Crowdsourcing: A New Approach to Monitoring Harmful Corporate Practices?

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

What do the US Food and Drug Administration, the advocacy group Corporate Accountability International, and the investigative journalism outlet ProPublica have in common? All three have used crowdsourcing, a technique for gathering information from multiple sources using a variety of new media, to monitor health-related practices of corporations. In this article, CHW reviews these efforts, and explores the advantages and challenges of using crowdsourcing to gather information about corporate practices.


The Food and Drug Administration’s Bad Ad Program

In May 2010, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) introduced its “Bad Ad Program” in which doctors are trained to identify misleading or untruthful pharmaceutical ads, and then report them by email or phone to the FDA. Until now, FDA’s enforcement effort relied on a few dozen staffers to review hundreds of pharmaceutical ads, brochures, and presentations voluntarily submitted by companies or reported to the agency by drug industry personnel. Upon discovery of misleading or untruthful information, the FDA sends warning letters to companies, but given the burden of review and the limited staff, letters have often not been sent until long after the ad has reached its market.

“The Bad Ad Program will help health care providers recognize misleading prescription drug promotion and provide them with an easy way to report this activity to the agency,” said Thomas Abrams, director of FDA’s drug advertising division. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhaRMA), the lobbying group that includes the many of the world’s largest drug manufacturers, including Pfizer, Merck & Co. and GlaxoSmithKline, said in a statement that it supported the effort as “another step to help educate—and receive feedback from—health care providers about prescription drug advertising and promotion.”

Drug makers spend about $20 billion per year to promote their products in medical journal ads, information booths at medical conferences and multimillion dollar TV ad campaigns. About $4 billion of industry spending is used for direct-to-consumer advertisements. These campaigns have been associated, in some cases, with heavy use of what were later found to be dangerous drugs, such as Vioxx, a pain reliever, and Avandia, a drug used to control diabetes.

Corporate Accountability International’s Retire Ronald Campaign

In its recent campaign to persuade McDonald’s Corporation to retire Ronald McDonald and its advertising specifically targeting children, Corporate Accountability International (CAI) used crowdsourcing to encourage members and advocates to report sighting of Ronald to help CAI analyze how and where the company was using Ronald and also to engage and motivate parents and advocacy groups to join their campaign. The responses showed that Ronald was appearing in schools, hospitals, and community centers around the country, often mixing philanthropy, public relations, and marketing, and gave CAI “a better sense of just where and how he was hooking kids on unhealthy food.”

ProPublica’s Distributed Reporting Project

After BP promised to create a $20 billion fund to reimburse individuals, businesses, and others damaged by its oil spill,ProPublica, the online investigative journalism outlet, decided to investigate whether BP was living up to the commitments it had made to reimburse claims quickly, fairly, and transparently. Those who had filed a claim with BP were asked to complete an online survey, widely distributed by a variety of print and online media. Later, when Ken Feinberg took over the administration of the reimbursement fund, ProPublica expanded its investigation to monitor his activities. In 2010, ProPublica received a Knight-Batten Award for Innovations in Journalism for its Distributed Reporting Project that had systemized “the process of crowdsourcing, conducting experiments, polishing their process and tasking citizens with serious assignments.” When the group created its Reporting Network in 2009, ProPublica writer Amanda Michel explained, “By collaborating directly with the public, we aim to deliver a greater range of information. E-mail, cell phones, instant messenger, ProPublica.org and social networking sites such as Facebook are our tools. Questions that hold public figures and those in power accountable are our guides.”

The Advantages and Challenges of Using Crowdsourcing

Crowdsourcing has its origins in corporate America. In 2006, Jeff Howe and Mark Robinson first wrote about crowdsourcing in Wired magazine. Howe defined it as “the act of a company or institution taking a function once performed by employees and outsourcing it to an undefined (and generally large) network of people in the form of an open call. This can take the form of peer-production (when the job is performed collaboratively), but is also often undertaken by sole individuals. The crucial prerequisite is the use of the open call format and the large network of potential laborers.” In recent years, companies have used crowdsourcing to design ad campaigns, choose winners in corporate contests, and conduct market research.

For health researchers, advocates, and regulators, crowdsourcing has some distinct advantages. For researchers, it can provide access to a wider range of sources and respondents than traditional survey or focus group research. It can also reduce participant burden by using familiar technologies and media such as the Internet, cell phones, or social media to elicit responses, and by allowing participants to respond when and how they choose. For advocates, as illustrated by the Retire Ronald campaign, crowdsourcing can help to describe a phenomenon and to mobilize people to take action. Those who reported sightings of Ronald were contacts for community action in subsequent phases of the campaign. For regulators, as the FDA’s Bad Ad Campaign shows, crowdsourcing can help to overcome limited staff and resources, and give an agency a wider sample of problem practices. Crowdsourcing allows all users to apply mapping and other techniques to analyze data. Moreover, reported data can be posted online, allowing corrections or amplifications, or triggering additional responses from those who have encountered similar problems, a digital snowball sample.

Crowdsourcing may be especially relevant to monitoring corporate practices because it can help level the playing field—adding new eyes and ears to organizations that seldom have the resources of their corporate targets. Imagine a system in which consumers who purchase faulty products, community witnesses to violations of pollution laws, or viewers of misleading or untruthful advertisements could send an email or text message, or make a phone call to a readily available site that could display all reports geographically and by topic in real time?

Like any method, crowdsourcing also poses challenges. The results can vary from a collection of anecdotes to systematic data; each has its purposes but collectors of crowdsourced information need to determine the valid uses based on the purpose and the response. In addition, some reports may come from disgruntled but not wronged customers or from businesses trying to gain an edge on their competitors by filing false charges. However, any reporting system has these perils and police and other agencies have developed strategies to assist in distinguishing between valid and bogus reports. Finally, crowdsourcing is a complement to, not a substitute for, other investigative strategies. Researchers still need to collect systematic data from a defined sample, organizers still need the face-to-face encounters that lead to political mobilization, and regulators still need full-time enforcement agents to ensure that reports of wrongdoing are investigated and prosecuted as needed. At best, crowdsourcing can become a new tool to expand and deepen other forms of investigation.

In the last few decades, multinational corporations have led the world in finding new applications for science, technology, and emerging media. Viral marketing, neurocognitive research to understand and influence consumer choices, and data mining of public databases to gain commercial insights are all examples. If public health researchers, officials, and advocates want to protect population health, they will need to master these technologies. Such mastery is a prerequisite both to regulate their use by corporations and to find new uses to advance public rather than private interests. By learning about crowdsourcing and applying it to monitor corporate practices, the public health community can fulfill its professional mandate of promoting the health of the public.

Nicholas Freudenberg is Founder and Director of Corporations and Health Watch and Distinguished Professor of Public Health at Hunter College, City University of New York.

Reducing Fast Food Outlets through Zoning

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

Over the last three decades, obesity rates in the United States have doubled in adults and tripled in children and adolescents, and reports now indicate that approximately one-third of children and adolescents and two-thirds of adults are either overweight or obese (1). Obesity has increased among all racial, ethnic, and income groups, but the highest rates occur among minorities and the poor (2, 3). This is particularly concerning given obesity’s link with numerous chronic health conditions, including diabetes, stroke, heart disease, high blood pressure, and some cancers (4).

While advocates correctly emphasize the importance of making healthy food more available to reduce obesity and other health problems, some researchers believe that such measures can only be effective if they are coupled with efforts to limit unhealthy foods as well (5). After all, eating a few more fruits and vegetables daily is unlikely to improve health if one is also consuming a Big Mac, fries and 32 ounces of soda a day. These researchers note that the policy rationale for reducing access to unhealthy foods is to make healthy choices the easier path.

In particular, fast food companies may play a key role in the obesity epidemic because of their large and inexpensive portion sizes, the high levels of calories, fat, and sodium contained in fast food, and the frequency with which those most affected by obesity (especially poor populations and children) consume fast food (6). Americans rely on fast food outlets for a substantial amount of their food, with almost half of food spending going to meals consumed outside the home (7). And not surprisingly, studies have found an association between eating fast food and higher fat consumption and weight (8, 9).

In considering how access to unhealthy foods might be reduced, municipal zoning codes may hold unique potential. Zoning laws determine how city land may be used and where these different uses may occur. As a police power, through which states are obligated to protect the public’s health, welfare, and safety, zoning laws may be a powerful tool for improving food environments (10). To help advocates better understand how zoning might be used to reduce access to unhealthy foods, this article provides information about how zoning has been used to influence fast food outlets, describes how various jurisdictions have approached the regulation of fast food, discusses potential arguments for and against the zoning of fast food, and describes some of the ways that the food industry has opposed efforts to zone fast food.

How has zoning been used to regulate fast food outlets?

City governments have developed a variety of ways of reducing fast food outlets through zoning. These typically fall into two categories: bans or restrictions (10). The most common types of zoning bans and restrictions to reduce fast food outlets are described briefly below (11). (For more detailed descriptions of these approaches, see Mair et al., 2005)

  1. Banning fast food outlets and/or drive-through service. Banning fast food outlets has been done via complete bans on new fast food outlets throughout a city or town, or less restrictively, as bans in which new fast food and/or drive-through service can only be allowed via conditional or special use permits.
  2. Banning “formula” restaurants. Formula businesses have been defined as those “that have standardized services, décor, methods of operation, and other features that make them virtually identical to businesses elsewhere.” Formula restaurants typically refer to large national chains, but in some cases have been interpreted to mean very small, local chains.
  3. Banning fast food in certain parts of a city. Often when fast food has been banned only from certain areas within a city, it is banned from areas that have a “unique character” that the city wants to preserve and fast food restaurants are banned for aesthetic reasons.
  4. Restricting the number of fast food outlets. This involves a cap on the number of fast food outlets that can exist in a given area or an entire city.
  5. Restricting the density of fast food outlets. Density of fast food outlets has been regulated per unit space (eg. one fast food outlet for every 400 feet of lot frontage along the street, as in the Westwood Village area of Los Angeles, California) and via space between fast food outlets.
  6. Regulating the distance between fast food outlets and other sites. These other sites have included schools, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, public recreation areas, and residentially zoned property.
Several municipalities have sought to ban fast food in the areas around schools.

Where has zoning been used to reduce fast food outlets?

South Los Angeles, California

In July 2008, the Los Angeles City Council approved a measure to place a one-year moratorium on the opening of new fast food establishments in several south Los Angeles neighborhoods with high fast food density and high obesity. The measure defined fast food as, “[a]ny establishment which dispenses food for consumption on or off the premises, and which has the following characteristics: a limited menu, items prepared in advance or prepared or heated quickly, no table orders, and food served in disposable wrapping or containers” (12). The new law only applied to stand-alone restaurants, not to those located inside malls or shopping centers (13). The rationale for implementing the measure as a moratorium was to give city planners time to assess the best use of minimal remaining land in these neighborhoods for the creation of a healthier food environment, and to attempt to draw grocery stores and sit-down restaurants to the area (13). The moratorium has now been extended to two years, and no evaluation data has yet been published regarding the measure’s effectiveness, though one analysis has suggested that the ban is not the best approach for addressing obesity in these areas (14).

Concord, Massachusetts

Concord, Massachusetts, a town of approximately 17,000 that is located within commuting distance of Boston, implemented a complete ban on drive-in and fast food restaurants in 1981 (11, 15). The rationale for the ordinance was two-fold: “to lessen congestion in the streets” and “to preserve and enhance the development of the natural, scenic and aesthetic qualities of the community” (11). City officials indicate that no one seems to miss the fast food outlets banned via the ordinance (15), however, to our knowledge, no health-related assessments of the ban’s effects have been conducted to date.

Detroit, Michigan

In Detroit, for close to two decades, the zoning code has prohibited most fast food restaurants from being built within 500 feet of all elementary, junior, and senior high schools (11, 15). The code’s language includes both “standard” restaurants and “carry-out or fast food” restaurants. As in Concord, no health-related evaluation data of this fast food restriction exists.

What kinds of arguments have been made for the zoning of fast food outlets?

Historically, the arguments used most commonly to reduce fast food outlets through zoning have been related to the increases fast food outlets can cause in traffic, pollution, and trash around the site (11), as well as the threat they may pose to pedestrian safety (16). Many have also successfully argued that fast food outlets be banned in specific areas in order to preserve a certain aesthetic to which fast food outlets do not conform (11).

A measure passed to ban new fast food outlets in South Los Angeles in 2008 (described above) marks the first time that health has been used as the explicit rationale for a change in the zoning of restaurants. The language of this ordinance reads that it was intended to “provide a strong and competitive commercial sector which best serves the needs of the community, attract uses which strengthen the economic base and expand market opportunities for existing and new businesses, enhance the appearance of commercial districts, and identify and address the over-concentration of uses which are detrimental to the health and welfare of the people of the community” (12).

What are the arguments against zoning fast food and potential responses to these arguments?

Argument 1: Reducing access to fast food in places considered “food deserts” could make residents vulnerable to not getting enough to eat.

Response: Fast food bans via zoning do not typically remove all fast food restaurants in a given area; they merely restrict the opening of new fast food outlets. The effect of such bans is to arrest the growth in fast food outlets and to make room for healthier food options. Stopping the growth of fast food outlets in areas considered “food deserts” may thus be an important first step in changing the overall food landscape in these neighborhoods, especially when banning fast food is implemented in conjunction with proactive efforts to increase healthy food options. Additionally, research indicates that hunger and obesity may be paradoxically intertwined. Insufficient income and food stamp benefits often force food choices based on economics rather than nutrition and health, and may encourage some people to overeat when they have money and go hungry when it runs out (5). If what people are overeating is fast food because that is what is most accessible, then the risks of obesity—even among populations that suffer from hunger—can be high.

Argument 2: Since zoning typically only affects new fast food outlets, it is not useful in reducing access to existing fast food restaurants.

Response: It’s true that eliminating or limiting the operation of existing fast food outlets through zoning is difficult and costly to implement. To address existing outlets, municipalities usually do one of three things: allow the business to continue, without changes or expansion; allow the business to continue operation for a specified period of time (amortization); or use eminent domain to provide the business owner with “just compensation” for the value of the business (17). This last route is the rarest of the three. Thus, in areas with a very high density of existing fast food outlets, the reduction that zoning could provide might be a legitimate concern. However, in most places, a prohibition or restriction of new fast food restaurants would likely substantially alter the food environment over time.

A poster exemplifying the “nanny state” argument.

Argument 3: It’s wrong for government to tell people what kinds of food they can have access to.

Response: This “nanny state” argument falls short when we recognize the extraordinary influence the fast food industry has on what we eat, as compared with government. Through the location of their outlets, as well as their prices, portion sizes, and advertising, fast food restaurants have made themselves an integral part of American life, just as they play an integral role in the obesity epidemic. Advocates suggest that we ask ourselves, “Who do we trust more to tell us what kinds of foods to eat: corporate executives with a financial bottom line or public health officials?”

Argument 4: There are other, better targets than fast food if we want to reduce obesity.

Response: The reduction of fast food outlets is rarely if ever intended as the sole approach to improving food environments. Rather, policies to reduce fast food are intended play a single but nonetheless critical role in a larger array of efforts to improve food environments.

How do food and restaurant industries oppose zoning changes?

The food and restaurant industries have opposed the zoning of fast food primarily through strong media responses to efforts to zone fast food and through lobbying. Media responses typically use the “nanny state” claim (Argument 3 above), and come from organizations like the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), which is a food and restaurant industry front group. For instance, in response to a report released by Institute of Medicine in 2009 that recommended zoning of fast food in areas near schools to reduce childhood obesity, CCF’s director of research said, “The big picture is [activists] want to control what everybody is eating. The theory is that we’re too stupid to make our own eating choices, so let’s make sure the restaurants are far away from you.” The president and executive director of CCF is Rick Berman, a food and tobacco industry lobbyist who also runs Berman & Co., a restaurant and tobacco industry public affairs group that is estimated to earn $10 million annually.

The National Restaurant Association also opposes zoning changes that would limit fast food outlets, and has developed a well-oiled machine for lobbying state and local legislators. In a 2005 CorpWatch article, Michele Simon wrote, “The National Restaurant Association has 60,000 member companies representing more than 300,000 outlets. NRA works quite effectively in tandem with each state’s restaurant association, providing model legislation, talking points, and additional technical assistance.”

By Emma Tsui, Postdoctoral Fellow at the City University of New York School of Public Health at Hunter College and editor at Corporations and Health Watch.

References

  1. Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Curtin LR, McDowell MA, Tabak CJ, and Flegal KM. Prevalence of overweight and obesity in the United States, 1999-2004. JAMA. 2006;295:1549-1555.
  2. Black J and Macinko J. Neighborhoods and obesity. Nutr Rev. 2008;66:2-20.
  3. Drewnowski A. Obesity, diets, and social inequalities. Nutr Rev. 2009;67(Suppl 1):S36-S39.
  4. Visscher TL, Seidell JC. The public health impact of obesity. Annual Review of Public Health 2001;22:355-75
  5. Dinour, L, Fuentes L, Freudenberg N. Reversing Obesity in New York City: An Action Plan for Reducing the Promotion and Accessibility of Unhealthy Food, CUNY Campaign Against Diabetes and Public Health Association of New York City, October 2008.
  6. Brownell KD. Fast food and obesity in children. Pediatrics 2004;113(1 Pt 1):132.
  7. Clauson A. Share of food spending for eating out reaches 47 percent. Food Rev. 1999;22:20–22.
  8. Bowman SA and Vinyard BT. Fast food consumption of U.S. adults: impact on energy and nutrient intakes and overweight status. J Am Coll Nutr. 2004 Apr;23(2):163-8.
  9. Bowman SA, Gortmaker SL, Ebbeling CB, Pereira MA, and Ludwig DS. Effects of fast-food consumption on energy intake and diet quality among children in a national household survey. Pediatrics. 2004 Jan;113(1 Pt 1):112-8.
  10. Hodge J. The Use of Zoning to Restrict Access to Fast Food Outlets: A Potential Strategy to Reduce Obesity. Presentation to the CDC Diabetes and Obesity Conference, May 2006.
  11. Mair JS, Pierce MW, and Teret SP. The use of zoning to restrict fast food outlets: A potential strategy to combat obesity. The Center for Law and the Public’s Health at Johns Hopkins & Georgetown Universities, October 2005.
  12. Los Angeles City Council. Los Angeles, California Ordinance 180103 (July 29, 2008).
  13. Hoag, C. “Los Angeles to vote on fast food ban.” The Huffington Post. July 29, 2008.
  14. Sturm R and Cohen DA. Zoning for health? The year-old ban on new fast-food restaurants in South LA. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009 Nov-Dec;28(6):w1088-97. Epub 2009 Oct 6.
  15. Fernandez, M. Pros and Cons of a Zoning Diet: Fighting Obesity by Limiting Fast-Food Restaurants. The New York Times, September 24, 2006.
  16. Spacht AC. The zoning diet: Using restrictive zoning to shrink American waistlines. Notre Dame Law Review. 2009 85(1): 391-418.
  17. National Policy and Legal Analysis Network to Prevent Childhood Obesity (NPLAN). Model Healthy Food Zone Ordinance. October 2009.

Photo credits:

  1. StudioGabe
  2. Mirsasha
  3. DonnaGrayson
  4. DR000
  5. swilkes

Beverage Industry Uses Old and New Strategies to Block Soda Taxes

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

The battle over soda taxation at the state level rages on, as more and more cash-strapped states seek to close budget shortfalls and avoid cuts to critical services such as public safety and transportation. Officials in at least 20 cities and states have proposed new excise taxes or to remove existing sales tax exemptions on non-alcoholic drinks. The beverage industry has responded by spending millions of dollars on lobbying and advertising against the proposed beverage “sin taxes” since 2009.

In a recent twist, the beverage industry has offered the city of Philadelphia what it calls a $10 million “good-will-gesture donation” to fund health initiatives in the city if the city agrees to abandon its proposed excise tax on soda. As noted by a food industry analyst, the move “demonstrates just how much the soda industry fears any attempt to tax its product.” Although the $10 million may seem like a generous offer, Philadelphia’s tax proposal, in contrast, would have raised $77 million in revenues, with $20 million going toward obesity prevention.

In this article, we review the strategies the beverage industry has used to try to block efforts to tax soda and sugar-sweetened beverages at the federal level, and in several key localities, including New York State, Washington State, Maine, Philadelphia, and Washington D.C. We also present evidence that clearly demonstrates how the proposed taxes and presumed increase in the price of soda would help Americans lower obesity rates by reducing our per capita soda consumption.

Beverage industry blocks proposals to tax soda at federal level

A federal excise tax on soda was first proposed in September 2009 as one means of offsetting the cost of healthcare reform and reducing the nation’s high rates of obesity. Although the proposals did not get very far, several high-level talks did take place, including a Senate Finance Committee hearing and closed-door talks with members of the House Ways and Means Committee (1). In response, the beverage industry immediately mobilized a broad-based lobbying effort to quash any such proposal. The coalition operated under the name Americans Against Food Taxes, and included soft drink manufacturers, suppliers, and mass-marketers such as McDonald’s.

In Washington D.C., corporations such as Coca-Cola Co., Pepsi Co., and numerous fast food companies spent $18 million in lobbying activities, and several million more in campaign donations to officials (2). Television commercials, such as this one, which appealed to concerns of everyday families about affording groceries, cost over $10 million to produce and air in key districts (2).

The American Beverage Association also went on the offensive in response to the increasing scientific evidence on the link between increased soda consumption and weight gain. The industry group attacked the findings of nutrition researchers, and funded studies of their own that were more favorable to the beverage industry’s interest in keeping soda consumption high. Kevin Keane, senior vice president of public affairs for the American Beverage Association, claimed that researchers “pick and choose the facts that support their view and attack anyone who disagrees. It’s scientific McCarthyism” (2). The industry’s well-funded efforts to silence any talk of a federal tax on soda were ultimately successful.

New York State fails to pass revised soda tax proposal

Corporations and Health Watch previously reported on the failed campaign to implement a “penny per ounce” excise tax as part of an effort to help close some of New York’s 2009-2010 budget shortfall. After Governor Patterson first announced the proposal in December 2008, the beverage industry poured massive amounts of funding (over $3 million) into lobbying and other efforts to oppose the measure, often working under the coalition called New Yorkers Against Unfair Taxes. The American Beverage Association spent nearly $900,000 lobbying in New York State in 2009, up from zero dollars in 2008. This influx of money appears to have worked, as original supporters of the tax like Senator Jeffrey Klein (D-Bronx/Westchester) became instrumental in getting the proposal off the table. Senator Klein accepted $36,000 in campaign contributions from the beverage industry and related groups since the tax was proposed in December 2008, actions that coincided with his decision to reverse his position on the soda tax.

Given New York State’s unrelenting fiscal troubles and multibillion-dollar shortfall, Governor Patterson tried to revive his soda tax proposal for the 2010-2011 budget, this time with a “carrot and stick” approach that would have allowed for an exemption for diet drinks and bottled water. At the present time, soda, diet soda, and bottled water are subject to a sales tax, but Governor Paterson wanted to add on an additional excise tax of “a penny per ounce” which would be levied on the beverage bottler for sugary sodas, with a “carrot” of sales tax exemptions for water and diet sodas. Governor Paterson maintained that the public would support the proposal as long as “we can justify where the taxes are going” (3). However, the revised proposal failed as well, owing in large part to the American Beverage Association’s ability to dominate discourse on the issue by spending $9.4 million in New York State in the first four months of 2010.

Philadelphia forced to raise property taxes and slash public safety programs rather than tax soda

Another locality where proposals to tax soda have recently failed is Philadelphia, where an estimated 70 percent of children in the city’s poorest neighborhoods are considered to be overweight or obese, according to city data. There, the City Council has recently refused to vote on the proposal to tax soda and other drinks with added sugar. Had the original proposal by Mayor Nutter been successful, Philadelphia would have levied a 2-cent per ounce excise tax on sugary drinks as part of an effort to balance the city’s 2010-2011 fiscal budget. The proposed tax was eventually reduced to a working number of between ½ to ¾ cents per ounce, which would have raised an estimated $9 million to $14 million in 2010-2011. The proposed tax wasintended to avoid cuts to libraries, recreation and public safety.

In Philadelphia, area retailers, teamsters and beverage corporations came together to oppose the tax, claiming that it would lead to the loss of nearly 1,000 of an estimated 13,000 food store jobs, as well as 2,000 jobs in distribution and bottling. The beverage industry has been criticized for the role that it played in the defeat of this soda tax. Harold Honickman, a “beverage mogul” who owns Canada Dry Delaware Valley Bottling Co., and whose net worth is estimated at up to $850 million, became the face of the anti-soda tax coalition, when he stepped up to offer $10 million on behalf of the beverage industry for city health and recreation programs just weeks before the scheduled vote. Mayor Nutter commented that, “It seemed a little strange in the middle of this fiscal and public health issue, that out of nowhere an offer of money was made, essentially to make this go away. I don’t operate like that, and our government does not operate like that.”

With City Council members deciding not to vote on the soda tax, the Mayor was forced to find other means of closing the budget gap. In order to close the budget shortfall, Philadelphia will be forced to shed 339 city positions, in addition to slashing police and fire companies’ budgets, reducing libraries to four-day weeks, cutting $500,000 from shelters and supportive housing programs, and raising property taxes 9.9 percent.

Washington D.C. fails to pass soda tax to fund Healthy Schools Act

In Washington D.C., penny per ounce soda taxes were considered as a means of funding healthy school foods programs earlier this year. The bill would have mandated more physical education and that low-calorie and low-fat meals be served to the area’s approximately 70,000 students. In a preliminary vote in April of this year, the 13-member D.C. Council unanimously voted to back the Healthy Schools Act, without a soda excise tax attached. However, once the soda tax was attached to the bill, several weeks of intensive lobbying followed by groups such as the Maryland-Delaware-D.C. Beverage Association, and support for the penny per ounce tax quickly dwindled. Instead, the city decided to apply its 6 percent sales tax to soda and other sweetened beverages to fund the $6 million cost of the program.

Industry works to repeal taxes in States that have passed excise taxes

It is noteworthy that a few states – Washington, Maine and Colorado – were recently successful in passing excise taxes on soda, but the beverage industry has now stepped up efforts to overturn these taxes. In April, the Washington state legislature passed a tax of 2 cents for every 12 ounces of soda and other sugary beverage, with a 2012 expiration date. According to theWashington Post, the American Beverage Association soon began funneling money to its Washington State branch. The beverage industry coalition, operating under the name Stop Grocery Taxes, had has collected over 395,000 signatures which will place Initiative I-1107 “to stop the tax hikes on food and beverages” on the state ballot in November. A similar approach has already been successful in Maine, where two years ago the legislature passed a soda tax of 42 cents per gallon. Last November, the beverage industry spent over $4 million on its Fed Up With Taxes Campaign, which was successful in putting the tax on the ballot and encouraging voters to reject the tax.

The case for a soda tax

While industry groups claim that soda taxes are nothing more than a money grab from taxpayers struggling to support families, there is substantial evidence that increases in price will in fact reduce soda consumption. In a recent report by the USDA, it was estimated that a ten percent price increase would decrease purchases by 12.6%. Cathy Nonas, head of nutrition programs for the New York City Department of Health, has noted, “If the consumer sees the price difference when they’re about ready to buy the product, we do see a reduction in consumption of an unhealthy food.”

With Americans currently consuming approximately 50 gallons of soda per year (4), and nearly two thirds of American adults who are overweight or obese, a reduction in consumption of sodas and other high calorie beverages will translate to better health.

Note: The proposals described above deal mainly with excise taxes, which would be levied on the beverage bottler. Sales taxes, on the other hand, are levied directly on the consumer at checkout. Sales taxes are generally a percentage of the total cost, whereas excise taxes tend to be levied per unit or quantity (e.g., per ounce, or per a given quantity of syrup used). In addition, sales taxes apply to a range of products, whereas excise taxes are usually associated with a particular product category, such as alcohol or tobacco.

Excise taxes are generally considered preferable by health advocates in terms of their likely effect on price and consumption patterns, although few states currently have excise taxes on soda (exceptions include Arkansas and West Virginia). Soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages, despite their low nutrient content, are exempt from sales tax in many localities because they are considered “grocery items.”

By Lauren Evans, writer for Corporations and Health Watch and student in the Doctor of Public Health program at the City University of New York.

References

  1. Hamburger T, Geiger K. Soda tax fizzles; Targeting lawmakers and nutritionists, beverage firms put a stopper in the plan. Los Angeles Times. February 7, 2010.
  2. Geiger K, Hamburger T. States poised to become new battleground in soda tax wars; Lawmakers in California and elsewhere seek levies on sweetened drinks. Los Angeles Times. February 21, 2010.
  3. Madore JT. Proposal could be pain in the wallet; Paterson unveils new taxes, big cuts in budget plan; says $7.4B hole calls for difficult, necessary moves. Newsday. January 10, 2010.
  4. Bittman M. A sin we sip instead of smoke? The New York Times. February 14, 2010.

Recommended reading on relationship between taxes and soda consumption:

Corporations and the Food Movement: The Case of the KFC Double Down

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

In the June 10 edition of the New York Review of Books, Michael Pollan writes that while the diverse interest groups of the American food movement are starting to pull together, “It’s a big, lumpy tent, and sometimes the various factions beneath it work at cross-purposes.”

Under this tent, Pollan includes those people interested in:

school lunch reform; the campaign for animal rights and welfare; the campaign against genetically modified crops; the rise of organic and locally produced food; efforts to combat obesity and type 2 diabetes; “food sovereignty” (the principle that nations should be allowed to decide their agricultural policies rather than submit to free trade regimes); farm bill reform; food safety regulation; farmland preservation; student organizing around food issues on campus; efforts to promote urban agriculture and ensure that communities have access to healthy food; initiatives to create gardens and cooking classes in schools; farm worker rights; nutrition labeling; feedlot pollution; and the various efforts to regulate food ingredients and marketing, especially to kids.

 

This article explores what a new and much-discussed sandwich from KFC, the Double Down, can tell us about ways that corporations might try to use the lumpiness of the food movement tent to their advantage. KFC introduced the Double Down on April 12th, describing it as a “one-of-a-kind sandwich” that “features two thick and juicy boneless white meat chicken filets, two pieces of bacon, two melted slices of Monterey Jack and pepper jack cheese and Colonel’s Sauce.” KFC gushed, “This product is so meaty, there’s no room for a bun!” Advertisements for the sandwich sparked a lively debate on the Internet and beyond. This response has translated into sales, and while initially the sandwich was to be offered for just a few weeks, KFC recently announced that its availability would be extended through the summer and perhaps for as long as demand remains high.

At first, commentators repeatedly noted the blow to health that the Double Down appeared to pose for anyone who consumed it. As a reporter for the Baltimore Sun quipped, “I’d call it murder on a bun, except there is no bun.” But others argued that KFC was not alone in promoting unhealthy fare. Pop culture analyst Greg Beato wrote, “Positioning KFC as a culinary terrorist that coerces chicken-hearted consumers into eating against their best interests makes for a savory sound bite, but it’s based on faulty intelligence.”

As it turns out, the Double Down’s 540 calories, 32 grams of fat, and 1,380 milligrams of salt make for a pretty average nutritional profile as compared with that of other fast food items. The Double Down is considerably less unhealthy, for instance, than Wendy’s Triple Baconator (1,350 calories, 90 grams of fat, and 2780 mg of salt) or Burger King’s Triple Whopper (1160 calories, 76 grams of fat, and 1170 mg of salt). According to one of the more sophisticated analyses, even Burger King’s regular Whopper with cheese is slightly nutritionally worse than a Double Down. And the Double Down appears almost light next to items from restaurants like The Cheesecake Factory and California Pizza Kitchen, whose products were recently featured in the Center for Science in the Public Interest’s Xtreme Eating 2010 report.

So, miraculously, the notion of the Double Down as a nutrition disaster is morphing into an understanding of it as fast food business as usual. In their efforts to target young men, KFC has joined Hardee’s, Burger King, and Jack in the Box in launching marketing campaigns designed to increase product recognition, brand loyalty, and sales to a population characterized by rapid increases in obesity and escalating cardiovascular risk.

In conjunction with these nutritional concerns, it is interesting to note that KFC has engaged a somewhat surprising branch of the food movement—hunger activists and food banks—in its promotion of the sandwich. In their online newsroom, the corporation has written,

When introducing a bunless sandwich, the obvious question is: what happens to all the buns? To celebrate the launch of the Double Down, KFC will do some good by donating the “unneeded” sandwich buns to feed the hungry. The brand will donate both buns and funds to food banks across the country, starting with the Dare to Care Food Bank in KFC’s hometown of Louisville, Ky.

Some, like NYU Professor Marion Nestle, have wondered what purpose this aspect of the Double Down marketing serves. Nestle speculates that perhaps it is merely desperation on the part of KFC, which saw its market share fall precipitously in the latter half of the 2000s. However, even desperate acts are driven by strategy. Might bun donation have functioned as a preemptive offering to one branch of the food movement—in this case, hunger activists—to quell the anticipated outrage of other branches, like those concerned with obesity and nutrition?

Though the complex tensions between hunger and obesity are at the heart of the food movement, the mobilization around food is not just political. As Pollan puts it,

What is attracting so many people to the movement today (and young people in particular) is a much less conventional kind of politics, one that is about something more than food. The food movement is also about community, identity, pleasure, and, most notably, about carving out a new social and economic space removed from the influence of big corporations on the one side and government on the other.

Except for this last clause about corporations and government, Pollan might well be describing the soaring interest in popular food culture, through which many people now identify as “foodies” or “chowhounds.” Foodies are people who take a collector-like interest in food and restaurants. Not all foodies care about where food comes from and how it’s produced, but many do, especially those who have followed renowned and socially-minded chefs like Alice Waters and Bill Telepan into the food movement.

Chowhounds represent what some regard as the more adventurous, less high-brow end of the foodie spectrum. The name stems from an online message board started by Jim Leff and Bob Okumura in 1996. As Leff described in an interview in 2005, a chowhound is:

Someone who seeks out deliciousness in any situation and loves to discover new culinary treasures. The one who, on the way to work each morning, walks blocks out of the way to try a different muffin and isn’t satisfied until the most delectable one is found. They are people who hate to settle. In a world where titanic engines of marketing influence people’s opinions and taste, there are the guys who opt out and make their own decisions. You know how there’s adventure travel? Well, we’re adventure eaters. Which doesn’t mean that we won’t go to the obvious places if they’re great. If McDonald’s made great hamburgers, I would be there every day.

Leff’s last sentence highlights the idea that when a movement is, as Pollan writes, about “community, identity, and pleasure,” there are many possible forms that communities can take, and many (possibly conflicting) values that these communities can hold. Like the food movement, the foodie movement has gained its steam online as much as anywhere else, and many of the related communities are online ones. This is relevant to the Double Down’s success, which has been fueled by online interest. At the end of April, KFC’s spokesperson Richard Maynard was quoted as saying, “For the demographic it is intended for, primarily young males, [the Double Down] has received an unprecedented response following launch. […] We’ve never seen so many people post YouTube videos and social-media reviews of one of our products.”

However, the response to the Double Down is not limited to young men posting YouTube videos. According to KFC’s post-test marketing research, the Double Down has received high scores for “uniqueness,” precisely one of the food characteristics that chowhounds and many other foodies seek. And sure enough, many chowhounds couldn’t resist a jaunt to KFC to try the Double Down. Posts about the Double Down on chow.com (the current incarnation of the chowhound message board) have received more than 100 replies (an examplehere), often weighing in with first-hand knowledge of the sandwich.

Further evidence of the curiosity that the Double Down has produced among studied eaters and those outside of the usual fast food target audience is apparent in the unprecedented reviews (examples here, here, and here) of the fast food item, not only by numerous food and other blogs, but also by the dining sections of several major newspapers. Mina Kimes of CNNmoney.com writes that the Double Down is a “turning point for the fast food industry as a whole–proof that customers will now flock to product innovation, not just pricing promotions.”

While Pollan notes that the food movement’s diverse subgroups are beginning to converge, KFC seems to see another path. Using its awareness of tensions in the movement, KFC hopes to fuel sales of what appears to be a very successful product. The marketing of the Double Down should provoke us to ask two basic questions. First, how can a food movement resist corporate efforts to undermine people’s capacity to make healthier food choices? And second, what roles can foodies play in the food movement and what interests do they share with other reformers?

By Emma Tsui, Postdoctoral Fellow at the City University of New York School of Public Health at Hunter College and editor at Corporations and Health Watch.

 

Photo Credit:

carnesaurus

California county votes to ban the use of toys to attract kids to unhealthy fast food meals

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

In August, Santa Clara County in California may become the nation’s first municipality to ban the use of toys in marketing high fat, high sodium fast food to kids. On May 11th the county board passed the final vote needed to ban the toys that typically accompany children’s meals in fast food chains such as McDonald’s, Burger King, and Wendy’s if those meals do no meet certain nutritional standards set forth by the Institute on Medicine.

For example, in order to come with a toy, a meal would have to have less than 485 calories and 600 mg of sodium (1). By way of comparison, the nutritional contents of several standard kids’ meals are as follows:

A McDonald’s Happy Meal of Cheeseburger, 12 ounce Sprite, and small french fries

contains

640 calories

24 grams fat

940 mg sodium

35 grams sugar

 A Burger King Kids’ Meal with Cheeseburger, 12 ounce Sprite, and apple slices

contains

490 calories

16 grams fat

800 mg sodium

45 grams sugar

 A Wendy’s Kids’ Meal with Crispy Chicken sandwich, 12 ounce Hi-C fruit punch, and kids’ french fries

contains

620 calories

22 grams fat

970 mg sodium

27 grams sugar


The fast food companies respond

The ordinance applies to all 150 or so restaurants in the unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County, but only about a dozen of these restaurants are fast food outlets that tend to offer free toys with children’s meals. The California Restaurant Association, which represents the interests of fast food companies, has launched an aggressive campaign to prevent the new ordinance from taking effect. McDonald’s and other corporations are fearful that the ban could lead other municipalities to enact similar rules. The campaign has run misleading full-page advertisements in local newspapers asking for constituents to contact their representatives. As noted by the California Restaurant Association’s director of local affairs, “It sets a tone. It could have a domino effect.” Michele Simon, author of Appetite for Profit wrote in a recent blog post about the ban, “I’ve been saying for years that it’s only a matter of time until some city or county figures out that a simple change in law is all that’s needed to make such promotions illegal at the local level. Localities have tremendous public health authority that is often underutilized.”

Fast food companies’ use of fictional characters

McDonald’s and Burger King have by far the worst track records when it comes to using popular fictional characters to peddle toxic foods. According to a recent Congressional report described in the Los Angeles Times, food companies spent about $1.6 billion in 2006 in marketing foods to children, and about $360 million of this sum was spent on the toys that come with kids’ meals. McDonald’s Corporation held an exclusive 10-year contract with Disney from 1996 to 2006, and Burger King currently has a contract with DreamWorks and Nickelodeon for co-branding (2). Both McDonald’s and Burger King use clever advertising techniques to capture children’s attention, leading them to use their “pester power” to bring their parents and families to fast food restaurants so that they can collect all of the toys. See Burger King’s website for kids here, and McDonald’s website for kids here.

Health advocates and parents grow concerned about the use of toys to sell junk food

While the fast food giants are trying to spin the issue as a matter of government officials taking decisions away from parents, or as excessive government meddling, many parents welcome the proposal, though their feelings can be complex. Comments from popular parents’ websites are a testament to this. For instance, a comment on CafeMom reads, “I’m mixed on this. . . I just wish they would stop running commercials. I do not allow my son to eat fast food but it’s getting harder cuz of their stupid commercials showing what toys they are offering.”

The county supervisor behind the proposed ordinance, Ken Yeager, told the New York Times that the new law would “level the playing field by taking away the incentive to choose fatty, sugary foods over healthier options.” Yaeger noted that “This ordinance breaks the link between unhealthy food and prizes. It helps parents make the choices they want for their children without toys and other freebies luring them toward food that fails to meet basic nutritional standards.”

While many have credited the California county with pioneering the move to ban toys in promoting fast foods, it should be noted that similar bans have been proposed in other countries where childhood obesity is of concern, such as in England in 2008, and in Brazil and Spain in 2009.

Lauren Evans is a writer for Corporations and Health Watch and student in the Doctor of Public Health program at the City University of New York.

References

  1. According to a press release dated 4/27/10 from Santa Clara County: “Restaurants cannot use toys as rewards for buying foods that have excessive calories (more than 120 for a beverage, 200 for a single food item, or 485 for a meal), excessive sodium (480 mg for a single food item or 600 mg for a meal), excessive fat (more than 35% of total calories from fat), or excessive sugar (more than 10% of calories from added sweeteners). The criteria are based on nationally recognized standards for children’s health created by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the Department of Agriculture (USDA), and recommendations for children’s food published by the Institute of Medicine (IOM).”
  2. Institute on Medicine of the National Academies. Food Marketing to Children and Youth. Washington DC: The National Academies Press; 2006.

Image Credits:

  1. Amanky
  2. graciepoo

Taking on Big Soda over Taxes: Lessons Learned from Fighting Big Alcohol

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

With soda taxes becoming an increasingly attractive policy option to help prevent diabetes and obesity and to fill empty state coffers, the soft drink industry is fighting back, and hard. While tobacco is often mentioned as the analogous issue, in fact, alcohol and soft drinks have much in common. In this piece, experienced alcohol control advocate Michele Simon translates lessons learned from the ongoing fight against Big Alcohol into six practical lessons for soda tax advocates.

Since I started working at Marin Institute, an alcohol industry watchdog group, in 2007 it’s become painfully clear that corporations have the same playbook. Whether it’s the food industry, tobacco, or alcohol, they all use the same talking points and lobbying strategies. While Big Tobacco may be most infamous for decades of hiding scientific evidence of harm and the deceptive marketing, all industries have similar tactics.

In my work at Marin Institute, raising alcohol taxes has been a primary focus of our policy agenda because we know that increasing prices is one of the most effective ways to prevent underage drinking and adult overconsumption.

With soda taxes becoming an increasingly attractive policy option to help prevent diabetes and obesity, the soft drink industry is fighting back, and hard. While tobacco is often mentioned as the analogous issue, in fact, alcohol is more similar to soft drinks.

Besides the obvious (they are both beverages), alcohol and soft drinks each hold a special place in American culture. There’s nothing more American than relaxing with a Coke, or a Bud. Also, unlike smoking, which everyone (well, except the tobacco industry) can agree should simply be stopped, when it comes to beverages, the message is more about cutting down.

Here, I offer a few of the lessons that alcohol control advocates have learned from decades of fights with industry over raising taxes, fights that continue to this day.

Lesson One:
Don’t let industry claim that soda doesn’t cause obesity or that taxes won’t work.

This is a tried and true tactic: attack the science, discredit the scientists, and make unscientific predictions that are in direct conflict with the published science. As is the case with tobacco, the alcohol industry has abandoned its futile attempts at claiming there is no scientific connection between alcohol consumption and health problems. However, because the science is less far along in obesity, the soda industry attempts to refute what science there is on the connection between drinking soda and poor health. Still, this argumentation is easily countered by showing those studies that claim no connection between soft drinks and obesity tend to be funded industry, big surprise.1

A related argument is that raising taxes will not result in the desired public health goal of lowered consumption, and thus fewer health problems. The alcohol industry does try to make this argument, claiming that people will continue to drink and of course, what we really need instead is better education and parental oversight. The soft drink industry loves to point out how there are “many causes” of obesity and that they should not be singled out, and that soda taxes won’t work due to this “complexity.”

Now it’s true that we do have less science when it comes to predicting behavior change from soda taxes than either tobacco or alcohol, both of which have been studied for decades by economists and other researchers. So it’s imperative that when we are making claims related to “elasticity” (the economic term for consumer response to price change) that we get it right.

We also have to be honest by saying that we may need more research to fully understand pricing effects. One thing we’ve learned from alcohol is that taxes can be a very blunt instrument in effecting price change because companies are very clever in how they absorb the added business expense. Companies can keep cheap products cheap while marking up more expensive products, or simply cut costs instead. Product pricing is extremely complex and cannot always be predicted accurately. One study suggests that minimum pricing on all alcohol may be a better policy than raising taxes, due to price manipulation by industry.2 Minimum pricing is when the government sets a floor; for example, that retailers cannot sell below cost. Such a policy has a more direct impact on prices than taxes. Perhaps minimum pricing should be considered for soda.

Lesson Two:
Don’t let industry claim that a penny per ounce tax will cause massive job loss.

Job loss and adverse economic impacts are industry’s most effective talking points. It cannot be underestimated how powerful and persuasive this argument is with politicians, as it gives them a convenient excuse to curry favor with industry by voting against a tax increase. Already, lobbyists for Big Soda have descended on New York State to convince lawmakers there to vote against a tax, with unsubstantiated claims of massive job loss. A recent story in the New York Daily News estimated that the beverage industry spent $3 million on lobbying against the state soda tax proposal.

The alcohol industry has been extremely effective claiming job losses so it’s no surprise the soda industry is following this path. And of course, in these tough economic times, such arguments carry even more weight. “We are already struggling. Don’t kick us when we are down. This is the worst time to raise taxes,” we hear all the time. Of course, meanwhile, every state legislature is in the red, desperate for revenue, which is precisely why soda taxes are even being considered in so many states in the first place.

But there is no good time to raise taxes. If and when the economy improves, the soft drink industry won’t suddenly stop opposing taxes. Alcohol control advocates have countered industry’s job loss claims in a few ways. First, they argue that the tax increase being proposed is so small that the impact on business will be negligible. Of course, it will still be enough to see a public health impact, but it won’t put anyone out of business, even the small “mom and pop stores.” Secondly, there is no good science to back up industry’s wildly exaggerated claims of job losses. Unfortunately, we do not have any science on the public health side either to examine what any potential job loss might be based on, either from an alcohol or soda tax increase, and this is an area of research that is sorely needed. We do have decent studies on indoor smoking laws that showed bars did not go out of business, despite industry claims to the contrary during those battles.3

Another response to the economic argument is that when people stop buying one type of product (whether tobacco or alcohol or soda) those consumer dollars do not disappear. Rather, people spend that money in other parts of the economy, so there is no net loss. Moreover, the money to be gained in tax revenue will be spent on programs that will create jobs. For example, in New York, the Healthcare Education Project is projecting that 29,000 healthcare jobs will be lost if the soda tax there does not pass. This dwarfs the beverage industry’s job loss projections of 6,000 if the soda tax is passed.

Lesson Three:
Don’t let industry claim they care about poor people and working families.

The beer industry has been particularly shameless about arguing that beer taxes are regressive because they hurt poor Joe and Jane Six-pack. We make the obvious counter argument, that beer, like soda, is not a necessity of life. (Moreover, research shows that people with higher incomes actually consume more alcohol.) The soda industry, through its ad campaigns and front group, Americans Against Food Taxes, is promoting the imagery of family picnics, and claiming that average Americans would never be in favor of such policies. In alcohol, polling has proven very useful to demonstrate the overwhelming support for higher alcohol taxes, especially when the funds are applied to alcohol-related programs. Polling could also be useful in countering soda industry claims that all Americans think taxes are always bad. Positive polls also offer politicians cover.

Lesson Four:
Make sure to index all excise taxes to inflation. (Industry hates this.)

One of the biggest challenges in the alcohol field is that excise taxes (based on volume sold) are not indexed to inflation. As a result, because most states have not raised their excise taxes in years, the real value of tax revenue has significantly declined. For example, in California, the real value of alcohol excise tax revenue, which was last raised in 1991, has declined 37 percent. (See Marin Institute’s maps that demonstrate the impact of neglected and outdated alcohol excise taxes in each state.) This amounts to a subsidy for industry, since product prices remain artificially low. Here, you have not only industry to battle, which hates indexing to inflation for obvious reasons, but also many lawmakers who do not believe in placing automatic increases on taxes. But without it, you will find yourself fighting the same battles year after year for increases. Note that because sales taxes are usually assessed as a percentage of price, sales taxes will go up as prices increase. This is one benefit to sales tax over excise tax.

Lesson Five:
If and when you start gaining success locally, do not allow industry to get preemption at the state or federal level. (This is really important.)

Most excise taxes on products such as tobacco and alcohol are assessed at both the federal and state level and for good reason, as both levels of government rely on the revenue generated by taxing these products. Some states also allow the local taxation of tobacco and alcohol, which is of critical importance, especially now when so many counties and cities are hurting for revenue. And of course, it’s at the community level that the adverse impact of harmful products is felt most severely. Unfortunately, the alcohol industry has successfully preempted localities from assessing taxes in most states. In other words, only states can levy alcohol taxes, not cities or counties. (There are some exceptions; for example, California allows local fees under limited circumstances.)

For soda taxes, it’s imperative that cities and counties retain the right to assess local taxes and fees as they see fit. Also, if there is ever to be a soda tax at the federal level, under no circumstance should such a law preempt state-level taxation. Doing so would be a public policy disaster and makes no sense from a states-rights or public health perspective.

Lesson Six:
Be Prepared for the Long Haul.

Finally, do not underestimate how much industry will lobby to the death against taxes. This is unlike any other fight–school food, menu labeling, you name it–and the food industry cares more about taxes. Taxes go to the heart of the corporate business model: having complete control over pricing, which is critical to maintaining steady profits.

Also, unlike other issues for which there may be grounds for compromise (such as menu labeling), industry will not compromise on taxes. This issue is non-negotiable.

Instead, industry will kill bills, and when they can’t stop a bill, they will successfully water it down to a much lower, perhaps insignificant tax rate. (Then when you try to raise it next time, it will look like a huge, unreasonable increase, which will be used against you.) Big Soda, in cahoots with distributors, restaurants, and the retail sector, will out-spend and out-maneuver public health advocates for decades to come. Already the soft drink industry has increased its lobbying against soda taxes by750 percent both in Congress and the states, which indicates how seriously they take this threat. They can spend millions of dollars fighting taxes and still get a good return on that investment due to the money they save in the long run.

And the fight will never be over, because even if you get a tax this year, it will probably be small, and you will have to fight to increase it next year, and the year after that. Public health advocates will have to decide if the enormous resources it will take to succeed are ultimately worth spending decades fighting on taxes, or if other policies, such as reducing corn subsidies, would be more effective. Either way, the lobbyists will remain employed.

Michele Simon is the Research and Policy Director for Marin Institute, an alcohol industry watchdog group, and the author ofAppetite for Profit: How the Food Industry Undermines Our Health and How to Fight Back. Visit her website and read herblog.

References

  1. Vartanian LR, Schwartz MB, Brownell KD. Effects of Soft Drink Consumption on Nutrition and Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, Am J Public Health. 2007;97:667-675.
  2. Gruenewald PJ, Ponicki WR, Holder HD, and Romelsjoe A. Alcohol Prices, Beverage Quality, and the Demand for Alcohol: Quality Substitutions and Price Elasticities. Alcohol Clin Exp Res, 2006; 30 (1): 96-105.
  3. See e.g., Klein EG, Forster JL, Erickson DJ, Lytle LA, and Schillo B. Does the Type of CIA Policy Significantly Affect Bar and Restaurant Employment in Minnesota Cities? Prev Sci. 2009 Jun;10(2):168-74.

 

Interview with T.J. Faircloth from Corporate Accountability International

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

Is it time for Ronald McDonald to hang up his clown shoes? T.J. Faircloth, Research Director for Corporate Accountability International (CAI), thinks that it is. In March, CAI launched a campaign called “Value [the] Meal” to pressure fast food companies to stop aggressively marketing to children, blocking labeling laws, and interfering with the development of healthier public policies. We interview T.J. to find out more about the campaign’s strategy and rationale.

On March 11, Corporate Accountability International launched a new campaign called “Value [the] Meal” to pressure fast food companies to stop aggressively marketing to children, blocking labeling laws, and interfering with the development of healthier public policies. Corporate Accountability International (CAI) has been waging campaigns to end corporate abuses for 30 years. In April, Corporations and Health Watch staff person Marissa Anto interviewed T.J. Faircloth, the Research Director of CAI, about the Value [the] Meal campaign. What follows is an edited version of that interview.

CHW: What inspired the Value [the] Meal Campaign to focus on Ronald McDonald as the target of your campaign against fast food advertising to children?

TJF: Basically our Value [the] Meal Campaign was inspired by rampant corporate abuse of our food system. We looked at the entire food system from seed to plate and we realized that corporations were playing a negative role in our food system by spurring the epidemic of diet-related diseases, specifically the staggering increase of childhood obesity and diet-related illnesses like type II diabetes that really have a profound impact on children’s health all over the world.

Even globally we’ve seen the rates of diet-related illnesses spike. We wanted to start a campaign that would ultimately help reverse this epidemic by targeting the irresponsible actions of transnational corporations who play a major role in spreading this epidemic. Through understanding the various abuses of transnational corporations, we became interested in the marketing of unhealthy foods to children and that’s where we started to hone our attention towards McDonald’s being the industry leader and their brand spokes-character, Ronald McDonald.

CHW: Ronald is both a symbol but also an important part of McDonald’s brand value. What do you think are the pros and cons of using Ronald as the focus on your campaign?

TJF: Ronald, in our opinion, is really the face of a broken food system. For 50 years, there has been this iconic character who has hooked kids on an unhealthy product. There’s no one out there who would disagree that fast food is unhealthy. When we examined the role of the fast food industry in the current epidemic of diet-related diseases, it was clear that the marketing of unhealthy food to children is a key contributor to the problem.

McDonald’s as an industry leader has pioneered an irresponsible business model that depends on hooking kids on an unhealthy product early. When you start to pull apart their brand you find that their key to success is from establishing this lifelong relationship starting with Ronald McDonald and the toys and the happy meal and the playgrounds. This relationship begins at childhood and then continues throughout a person’s lifetime. So the pro for us is that by going after Ronald we were really going after the heart of their business model. We wanted to demonstrate the scope of Ronald’s market reach and more broadly the marketing of unhealthy foods in general. Whether it’s the fast food industry, the soda industry, the candy industry or even packaged foods; we thought that by going after Ronald and going directly after the McDonald’s business model, it would help people to organize around this problem.

Ultimately, the cons are that since McDonald’s has made such an effort to establish this lifelong relationship with its customers, people really have an emotional attachment to this corporate clown. As a result, some people have had a reaction when initially hearing about our campaign [to retire Ronald McDonald]. If they didn’t have a lot of context, they ask, “Why would you go after a beloved children’s character?” So we really have to deconstruct this emotional attachment that many adults still have with this character.

The other potential con is that McDonald’s has been so savvy with their marketing that they have the Ronald McDonald House charities and they have positioned Ronald McDonald as the face of those charities. We honestly commend the work of those charities and in no way have any issue with what the charities do. Our issue is more around the irony that, on the one hand, you have this corporate figure who supposedly helps kids, but he’s also contributing greatly to diet-related diseases among children. So those are two things on the con side that we’ll have to work on throughout the course of this campaign.

CHW: How did you come up with the Ronald McDonald tracking idea? What are its goals?

TJF: We wanted to demonstrate that marketing does have a profound impact on children’s health. Corporations have billions of dollars to spend on marketing and they don’t do it because it doesn’t work; they do it because it does influence the eating habits of children. The initial idea was let’s try to demonstrate the scope of Ronald McDonald’s reach and also the scope of the marketing of unhealthy food and how many children it reaches through various venues.

We wanted to show that marketing is having an effect that most parents and educators and even public health officials don’t really understand. It’s no surprise that nearly every child can recognize this corporate icon.

CHW: What is the Value [the] Meal campaign’s strategy?

TJF: The strategy really depends upon building a public climate here in the U.S. that connects McDonald’s with its impact on public health and that mobilizes people to demand change from the corporation. Our basic strategy is to mobilize tens of thousands of people across the country through the campaign to put pressure on McDonald’s to change its irresponsible marketing practices that target children. In that effort we’ve joined with teachers, parents, public health professionals, community leaders, faith communities, even socially responsible investors and elected officials to call for Ronald’s retirement with the understanding that any meaningful change in their marketing practice would need to start with their iconic children’s character.

CHW: What do you think is the biggest barrier to making fast food restaurants more accountable to the general public and the public’s health?

TJF: We feel like the biggest barrier is the immense power that these industries can wield. It not only allows them to exert control over our food system but it also allows them to manipulate public opinion, nutrition science, and public health policies. McDonald’s is a 32 billion dollar brand. They have really deep pockets, and can spend millions on public relations campaigns and marketing campaigns that can convince the public that their food is not harmful to health. Corporations like McDonald’s also have tremendous political power and they hide behind trade associations, the main one being the National Restaurant Association, which we’ve found has lobbied against legislation and public health policies relating to the fast food industry and the restaurant industry at large.

CHW: Can you describe some of the instances you report where corporations have attempted to influence scientific research concerning the negative effects of fast food?

TJF: A story in the Washington Post in 2004 reported that there are at least 30 McDonald’s restaurants located in hospitals nationwide, including in children’s hospitals in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, New York, and Cleveland. In some cases, Ronald McDonald is actually in the lobby hailing patients. And there was a study published in Pediatrics that estimated that fast food restaurants can be found in 30% of U.S. hospitals with pediatric residency programs. The reason why that’s a big deal is the study had shown that when fast food is directly located in hospitals, particularly children’s hospitals, the parents of those children who are in the hospital change their opinion about the nutrition value of fast food. So when those parents were asked how they felt about the nutrition quality of fast food, they had higher opinions of fast food when fast food was directly located in hospitals.

We’re also concerned about industry funding of national health groups. The American Academy of Family Physicians has formed their own partnership with McDonald’s. The company is now a sponsor of the AAFP’s Americans in Motion Program. If fast food corporations have these kinds of partnerships with health groups it sends a mixed message to people who might be concerned about the impact of fast food on public health.

Another example would be the American Dietetic Association (ADA). They received funding from many food corporations, such as Coke and Pepsi and even McDonald’s and other fast food companies, and you see these companies show up at the ADA’s annual conference and they have exhibitions, so again these partnerships skew the perception of how healthy fast food is.

One of the other issues we’re interested in is the Health Advisory Boards/Health Advisory Councils that many fast food companies have. McDonald’s has a global advisory council that has several health officials and doctors who advise them on nutrition and health. For us, that really sends mixed messages to people that fast food is healthier than it is.

And the last thing we keep an eye on is the direct funding of nutrition science from fast food. For example, a couple years ago the Scripps Research Institute and McDonald’s announced a collaboration regarding research and an educational initiative to drive progress towards a solution to childhood obesity and type II diabetes. McDonald’s donated $2 million to address these issues facing America’s children. If McDonald’s just changed some of their practices, they’d have a tremendous impact on type II diabetes and childhood obesity. It’s not really necessary for them to fund science. We know Scripps will be unlikely to come out with research that is negative towards the fast food industry because of that.

CHW: Can you discuss your findings from your most recent report on fast food advertising to children?

TJF: There were three main findings. First, we confirmed that corporate icons, children’s characters, and targeted fast food marketing to children have a profound negative impact on children’s health. Children do not understand the persuasive intent of brand marketing and they quickly develop brand loyalty that carries over into adulthood. For example, a 2007 study from Stanford University found that preschool children reported that food in McDonald’s wrappers tasted better than identical food wrapped in plain wrappers, suggesting that branding can even trump sensory input. In addition, marketing fast food to children really undermines parental authority by tapping into what the industry calls “pester power” where kids relentlessly pester parents to purchase unhealthy products, so even the most diligent parents can eventually succumb to this pressure in order to appease their children.

Second, we discovered, just as McDonald’s says, Ronald McDonald is literally everywhere. We had hundreds of members submit details of all the venues, locations, and events that Ronald frequents. We know he’s in schools, in educational materials, libraries; we saw him at the Olympics and other sporting events that appeal to children, parades like the Macy’s Day parade, children’s museums, in and around children’s hospitals, and on TV and the internet. Basically, almost anywhere where children tend to gather. So really just understanding the scope of Ronald’s reach was another major finding.

The last important finding was based on a national poll we conducted with Lake Research Partners that provided insight into McDonald’s use of Ronald McDonald. One question was, “What sort of impression do Americans have of Ronald McDonald?” We found that 65% of Americans actually have a favorable impression of Ronald McDonald. Not surprisingly, directly connected to that, about 65% of Americans actually have a favorable opinion of McDonald’s. But though the clown is well liked, we still found that a majority, 52% of Americans, favored stopping corporations from using cartoons and other children’s characters from selling harmful products to children. So that was one revelation. Even among those who have a favorable impression of Ronald McDonald, about half of those, 46%, actually support retiring Ronald. Looking more closely at the demographics, among parents who have children under the age of 18 and have favorable impression of Ronald and the McDonald’s Corporation, half support Ronald’s exit to the nearest retirement home. It was interesting to see that despite this widespread support for both the corporation and Ronald and the emotional attachment to the character, you still have a pretty broad base support for getting rid of him.

CHW: What role can President Obama or the First Lady and her Childhood Obesity Campaign have in improving fast food practices?

TJF: There’s a Voluntary Corporate Initiative housed under the Better Business Bureau called the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative in which companies, including a dozen or so fast food companies, have now made these pledges to reduce the marketing of unhealthy food to children under 12. However, this voluntary initiative has been in effect for two years and several reports show that this it is ineffective, having no impact on the quality of food that these companies are marketing to children. So it’s clear that voluntary agreements with the industry will not work.

So the President’s or Michelle Obama’s initiatives requesting that the industry take voluntary action it just won’t be effective. The President should work to quickly implement the national menu labeling legislation that was part of health care reform. This would be a mandatory regulation under health care reform that would require, similar to what has happened in New York City, that all chain restaurants post calories on their menu boards. This would give customers the information they need to make more informed decisions. That would be one immediate thing the President could do, because it’s looking like it would take 2-3 years for this legislation’s implementation.

The President could also restore the Federal Trade Commission’s authority to regulate food marketing to children. There’s a joint interagency Working Group on Food Marketing to Children that includes representatives from the Federal Trade Commission, Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and U.S. Department of Agriculture – that produced and presented in December a set of recommended nutritional standards for foods marketed to children. Those recommendations were supposed to be finalized in February, but they haven’t been finalized yet. They appear on the surface to be strong, so the President should work to have the guidelines finalized and then to make them into mandatory regulations.

CHW: Your campaign focuses on one company, the biggest one. What do you think of broader efforts to ban all unhealthy food advertising to children? I heard that Dennis Kucinich proposed legislation to ban tax deductions on advertising unhealthy food to children, so what do you think of efforts like that?

TJF: We totally agree with those efforts. As I’ve mentioned, when you look at this issue, it’s not just the fast food industry. I think a lot of people are interested in the fast food industry and agree that really any fast food is inherently unhealthy. That is different from packaged food products, which are sort of a mixed bag. When you think about the junk food industry, you’re really talking about the soda industry, the confectionery candy industry, packaged foods, and then fast food. We’re organizing around fast food but the problem is really widespread and all those other pieces of the junk food industry market to children and have a profound impact on their health. I think that fast food advertising may be more visible and the scope may be larger. But we totally support those efforts to really ban the marketing of all unhealthy marketing to children whether it’s fast food, soda, candy, or packaged foods.

CHW: Are there any fast food chains that are doing the right things? If so what are they doing that can serve as models for the rest of the industry?

TJF: There are some chains working to improve their supply chain, reducing pesticide use, increasing organics, and increasing local acquisition of food. There are many that are providing healthy options, which is different from healthier options. We’ve seen some movement among the bigger fast food chains that provide healthier children’s meals or salads that still have a ton of calories (dressings, condiments). But there are some chains that actually provide some healthy options. There are some chains that, even before the regulation, labeled nutrition information prominently and made that information available prior to the sale. McDonald’s will say that they’ve provided that information for many years now but it’s often after the products are sold. For example, customers can see calorie on the tray liners, after they’ve purchased the products. There are some smaller chains that have actually coordinated with local public health officials to address diet-related diseases in the communities they operate in. That seems like a very good step since public health concerns may differ from community to community. Some communities may be having a huge issue with hypertension and may need to reduce salt so restaurants need to take steps to reformulate salt content, that sort of thing.

CHW: What can academics, activists, and the average person do to compel fast food companies to improve the quality of their food?

TJF: We certainly respect the work that Corporations and Health Watch and the City University of New York have been doing to expose the irresponsible activities of the food industry that are greatly contributing to the epidemic of diet-related diseases and childhood obesity. Those academics and activists should continue to work on that front to expose the irresponsible corporate activities that are having negative health outcomes. The best first step for the average person to take is to get involved: to join our Value [the] Meal campaign to pressure McDonald’s and other fast food chains to stop marketing to children, and specifically regarding McDonald’s, to retire Ronald McDonald. Anyone can engage with the campaign by signing Ronald’s retirement card and joining our organizing effort. We’re making great progress in pressuring McDonald’s with exciting and compelling actions designed to engage the average person in the effort to protect children’s health.

For more on McDonald’s and the Value [the] Meal Campaign, see:

Prior CHW reports on McDonald’s:

PepsiCo vows to cut salt, sugar, and fat: Is Big Food getting healthy?

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

In March, PepsiCo Inc. announced that it was setting goals to substantially reduce the amount of sodium, sugar, and fat in its products over the next decade. Other Big Food companies like Kraft Foods Inc., ConAgra Foods Inc., and the Campbell Soup Co. have also recently vowed to make healthier products. CHW editor Emma Tsui briefly explores where this wave of industry health consciousness is coming from and how people are reacting to it.

On March 22, 2010, PepsiCo Inc. announced that it was setting goals to substantially reduce the amount of sodium, sugar, and fat in its products over the next decade. Specifically, the corporation hopes to cut the average sodium per serving in some of their brands by 25% by 2015, and to reduce average saturated fat and added sugar by 15% and 25% by 2020. Called “Performance with Purpose,” the initiative also seeks to increase the whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, and seeds available among PepsiCo’s products, as well as to improve the corporation’s commitments to environmental sustainability and the health of its workforce.

PepsiCo’s global food and beverage business includes not only Pepsi-Cola, but numerous other familiar brands like Frito-Lay, Tropicana, Dole, Gatorade, Tazo teas, and Quaker, the maker of oatmeal, which is considered to be the company’s leading healthy food brand. Other Big Food companies like Kraft Foods Inc., ConAgra Foods Inc. (maker of Chef Boyardee, Healthy Choice, and Slim Jim products, among others), and Campbell Soup Co. have also recent publicly vowed to improve the healthfulness of their products by reducing their sodium content.

So where has this wave of industry health consciousness come from? PepsiCo emphasizes the dual objectives of responding to consumer preferences and improving the health of consumers in their decision to improve the healthfulness of their products. “Consumers are heading toward ‘good-for-you,’” MSNBC quoted PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi as saying during the recent investor meeting. Not only that, but as a limited liability corporation, Nooyi has said that it is important for companies like hers to recognize, “…if we are operating with a license from society, we owe that society a duty of care.” More cynical observers speculate that PepsiCo, like other food companies, is trying to avoid government regulation, which might set tougher standards and impose sanctions for violations. As one commentator noted, “Considering the vast resources large companies like PepsiCo, Kraft, and Campbell Soup Co. have at their disposal, these firms are wise to invest [in] research and development now, rather than scrambling later to avoid congressional hearings and even government regulations.”

Though reducing sodium, fat and sugar in processed foods may seem like an encouraging sign for the public’s health, there’s no doubt that PepsiCo’s interest in health is closely tied to its enduring interest in profit. “We believe that a healthier future for all people and our planet means a more successful future for PepsiCo,” Nooyi noted in the company’s press release. MSNBC added that PepsiCo’s portfolio of healthier or “good for you” products currently earns them approximately $10 billion (approximately one-fifth of their total revenue), and indicated that Nooyi estimates that this amount will grow to $30 billion within the decade.

But what impact can we expect these kinds of changes to have on health? Reaction to news of the “Performance with Purpose” initiative casts doubt on its health benefits, and responses to the company’s work to create what reporters have dubbed “designer salt” have been particularly skeptical. In these studies, by altering the shape of the salt, PepsiCo researchers have been able to increase the percentage of salt that dissolves on the tongue and is tasted, so that less salt can be used. In response to this news, the New York Times pointed toward the need to reduce consumption of snack foods, writing, “It’s not enough for snacks to have artificial sugar and new-fangled salt. High-tech or not, we also have to eat less of them.” Hemi Weingarten of the Huffington Post was in agreement, but blamed the marketing practices of PepsiCo and other major corporations in addition to consumer behavior. “So long as mega-corporations continue to manufacture and sell snacks as their main line of business, people will be encouraged by their aggressive marketing to consume more and more snacks and less real foods,” he wrote.

By Emma Tsui, Postdoctoral Fellow at the City University of New York School of Public Health at Hunter College and editor at Corporations and Health Watch.

Photo credits:

  1. wallyg
  2. roadsidepictures

After criticism, food industry abandons Smart Choices Program

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

In August 2009, major U.S. food manufacturers—including Kellogg, Kraft, ConAgra, General Mills, Pepsico, Sun-Maid, and Unilever—implemented the “Smart Choices” nutrition labeling program. Spending more than $1.47 million in 2008 and 2009 to develop the system featuring a green check mark and logo on foods that meet certain nutritional standards, 14 processed foods giants developed the system to promote their own products as “healthy.” 1 Two months later, on October 23rd, the Smart Choices program announced that it would “voluntarily postpone active operations and not encourage wider use of the logo at this time by either new or currently enrolled companies.” What happened?

While the idea of putting a label on the front of the package to guide consumers in making healthy choices holds much appeal, food researchers and media critics were outraged by the standards used. “Smart Choices Foods: Dumb as They Look?” asked a headline in Forbes magazine. When Kellogg gave its sugar-dense Froot Loops and Cocoa Krispies the Smart Choice check (because of the vitamins they added and the milk children poured in), Walter C. Willett, chairman of the nutrition department of the Harvard School of Public Health told the New York Times, “These are horrible choices.” Awarding checks to these products, he explained, is “a blatant failure of this system and it makes it, I’m afraid, not credible.”

While media and scientific criticism of the Smart Choices program may have made the food industry uncomfortable, it was two government agencies that sent the industry-funded architects of Smart Choices back to the drawing board. On October 15th Connecticut State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal announced an investigation into “a potentially misleading national food label program that deems mayonnaise, sugar-laden cereals and other nutritionally suspect foods ‘Smart Choices.’’’

Blumenthal noted that, “These so-called Smart Choices seem nutritionally suspect—and the label potentially misleading… Our investigation asks what objective scientific standards, research or factual evidence justify labeling such products as ’smart.’ … Busy moms and dads deserve truth in labeling—particularly when their children‘s health is at stake.”

About a week after Blumenthal’s announcement, the U.S. Food and Drug Agency released a letter warning that Smart Choices may actually do more harm than good. They noted that their research suggested that Smart Choices, as implemented, may mislead customers about the health benefits of certain foods and may make consumers less likely to read the detailed nutrition facts panel. FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg told reporters that “There are products that have gotten the Smart Choices check mark that are almost 50 percent sugar.” 2 In the cautionary letter, the FDA affirmed its position that, “both the criteria and symbols used in front-of-package and shelf-labeling systems be nutritionally sound, well-designed to help consumers make informed and healthy food choices, and not be false or misleading.” 3 Two days later, Smart Choices’ suspended operations and declared it welcomed the “opportunity to collaborate on front-of-package labeling with the FDA.” 4

Do health advocates support a unified Front of Package (FOP) labeling systems?

While food advocates and government officials rejected the particulars of Smart Choices, many of these critics, most notably the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), have long argued for an easy-to-use symbol to supplement the nutrition facts panel. In fact, CSPI submitted a petition to the FDA in November 2006 arguing for a simplified uniform national program. In this petition, they describe the inconsistent, confusing and misleading systems have been implemented by various corporations to promote their own products. For example, the petition by CSPI notes that:

  • Pepsi Co’s “Smart Spot” symbol has been applied to their Munchies Kid Mix, a snack mix that includes Cap’n Crunch cereal and Cheetos and candy-coated chocolate
  • General Mills has a “Goodness Corner” symbol that has been applied to its Chocolate Lucky Charms
  • Kraft’s “Sensible Solution” program has been applied to several high-fat cheeses, salty hot dogs, and Nabisco Strawberry Newtons
  • Kellogg uses misleading “Best to You” banners to “draw attention to a product’s more healthful attributes” while overlooking less healthful characteristics. For example, one banner advertises that the product contains “iron” and “energy” while overlooking excessive sugar content
  • the dairy industry allows a “3-A-Day” symbol on its products regardless of fat content
  • the American Heart Association’s “heart check” does not consider trans fats or refined sugars
  • Unilever’s “Eat Smart” allows for its extremely salty products to earn this label

Next steps: a nutritionally sound Front of Package (FOP) labeling system

Had it been properly designed and implemented, the Smart Choices program could have created a more unified and less confusing system for consumers. Instead, the food industry paid for a rating system that would not force it to make changes that might jeopardize profitability. CSPI Director Michael Jacobson believed the corporations participating in Smart Choices were hoping to avoid federal regulation of Front-of-Package labeling by showing the FDA that they were capable of developing a system on their own. 5, 6 He told the New York Times, “It clearly blew up in their faces. And the ironic thing is, their device for pre-empting government involvement actually seems to have stimulated government involvement.” 6 In its October 21st letter, the FDA promises to devise rules for FOP labeling that American consumers can trust. 3

So what are the lessons from the temporary demise of Smart Choices? First, active public oversight and monitoring can yield action. The threat of investigations by the Connecticut Attorney General and perhaps other State Attorneys General and the FDA’s cautionary letter clearly got the attention of the food industry, which feared bad publicity or possible legal action that could damage their reputation in a very tough economy. Second, the rating system established by the industry-funded Smart Choices program clearly does not meet most reasonable professional nutrition standards—one more example of industry self-regulation failing to safeguard public health. (For more on this, see Voluntary Guidelines vs. Public Oversight: Finding the right strategies to reduce harmful corporate practices) Finally, the Smart Choices story shows that with a new administration in Washington, advocates and state officials can hope for at least some level of support for their efforts from federal regulators, a dramatic change from a year ago.

On the other hand, it may be easier to stop a bad program like Smart Choices than to start an effective front-of-package labeling system. The decisions the FDA makes in the coming months will show whether the agency is willing to lead the fight for a labeling system that in fact promotes health. As FDA Commissioner Peggy Hamburg told reporters, “There‘s a growing proliferation of forms and symbols, check marks, numerical ratings, stars, heart icons and the like… There‘s truly a cacophony of approaches, not unlike the tower of Babel.” Whether the FDA can quiet that cacophony by requiring the food industry to speak in a language that all Americans can understand and use to make healthier food choices remains to be seen.

Lauren Evans is a student in the Doctor of Public Health program at City University of New York.

 

References

1 Ruiz R. Smart Choices Foods: Dumb as They Look? Processed-foods giants spent more than $1 million to create nutritional guidelines for a labeling system that favors their own products. Forbes.com. September 17, 2009. Available at http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/17/smart-choices-labels-lifestyle-health-foods.html. Accessed November 22, 2009.

2 Foodprocessing.com. Maybe a not-so-smart choice. October 26, 2009. Available at http://www.foodprocessing.com/industrynews/2009/141.html. Accessed November 14, 2009.

3 Foodconsumer.org FDA concerned about Smart Choices. October 24, 2009.

4 FDA. Guidance for Industry: Letter Regarding Point of Purchase Food Labeling. October 2009. Available at http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/
GuidanceDocuments/FoodLabelingNutrition/ucm187208.htm. Accessed November 22, 2009.

5 Press Release from Smart Choices Program. Smart Choices Program™ Postpones Active Operations: Group Welcomes Opportunity to Collaborate on Front-of-package Labeling with the FDA. October 23, 2009. Available at http://www.smartchoicesprogram.com/pr_091023_operations.html. Accessed November 22, 2009.

6 Neuman W. Food label program to suspend operations. October 23, 2009. The New York Times.

 

Image Credits:
1. KayVee.INC
2. Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com

Dangerous levels of salt in chain restaurant meals prompts action by public health departments and a lawsuit against Denny’s Corporation

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

Food manufacturers and chain restaurants continue to increase the amount of sodium in their foods to dangerously high levels. Growing concern about the salt in processed and restaurant foods and the lack of industry concern over the health of the American people has led advocates to consider new ways to encourage the food industry to lower the salt in processed food. In this report, CHW describes two distinct efforts: a national initiative started by the New York City Department of Health in April 2009 and a class action lawsuit filed in July 2009 against Denny’s by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), an organization with a long history of advocating for stronger policies involving salt content in processed foods. We also describe the recent voluntary action taken by Campbell Soup Co. in July 2009 to lower the sodium content of one of its best-selling products, tomato soup, so that it meets recommended guidelines.

More than 25 years ago, the Food and Drug Administration’s Dietary Sodium Initiative called on the food industry to voluntarily reduce sodium levels in processed foods. However, since that time, food manufacturers and chain restaurants have continued to increase the amount of sodium in their foods to dangerously high levels. Indeed, at some of the nation’s largest chain restaurants, the amount of salt in a single meal is often more than two to three times higher than the recommended daily allowance for sodium. For most Americans, this means an increased risk of high blood pressure, heart attack, and stroke in the long-term, all leading causes of death among U.S. adults. For some, particularly the elderly, consuming several days’ worth of salt in a single meal may be enough to trigger congestive heart failure.1 In a recent news story, pediatric urologists and nephrologists also attribute the sharp rise in kidney stones in children to increased salt intake, particularly from highly processed, high-salt, high-fat foods.

Growing concern about the salt content in processed and restaurant foods and the lack of industry concern over the health of the American people has led advocates to consider new ways to encourage the food industry to lower the salt in processed food. In this report, Corporations and Health Watch describes two distinct efforts: a national initiative started by the New York City Department of Health in April 2009 and a class action lawsuit filed in July 2009 against Denny’s by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), an organization with a long history of advocating for stronger policies involving salt content in processed foods. We also describe the recent voluntary action taken by Campbell Soup Co. in July 2009 to lower the sodium content of one of its best-selling products, tomato soup, so that it meets recommended guidelines.

How much sodium is safe to consume? For most adults, no more than 1,500mg daily

According to the Institute of Medicine, children aged 4-8 should consume no more than 1,200 mg of sodium per day. Guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, suggest that 69% of the adult population – those over age 40, African Americans, and those with high blood pressure – should consume no more than 1,500 mg daily. And for the third of American adults who do not fit into those high-risk categories, the upper limit of sodium intake is around 2,300 mg. More than three-quarters of the sodium that Americans consume comes from processed and restaurant foods; approximately 12% is naturally occurring in foods such as dairy products; about 5% is added during preparation at home; and only about 6% is added at the table.

Exactly how much sodium is present in chain restaurant foods?

Not only do many restaurant chains add dangerous levels of salt to their products, they often do their best to hide the amount of sodium that is present. This information is hidden on websites to which many customers lack access, and despite the best efforts of consumer advocates, these restaurants have repeatedly refused to disclose this information voluntarily to customers on menus. In other cases, the tables used to determine sodium and caloric content are difficult for the average customer to interpret. A sample of popular items for adults and children, taken from a recent press release by CSPI reveals the high amounts of salt that is typical in today’s chain restaurants:

  • Chili’s Honey-Chipotle Ribs with Mashed Potatoes with Gravy, Seasonal Vegetables, and a Dr. Pepper soda has 6,440 mg, or 429% of the advised daily limit for most U.S. adults
  • Olive Garden Chicken Parmigiana with a Breadstick, Garden Fresh Salad with House Dressing, and Raspberry Lemonade has 5,735 mg, or 382% of the advised daily limit for most U.S. adults
  • Children’s menu at KFC: Popcorn Chicken with Macaroni and Cheese, Teddy Grahams, and 2% milk has 2,005 mg, or 167% the advised daily limit for children
  • Children’s menu at Red Lobster: Chicken Fingers, Biscuit, Fries, Raspberry Lemonade has 2,430 mg, or 203% of the advised daily limit for children

What can be done to encourage the food industry to reduce the amount of salt and disclose the amount of salt to their customers?

Three recent examples illustrate the range of strategies for that are being used to reduce salt in processed food.

NYC Department of Health launches nationwide public health campaign to cut the salt in restaurants and processed foods

Some public health departments have begun campaigns to encourage chain restaurants to reduce the amount of sodium in their foods and to disclose the amount of sodium in their products to consumers. The New York City Department of Health’s Cardiovascular Disease Prevention division launched a national campaign in April of this year with the support of numerous public health departments across the country and organizations such as the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, the American College of Epidemiology, and the American College of Cardiology. According to a campaign press release, “The initiative calls on food industry leaders to help develop, and then adhere to, sodium targets for all products, using categories such as breads, breakfast cereals and prepared entrees. The goal is to achieve substantial, gradual reductions in salt levels across a wide range of foods.” In New York City alone, more than 750,000 people are at increased risk of heart attack and stroke because of uncontrolled high blood pressure. Nationwide, it is estimated that a 50% reduction in salt in processed and restaurant foods could prevent 150,000 premature deaths each year. In a fact sheet, the campaign describes in greater detail the strategy of “Working with the food industry to set salt reduction targets that are substantial, achievable, gradual, and measurable.” In addition, the campaign seeks to educate consumers about the dangers of salt and hypertension in publications such as “Cut the Salt! And lower your blood pressure and risk of heart attack and stroke” [pdf].

Campbell Soup Co. adopts a new strategic priority: the reduction in sodium in hundreds of its products

In late July 2009, approximately three months after the start of the national health campaign described above, Campbell Soup Co. announced that it would voluntarily reduce the amount of sodium in one of its best-selling products, tomato soup, which it has been producing for 62 years. The new formulation meets federal nutritional guidelines for sodium because it contains 480 mg or less of sodium per serving. Instead of relying on excessive amounts of sodium to enhance the flavor of its tomato soup, the company says that it is experimenting with different varieties of tomatoes and other flavorings.2

According to executives in the company, cutting sodium across hundreds of its products is now a top strategic priority.2 Denise Morrison, president of Campbell Soup North America, has said “We hope it’s the biggest change you never notice.” 2 The company says that it has test-marketed the newer formulation of its soup in all 50 states, and most people say they do not miss the salt or that they like the new formulation better.2 This is precisely the type of positive action by the private sector that the national campaign started by the New York City Health Department seeks to achieve.

A class action lawsuit is filed against Denny’s by CSPI

In July 2009, the Center for Science in the Public Interest filed a class action complaint in New Jersey against Denny’s Corporation. Denny’s is a corporation that in 2008 had more than $648 million in company restaurant sales in its more than 1,500 restaurants across the country. The goal of the suit is to compel the restaurant corporation to disclose the amount of sodium in its meals, and to provide customers with a warning concerning the safety of high-sodium food. CSPI met with Denny’s Corporation lawyers initially in an effort to convince Denny’s to lower sodium content in their meals. It became clear, however, that the corporation was not willing to cooperate with this request.3 According to a Public Citizen blog entry, “We chose to contact Denny’s as the first (but not, we suspect, the last) restaurant chain to face a lawsuit for it’s wrongdoing because, as best we could tell, Denny’s is Public Health Enemy Number One when it comes to sodium. Denny’s admitted, when we first met with its lawyers, that it knew that excess sodium was a problem for Americans, and that its meals contained astronomically high levels of sodium. This is a classic consumer protection lawsuit, no different from a suit against a used car dealer who sells a car with 200,000 miles, but with the odometer disconnected. What we seek is simple – a court order forcing Denny’s to do what it should already be doing: Warning of the risks of high-sodium meals and telling its customer’s just how much sodium they get when they eat at Denny’s. That way, folks can decide whether or not to risk their lives by eating Denny’s meals.”

The complaint highlights the fact that “at least 75 percent of Denny’s meals contain more than the maximum amount of sodium most Americans should consume in an entire day.” Below are some menu items CSPI listed in its complaint against Denny’s.

A: Moons Over My Hammy: A ham and scrambled egg sandwich with Swiss and American cheese on grilled sourdough served with hash browns has 3,230 mg sodium, or 215 percent of the advised daily limit.

B: The Super Bird: A turkey breast sandwich with melted Swiss cheese, bacon strips and tomato on grilled sourdough served with French fries has 2,610 mg sodium, or 174 percent of the advised daily limit.

C: Double Cheeseburger: Two beef patties and four slices of American cheese with lettuce, tomato, pickles, and red onion served with French fries has 4,130 mg sodium, or 275 percent the daily limit.

D. Spicy Buffalo Chicken Melt: A fried chicken breast covered in a buffalo sauce with lettuce, tomato, and Swiss cheese on ciabatta bread with a garlic spread served with French fries has 4,120 mg sodium, or 275 percent of the advised daily limit.

E. Super Grand Slam Slamwich: Two scrambled eggs, sausage, crispy bacon, shaved ham, mayonnaise, and American cheese on potato bread grilled with a maple spice spread served with hash browns, and two pancakes has 5,690 mg sodium, or 379 percent of the advised daily limit.

On July 23, 2009 Denny’s responded to investors regarding the class action complaint in a press release. in which the company reassures investors that it will fight CSPI’s lawsuit aggressively in court, claiming the suit is “without merit.” The company points to a new menu for health-conscious consumers Better for You introduced in June 2009.

However, CSPI defends its legal action. Said Michael F. Jacobsen, CSPI’s Executive Director, “Who knows how many Americans have been pushed prematurely into their graves thanks to sodium levels found in Olive Garden, Chili’s, and Red Lobster? These chains are sabotaging the food supply.” 4

Future directions

The new national campaign begun by the New York City Department of Health shows that reducing the amount of salt that people consume requires action by individuals, governments, and the private sector. Individuals can learn about how to monitor and reduce their salt intake, but chain restaurants such as Denny’s that serve customers dangerously high levels of sodium and fail to properly disclose salt content to customers make this task much more difficult.

By their recent action, the New York City Department of Health and the Center for Science in the Public Interest demonstrate two complementary and reinforcing strategies to encourage the food industry to make it easier for their customers to avoid dangerously high levels of salt. Campbell Soup Company’s decision to hold the salt in its tomato soup shows that the processed food manufacturers can find innovative ways to reduce the salt content of its products so that they meet federal guidelines, without necessarily sacrificing taste. By pursuing multiple strategies to lower salt in processed food, health advocates can help lower the burden of salt-related chronic diseases.

By Lauren Evans, doctoral student in public health at City University of New York.

 

References

1 CSPI press release dated 7/23/09.  Unsafe sodium levels at Denny’s prompt class action lawsuit. http://www.cspinet.org/new/200907231.html.   Accessed September 3, 2009.

2 Downing J. Campbell takes a gamble, cuts salt in tomato soup. The Sacramento Bee. August 20, 2009. http://www.sacbee.com/161/story/2124138.html?storylink=lingospot_related_articles.  Accessed September 3, 2009.

3 Activist group sues Denny’s over sodium levels.  July 23, 2009. http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE56M4J320090723.  Accessed September 3, 2009.

4 CSPI press release dated May 11, 2009.  “Heart Attack Entrees with Side Orders of Stroke”
src=”uploads/images/old_archives/img/clip_image005_0000.gif” border=”0″ alt=”blank2″ width=”1″ height=”5″ />Overly Salty Restaurant Meals Present Long-Term Health Risks for All, and Immediate Danger for Some.  http://www.cspinet.org/new/200905111.html. Accessed September 3, 2009.

Photo Credits:
1. premshree
2. the_sampler
3. grenfrog00