May 21, 2012

Bisphenol A (BPA) in Product Packaging- Big Risks Come in Small Packages

Risk Management - RIMS

Coca Cola, Wal-Mart, Kraft, Del Monte, Safeway and Kroger have all failed in their efforts to address the controversial chemical bisphenol A (BPA) in their product packaging, according to rankings conducted by a green investing advisory company. "Most of these companies are exploring substitutes to BPA to some degree but do not commit to phasing out the chemical, are not funding the exploration of substitutes and fail to sufficiently disclose information about how they are addressing consumer concern," states a report by Green Century Capital Management.

While this may not sound so bad, the problem with the companies that earned an F compared to those that received As and Bs (which include Heinz, ConAgra, General Mills and Nestl?) is that they have become "laggards," falling behind in an industry that is otherwise adopting the precautionary principle towards BPA. Canada has declared the chemical, which has been linked in some studies to neurological disorders and thyroid function, to be a toxic substance. France and eight U.S. states, including California, Maryland and New York, have banned it in children's products.

Though the FDA has yet to make a final ruling, it seems companies are self-regulating to avoid any backlash that could lead to reputation damage and reduced sales.

Risk Management Magazine and Risk Management Monitor. Copyright 2012 Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Senior Editor

Jared Wade is the senior editor of Risk Management magazine and the Risk Management Monitor blog.

212-655-5919

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.