Energy drinks are the fastest-growing part of the beverage industry, reports the New York Times, with sales in the United States reaching more than $10 billion in 2012 — more than Americans spent on iced tea, or sports beverages like Gatorade. The drinks are now under scrutiny by the Food and Drug Administration after reports of deaths and serious injuries that may be linked to their high caffeine content. However that review ends, one thing is clear, interviews with researchers and a review of scientific studies show: the energy-drink industry is based on a brew of ingredients that, apart from caffeine, have little, if any benefit for consumers.
The bribery aisle: How Wal-Mart got its way in Mexico
In its continuing investigation of the illegal practices of Wal-Mart corporation, the New York Times reports that “Wal-Mart de Mexico was not the reluctant victim of a corrupt culture that insisted on bribes as the cost of doing business. Nor did it pay bribes merely to speed up routine approvals. Rather, Wal-Mart de Mexico was an aggressive and creative corrupter, offering large payoffs to get what the law otherwise prohibited. It used bribes to subvert democratic governance — public votes, open debates, transparent procedures. It used bribes to circumvent regulatory safeguards that protect Mexican citizens from unsafe construction. It used bribes to outflank rivals.”
Beyoncé and Lebron James help Pepsi and Coke to promote obesity and diabetes
Beyoncé, the pop star, and PepsiCo, the soda company, have signed a new deal to promote each other, reports the New York Times. The multiyear campaign, estimated to cost $50 million, will bring benefits to both parties. “Pepsi embraces creativity and understands that artists evolve,” explained Beyoncé. “As a businesswoman, this allows me to work with a lifestyle brand with no compromise and without sacrificing my creativity.”
For Pepsi, explains the Times, “the goal is to enhance its reputation with consumers by acting as something of an artistic patron instead of simply paying for celebrity endorsements.” “Consumers are seeking a much greater authenticity in marketing from the brands they love,” said Brad Jakeman, president of Pepsi’s global beverage group. “It’s caused a shift in the way we think about deals with artists, from a transactional deal to mutually beneficial collaboration.”
Unfortunately, not everyone benefits from such collaboration. While many factors have contributed to the rise in obesity and diabetes, no product has been more consistently implicated in the rise than the sugary beverages that are the lifeblood of Coke and Pepsi’s profits. In the first six months of 2012, the two companies spent $148 million to promote their products on TV, radio, print and digital ads, what’s known as measured media. They spent much more advertising in other countries around the world, nation’s whose obesity and diabetes rates are also rising.
Can public health advocates play a role in discouraging multimillionaire celebrities from sickening the fans that made them rich? (According to Celebrity Networth, Beyoncé’s 2012 net worth is $350 million.)
Abdul El-Sayed, a social epidemiologist and physician-in-training at the Columbia University School of Public Health, has an idea. In a recent post on the 2 X 2 Project, a blog of the Department of Epidemiology at Columbia University, he writes an open letter to Lebron James. James, the Miami Heat basketball star, has contracts with Coke and McDonalds. In his letter, El Sayed writes:
LeBron, your agreement to advertise Sprite for the Coca-Cola Company is worth $16 Million over six years. Let’s do a little math to estimate how much sugar you’ll sell to our kids over that period.
Assuming that Coca-Cola breaks even on the deal (which is at least what it will do), then you should make the company back at least $16 million over six years. Coca-Cola makes about 21 cents on the dollar over all the products it sells, and a 20-ounce Sprite costs $1.39 on average. If Coca-Cola makes the same profit on 20-ounce Sprites, that means that you’ll have sold at least the equivalent of 54.4 million 20-ounce Sprites over the course of your six-year contract. Now, each one of those 20-ounce Sprites has 16 spoons of sugar in it, so LeBron, you’re responsible for selling over a billion spoons of sugar. Not to mention all of the McDonald’s grease you’re selling.
Beyond the billion spoons of sugar and the millions of Big Macs you’ll sell, perhaps the worst impact of your endorsements is the confusion it creates in kids’ minds.
Children see you accomplish extraordinary athletic feats on the basketball court night in and night out. At the same time, though, they see you supporting products their parents and doctors tell them are unhealthy. As young, impressionable children, that creates confusion about what is and is not healthy for them. After all, kids must think, how can Sprite and McDonald’s be unhealthy if LeBron James, the pinnacle of sports, is telling me to buy them?
The open letter to James ends with a plea:
In the end, whether you like it or not, you are a role model in our society. Kids look up to you—many want to be just like you. While it may be unfair to expect that you weigh in on all of society’s problems, you do have particular weight when it comes to this one, which you represent—whether you like it or not—as an athlete. Don’t allow yourself to be used as a tool to confuse the messaging about what is and is not healthy for our kids.
LeBron, if you’re reading this, I know you know how to step it up and lead: I watched you do it in the finals against OKC, and I watched you do it again this summer in London. This is your opportunity to step it up in a bigger way. Be the leader we know you can be, and take a stand against endorsements for companies that are making our kids obese. Just like on the court, if you lead, others will follow.
El Sayed also asks readers to tweet the article @kingjames with #LebronForTheKids and to post it LeBron’s Facebook wall: https://www.facebook.com/LeBron
The takers: State and local governments subsidize corporations
In his campaign for President, Mitt Romney famously charged that 47% of the American population paid no federal income tax and “are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.” A new investigation by the New York Times identifies another category of taker: the corporations who take more than $80 billion in subsidies each year from state and local governments. According to the Times, these governments award $9.1 million in corporate subsidies every hour. More than 5,000 companies have been awarded a total of more than $1 million each in local subsidies. Using the database of state and local government subsidies to corporations created by the New York Times, the table below shows 25 selected companies frequently mentioned in Corporations and Health Watch that received more than $1 million in subsidies. The largest recipient of local government subsidies was the automobile industry. The top three US car companies alone received $4.75 billion in local subsidies in the period reviewed by the New York Times. Most troubling, the Times investigation noted:
A portrait arises of mayors and governors who are desperate to create jobs, outmatched by multinational corporations and short on tools to fact-check what companies tell them. Many of the officials said they feared that companies would move jobs overseas if they did not get subsidies in the United States. Over the years, corporations have increasingly exploited that fear, creating a high-stakes bazaar where they pit local officials against one another to get the most lucrative packages. States compete with other states, cities compete with surrounding suburbs, and even small towns have entered the race with the goal of defeating their neighbors.
The Times further observed that for many communities, “the payouts add up to a substantial chunk of their overall spending… Oklahoma and West Virginia give up amounts equal to about one-third of their budgets, and Maine allocates nearly a fifth.” As national, state and local officials debate about how best to balance revenues and expenses, corporate subsidies deserve further scrutiny. CHW readers can visit the Times searchable database to examine their states’ record or the subsidies received by corporations they are tracking.
|
|
Name of Company |
Total Subsidy |
Number of Grants |
Number of States |
|
General Motors |
$1.77 billion |
208 |
16 |
|
|
Ford |
$1.58 billion |
119 |
8 |
|
|
Chrysler |
$1.4 billion |
14 |
3 |
|
|
Orca Bay Seafood |
$296 million |
4 |
1 |
|
|
Fresh Direct |
$131 million |
9 |
1 |
|
|
Archer Daniels Midland |
$110 million |
23 |
6 |
|
|
Daimler |
$101 million |
24 |
8 |
|
|
Toyota Motor Company |
$96.5 million |
16 |
5 |
|
|
Pfizer |
$92.9 million |
44 |
9 |
|
|
Walmart Stores |
$80.5 million |
176 |
23 |
|
|
Merck and Company |
$60.7 million |
18 |
5 |
|
|
Coca Cola Bottling |
$49 million |
61 |
16 |
|
|
Diageo |
$40 million |
7 |
2 |
|
|
Abbott Laboratories |
$14.7 million |
21 |
9 |
|
|
Pepsi Cola(various franchises) |
$13.3 million |
23 |
9 |
|
|
Jim Beam Brands |
$10.8 million |
7 |
1 |
|
|
Philip Morris USA |
$8.06 million |
5 |
2 |
|
|
Remington Arms Company |
$8.32 million |
13 |
3 |
|
|
Millercoors |
$7.46 |
7 |
4 |
|
|
Smith & Wesson |
$6.16 million |
9 |
1 |
|
|
Lorillard Tobacco Company |
$5.5 million |
2 |
1 |
|
|
Anheuser-Busch |
$4.62 million |
2 |
2 |
|
|
Cargill |
$4.4 million |
9 |
5 |
|
|
Reynolds Tobacco Company |
$3.09 million |
1 |
1 |
|
|
Pernod Ricard |
$1 million |
1 |
1 |
Health groups tell Nickelodeon to stop hawking junk food
A coalition of health groups is calling on Nickelodeon to stop airing commercials that promote unhealthy foods. The Hill reports that the groups urged the channel and its parent company, Viacom, to implement strong nutrition standards for the foods marketed on Nickelodeon and by its shows’ characters. SpongeBob SquarePants and Dora the Explorer should not be licensed to advertise foods like imitation fruit snacks or Popsicles, the American Academy of Pediatrics and others wrote. “Research shows that food marketing is an important factor contributing to children’s poor diets and obesity,” the letter stated. “The majority of foods marketed to children remain of poor nutritional quality. The [federal Institute of Medicine] concluded that marketing puts children’s health at risk.”
Taxing for health
Taxing products that harm health has long been part of the public health’s armamentarium to reduce the impact of harmful corporate practices. As the global economic crisis continues and the austerity mentality feeds government hunger for new sources of support, politicians look for streams of revenue that can win public support. Recent media coverage of several political debates about taxes designed to promote health illustrate the potential and pitfalls of this strategy.
In France, the new socialist government has proposed a new tax on beer that would increase the price of a half pint of beer by six cents. According to the New York Times, the government offers a public health rationale for the beer tax. There has been an “excessive alcoholization, in particular of youth, with beer more than with wine,” said Jérôme Cahuzac, the budget minister. French beer taxes are among the lowest in the 27-state European Union, he noted, and the scheduled increase would leave them only the 10th highest, lower than in Britain, Spain and the Netherlands.
The Socialist government has also said it will increase the value-added tax, a type of consumption tax, in several sectors of the food industry, including restaurant meals, to 10 percent from 7 percent, partly reversing a reduction made by the previous center-right government. In addition, France’s social security budget, which is in the final stages of the legislative process, also includes heavier taxes on tobacco and new ones on energy drinks. Proposed new taxes total about $30 billion; the increase in the beer tax is expected to generate an additional $625 million.
Not surprisingly, bar owners oppose the new tax, fearing it will cut their business. Others complain that the tax increase is just on beer, not wine, an important sector of the national economy. One supporter of the bill, Even Gérard Bapt, a Socialist legislator, expressed the opinion that the “increase would have to be much more significant to have a real moderating effect on consumption.”
While the socialist government in France is proposing new consumption taxes, Danish lawmakers from the center-right party earlier this month have killed a controversial “fat tax” one year after its implementation, reports the Wall Street Journal. They acted after deciding its negative effect on the economy and the strain it has put on small businesses outweighed the health benefits.
The new tax led to increases of up to 9 percent on products such as butter, oil, sausage, cheese and cream. “What made consumers upset was probably that an extra tax was put on a natural ingredient,” Sinne Smed, a professor at the Institute of Food and Resource Economics in Copenhagen, told the Journal.
The fat tax brought an estimated $216 million in 2012 in new revenue. To make up for the lost revenue, Danish lawmakers will raise income taxes slightly and reduce personal tax deductions. The lawmakers also reversed an earlier decision to create a sugar tax. The fat tax was created in 2011 to address Denmark’s rising obesity rates and relatively low life expectancy. There is little evidence the tax impacted consumers financially, reports the Journal, but it did spark a shift in consumer habits. Many Danes have bought lower-cost alternatives, or in some cases hopped the border to Germany, where prices are roughly 20% lower, or to Sweden.
In a commentary in the New Scientist on the repeal of Denmark’s fat tax Marion Nestle, the New York University nutritionist, disputed the contention that Denmark’s decision was based on health:
Nobody likes taxes, and the fat tax was especially unpopular among Danish consumers, who resented having to pay more for butter, dairy products and meats – foods naturally high in fat. But the real reason for the repeal was to appease business interests. The ministry of taxation’s rationale was that the levy on fatty foods raised the costs of doing business, put Danish jobs at risk and drove customers to buy food in Sweden and Germany…. Governments must decide whether they want to bear the political consequences of putting health before business interests. The Danish government cast a clear vote for business. At some point, governments will need to find ways to make food firms responsible for the health problems their products cause. When they do, we are likely to see immediate improvements in food quality and health. Let’s hope this happens soon.
Another approach to public health taxes has been suggested by outgoing Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich. He has proposed a bill HR 4310 End The Childhood Obesity Subsidy Act that would prohibit any company from claiming a tax deduction for the expense of marketing that is directed at children “to promote the consumption of food at fast food restaurants or of food of poor nutritional quality.” In a November press release and video, Kucinich argues:
According to the Institute of Medicine, ‘Aggressive marketing of high-calorie foods to children and adolescents has been identified as one of the major contributors to childhood obesity.’ We can end this tax break, improve our kids’ health and reduce our nation’s debt all at the same time. It’s time to stop subsidizing the childhood obesity epidemic.
Under current law, the federal tax code allows companies to deduct “reasonable and necessary” expenses of marketing and advertising from their income taxes. Fast food marketers get the same break that other businesses do.
So what do these three recent stories from different parts of the world tell us about the use of taxation to promote health and end harmful corporate practices?
First, taxes on products that harm health will always generate intense opposition from a variety of business interests, from local retailers to the world’s largest corporations. Advocates who propose such taxes better expect such opposition and be ready to counter it.
Second, finding the balance between a level of taxation that will actually discourage use and one that is politically feasible in a particular context requires scientific analysis of the available literature and political analysis of the opportunities and constraints. A May 2012 review in the British Medical Journal concluded that
Taxes on unhealthy food and drinks would need to be at least 20% to have a significant effect on diet-related conditions such as obesity and heart disease. Ideally, this should be combined with subsidies on healthy foods such as fruit and vegetables, they add.
Advocates need to assess the potential for achieving health goals with a proposed tax and consider the pros and cons of a variety of alternative strategies before deciding to pursue the tax route.
Finally, as Kucinich’s proposal suggests, changing the tax code to promote health is not limited to taxes that lead to direct increases in consumer prices. Dozens of corporate subsidies enable low prices for unhealthy products and supporting changes in taxation that limit these subsidies may offer promoting political opportunities for discouraging harmful corporate practices. Given the key role that marketing plays in promoting unhealthy behaviors, environments and lifestyles, a closer analysis of tax subsidies for advertising that harms health seems warranted.
More choices but no decline in calories at major fast food outlets
Although the number of lunch and dinner menu items offered by leading fast-food chain restaurants has increased by 53% between 1997 and 2010, there have been few changes in the energy content of these offerings, according to a new study published in the November issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Despite efforts by the industry to promote more healthful choices, the major outlets have made limited changes in the energy content of fast-food offerings.
Lies, Dirty Tricks, and $45 Million Kill GMO Labeling in California
Cross-posted from Appetite for Profit
California’s Proposition 37, which would have required labeling of GMO foods, died a painful death last night. Despite polling in mid-September showing an overwhelming lead, the measure lost by 53 to 47 percent, which is relatively close considering the No side’s tactics.
As I’ve been writing about, the opposition has waged a deceptive and ugly campaign, fueled by more than $45 million, mostly from the leading biotech, pesticide, and junk food companies. Meanwhile, the Yes side raised almost $9 million, which is not bad, but being outspent by a factor of five is tough to overcome.
While we can always expect industry to spend more, the various groups fighting GMOs for years probably could have been better coordinated. I was dismayed and confused by all the fundraising emails I received from different nonprofits on Prop 37 and wondered why they weren’t pooling their resources.
But would more money and better strategy have made a difference? Given the opposition’s tactics, it seems unlikely. I am not easily shocked by corporate shenanigans but the No on 37 campaign is my new poster child for propaganda and dirty tricks. It’s worth recapping the most egregious examples.
Lying in the California voter guide: The No campaign listed four organizations in the official state document mailed to voters as concluding that “biotech foods are safe.” One of them, the American Council on Science and Health, is a notorious industry front group that only sounds legit. Another, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, actually has no position and complained about being listed. (I was attending the group’s annual meeting when this came to light and promptly notified the Yes campaign, but the damage was already done.) The other two organizations, the National Academy of Sciences and the World Health Organization, in fact have more nuanced positions on GMOs than just “safe.”
Misuse of a federal seal and quoting the Food and Drug Administration: This one caused even my jaded draw to drop. In a mailer sent to California voters, the No campaign printed the following text along side the FDA logo: “The US Food and Drug Administration says a labeling policy like Prop 37 would be “inherently misleading.” That is exactly how they wrote it, with the incorrectly-placed quotation marks. How can a $45 million campaign make a mistake like that? They can’t, it’s deliberately confusing. It also may even be a violation of criminal law to use a federal seal in this manner. I am told that some California voters were fooled into thinking FDA opposed the measure. Of course, that was the idea.
Misrepresenting academic affiliation: More than once, the No campaign gave the false impression that its go-to expert Henry Miller was a professor at Stanford University, in violation the school’s own policy. (In fact, he’s with the Hoover Institute, housed on the Stanford campus.) Only when Stanford complained did the No campaign edit the TV ad, but many already saw it, and then they repeated the lie in a mailer.
Deploying unfounded scare tactics: I fully expected the No side to use distracting arguments to scare voters while ignoring the merits of issue. But they took this common industry strategy to new heights, making wild claims about higher food prices, “shakedown lawsuits,” and “special interest exemptions.” While each of these claims is easily debunked, being outspent on ad dollars makes it hard to compete, especially when all you can really say is, “that’s not true.”
Additional lies and dirty tricks: 1) claiming the San Francisco Examiner recommended a no vote when in fact the paper endorsed yes; 2) putting up doctors and academic experts on the dole from Big Biotech as spokespeople without disclosing the conflict of interest; 3) securing a major science group’s endorsement just two weeks before Election Day; 4) somehow convincing every major California newspaper to endorse a no vote, often with the very same industry talking points; and 5) placing ads in deceptive mailers that looked like they came from the Democratic party, cops, and green groups.
Each of these tactics, combined with a $45 million megaphone to spread the lies and deceit, simply overwhelmed the yes side. Some on Twitter criticized Californians for voting no on 37, but do not under-estimate the effectiveness of scare tactics such as claims of higher food prices. Industry uses them because they work. And voters believe the arguments not because they are stupid or don’t care about the food they eat, but because they are pummeled with ads, getting only one side of the story. This is a problem inherent to the proposition process. (I live in California and have seen scare tactics work on everything from tobacco taxes to gay marriage.)
Indeed, the California experience may seem like déjà vu’ all over again to Oregonians who recall the ballot initiative there to label GMO foods in 2002. It lost miserably (70 percent voted no) and guess what the winning argument was then? And that measure also enjoyed an overwhelming lead in early polling, but a muli-million dollar ad blitz in the final weeks claiming higher food costs turned that right around.
While a lot has changed in 10 years for the food movement, the same industry tactics still work. (At least we came a lot closer here in California.) Advocates have also tried in 19 states to go through the legislature and failed there too, thanks to industry lobbying.
It’s a shame because we really need a win at the state level to boost the federal Just Label It campaign, which aims to get the FDA to require labeling. I disagree with Gary Hirshberg, chairman of Stonyfield Farms and leader of Just Label It, for putting all his eggs in the federal basket. While Hirshberg and his company endorsed 37, he donated relatively little to the campaign and was even quoted in the New York Times saying he doesn’t think this problem can be solved state by state. Obviously not, but how does Hirshberg ever expect to get anywhere at the federal level unless and until we can gain traction locally? This is exactly how most policy change is made, especially when we face massive industry opposition. Some are already predicting that the California loss will set back the effort nationally.
But the campaign is still an important step forward in the larger political fight against Big Food, one that raised a lot of awareness about GMOs, food production, and corporate tactics, both in California and nationally. As Twilight Greenaway noted at Grist, win or lose, the effort to pass Proposition 37 in California demonstrates a “bona fide movement gathering steam.”
Now we have to keep gathering more and smarter steam. It was never enough to just be right, or even to have the people on our side. Not when the food industry gets to lie, cheat, and steal its way to victory.
To achieve NCD Targets, WHO should monitor tobacco, alcohol and food industry practices
This week the member states of the World Health Organization are meeting in Geneva to agree on a Global Monitoring Framework for noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). Meeting participants discussed indicators and targets that could be used to assess progress towards achieving the goal of reducing preventable deaths from NCDs by 25 percent by 2025. Also participating in the meeting was the NCD Alliance, a network of more than 2,000 civil society organizations from more than 170 countries. The Global Action Plan and the Global Monitoring Framework on NCDs are a result of the United Nations High-Level Meeting of the General Assembly on NCDs held in New York City in September 2011.
The discussions at the meeting in Geneva focused on what to measure. As shown below, WHO has set 2025 targets as shown in the column on the left and then proposed additional indicators as shown in the middle column. The NCD Alliance has recommended some additional indicators, shown in the column on the right.
These targets and indicators mark an important step forward in controlling NCDs. As Cary Adams, the Chair of the NCD Alliance noted in Geneva , the “commitment to measuring our progress and setting realistic and achievable goals, supported by the investment required, will…make a real difference to those of us who have or will develop NCDs in our lifetime. “
But monitoring changes in health status and health behavior related to NCDs and government NCD prevention policies may not be enough to achieve the stated goals. As several experts have acknowledged, the business and political practices of the alcohol, tobacco and food industries play a critical role in the development of NCDs.[i][ii][iii] Without changes in these practices, it will be difficult to reduce premature deaths. To encourage the discussion of indicators and targets for such monitoring, I suggest some provocative goals for the monitoring of corporate practices.
- Reduce expenditures on marketing alcohol, tobacco and unhealthy foods by the top 10(or 20 or 50) global producers of each of these products by a fixed percentage each year. The alcohol, tobacco and food industries are heavily concentrated with the top firms controlling a significant portion of market share.[iv][v][vi] Since research evidence shows that more marketing leads to more consumption of these products associated with NCDs,[vii] less marketing could reduce exposure to this negative influence.
- Reduce corporate expenditures on lobbying and campaigns contributions for the top 10(or 20 or 50) global producers of alcohol, tobacco and unhealthy food by a fixed percentage each year. Tobacco, alcohol and food corporations have used their political and economic clout to undermine public health protections and to create an environment that allows them to promote behaviors and lifestyles associated with NCDs. [viii][ix][x] Restricting their ability to externalize the costs of the NCDs associated with their products and to thwart the democratic principles of one person one vote could help to prevent premature deaths, reduce government expenditures on health care and restore more democratic processes.
- Require tobacco, alcohol and food companies to commission an independent health impact assessment of any new product or practice and to make the assessment publicly available.
Each year, these companies introduce thousands of new products and practices. Often, however, the adverse health impact is not recognized for years. Requiring companies to hire independent researchers to complete health impact assessments according to uniform standards prior to exposing the population to such practices or products and to make such reports public could discourage companies from releasing into the market inadequately tested products.
How could such targets be monitored? The World Health Organization and other global bodies, the NCD Alliance and its network of NGO partners, national governments and other bodies could each play a role in setting targets and monitoring this indicator. Global organizations could limit participation in international forums to those organizations who achieved targets. Institutional investors could invest in companies that met targets and disinvest from those that did not. National governments could favor companies meeting targets for procurement contracts and penalize those that failed to meet the targets. They could also offer subsidies or tax breaks to companies that achieved targets. Some nations may choose to make these guidelines mandatory, especially for practices implicitly or explicitly designed to increase consumption of unhealthy products by children and young people.
In the current political climate, these proposals will of course elicit intense opposition from corporations and their allies. But 50 years ago the current measures in place to control tobacco use would have been unthinkable. Effective public health officials need to compromise but before they compromise, they have to be able to articulate public health goals that are based on the evidence and have the potential to fulfill the mandate to protect population health. Unless public health professionals, researchers and advocates begin discussing now how to take action to end the corporate practices that contribute to the preventable illnesses and premature mortality that NCDs impose, 50 years from now we’ll still be lamenting the steady increase in the health burden and economic costs imposed by NCDs.
[i] Beaglehole R, Bonita R, Horton R, et al., and the NCD Alliance. Priority actions for the non-communicable disease crisis. Lancet. 2011;377(9775):1438-47.
[ii] Magnusson RS. Rethinking global health challenges: towards a ‘global compact’ for reducing the burden of chronic disease. Public Health. 2009;123(3):265-74.
[iii] Lien G, DeLand K. Translating the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC): can we use tobacco control as a model for other non-communicable disease control? Public Health;125(12):847-53.
[iv] Jernigan DH. The global alcohol industry: an overview. Addiction. 2009 Feb;104 Suppl 1:6-12.
[v] Eriksen M, Mackay J, Ross H. Chapter 18 Tobacco Companies in The Tobacco Atlas 4th Edition pp. 56-57
[vi] Stuckler D, Nestle M. Big food, food systems, and global health. PLoS Med.2012;9(6):e1001242.
[vii] Stuckler D, McKee M, Ebrahim S, Basu S (2012) Manufacturing Epidemics: The Role of Global Producers in Increased Consumption of Unhealthy Commodities Including Processed Foods, Alcohol, and Tobacco. PLoS Med 9(6):e1001235.
[viii] Brownell KD (2012) Thinking Forward: The Quicksand of Appeasing the Food Industry. PLoS Med 9(7):e1001254.
[ix] Freudenberg N. The manufacture of lifestyle: the role of corporations in unhealthy living. J Public Health Policy. 2012 May;33(2):244-56.
[x] Gilmore AB, Savell E, Collin J. Public health, corporations and the new responsibility deal: promoting partnerships with vectors of disease? J PublicHealth (Oxf). 2011;33(1):2-4.
Serving science or Monsanto?
Cross posted from Appetite for Profit
With about a week to go before California voters head to the polls to decide the fate of Proposition 37, which would require GMO foods to be labeled, I expected an already ugly campaign to get even uglier.
But the latest gift to the No on 37 campaign smells especially bad. Last week, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS – goes by “Triple A-S”) released this “statement” on GMO labeling that sounds like it was drafted by Monsanto. The statement ends with the non-scientific but very quote-worthy conclusion that “mandating such a label can only serve to mislead and falsely alarm consumers.” While Prop 37 is never mentioned, what purpose could the timing serve other than persuading Californians to vote no on the measure?
This paragraph of the AAAS press release sounds especially familiar:
Several current efforts to require labeling of GM foods are not being driven by any credible scientific evidence that these foods are dangerous… Rather, GM labeling initiatives are being advanced by “the persistent perception that such foods are somehow ‘unnatural,’” as well as efforts to gain competitive advantages within the marketplace, and the false belief that GM crops are untested.
These talking points come straight from the No on 37 campaign. For example, “gain competitive advantages”? What does that have to do with science? Nothing, but it’s a favorite refrain from the No side, which I know because it showed up on the mailer sent to my home.
Also, it’s not a “false belief” that GM crops are untested, it’s scientific fact. According to David Schubert, professor and Laboratory Head Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory at the Salk Institute: “Any statement suggesting extensive safety testing of all genetically modified crops is absolutely false. A majority of the new GM crops coming through the agriculture biotech pipeline have had zero testing done on them.”
Also, Michael Hansen, senior staff scientist with Consumers Union, notes that unlike in other countries, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require safety testing for genetically-engineered plants or foods. He also says the AAAS statement “is filled with distortion and misleading statements. If mandatory labeling of GM foods would ‘mislead and alarm consumers,’ does the AAAS really believe that 60 other countries are misleading and alarming their consumers?”
Just as suspicious for its pro-biotech spin is how the AAAS statement lists other organizations as claiming that GMO foods are safe to consume, using rhetoric that strongly echoes the No campaign:
The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion…
Where did this handy list come from? The No campaign listed three of these four groups – the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, and the National Academy of Sciences – in the official California voter guide as concluding GMO foods are safe. But in fact, the World Health Organization says that ongoing risk assessments are needed and that “GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.” Meanwhile, the American Medical Association favors pre-market safety testing, which the FDA does not require. How did a science organization miss all of that?
But back to the suspicious timing of the statement’s release: who exactly instigated it? The statement says it’s from the AAAS board of directors. Who are they? The board chair, Nina Federoff has an impressive pedigree, including a stint as science advisor to Condoleezza Rice. Curiously, Federoff has been listed as a leading scientist on the No on 37 website since June, where she is quoted as being “passionately opposed to labeling.” Maybe her previous board membership with Sigma-Aldrich Chemical Company helped drive that passion.
And perhaps the anti-GMO labeling statement from AAAS has been in motion at least since June, timed to be released as Election Day neared. Looking over this page of AAAS “policy statements,” others also seem well-timed, but they are on bland issues that warrant little scientific debate. For example, in March AAAS urged the Tennessee legislature to reject a silly bill aimed at undermining science education on evolution and climate change. Other letters appear to take similarly uncontroversial scientific positions or are simply asking Congress not to cut federal funding for science programs.
So the question remains: Why this position right now? Why would such a mainstream scientific organization stick its neck out on a highly controversial issue just days before the election? And how we can trust any future AAAS statements to be based on science, instead of what this looks like: A carefully-orchestrated political and public relations maneuver that puts the AAAS motto to shame: “Advancing science, serving society.” The only interests this charade serves are those of the biotech, chemical, and junk food industries.
Corporations and Health Watch 