Tracking the effects of corporate practices on health
Firearms
Firearms, including handguns, rifles, automatic weapons and other military equipment are a leading cause of premature death and injury around the world, especially for young people. In the United States and elsewhere, firearms manufacturers and makers of other military weapons have a big influence on weapons-related public policies.
Last week, a man was arrested in Ohio for an alleged ISIS-inspired plot to attack the U.S. Capitol with gunfire and pipe bombs. According to the government’s criminal complaint, to prepare for the attack Christopher Cornell bought two AR-15 style semiautomatic assault rifles manufactured by the American gun company ArmaLite, along with approximately 600 rounds of ammunition.
ArmaLite is one of the nation’s leading manufacturers of AR-type semiautomatic assault rifles. The way the company markets and sells these weapons is as revealing as it is typical of today’s militarized firearms industry. An ArmaLite ad for the same type of firearm purchased by this prospective terrorist displays a man clad in military gear, and features the slogan: “WHATEVER YOUR MISSION ARMALITE IS READY.” Apparently even if your mission is attacking the U.S. Capitol.
Last week, I wrote about some of the 2014 news stories that revealed how the auto, pharmaceutical and alcohol industries had harmed health. In this post, I turn to some of the top stories in last year’s coverage of the other industries Corporations and Health Watch follows: food and beverages, firearms and tobacco.
Early this month, the New York Times reported that Coca-Cola says it will cut between 1,600 and 1,800 jobs in coming months to trim costs. These moves are part of an ongoing restructuring to reflect declining sales of Coca Cola in the United States—and in many other parts of the world. In October, Coca-Cola announced it hoped to cut costs by $3 billion a year through a variety of measures. The savings would be used to pay for more marketing to drive up beverage sales.
But throughout the year, business analysts have been questioning Coke’s strategy. For example, Bloomberg BusinessWeek carried a story called Coke Confronts Its Big Fat Problem. It concluded:
Americans may not have figured out the answer to the obesity epidemic, but for years they’ve pointed to Coca-Cola and other soda as one of the causes. Coke has tried fighting against this. It’s tried ignoring it. Now it accepts this as a reality… (The company) has to persuade people to drink Coca-Cola again, even if they don’t guzzle it like water the way they did before.
recognizing that the big problem is the leadership team’s fixation with defending its Coke brand, rather than finding new growth businesses as the market moves away from carbonated soft drinks. This problem requires the CEO and his entire management team to step up their strategy efforts, not just fire the leader who has been updating the branding mechanisms.
For public health, Coke’s failures are our success. The continuing decline in soda consumption is in part a reflection of the health policy and education campaigns that have changed the image of soda that Coke has tried to market. Declining sales at Coke now hold the promise of less diabetes and diet-related diseases in the future. Key questions for the coming years are will Coke’s fizzed up advertising be able to delay the shift in tastes and to what extent will the company apply tobacco industry response to flat sales in the US by stepping up marketing in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
When e-cigarettes were introduced a few years ago, it wasn’t clear if the makers of this product would take business away from the tobacco industry or become a subsidiary of the nicotine delivery business. Last year, most of the world’s largest tobacco companies expanded their e-cigarette business, suggesting the emergence of an integrated Big Nicotine business. For example, according to Bloomberg Businessweek, R.J. Reynolds in 2014 scaled up marketing of its Vuse brand of e-cigarettes from four states to a national market. Lorillard sells Blu eCigs and controls about 40 percent of the current market. Altria Group owns two e-cig brands and plans to expand nationally as well. While some public health advocates continue to argue that e-cigarettes have the potential to reduce tobacco use, others make the case that the increasing control of the e-cigarette market by transnational tobacco companies does not bode well for this product being used to advance public health or reduce the demand for nicotine products. As public health advocates debate our positions on e-cigarettes, we need to keep our eyes not just on the theoretical potential of a new technology but on the actual practices of the industry that makes and markets the product.
Just as policy battles on abortion and gay marriage have bounced between state and federal levels over the last decade, the fight on gun safety, long played out on the federal level, has now bounced back to the state level. Earlier this month, the New York Times noted that,
“the gun control movement, blocked in Congress and facing mounting losses in federal elections, is tweaking its name, refining its goals and using the same-sex marriage movement as a model to take the fight to voters on the state level.”
Last November, Washington state voters approved a ballot measure that will require broader background checks on gun buyers and gun safety advocates are looking to add ballot measures in 2016 in Nevada, Arizona, Maine and Oregon.
At the same time, gun rights advocates are using state legislatures to seek to overturn federal guns laws. According to one report, eight states have recently passed laws voiding federal firearms regulations and in the last decade more than 200 such bills have been considered by states.
A recent report by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence found that states with stronger gun regulation have lower gun death rates, and the states with weaker regulation have higher gun death rates. As gun safety advocates study the successes of the gay marriage movement in using state level successes to win national victories, they’ll need to devise strategies that choose the settings and the messages that can ultimately lead to national successes in reducing gun violence.
A landmark treaty regulating the multibillion-dollar global arms trade came into force last month, reports the Associated Press. The new treaty seeks to stop weapons sales to dictators, terrorists and human rights abusers. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said the pact reflects the commitment of states, international organizations and civil society “to stop irresponsible arms transfers.”
Every year, more than 30,000 Americans die from gun violence. But there’s more to the story. The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence has been fighting for smart gun laws for over 20 years, and we’ve noticed a trend: the states with stronger gun regulation have lower gun death rates, and the states with weaker regulation have higher gun death rates.
By grading all 50 states on their gun laws and showing the clear correlation between smart gun laws and reduced gun violence, we can encourage state legislators to adopt the common-sense solutions that will save lives. And not just at home—we found that states with the weakest gun laws are also responsible for trafficking the most crime guns.
The good news is that there’s been tremendous progress. Since the horrific tragedy at Sandy Hook in 2012, 37 states have passed an unprecedented 99 laws strengthening gun regulation. Ten states have enacted major overhauls.
We grade the states each year to urge our leaders to build on the momentum for smart gun laws in America, stand up to the gun lobby, and not rest until the entire country has an A+.
Here are some examples of new legislation this year:
California enacted the groundbreaking Gun Violence Restraining Order law. Crafted in response to this summer’s tragic shooting in Isla Vista, where the shooter exhibited warning signs of dangerous behavior, this lifesaving new law allows family members and law enforcement officers to ask a court to disarm people who are a danger to themselves or others and prohibit them from purchasing or possessing guns.
In Washington State, voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative requiring background checks for all firearms, making Washington the ninth state, plus the District of Columbia, to require background checks on private sales at the point of transfer. An additional eight states require background checks when an individual applies for a permit to purchase a firearm.
Raising its smart gun law grade, Massachusetts passed a comprehensive bill strengthening its gun laws in the areas of domestic violence, background checks, and licensing of gun owners.
Please join the Coalition Against Gun Violence (CAGV) in a Campaign to Divest the University of California system of its holdings in the gun manufacturing industry.
In the wake of the May 23, 2014, tragedy in Isla Vista, California, the University of California Santa Barbara community, Campaign to Unload, and CAGV have come together to turn grief into action. Along with students, faculty and alumni we are demanding action from the University of California: Transparency of its $88 billion endowment and a ban on all future investments in the gun industry.
The UC community deserves to know whether its institution is helping to fund gun violence; and the governing board of the University of California has a moral obligation to take a clear stance against investing in the gun industry that continues to endanger the UC community and the nation.
The Regents of the University of California must stand with UCSB and fight to prevent more senseless tragedy by pledging it will not invest in gun violence.
After Jay Leno cancelled his appearance at the firearms industry 2015 SHOT Show State of the Industry Dinner, the National Sports Shooting Foundation, a gun industry trade group, issued a statement: “we are clearly disappointed by Jay Leno’s decision … He unilaterally cancelled his promised appearance due to pressure from the anti-gun lobby, which included false statements about our industry and its commitment to genuine firearms safety, which we attempted to personally correct with him, but to no avail… (We are not) unfamiliar with the bullying political tactics of the gun control groups that seem to have as little respect for the First Amendment as they continually demonstrate with regard to the Second Amendment.”
Relaxed rules for carrying concealed guns in public may not be challenged by California state officials or advocacy groups, a federal appeals panel decided, reports the Los Angeles Times. The decision was another victory for gun rights advocates, but it was not likely to be the last word. The state has the right to appeal Wednesday’s order and legal analysts expect the state to do so.
Background checks are back, reports Slate. Last week, Vice President Biden said that five U.S. senators—enough to change the outcome—have told him they’re looking for a way to switch their votes and pass legislation requiring a criminal background check for the purchase of a firearm. Sen. Joe Manchin, the West Virginia Democrat who led the fight for the bill, is firing back at the National Rifle Association with a new TV ad. The White House, emboldened by polls that indicate damage to senators who voted against the bill, is pushing Congress to reconsider it.
Money on both sides of the gun-control debate is pouring into the governor’s race in Connecticut, reports the Wall Street Journal, where the issue has taken on deep resonance since the deadly shooting at a Newtown school. Americans for Responsible Solutions, founded by former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, has spent about $750,000 on the race. The National Shooting Sports Foundation says it will be spending “a multiple of seven figures” on races in Connecticut and Colorado, which also has recently passed gun restrictions.
PR Newswire reports that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has launched a video, website and scorecard exposing members of Congress for the campaign dollars they have taken from the corporate gun lobby, while blocking life-saving legislation that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The lapdogscorecard.org website and video calls out all legislators based on two simple criteria: do they take money from the corporate gun lobby, and do they support expanding Brady background checks to online and gun show sales?
Corporations and Health Watch 