Back Policy/Litigation
Policy/Litigation
Back Resolutions
Resolutions
Back Current Initiatives
Current Initiatives
Back Donate
Donate
Default image for pages

Shareholders in leading food and beverage companies today announced that they had filed a series of proposals for 2025 proxies requesting that those companies disclose their processes and policies for assessing and managing the health, financial and brand risks involved with the use of additives in their products. The filing comes amid mounting public concern around the use of chemical additives in the American food supply and their impact on the health and wellbeing of the consumer public.

In recent decades, a lax regulatory environment around the food and beverage industry has created a situation in which companies, rather than the FDA, are primarily responsible for the approval and use of Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) chemical additives in their consumer products. The proposals, submitted recently to several of the biggest corporations in the sector, request more public disclosure around company policies on the use of GRAS additives and the establishment of more robust and transparent food safety policies.

The proposals were filed at Coca-Cola ($KO), PepsiCo ($PEP) and Mondelēz ($MDLZ).

“Food and beverage companies have a moral responsibility to consider the long-term health consequences for people who are the consumers of their products,” said Laura Krausa, System Director of Advocacy Programs for CommonSpirit Health. “Recent changes in the regulatory landscape and growing concerns and even anger among the general public about the U.S. food supply mean that there is significant reputational risk in not being seen as taking those concerns seriously. With this proposal, we are encouraging corporate leadership to set a powerful example and safeguard long-term value and brand by adhering to a more rigorous standard of transparency around this aspect of product development.”

“For faith-based investors, protecting human health—especially children’s health—is a moral imperative. Our tradition teaches that stewardship includes safeguarding both human health and long-term corporate value,” said Christopher Cox, Executive Director of Seventh Generation Interfaith Coalition for Responsible Investment. “These proposals simply ask some of the most well-known companies in the American food and beverage sector to take responsible, transparent steps to protect consumers, strengthen trust, and reduce preventable risk. There is immense win-win potential in these resolutions securing wide approval.”

“The widespread breakdown of trust between the American people and companies is undeniable but it is not irreversible,” said Meg Jones-Monteiro, Senior Director for Health Equity and Evaluation at the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility. “In many cases the way forward and course of action to enhance both consumer and investor confidence is clear and completely achievable. That course calls for a new approach that prioritizes transparency, rigor and a willingness to adhere to evidence-based practices. It will also help companies get ahead of increasing state-level legislation and potential federal regulation on this critical topic.”

The proposals are expected to be voted on by shareholders at the annual meetings of the food and beverage companies this spring.

 

About the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR)
The Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) is a broad coalition of more than 300 institutional investors collectively representing over $4 trillion in invested capital. ICCR members, a cross-section of faith-based investors, asset managers, pension funds, foundations, and other long-term institutional investors, have over 50 years of experience engaging with companies on environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) issues that are critical to long-term value creation.  ICCR members engage hundreds of corporations annually in an effort to foster greater corporate accountability. Visit our website www.iccr.org and follow us on LinkedIn, Bsky Social, and Facebook.

CONTACT:
Susana McDermott
Director of Communications
Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR)
201-417-9060 (mobile)
smcdermott@iccr.org

NEW YORK, NY, THURSDAY, APRIL 18, 2024 – Investors members of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) today announced that Coca-Cola ($KO) and Pepsi ($PEP) — two of the world’s largest beverage companies — would face shareholder proposals questioning the companies’ continued use of non-sugar sweeteners (NSS) at their May 1st annual stockholder meetings.

The resolutions request that both companies issue third-party reports on their efforts to assess and mitigate the potential health harms associated with their use of non-sugar sweeteners. Several ICCR members have been engaging food and beverage companies around nutrition themes for several years in an effort to promote equitable access to nutrition. These engagements have centered on promoting product reformulations (reducing harmful ingredients and increasing beneficial ingredients), balanced menus, responsible marketing, and transparency around lobbying activities and influence on public policy.

Over the past ten years, the use of non-sugar sweeteners in diet and nutrition foods — often marketed as ‘healthy’ and appealing to people searching for alternatives to sugar — has come under increased scrutiny by the public health community. While sales of NSS have ballooned by over 700 percent, a study published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health in May 2023 found evidence casting doubt on the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) assertion that NSS are safe. Moreover, in July 2023, the WHO recommended “against the use of NSS to control body weight” noting that there “may be potential undesirable effects from long-term use of NSS, such as an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and mortality in adults”.

Without stronger evidence that they aren’t linked to health harms over the long term, investors see the continued use of NSS in Coke and Pepsi products as creating systemic financial risks given the growing public health burden of managing these diet-related chronic diseases. Conducting an assessment of the type called for by the resolutions will bolster shareholder confidence that the companies are adequately managing those risks. According to Statistica, diet beverages accounted for 27.3% of total carbonated beverage sales in 2020 and Coke and Pepsi combined control over 70% of the carbonated beverage market.

A 12-ounce can of diet soda contains around 200 milligrams of aspartame, which is routinely used in Coke’s and PepsiCo’s low- and no-sugar beverages. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified aspartame as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” in 2023. Aspartame was first approved for use in 1974 but the FDA ended up withdrawing its approval due to safety concerns only to reverse its decision in 1981 due to industry pressure.

Said Christina Dorett, Shareholder Advocacy manager, Seventh Generation Interfaith CRI, “More research is clearly needed to validate the degree of risk NSS pose. To accept the studies of one manufacturer of Aspartame as the basis of concluding that Aspartame is safe for human consumption — despite the obvious conflicts of interest — demonstrates the undue influence that the food and beverage industry holds over our regulatory bodies.”

Said Meg Jones Monteiro, Senior Director, Health Equity and Evaluation, “Conducting the requested assessment would assure shareholders that the companies are taking adequate steps to monitor the emerging science while mitigating any negative legal, financial, and reputational risks associated with its use of a product that is increasingly shown to not only lack any significant health benefits but to have potential health harms.”

Both Coca-Cola and Pepsi’s AGMS will be held on Wednesday, May 1. To see the full texts of these and other proposals visit our website: https://www.iccr.org/resolutions/

About the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR)
The Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) is a broad coalition of more than 300 institutional investors collectively representing over $4 trillion in invested capital. ICCR members, a cross-section of faith-based investors, asset managers, pension funds, foundations, and other long-term institutional investors, have over 50 years of experience engaging with companies on environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) issues that are critical to long-term value creation. ICCR members engage hundreds of corporations annually to foster greater corporate accountability. Visit our website www.iccr.org and follow us on Twitter/X (@iccronline), LinkedIn, and Facebook.

By Christina Dorett, Seventh Generation Interfaith Coalition for Responsible Investment

Sucrose is a natural sugar, a vital source of energy for our bodies, and Sucralose is a Non-Sugar Sweetener (NSS) or sugar substitute. Would you know the difference? It is not a coincidence that the names are deceptively similar.

Aspartame is another widely used NSS but what are the potential risk factors of continued ingestion of NSS?  The International Agency for Research on Cancer recently classified Aspartame – prominently used as an NSS in Coke’s and PepsiCo’s low- and no-sugar beverages – as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”.[1]   Meanwhile, the companies state that testing by globally recognized food safety authorities deems the products safe.

While data may in part drive our food choices, deciphering what data is both reliable and valid, and what is intended to obscure the ugly truth, leaves consumers squirreling through a maze of research studies on the risks of NSS.

That’s why ICCR members have filed shareholder resolutions this season at Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, asking the companies to issue third-party assessments on their efforts to assess and mitigate potential health harms associated with non-sugar sweeteners.

What Do the Doctors Say?

On January 22nd, 2024, JAMA Pediatrics reported on the need for more transparency around the potential harm of NSS, in particular the use of Aspartame to reduce the calorie count:

“The lack of publicly accessible information disclosing amounts of NSS in products is particularly timely considering that, in July 2023, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified aspartame as a “possible carcinogen,” whereas the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) found the evidence linking aspartame consumption and cancer unconvincing and did not alter intake recommendations. However, both bodies emphasized the need for better studies on the health effects of aspartame, which necessitates reliable exposure estimates.”[2]

A study published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health in May 2023, found evidence that refutes the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) assertion that NSS are safe:

“Ingestion of sucralose by humans and/or animals within approved Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) levels was found to disrupt the microbiome in the gastrointestinal tract….  Sucralose also impacts the intestinal tissue. Sucralose ingestion induced histopathological changes including lymphocytic infiltrates into the intestinal epithelium, glandular disorganization, and epithelial scarring…Consumption of sucralose was noted to alter glucose and/or insulin concentrations in the plasma of some human subjects when delivered in liquids or capsules.”[3]

More research is needed to validate the degree of risk NSS pose. If regulatory bodies fulfill their roles by funding research and publishing findings to educate consumers, we would all have the opportunity to be better informed and therefore make healthier decisions regarding food options for our children and ourselves.

Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI)

Part of the US FDA’s procedure for approving any food additive is to establish the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI). The ADI is the amount of the substance that a person could consume safely, every day throughout life, based on animal and human studies.

A 12-ounce can of diet soda contains around 200 milligrams of aspartame. The ADI for soda prescribes that 3,409 milligrams of aspartame a day is safe, for a person weighing 68 kg or 150 lbs. This means that a 150 lb consumer could safely consume 17 cans of diet soda per day!

Aspartame

Aspartame was first approved by the FDA for use in 1974. Its brand names are Equal, Nutrasweet, and Sugar Twin[4]. In July 2023, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended “against the use of NSS to control body weight or reduce the risk of noncommunicable diseases”.[5]

Based on a 2022 meta-analysis, this report demonstrated the “use of NSS does not confer any long-term benefit in reducing body fat in adults or children” and suggests that there “may be potential undesirable effects from long-term use of NSS, such as an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and mortality in adults”.[6]

Lack of Regulatory Oversight

The FDA has decreed that JECFA is better suited to assess any risks associated with the consumption of aspartame because it considers all relevant toxicological endpoints, including carcinogenicity.[7] The implication that the WHO is not able to issue public health recommendations based on an assessment of all available data (including public and non-public proprietary data), or that the IARC should wait to publish findings until after coordinating with the JECFA, is tantamount to the FDA surrendering to the Food and Beverage giants and their trade associations. The FDA’s and JEFCA’s primary role is to protect consumers, who have no lobbyist to advocate for their right to know the risks of NSS.

Ignoring the demand for more research, the American Beverage Association and soda giants like Coke and Pepsi hold tight to the JECFA claim that Aspartame is safe and the ADI recommendations remain unchanged. And they get away with it, since regulatory controls on the use of NSS are absent.

In November 2023, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) reported on this “regulatory vacuum” and how the use of NSS has accelerated at exponential rates[8]:

“Despite growing health concerns and little government oversight, the use of [non-sugar] sweeteners in processed foods and drinks has exploded over the past decade, an EWG analysis shows. Using data from Food Scores, [EWG’s] searchable database of more than 80,000 foods, EWG found that between 2013 and 2022, the use of sweeteners has gone up: 

  • by more than 600 percent in baby food.
  • by more than 400 percent in snacks, cookies and candy, with sweeteners appearing on product labels nearly 25,000 times in 2022.
  • by more than 400 percent in beverages.
  • by more than 400 percent in frozen foods.

Perhaps most striking, the use of sweeteners has increased over 700 percent since 2013 in diet and nutrition foods, which are often marketed as ‘healthy’, as people search for alternatives to sugar.”

On January 28th,2024, The Guardian published an article: “Should I worry about drinking diet soda?”[9]:

“… at least one observational study that looked at people’s habits over an eight‑year period found that drinking more than 21 artificially sweetened drinks a week almost doubled their risk of becoming overweight or obese. So what else could be going on? One answer may be that diet soda drinkers are more likely to be doing something that increases their obesity risk, such as regularly eating processed food or overeating because they believe they are “saving” on the calories they drink.”

The label “Diet Soda” is an example of how names are deceiving. While diet sodas are low in calories, and give the illusion that they are “healthier” than regular sodas, this marketing ploy is an example of how “diet soda” obscures the ugly truth of NSS:

  • possibly carcinogenic to humans 
  • increased risk of type 2 diabetes
  • increased risk of cardiovascular diseases
  • doubled risk of becoming overweight or obese
  • disrupts the microbiome in the gastrointestinal tract
  • impacts the intestinal tissue
  • lymphocytic infiltration into the intestinal epithelium (inner lining)
  • glandular disorganization
  • epithelial scarring
  • altered glucose and/or insulin concentrations in the human plasma
  • does not confer any long-term benefit in reducing body fat in adults or children

The continued and accelerated rate of the use of NSS and the aggressive advertising of diet sodas[10] begs the question: Who is supposed to protect consumers, families and children from the misinformation, confusing data and aggressive advertising to promote diet sodas? The need for more regulatory control and research is clear, but keeping the waters muddied means “fatter” corporate bottom lines.

[1] https://www.iarc.who.int/news-events/aspartame-hazard-and-risk-assessment-results-released/

[2] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2814105?guestAccessKey=742960cc-dcbf-4dc8-aba8-632f728e5cf9&utm_source=For_The_Media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_content=tfl&utm_term=012224

[3] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10937404.2023.2213903

[4] ual%2C%20Nutrasweet%2C%20Sugar%20Twin.

[5] https://www.who.int/news/item/15-05-2023-who-advises-not-to-use-non-sugar-sweeteners-for-weight-control-in-newly-released-guideline

[6] ibid https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/how-sweet-it-all-about-sweeteners#:~:text=Sweeteners%20Approved%20as%20Food%20Additives,Eq

[7] https://www.fda.gov/media/166332/download

[8] https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/2023/11/use-sweeteners-exploding-despite-regulatory-vacuum?auHash=NbeIqcDWytbX_vYHjXizCeJygwOusJWPdl6ZgAIhkBw

[9] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/series/should-i-worry-)

[10] https://uconnruddcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2909/2022/11/Rudd-Targeted-Marketing-Report-2022.pdf

As investors, we recognize the importance and financial benefits of resilient and inclusive economies, which includes supporting policies that aid people experiencing hunger and poverty no matter where they live. In 2021, 12.5% of U.S. households with children were food-insecure. In 2021, 12.5% of U.S. households with children were food-insecure. Research indicates that food insecurity can contribute to an increased risk for various negative health outcomes and disparities, such as an increased risk of obesity.

On June 1, 2023 ICCR submitted a letter to members of Congress urging them to support legislation that builds healthy, equitable, and sustainable food systems.

The Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), a coalition of over 300 global institutional investors currently represents more than $4 trillion in managed assets. Leveraging our equity ownership in some of the world’s largest and most powerful companies, ICCR hosts a working group of investors focused on nutrition insecurity.  This group has been engaging food and beverage manufacturers, casual restaurant chains and retailers, calling on them to assess how their business models may exacerbate adverse health outcomes, which not only presents risks to consumers and the communities at large, but also to shareholders of the company.  Investor expectations for these companies include: (1) increasing access to nutritious and affordable foods and beverages through product formulation and affordability measures; (2) responsibly exercising their influence on consumer choice and behavior through marketing and labeling; and (3) ensuring that lobbying activities are consistent with the company’s position regarding health and wellness (i.e., transparency and accountability in the direct and indirect use of corporate funds to influence legislation and regulation). 

ICCR’s Nutrition Insecurity Working Group commits to continuing to advocate for food and beverage manufacturers, casual restaurant chains and grocery retailers to examine how their business models, operations and value chains may directly or indirectly contribute to health inequities, and work to create a more equitable and resilient system that benefits workers, the company, shareholders, and communities at large.

Letters to 21 companies seek to learn whether they are addressing how the development and marketing of food may exacerbate adverse health outcomes during the pandemic, and further contribute to systemic racism.

NEW YORK, NY, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15TH, 2020 – Members of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility and shareholders in food, beverage and retail companies announced the launch of an initiative meant to force a reckoning with how corporate policies and practices may reinforce systemic racism through the development and marketing of food and beverage products.

In a letter sent to 21 companies including Coca-Cola ($KO), Kraft ($KHC), Unilever ($UL), McDonald’s ($MCD), and Amazon ($AMZN) among other iconic brands, the investors pointed to the COVID-19 crisis and how it has exposed inequitable systems that contribute to the economic and health struggles of Black, Latinx and Indigenous communities in the U.S,

The investors argue that the way food is developed and marketed to communities of color is another example of how racial inequities can be reinforced, deleteriously impacting the health and well-being of already-vulnerable populations.

The letters were endorsed by 38 investors collectively representing over US$2t in assets under management.

“For many years, we have been encouraging these companies to improve the nutritional profiles of their product portfolios, increase access to healthy, affordable choices, and to market food products responsibly with heightened attention to how they are messaging to communities of color,” said Lauren Compere of Boston Common Asset Management. “Unfortunately, the economic and health distress caused by the pandemic only makes corporate responsibility around themes of nutrition and race more real and urgent.”

Data from the CDC indicates that Black and Latinx residents in the U.S. are three times as likely to become infected and twice as likely to die from COVID-19 as their white neighbors. Preliminary research has also indicated that obesity and other chronic health conditions such as diabetes and heart disease, which disproportionately impact communities of color, can contribute to severe COVID-19 symptoms.

While increased rates of infection among these groups is driven by several factors, including more employment in front-line jobs, the inability to work from home and reduced access to paid sick leave, a greater reliance on public transportation, and living in cramped apartments or multigenerational homes, nutrition also plays a pivotal role, say the investors.

“Taken together, these factors conspire to make these populations more susceptible to serious health risks,” said Cathy Rowan of Trinity Health. “As investors, we believe that in prioritizing the affordability and accessibility of nutritious foods, and advocating for public policies that promote public health, companies can help redress these inequities and significantly reduce suffering in these communities.”

According to the letter, the investors are: Calling on companies to examine how their business models, operations and value chains may directly or indirectly contribute to these inequities, and how they are working to create a more equitable and resilient system that benefits workers, the company, shareholders, and communities at large.

Specifically, the investors are posing questions regarding product development, advertising and public engagement practices, including:

  • How far upstream does the company integrate cultural and racial equity (i.e., social and economic factors; income, food prices, individual preferences and beliefs, cultural traditions, and geographical and environmental considerations) into product development?
  • What is the proportion of advertising spent on unhealthy vs. healthy products by racial group per platform (e.g. traditional vs. digital channels) and age group, defining ‘healthy’ through the use of an independent nutrition profiling model?
  • How does the company assess whether its public policy engagement practices exacerbate adverse health impacts on Black, Latinx and Indigenous communities in the U.S. and in low- and middle-income markets outside the U.S.?

“Companies working to ‘build back better’ from this pandemic and seriously respond to society’s call for racial justice have a unique opportunity for some much-needed introspection on these issues,” said Caroline Boden of Mercy Investment Services. “In addition to issuing public statements of solidarity, food, beverage and retail brands can take concrete steps to address issues of food equity and help to build the health and resiliency of communities of color, as well as their own workforces.”

This statement provides and update of how each of the 21 companies have responded to our campaign.

About the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR)
Celebrating its 49th year, ICCR is the pioneer coalition of shareholder advocates who view the management of their investments as a catalyst for social change. Its 300-member organizations comprise faith communities, socially responsible asset managers, unions, pensions, NGOs and other socially responsible investors with combined assets of over US$2 trillion. ICCR members engage hundreds of corporations annually in an effort to foster greater corporate accountability. Visit our website www.iccr.org and follow us on Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook.

###