Citizens United: A First Anniversary Update

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

Little more than a year after the January 21, 2010 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission, it is already apparent that the effects of the ruling are widespread, contaminate the democratic processes, and could be long-lasting. Because the effects of the ruling on the 2010 election campaign were significant, the potential effects on public health could be pervasive (1, 2). Finding new ways to undo its pernicious consequences is an important public health goal.

The Ruling

The Citizens United ruling (3) overthrew previous laws andcourt rulings ranging from the early 1900’s to parts of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, sometimes known as the McCain-Feingold law. The Court ruled that previous laws and regulations were so restrictive as to prohibit free speech. The ruling gave corporations the right to use unlimited amounts of money directly from the corporation’s treasury for independent election campaign advocacy. The results of the decision were immediately revealed in the November 2010 mid-term U.S. Congressional election campaign and its aftermath.

The Relevance of the Court’s Ruling to Public Health

Representative Darrell Issa

Corporate wealth gives companies the special ability to develop and test communications that frame issues, appeal to emotions, provide inaccurate and incomplete information, and increase the cognitive availability of ideas (4). This allows them to take advantage of voters’ decision-making vulnerabilities. Thus, corporate campaign election funds could be directed into tailored messages for or against candidates who take positions on a variety of public health issues ranging from abortion(5), coal-fired power plants, menu labeling, and worker health, to budget appropriations and other aspects of health that are vulnerable to market forces (6). Corporate lobbyists could pressure elected officials based on their contributions to the official’s campaign as a means of gaining legislative favors. Donations from insurance and pharmaceutical corporations in the 2008 election cycle seem to have gained them access and influence during health care financing reform (2). After the 2010 election Representative Issa (R-Calif.), chair of the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee, reportedly asked 150 trade associations, corporations and think tanks to provide a wish list of public health, environmental and other public protections they wanted eliminated (7). The Court’s ruling in Citizens United has raised concerns about the government’s ability to regulate the commercial speech of tobacco and other corporations in advertising their products (8). 

Follow the money

More money ($4 billion) was spent on the 2010 congressional elections by political parties and outside groups than in any previous midterm election cycle (9). According to reports by Public Citizen, in the 2010 election independent organizations that were the direct beneficiaries of corporate largess after the Citizens United ruling increased spending more than 400% over the 2006 mid-term election. About 54% of them disclosed anything about their sources. The groups that did not disclose information about sources spent 46% of the total $294 million spent by outside organizations on the election. In 60 of the 75 Congressional elections in which the seat was won by a candidate from a party different than the incumbent, the spending by outside organizations favored the winner. In the Senate election, winners had a 7-to-1 advantage in spending by outside organizations (10). The corporate funding ties and the political expenditures of some of the most influential of the independent organizations are known (11).

Campaign finance and disclosure laws in more than 24 states have been invalidated (10). The Citizens United ruling may have set a precedent to find that the public accommodations section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional because it prevents businesses from freely expressing themselves in a discriminatory manner (12). The Supreme Court considered a case in which AT&T requested a privacy exemption to government release of its records but the Court rejected a corporate right to personal privacy (13). A bill was introduced in Congress that would eliminate public funding of the presidential campaign (14). Several individuals tried to appropriate the Court’s ruling for personal reasons, including former U.S. House of Representative’s Majority Leader, Tom Delay in his appeal of his conviction for money laundering and conspiracy (15).Someone else announced that they want to marry a corporation (16).

Activities to Redress the Ruling

There are a variety of legislative options to redress the effects of the Court’s ruling (17,18). The Fair Elections Now Act with 160 co-sponsors in the House and 35 in the Senate would have provided federal election campaign funding on a four to one match to candidates who raised small donations of $100 or less (19). The Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act (DISCLOSE) includes requirements that corporate CEOs take responsibility and inform investors. Both the Fair Elections and DISCLOSE acts had strong support in both houses of the 111th session of Congress but did not pass, due in part to a Senate filibuster. Another bill was introduced for a constitutional amendment to enable Congress to regulate corporate expenditures for political speech (20). Eight Senators and 40 Representatives have endorsed a constitutional amendment (21). Other legislation would require permission from a majority of stockholders of advance notice (18). Bills considered in the 2010 Congressional session will have to be reintroduced in the current (2011) session.

Organizational Supporters of the Fair Elections Now Act

At least 16 states have passed laws with a variety of responses to Citizens United such as mandating disclosure of funding sources and prohibiting foreign contributions (10, 21). Seven state legislatures have introduced resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment to redress the Court’s ruling (22). The City of Pittsburgh passed an ordinance that denied corporations the right of personhood and affirmed the rights of nature (23). A group of over 50 former federal and state attorneys general and law professors sent a letter to the Senate and House opposing the Court’s decision and calling for a constitutional amendment (24).

Organizations that advocate for a constitutional amendment to deny corporations personhood or to remove their right of political speech include Public Citizen, Move to Amend, Free Speech for People, the Progressive Democrats of America, the Coffee Part, and others. The broad support for such a change is suggested by the strategy development conference held in 2010 by the Network of Spiritual Progressives and their proposed personhood and environmental responsibility constitutional amendment.25 Business for Democracy supports a constitutional amendment to prohibit corporate campaign funding but which would not ban corporate political speech. By August after the Court’s ruling 400,000 people had already signed a petition supporting a constitutional amendment (26).

Common Cause asked the U.S. Justice Department to investigate possible conflict of interest by Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonio Scalia because of their possible connection to election campaign contributors while the Citizens United case was before the Court (27).More than three-fourths of U.S. citizens disagreed with the Court’s ruling, believe that congress should take action to curb the effects of the Citizens United ruling, and favor reinstating spending limits; positions that cross political party affiliation (28). The first anniversary of the Court’s ruling saw more than 100 protest demonstrations and rallies across the U.S. (21) 

What Public Health Professionals Can Do

Public health professionals must first recognize that on almost every health issue corporations are the opposition, ranging from issues of health behaviors, environmental or occupational health, access to safe and inexpensive medications, to healthcare (29). Rather than focusing advocacy efforts on a specific product, practice, policy, or on a specific corporation or industry, public health efforts might be more efficient in addressing the underlying, common factor: the rights given to corporations that allow them their influence and power over democratic processes, and thereby influence over public health policy and funding. The American Public Health Association (APHA) could pass related policies, educate members about the issue, and organize advocacy activities with its state affiliates in collaboration with outside organizations that have the similar aim of corporate reform. It is likely that only effective action by a larger, strong and coordinated grass roots movement will be able to counter corporate money and influence.

Academic public health programs need to conduct research on corporate influences and incorporate the study of corporate influence into curricula (30). Research is needed on the influence of corporate election campaign contributions and lobbying on the positions elected representatives take on public health policy issues. Research is also needed about the influence of the “revolving door” on government agency regulations and standards, and on monitoring and enforcement.

More academic curricula could include courses such as those at CUNY Hunter College (31). and Northern Arizona University32 that focus on or integrate corporate influences on health. Public health curricula must help students understand the pervasive and fundamental influence of corporations on public health and democracy. Graduates must be prepared to conduct research, health policy development, and advocacy campaigns that will take back democracy from corporations and protect and promote the health of the public.

Note: An analysis of the Citizens United decision by Bill Wiist that will appear in a forthcoming issue of the American Journal of Public Health can be found in First Look.

 

References

1. Rutkow L, Vernick JS, Teret SP. The potential health effects of Citizens United. N Engl J Med. 2010; 362(15): 1356-1358.

2. Wiist, WH. (March 17, 2011) Citizens United, public health and democracy: The Supreme Court ruling, its implications, and proposed action. American Journal of Public Health. Early release electronic version: DOI 10.2105/AJPH.2010.300043.

3. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, US 130 876 (2010).

4. Walker Wilson M.J. Too much of a good thing: Campaign speech after Citizens United.

Cardozo Law Review. 2010; 31(6):2365-2392.

5. Jacobson, J. Corporate cash secretly funneled to extremist Tea Party candidates who want to outlaw abortion — even contraception. October 16, 2010. Available at

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/148523/corporate_cash_secretly_funneled_to_extremist_tea_party_candidates_who_want_to_outlaw_abortion_–_even_contraception/?page=entire. Accessed October 18, 2010.

6. Brezis, M. & Wiist, WH Vulnerability of health to market forces. Medical Care. 2011; 49(3): 232-239.

7. Big Business already seeing investment in elections pay off. January 7, 2011. Money and Democracy Update Issue #43.publiccitizen@mail.democracyinaction.org

8. Piety, TR. Citizens United and the threat to the regulatory state: First impressions Michigan Law Review (2010); 109(16):16-22. http://www.michiganlawreview.org/assets/fi/109/piety.pdf

9. Kurtzleben D. 2010 Set Campaign Spending Records. The 2010 midterm elections had a record-setting $4 billion price tag. January 7, 2011. Available at

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/01/07/2010-set-campaign-spending-records. Accessed January 27, 2011

10. Public Citizen Congress Watch (January 2011). 12 Months After: The Effects of Citizens United on Elections and the Integrity of the Legislative process. Washington, DC: Public Citizen.

11. People for the American Way. After Citizens United: A Look into the Pro-Corporate Players in American Politics. An Updated Look into the Groups Empowered by the Citizens United Decision that are Propagating Their Pro-Corporate Agenda. Available at http://www.pfaw.org/sites/default/files/cit-u-follow-up-report.pdf. Accessed February 12, 2011.

12. Center for Media and Democracy. The Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” Decision Threatens the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Available at http://www.prwatch.org/node/9426. Accessed September 9, 2010.

13.  Liptak A. (March 1, 2011). Supreme Court Rules on AT&T Case. Available at

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/us/02scotus.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=supreme%20court%20AT&T%20corporate%20privacy&st=cse. Accessed March 2, 2011.

14. Public Citizen Unlimited Corporate Spending in Elections – And Now No Public Financing To Boot!? House GOP Moves to Bolster Special Interest Funding of 2012 Presidential Elections. January 24, 2011. Available athttp://www.citizen.org/pressroom/pressroomredirect.cfm?ID=3265

15. With prison looming, DeLay looks to Citizens United and the Supremes, Jan 13, 2011. Available at

http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2011/01/13/with-prison-looming-delay-looks-to-citizens-united-and-the-supremes/. Accessed February 12, 2011.

16. Florida Woman Looks to Marry Corporation. January 21, 2010. e-mail newsletter. Money and Democracy Update Issue # 45. publiccitizen@mail.democracyinaction.org

17. Whitaker LP, Lunder EK, Manuel KM, Maskell J, Seitzinger MV. Legislative Options After Citizens United v.FEC: Constitutional and legal issues. March 8, 2010. Congressional Research Service Report 41096.

Available at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41096.pdf. Accessed March 11, 2011

18. Garrett RS. Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: Issues and Options for Congress. February 1, 2010. Congressional Research Service Report 41054. Available athttp://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R41054_20100201.pdf Accessed March 11, 2011.

19. Alterman, E. Kabuki democracy—and how to fix it. The Nation. January 24, 2011; 11-18.

20. Nichols, N. Donna Edwards’ no corporate monopoly of elections amendment. February 3, 2010. Available at

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/525477/donna_edwards_no_corporate_monopoly_of_elections_amendment. Accessed March 26, 2010.

21. Weissman, R. Democracy in Despair: Year Two. Public Citizen. January 27, 2011. e-mailPubliccitizen@mail.democracyinaction.org

22.  oskebuckley’s blog. Updated: 2010 state resolutions introduced in support of amending the Constitution. February 2, 2011. Available at http://freespeechforpeople.org/node/189. Accessed Marcy 11, 2011.

23. Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund. Pittsburgh bans natural gas drilling.

http://www.celdf.org/press-release–pittsburgh-bans-natural-gas-drilling

24. Clements, J.D. October 4, 2010. Citizens United v. FEC and Constitutional Amendment: Letter to Chairmen Leahy, Conyers, Feingold, and Nadler. Free Speech for People. Available athttp://www.freespeechforpeople.org/sites/default/files/finalfsfppfaw.pdf. Accessed October 10, 2010.

25. Network of Spiritual Progressives. ESRA: Environmental and Social Responsibility Amendment to the US onstitution. Available at

http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/article.php/2010062306243316. Accessed January 13, 2011.

26. Berman, A. Citizens unite against Citizens United. The Nation; August 16/23, 2010 29-30.

27. Lichtblau T. Advocacy Group Says Justices May Have Conflict in Campaign Finance Cases. January 19, 2011. Available athttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/us/politics/20koch.html?_r=3. Accessed January 20, 2011

28. Eggen D. Poll: Large majority opposes Supreme Court’s decision on campaign financing. Washington Post. February 17, 2010. Available at

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/02/17/AR2010021701151.html. Accessed March 26, 2010.

29. Wiist WH, ed. The Bottom Line or Public Health: Tactics Corporations Use to Influence Health and Health Policy and What We Can Do to Counter Them. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2010.

30. Wiist WH. Public health and the anticorporate movement: rationale and recommendations. Am J Public Health. 2006;96(8):1370–1375.

31. Freudenberg N. The Role of Corporations and Government in Health Promotion and Health Policy. Hunter College City University of New York.  http://www.corporationsandhealth.org/course_outline.pdf

32. Wiist WH. Economic Globalization and Health. Northern Arizona University. Fall 2009 and 2010.

 

Photo Credits

1.     Onecle via flickr

2.     Republicanconference via flickr

3.     Cory M. Grenier via flickr

Michigan Court Rules State Cannot Sue Merck to Recover Vioxx Costs

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

A Michigan state appeals court ruled 2 to 1 recently that the state cannot sue the drug maker Merck and Co. to recover Medicaid costs spent on the drug Vioxx. Merck withdrew Vioxx from the market in 2004 after its own research showed the once-blockbuster drug doubled the risk of heart attack and stroke. The company paid $4.85 billion to settle most of the 50,000 lawsuits claiming that Vioxx harmed or killed users. According to InjuryBoard blogger and attorney Mark Bello, the 1995 law grants immunity to drug makers for any drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration and is the only law of its kind in the U.S. Michigan State Representative Lisa Brown has introduced a bill to change this anti-consumer law and stop the drug industry profiting from putting citizens at risk.

GAO Finds US Regulation of Food Safety Inconsistent, Ineffective and Inefficient

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

A new US Government Accountability Office report on federal food safety oversight found that, “Fragmentation in the nation’s food safety system results in inconsistent oversight, ineffective coordination, and inefficient use of resources.” The GAO recommended a single food safety agency, a food inspection agency, and a data collection and risk analysis center but warned that any reorganization would be a complex process and could lead to short-term disruptions and higher costs.

Nestle Appoints Former UNICEF Director to Corporate Board

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

This month Ann Venemen, Executive Director of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), from 2005-2010, joins the Board of Directors of the Nestle Corporation, the worlds largest global food and beverage corporation and the leading global manufacturer of infant formula. Public health advocates have accused Nestle of subverting international agreements on advertising of infant formula. UNICEF had played a leading role in opposing corporate promotion of infant formula at the expense of breast feeding. Prior to joining UNICEF, Veneman served as Secretary of Agriculture for President George W. Bush. Last month Nestle reported double-digit growth in shares of infant formula in Asia, Oceana, and Afric, and that market share was up on a global basis.

Grassroots Activism Against Corporate Control of Food: A Call for Action

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

On Tuesday, March 1, a panel of activists, writers, and organizers spoke on the struggle over control of the food system. The event, titled “Food Fight! Countering Corporate Control of Our Food Supply” and held at CUNY Law School, was presented by the CUNY Law Review and the CUNY Law Green Coalition Food Fighters. Speakers called for grassroots, locally based activism to pressure the US government to support its citizens rather than corporations.

The panel, moderated by Anna Lappé, author of Diet for a Hot Planet and co-founder of the Small Planet Institute, included attorney-activist (and CHW contributing writer)  Michele Simon, New York City food and garden organizer and community activist Karen Washington, and Food and Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter. New York City Council MemberMelissa Mark Viverito responded to the panelists’ remarks, emphasizing the recent food-related activities undertaken by the New York City Council.

Lappé began by asking the panelists to explain the historical context of today’s food system. “We have enormous consolidation in our food system,” responded Hauter, “and we’ve seen more and more over the past 20 years.” “We need to strengthen antitrust laws and we need to have the laws followed,” she continued. “I think the message is we can’t just vote with our fork; we can’t buy our way out of this problem, we can’t shop our way out of this problem, we have to organize our way out of it.”

Washington elaborated on the theme of organizing, placing the responsibility on the shoulders of communities. “Allowing these companies to control our food system has to say something about our society,” she said. “When are we going to get together to say enough is enough?” Simon agreed that there are things we can do locally, but pointed out that the subsidies that make the wrong kinds of food cheap can’t be fixed at the local level. As a lawyer, she also noted, “When you can’t get where you want to go with legislation and regulation, often litigation is a last resort.”

The conversation then shifted to the one-year anniversary of Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” campaign, and her recent support of Walmart. Hauter said that Obama is not in a position to take on the food industry, the real obesity culprit, so in her view, “Let’s Move” will lack follow-through. She called Obama’s free publicity for Walmart “offensive,” “hypocritical,” and “problematic.” “When you look at WalMart’s track record, it’s pretty scary that they’re getting into food,” said Hauter. She warned that they are forcing the price of organics down, and the quality will soon follow. Hauter also pointed out that Walmart’s promises to promote healthy food are shaky since they are essentially just making unhealthy food a little less unhealthy. Washington agreed that “Walmart is like the Monsanto of supermarkets,” but gave the Obama administration credit for bringing school food issues into the public eye. She promoted existing bodegas as establishments that can easily fill the role that Walmart claims is needed in New York City neighborhoods, noting that bodegas are already more integrated with the community than Walmart could ever be.

“Industry’s game is twofold,” added Simon. She explained that first, they begin calling their virtually unchanged products “natural” in order to keep people buying them, and second, they ensure that policy makers stay away by fooling everyone into thinking they are voluntarily self-regulating. “Basically”, she said, “the government is handing over the reins of our food supply to Corporate America.” “We want government policies to be in favor of people, not corporations,” concluded Simon, stressing that Walmart and McDonalds can never be the solution to the problem. “Just get out of the way and let the community fill the void.”

Council Member Viverito began her response saying, “I know this was not supposed to be an anti-Walmart forum, but I will jump on that bandwagon any day,” much to the delight of the audience. She also spoke about the New York City Council’s efforts to address access to healthy food. She discussed the Food Works report released by City Council Speaker Christine Quinn in November of last year, and also mentioned supporting bodegas and the FRESH initiative to bring more supermarkets into ­­­underserved neighborhoods.

 

Photo Credit:

  1. Art by Willy B. Levitt

Food Industry in Europe Engaging in Familiar PR on Marketing to Kids

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

Cross-posted from Appetite for Profit, the author’s website, posted March 23.

I just returned from a 2-day meeting in Brussels. I was asked to participate with other experts from around the world (mostly from Europe) to address the problem of cross-border marketing of unhealthy food to children. In the age of satellite TV, the Internet, and other technologies, one country’s standards may be insufficient to protect children from being exposed to junk food marketing. Because the meeting was not open to the general public, I cannot share all of what was discussed (the standards are still in draft form), but I can highlight a couple of presentations made to a larger group of “stakeholders.”

The only industry presentation was made by Rocco Renaldi, the managing director of a PR firm called Landmark Europe, which apparently is handling the food industry’s self-regulation charade there. Mr. Renaldi briefly described the voluntary program, which bears some similarity to the American version. In the US, it goes by the lofty name of the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative, under the rubric of the Better Business Bureau, and consists of a series of “pledges” by various companies on how they market their products to children. Oddly, while McDonald’s takes part in the US, it has not joined in the UK, at least one not-so-subtle difference.

By way of showing off about how great the system is working in Europe, Mr. Renaldi explained how food ads aimed at children on TV had declined from 2005-2010. (Note the industry program didn’t start until 2009.) I thought this was misleading data for another reason so I asked him during the Q&A: what about other forms of advertising, did they look at anything else? Because the evidence suggests in the US that when TV ads go down, children are still plenty exposed to junk food messages through other forms of media, such as the Internet. He had no good answer, except to admit he only had data for TV, saying “how hard” it was to measure other forms of media. Well, it certainly is hard for actual researchers and advocates, but if you’re working for industry, maybe not so hard? Just convenient to be selective.

Next, a researcher named Ileana Sondergaard from the Metropolitan University College of Copenhagen, Denmark essentially tore apart everything the industry PR guy had just said. She explained how bad the standards are, how companies use misleading information while breaching their own standards, and that overall the system suffers from an inherent lack of transparency. (All of which sounded painfully familiar as problems I described in my book and we continue to see here.)

Nine of the 11 original corporate members of the voluntary pledges in Europe use distinct nutrient-profiling systems that are conveniently set to match each company’s own products. (This is the same game industry plays in the US: 16 companies, 16 different pledges.) For example, Unilever sets an upper limit for sugar at 20 grams per 100 grams of product, and then magically its Calippo Orange popsicle clocks in at 19 grams. Also, the upper limit for calories is 110 and Calippo contains 100, how convenient. Sondergaard also showed how Nestlé products often listed different nutrient information in different places on the Web and elsewhere, making it impossible to get reliable information. Finally, she explained how she tried to contact many of the companies, but to no avail. (Her research is not yet published, but I will share it when it becomes available.)

Back on the home front, Mary Engle of the US Federal Trade Commission gave an update on the stalled federal voluntary guidelines process here. In 2009, Congress authorized the Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children, to “develop recommendations for standards for the marketing of food” to children age 17 or younger, mandating that a report be submitted “no later than July 15, 2010.” Oops. (The three other federal agencies involved are the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and the US Department of Agriculture, which put out the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans in 2011.)

The committee did release this draft proposal back in December of 2009, which was actually not bad as far as nutrition standards go. And this of course explains the delay. As Engle noted: “Industry was not happy; companies complained that under these guidelines, no products could be marketed.” (Isn’t that the point?) Engle said they heard from critics warning that industry would just ignore the standards, which seems likely in any case, because remember, it will be voluntary.

So now what? Engle predicted we should see the proposed guidelines released in the next 2-3 months, followed by a 45-day comment period. (Why we need regulatory comments for voluntary guidelines is unclear to this lawyer, but OK.) While Engle said the proposal “won’t be radically different,” from the draft, she also noted the standards “have to be feasible, something industry will adopt on a voluntary basis, and cannot be dead on arrival.” Translation: the final document will be watered down. (And then likely to be ignored by industry anyway, even after all the whining.)

I left Brussels with the impression that the food industry is engaging in the same charade all over the world: setting weak, self-serving, voluntary guidelines designed to ensure companies can keep right on marketing their unhealthy brands to children while mollifying regulators and distracting researchers with evaluating their useless pledges, commitments, and initiatives.

While none of this is surprising, more disappointing was the realization that advocates throughout Europe haven’t figured out how to address this serious problem any more than we have in the US. The junk food industry is way out in front of all of us, having co-opted the process the world over. Meanwhile, children continue to be exploited as the global public health crisis deepens.

Photo Credit:

  1. sama sama – massa via flickr

 

Food Companies Seek Future Profits in “Health and Wellness” Products

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

Chicago Tribune reporter Emily Bryson York analyzes how big food companies like Pepsi, Wal-Mart and Starbucks are seeking to design products and marketing campaigns that speak to their customers’ concerns about health. Said Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, “Over time, people are going to be quite surprised, almost stunned, by what we’re about to do.”

FDA Panel Finds that Ban on Menthol Cigarettes Would “Benefit the Public Health”

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel recommended last week that “the removal of menthol cigarettes from the marketplace would benefit the public health.” However, the FDA itself now needs to decide whether or not to accept the recommendation. Reaction to the report was mixed:

Said Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids: “This is the most conclusive scientific finding that menthol cigarettes dramatically increase youth tobacco use and make it more difficult for African-Americans to quit. It creates a scientific record which compels F.D.A. to act.”

Dr. Michael Siegel, a tobacco expert and professor at the Boston University School of Public Health, wrote: “This is a huge victory for Lorillard.” The committee’s failure to recommend policy change “swept the issue under the rug by giving the F.D.A. an out.”

Investors reacted favorably. Stock in Lorillard Tobacco, a tobacco company that generates 90 percent of its revenues from menthol cigarettes closed more than 10 percent higher on the day the advisory panel released its report.

Introducing the New Corporations and Health Watch

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

As Corporations and Health Watch enters its fifth year, we introduce a new format and design. CHW was founded in 2007 to provide a meeting place for researchers, health professionals and activists concerned about the health impact of corporate practices. By offering a virtual space to exchange information and analyze developments in the alcohol, automobile, firearms, food and beverage, pharmaceutical and tobacco industries, CHW hopes to advance our understanding of corporate policies and practices as social determinants of health. It also seeks to encourage those working to change harmful corporate practices across industries, countries and strategies to learn from each other, develop common goals and support each others’ campaigns. So what’s new about the redesigned CHW?

First we now have six contributing writers who will regularly write for CHW:

  • Jessie Daniels, at the City University of New York School of Public Health at Hunter College, who writes about new media, corporations and the intersections of class, race and gender.
  • Nicholas Freudenberg, also at the CUNY School of Public Health, who writes about the economic and political influences on corporate practices and advocacy campaigns to change them and works with local, national and global advocacy organizations.
  • David Jernigan, at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, who writes about the alcohol industry and alcohol marketing to youth.
  • Lainie Rutkow, also at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, who writes about the use of law to protect the public’s health and the regulation of corporations in the context of specific industries, including tobacco, food, and pharmaceuticals.
  • Michele Simon, at the Marin Institute, who writes about alcohol and food industry practices, and
  • William Wiist, at the College of Health and Human Services at Northern Arizona University, who writes about the impact of corporations on health and democracy, and corporate globalization and health governance.

More contributing writers will be added in the coming months. On CHW, we write in our individual capacity, not as representatives of institutions.

Second, we invite readers’ contributions of short essays, news stories or links to new publications on CHW topics. Our guidelines for contributors are available here.

Third, we will now post new stories every week, add an RSS feed and encourage readers to contact writers to explore common interests. We’ll continue to email you our monthly newsletter that gives highlights of our stories of the last month.

Fourth, we have reorganized our archives, making them easier to search and adding key words. We’re especially interested in making our archives accessible and useful to public health and other students to serve as a resource for their research and activism. We encourage readers to send students to the site and also to the forward the link to CHW to interested colleagues and lists.

As we move into the second decade of the 21st century, the role of corporations in creating the global health challenges of rising rates of chronic diseases and injuries and persistent inequities seems stronger than ever. The 2008 economic crisis demonstrated the risks of unfettered markets and the glimmers of alternatives. As political and economic power becomes increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few global corporations, public health researchers, practitioners, activists and students need to ask how we can apply the lessons of public health reform from the 19th and 20th centuries to this one. We hope you’ll help the redesigned Corporations and Health Watch become a growing voice in this effort.

Photo credits:

MyPyramid In Court

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) has sued the United States Department of Agriculture, alleging that the new Dietary Guidelines mislead Americans about what to eat and not eat. PCRM President Dr. Neal Barnard said, “The dietary guidelines are the best they have ever been, but we’re pushing to make them even better.” The suit charges that USDA’s ties to agribusiness led it to obscure information on what foods to avoid. USDA Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee members include individuals with ties to Dannon, Kraft Foods and McDonalds Corporation.