GM Looks to Recharge Chevy Volt’s Image With New Campaign

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

AdAge reports that General Motors has launched a newspaper and TV marketing campaign to reinforce the Volt’s image as a safe, innovative car. In November, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration began an investigation after two incidents in which the Volt’s battery pack either caught fire or emitted sparks following intense crash testing. The NHTSA closed the investigation last week. Congressional Republicans criticized the government’s response, accusing NHTSA of a conflict of interest because the government still owns 26.5 percent of the company’s shares. The GOP released its report at a hearing titled: “Volt Vehicle Fire: What Did NHTSA Know and When Did They Know It?”

Public Supports New Fuel Efficiency Standards as Auto Industry Launches Ad Campaign Opposing Them

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

A recent poll by the Pew Clean Energy Program found strong public support for the Obama Administration’s new fuel efficiency standards. The survey found that 82 percent of respondents support an increased fuel efficiency standard of 56 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2025, with 68 percent reporting that they “favor strongly” the new standard. Overwhelming majorities in every demographic subgroup support increased fuel efficiency to 56 mpg, including 70 percent of Republicans, 87 percent of Democrats and 88 percent of independents. Although the auto industry agree to these new rules, they also launched a radio ad campaign, accusing the Obama administration of threatening the industry’s recovery by seeking a 56-mpg fuel economy target by 2025.

Cars to Get New Fuel Economy Stickers and Mobile Medical Options

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

New car buyers will have some additional options in the future. Beginning in 2013, EPA has mandated new fuel economy labels that allow buyers to make more informed environmental choices.

In a separate development, Ford has announced the future cars will have medical monitoring options. Noting that 10,000 baby boomers turn 65 every day and 26 million Americans have diabetes, Ford is developing cars that can monitor blood sugar as well as heart rate that could warn of heart attack, and track breathing patterns for asthmatics or pollen counts for allergy sufferers.

DOT Inspector General Finds Foxes Make Ethical Hen House Guards

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

At the request of Senators John D. Rockefeller and Mark Pryor, the Inspector General of the US Department of Transportation reviewed whether former National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) officials employed or under contract with automakers are in a position to exert undue influence on NHTSA’s safety defect investigations. The Inspector General found 63 auto industry and NHSTA officials had switched sides since 1984 and 23 auto industry officials took jobs directly involving the investigation of safety defects. However, the IG found “no evidence suggesting undue influence or pressure on NHTSA’s employees conducting safety defect investigations.”

Chevron in Ecuador: Corporate Propaganda, New Media Activism and Environmental Health

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

The lawsuit against U.S. oil giant Chevron brought by indigenous people in Ecuador’s Amazon can tell us a great deal about corporate propaganda, new forms of media activism – both good and bad – and the consequences these have for environmental health. It also offers important lessons for activists seeking changes in other sectors.

First, a little background in case you’re not familiar with the case. Ecuadorean indigenous people said Texaco dumped more than 18 billion gallons (68 billion litres) of toxic materials into the unlined pits and rivers between 1972 and 1992, and that these activities had destroyed large areas of rainforest and also led to an increased risk of cancer among the local population. In 2001, Chevron acquired Texaco. The current trial began in 2003 when a U.S. appeals court ruled that the case should be heard in Ecuador.

A number of studies have attempted to quantify the health impact of the oil giant’s operations in Ecuador. Epidemiological surveys have confirmed what people in the area know from their own experience: rates of cancer, including mouth, stomach and uterine cancer, are elevated in areas where there is oil contamination. A court-appointed independent expert in the trial estimated that Chevron is responsible for 1401 excess cancer deaths.

The latest news in the case is that in February, 2011 a court in Ecuador ordered Chevron to pay more than $8.6 billion in damages ruling in favor of the 30,000 indigenous people represented by the suit. However, Chevron has vowed to appeal the ruling, meaning that the long-running case dating from drilling in the South American nation during the 1970s and 1980s could last for years.

True to its word to fight the judgment at each step, just before the historic judgment lawyers for Chevron convinced a U.S. District Court in New York to stop enforcement of the anticipated order. The judge granted the order preventing enforcement, and the case remains in legal limbo.

Big Money is at Stake

Make no mistake, the judgment in Ecuador means big money is at stake. The lawyer representing the indigenous Ecuadoran people, Steve Donzinger, has won a monumental victory. The judgment against Chevron is on the all-time roster of environmental recoveries. If it were ever collected — which remains uncertain — it would rank second only to BP’s promised $20 billion fund to compensate victims of the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Assuming a scenario in which Chevron is ordered to pay the maximum penalty, the reduction in cash would decrease its equity value and, according to one estimate, drop the stock price from $104 to down about $99.

Multimedia Battle Over “Truth”: Chevron’s vs. Environmental Activists’

With all this money at stake, it means that Chevron is pushing a no-holds-barred, multimedia assault to advance its version of the story. It’s a wide ranging effort across several different platforms. The campaign started, as most things do these days, with Google, moved to TV-news magazine shows and YouTube, touched documentary filmmaking, and circled back around to a very effective counter-attack by some very clever new media activists.

Google Ad Buy

The first line of battle for any activist these days is the Internet. And, originally, environmental activists were winning the battle of Google. If you searched using the words “Chevron in Ecuador” back in 2003, the first result would be a website created by Amazon Watch, an environmental activist group that blames “Chevron’s negligence” for injuries and deaths in the country.

Today, you can still find the sites of environmental activists in Google search returns, but now when people do Google searches for “Chevron” and “Ecuador,” paid links to those sites appear at the top of the screen, like this one for “The Amazon Post”.

Note the tag line for the ad, “Scheme to Defraud U.S. Company Exposed,” makes no overt mention of Chevron. Yet, once you click on the link, you’ll find a site clearly from the perspective of the oil giant, “The Amazon Post: Chevron’s views and opinions on the Ecuador lawsuit.” They also have sponsored ads at the top of each page of results for searches using the terms “Chevron” and “Ecuador.” It’s difficult to know exactly how much Chevron has spent on their Google Ad buy, but it’s safe to say that it’s far more than the environmental groups like Amazon Watch can afford.

It’s also fairly easy to avoid these kinds of attempts at corporate propaganda, at least for most relatively savvy web users. Chevron’s next attempt at influencing public opinion is more difficult to discern.

Dueling TV News Magazine Segments

In May, 2009 the CBS news magazine show “60 Minutes,” produced a segment called “Amazon Crude” about the Chevron case, it seemed the tide of public opinion might be turning against the third largest corporation in the U.S. The report detailed the environmental damage done to the Amazon region and the devastating health consequences for the people living there.

Chevron fought back in a rather remarkable media move. It hired a former CNN journalist, Gene Randall, to produce a similar, but favorable to Chevron, news-magazine-style-story, which the company then posted to YouTube and advertised heavily via Google. The video “report” for Chevron may be unprecedented for how it blurs the line between public relations and journalism. At least one analyst wondered whether this propagandist counter-news-production raises the specter of whether of a surge of newly out-of-work journalists who might be tempted to go “over to the dark side” and further muddy the line between news and corporate advocacy.

Digital video released over the Internet has continued to be a site of political battles over the environmental justice issue of the Amazon region. Activists from the group Amazon Defense Coalition have continued to release videos documenting Chevron’s toxic legacy in the Ecuadoran rainforest, as in this video which reportedly offers “devastating proof of Chevron toxic pits in Ecuador.” While the video is compelling, it’s hard to imagine what would be considered sufficient “proof” in the face of Chevron’s aggressive campaign of corporate disinformation about the environmental damage in Ecuador.

Following the “60 Minutes” segment and the faux-reporting corporate piece and counter volleys of online digital video, media activism against Chevron’s toxic practices shifted to documentary filmmaking. Predictably, Chevron was once again on the assault.

Chevron vs. Joe Berlinger, Documentary Filmmaker

The well-received documentary “Crude,” released in 2009, helped renew the public outcry over oil pollution in the Amazon. The filmmaker Joe Berlinger spent several years following key players in the multibillion-dollar class-action lawsuit filed in Ecuador against Chevron. Ultimately, Berlinger was forced to fight his own battle against Chevron’s lawyers.

Berlinger obtained astonishing access to the private strategy sessions of the lawyers suing Chevron, and Chevron used that access against Berlinger. Attorneys for the oil company filed a lawsuit against Berlinger, demanding access to all of his unedited footage that he shot for the documentary. U.S. Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled in favor of Chevron and ordered Berlinger to turn over all 600 hours of footage he shot for the film. Chevron’s lawyers argued that they needed the tape to help stop the Ecuadorian lawsuit and related criminal prosecutions. Berlinger, along with many others, says the ruling is deep blow to the long-recognized journalistic privileges of documentary filmmakers. The ruling came in May, 2010 and has been largelyupheld by a court of appeals over the following months. It can be seen as a cautionary tale for lawyers who invite in documentary filmmakers to tell the story of their legal fights.

Chevron vs. YesMen: Astroturf vs. “Identity Correction”

In late-in-the-game PR move that some might regard as signaling a recognition of defeat, Chevron launched their “We Agree” campaign.

The campaign featured a Facebook “Like” button in the top, right-hand corner. The people photographed are uniformly attractive and lightly demographically diverse, with earnest expressions near polished, graphically designed signs that say things that are vaguely liberal, like “Oil Companies Should Put their Profits to Good Use,” “Oil Companies Need to Get Real,” and “Fighting AIDS Should be Corporate Policy.” These sentiments are all displayed under a Chevron corporate-branded website with the heading, “We Agree.” So, we’re good right? We can put that whole messy business in the Amazon is behind us, can’t we?

While some people might have been persuaded by Chevron’s “We Agree” campaign (they had 146 Facebook “Likes” at last count) not everyone was so moved.

The anti-corporate activists The Yes Men launched one of their “identity correction” campaigns in direct opposition to Chevron’s “We Agree” campaign. The Yes Men are the activists and performance artists who have spoofed the World Trade Organization among others (and are featured in the documentary “The Yes Men Fix the World“). The Yes Men saw the Chevron “We Agree” campaign as something of a challenge.

At almost the same time, the Yes Men together with Rainforest Action Network and Amazon Watch, put up their own, satirical website, which could easily fool web surfing neophytes.

The satirical site carries much of the same graphic design, logo, branding and imagery – but the language and text of the ads is much more pointed. Instead of “Oil Companies Need to Get Real,” the YesMen site reads, “Oil Companies Should Clean Up their Messes,” clearly implicating Chevron in the environmental disaster in the Amazon.

The YesMen site also includes download-able posters of their graphic arts messaging should anyone decide they wanted to spread the message of Chevron’s corporate environmental irresponsibility to a wider audience. The timing and effectiveness of the satirical site quickly became a PR-disaster for Chevron which reportedly spent $50 million dollars on the fake grassroots “We Agree” campaign. The YesMen followed up the success of this campaign with another soon afterward, the “Chevron Thinks We’re Stupid,” which quickly went viral.

What does this tell us?

There are several lessons to take away from the Chevron case. First, large oil companies routinely put profits over peoples’ health and above concerns about the environment. Furthermore, corporations will go to great lengths to use the media to manipulate the truth about what they’ve done in the service of profits and at the expense of human lives, health and the environment.

The other set of lessons the Chevron case has for health activists is that the site of political activism around environmental health has shifted. The location of struggle and protest is less often in the streets and more often in a battle over URLs, graphic user interface, and Google PageRank. The political battle over whose version of the truth prevails in media forms long considered journalistic, such as documentary filmmaking, are now under assault by large corporations. In the wake of last year’s Supreme Court decision in favor of Citizens United (see Citizens United: A First Anniversary Update) there are likely to be more such corporate victories over independent media in the courts.

In many respects, the lawsuit against Chevron brought by indigenous people in Ecuador’s Amazon is a harbinger of things to come in corporate propaganda. We can expect more use of new forms of media activism, both the nefarious corporate manifestations such as Google ads for “The Amazon Report” and the lawsuit against Joe Berlinger, as well as the more democratic efforts of activists such as TheYesMen. The impact on environmental health depends at least in part on which of these strategies is most effective. 

For more information on Jessie Daniels, please visit our Contributing Writers page. 

 

Photo Credits:

1.     ChevronToxico: Campaign for Justice in Ecuador

2.     Google

3.     Chevron

4.     The Yes Men

New Report Shows Car Safety Rules Save Lives

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

A new report from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found the number and rate of traffic fatalities in 2010 fell to the lowest levels since 1949, despite a significant increase in the number of miles Americans drove during the year. As Brian Wolfman noted on the Consumer Law and Policy Blog, “a combination of safety factors – safer vehicles (prompted by government rules), more seat belt use (prompted by government rules, increased enforcement, and public education), and less drunk driving (prompted by government rules, increased enforcement, and an all-out public awareness campaign) – have come together to bring the number of highway traffic deaths, in absolute numbers, to their lowest level since 1949. That’s astounding given the immense increases over the period in the number of drivers and miles driven and the increased speeds at which people drive. A triumph of government regulation that is hard to overstate.”

Cash for Clunkers: who benefits?

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

The Car Allowance Rebate System, better known as “Cash for Clunkers,” is a federal program that gave car buyers a rebate of up to $ 4,500 on a new car if they trade in an older, less fuel efficient car. The program is meant to stimulate the ailing U.S. economy and reduce pollution caused by cars by committing U.S. tax dollars to the foundering auto industry. Late last month, the federal government ended the Cash for Clunkers program two weeks early because the three billion dollars budgeted for the program had been nearly exhausted. Although hundreds of thousands of Americans took advantage of the rebate opportunity to purchase a new car, and nearly the entire budget was spent, it isn’t clear that Americans (and America) will emerge both economically and environmentally healthier. In this profile, CHW examines the impact of the Cash for Clunkers program on our nation’s health and the environment.

Clash for Clunkers was dramatically more successful in engaging new car buyers than Congress or the White House had imagined: the initial one billion dollar budget intended to last through Labor Day was exhausted so quickly that after just 10 days, Congress funneled another two billion dollars into the program to keep up with demand.

President Obama has declared the program a “proven success” citing the “50% increase in fuel economy” and “$700 to $1000 in annual savings for consumers in reduced gas costs alone…”1 The White House’s assessment of the Cash for Clunkers program has reported some large and impressive numbers to back up their declaration of resounding success: nearly 700,000 cars were sold, $2.9 billion  spent,2 and an estimated 42,000 jobs will be created or saved during the second half of the year as a result of the Cash for Clunkers program. Motor vehicle output added 0.20 percentage point to the second-quarter change in real GDP.3

Has Cash for Clunkers Met its Goals?

Although hundreds of thousands of Americans took advantage of the rebate opportunity to purchase a new car, some environmentalists question whether Americans (and America) will emerge both economically and environmentally healthier. They focus on two issues. First, buyers who took the rebate still had to buy a brand new car at costs coming in somewhere around $25,000 to $30,000. This might have simply shifted consumers spending from one place to another. So instead of spending additional money that they wouldn’t have, new car buyers might now be unable to spend on “appliances, clothes and other stuff that consumers will not buy…now that they have the burden of lease or loan payments for their new vehicles.” 4 If this effect is significant, Cash for Clunkers may end up being simply a government plan to favor the success of the auto industry over the many other industries whose goods American could consider consuming. It is also estimated that 60 percent of the cars purchased under Cash for Clunkers would have been purchased this year anyway, meaning that we might see a post-Clunkers lull in business.4

What about the impact on air pollution? The difference between the average miles per gallon of the trade-ins versus the new cars bought through Cash for Clunkers was about nine miles per gallon.5 According to Jack Hidary, an architect of the Clash for Clunkers program, $700 is the gas savings for driving a car that is 10 miles per gallon more efficient, so it is likely that many buyers will save money by getting a new more fuel-efficient car. The Cash for Clunkers program, however, allowed consumers to trade vehicles in for cars that were only slightly more fuel-efficient.  In the case of passenger cars, consumers could use the rebate to purchase a new car with just four miles per gallon more efficient gas use. In the case of light-duty trucks, the rebate was good for new vehicle purchases that got just one or two additional miles per gallon, emphasizing that reducing emissions was a secondary priority for the program.6

But even if new cars purchased under the program were significantly more fuel efficient, it seems unlikely that the program’s impact will be big enough to improve air quality on its own. One columnist noted that if the new cars purchased under the rebate program get “ten miles per gallon more than the Clunkers they replace, the reduction in gasoline consumption will cut our oil consumption by 0.2 percent per year, or less than a single day’s gasoline use.” 4 Few interventions of any kind can contribute to significant, long-term change unilaterally, so it is not surprising that a program like Cash for Clunkers can’t single-handedly make drastic environmental improvements. Perhaps the only undoubted success of Cash for Clunkers has been its impact on the auto industy: Ford and General Motors saw ten and 21 percent increases in sales in August compared to July.7 Toyota posted even bigger gains.

Measuring Up a “Proven Success”

So was Cash for Clunkers good, bad, or a wash? It is worth remembering that public policies to improve the economy and environment are implemented because unemployment and pollution undermine the long- and short-term health and well-being of human, not because the government or civil society has an interest in the physical environment or job markets in and of themselves. Therefore, measuring the success of the Clash for Clunkers program must compare the opportunities provided and lost to improve public health.

Several news articles have mentioned the safety benefits of Cash for Clunkers: newer cars have better and more safety features, therefore the program will put safer cars on the road. As Consumer Reports mentions:

“…450,778 SUVs and other light trucks that likely lacked electronic stability control and other modern safety equipment [were taken off the road through Cash for Clunker]. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has estimated that making ESC standard on new cars would save as many as 10,000 lives a year. This program has taken a significant step toward that goal.”5

 

This is great news, but thinking about vehicle safety also begs the question: why should the federal government spend three billion tax dollars on bailing out an industry whose products kills and injures so many Americans? In 2008, there were 37, 261 people killed in motor vehicle crashes (a record low) and nearly 2.35 million injured. By those figures alone, the morbidity and mortality caused each year by motor vehicles dwarfs the potential safety gains from Cash for Clunkers. In 2007, a total of 288 people were killed on mass transit of any kind, a number less than 1% of those killed by passenger vehicles.8 In 2006 there were 19, 238 people injured on all forms of mass transit, 122 times fewer injuries than the more than two million caused by motor vehicles.9 Yes, these are absolute numbers- so how do these numbers compare when looking at rates? Motor vehicles kill five times as many people per passenger mile than mass transit.10

Public transportation systems, especially light and heavy rails systems, also create less fuel emissions than motor vehicle, and therefore provide a much longer-term investment in environmental health than Cash for Clunkers can achieve. What if Congress had instead given the auto industry $3 billion to invest in developing new capacities for making mass transit vehicles?

The Cash for Clunkers program also represents a lost opportunity to improve public health in other ways. The nearly three billion dollars spent to boost the auto industy did very little for a key piece of our economic crisis: inequality. The proportion of wealth and earnings by the richest 10% of our communities has steadily risen in the past 30 years. This growing inequality was intimately connected to the underlying causes of the current economic crisis: predatory lending and banking practices that promised to earn executives and their brokers exorbitant amounts of money. Inequality has been documented in public health research as a causal factor in social and health outcomes as diverse as teen birth and mortality. The Cash for Clunkers program, however did little to provide a way for low-income folks to benefit from the government commitment to stimulate the economy. For example, despite the claimed objective to get “clunkers” off the road, cars older than 25 years could not be traded in for the rebate, even though they are the most-polluting, and least fuel efficient and safety advanced vehicles. Also, all cars that were traded in, even if they were fairly new and running well, had to be destroyed under the program’s rules, bringing up the questions of what to do with 700,000 newly junked cars. Will lower-income families who cannot afford a brand new car now have more trouble finding a used (but less than 25 year old) car at all, since trade-ins have to be legally destroyed? Will the destroyed cars pose another set of environmental problems?

As one columnist argued: “…By mandating the destruction of trade-ins, Congress removed 700,000 cars from the used-car market, inevitably driving up prices of the cars that lower-income consumers tend to buy.”4

While no data have come out showing this prediction to be true, it seems that the Cash for Clunkers program did not take advantage of what we know about public health: policy approaches to reduce inequality have economic and health benefits. These same policy approaches, however, also require abandoning the government’s monetary, legislative, and otherwise political support of corporations that harm health. From the subsidizing of harmful industries like the auto industy to the extreme financial deregulation of a decade ago, these pro-corporate polices may appear to be bids for a strong economy, but the impacts are much different. For example, financial deregulation led to the lending practices that disproportionately preyed upon low-income communities and communities of color, and led to the current economic recession.

How About Cash for Buses and Subways?

Why, then, should the federal government’s stimulus efforts ensure that the auto industry survives, as opposed to investing in any other businesses or industries in the United States? An alternative to bailing out a failing industry is to invest in an industry that has seen sharp growth in the past year: mass transit. Currently, mass transit systems across the country are experiencing tremendous cuts to their already inadequate budgets. For example, in July alone the New York City Metro Transit Authority announced 360 jobs cuts, despite having experienced a significant uptick in ridership since the U.S. economy took a downturn. Although mass transit systems are efficient and affordable for riders, urban municipalities that currently maintain such systems do not have sufficient funds to maintain and upgrade them, and fare revenues cover only from 20 to 50% of the costs of maintaining the transit systems.11

src=”uploads/images/old_archives/img/mass_transit_promotion.png” alt=”mass transit promotion by Metro Library and Archive” hspace=”10″ vspace=”5″ width=”250″ height=”250″ align=”right” />A stimulus package that invests in the research, business planning, and workforce to upgrade and create effective mass transit systems has multiple benefits. Cash for Clunkers may have caused an uptick in the employment and earning of auto industry workers, but as many have pointed out, nearly 60% of the sales made under Clash for Clunkers would have happened in the next year anyway, leaving auto workers to brace for another severe dip in demand. Investing in mass transit infrastructure, on the other hand, will lay the groundwork for strong job markets in a variety of fields (from engineering to sanitation) required to support smart, efficient public transportation. The recession has caused a surged in mass transit use across the country, causing its use to reach a 50-year high11,12 and therefore providing a key opportunity to shift transportation trends in the U.S. towards the long-term, permanent growth of these infrastructures. In fact, the Obama Administration’s stimulus package did commit just over eight billion dollars to capital improvements in mass transit systems, including high speed rail lines.12,13 Hopefully this infusion of funds represents more than a temporary stimulus, but a longer-term investment in health promoting industries than can provide sustainable employment, and provide for safe, effective transportation for many times more Americans than just those who can afford a new car.

The gains to the health of U.S. economy and environment as a result of the Cash for Clunkers program can be considered modest at best, and at worst, the U.S. government’s political investment in supporting an industry whose products, cars and trucks, directly contributes to poor health in several ways. The need for government to spur spending, and therefore job growth, could have dovetailed with environmental and public health goals much more effectively. Public policies that foster investments in public transportation is just one of those alternatives. Strengthening mass transit will stimulate job growth and retention in an industry that can be counted on to continue to experience thriving market demand, reduce American consumers’ impact on the environment, and promote public health.

 

References

1 Hedgpeth D; Bacon P.With Senate Vote, Congress Refuels ‘Clunkers’ Program. The Washington Post August 7, 2009. Available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/06/AR2009080601656.html. Accessed August 16, 2009.

2 Puzzanghera J; Zimmerman M. ‘Cash for clunkers’ final tally: nearly 700,000 cars sold. Los Angeles Times. Available at:http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-clunkers27-2009aug27,0,2161518.story?page=2 Accessed August 31, 2009.

3 Bureau of Economic Analysis. Available at: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm. Accessed September 1, 2009.

4 Stelzer I. Seven lessons of Cash for Clunkers’ failure The San Francisco Examiner. August 28, 2009. Available at:http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Irwin_Stelzer/Seven-lessons-of-Cash-for-Clunkers-failure-55595162.html. Accessed September 1, 2009.

5 Evarts E. Consumer Reports. August 27, 2009. Available at: http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/cash-for-clunkers/index.html. Accessed September 1, 2009.

6 Fact Sheet: Cash for Clunkers Committee on Energy and Commerce. June 8, 2009. Available at:http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090505/
cashforclunkers.pdf. Accessed August 2, 2009.

7 Barth L. September 2, 2009. Available at: http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/cash-for-clunkers/index.html. Accessed September 2, 2009.

8 United States Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration. Available at: http://transit-safety.volpe.dot.gov/Data/samis/default.asp?ReportID=2. Accessed September 1, 2009.

9 Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Table 2-33c: Table 2-33a: Transit Safety Data by Modea for All Reported Incidents. Available at: http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_
statistics/html/table_02_33a.html. Accessed August 25, 2009.

10 Morris EA.The Danger of Safety. Freakonomics Blog from The New York Times.July 2, 2009. Available at:http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/the-danger-of-safety/?apage=2. Accessed September 1, 2009.

11 Public Transit Faces New Pressures.  March 10th, 2009. Available at:http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/reports/transit-in-trouble/video-public-transit-faces-new-pressures-part-one/485/. Accessed September 1, 2009.

12 Epstein, D. For Ailing Transit Systems, Stimulus Windfall Is a Mixed Blessing. June 21, 2009. Available at:http://www.propublica.org/ion/stimulus/item/for-ailing-transit-systems-stimulus-windfall-is-a-mixed-blessing-621. Accessed September 2, 2009.

13 Hochberg A. A Hitch For Rail Riders: Getting To Final Destination. September 2, 2009. Available at:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112467963. Accessed September 2, 2009.

 

Photo Credits:

Selected Bibliography on Retail Practices and Health by Industry

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

Selected Bibliography on Retail Practices and Health in the Alcohol, Automobile, Firearms, Food and Beverage, Pharmaceutical, and Tobacco industries.

 

Alcohol Industry

  • Cohen DA, GhoshDastidar B, Scribner R, Miu A, Scott M, Robinson P, et al. Alcohol outlets, gonorrhea, and the Los Angeles civil unrest: A longitudinal analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62(12):3062-3071.
  • Gruenewald PJ, Freisthler B, Remer L, Lascala EA, Treno A. Ecological models of alcohol outlets and violent assaults: Crime potentials and geospatial analysis. Addiction. 2006;101(5):666-677.
  • Gruenewald PJ, Johnson FW, Treno AJ. Outlets, drinking and driving: A multilevel analysis of availability. Stud Alcoho. 2002;63(4):460-468.
  • Gruenewald PJ, Millar AB, Treno AJ, Yang Z, Ponicki WR, Roeper P. The geography of availability and driving after drinking. Addiction. 1996;91(7):967-983.
  • Kotecki JE, Fowler JB, German TC, Stephenson SL, Warnick T. Kentucky pharmacists’ opinions and practices related to the sale of cigarettes and alcohol in pharmacies. J Community Health. 2000;25(4):343-355.
  • Lapham SC, Gruenwald PJ, Remer L, Layne L. New Mexico’s 1998 driveup liquor window closure. Study I: Effect on alcohol involved crashes. Addiction. 2004;99(5):598-606.
  • Miller T, Snowden C, Birckmayer J, Hendrie D. Retail alcohol monopolies, underage drinking, and youth impaired driving deaths. Accid Anal Prev. 2006;38(6):1162-1167.
  • Montgomery JM, Foley KL, Wolfson M. Enforcing the minimum drinking age: State, local and agency characteristics associated with compliance checks and Cops in Shops programs. Addiction. 2006;101(2):223-231.
  • Reynolds RI, Holder HD, Gruenewald PJ. Community prevention and alcohol retail access. Addiction. 1997;92 Suppl 2:S261-S272.
  • Treno AJ, Gruenewald PJ, Johnson FW. Alcohol availability and injury: The role of local outlet densities.  Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2001;25(10):1467-1471.
  • Treno AJ, Gruenewald PJ, Wood DS, Ponicki WR. The price of alcohol: A consideration of contextual factors. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2006;30(10):1734-1742.
  • Treno AJ, Grube JW, Martin SE. Alcohol availability as a predictor of youth drinking and driving: A hierarchical analysis of survey and archival data. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2003;27(5):835-840.

 

Automobile Industry

  • Devaraj S, Matta KF, Conlon E.  Product and Service Quality: The Antecedents of Customer Loyalty in the Automotive Industry. Production and Operations Management.  2001; 10(4): 424-439.
  • Hellinga LA, McCartt AT, Haire ER. Choice of teenagers’ vehicles and views on vehicle safety: Survey of parents of novice teenage drivers. J Safety Res.2007;38(6):707-713.
  • Joetan E, Kleiner BH. Incentive practices in the US automobile industry. Management Research News. 2004;27(7):49–62.
  • Koppel S, Charlton J, Fildes B, Fitzharris M. How important is vehicle safety in the new vehicle purchase process? Accid Anal Prev. 2008;40(3):994-1004.
  • Koppel S, Charlton J, Fildes B. How important is vehicle safety in the new vehicle purchase/lease process for fleet vehicles? Traffic Inj Prev. 2007;8(2):130-136.
  • Van Alst JW.  Fueling Fair Practices: A Road Map to Improved Public Policy for Used Car Sales and Financing, National Consumer Law Center, (March 5, 2008), Available at http://www.nclc.org/issues/auto/content/report-fuelingfairpractices0309.pdf.

 

Firearms Industry

  • Cook, PJ, Molliconi S, Cole, TB.Regulating gun markets. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 1995;86(1):59-92.
  • Lewin NL, Vernick JS, Beilenson PL, Mair JS, Lindamood MM, Teret SP, Webster DW. The Baltimore Youth Ammunition Initiative: A model application of local public health authority in preventing gun violence. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(5):762-765.
  • Miller M, Azrael D, Hemenway D. Firearm availability and unintentional deaths, suicide, and homicide among 5-14 year olds. The Journal of Trauma. 2002;52(2):267-275.
  • Miller M, Azrael D, Hemenway D. Firearm availability and unintentional deaths. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2001;33:477-484.
  • Miller M, Azrael D, Hemenway D. Firearm availability and unintentional deaths, suicide, and homicide among women. Journal of Urban Health. 2002; 79(1):26-38.
  • Sorenson SB, Berk RA. Handgun sales, beer sales, and youth homicide, California 1972-1993. Journal of Public Health Policy. 2001;22(2):182-197.
  • Vernick JS, Mair JS. How the law affects gun policy in the United States: Law as intervention or obstacle to prevention. J Law Med Ethics. 2002;30(4):692-704.
  • Vernick JS, Webster DW, Bulzacchelli MT, Mair JS. Regulation of firearm dealers in the United States: An analysis of state law and opportunities for improvement. J Law Med Ethics. 2006;34(4):765-775.
  • Webster DW, Vernick JS, Buzacchelli MT. Effects of a gun dealer’s change in sales practices on the supply of guns to criminals. The Journal of Urban Health. 2006; 83(5):778-787.
  • Webster DW, Bulzacchelli MT, Zeoli AM, Vernick JS. Effects of undercover police stings of gun dealers on the supply of new guns to criminals. Inj Prev. 2006;12(4):225-230.
  • Webster DW, Vernick JS, Bulzacchelli MT. Effects of state-level firearm seller accountability policies on firearm trafficking. J Urban Health. 2009;86(4):525-537.
  • Webster DW, Vernick JS, Hepburn LM. Relationship between licensing, registration, and other gun sales laws and the source state of crime guns. Inj Prev. 2001;7(3):184-189.
  • Wintemute GJ. Where the guns come from: The gun industry and gun commerce. The Future of Children. 2003;12(2):55-71.

 

Food and Beverage Industry

  • Altekruse SF, Yang S, Timbo BB, Angulo FJ. A multi-state survey of consumer food-handling and food-consumption practices. Am J Prev Med. 1999;16(3):216-221.
  • Angell SY, Silver LD, Goldstein GP, Johnson CM, Deitcher DR, Frieden TR, Bassett MT. Cholesterol control beyond the clinic: New York City’s trans fat restriction. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(2):129-134.
  • Austin SB, Melly SJ, Sanchez BN, Patel A, Buka S, Gortmaker SL. Clustering of fast food restaurants around schools: A novel application of spatial statistics to the study of food environments. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(9):1575-1581.
  • Baker EA, Schootman M, Barnidge E, Kelly C. The role of race and poverty in access to foods that enable individuals to adhere to dietary guidelines. Prev Chronic Dis. 2006;3(3):A76.
  • Borgmeier I, Westenhoefer J. Impact of different food label formats on healthiness evaluation and food choice of consumers: A randomized-controlled study. BMC Public Health. 2009;12(9):184.
  • Burton S, Creyer EH, Kees J, Huggins K. Attacking the obesity epidemic: the potential health benefits of providing nutrition information in restaurants. Am J Public Health.2006;96(9):1669-1675.
  • Cassady D, Housemann R, Dagher C. Measuring cues for healthy choices on restaurant menus: Development and testing of a measurement instrument. Am J Health Promot. 2004;18(6):444-449.
  • Creel JS, Sharkey JR, McIntosh A, Anding J, Huber JC Jr. Availability of healthier options in traditional and nontraditional rural fast-food outlets. BMC Public Health. 2008;8:395.
  • Dumanovsky T, Nonas CA, Huang CY, Silver LD, Bassett MT. What people buy from fast-food restaurants: Caloric content and menu item selection, New York City 2007. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2009; 17(7):1369-1374.
  • Dwyer JJ, Macaskill LA, Uetrecht CL, Dombrow C. Eat Smart! Ontario’s Healthy Restaurant Program: Focus groups with non-participating restaurant operators. Can J Diet Pract Res. 2004.;65(1):6-9.
  • Economos CD, Folta SC, Goldberg J, Hudson D, Collins J, Baker Z, Lawson E, Nelson M. A community-based restaurant initiative to increase availability of healthy menu options in Somerville, Massachusetts: Shape Up Somerville. Prev Chronic Dis. 2009.;6(3):A102
  • Fielding JE, Aguirre A, Palaiologos E. Effectiveness of altered incentives in a food safety inspection program. Prev Med. 2001;32(3):239-244.
  • Ford PB, Dzewaltowski DA. Disparities in obesity prevalence due to variation in the retail food environment: Three testable hypotheses. Nutr Rev. 2008 Apr;66(4):216-228.
  • French SA, Harnack L, Jeffery RW. Fast food restaurant use among women in the Pound of Prevention study: Dietary, behavioral and demographic correlates. International Journal of Obesity & Related Metabolic Disorders. 2000;24(1):1353.
  • French SA. Pricing effects on food choices. J.Nutr. 2003;133(3):841S-843S.
  • French SA, Jeffery RW, Story M, Breitlow KK, Baxter JS, Hannan P, et al. Pricing and promotion effects on lowfat vending snack purchases: The CHIPS Study. Am J Public Health. 2001 ;91(1):112-117.
  • French SA, Story M, Neumark Sztainer D, Fulkerson JA, Hannan P. Fast food restaurant use among adolescents: Associations with nutrient intake, food choices and behavioral and psychosocial variables. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001;25(12):1823-1833.
  • Fried EJ, Nestle M. The growing political movement against soft drinks in schools. JAMA.2002 ;288(1):2181-2181.
  • Gerend MA. Does calorie information promote lower calorie fast food choices among college students? J Adolesc Health. 2009;44(1):84-86.
  • Glanz K, Resnicow K, Seymour J, Hoy K, Stewart H, Lyons M, Goldberg J. How major restaurant chains plan their menus: The role of profit, demand, and health. Am J Prev Med. 2007;32(5):383-388.
  • Hannan P, French SA, Story M, Fulkerson JA. A pricing strategy to promote sales of lower fat foods in high school cafeterias: Acceptability and sensitivity analysis. Am.J.Health Promot. 2002 ;17(1):16,ii.
  • Hanni KD, Garcia E, Ellemberg C, Winkleby M. Targeting the taqueria: Implementing healthy food options at Mexican American restaurants. Health Promot Pract. 2009;10(2 Suppl):91S-99S.
  • Harnack LJ, French SA. Effect of point-of-purchase calorie labeling on restaurant and cafeteria food choices: A review of the literature. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2008 Oct 26;5:51.
  • Harnack LJ, French SA, Oakes JM, Story MT, Jeffery RW, Rydell SA. Effects of calorie labeling and value size pricing on fast food meal choices: Results from an experimental trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2008 ;5:63.
  • Jacobson MF, Brownell KD. Small taxes on soft drinks and snack foods to promote health. Am J Public Health 2000;90:854-857.
  • Jetter KM, Cassady DL. Increasing fresh fruit and vegetable availability in a low-income neighborhood convenience store: A pilot study. Health Promot Pract. 2009 Feb 12. [Epub ahead of print]
  • Kim D, Kawachi I. Food taxation and pricing strategies to “thin out” the obesity epidemic.  Am. J. Prev. Med. 2006;30(5):430-437.
  • Kimathi AN, Gregoire MB, Dowling RA, Stone MK. A healthful options food station can improve satisfaction and generate gross profit in a worksite cafeteria. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109(5):914-917.
  • Kuo T, Jarosz CJ, Simon P, Fielding JE. Menu labeling as a potential strategy for combating the obesity epidemic: A health impact assessment. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(9):1680-1686.
  • Kwate N O A. Fried chicken and fresh apples: Racial segregation as a fundamental cause of fast food density in black neighborhoods. Health and Place. 2008;14:32-44.
  • Kwate NO, Yau CY, Loh JM, Williams D. Inequality in obesigenic environments: Fast food density in New York City. Healthand Place. 2009;15(1):364-73
  • Lang T, Rayner G, Kaelin E. The Food Industry, Diet, Physical Activity and Health: A Review Of Reported Commitments And Practice Of 25 Of The World’s Largest Food Companies. 2006.
  • Larson NI, Story MT, Nelson MC. Neighborhood environments: Disparities in access to healthy foods in the U.S. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(1):74-81.
  • Ludwig DS, Brownell KD. Public health action amid scientific uncertainty: The case of restaurant calorie labeling regulations. JAMA. 2009;302(4):434-435.
  • Lynch RA, Elledge BL, Griffith CC, Boatright DT. A comparison of food safety knowledge among restaurant managers, by source of training and experience, in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. J Environ Health. 2003;66(2):9-14, 26.
  • Macdonald L, Cummins S, Macintyre S. Neighbourhood fast food environment and area deprivation-substitution or concentration? Appetite. 2007l;49(1):251-254.
  • Maddock J. The relationship between obesity and the prevalence of fast food restaurants: State level analysis. Am J Health Promot. 2004;19(2):137-143.
  • Mashta O. UK firms sign up to display calories on menus. BMJ. 2009;338:b182.
  • Morland KB, Evenson KR. Obesity prevalence and the local food environment.  Health and Place. 2009; 15(2):491-495
  • Nielsen SJ, Siega Riz AM, Popkin BM. Trends in food locations and sources among adolescents and young adults. Prev Med. 2002;35(2):107-113.
  • O’Dougherty M, Harnack LJ, French SA, Story M, Oakes JM, Jeffery RW. Nutrition labeling and value size pricing at fast-food restaurants: A consumer perspective. Am J Health Promot. 2006;20(4):247-250.
  • Phillips ML, Elledge BL, Basara HG, Lynch RA, Boatright DT. Recurrent critical violations of the food code in retail food service establishments. J Environ Health. 2006;68(10):24-30, 55.
  • Pomeranz JL, Brownell KD. Legal and public health considerations affecting  the success, reach, and impact of menu-labeling laws. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(9):1578-1583.
  • Roberto CA, Agnew H, Brownell KD. An observational study of consumers’ accessing of nutrition information in chain restaurants. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(5):820-821.
  • Rose D, Hutchinson PL, Bodor JN, Swalm CM, Farley TA, Cohen DA, Rice JC. Neighborhood food environments and Body Mass Index: The importance of in-store contents. Am J Prev Med. 2009;37(3):214-219.
  • Rydell SA, Harnack LJ, Oakes JM, Story M, Jeffery RW, French SA. Why eat at fast-food restaurants: reported reasons among frequent consumers. J Am Diet Assoc. 2008;108(12):2066-2070.
  • Sharkey JR, Horel S, Han D, Huber JC Jr. Association between neighborhood need and spatial access to food stores and fast food restaurants in neighborhoods of colonias. Int J Health Geogr. 2009;8:9.
  • Song HJ, Gittelsohn J, Kim M, Suratkar S, Sharma S, Anliker J. A corner store intervention in a low-income urban community is associated with increased availability and sales of some healthy foods. Public Health Nutr. 2009:1-8.
  • Spencer EH, Frank E, McIntosh NF. Potential effects of the next 100 billion hamburgers sold by McDonald’s. Am.J.Prev.Med. 2005 ;28(4):379-381.
  • Story M, Kaphingst KM, Robinson-O’Brien R, Glanz K. Creating healthy food and eating environments: Policy and environmental approaches. Annu Rev Public Health. 2008;29:253-72.

 

Pharmaceutical Industry

  • Brooks JM, Doucette WR, Wan S, Klepser DG. Retail pharmacy market structure and performance. Inquiry. 2008;45(1):75-88.
  • Carroll NV. Estimating the impact of Medicare part D on the profitability of independent community pharmacies. J Manag Care Pharm. 2008;14(8):768-779.
  • Fincham JE. An unfortunate and avoidable component of American pharmacy: Tobacco. Am J Pharm Educ. 2008;72(3):57
  • Garattini L, Motterlini N, Cornago D. Prices and distribution margins of in-patent drugs in pharmacy: A comparison in seven European countries. Health Policy. 2008;85(3):305-313.
  • Gellad WF, Choudhry NK, Friedberg MW, Brookhart MA, Haas JS, Shrank WH. Variation in drug prices at pharmacies: Are prices higher in poorer areas? Health Serv Res. 2009;44(2 Pt 1):606-617.
  • Gitlin M, Wilson L. Repackaged pharmaceuticals in the California workers’ compensation system: From distribution and pricing options to physician and retail dispensing. Am J Ind Med. 2007;50(4):303-315.
  • Montoya ID, Jano E. Online pharmacies: Safety and regulatory considerations. Int J Health Serv. 2007;37(2):279-289.
  • Retail and mail copayments on the rise. Manag Care. 2009;18(6):50.
  • Rudholm N. Entry of new pharmacies in the deregulated Norwegian pharmaceuticals market– consequences for costs and availability. Health Policy.2008;87(2):258-263
  • Stafford E. Pharmacy initiatives target prescription drug costs. J Mich Dent Assoc. 2008;90(9):22.
  • Stevenson FA, Leontowitsch M, Duggan C. Over-the-counter medicines: Professional expertise and consumer discourses. Sociol Health Illn. 2008;30(6):913-928.

 

Tobacco Industry

  • Andersen BS, Begay ME, Lawson CB. Breaking the alliance: Defeating the tobacco industry’s allies and enacting youth access restrictions in Massachusetts. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(11):1922-1928.
  • Celebucki CC, Diskin K. A longitudinal study of externally visible cigarette advertising on retail storefronts in Massachusetts before and after the Master Settlement Agreement. Tob Control. 2002;11 Suppl 2:ii47-53.
  • Chriqui JF, Ribisl KM, Wallace RM, Williams RS, O’Connor JC, el Arculli R. A comprehensive review of state laws governing Internet and other delivery sales of cigarettes in the United States. Nicotine Tob Res. 2008;10(2):253-265.
  • Feighery EC, Ribisl KM, Achabal DD, Tyebjee T. Retail trade incentives: How tobacco industry practices compare with those of other industries. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(10):1564-1566.
  • Feighery EC, Ribisl KM, Clark PI, Haladjian HH. How tobacco companies ensure prime placement of their advertising and products in stores: Interviews with retailers about tobacco company incentive programmes. Tob Control. 2003;12(2):184-188.
  • Feighery EC, Ribisl KM, Schleicher N, Lee RE, Halvorson S. Cigarette advertising and promotional strategies in retail outlets: results of a statewide survey in California. Tob Control. 2001;10(2):184-188.
  • Feighery EC, Ribisl KM, Schleicher NC, Clark PI. Retailer participation in cigarette company incentive programs is related to increased levels of cigarette advertising and cheaper cigarette prices in stores. Prev Med. 2004;38(6):876-884.
  • Gilbertson T. Retail point-of-sale guardianship and juvenile tobacco purchases: assessing the prevention capabilities of undergraduate college students. J Drug Educ. 2007;37(1):1-30.
  • Gilpin EA, White VM, Pierce JP. How effective are tobacco industry bar and club marketing efforts in reaching young adults? Tob Control. 2005;14(3):186-192.
  • Glanz K, Sutton NM, Jacob Arriola KR. Operation storefront Hawaii: Tobacco advertising and promotion in Hawaii stores. J Health Commun. 2006;11(7):699-707.
  • Henriksen L, Feighery EC, Schleicher NC, Cowling DW, Kline RS, Fortmann SP. Is adolescent smoking related to the density and proximity of tobacco outlets and retail cigarette advertising near schools? Prev Med. 2008;47(2):210-4.
  • Henriksen L, Feighery EC, Schleicher NC, Haladjian HH, Fortmann SP. Reaching youth at the point of sale: cigarette marketing is more prevalent in stores where adolescents shop frequently. Tob Control. 2004;13(3):315-318.
  • Henriksen L, Feighery EC, Wang Y, Fortmann SP. Association of retail tobacco marketing with adolescent smoking. Am J Public Health. 2004;94(12):2081-2083.
  • Lavack AM, Toth G. Tobacco point-of-purchase promotion: Examining tobacco industry documents. Tob Control. 2006;15(5):377-384.
  • Loomis BR, Farrelly MC, Mann NH. The association of retail promotions for cigarettes with the Master Settlement Agreement, tobacco control programmes and cigarette excise taxes. Tob Control. 2006;15(6):458-463.
  • Loomis BR, Farrelly MC, Nonnemaker JM, Mann NH. Point of purchase cigarette promotions before and after the Master Settlement Agreement: exploring retail scanner data. Tob Control. 2006;15(2):140-
  • Pollay RW. More than meets the eye: on the importance of retail cigarette merchandising. Tob Control. 2007;16(4):270-274.
  • Sepe E, Ling PM, Glantz SA. Smooth moves: bar and nightclub tobacco promotions that target young adults. Am J Public Health. 2002;92(3):414-419.
  • Slater S, Chaloupka FJ, Wakefield M. State variation in retail promotions and advertising for Marlboro cigarettes. Tob Control. 2001;10(4):337-339.
  • Slater S, Giovino G, Chaloupka F. Surveillance of tobacco industry retail marketing activities of reduced harm products. Nicotine Tob Res. 2008;10(1):187-193.
  • Slater SJ, Chaloupka FJ, Wakefield M, Johnston LD, O’malley PM. The impact of retail cigarette marketing practices on youth smoking uptake. Arch Pediatr Adolesc. Med. 2007;161(5):440-445.
  • Slater SJ, Chaloupka FJ, Wakefield M, Johnston LD, O’Malley PM. The impact of retail cigarette marketing practices on youth smoking uptake. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007;161(5):440-445.
  • Smith EA, Blackman VS, Malone RE. Death at a discount: how the tobacco industry thwarted tobacco control policies in US military commissaries. Tob Control. 2007;16(1):38-46.

 

Studies of Multiple Industries

  • Ashe M, Jernigan D, Kline R, Galaz R. Land use planning and the control of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and fast food restaurants. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(9):1404-1408.
  • Feighery EC, Ribisl KM, Achabal DD, Tyebjee T. Retail trade incentives: how tobacco industry practices compare with those of other industries. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(10):1564-1566.
  • Freudenberg N, Galea S, Fahs M. Changing corporate practices to reduce cancer disparities. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2008; 19(1):26-40.
  • Hemenway D. The public health approach to motor vehicles, tobacco, and alcohol, with applications to firearms policy. J Public Health Policy. 2001;22(4):381-402.
  • Kotecki JE. Sale of alcohol in pharmacies: results and implications of an empirical study. J Community Health. 2003;28(1):65-77.

Selected Bibliography on Retail Practices and Health by Industry

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

Selected Bibliography on Retail Practices and Health in the Alcohol, Automobile, Firearms, Food and Beverage, Pharmaceutical, and Tobacco industries.

Alcohol Industry

Cohen DA, GhoshDastidar B, Scribner R, Miu A, Scott M, Robinson P, et al. Alcohol outlets, gonorrhea, and the Los Angeles civil unrest: A longitudinal analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62(12):3062-3071.

Gruenewald PJ, Freisthler B, Remer L, Lascala EA, Treno A. Ecological models of alcohol outlets and violent assaults: Crime potentials and geospatial analysis. Addiction. 2006;101(5):666-677.

Gruenewald PJ, Johnson FW, Treno AJ. Outlets, drinking and driving: A multilevel analysis of availability. Stud Alcoho. 2002;63(4):460-468.

Gruenewald PJ, Millar AB, Treno AJ, Yang Z, Ponicki WR, Roeper P. The geography of availability and driving after drinking.Addiction. 1996;91(7):967-983.

Kotecki JE, Fowler JB, German TC, Stephenson SL, Warnick T. Kentucky pharmacists’ opinions and practices related to the sale of cigarettes and alcohol in pharmacies. J Community Health. 2000;25(4):343-355.

Lapham SC, Gruenwald PJ, Remer L, Layne L. New Mexico’s 1998 driveup liquor window closure. Study I: Effect on alcohol involved crashes. Addiction. 2004;99(5):598-606.

Miller T, Snowden C, Birckmayer J, Hendrie D. Retail alcohol monopolies, underage drinking, and youth impaired driving deaths. Accid Anal Prev. 2006;38(6):1162-1167.

Montgomery JM, Foley KL, Wolfson M. Enforcing the minimum drinking age: State, local and agency characteristics associated with compliance checks and Cops in Shops programs. Addiction. 2006;101(2):223-231.

Reynolds RI, Holder HD, Gruenewald PJ. Community prevention and alcohol retail access. Addiction. 1997;92 Suppl 2:S261-S272.

Treno AJ, Gruenewald PJ, Johnson FW. Alcohol availability and injury: The role of local outlet densities.  Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2001;25(10):1467-1471.

Treno AJ, Gruenewald PJ, Wood DS, Ponicki WR. The price of alcohol: A consideration of contextual factors. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2006;30(10):1734-1742.

Treno AJ, Grube JW, Martin SE. Alcohol availability as a predictor of youth drinking and driving: A hierarchical analysis of survey and archival data. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2003;27(5):835-840.

 

Automobile Industry

Devaraj S, Matta KF, Conlon E.  Product and Service Quality: The Antecedents of Customer Loyalty in the Automotive Industry.Production and Operations Management.  2001; 10(4): 424-439.

Hellinga LA, McCartt AT, Haire ER. Choice of teenagers’ vehicles and views on vehicle safety: Survey of parents of novice teenage drivers. J Safety Res.2007;38(6):707-713.

Joetan E, Kleiner BH. Incentive practices in the US automobile industry. Management Research News. 2004;27(7):49–62.

Koppel S, Charlton J, Fildes B, Fitzharris M. How important is vehicle safety in the new vehicle purchase process? Accid Anal Prev. 2008;40(3):994-1004.

Koppel S, Charlton J, Fildes B. How important is vehicle safety in the new vehicle purchase/lease process for fleet vehicles?Traffic Inj Prev. 2007;8(2):130-136.

Van Alst JW.  Fueling Fair Practices: A Road Map to Improved Public Policy for Used Car Sales and Financing, National Consumer Law Center, (March 5, 2008), Available at http://www.nclc.org/issues/auto/content/report-fuelingfairpractices0309.pdf.

 

Firearms Industry

Cook, PJ, Molliconi S, Cole, TB.Regulating gun markets. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 1995;86(1):59-92.

Lewin NL, Vernick JS, Beilenson PL, Mair JS, Lindamood MM, Teret SP, Webster DW. The Baltimore Youth Ammunition Initiative: A model application of local public health authority in preventing gun violence. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(5):762-765.

Miller M, Azrael D, Hemenway D. Firearm availability and unintentional deaths, suicide, and homicide among 5-14 year olds. The Journal of Trauma. 2002;52(2):267-275.

Miller M, Azrael D, Hemenway D. Firearm availability and unintentional deaths. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2001;33:477-484.

Miller M, Azrael D, Hemenway D. Firearm availability and unintentional deaths, suicide, and homicide among women.Journal of Urban Health. 2002; 79(1):26-38.

Sorenson SB, Berk RA. Handgun sales, beer sales, and youth homicide, California 1972-1993. Journal of Public Health Policy. 2001;22(2):182-197.

Vernick JS, Mair JS. How the law affects gun policy in the United States: Law as intervention or obstacle to prevention. J Law Med Ethics. 2002;30(4):692-704.

Vernick JS, Webster DW, Bulzacchelli MT, Mair JS. Regulation of firearm dealers in the United States: An analysis of state law and opportunities for improvement. J Law Med Ethics. 2006;34(4):765-775.

Webster DW, Vernick JS, Buzacchelli MT. Effects of a gun dealer’s change in sales practices on the supply of guns to criminals. The Journal of Urban Health. 2006; 83(5):778-787.

Webster DW, Bulzacchelli MT, Zeoli AM, Vernick JS. Effects of undercover police stings of gun dealers on the supply of new guns to criminals. Inj Prev. 2006;12(4):225-230.

Webster DW, Vernick JS, Bulzacchelli MT. Effects of state-level firearm seller accountability policies on firearm trafficking. J Urban Health. 2009;86(4):525-537.

Webster DW, Vernick JS, Hepburn LM. Relationship between licensing, registration, and other gun sales laws and the source state of crime guns. Inj Prev. 2001;7(3):184-189.

Wintemute GJ. Where the guns come from: The gun industry and gun commerce. The Future of Children. 2003;12(2):55-71.

 

Food and Beverage Industry

Altekruse SF, Yang S, Timbo BB, Angulo FJ. A multi-state survey of consumer food-handling and food-consumption practices.Am J Prev Med. 1999;16(3):216-221.

Angell SY, Silver LD, Goldstein GP, Johnson CM, Deitcher DR, Frieden TR, Bassett MT. Cholesterol control beyond the clinic: New York City’s trans fat restriction. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(2):129-134.

Austin SB, Melly SJ, Sanchez BN, Patel A, Buka S, Gortmaker SL. Clustering of fast food restaurants around schools: A novel application of spatial statistics to the study of food environments. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(9):1575-1581.

Baker EA, Schootman M, Barnidge E, Kelly C. The role of race and poverty in access to foods that enable individuals to adhere to dietary guidelines. Prev Chronic Dis. 2006;3(3):A76.

Borgmeier I, Westenhoefer J. Impact of different food label formats on healthiness evaluation and food choice of consumers: A randomized-controlled study. BMC Public Health. 2009;12(9):184.

Burton S, Creyer EH, Kees J, Huggins K. Attacking the obesity epidemic: the potential health benefits of providing nutrition information in restaurants. Am J Public Health.2006;96(9):1669-1675.

Cassady D, Housemann R, Dagher C. Measuring cues for healthy choices on restaurant menus: Development and testing of a measurement instrument. Am J Health Promot. 2004;18(6):444-449.

Creel JS, Sharkey JR, McIntosh A, Anding J, Huber JC Jr. Availability of healthier options in traditional and nontraditional rural fast-food outlets. BMC Public Health. 2008;8:395.

Dumanovsky T, Nonas CA, Huang CY, Silver LD, Bassett MT. What people buy from fast-food restaurants: Caloric content and menu item selection, New York City 2007. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2009; 17(7):1369-1374.

Dwyer JJ, Macaskill LA, Uetrecht CL, Dombrow C. Eat Smart! Ontario’s Healthy Restaurant Program: Focus groups with non-participating restaurant operators. Can J Diet Pract Res. 2004.;65(1):6-9.

Economos CD, Folta SC, Goldberg J, Hudson D, Collins J, Baker Z, Lawson E, Nelson M. A community-based restaurant initiative to increase availability of healthy menu options in Somerville, Massachusetts: Shape Up Somerville. Prev Chronic Dis. 2009.;6(3):A102

Fielding JE, Aguirre A, Palaiologos E. Effectiveness of altered incentives in a food safety inspection program. Prev Med. 2001;32(3):239-244.

Ford PB, Dzewaltowski DA. Disparities in obesity prevalence due to variation in the retail food environment: Three testable hypotheses. Nutr Rev. 2008 Apr;66(4):216-228.

French SA, Harnack L, Jeffery RW. Fast food restaurant use among women in the Pound of Prevention study: Dietary, behavioral and demographic correlates. International Journal of Obesity & Related Metabolic Disorders. 2000;24(1):1353.

French SA. Pricing effects on food choices. J.Nutr. 2003;133(3):841S-843S.

French SA, Jeffery RW, Story M, Breitlow KK, Baxter JS, Hannan P, et al. Pricing and promotion effects on lowfat vending snack purchases: The CHIPS Study. Am J Public Health. 2001 ;91(1):112-117.

French SA, Story M, Neumark Sztainer D, Fulkerson JA, Hannan P. Fast food restaurant use among adolescents: Associations with nutrient intake, food choices and behavioral and psychosocial variables. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord.2001;25(12):1823-1833.

Fried EJ, Nestle M. The growing political movement against soft drinks in schools. JAMA.2002 ;288(1):2181-2181.

Gerend MA. Does calorie information promote lower calorie fast food choices among college students? J Adolesc Health. 2009;44(1):84-86.

Glanz K, Resnicow K, Seymour J, Hoy K, Stewart H, Lyons M, Goldberg J. How major restaurant chains plan their menus: The role of profit, demand, and health. Am J Prev Med. 2007;32(5):383-388.

Hannan P, French SA, Story M, Fulkerson JA. A pricing strategy to promote sales of lower fat foods in high school cafeterias: Acceptability and sensitivity analysis. Am.J.Health Promot. 2002 ;17(1):16,ii.

Hanni KD, Garcia E, Ellemberg C, Winkleby M. Targeting the taqueria: Implementing healthy food options at Mexican American restaurants. Health Promot Pract. 2009;10(2 Suppl):91S-99S.

Harnack LJ, French SA. Effect of point-of-purchase calorie labeling on restaurant and cafeteria food choices: A review of the literature. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2008 Oct 26;5:51.

Harnack LJ, French SA, Oakes JM, Story MT, Jeffery RW, Rydell SA. Effects of calorie labeling and value size pricing on fast food meal choices: Results from an experimental trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2008 ;5:63.

Jacobson MF, Brownell KD. Small taxes on soft drinks and snack foods to promote health. Am J Public Health 2000;90:854-857.

Jetter KM, Cassady DL. Increasing fresh fruit and vegetable availability in a low-income neighborhood convenience store: A pilot study. Health Promot Pract. 2009 Feb 12. [Epub ahead of print]

Kim D, Kawachi I. Food taxation and pricing strategies to “thin out” the obesity epidemic.  Am. J. Prev. Med.2006;30(5):430-437.

Kimathi AN, Gregoire MB, Dowling RA, Stone MK. A healthful options food station can improve satisfaction and generate gross profit in a worksite cafeteria. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109(5):914-917.

Kuo T, Jarosz CJ, Simon P, Fielding JE. Menu labeling as a potential strategy for combating the obesity epidemic: A health impact assessment. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(9):1680-1686.

Kwate N O A. Fried chicken and fresh apples: Racial segregation as a fundamental cause of fast food density in black neighborhoods. Health and Place. 2008;14:32-44.

Kwate NO, Yau CY, Loh JM, Williams D. Inequality in obesigenic environments: Fast food density in New York City.Healthand Place. 2009;15(1):364-73

Lang T, Rayner G, Kaelin E. The Food Industry, Diet, Physical Activity and Health: A Review Of Reported Commitments And Practice Of 25 Of The World’s Largest Food Companies. 2006.

Larson NI, Story MT, Nelson MC. Neighborhood environments: Disparities in access to healthy foods in the U.S. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(1):74-81.

Ludwig DS, Brownell KD. Public health action amid scientific uncertainty: The case of restaurant calorie labeling regulations.JAMA. 2009;302(4):434-435.

Lynch RA, Elledge BL, Griffith CC, Boatright DT. A comparison of food safety knowledge among restaurant managers, by source of training and experience, in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. J Environ Health. 2003;66(2):9-14, 26.

Macdonald L, Cummins S, Macintyre S. Neighbourhood fast food environment and area deprivation-substitution or concentration? Appetite. 2007l;49(1):251-254.

Maddock J. The relationship between obesity and the prevalence of fast food restaurants: State level analysis. Am J Health Promot. 2004;19(2):137-143.

Mashta O. UK firms sign up to display calories on menus. BMJ. 2009;338:b182.

Morland KB, Evenson KR. Obesity prevalence and the local food environment.  Health and Place. 2009; 15(2):491-495

Nielsen SJ, Siega Riz AM, Popkin BM. Trends in food locations and sources among adolescents and young adults. Prev Med.2002;35(2):107-113.

O’Dougherty M, Harnack LJ, French SA, Story M, Oakes JM, Jeffery RW. Nutrition labeling and value size pricing at fast-food restaurants: A consumer perspective. Am J Health Promot. 2006;20(4):247-250.

Phillips ML, Elledge BL, Basara HG, Lynch RA, Boatright DT. Recurrent critical violations of the food code in retail food service establishments. J Environ Health. 2006;68(10):24-30, 55.

Pomeranz JL, Brownell KD. Legal and public health considerations affecting  the success, reach, and impact of menu-labeling laws. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(9):1578-1583.

Roberto CA, Agnew H, Brownell KD. An observational study of consumers’ accessing of nutrition information in chain restaurants. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(5):820-821.

Rose D, Hutchinson PL, Bodor JN, Swalm CM, Farley TA, Cohen DA, Rice JC. Neighborhood food environments and Body Mass Index: The importance of in-store contents. Am J Prev Med. 2009;37(3):214-219.

Rydell SA, Harnack LJ, Oakes JM, Story M, Jeffery RW, French SA. Why eat at fast-food restaurants: reported reasons among frequent consumers. J Am Diet Assoc. 2008;108(12):2066-2070.

Sharkey JR, Horel S, Han D, Huber JC Jr. Association between neighborhood need and spatial access to food stores and fast food restaurants in neighborhoods of colonias. Int J Health Geogr. 2009;8:9.

Song HJ, Gittelsohn J, Kim M, Suratkar S, Sharma S, Anliker J. A corner store intervention in a low-income urban community is associated with increased availability and sales of some healthy foods. Public Health Nutr. 2009:1-8.

Spencer EH, Frank E, McIntosh NF. Potential effects of the next 100 billion hamburgers sold by McDonald’s.Am.J.Prev.Med. 2005 ;28(4):379-381.

Story M, Kaphingst KM, Robinson-O’Brien R, Glanz K. Creating healthy food and eating environments: Policy and environmental approaches. Annu Rev Public Health. 2008;29:253-72.

 

Pharmaceutical Industry

Brooks JM, Doucette WR, Wan S, Klepser DG. Retail pharmacy market structure and performance. Inquiry. 2008;45(1):75-88.

Carroll NV. Estimating the impact of Medicare part D on the profitability of independent community pharmacies. J Manag Care Pharm. 2008;14(8):768-779.

Fincham JE. An unfortunate and avoidable component of American pharmacy: Tobacco. Am J Pharm Educ. 2008;72(3):57

Garattini L, Motterlini N, Cornago D. Prices and distribution margins of in-patent drugs in pharmacy: A comparison in seven European countries. Health Policy. 2008;85(3):305-313.

Gellad WF, Choudhry NK, Friedberg MW, Brookhart MA, Haas JS, Shrank WH. Variation in drug prices at pharmacies: Are prices higher in poorer areas? Health Serv Res. 2009;44(2 Pt 1):606-617.

Gitlin M, Wilson L. Repackaged pharmaceuticals in the California workers’ compensation system: From distribution and pricing options to physician and retail dispensing. Am J Ind Med. 2007;50(4):303-315.

Montoya ID, Jano E. Online pharmacies: Safety and regulatory considerations. Int J Health Serv. 2007;37(2):279-289.

Retail and mail copayments on the rise. Manag Care. 2009;18(6):50.

Rudholm N. Entry of new pharmacies in the deregulated Norwegian pharmaceuticals market– consequences for costs and availability. Health Policy.2008;87(2):258-263

Stafford E. Pharmacy initiatives target prescription drug costs. J Mich Dent Assoc. 2008;90(9):22.

Stevenson FA, Leontowitsch M, Duggan C. Over-the-counter medicines: Professional expertise and consumer discourses.Sociol Health Illn. 2008;30(6):913-928.

Tobacco Industry

Andersen BS, Begay ME, Lawson CB. Breaking the alliance: Defeating the tobacco industry’s allies and enacting youth access restrictions in Massachusetts. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(11):1922-1928.

Celebucki CC, Diskin K. A longitudinal study of externally visible cigarette advertising on retail storefronts in Massachusetts before and after the Master Settlement Agreement. Tob Control. 2002;11 Suppl 2:ii47-53.

Chriqui JF, Ribisl KM, Wallace RM, Williams RS, O’Connor JC, el Arculli R. A comprehensive review of state laws governing Internet and other delivery sales of cigarettes in the United States. Nicotine Tob Res. 2008;10(2):253-265.

Feighery EC, Ribisl KM, Achabal DD, Tyebjee T. Retail trade incentives: How tobacco industry practices compare with those of other industries. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(10):1564-1566.

Feighery EC, Ribisl KM, Clark PI, Haladjian HH. How tobacco companies ensure prime placement of their advertising and products in stores: Interviews with retailers about tobacco company incentive programmes. Tob Control. 2003;12(2):184-188.

Feighery EC, Ribisl KM, Schleicher N, Lee RE, Halvorson S. Cigarette advertising and promotional strategies in retail outlets: results of a statewide survey in California. Tob Control. 2001;10(2):184-188.

Feighery EC, Ribisl KM, Schleicher NC, Clark PI. Retailer participation in cigarette company incentive programs is related to increased levels of cigarette advertising and cheaper cigarette prices in stores. Prev Med. 2004;38(6):876-884.

Gilbertson T. Retail point-of-sale guardianship and juvenile tobacco purchases: assessing the prevention capabilities of undergraduate college students. J Drug Educ. 2007;37(1):1-30.

Gilpin EA, White VM, Pierce JP. How effective are tobacco industry bar and club marketing efforts in reaching young adults?Tob Control. 2005;14(3):186-192.

Glanz K, Sutton NM, Jacob Arriola KR. Operation storefront Hawaii: Tobacco advertising and promotion in Hawaii stores. J Health Commun. 2006;11(7):699-707.

Henriksen L, Feighery EC, Schleicher NC, Cowling DW, Kline RS, Fortmann SP. Is adolescent smoking related to the density and proximity of tobacco outlets and retail cigarette advertising near schools? Prev Med. 2008;47(2):210-4.

Henriksen L, Feighery EC, Schleicher NC, Haladjian HH, Fortmann SP. Reaching youth at the point of sale: cigarette marketing is more prevalent in stores where adolescents shop frequently. Tob Control. 2004;13(3):315-318.

Henriksen L, Feighery EC, Wang Y, Fortmann SP. Association of retail tobacco marketing with adolescent smoking. Am J Public Health. 2004;94(12):2081-2083.

Lavack AM, Toth G. Tobacco point-of-purchase promotion: Examining tobacco industry documents. Tob Control. 2006;15(5):377-384.

Loomis BR, Farrelly MC, Mann NH. The association of retail promotions for cigarettes with the Master Settlement Agreement, tobacco control programmes and cigarette excise taxes. Tob Control. 2006;15(6):458-463.

Loomis BR, Farrelly MC, Nonnemaker JM, Mann NH. Point of purchase cigarette promotions before and after the Master Settlement Agreement: exploring retail scanner data. Tob Control. 2006;15(2):140-

Pollay RW. More than meets the eye: on the importance of retail cigarette merchandising. Tob Control. 2007;16(4):270-274.

Sepe E, Ling PM, Glantz SA. Smooth moves: bar and nightclub tobacco promotions that target young adults. Am J Public Health. 2002;92(3):414-419.

Slater S, Chaloupka FJ, Wakefield M. State variation in retail promotions and advertising for Marlboro cigarettes. Tob Control. 2001;10(4):337-339.

Slater S, Giovino G, Chaloupka F. Surveillance of tobacco industry retail marketing activities of reduced harm products.Nicotine Tob Res. 2008;10(1):187-193.

Slater SJ, Chaloupka FJ, Wakefield M, Johnston LD, O’malley PM. The impact of retail cigarette marketing practices on youth smoking uptake. Arch Pediatr Adolesc. Med. 2007;161(5):440-445.

Slater SJ, Chaloupka FJ, Wakefield M, Johnston LD, O’Malley PM. The impact of retail cigarette marketing practices on youth smoking uptake. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007;161(5):440-445.

Smith EA, Blackman VS, Malone RE. Death at a discount: how the tobacco industry thwarted tobacco control policies in US military commissaries. Tob Control. 2007;16(1):38-46.

 

Studies of Multiple Industries

Ashe M, Jernigan D, Kline R, Galaz R. Land use planning and the control of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and fast food restaurants. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(9):1404-1408.

Feighery EC, Ribisl KM, Achabal DD, Tyebjee T. Retail trade incentives: how tobacco industry practices compare with those of other industries. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(10):1564-1566.

Freudenberg N, Galea S, Fahs M. Changing corporate practices to reduce cancer disparities. J Health Care Poor Underserved.2008; 19(1):26-40.

Hemenway D. The public health approach to motor vehicles, tobacco, and alcohol, with applications to firearms policy. J Public Health Policy. 2001;22(4):381-402.

Kotecki JE. Sale of alcohol in pharmacies: results and implications of an empirical study. J Community Health. 2003;28(1):65-77.

 
 

Commentary: Driving change: the global health impact of the restructured auto industry

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

In the last several months, the global auto industry has undergone a transformation as profound as any in its history. Despite a $50 billion taxpayer bailout, two of the three biggest US automakers, General Motors and Chrysler, have filed for bankruptcy. As the auto industry plans for its new smaller future, public health advocates need to consider how this restructuring will affect health. In this Commentary, CHW briefly describes some of the recent changes in the global auto industry, examines the possible health impact of these changes, and suggests possible directions for public health research and policy advocacy.

In the last several months, the global auto industry has undergone a transformation as profound as any in its history.  Despite a $50 billion taxpayer bailout, two of the three biggest US automakers, General Motors (GM) and Chrysler, have filed for bankruptcy. Almost 300,000 auto workers have been laid off and more than 2,000 auto showrooms closed.  While every sector of the industry has been hurt by the economic crisis, foreign car makers like Honda, Toyota and Hyundai continue to gain market share and Fiat, an Italian car maker, is expected to soon complete its purchase of Chrysler. After decades of government stalling, in May, President Obama announced tougher new federal fuel emission and mileage standards for US autos, creating new pressure for change.1 As the auto industry plans for its new smaller future, public health advocates need to consider how this restructuring will affect health.  In this Commentary, Corporations and Health Watch briefly describes some of the recent changes in the global auto industry, examines the possible health impact of these changes, and suggests possible directions for public health research and policy advocacy. Our goal in this preliminary report is to raise questions   for more systematic analysis in the months and years ahead.

Downsizing Detroit

In the last 18 months, 289,000 workers in the US auto industry lost their jobs, about half were auto assemblers and the other half worked in the auto supply networks.2 Between September 2008 and March 2009, these two sectors of the auto industry accounted for nearly 20% of the decline in the nation’s gross domestic product.  In Spring 2009, US car makers were producing 423,000 vehicles a month, down from 600,000 late last year.2 Some industry analysts predict that by the end of 2009, a total of 3,800 auto dealerships will be closed, almost double the number closed to date.  The auto industry’s troubles predate the economic crisis –rising oil prices, a collapsing market for SUVs, and intense competition from European and Asian car makers all contributed to the industry’s meltdown.

Globally, the auto industry is also running off the road.  The London-based HIS Global Insight Automotive Group estimates that total 2009 passenger car and light truck production will fall to 59.8 million units in 2009, a 16% drop from 2007.3 In the last year, car sales have declined in Japan, Europe and elsewhere.  In 2008, auto sales in China hit a ten year low, although the Chinese stimulus plan, which provides subsidies for car purchases, has helped to lift sales more recently.  As Michel Freyssnet observed in Le Monde, what is striking about the current crisis in the automobile industry is that “there is not any major market nor any manufacturer that is not in decline.” 4

In January 2009, people in China bought 748,000 cars, a 4.6% reduction from the year before while in the U.S., people bought 657,000 cars in January, a 37.1% reduction.4 This statistic highlights the changing face of the global auto industry.  In the coming decade, most analysts agree that European, Japanese, and Chinese car makers will outpace the US industry, with Brazil, South Korea and India not far behind.

In China, for example, the high cost of gasoline is pushing even tougher fuel emission mandates than those announced by President Obama.  In a plan released in May, China will require car makers to improve fuel economy an additional 18% by 2015, creating new pressures for more fuel efficient and smaller cars.5 Already China imposes a sales tax of 1% on fuel-efficient cars and 40% on gas-guzzling SUVs and sports cars.  Since most multinational auto companies are vigorously competing for a share of the Chinese auto market, China has the potential to play a leading role in setting global environmental and production standards. As Dieter Zetsche, the chairman of Daimler, said at the opening day of the Shanghai auto show in April, “The center of gravity is moving eastward. This has, if anything, only accelerated through the crisis.”6

Auto industry analysts, from the  World Watch Institute7 to KPMG8 to the US Department of Commerce9, seem to agree that if the auto industry is to survive, it must make fewer, smaller and better cars, with an emphasis on more environmentally friendly  and fuel efficient vehicles.  It also seems likely that carmakers in other countries, especially China, will continue to grow in influence.  While the emerging auto markets in the global South are likely to demand smaller and more fuel-efficient cars, if their goal is to achieve developed nation levels of car ownership the overall adverse impact of cars on health and the environment may continue to grow.  In the coming decade, this tension between equity in ownership levels and sustainable patterns of automobile production will dominate the debates among the global automobile industry, policy makers and environmentalists.  On the one hand, the developed nations have no right to tell Asians, Africans and Latin Americans that they can’t have cars. On the other hand, a continued rise in automobile use will inevitably choke our cities, pollute our air, injure and maim growing numbers of people, and exacerbate human-induced climate change, all trends that will hurt the global south more.  Only by reframing the issues can we escape this dilemma.

In the coming decade, this tension between equity in ownership levels and sustainable patterns of automobile production will dominate the debates among the global automobile industry, policy makers and environmentalists.

One important influence on how much Americans will drive and what kinds of cars they will buy is the price of gasoline.  In the United States, oil demand has dropped without interruption for more than 15 months. Globally, the International Energy Agency estimated that daily average oil consumption would decline by 3% in 2009. 10 A rapid economic recovery, new oil production and consumer optimism could lead to more driving and fewer incentives to buy small cars.  Conversely, a long recession, high gas prices, or continued political conflict in Nigeria, Iraq, Russia, Venezuela or other major oil-producing countries could accelerate the trends to less driving and smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles.

How does the auto industry influence health?

For the last century, the auto industry has been a major influence on health.  It has changed the air we breathe, the form of our cities and suburbs, and contributed to rising rates of obesity by encouraging sedentary behavior.  An extensive literature documents the profound social and environmental impact of the automobile.11, 12, 13 At the individual level, automobile ownership has been associated with various health benefits.  As Macintyre et al. note, car ownership can increase access to employment, shops selling healthy affordable food, leisure facilities, social support networks, health services and open space and help owners to avoid crime.14

At the population health level, more attention has been focused on the adverse impact of the density of automobile ownership.  Here we consider its impact in four separate domains: air pollution, climate change, automobile accidents and injuries, and physical inactivity.  Also of vital importance but considered only briefly below is the industry’s impact on the well-being of its workers and the communities in which its factories are located.

Air pollution Outdoor air pollution causes an estimated 800,000 deaths around the world  each year and motor vehicles are a major source of  such pollutants as nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)—which interact to form ground level ozone—and of microscopic particulate matter (PM10).  It is estimated that 1.4 billion people are exposed to urban air pollution above World Health Organization (WHO) limits. Deaths from air pollution are only the tip of the iceberg. For example,  for every death caused by PM10  there will be 34 emergency admissions, 407 asthma days, 6,085 reduced activity days, and 18,864 acute respiratory symptom days.15

Climate change In April 2009, the US EPA issued a proposed finding that carbon dioxide (CO2) poses a danger to health and welfare, opening the door to federal regulation of CO2 from all sources.16 According to Environmental Defense, the United States has 5% of the world’s population and 30% of the world’s automobiles, but it contributes 45% of the world’s automotive CO2 emissions.17 Thus, reducing car use and increasing fuel efficiency of cars are essential steps in reversing human-induced climate change.  According to Dan Becker, the Director of the Safe Climate Campaign, the improvements in fuel efficiency standards that President Obama announced last month are, “the biggest single step to curbing global warming.  It’s a major step forward in cutting auto emissions.” 18

Accidents In the last century or so, cars have killed at least 30 million people, perhaps many more—each year cars kill 1.2 million and injure 50 million.19 According to the World Health Organization, traffic deaths and injuries are rising worldwide, likely to double by 2020 and automobile accidents are the leading cause of death for 10 to 24 years old.19 Children in less developed countries (LDCs), especially those in densely populated cities, experience the highest burden of automobile injuries, dying at six times the rate of children in higher income countries and accounting for 96% of all children killed in traffic collisions.13 The US automobile industry has a long record of opposing public health measures to improve car safety including seat belts, air bags and auto-locking brakes.  Over the 20th century, as consumer and government pressure forced the US auto industry to add safety devices, auto deaths and injuries fell dramatically.  Still, in the 1990s, automaker decisions to promote SUVs at the expense of sedans contributed to thousands of preventable deaths in the US from rollovers, crashes and collisions with pedestrians.20

Obesity/physical inactivity More recently, automobiles and the cities and suburbs designed to accommodate them have been implicated as one factor contributing to rising rates of obesity.  As cars have become more central in many transport systems, people are less likely to walk to shops or work and fewer children walk to school. One study found that each additional hour spent in the car was associated with a 6% increase in the likelihood of obesity.21

How will the restructuring of the auto industry influence its impact on these and other health outcomes?

Box 1 lists possible implications of some of the previously described trends.  Future research will need to test these possible associations across time and place, seeking to gain insights into the pathways by which changes in auto industry practices lead to changes in health and health behavior.  In addition, changes in the automobile industry are likely to be associated with other changes in the global economy, trends which may interact to produce positive or negative health consequences.

Box 1. Possible Health Consequences of Changes in the Auto Industry

Trend

Possible Health Effects

Fewer automobiles produced

Less driving, less air pollution including C02 emissions, fewer accidents and injuries, more walking and less obesity

Higher proportion of smaller more fuel efficient cars

Less air pollution including less carbon dioxide emissions and less global warming

Fewer miles driven

Less air pollution, fewer accidents and injuries, more walking and less obesity

Higher rates of automobile ownership  in Asia, Africa and Latin America

More air pollution, more accidents and injuries, and less physical activity, exacerbating North-South health inequities

Finally, any review of the health consequences of the auto industry restructuring must acknowledge the profound adverse impact on workers in the automobile industry and on the communities where the auto industry has been centered.  Hundreds of thousands of auto workers have and will lose their jobs and often their health insurance, putting them at risk of prolonged unemployment, home foreclosure, and high levels of stress.  In addition, these catastrophic losses are concentrated in a few cities and regions, most notably Detroit and its suburbs, in the US, where they further jeopardize the well-being of populations already suffering from more than two decades of deindustrialization.

Future policy and research for a healthier auto industry

In the US, as in the rest of the world, the goal is not simply to restore the auto industry to a health that has often sickened the world by producing unsafe, polluting and environmentally damaging cars.  To avoid this future, auto makers, government policy makers, public health and environmental professionals, labor unions, and advocates will need to engage in an ongoing dialogue.  Here, Corporations and Health Watch suggests some proposals that may help to spark this dialogue.

1. Move from state to federal regulation for automobile safety and environmental standards.

In the past many years, public health and environmental activists have often emphasized state rather than federal regulation because of the business friendly environment in Washington. The recent economic crisis and the 2008 election may provide a window of opportunity to move the action back to Washington where decisions can benefit the population as a whole and pressure industry to meet consistent standards.   Industry may now be willing to support such a move, at least in those cases where federal regulation doesn’t threaten profits. As the Alliance of Auto Manufacturers noted in May, a national program for regulating CO2 “avoids conflicting standards from different regulatory agencies, and it gives automakers much needed certainty for long-term product planning.”22

2. Reinvigorate the National Highway Safety and Transport Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency.

For the federal government to play a positive role in reducing the health and environmental consequences of the automobile industry, it will need a vigorous and science-based regulatory infrastructure, much of which was decimated under the Bush Administration.  Rebuilding these agencies will provide the means to implement new policies.

3.  Consider the quid that tax payers can expect for the quo of the auto industry bailout.

Bailouts are not, by themselves, a solution to the auto industry’s problem.  As Joseph Romm, a former US Energy Department staffer, wrote recently in Salon, “when you bail someone out of jail, there is no guarantee that he won’t jump bail, and even less of a guaranteed that he won’t ultimately end up in jail anyway.”23 So continued government support has to be contingent on auto makers acting in the public interest.  Among the auto industry practices US tax payers ought not to subsidize are: deceptive advertising that implies big cars are safe, design of cars that are environmentally damaging, or lobbying to thwart public health protections.

Film maker Michael Moore, who 20 years ago showed the seamy side of GM in his film “Roger and Me,” recently suggested that President Obama24 follow the example President Roosevelt set after the attack on Pearl Harbor.  Then, FDR ordered GM to halt car production and begin to produce planes, tanks and machine guns. Now, Moore urged Obama to convert our auto factories into ones capable of building mass transit vehicles and alternative energy devices.

4. Construct clear, compelling narratives and frames to present the issues facing the American auto industry to the American public.

For decades the US auto industry has opposed reforms that will reduce the public health and environmental harms its products cause, and, for decades, the American public has had difficulty contesting the industry’s self-serving arguments. Now the American public is much less likely to trust auto industry executives to decide what’s best for America. To realize this opportunity, public health and environmental advocates will need to find new language and narratives to help Americans consider their options.  Recently, the psychologist Drew Westen and the pollster Celina Lake suggested some frameworks for discussions about auto industry reform, illustrated in the diagram below, in which the words in blue suggest future directions and those in red the policies we want to escape.25

In the coming years, the auto industry will continue to change. Whether public health and environmental advocates will be able to influence those changes for the better depends on our success in engaging a wide variety of constituencies in policy debates about the future of the car.  By understanding the health and environmental consequences of these changes and communicating them clearly, we have an opportunity to join the discussion.

By Nicholas Freudenberg, Distinguished Professor and Founder and Director of Corporations and Health Watch.

References

1 Broder JM. Obama to Toughen Rules on Emissions and Mileage. New York Times, May 18,2009. Available at:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/business/19emissions.html?_r=2

2 Uchitelle L. Once a key to recovery, Detroit adds to the pain.  New York Times, June 1, 2009, p. B1, 3.

3 Cited in Rennert M. Global auto industry in crisis.  Worldwatch Institute, May 18,2009. Available at:http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6113.

4 Freyssenet.A Major Battle Is Joined Over the Transition to the Clean Car. Tuesday 03 March 2009. Truthout. Originally Published in Le Monde  Available at http://www.truthout.org/030509G

5 Bradsher K.  Miles to go in China.  Thursday, May 28, 2009, p. B1.

6 Bradsher K. China influence grows with car sales. New York Times, April 20, 2009.

7 Rennert M. Global auto industry in crisis.  Worldwatch Institute, May 18,2009. Available at: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6113

8 KPMG International.  Momentum: KPMG’s Global Auto Executive Survey 2009.  Available at:http://www.kpmg.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Momentum-KPMG-Auto-Executive-Survey-2009.pdf

9 International Trade Administration.  The Road Ahead for the U.S. Auto Market.  U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., 2008.

10 Mouawad J. Gas is up; drivers may not cut back.  New York Times, May 21, 2009.

11 Ladd B.  Autophobia Love and hate in the Automotive Age.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.

12 Woodcock J, Aldred R. Cars, corporations, and commodities: Consequences for the social determinants of health. Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2008 ;21;5:4.

13 Dauvernge, P. 2008. The Shadows of Consumption  Consequences for the Global Environment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008.

14 Macintyre S, Ellaway A, Der G, Ford G, Hunt K. Do housing tenure and car access predict health because they are simply markers of income or self esteem? A Scottish study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52(10):657-64.

15 “Urban Transport.” Encyclopedia of Public Health. Ed. Lester Breslow. Gale Cengage, 2002. eNotes.com. 2006. 23 Jun, 2009 http://www.enotes.com/public-health-encyclopedia/urban-transport

16 Broder JM. EPA clears way for greenhouse gas rules. New York Times, April 18,2009. Available at:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/science/earth/18endanger.html

18 Tankerley R, Simon R. US to limit greenhouse gas emissions from autos.  Los Angeles Times, May 19th, 2009. Available athttp://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/19/nation/na-emissions19.

19 World Health Organization and World Bank. World Report on Road Traffic Injury and Prevention. Geneva, Switzerland, 2004.

20 Bradsher K. High and Mighty SUVs: The World’s most Dangerous Vehicles and how they Got that Way. New York, NY: Public Affairs; 2002.

21 Frank LD, Andresen MA, Schmid TL. Obesity relationships with community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars. Am J Prev Med. 2004 Aug;27(2):87-96.

22 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers,. Automakers support President in development of national program for autos. Press Release, May 18, 2009. Available at:  http://www.autoalliance.org/index.cfm?objectid=55B4BAFF-1D09-317F-BBB0DA0B7783C956

23 Romm, J. Is Detroit Worth Saving? Salon.  November 12, 2008. Available at:http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2008/11/12/barack_obama_detroit/

24 Moore, M. Goodbye GM. June 1, 2009. Available at: http://michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php

Photo Credits:
1. trashd 
2. thomashawk
3. httpdcmaster