Farm Bill Debates Show Agribusiness Lobby’s Clout

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch
Food and Water Watch Report

The legislative process of Congress serves as a lens to magnify the ways that corporate power and money shape policy. As the U.S. House of Representatives considers the Farm Bill passed by the Senate last month, several new reports provide details of how corporations ensure that their needs take precedence over the well-being of the American people.

 

Cultivating Influence The 2008 Farm Bill Lobbying Frenzy released earlier this month by Food and Water Watch, a non-profit group that works to ensure that the food, water and fish we consume is safe, accessible and sustainable, documents the scope of lobbing for the 2008 Farm Bill, the last re-authorization Congress approved.  The found that:

More than 1,000 companies, trade associations and other groups spent an estimated $173.5 million lobbying on just the 2008 Farm Bill. As shown in Table 1, almost half was spent on farm policy…. During every day that the 100th Congress was in session in 2007 and 2008, special interests spent on average $539,000 lobbying on issues covered by the Farm Bill.

The 2008 Farm Bill generated more than $300 billion in federal spending over five years.  The report shows that some corporations got generous payoff for their lobbying.  Weyerhaeuser, the timber company, for example, spent $1 million to lobby successfully for a tax benefit that netted them $180 million. 

The 2013 re-authorization of the Farm Bill is attracting no les corporate interest.  A report from Reuters documents the role Monsanto and Dow Chemical are playing to win new benefits for biotech seed companies.  If successful, reports Reuters, their efforts “would severely limit U.S. oversight of genetically modified crops.”  One proposed measure that the House will vote on soon would allow biotech crops to be planted even if courts rule that they were approved illegally.

 

Earlier in July, 40 food businesses, retailers, family farmers and other group send a protest letter to leaders of the House Agriculture Committee calling on them to remove this and other provisions that limited government oversight.  The letter, sent by the National Family Farm Coalition, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Center for Environmental Health and other groups noted that “The Farm Bill riders together would eliminate the much needed review of these novel crops, forcing hasty approvals in advancing the chemical industry’s interest in selling their products.”

 

Another letter, sent in June to all members of Congress and signed by more than 70 public health, nutrition, food  and environmental scientists and activists  identified other concerns with the proposals now being considered by the House:

 

We are deeply concerned that [the proposed bill] would continue to give away subsidies worth tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to the largest commodity crop growers, insurance companies, and agribusinesses even as it drastically underfunds programs to promote the health and food security of all Americans, invest in beginning and disadvantaged farmers, revitalize local food economies and protect natural resources. We strongly object to any cuts in food assistance during such dire times for so many Americans. …When it is your turn to vote, we urge you to stand up for local and healthy food and nutrition programs and to support equitable and fiscally responsible amendments that will protect and enhance public health and the environment while maintaining a reasonable safety net for the farmers who grow our food. More than ever before, the public demands this. Come November, they will be giving their votes to members of Congress who supported a healthy food and farm bill that puts the interests of taxpayers, citizens and the vast majority of America’s farmers first and foremost.”

 

What’s likely to happen next?  According to Tom Philpott, a food policy journalist and farmer,

“The bill is now stalled in the House, in danger of being buried by right-wing backbenchers intent on even deeper food-aid cuts. If the House doesn’t vote on it before the August recess, the most likely outcome is an extension of the 2008 bill—and the 2013 Congress will have to start the farm bill process from scratch. Let’s be blunt: If that scenario plays out, no matter how the November elections go, we’re quite likely to see an equally or more dismal bill emerge next year.”

Massachusetts Repeals No Free Lunch Ban for Doctors

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

Massachusetts has repealed a 2008 state ban on industry-provided meals for physicians and other health professionals,  American Medical News reports.   The change allows medical industry companies to pay for “modest meals and refreshments” for doctors and other health professionals in connection with educational presentations that are not certified by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education. Restaurateurs, pharmaceutical companies and device-makers had lobbied for the repeal, which was included in the state’s $32.5 billion 2013 budget enacted in July.

Health Groups Call for Surgeon General Report on Soda

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

About 100 health, medical and consumer groups are calling on the U.S. surgeon general to issue a report on the health effects of soda and sugary drinks, reports UPI.  The groups include the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, the Consumer Federation of America, the National Hispanic Medical Association, the Prevention Institute, the Trust for America’s Health and Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity. The effort was organized by The Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington.  “Soda and other sugary drinks are the only food or beverage that has been directly linked to obesity, a major contributor to coronary heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, some cancers and a cause of psychosocial problems,” the groups wrote.  “Yet, each year, the average American drinks about 40 gallons of sugary drinks, all with little, if any, nutritional benefit.”

Alcohol Consumption in China is Up

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

Thanks to rising demand and growing per capita disposable income, reports China Daily, China’s consumption of alcoholic drinks is expected to reach 84.37 billion liters in 2016. That represents an average annual compound growth rate of 5.9 percent from 2012, said Frost & Sullivan, a US-based market consultancy.  Consumption of five major alcoholic drinks, including beer, white wine, rice wine, red wine and imported spirits, surged to 62.72 billion liters last year, compared with 46.52 billion liters in 2007. 

Big Pharma’s Future Profits to Come from Brazil, India and China

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

Just as the tobacco, food and beverage and automobile industries see their future in China, India and Brazil, a new report from IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics finds that rising incomes among consumers in these emerging markets will drive global growth in pharmaceutical spending over the next five years. This is good news for the drug industry, which is struggling to maintain sales in the United States and Europe as patent expirations and price controls eat into profits.

Can a New United Nations Arms Trade Treaty Reduce Gun Deaths?

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch
Source: Arms Trade Treaty Monitor

This month, representatives from more than 100 governments and 100 Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are meeting at the United Nations in New York to work out a new global arms trade treaty by a July 27 deadline. The goal is to establish common standards for the import, export, and transfer of conventional arms and ammunition, a business worth about $55 billion a year.  A report by the British government estimates that at least 400,000 people are killed by illegal small arms and light weapons each year while armed violence is responsible for more than 740,000 deaths annually.  Many more people are injured.  A recent  report  by the International Action Network on Small Arms and Amnesty International concluded  that the “use of firearms in non-conflict settings is the most prevalent form of armed violence and the form that results in the most deaths and injuries. This fact underscores the importance of adopting an approach to addressing armed violence that will encompass violence outside of armed conflict settings.”

 

The UN meeting, three years in the works, has the opportunity to reduce this death toll by moving the illegal gun trade into the open with verifiable international standards that are enforced by national governments. 

 

Several obstacles could block a successful outcome.  First, a few governments and some powerful NGOs like the National Rifle Association (NRA) oppose the inclusion of small arms.  On July 11, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre told the UN meeting, “The only way to address NRA’s objections is to simply and completely remove civilian firearms from the scope of the treaty. That is the only solution. On that, there will be no compromise.”

 

And in the usual NRA-gun industry tag team, Richard Patterson, the managing director of The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute, one of the NGOs participating in the deliberations, testified “that hundreds of millions of citizens regularly use firearms for the greater good” and that a “treaty that does not support the positive use of firearms is doomed to cause more harm than good.”

 

In an alliance that show that guns make strange bedfellows , several states, including China, Egypt, Ethiopia, Venezuela, and Iran also oppose inclusion of small arms in the treaty.  In a statement released last week at the UN meeting, the government of Iran echoed Wayne La Pierre: 

NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre speaking at a meeting in Florida last year.

In our view, a well-defined and universally accepted scope for a potential Arms Trade Treaty would be a determining factor in the acceptance of its provision.  In this regard, we are not in favor of the inclusion of missiles, Small Arms and Light Weapons and ammunition in the scope of the treaty.

 

According to The Hill, proponents of the treaty say the NRA’s concerns are unfounded since the treaty has no impact on the domestic gun trade and leaves national governments with the power to enforce the treaty.  These treaty supporters assert that the exclusion of civilian weapons would gut the effort to keep deadly arms out of the hands of terrorists, criminals and rogue regimes.

 

Another conflict is about the role that NGOs can play in the meeting.  For many governments, national security concerns may trump reducing deaths from illegal guns.  Thus, keeping the meeting open can help to keep the spotlight on health and human rights.  Yet last week, treaty organizers moved to close half the sessions to all but government delegates. Anna MacDonald, the Head of Control Arms Campaign for Oxfam explained the objections: 

The arms trade is often a shadowy business with arms deals being conducted in isolation, behind closed doors. The Arms Trade Treaty is attempting to shed some light over this trade and ensure that we have transparent and robust laws to prevent arms ending up in the wrong hands. Thanks to a tiny minority of countries it now seems like negotiations on the Arms Trade treaty will also become secretive.

 

This secrecy may make it harder to keep the focus on reducing deaths from the illegal arms trade. As  Frank Jannuz, from Amnesty International USA and  Daryl G. Kimball of the Arms Control Association  argued in a recent op ed in The Christian Science Monitor:

To succeed, the assembled ambassadors must put sons over guns and daughters over slaughter. At a minimum, the new treaty should require states to withhold approval for the international transfer of arms in contravention of UN embargoes or when there is a substantial risk the items will be used to commit serious violations of human rights. Despite its strong, pro-human rights rhetoric, the Obama administration has not yet endorsed such a formula.

 

If the UN members at the meeting agree on a final document by July 27, the treaty would still need to win a two-thirds majority in the Senate to be binding on the United States.  The NRA has vowed to prevent that. 

Corporations and Health Watch: A Resource for Those Seeking to Reduce Corporate Harms to Health

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch
Photo: gtmcknight

This week Corporations and Health Watch introduces its redesigned website, created to help health researchers, professionals, activists and students to learn more and exchange information about the role of corporations in premature death and preventable illnesses and injuries.   

The new design enables readers to email posts to friends or colleagues and share CHW news on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and other social network sites.  We also improved our site search function and re-organized our archives.

Corporations and Health Watch started five years ago with the goal of creating a space for those concerned about the role of corporations in producing health and disease today.  Its focus is on six industries –alcohol, automobiles, firearms, food and beverages, pharmaceuticals and tobacco—that play a central and growing role in global morbidity and mortality and contribute to health inequalities.  We selected these six because of their well-documented public health significance, the centrality of these industries to the global consumer economy – and because each has sparked resistance from individuals, organizations, government, and social movements.  We understand that other industries, e.g., energy, military, finance, and health care, also play an important role in health but choose to focus on those whose primary harm is through exposure of consumers to their products and practices. 

CHW is based on several basic principles:

  1.  The products and the business and political practices of corporations are an important social determinant of health, especially of chronic diseases and injuries, two growing threats to health.
  2. Modifying corporate practices that harm health holds promise as an effective strategy to reduce the world’s most serious health problems.
  3. Individuals and organizations seeking to change the practices of a single industry (e.g., tobacco, food and beverages, firearms) can learn from analyzing the successes and failures of those working to change practices of other industries.
  4. Although corporations are only one part of our current free market economy,  their decisions have a major influence on health.  Expanding the public health paradigm to include changing the behavior of corporations and their allies as well as individuals has the potential to enhance our effectiveness.
  5. Analyzing the pathways and mechanisms by which specific corporate practices influence health and the comparative effectiveness of various strategies to reduce harmful practices are major public health scientific priorities.

Each week, CHW posts an essay analyzing current developments and a few short news items.  Every month, we distribute electronically a free newsletter summarizing our stories of the past month.  To subscribe, click here.  Our writers are public health researchers and activists based at universities, research institutes, or advocacy organizations. 

We ask readers to share this resource with interested colleagues, students and friends.  We look forward to your comments, questions and contributions. 

Federal Judge Finds Florida Gun Gag Law Burdens Doctors’ Free Speech

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

Late last month, reports Bloomberg News,  Florida federal judge Marcia Cooke, an appointee of President George W. Bush, struck down Florida’s “gun gag” law. The legislation sought to restrict physician inquiries into patients’ gun ownership. According to Judge Cooke, the legislation signed by Florida Governor Rick Scott  inserted the state “in the doctor-patient relationship, prohibiting and burdening speech necessary to the proper practice of preventive medicine, thereby preventing patients from receiving truthful, nonmisleading information.”

Tobacco Companies Manipulate Czech Policies on Excise Tax and Advertising

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

A new article in PLoS Medicine examines how transnational tobacco companies sought to influence tobacco policy in the Czech Republic, a nation with one of the poorest tobacco control records in Europe.  The authors focus on efforts to shape excise tax policies, one of the most effective means of reducing tobacco consumption, and an important determinant of tobacco companies’ competitiveness.