by Claude Solnik
Published: October 3, 2011

It looks like a few firms have agreed to open the books on their political donations, a year after the Supreme Court unceremoniously closed the door on once strict limits to contributions.

A trio of Fortune 500 companies whose stock is held by the New York State Common Retirement Fund have agreed to disclose their political campaign contributions and procedures, after requests from New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.

DiNapoli said Marriott International, Yum Brands (parent of Pizza Hut and Taco Bell) and Limited Brands(parent of Henri Bendel and Victoria’s Secret), whose stock is held by the state’s $146.9 billion retirement fund, agreed to disclose contributions to political campaigns and advocacy groups and outline their approval process for political contributions.

The comptroller and the Center for Political Accountability began a push last year for greater disclosure after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision opened the doors to big corporate contributions.

“There’s cause for concern when corporations make it their business to finance campaigns,” DiNapoli said. “Now we’re asking corporations to do the responsible thing for their shareholders and for the public. These three companies have heeded the call.”

After finding that about 70 of the S&P 500 companies had public policies regarding disclosing political donations, the comptroller and the center sent out letters requesting information from the remaining firms.

“We engaged with these companies. Some came forward and said we’ll work with you,” said Eric Sumberg, a spokesman for the comptroller. “We proposed shareholder resolutions at some.”

The retirement fund filed nine shareholder resolutions, leading to agreements with these three firms during the proxy season.

The New York State Common Retirement Fund as of Sept. 16 owned nearly $150 million combined in these firms’ shares including 1.6 million shares of Yum Brands worth $86.2 million; 873,292 shares of Limited Brands worth $35.2 million and 938,109 shares of Marriott International worth $27.4 million.

DiNapoli said he’s continuing to push for disclosure of corporate contributions as a way of monitoring spending of firms whose shares are held by the state an their interaction with the political process.

“Proxy season is in the spring,” Sumberg said. “Over the next couple of months, we’ll look at which companies to engage with the next season. Hopefully, we’ll have more successful engagements.”

WASHINGTON, D.C., Sep. 01 /CSRwire/ - Two leading sustainable business organizations representing 5,000 small businesses today sent a letter calling on President Obama to reject the controversial Keystone XL pipeline and, instead, invest in clean energy technologies.  

The pipeline would deliver oil from the tar sands in Canada to the Gulf of Mexico across the United States.

In their letter, Green America’s Green Business Network and The Green Chamber of Commercesaid the pipeline would further United States addiction to oil and risk disastrous new oil spills in rivers and the Ogallala aquifer. Global warming and oil spills have been seen to have an extremely detrimental effect on the economy, which affects the well-being of their businesses.

In addition to these risks, production of the 700,000 barrels of heavy crude that would travel from the tar sands every day creates a tremendous amount of greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming. Both the potential for environmentally harmful oils spills and increase in GHG emissions would be harmful to the environment, in addition to the harm to business in the United States.

The text of the letter to President Obama follows:

“We write to you on behalf of thousands of small businesses in the United States that are deeply concerned about the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. The well-being of our businesses and the economy in the United States are tied to the health of our environment. The Keystone XL pipeline will have an immensely negative impact on the environment. It would bring 700,000 barrels of heavy crude from Canadian tar sands to the US every day, furthering the US addiction to oil, and risking new oil spills in rivers and the Ogallala aquifer. The production of oil from tar sands would generate enormous greenhouse gas emissions, and create greater impacts from global warming.

The impacts of global warming -- from droughts, to floods, to extreme weather -- are bad for business in the United States. As we saw in the Gulf, oil spills also have a devastating impact on the economy. The failure to shift America away from its dependence on oil to cleaner fuels will further imperil our economy and reduce the number of green jobs we need for sustainable economic growth.

Your administration has taken bold and necessary steps to increase the green energy economy in the US. Now, we urge you to reject the Keystone XL pipeline, and further invest in clean energy technologies. It is the right decision for the US, and it is the right decision for business.”

Each summer, animal activists travel across the country to meet and discuss the latest topics of the animal rights movement. This year, animal agriculture was once again the focus. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) hosted its annual Taking Action for Animals Conference in Washington, D.C. on July 15-18, and Farm Animal Rights Movement’s Animal Rights 2011 Conference (AR 2011) was held two weeks later on July 21-25 in Los Angeles. Both events claimed to have “record-breaking” attendance, attracting a combined total of more than 1,600 activists from around the world, ranging in age from 20-60 years old.

Securing rights for farm animals and the promotion of a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle to the mainstream public were hot topics at both meetings. Attendees were given tips on how to utilize social media, create “undercover” videos and craft effective messages to share their views with others. Speakers and exhibitors also encouraged aspiring activists to hold demonstrations, signature drives for ballot initiatives and leafleting campaigns.

The largest activist groups attended and sponsored both meetings, although messaging differed between audiences. Nathan Runkle, Executive Director of Mercy For Animals, Erica Meier, Executive Director of Compassion Over Killing, and Gene Baur, President of Farm Sanctuary, spoke at both meetings. They encouraged a more aggressive, physical approach to eliminating animal agriculture at AR 2011, which is seen as the more extremist meeting. For more information about the most active animal rights groups, access the Alliance’s updated activist profile report.

Both conferences discussed a growing embrace of the vegetarian lifestyle in the mainstream media. Speakers used inflated statistics (often citing their own studies) to increase misconceptions about animal agriculture and its effects on the environment and one’s health. The sessions on farm animal rights were the most widely attended at both conferences, with five presentations devoted to the topic including, ”The Global Campaign Against Factory Farming,” “Advances in Farm Animal Protection,” and “Agriculture Campaigns.”

TAFA included a formal vegan banquet with keynote speakers HSUS President and CEO Wayne Pacelle and Congressman Jim Moran (D-Va.). Both speakers stressed the importance of lobbying and having a presence in Washington, D.C. to promote animal rights on Capitol Hill. TAFA and AR 2011 featured an exclusively vegan menu for all guests. It should be noted that, in contrast to the lifestyle choices advocated for by the conference speakers, 97 percent of Americans enjoy meat, milk, and egg products as part of their diet.

Throughout TAFA, HSUS shared examples of celebrities and mainstream media outlets that promote a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle. Though HSUS regularly attempts to portray itself as a mainstream organization, many of its conference speakers and attendees strongly advocate for animal rights. At AR 2011, the recommended tactics discussed were more extreme, including use of violence, sabotage to farms and other illegal actions.

Most people are not aware of these animal activist groups’ true motives to end all animal agriculture and rid the human diet of meat, eggs and dairy. For example, the “Meatless Monday” campaign is marketed as a mainstream idea to cut meat out of the diet for one day a week to improve one’s health and the environment. However, this well-funded campaign was founded by the husband of a wealthy, longtime animal rights activist and it actually pushes an extreme animal rights and environmental agenda by promoting false claims about animal agriculture.

“Meatless Monday” was discussed at both TAFA and AR 2011 by HSUS, Compassion Over Killing, and Mercy for Animals, all who referred to the campaign as a start to a vegetarian or vegan outreach lifestyle. Numerous celebrities, school systems, mainstream media and even cities were mentioned as having joined the campaign. Each presenter claimed that at least 51 percent of the American public is familiar with the “Meatless Monday” campaign, and that 18 percent actively participate, though a source for the statistic was not produced. Josh Balk of HSUS discussed the campaign as a way to not only get people to start eating vegetarian, but to “save 1.4 billion farm animals.”

The new agreement between HSUS and United Egg Producers to seek federal legislation for housing standards for egg laying hens was also discussed at both conferences. Audience members seemed upset about the agreement, noting HSUS “caved” by giving up its cage-free campaign. Others were frustrated because they had devoted time and energy to collecting signatures for the ballot. Kitty Jones, a 17-year-old student, was praised for her individual work of collecting more than 10,000 signatures for the proposed Washington state ballot initiative campaign. On the other hand, some of the activist groups viewed the agreement as a “monumental victory” for HSUS, although some attendees were wary of working with the agriculture industry. HSUS staff asserted that the biggest hurdle would be agricultural lawmakers in Congress.

Farmers and ranchers should educate themselves on the threat these groups represent. Unfortunately, most people are not aware of these extremists groups’ true agenda against animal agriculture. TAFA and AR 2011 showcased animal activists’ real beliefs that are often hidden behind emotionally appealing and celebrity funded public relations campaigns. It is critical that all stakeholders correct the misinformation presented by these activist groups, showcase the wonderful families and businesses involved in farming, ranching and food production and share with the public your commitment to your animals, the environment, food safety and continuous improvement. The Alliance will continue to work to bridge the gap between farmers and consumers to show that while today’s agriculture industry has evolved to meet the needs of society, the same core values remain.

ORRVILLE, Ohio - The J.M. Smucker Co. perked up coffee-lovers by announcing that after four straight price hikes in little over a year, the company was cutting prices by an average of 6 percent.

The Orrville food company, which is holding its annual shareholders meeting today, said Tuesday's news applies to the prices on a majority of its coffee products sold in the U.S., including top-selling Folgers Coffee, Folgers Gourmet Selections and Dunkin' Donuts packaged coffee sold in supermarkets.

Smucker cut prices in response to declines in the price of raw green coffee futures, which slipped to $2.10 per pound in July, down 9 percent from a 34-year-high of $2.31 per pound in April.

That's still 65 percent higher than the $1.27-per-pound price in April 2010, but represents the third-straight monthly decline after more than a year of steadily climbing prices, according to the International Coffee Organization.

Those rising prices, on top of higher fuel and other production costs, prompted Smucker to increase its own coffee prices four times:

• 4 percent on May 18, 2010;

• 9 percent on Aug. 3, 2010;

• 10 percent on Feb. 8, 2011;

• and 11 percent on May 24.

Smucker's rivals, including Starbucks, Maxwell House, Peet's Coffee & Tea and Green Mountain Coffee have raised their coffee prices over the past year, too, but have not yet responded to Tuesday's announcement.

Dominic Caruso, vice president of Caruso's Coffee Inc., a specialty coffee roaster in Brecksville, said that while prices for some kinds of raw beans have fallen, they remain significantly higher than they were a year ago.

He said that while mass-produced coffee blends like Folgers and Dunkin' Donuts can compensate for more expensive beans by increasing the amount of cheaper robusta beans, coffee houses that specialize in premium beans or single-source coffees have less wiggle room to lower prices.

"On certain coffees, like breakfast blends and doughnut shop blends, we're going to try to pass along that savings to the customer," he said. "But on other coffees, like African coffees or Indonesian Sumatras and Javas, we're stuck" with higher prices.

Caruso doesn't expect many coffee house regulars to switch to brewing at home, however, because coffee is still an affordable indulgence. "The customer who's going to the coffee shop is going there for a lot of reasons besides price," he said.

The price cut news also came a day before Smucker's annual shareholders meeting, where two shareholder groups that advise investors on responsible and sustainable companies are seeking more information about the company's long-term coffee strategy.

Calvert Investment Management Inc. of Bethesda, Md., and Trillium Asset Management LLC of Boston want shareholders to approve their Proposal 5, requiring Smucker to provide a report to shareholders about how the company plans to deal with possible climate changes and threats to family coffee farms within six months of the annual meeting.

Because coffee makes up 40 percent of Smucker's net sales and 48.6 percent of its profit, the groups wrote a letter to shareholders saying that they want to know how the company plans to respond to climate changes like global warming, changes in rainfall patterns, and its "responsibility for its impact on the coffee farming families in its supply chain."

Rebecca Henson, Calvert's sustainability analyst, said: "The proposal is meant to encourage the company to take more meaningful steps" to protect shareholders, because so much of its business depends on coffee. "We just think there's more they can do to manage this risk."

Calvert, a mutual fund which offers advice to more than 400,000 individual and institutional investors, owns 4,269 shares of Smucker stock.

Trillium, the oldest and largest independent adviser devoted exclusively to sustainable and responsible investing, advises several hundred clients who own about 90,000 shares of Smucker.

Both groups say Smucker has provided "woefully inadequate" guidance on these topics and that it "lags significantly behind" its global peers Nestle, Sara Lee and Kraft in providing that information.

Sara Lee, for example, aims to have 20 percent of its coffee volume certified sustainable by 2015, while Nescafe will distribute 220 million disease-resistant coffee plantlets to coffee farmers around the world by 2020.

Smucker declined to answer questions Tuesday about the price cut or Proposal 5, saying that it was in its quiet period prior to Thursday's earnings conference call.

In an Aug. 9 letter to shareholders, however, Co-Chief Executives Tim and Richard Smucker responded that the company had already answered those requests.

They said that "in making the decision and expending time and resources to voluntarily publish a corporate responsibility report, it has taken appropriate action to address shareholder concerns" and that adopting Proposal 5 would be "unnecessary, duplicative and inappropriate."

Read the original article here.

The animal welfare community and the animal-food-producing industry have never been great friends. In fact, bitter enemies would be closer to the truth.

So it came as quite a shock when, on July 10, 2011, the Humane Society of the United States and the United Egg Producers (a voluntary federation of egg-producers in the United States) entered into a landmark agreement to begin to improve the lives of egg-producing chickens.

With Humane Society President and Chief Executive Officer Wayne Pacelle in the lead, the United Egg Producers agreed to some incremental and long ranging changes in the way egg-producing hens are treated.

Currently the least protected of farm animals, chickens are not covered by any Animal Welfare Acts and also are exempt from individual state laws prohibiting cruelty to animals and the federal Humane Methods of Slaughter Act.

As such, chickens are open “game” with regard to their treatment by the egg producing industry. More than 90-percent of egg-laying hens in the United States are housed for life in battery cages. These wire cages only allow approximately 67 square inches of space for several hens packed into the same space.

The failure to provide adequate space prohibits all instinctive or natural behaviors including roosting, dust bathing and, in particular, nesting. Hens instinctively search for private space to lay eggs often crawling under other hens in a valiant search for privacy.

Now, according to a press release from the HSUS, the HSUS and the United Egg Producers will “work together toward the enactment of comprehensive new federal legislation for all 280 million hens involved in U.S. egg production.”

For instance, the proposed legislation will:

· require battery cages be replaced through an ample phase-in period, with new, enriched housing systems that will provide each hen nearly double the amount of space they’re currently allotted. Egg producers will invest an additional $4 billion over the next 15 years to effect this industry-wide make-over;

· require that all egg-laying hens be provided, through the new enriched housing system, with environments that will allow hens to express natural behaviors, such as perches, nesting boxes, and scratching areas;

· mandate labeling on all egg cartons nationwide to inform consumers of the method used to produce the eggs, such as “eggs from caged hens,” “eggs from hens in enriched cages,” “eggs from cage-free hens,” and “eggs from free-range hens”;

· prohibit feed or water-withholding molting to extend the laying cycle, a practice already prohibited by the United Egg Producers Certified program adhered to by a majority of egg farmers;

Although the new agreement may not provide chickens with the ultimate in much-needed expanded space, it “could set a precedent for the cattle/pig/lamb/calf, etc. farmers to follow suit and improve the quality of life of their livestock," according to Newtown resident Susan Kososka, owner of a small chicken flock. "It also helps to elevate the status of food animals and that's good for the general public to see in that they may start to see animals in general in a different light. All my chickens are pets. Around here, if I have my own way, they will all die of old age.”

This agreement also will give consumers a clearer understanding of the confusing labeling now found on commercially packaged eggs. Currently, there are so many different labels on packaged egg cartons it’s almost impossible to determine what they mean.

Here’s where it stands right now:

Certified Humane: The Humane Farm Animal Care (HFAC) is a non-profit organization that certifies the humane treatment of animals raised by meat, poultry, egg or dairy producers. There are only a few egg producers (about 1-percent) who are certified to carry their label.

The label indicates “no cages” and with hens having at least 1.5 square feet of floor space with outside access. Doors to the outside "must allow more than one hen at a time to exit". Forced molting, where hens nearly at the end of their laying are deprived to food, water, and light for days to weeks to produce one more bout of egg-laying is prohibited.

Cage free: This doesn’t necessarily mean that the quality of life for hens is perfect. They can be packed into massive sheds with only a tiny opening to the outdoors. There are no regulations about space requirements inside or out.

Organic certified: Usually means that the hens have access to the outdoors, are fed organic feed with no antibiotics.

Free-range: This means the chickens are allowed to roam outdoors. However, detractors point out that in many instances the doors to the hen sheds are kept closed until the chicks reach an age where they would not choose to go out on their own.

Organic eggs: There are federal regulations governing organic labels. The chickens must be fed organic feed (grown without commercial fertilizers or pesticides), and are not given hormones or antibiotics. However, this label has nothing to do with how the animals are kept.

Confused? So am I. But we live in area where we can do something about this. You can buy a flock of chickens or, easier still, stop on the side of the road in any of several spots in town and buy eggs direct from the local farms.

Not only are they fresh, but you’ll be supporting the local farmers, who treat their chickens well, like Kokoska says, they are “living, breathing beings and as such, deserve as good a quality of life as we can give them.”

Read more here.