A new investigative report from Reuters found that the Pan American Health Organization has for the first time in its 110-year history taken hundreds of thousands of dollars in money from the food and beverage industry. Accepting industry funding goes against WHO’s worldwide policies. Its Geneva headquarters and five other regional offices have been prohibited from accepting money from the food and soda industries, among others. “If such conflicts of interest were perceived to exist, or actually existed, this would jeopardize WHO’s ability to set globally recognized and respected standards and guidelines,” said spokesman Gregory Härtl.
Vote with our forks, feet or ballots? What directions for the US food movement?
In an article in last week’s New York Times Magazine, food writer Michael Pollan asks whether the US food movement is ready to take on Big Food. He writes:
One of the more interesting things we will learn on Nov. 6 is whether or not there is a “food movement” in America worthy of the name — that is, an organized force in our politics capable of demanding change in the food system. People like me throw the term around loosely, partly because we sense the gathering of such a force, and partly (to be honest) to help wish it into being by sheer dint of repetition. Clearly there is growing sentiment in favor of reforming American agriculture and interest in questions about where our food comes from and how it was produced. And certainly we can see an alternative food economy rising around us: local and organic agriculture is growing far faster than the food market as a whole. But a market and a sentiment are not quite the same thing as a political movement — something capable of frightening politicians and propelling its concerns onto the national agenda.
His November 6th test is “California’s Proposition 37, which would require that genetically modified (G.M.) foods carry a label”. The proposition, he writes, “has the potential to do just that — to change the politics of food not just in California but nationally too.”
To get another test of the pulse of the US food movement, I conducted my own mini-study of the events listed for second annual Food Day, sponsored by the Center for Science in the Public Interest and hundreds of other organizations around the country. I wanted to understand the diversity of issues that motivated people to organize and list events so I reviewed a sample of 200 events of the 1,749 listed as of October 14 on the Food Day website. Here’s what I found:
Of these 200 events, 25 (12.5%) had an explicitly political focus, which I defined by whether the listing mentioned policy, protest or food system change. Another 20 events (10%) didn’t include enough information to determine whether there was political content or not. The remaining 155 events (78%) were celebrations of healthy food, cooking events or harvest festivals. Below is a listing of selected events with a more explicitly political focus. The list shows the geographic and topical diversity of these activities. It gives an overview of some of the issues and tactics that motivate the more political arm of the food movement. (CHW readers who want to sign up for upcoming events –or conduct their own studies of Food Day activities– can visit the Events page on Food Day website.)
Like its predecessor and inspiration, Earth Day, founded in 1970, also provoked debate within the movement. On the one hand, events like Earth and Food Days bring thousands of people to events, link the many issues that inspire activism, and provide multiple opportunities for dialogue and debate. On the other hand, by lumping together celebration of a Harvest Festival and forcing Monsanto to label its products, the movement risks dissipating its focus and priorities, and allowing people to think individuals can change the food system simply by shopping more wisely. It also invites cooptation: many food companies jump on the bandwagon of encouraging healthier food choices by, for example, labeling vitamin-fortified Fruit Loops as a healthy choice. To succeed, movements need to define the source of the problem they combat. If every organization is a potential partner, then none are the target of change.
To be clear, Food Day is a terrific event. Anyone concerned about food justice should support it. It will raise consciousness about food issues for tens of thousands of people. But as we celebrate Food Day events on October 24—and in the weeks before and after, let’s make sure we learn how we can best use Food Day this year and next to build a movement that can truly change our food system.
Some 2012 Food Day Events with a Political Focus
Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette – An Author Presentation Project Rogue Valley and Ashland Food Coop co-host a presentation by Jeffrey M. Smith, author of the book Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette. The presentation supports the efforts of GMO-Free Jackson County. http://jclac.org Thursday, October 11, 2012 at 07:30 PM – 09:00 PM Central Medford High Auditorium in Medford, OR.
World Food Day Asheville 2012 World Food Day Rally & Gathering for our Right2Know
Prichard Park in Downtown Asheville, NC. IN SOLIDARITY WITH SEED FREEDOM’S FORTNIGHT OF ACTION SATURDAY, OCTOBER 13th, 2-5pm. RAISING AWARENESS OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS. SPEAKERS, MUSIC, AND MORE! Sow True Seed…and Grow Wise! & Millions Against Monsanto: Carolinas. For more information, visit:http://www.facebook.com/WorldFoodDayAsheville)Saturday, October 13, 2012 at 02:00 PM – 05:00 PM Pritchard Park in Asheville, NC.
CUESA Prop 37 Volunteer Training At each Ferry Plaza Farmers Market (Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday) till November 6, there will be a Proposition 37 Info area where we’ll need volunteers to talk to market-goers and send them home with info about the proposition. Whether you’ve just heard of the prop and you’re ready to learn more, or you’re already feeling strongly about GMO labeling and you’re ready to take action – I invite you to our volunteer orientation this Saturday the 13th from 2-3 pm. If you are unable to make it on Saturday I’ll host an alternative orientation on Monday evening from 6-7 pm. At the volunteer training we’ll go over the basics of the proposition, cover talking points to share with market-goers, and role-play possible conversations as they might play out at a market. I’ll also have Prop 37 information to send home with you to share and plenty of time during and after the orientation to answer questions. Thank you for your hard work. I look forward to working with you. Saturday, October 13, 2012 at 02:00 PM – 03:00 PM Ferry Building in San Francisco, CA.
Truth About GMOs with Frances Moore Lappe and Jeffery Smith Speaking Out for Healthier Food: The Truth about GMOs Dynamic talks about health risks of genetically modified (GMO) food by investigative writer and educator Jeffrey Smith and how this affects us and our environment by Frances Moore Lappe. Find out the truth about GMOs before you vote in November! Key Note Speakers: Frances Moore Lappe World visionary and author or co-author of 18 books including the three-million copy Diet for a Small Planet and EcoMind: Changing the Way We Think to Create the World We Want. She is the cofounder of three organizations, including Food First: The Institute for Food and Development Policy and the Small Planet Institute. Jeffrey Smith Executive Director, Institute for Responsible Technology, author of the best-selling book Genetic Roulette newly released as a documentary film. Sponsored by: Slow Food San Francisco http://www.slowfoodsanfrancisco.org; Food Policy Fund of the Institute for Responsible Technology; For more info on GMOs: http://www.responsibletechnology.org Sunday, October 14, 2012 at 01:00 PM – 04:00 PM · San Francisco, CA.
World Food Day 2012 Philadelphia Presented by the UN Association of Greater Philadelphia, join us for a celebration of Food Day and World Food Day! We’ll discuss the agriculture pressures of feeding the world, population pressure and global food needs, and local solutions for global problems. Speakers: Dr. Alan Kelly (UPenn): “Urban Food Security in the Developing World”; Bob Pierson (Philadelphia Common Market):“Local Food Cooperatives and Partnerships”; Dr. Alison Buttenheim (UPenn):
“Farmer’s Markets Expanding Access to Healthy Foods”. Sunday, October 14, 2012 at 02:00 PM – 05:00 PM Hopkinson House Solarium in Philadelphia, PA.
Good Food Economy, Growing Food Justice for Food Servers Forum Who is serving the food we enjoy at events, at restaurants, and institutions? Is there a living wage, and under what conditions? Sunday, October 14, 2012 at 01:00 PM – 02:30 PM · First Unitarian Church, Eliot Chapel in Portland, OR.
Unmasking Halloween: Harvest, Health, and Hunger High-fructose corn syrup. Palm Oil. Chocolate. Candy corns. How much candy should I let my child eat? What kind of candy should I give out to other kids? No other holiday tests our ideas of healthy eating more than Halloween. Join registered dietitian Aaron Flores for a discussion on how you can make peace with the candy and help your family enjoy a healthy Halloween. Sunday, October 14, 2012 at 08:00 PM – 10:00 PM. University Synagogue in Los Angeles, CA.
Reel Eats: What’s On Your Plate This is the first screening in the monthly People’s Coop Film Series “REEL EATS.” People’s members get discounted admission. Only $2. Opportunity for discussion following the film. WHAT’S ON YOUR PLATE? is a witty and provocative documentary about kids and food politics. Over the course of one year, the film follows two eleven-year-old multiracial friends from NYC as they explore their place in the food chain. Sadie and Safiyah talk to food activists, farmers, and storekeepers as they address questions regarding the origin of the food they eat, how it’s cultivated, and how many miles it travels from farm to fork. Sadie and Safiyah formulate sophisticated and compassionate opinions about urban sustainability, and by doing so inspire hope and active engagement in others.$6, reg; $4 students & seniors 55+; $2 People’s Coop members Monday, October 15, 2012 at 07:00 PM – 10:00 PM Clinton Street Theater in Portland, OR.
Lecture: Animal Welfare and Factory Farms Lecture by School of Law Professor Verne Smith on Animal Welfare and Factory Farms with healthy Halloween treats provided by the School of Hospitality Management students – University Center Webb Room, Main Campus. Wednesday, October 31, 2012 at 12:00 PM – 01:00 PM Widener University, University Center Webb Room in Chester, PA.
SWAGG Snacks Video Challenge Opportunity for Rhode Island Youth! Want a chance to WIN $500?? Enter the SWAGG Snacks Video Challenge. ECO Youth is calling on all Rhode Island youth to create a 1-5 minute video about the challenges you, your family, or your friends face trying to eat healthful foods, how you try to overcome these challenges, and why it’s important to you. Submit videos online (include your name, phone, email, and school name in the post): www.facebook.com/groups/swaggsnacks Wednesday, October 31, 2012 at 12:00 AM – 11:00 PM Environmental Justice League of Rhode Island in Providence, RI.
Webinar: Sharing the Harvest – Growing Fresh Food for Those Who Most Need It This event is virtual. Click here to register: http://www.nccendpoverty.org/hunger/SharingHarvestWebinarOct172012.php Space is limited, so please register early! One in every seven households in the United States experienced food insecurity last year. While food banks and pantries serve as an important safety net, the majority of food they provide is highly-processed and full of excess fats, salts, and sugars. These food banks are hungry for fresh, nutritious, wholesome produce. Churches across the country are beginning to respond to this need by planting vegetable gardens and donating the produce to their local food banks. Join us on Wednesday, Oct 17th at 1:00pm EST to learn how your church can have a real impact on your community through a food bank garden. Our keynote presenter is Gary Oppenheimer, founder of AmpleHarvest.org, an organization that bridges the gap between backyard gardeners and local food banks. Also joining us are members of congregations involved in gardening and food bank projects. Please register early, as space is limited, and share this opportunity with friends! Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 01:00 PM – 02:00 PM · http://www.nccendpoverty.org/hunger/SharingHarvestWebinarOct172012.php in Washington, DC.
“Forks Over Knives” screening by Montclair’s Environmental Affairs and Community Green Montclair Environmental Affairs office and Community Green present another eye-opening environmental movie – Forks Over Knives – examining the profound claim that most, if not all, of the degenerative diseases that afflict us can be controlled, or even reversed, by rejecting animal-based and processed foods. http://www.meetup.com/nj-green/events/85371352/ Thursday, October 18, 2012 at 06:30 PM – 09:00 PM. Montclair Public Library in Montclair, NJ
Food Justice Fundraiser: Food at what cost? The Interfaith Food and Farm Partnership in conjunction with Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon will host a fundraiser to continue the conversation about where our food comes from as we follow the true path from farm to table. Featuring Traci McMillan, author of The American Way of Eating. McMillan is an investigative journalist who went undercover working various jobs in the food industry. Her book documents these experiences and discusses the relationship between food and class. The event will also include: Food Justice Voices panel; Highlights of IFFP projects; and Dinner featuring seasonal produce. The event also celebrates Food Day 2012 on Oct. 24. Funds raised will go towards Interfaith Food & Farms Partnership‘s (IFFP) work in creating a just and sustainable food system for everyone. Cost: $45 per person; $350 for a table of eight. A limited number of work scholarships are available; for more information, call (503) 221-1054 Thursday, October 18, 2012 at 05:00 PM – 07:00 PM · $45.00 USD First Christian Church in Portland, OR
European Court Criticizes EU regulatory agencies on oversight of conflicts of interest
The European Court of Auditors (ECA) has sent a highly critical message to four of the EU agencies in a report published today, condemning their failure to manage conflicts of interest adequately. The Court has carried out an investigation into conflict of interests policies at the European aviation safety agency (EASA), European chemicals agency (ECHA), European food safety agency (EFSA) and the European Medicines agency (EMA). The EASA came out worst in the score report, but significant shortcomings were identified at EMA and EFSA as well.
Chicago Mayor Asks Coke, Pepsi and Dr Pepper to pay for worker health
The Chicago Tribune reports that Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel hopes to take millions of dollars from soft-drink companies to pay for government worker health care. On Monday, he stood with executives from three giant soda-makers to announce the city will compete against San Antonio for a $5 million national beverage lobbying group grant that will reward city workers for being healthy rather than making it tougher or more expensive for them to guzzle sugary pop.
New video discourages sugary drink consumption
USA Today reports that the Center for Science in the Public Interest has released a new anti-sugary-drink video designed to show the ill effects of drinking too many sugary beverages. The papa bear in the animated video, The Real Bears, not only suffers from erectile dysfunction, but also contracts type 2 diabetes, which forces him to have a “grizzly” leg amputation. The video ends with the polar bear family pouring their cola into the ocean. The video is available online.
University of California at Davis Reports Make Dubious Claims on Prop 37
Cross posted from Appetite for Profit
Last week I wrote about how the No on 37 campaign – the California ballot initiative that would require labeling of GMOs foods – is relying on experts with questionable credentials to do its bidding. Over the past few weeks, two expert reports have emerged from the No campaign that also warrant closer scrutiny.
The first, entitled “California’s Proposition 37: Effects of Mandatory Labeling of GM Food,” was co-authored by University of California at Davis professor Colin Carter and published in the newsletter of the University of California Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics. It’s not clear if the report was funded by the No campaign since the article doesn’t say one way or the other.
Regardless of the financial support, the article contains at least one glaring error that’s big enough to call into question the entire piece, along with the authors’ credibility. And right in the first paragraph: “The California initiative would implement a zero-tolerance policy for accidental presence of small amounts of GM substances.” In fact, Prop 37 specifically focuses on the deliberate use of GMO ingredients and exempts accidental occurrences. (This can happen due to drifting of GMO seeds to organic or non-GMO crops.)
To be clear, Prop 37 does not require labels on foods that were unintentionally and/or unknowingly contaminated by genetically engineered seed or food. If you don’t believe me, read the language yourself.
Much of the article is based on this erroneous assertion. For example, the authors complain about how farmers could not adhere to this standard; that the standard is higher than that of other nations, and even higher than the U.S. organic standard. But none of this is true, which makes reading the entire article very confusing.
Parke Wilde, a professor at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, recently blogged about Carter’s error and how the Oakland Tribune picked up on it, furthering the confusion about what initiative requires.
In his post entitled, “Incorrect reports say that California’s Prop 37 has zero tolerance for accidental GMO content,” Wilde says that even when he emailed Carter about the matter, he “didn’t really back up this claim that the initiative takes a zero-tolerance position on accidental contamination.” So a University of California professor gets the basic facts wrong and then when asked about it by a colleague, evades the question. Not exactly a trustworthy source.
The article comes to other exaggerated conclusions such as “certified non-GM processed food products will virtually disappear from food stores” but without any actual analysis or scientific basis for such a dramatic claim. The article contains no citations; presumably this is the format of the publication, but it makes understanding the basis for the authors’ conclusions almost impossible.
A second report also from University of California at Davis professors makes similarly unsubstantiated claims about how non-GMO foods would just disappear from the market, along with wild predictions about increased food costs.
That article, entitled, “Proposition 37 – California Food Labeling Initiative: Economic Implications for Farmers and the Food Industry if the Proposed Initiative were Adopted,” is co-authored by UC Davis professors Julian Alston and Daniel Sumner. According to the report, “The work for this project was undertaken with partial funding support from No on 37.” The Los Angeles Times reported that the No campaign paid the authors “at least $30,000.”
Alston has previous ties to Monsanto, according to this Sacramento Bee article from 2004, which explains the relationship:
In July 2002, UC Davis farm economics professor Julian Alston found a patron in the private sector: Monsanto, one of the world’s five largest crop biotechnology firms. The official announcement came in the form of a letter. “Dear Dr. Alston,” it read. “Please find enclosed a check for $40,000 that represents an unrestricted gift in support of your research program.”
That same in-depth story (well worth the long read) paints UC Davis as a research incubator for Big Biotech: “You name it, and biotechnology companies help pay for it at UC Davis: laboratory studies, scholarships, post-doctoral students’ salaries, professors’ travel expenses, even the campus utility bill.”
The No on 37 campaign released the recent report with this dramatic headline: “UC Davis Professors of Agricultural Economics Release New Report that Shows Proposition 37 Will Increase Costs for California Farmers and Food Processors by $1.2 Billion.” The report makes a number of other claims, mostly based on questionable assumptions. As for the $1.2 billion in increased food costs, the figure assumes food makers would substitute non-GMO ingredients, which the authors base upon what happened in Europe upon mandatory labeling. However, there is no evidence to suggest the food industry will respond the same way here. The European Union has a much longer history of opposing GMOs then we do in the U.S. so it’s really not a fair comparison. At the very least, we just don’t know. Proposition 37 only requires labeling, not reformulation.
Once again, most of the authors’ additional conclusions are based on this one faulty assumption. For example, they claim that passage of Prop 37 and the ensuing “complete switch to GE varieties” would cause harm to farmers and the environment, result in high compliance costs for industry, as well as place California agriculture at a competitive disadvantage. But these are just the authors’ speculative opinions, based on faulty assumptions.
Moreover, this report is not published in a peer-reviewed publication; in fact, it’s not published anywhere, except on the No on 37 website. And while the No campaign made sure we knew the two authors are UC Davis professors (it’s mentioned several times on this page) apparently the authors needed to include this disclaimer next to their bios: “Titles are for identification only. The report is the authors’ independent work and not a product of the University of California.”
So both the authors and the No on 37 campaign gets to have it both ways. They can claim the University of California affiliation without making their work a product of UC. Whatever the affiliation or funding source, both of these reports should be dismissed as merely the unsubstantiated opinions of a few academics, as opposed to reliable scientific analysis backed up by peer review.
Food makers hook kids on mobile games
U.S. food companies are reaching children by embedding their products in simple and enticing games for touch-screen phones and tablets, reports the Wall Street Journal. The new medium is far cheaper than Saturday morning TV commercials and could prove as effective. The mobile games demonstrate how new technology is changing U.S. commerce, drawing tighter bonds between marketers and young consumers. “The apps are certainly targeted at kids,” said Melinda Champion, vice president of marketing at J&J Snack Foods Corp. in New Jersey, which makes SuperPretzel and Icee drinks. “If you get the kids saying, ‘Mom, I would love a SuperPretzel,’ mom will often buy it for them.”
McDonald’s to Post Calories
The world’s No 1 hamburger chain said it would start listing calorie information on menus in 14,000 US restaurants and drive-thrus. The change takes place ahead of a national rule that will require larger restaurant chains to make the disclosures and in conjunction with other corporate policy changes related to obesity and nutrition.
McDonald’s and Coca-Cola – An Unhealthy Alliance
Cross posted from Appetite for Profit
This week, the New York City Board of Health is expected to approve Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposal to limit the size of sugary soft drinks. Motivated by rising diet-related chronic diseases (along with healthcare costs), the mayor’s attempt to rein in out of control portion sizes caused quite a media firestorm. Predictably, the soda lobby has come out swinging, complete with an industry front group called, “New Yorkers for Beverage Choices.”
A better name would be, “Soda Pushers for Continued Profits.”
According to Beverage Digest, fountain sales (versus packaged) make up about 24 percent of the 9.3 billion cases of soda sold each year, or $18 billion in a total market worth $75.7 billion.
Coca-Cola will be especially impacted by cup size limits, as that company controls 70 percent of U.S. fountain sales, followed by Pepsi with 19 percent and Dr Pepper Snapple with 11 percent.
While it’s obvious that the soda industry would be on the defense, largely missing from the debate so far has been the role of the fast food and restaurant industry as a significant driver of soft drink sales. (Due to legal constraints, the city’s soda proposal would only apply to food service establishments and not retailers.)
The fast food industry has gotten plenty of flak for pushing a diet of cheeseburgers, French fries, and other highly processed pseudo-foods, but they should also be recognized as a major purveyor of sugary beverages.
For example, McDonald’s should be held accountable for its role in allowing the creeping up of cup sizes from a reasonable 7 ounces in 1955, to the current large of 32 ounces (310 calories for Coke), a more than 4-fold increase. Even a child size at 12 ounces is almost twice as large as the original.
The fast food king has already expressed its displeasure with cup size limits, suggesting instead “a more collaborative and comprehensive approach.”
No wonder, since Edward Jones estimates that five percent of McDonald’s revenue comes from soft drinks. Last year, McDonald’s revenue reached a record $27 billion; therefore at least $1.35 billion came from beverages.
That figure may be an underestimate because according to the research firm Technomic, carbonated soft drinks account for about 10 percent of fast-food and fast-casual restaurants sales in the U.S.
Factor in the profit margins on such beverages—estimated to top 90 percent—and as Ad Age noted, “the potential impact on the bottom line becomes clear.”
Whatever the figures, the money at stake here is huge—for both the beverage industry and the fast food industry.
This explains why among those listed as alleged “New Yorkers for Beverage Choices” are not only the major soft drink companies but numerous restaurant chains, including: Carls’ Jr, Chick-Fil-A, Domino’s Pizza, Hardee’s, and of course, the National Restaurant Association, whose members include McDonald’s.
That trade group, along with its network of state restaurant associations, boasts more than 200 national, state, and local lobbyists. The restaurant industry has fought against every common sense nutrition policy over the decades, including menu labeling and regulating marketing to children.
Speaking of children, the downsizing of soft drinks will have an important impact on them as well. Children learn acceptable standards by what appears normal. McDonald’s has been teaching kids that supersized fries, Big Macs, and large sodas are A-OK. By bring cups down to size, children get a better message.
And that’s another reason McDonald’s and the rest of the fast food industry is teaming up with the soft drink lobby to stop this proposal. They don’t want kids to grow up thinking 16 ounces is normal, because that means setting kids up for a lifetime of saner (and healthier) drinking habits.
Industry also knows that if limits are enacted in New York City, it’s only a matter of time before other cities around the nation follow Mayor Bloomberg’s lead.
Get ready for the next front group to pop up in your area, but don’t fall for it. Instead, let’s tell McDonald’s and Coca-Cola that enough is enough.
This post originally appeared on the Corporate Accountability blog.
Bringing Corporations and Health into the Public Health Curriculum
As public health students and faculty head back to school this week, Corporations and Health Watch continues its tradition of starting the academic year with a commentary on teaching about corporations and health. Our argument for including teaching about the impact of corporations on health in public health and related academic programs is based on the following premises:
- Corporations are the dominant economic and political institution of the 21st century and thus have a profound influence on global well-being.
- The business and political practices of corporations are a modifiable social determinant of health and thus a promising target for public health interventions.
- To achieve local, national and global public health goals of reducing premature mortality, shrinking inequalities in health, and controlling non-communicable diseases and injuries will require making changing corporate behavior as important a public health priority as changing individual behavior.
- Few public health academic programs adequately prepare their students to investigate, analyze or contribute to modifying the corporate policies and practices that harm health.
Photo credit
To be effective in fulfilling their responsibility to prevent illness, promote health and reduce health inequalities, public health professionals should be able to demonstrate the following competencies:
- Identify corporate business and political practices that affect health.
- Develop public health strategies to encourage health-promoting corporate practices and discourage or end health-damaging ones.
- Analyze the public health advantages and disadvantages of various government/market relationships
- Create alliances with consumer, environmental, labor and health organizations and movements that seek to change harmful corporate practices and policies
- Describe the roles of public health professionals and researchers in modifying harmful corporate practices or policies.
These competencies can be developed in several ways. Core public health courses can includes sessions on these topics as they relate to, for example, epidemiology, health policy, environmental health, or health education. Some programs have developed specialized courses on the topic, allowing interested students to pursue this interest. (To see a syllabus for a doctoral course Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Corporations and Health 1900-2012 at City University of New York click here to request a copy.) Or a student-faculty interest group can bring together those who want to pursue research, advocacy or practice on the corporate impact on public health.
Photo credit
For the time being, you’re more likely to find a corporate name on the front of a school of public health than to have corporate practices discussed in the classroom. Fortunately, however, a growing number of resources are available to faculty who want to teach about this topic and students who want to learn more or write papers on corporations and health. I offer here a short list of such sources.
10 Sources on Corporations and Health for Use in Basic Public Health Classes
(with suggestions for use in Epidemiology (EPI), Health Policy & Management (HPM), Social and Behavioral Health (SBH), or Environmental & Occupational Health (EOH) Core Courses)
Biglan A. Corporate Externalities: A Challenge to the Further Success of Prevention Science. Prev Sci. 2011; 12(1): 1–11. (HPM, SBH)
Brandt AM. Inventing conflicts of interest: a history of tobacco industry tactics. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(1):63-71.(EPI, SBH, HPM)
Freudenberg N, Galea S. The impact of corporate practices on health: implications for health policy. J Public Health Policy. 2008;29(1):86-104 (SBH,HPM)
Hastings G. Why corporate power is a public health priority. BMJ. 2012;345:e5124.(EPI, HPM, SBH)
Huff, J. 2007. Industry influence on occupational and environmental public health. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 13.1: 107–117. (EPI, EOH)
Labonté R, Mohindra KS, Lencucha R. Framing international trade and chronic disease. Global Health. 2011 Jul 4;7(1):21.(EPI, SBH,HPM)
Ludwig DS, Nestle M. Can the food industry play a constructive role in the obesity epidemic? JAMA. 2008 Oct 15;300(15):1808-11.(SBH,HPM)
Stuckler D, McKee M, Ebrahim S, Basu S Manufacturing Epidemics: The Role of Global Producers in Increased Consumption of Unhealthy Commodities Including Processed Foods, Alcohol, and Tobacco. PLoS Med 2012; 9(6): e1001235. (EPI, SBH, HPM)
Wiist, W.H. (Ed). Bottom Line or Public Health. Tactics Corporations Use to Influence Health and Health Policy, and What We Can Do to Counter Them. NY: Oxford University Press, 2010. (relevant chapters for all 4 courses)
Woodcock J, Aldred R. Cars, Corporations, and Commodities: Consequences for the Social Determinants of Health. Emerging Themes in Epidemiology. 2008 Feb 21;5:4. (EPI, EOH, SBH)
In addition to these selected resources, a bibliographic essay on Business and Corporate Practices can be found in the Public Health section of Oxford Online Bibliographies.
Finally, several Corporations and Health Watch contributing writers have websites or blogs that include additional timely material. Check out these sites: David Jernigan, Michele Simon, Bill Wiist.
Previous CHW Posts on Teaching about Corporations and Health
10 Ways to Bring the Health Impact of Business Practices into the Classroom September 2011
Teaching about Corporations and Health June 2010
Teaching about Corporations and Health: Bringing Corporate Practices into Public Health Classrooms December 2007
Corporations and Health Watch 