give people info on how to choose their own and etc... It seems to me they are just focused on informing people period, not about wherther the information they have to pass on is negative or positive, they are just focused on passing the info on and getting it to as many people as possible to do as much as they can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JenniferChait View Post

Personally I don't love all these "let's get so and so company to change" campaigns all that much. There are tons of campaigns against all these traditional products like attacking Kimberly Clark or Coke, or what have you but that's money and time wasted NOT promoting products and companies that actually have been green from the start or who offer safe products.

I do like that these campaigns make people aware of safety issues, but I think if major green organizations spent as much time promoting good green companies as they did calling out bad ones, it might one, look more positive on behalf of all eco-folks and two, make people aware of the alternatives who are already doing a great job, thus maybe getting more people on board with eco companies and maybe (gasp) eventually lowering the costs of green products that these companies sell.

WOW that was the longest run on ever. Ah well. I think you gain more people into the eco-issues with sweet vs. sour (or however that old saying goes). It just seems like I see smear campaigns all the time and not nearly as much promoting of green that already exists. It's frustrating.

 
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 12
8/26/09 at 9:46pm
Excellent post Jennifer!

 
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 12
8/27/09 at 8:43am
Thread Starter 
like i said i totally understand what jennifer is saying, while i don't feel that it's applicaple to this particular corperation because they have time and again shown they are simply interesting in spreading info period on increasing awareness and activism and increasing the publics safety, seemingly without bias on whether the precieved info is the positive or negative type. but can you expand on why you are against the principal of such campaigns to the extent that you will actualy support companies that have had the whistle blown on them? I can understand thinking positive campaigning helps more, but when faced with the choice to activly degrade the idea of consumer/public awareness and activism of any vallid why do you make the choice to do so? I am very confused on what your reasons would be for this, especially considering not only the forum but the site we are on, and would very much like and appreciate you taking the time to explain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ View Post

Excellent post Jennifer!

 
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 12
8/27/09 at 9:06am
KayMMIV - I'm actually a fan of EWG. I love their work on the cosmetic database and know that yeah they do send out some positive messages as opposed to total smear campaigns all the time. BUT reading your post yesterday it just made something click in my head that hadn't before about the fact that most of the time when it comes to green organizations and even green bloggers or writers (self included) we tend to focus on the negatives more than the positives.

I've been writing for green clients for a really long time, and even though I really believe we should be positive I'm not perfect. I mean, the other day I called out Huggies because I think they're being lame so I did exactly what I just said we shouldn't be doing. I think it's part of this world - calling out bad eco-issues, but building up the good (or positive) eco-issues should maybe be a larger component.

It's just that I see SO much more bad stuff than good, and a lot of it by big eco-organizations. I've talked to many people who say things like, "the reason I'm not on board with green is because you guys are so negative" or because "you all attack companies all the time" which is not a total myth. We do attack a lot of companies and call them out on the negative eco-impacts they have. I didn't mean my post to be against EWG in particular or any one group but I just really think if we saw a shift where green groups and others in green were calling out positive green stuff maybe 80% of the time vs. bad stuff 80% of the time we'd see a larger amount of people comfortable with green issues.

There's absolutely a time to call out companies but I think there's also a lot of good that's not called out as often as it could be.

Hopefully this made sense.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 12
8/27/09 at 9:48am
Thread Starter 
totally made sense to me adn I totally agree with you. I think you are right. I got so sick of the constant negativity in all the green groups on cafemom to the point i finally started my own and the main concept of the group was "be nice and try to be positive" and in just months I went from a handful of people in my groups to thousands and now a couple years later continue to have the four largest green centered groups on the site. The difference is members don't have to be afraid of always doing battle in my groups. so I totally agree and totally think that positive is the way to go largely and expecially in presentation of information, so much of the reason people back down from being green in my opinion is from the negativity or presentation or the feeling of being attacked for not being 'good enough' or 'doing enough' or 'doing it the right way'. if I had a dollar for every time i've been told by another mom that they would have been living green so much sooner if they could just have felt more comfortable asking questions and talking to others without feeling attacked every time they shared or posted something I would probably be able to pay our mortgage for the YEAR, lol :)

but like you said also i don't think that means the negative info shouldn't be shared or acted on. you guys see me around enough to know i am a BIG promoter of anything green, I spend a lot of time trynig to feed out accurate information on companies whether it's positive or negative. I am as quick to post about how awesome great companies like Natures Baby Organics are as I am to post heads up on greenwashing and currupt companies like Dean Foods with Horizon Dairy. I'm as quick to rave in reviews on companies like seventh generation as i am to report bad ingredients in product like method. I think it's important that consumers and the public are aware of all info and feel it's important to support and encourage acting on both whether the action is personal or public.

Hope I made sense also, I didn't get but a couple hours last night cause tris went into an episode so was up doing treatments and keeping him elevated all night, so pelase let me know if something seems wacky or doesn't make since. I'm sure tomorrow I'm going to be reading my posts today and going "what the....?"
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JenniferChait View Post

KayMMIV - I'm actually a fan of EWG. I love their work on the cosmetic database and know that yeah they do send out some positive messages as opposed to total smear campaigns all the time. BUT reading your post yesterday it just made something click in my head that hadn't before about the fact that most of the time when it comes to green organizations and even green bloggers or writers (self included) we tend to focus on the negatives more than the positives.

I've been writing for green clients for a really long time, and even though I really believe we should be positive I'm not perfect. I mean, the other day I called out Huggies because I think they're being lame so I did exactly what I just said we shouldn't be doing. I think it's part of this world - calling out bad eco-issues, but building up the good (or positive) eco-issues should maybe be a larger component.

It's just that I see SO much more bad stuff than good, and a lot of it by big eco-organizations. I've talked to many people who say things like, "the reason I'm not on board with green is because you guys are so negative" or because "you all attack companies all the time" which is not a total myth. We do attack a lot of companies and call them out on the negative eco-impacts they have. I didn't mean my post to be against EWG in particular or any one group but I just really think if we saw a shift where green groups and others in green were calling out positive green stuff maybe 80% of the time vs. bad stuff 80% of the time we'd see a larger amount of people comfortable with green issues.

There's absolutely a time to call out companies but I think there's also a lot of good that's not called out as often as it could be.

Hopefully this made sense.

 
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 12
8/28/09 at 8:52am
KayMMIV - no, you make sense - tris issues and all. It seems like we agree. Also, I know what you mean about being positive. My most popular green blog is also the most positive, so I know folks like that. :)
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Take Action Online
Green Options › Forums › What's Going On in Green? › Take Action Online › Turn up the heat on Del Monte!