Writing for Civil Eats, Siena Chrisman notes, “food justice advocates are connecting with Occupy (Wall Street) sites all around the country to donate fresh, healthy, local food or to help find kitchen space. On a broader philosophical level, as Mark Bittman writes in the Times, ‘Whether we’re talking about food, politics, healthcare, housing, the environment, or banking, the big question remains the same: How do we bring about fundamental change?’ But there are also clear and specific reasons that all of us working for a just and fair food system, as the food movement should make the connection between our work and Occupy Wall Street explicit and strong.”
Food Industry and Ad Groups Condemn New Voluntary Guidelines on Food Marketing to Kids
Although the Obama administration has rolled back some of its proposals on the marketing of food to children, Ad Age reports that “manufacturers and advertisers say the federal government should scrap the plan entirely. At a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing Wednesday, opponents of the marketing guidelines said they would cost the nation thousands of jobs and do little to fight obesity among children. ‘These are unprecedented and extreme proposals,’ testified Dan Jaffe, exec VP for government relations for the Association of National Advertisers. ‘These guidelines need to be formally withdrawn and taken back to the drawing board.’”
We’re Not Buying It: New video on deceptive food marketing to children
In a new two minute video, Prevention Institute highlights the deceptive ways that food and beverage companies target kids with unhealthy foods. Food industry and media companies are lobbying to get Congress to stop the Interagency Working Group on Foods Marketed to Children (IWG) from finalizing voluntary, science-based nutrition guidelines that provide a model for companies that market to kids. You can share the video and petition on Facebook by copying and pasting this link into your status update: http://www.preventioninstitute.org/notbuyingit, or share the video on your own site through this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab9zbqHJ_p4.
FDA Seeks to Improve Retail Food Safety
Following several high profile food poisoning outbreaks, the US Food and Drug Administration has unveiled a new plan for improving food safety practices at commercial establishments, reports Food Safety News. The Retail Food Safety Action Plan calls for stronger state and local food safety requirements for grocery stores, restaurants, schools, and other food vending facilities, as well improvements in the oversight of food facilities by public health agencies. The plan also calls on state and local health departments to strengthen food safety requirements and ensure better training programs for personnel.
Corporations Undermine UN Effort to Reduce Chronic Diseases
Cross-posted from Common Dreams.
While much of the world’s attention focused on the UN debate about Palestinian statehood last week, the General Assembly took up another issue that garnered less media scrutiny, even though its outcome could prevent millions of premature deaths in coming decades. On September 19th and 20th, 30 heads of State and 100 other senior ministers and experts met at the UN General Assembly’s first high level summit on non-communicable diseases (NCDs) to discuss how to reduce the burdens of such conditions as diabetes, heart disease, cancer and chronic respiratory diseases.
These conditions cause about 35 million deaths a year, of which 80 percent occur in low and middle-income countries and one quarter among people younger than 60 years. By 2030, NCDs will cause more than three quarters of all deaths in the world. While the UN has previously recognized HIV, tuberculosis and malaria as threats to economic development and global security, this was the first time the UN acknowledged that non-communicable disease also jeopardized economic well-being.
The NCD summit was an important step in shaping a coordinated global response to these conditions but unlike infectious diseases, where few organizations profit directly from their spread, powerful industries depend on encouraging consumption of products like tobacco, alcohol, unhealthy food and automobiles that have fueled epidemics of non-communicable diseases. Thus, the summit previewed the great public health battle of this period. On one side are the public health professionals, advocacy organizations and local officials who have to cope with the rising tide of NCDs fueled by the growing consumption of tobacco, alcohol and unhealthy food. On the other are industries built on the model of profiting by promoting unhealthy lifestyles and products.
Participants in the UN meeting recognized this conflict. In his remarks, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon observed that “there is a well-documented and shameful history of certain players in industry who ignored the science – sometimes even their own research – and put public health at risk to protect their own profits.” He went on to note that “there are many, many more industry giants which acted responsibly,” sounding a conference theme that disease promotion was the work of a few bad apples.
In the lead up to the conference, industry lobbyists worked hard to persuade wealthy nations to look out for business interests. According to the Washington Post, a confidential summary of the negotiations on the summit’s political declaration showed that US negotiators threatened to scuttle the document if it even raised the issue of using trade agreements as a vehicle for protecting public health. The Canadian Medical Association charged that Canada had been instrumental in removing a passage that would have limited the impact that food and alcohol corporations have on health policies and in failing to address trade-related barriers to global health.
A main issue dividing meeting participants was whether the 2001 Doha Declaration, which allowed low-income countries to compel drug companies to allow generic drugs for use in their own countries, could be applied to drugs for NCDs. The Doha amendment refers to HIV, TB, malaria “and other epidemics,” language that led one activist to observe that this agreement “was not meant to be so narrowly interpreted… it was intended to address all public health crises.” Jay Taylor, a vice-president of The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, explained the opposing position to the Post, “Compulsory licenses are intended to be used to address health emergencies and to provide urgent access in situations where there is little or no availability of existing effective medicines. This situation is clearly not the case in the context of the growing burden of noncommunicable diseases.” Tellingly, the summit’s final statement does not use the word epidemic, even though the number of diabetes cases, for example, increased from 300 million worldwide in 2009 to 366 million in 2010.
A second debate was whether international standards of corporate conduct should be voluntary or mandatory. Business favored voluntary codes, arguing companies were better equipped to implement standards and that mandates threaten jobs and economic growth. Public health activists pointed to the scientific evidence that voluntary standards rarely lead to meaningful changes in corporate behavior.Two other key issues led to conflict. The first was who should participate in the meeting. Industry insisted that “all sectors” of society should be represented while public health advocates argued industry participation was inappropriate. One hundred forty three non-governmental organizations from around the world created the Conflicts of Interest Coalition and urged that the NCD summit and other forums for policy development should be “free from industry involvement” because of the “obvious conflicts of interest associated with food, alcohol, beverage and other industries that are primarily answerable to shareholders.”
At the end of the meeting, many participants expressed disappointment. While the summit acknowledged “the fundamental conflict of interest between the tobacco industry and public health,” no such statement was made about the food, alcohol, automobile or pharmaceutical industries. Unlike tobacco, these industries also produce products that contribute to health, but in recent decades they have increasingly followed the playbook of the tobacco industry: making campaign contributions and lobbying to oppose public health regulation, aggressively promoting unhealthy products in low and middle income nations when wealthy countries regulate their practices, and distorting scientific evidence that implicates their products in global epidemics.
In the final analysis, industry succeeded at the summit in avoiding direct challenges to its role in promoting disease and national governments refused to set specific targets for NCD reduction, a prerequisite for coordinated global action. These outcomes make it hard to be optimistic that the meeting opened a path for more forceful action to take on the world’s leading killers.
On the other hand, the UN meeting did show the potential for a global movement to challenge corporate influences on health. A few world leaders spoke out forcefully. Torphong Chaiyasan, the Deputy Minister of Health for Thailand, told the meeting that “many large companies contributed to the non-communicable disease problem and continue to try to weaken public health policy.” The organizations that signed on to the Conflict of Interests Statement represent tens of thousands of health activists from around the world. “I am very, very optimistic about the creation of a social movement. The evidence is clear that it can be done,” George Alleyne, a physician who once headed the Pan American Health Organization, told the Washington Post earlier this week. Today corporations have more resources and power to shape health than this emerging movement, but the future health of the world depends on changing that equation.
Image Credits:
1. ComSec via Flickr.
2. ComSec via Flickr.
Did Walmart Buy Growing Power’s Silence for a Million Dollars?
Cross-posted from Appetite for Profit.
Last week retail behemoth Walmart announced a $1.01 million donation to Milwaukee-based Growing Power, a well-known nonprofit whose founder Will Allen has gained much accolades for his hard work to bring local, healthy food to low-income areas.
So far the online debate over Growing Power taking this funding is predictable: some defend it for pragmatic reasons, while others deplore the move, either because they don’t like this particular company or they think all corporate money is evil. However, this donation cannot be viewed in such a narrow context. There is a pattern here that spans decades.
By partnering with a group that could otherwise be one of its staunchest critics, Walmart is taking a page right out of the Big Tobacco playbook: Buying silence.
Philanthropy to win over causes that could cause them trouble is a time-honored tradition of Corporate America, and this is the just the latest installment. The tobacco industry saw great success with sponsorships of women’s causes (Virginia Slims tennis anyone?) and both the tobacco and alcohol industries have bought off Latino groups along with plenty of others, as I’ve described before.
It’s easy to justify taking this sort of money. Of course Growing Power needs the cash and will do good things with it. It’s understandable, in these hard times, how the group could justify taking it. Why not put a corporation’s profits to good use? Viewed in that narrow frame, almost any donation can be justified.
But what happens when Walmart’s pledge made earlier this year–with the first lady by their side–to sell more fresh produce at affordable prices falls through (or squeezes farmers) as it inevitably will? What happens next year, when Allen needs more money, and Walmart ups the ante? One colleague had no problem with the deal as long as Walmart didn’t ask for a seat on Growing Power’s board. They just might.
It’s not at all clear where Growing Power is drawing the line. On their blog, Allen defends the move by arguing that we “can no longer refuse to invite big corporations to the table of the Good Food Revolution.”
Invite them to the table? These corporations: McDonald’s, PepsiCo, Kraft, and especially Walmart, have already been to the table: they have set the table, and left a stinking mess for us to clean up.
Has Corporate America really been left out of the conversation about our food supply? My book was inspired by the response of the food industry to the criticism being leveled against them. Responses in the form of a massive public relations campaign designed to convince the American public and policymakers alike that they have it covered.
McDonald’s pushing cheeseburgers and fries? No problem, now they sell salads. General Mills promoting sugary cereals to kids? Enter whole grain Reese’s Puffs. Not enough access to fresh food in poor areas? Walmart to the rescue.
Meanwhile, any policy effort to reform the food system in more meaningful ways is resisted by these same companies with powerful lobbying campaigns. Walmart is no exception to this pattern.
Christopher Cook (author of Diet for a Dead Planet: Big Business and the Coming Food Crisis – which I highly recommend) recently hit the nail on the head, posting to a list-serve that such donations are “not only tainted but tied to political allegiance with the corporate agenda.” He goes on:
The PR and influence that Walmart and others gain from this “charitable giving” expands their corporate power and their market control–the very things that are directly undermining our food system, sustainability, and food access and justice. These corporations are a huge part of precisely why we are in such deep trouble with our food today. It’s not just about “tainted” dollars, it’s about how these corporations will profit (and they will) both economically and politically by buying market share in the food justice movement.
See also Andy Fisher’s excellent critique on Civil Eats concluding that Walmart cannot possibly be part of the solution to our broken food system because the company “hurts communities more than it helps them.”
So what then, I hear many asking, is the alternative given that the money is still sorely needed? Cook offers an admittedly more challenging solution: “We need a strongly united movement pushing aggressively for public investment in the great and vital work of Growing Power and other groups.”
Let’s get to work.
Corporate Responsibility Works Better for Corporations than Public Health
A new report from the Children’s Food Campaign of Sustain, a food advocacy group in the UK, says that its government’s Responsibility Deal with the food industry about marketing practices is good for food companies but not so effective for public health.
Efforts to Immunize Food Manufacturers from Obesity-Related Lawsuits: A Challenge for Public Health
Earlier this summer, Minnesota nearly enacted a law immunizing food and beverage (collectively “food”) manufacturers, marketers, and sellers from civil liability related to individuals’ claims of obesity or related health problems stemming from the purchase or consumption of a food product. The Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act (PRFCA) was introduced in Minnesota’s House of Representatives on January 31, 2011, by Representative Dean Urdahl. Shortly after the bill was introduced, Rep. Urdahl issued a press release saying, “My bill is about common sense and personal responsibility because, as citizens, we ultimately must be accountable for what we consume. If you eat too many cheeseburgers and get fat, don’t sue food retailers.”[1]
By late May 2011, the bill had been passed by the state’s Senate and House of Representatives. The bill’s text stated that
A producer, grower, manufacturer, packer, distributor, carrier, holder, marketer, or seller of a food or nonalcoholic beverage intended for human consumption, or an association of one or more such entities, must not be subject to civil liability based on any individual’s or group of individuals’ purchase or consumption of food or nonalcoholic beverages in cases where liability arises from weight gain, obesity, or a health condition associated with weight gain or obesity and resulting from the individual’s or group of individuals’ long-term purchase or consumption of a food or nonalcoholic beverage.[2]
The bill did not exempt food manufacturers from liability for obesity or weight gain claims that were based on “knowing and willful” violations of the law.[3]
On May 24, 2011, Minnesota’s Legislature presented the PRFCA to Governor Mark Dayton. Instead of signing the bill into law, Governor Dayton vetoed it on May 27th. In a letter to Kurt Zellers, the Speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives, Governor Dayton explained that he supported “the bill’s expressed intent to hold individuals responsible for their own dietary choices.”[4] Despite this, he felt that the PRFCA would have created “too broad an exemption from liability” for food manufacturers and sellers.
Unlike Minnesota, 24 states have successfully enacted laws that limit liability or otherwise immunize the food industry from lawsuits related to claims of obesity or associated health problems.[5] These laws are largely a response to lawsuits brought in the early 2000s in which teenage-plaintiffs argued that fast food restaurants should have some responsibility for the country’s obesity epidemic, including their personal weight gain and health problems.[6]
A federal version of the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act was introduced in the U.S. Congress in 2005. It received significant media attention and was the subject of heated Congressional debates. For example, in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Schwarz spoke in favor of the bill, arguing that
The most important step we can take to curb obesity is to impart to everyone in this country that obesity can be controlled when we take personal responsibility. A healthy and consistent diet, with an adequate amount of exercise, will work wonders. That’s the simple truth. . . . Allowing consumers to sue their local restaurant, to sue half the food industry, means that we are telling our citizens, “It’s not your fault that you are obese.” . . . I support this legislation because it sends the message to everyone in the United States, young and old, that taking control of your weight is your responsibility, and taking personal responsibility is the only way that weight control can be achieved.[7]
Many public health advocates consider this type of position to be a form of victim-blaming which targets individuals who lack adequate access to healthy food and space that facilitates physical activity.
Opponents of the bill questioned why the federal government would want to allow an industry to act without the benefit of judicial oversight. Rep. Pete Stark explained that
Many of the pending cases are for false advertising, claiming food is low fat when it’s really not, and this bill is so broadly worded that it would preclude such cases from going forward. The threat of legitimate lawsuits against fast-food corporations is as much a part of creating social change as is the threat of a Congressional investigation. . . . Even more important than the issue of obesity or Congressional meddling in the judicial branch is the fundamental right of every American to have their day in court. . . . Congress has no business preemptively closing the courthouse doors to a particular group of Americans.[8]
This sentiment was echoed by consumer advocates, including Michael Jacobson, the executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. He contended that “[i]f someone is saying that a 64-ounce soda at 7-Eleven contributed to obesity, that person should have his day in court. If it’s frivolous, the courts are accustomed to throwing those out.”[9] He described the food industry’s efforts “to get special exemptions from lawsuits” as “shameful.”
The federal Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act was reintroduced three times but ultimately has failed to become law. During the last decade, however, the National Restaurant Association has been instrumental in encouraging state legislators to pass so-called “commonsense consumption” laws,9 with Alabama’s bill being the most recently active in a state legislature.[10]
These “commonsense consumption” laws, which some have dubbed “cheeseburger bills,” raise a challenge for public health. They effectively remove or preempt individuals’ ability to turn to the court system to pursue obesity-related litigation.[11] While some of these lawsuits may be frivolous, others have the potential to influence how the food industry operates.
Some scholars have drawn parallels to the role of litigation against the tobacco industry in the 1990s. Although the thought of an individual suing a tobacco company for an illness allegedly related to smoking may not have been initially popular, those lawsuits and subsequent settlements led to the public availability of millions of pages of internal tobacco company documents. According to Professor Richard Daynard, “People changed their minds when documents started to come out about how tobacco companies misled customers about the alleged health benefits of light and low-tar cigarettes.”[9]
Daynard and others believe that a similar change could occur “when people learn the elaborate ways in which companies market products they may know to be unhealthy.”[9] The public loses the chance to learn about the food industry’s potentially harmful practices each time a state enacts a “commonsense consumption” law. In addition, the time and resources spent debating these bills could be better spent directly addressing the underlying public health issues related to obesity that persist throughout the nation.[12]
Jennifer Pomeranz is the Director of Legal Initiatives at the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity at Yale University. She publishes and speaks on issues related to marketing to children, regulating unhealthy products, labeling, weight bias, and the government’s role in obesity and food policy.
Reference
[1] State Representative Dean Urdahl, “Cheeseburger Bill” Topped with Personal Responsibility and More, Feb. 23, 2011.
[2] Minn. HB 264, “Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act,” Jan 31, 2011.
[3] Minn. HB 264, “Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act,” Jan 31, 2011.
[4] Letter from Gov. Mark Dayton to Speaker Kurt Zellers, May 27, 2011.
[5] Trust for America’s Health, Supplement to “F as in Fat: How Obesity Policies are Failing in America, 2007,” Obesity-Related Legislation Action in States, Update, Aug. 2007.
[6] Melanie Warner, The Food Industry Empire Strikes Back, The New York Times, July 7, 2005
[7] Statement of Rep. John Schwarz, Congressional Record, p. 23085, Oct. 19, 2005.
[8] Statement of Rep. Pete Stark, Congressional Record, p. 23086, Oct. 19, 2005.
[9] Melanie Warner, The Food Industry Empire Strikes Back, New York Times, July 7, 2005.
[10] Alab. HB 193, “Commonsense Consumption Act,” Mar. 8, 2011,
[11] Pomeranz JL, Teret SP, Sugarman SD, Rutkow L, Brownell, KD. Innovative Legal Approaches to Address Obesity. Milbank Quarterly 2009;87:185-213.
[12] RWJF Trust for America’s Health, F as in Fat 2011, July 7, 2011.
Image Credits:
1. Razor 512 via Flickr.
2. GovernorDayton via Flickr.
3. Pisto Casero via Flickr.
Comments on the Interagency Working Group (IWG) Voluntary Standards for Foods Marketed to Children
In July, Corporate Accountability International submitted the following comments to the US Federal Trade Commission:
Corporate Accountability International (formerly Infact) is a membership organization that protects people from irresponsible and dangerous corporate actions around the world. Our Value [the] Meal campaign is dedicated to reversing the global epidemic of diet-related disease by challenging the fast food industry to curb the range of its abusive practices. One of our primary demands calls on McDonald’s to stop marketing unhealthy food to our kids.
Corporate Accountability International’s 30 years of experience offers lessons that can be applied to the development of the FTC’s recommendations on the marketing of foods to children and we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Interagency Working Group (IWG) voluntary standards for foods marketed to children.
We appreciate that the Interagency Working Group (IWG), by proposing these voluntary principles, recognizes that the current system of industry-defined guidelines on food marketing to children has been a dismal failure. Far from being science-based, industry’s guidelines are self-serving and have succeeded in ensuring that almost all of their worst products continue to be marketed to children. We appreciate the effort of the IWG in replacing that failed approach with one that is science-based, uniform, and applied industry-wide.
Another failure of the industry self-regulatory system is that it only applies to children under the age of 12. Corporate Accountability International strongly agrees with the IWG that marketing standards must apply to teenagers up to age 17. Industry has not offered any good reason for why it only cares about the potential adverse impacts of its marketing on children under the age of 12. What is clear is that industry fears the loss of the crucial teen market.
Voluntary Standards Will Not Work
The federal government should not continue to support and promote the concept of voluntary guidelines (or principles). Even if the new standards are an improvement over those defined by industry, we cannot trust industry to follow them.
In our thirty-year history, we have found that voluntary agreements have inherent and serious limitations and are not effective in addressing public health concerns. Voluntary initiatives have a limited scope in terms of the rights they include and the sectors they cover and many “laggard” companies choose not to join any voluntary initiative. In the US, the Better Business Bureau’s voluntary Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative has been highly criticized by public health advocates for being both limited in scope and limited in terms of the number of food companies that have joined the initiative.
Furthermore, voluntary initiatives typically fail to ensure that the principles that they advocate are upheld in practice. This is an inherent flaw of voluntary initiatives and food companies have already demonstrated their ability to exploit loopholes of voluntary marketing initiatives. Examples include the continued marketing of unhealthy brands under the banner of promoting “healthy messages” as well as nutrient profiling that allows companies to bolster claims of a product’s healthy nature. Overall, we have found that principles under voluntary initiatives are often narrowly conceived, inconsistent across different initiatives, and applied unevenly.
We believe that government regulation is the only feasible approach to reversing the negative public health impact of irresponsible practice of food industry marketing of unhealthy food to children.
Food Should Not Be Marketed to Children
While the food and media industries use the argument that limiting a corporation’s ability to market their products is a violation of the First Amendment, this argument conveniently ignores one simple fact: Deceptive advertising is not protected by the First Amendment. If a child cannot understand he or she is being marketed to, what else can this be called other than deceptive?
The scientific literature is clear that at younger ages, children do not have the cognitive capacity to understand that they are being marketed to. Therefore, it’s inherently deceptive to market anything to children. Corporate Accountability International is concerned that by setting standards for what can and cannot be marketed to children, the federal government is putting its stamp of approval on the very concept of marketing to children, which is contrary to both science and policy.
While older children may understand they are being marketed to, they are still adversely impacted by such advertising and are also in need of protection. The IWG must also consider that marketing aimed at teenagers is viewed by younger children – appealing indirectly to the under 12 group as they want to emulate older age groups. For instance, tobacco industry marketing icons such as Joe Camel and the Marlboro Man were claimed to appeal to young adults, but in reality it was determined that these branded characters attracted much younger audiences.
Corporate Accountability International is also concerned that by offering up nutrition standards, the food industry will just cleverly figure out how to reformulate its products, thereby creating more processed (with approved nutrients) junk food for kids. This has certainly been the industry approach thus far: finding more clever ways to market to kids as workarounds, as opposed to cutting back on marketing altogether.
Brand Marketing is a Major Concern
Corporate Accountability International applauds the IWG for recognizing that corporations often engage in brand advertising and marketing, without reference to a specific food product. We are very concerned about brand marketing. By its very nature, setting nutrition standards presupposes that brand marketing is insignificant, which is far from true. There are many ways that food companies can and do market brands in the absence of specific food products.
One of the best examples of this is advergaming: websites set up by food brands for the purpose of getting children to play games on their site. For example, the website Ronald.com is obviously targeting very young children. And of course, McDonald’s aim is to inculcate young vulnerable children with the idea that Ronald is fun, building brand loyalty that lasts a lifetime.
The entire approach by the IWG of setting nutrition standards on what sorts of foods “may” be marketed to children misses this bigger picture: Large food corporations like McDonald’s and Pepsi target children with big ad budgets and powerful emotional messages about how to eat, not with grams of fat and milligrams of salt. We recommend eliminating brand marketing targeted to children for those transnational corporations (i.e. McDonald’s, Coca Cola and Pepsi) whose portfolio contains a high percentage of junk foods.
Implementation Period is Too Long
Why are companies being given until 2016 (and 2021 for sodium) to comply with voluntary standards? Especially given there are no consequences for non-compliance, any timeline longer than one or two years is too generous. The food industry has had years to get its act together, it’s not like this issue is brand new. In fact, in its 2006 report, the Institute of Medicine recommended that Congress step in if industry didn’t improve things on their own in two years. Here we are five years later and now the IWG wants to give industry five more years?
Industry Lobbying is a Serious Sign of Bad Faith
For years, both the food and media industries have engaged in a concerted campaign to undermine public policy efforts related to food marketing to children. At the same time, industry has attempted to distract policymakers and the general public with schemes of industry self-regulation. In the meantime, marketing to children has gone along unabated, with the childhood obesity epidemic and other chronic health problems only getting worse.
In recent weeks, the pushback from industry regarding the IWG principles has heated up considerably, with all sorts of misleading claims being made. While talking points like “these are backdoor regulations” makes for a great media sound bite, the industry clearly needs a reality check. As David Vladeck made painfully clear in his public counter to arguments against the IWG standards, [1] it has no intension intention to regulate industry, so what exactly is all the complaining about?
This concerted PR and lobbying effort shows us that the food and media industries are not operating in good faith. To the contrary, their aim is to thumb their noses at government and advocates alike, acting like marketing to children is an inalienable right. Food companies and media conglomerates have now banded together to form the “Sensible Food Policy Coalition” for the sole purpose of derailing the IWG effort. Apparently, even the heavyhitting U.S. Chamber of Commerce has gotten in on the act. According to one account:
Core members of the coalition — including General Mills, Kellogg, PepsiCo and Time Warner — spent $6.6 million on lobbying in the first quarter of this year, disclosure records show. Overall, records show, the coalition’s main members have spent nearly $60 million on lobbying since the start of the Obama administration.[2]
How are children’s advocacy groups supposed to compete with that sort of lobbying muscle? In another 11th hour move, industry released an unpublished, non-peer-reviewed estimate on the IWG’s proposed voluntary principles alleged economic impact. How the industry’s bought and paid for two-page “report” concluded that 74,000 jobs would be “lost” defies both economics and common sense. Even if industry were to follow the voluntary principles, they can still find ways to spend their marketing dollars; they are very clever that way. History has shown industry just shifts marketing to other forms or media or other targets, they rarely if ever cut their marketing budgets.
But never mind the facts. These are tactics taken right out of Big tobacco’s playbook: Mount a massive public relations campaign, buy some science to confuse the issues, and when all else fails, call your friends in Congress.
Children Need Government Protection Right Now
It’s troubling that the IWG is considering weakening the standards. If the government is proposing voluntary principles that industry can choose to adopt or not, then why not set a good example and base them on the best public health policy available? Industry already provides us with watered down standards. It undermines the very purpose of having science-based standards if IWG weakens its final recommendations.
The food industry has demonstrated time and time again that it cannot be trusted. Left to their own devices, the food and media industries will just keep on doing what they do best: targeting children with the most highly processed and nutrient-deficient food products. We have already seen the adverse consequences of an unchecked system: a public health crisis of diet-related diseases among adults as well as disturbing health problems among children.
Make no mistake: inaction now means sentencing yet another generation of children to a lifetime of higher risks for life-threatening illnesses such as heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, just to name a few. Now is not the time to argue over salt and sugar grams. Now is the time for serious action to stop the predatory targeting of children by the food industry, before millions more children become chronically ill from the food they eat.
To the extent that the Federal Trade Commission does not have current authority to regulate food marketing to children, it should ask Congress to take action. To the extent the agency believes there may be First Amendment barriers to such regulation, let’s determine which of the most egregious forms of marketing do not deserve free speech protection, even under the current Supreme Court make-up, and start making some sound legal and policy arguments that just might convince the Court that children’s health should trump the economic interests of PepsiCo and McDonalds.
It’s time for the federal government to take leadership in protecting America’s kids and stop protecting an industry that is driving an epidemic of diet-related disease. Because if it doesn’t, who will?
References:
1. David Vladeck, comment on “What’s on the table,” Business Center Blog, comment posted July 1, 2011,
http://business.ftc.gov/blog/2011/07/whats-table (accessed July 14, 2011).
2. Senate Office of Public Records Lobbying Disclosure Act Database (Washington, D.C.),
http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=selectfields (accessed July 14, 2011).
Image Credits:
1. Kcolwell via Flickr.
2. Corporate Accountability International
FDA, Senate Democrats Propose New Oversight on Dietary Supplements
Last month, the Food and Drug Administration proposed new guidelines on dietary supplements, seeking stronger public oversight of these products. In addition, Democratic Senators Richard Durbin and Richard Blumenthal submitted the Dietary Supplement Labeling Act of 2011, a bill that proposed reclassification of food additives and dietary supplements to be managed by the Food and Drug Administration. Republican Senator Orrin Hatch blasted the proposed bill. “I don’t know why we should add more regulation when what we have on the books is working.”
Corporations and Health Watch 