New Reports on Food, Alcohol and Tobacco Marketing

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

In the last few months, government and advocacy organizations have released new reports on the impact of tobacco marketing, inequities in how grocery chains serve low-income neighborhoods, and the alcohol industry’s compliance with its own voluntary guidelines. To help readers keep up, we summarize some of this summer’s publications and provide links to the full reports.

 

As elected officials, public health researchers and advocates increasingly recognize that corporate policies and practices have a major influence on health, Corporations and Health Watch readers may have trouble keeping up with the many reports on the subject. Since these reports often appear in the “gray literature” and are not centrally indexed, it’s easy to miss information that could inform research or practice.  To assist readers in this task, CHW summarizes a few recent reports; we do not review their claims or assess their methodologies.

Bloomberg M. Press Release: Mayor Bloomberg and Shaquille O’neal Announce New Food Standards For City Agencies, September 19, 2008.

On September 19th, New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and NBA basketball player Shaquille O’Neal announced the launch of New York City’s new food standards designed to improve the nutritional quality of the 225 million snacks and meals served by City agencies each year. These standards make New York City the first major US city to establish nutrition standards for all food purchased or served by city agencies. The new standards cover snacks and meals served in places such as schools, senior centers, homeless shelters, child care centers, after school programs, correctional facilities, public hospitals and parks. The standards mandate City agencies to serve only healthier beverages such as skim or 1 percent milk (with exceptions for babies), phase out deep frying, include two servings of fruits and vegetables in every lunch and dinner, lower salt content and increase the amount of fiber in meals.

Blue Ribbon Commission on L.A.’s Grocery Industry and Community Health.  Feeding our Communities.  A Call for Standards for Food Access and Job Quality in Los Angeles Grocery Industry. Los Angeles, July 2008.  Available in [pdf]

The Alliance for Healthy and responsible Grocery Stores, a city-wide Los Angeles coalition of 25 community, faith-based, labor, and environmental organizations last July released “Feeding Our Communities: A Call for Standards for Food Access and Job Quality in Los Angeles’ Grocery Industry”. Based on public hearings in which residents, industry experts, academics, workers and clergy gave testimony regarding the practices of L.A.’s grocery industry, the report describes the growing disparities between the industry’s treatment of L.A.’s better off and poor communities.  The report presents evidence that LA supermarket chains ignore and mistreat the area’s low-income communities. The Alliance expects to propose citywide legislation that would establish uniform standards for grocery stores in Los Angeles, ensuring that low income neighborhoods receive more equitable treatment.

Federal Trade Commission. Marketing Food to Children and Adolescents A Review of Industry Expenditures, Activities, and Self-Regulation. A Report to Congress. Washington, D.C.: Federal Trade Commission, July 2008.  Available in [pdf]

From the FTC press release on the report:
“The Federal Trade Commission today announced the results of a study on food marketing to children and adolescents. The report, Marketing Food to Children and Adolescents: A Review of Industry Expenditures, Activities, and Self-Regulation, finds that 44 major food and beverage marketers spent $1.6 billion to promote their products to children under 12 and adolescents ages 12 to 17 in the United States in 2006. The report finds that the landscape of food advertising to youth is dominated by integrated advertising campaigns that combine traditional media, such as television, with previously unmeasured forms of marketing, such as packaging, in-store advertising, sweepstakes, and Internet. These campaigns often involve cross-promotion with a new movie or popular television program. Analyzing this data, the report calls for all food companies “to adopt and adhere to meaningful, nutrition-based standards for marketing their products to children under 12.”

Kolish ED, Peeler CL.  Changing the Landscape of Food and Beverage Advertising: The Children’s Food and Beverage Initiative in Action.  Arlington, VA: Council of Better Business Bureaus, July 2008.  Available at: www.nestle.com

From the Executive Summary:
During July through December 2007, the six companies scheduled to implement during this period, Campbell Soup Company, The Coca-Cola Company, the Hershey Company, Kraft Foods Global, Inc., Mars, and Unilever, successfully implemented their pledges in which they committed either to not engage in child-directed advertising or to feature only better-for-you products in child-directed advertising.

  • No child-directed advertising. Based on our review, Coca-Cola, Hershey and Mars did not engage in child-directed advertising as they had pledged.
  • Advertising only for better-for-you products. Based on our review, Kraft limited all, and Campbell and Unilever limited virtually all, of their child-directed advertising to better-for-you products as specified in their pledges.

Campbell reported, and the BBB separately observed, that during the initial start up period, it had overlooked removing, primarily on its child-directed company-owned websites, a relatively small amount of content that referenced or displayed products that do not (or did not then) meet its nutrition guidelines. These problems have been remedied. Its television advertising, which represented a substantially larger amount of its media expenditures, was otherwise compliant with its pledge.

  • The BBB found that Unilever, while otherwise fully in compliance, had overlooked removing a couple of products, out of many, from its child-directed company-owned website. It has corrected this issue.

During July through December 2007, Burger King Corp., Cadbury Adams, General Mills, Kellogg Company, McDonald’s, and PepsiCo began the process of implementing their pledges. Many of them, ahead of schedule, implemented their pledges to a significant degree by limiting or changing what they advertised to children, or by early implementation of other parts of their pledges, such as product placement commitments.

Langlois, A. and Crossley, R.    Proof of the Pudding: Benchmarking Ten of the World’s Largest Food Companies’ Response to Obesity and Related Health Concerns. New York: JP Morgan,  April 2008. Available in [pdf]

In April 2008, JP Morgan Limited released a report in which it evaluated ten major food companies against a best practice framework developed by Insight Investment and the International Business Leaders Forum ‘HEAL’ partnership, published in 2007: ‘A Recipe for Success’.

The report includes the key components of a comprehensive corporate response to consumer health and obesity challenges. All companies were initially evaluated on the basis of their public disclosure and assigned a score for the quality of reporting: sources used included annual reports, SEC filings, corporate responsibility reports or similar, websites.

Researchers offered to meet with managers of all the companies to discuss initial findings and provide a comprehensive explanation of their strategies and program. Seven companies took the opportunity to meet while Cadbury, Heinz and Kraft were not in a position to meet. Final analysis and score for performance completed on the basis of additional information provided in company meetings. Companies sent final provisional scores and offered the opportunity to review and provide additional information, which several did.

Marin Institute.  Why Big Alcohol Can’t Police Itself A Review of Advertising Self-regulation in the Distilled Spirits Industry.  Marin Institute, September 2008.  Available in [pdf]

In this September 2008 report, the Marin Institute analyzes the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS) Code of Responsible Marketing Practices reports from 2004-2007. The Federal Trade Commission relies upon a system of voluntary self-regulation to ensure responsible marketing practices by the alcohol industry. This report publishes for the first time a systematic review of the DISCUS oversight process, and concludes that the process is inherently biased and consistently fails to protect the public from irresponsible advertising.

National Cancer Institute.  The Role of the Media in Promoting and Reducing Tobacco Use.  NCI Tobacco Control Monograph Series. No 19.  Washington DC, National Institutes of Health, July 2008.  Available in [pdf]

src=”uploads/images/old_archives/img/clip_image012_0000.gif” alt=”Role of the Media in Promoting and Reducing Tobacco Use” hspace=”10″ vspace=”5″ width=”131″ height=”197″ align=”right” />Summarized from page vii of report:  This 684 page report is the most current and comprehensive distillation of the scientific literature on media communications in tobacco promotion and tobacco control. It synthesizes findings from the disciplines of marketing, psychology, communications, statistics, epidemiology, and public health and was compiled by five scientific editors, 23 authors, and 62 external peer reviewers. The report has six main parts. Part 1 frames the rationale for report’s organization and presents the key issues and conclusions of the research as a whole and of the individual chapters. Part 2 explores tobacco marketing—the range of media interventions used by the tobacco industry to promote its products, such as brand advertising and promotion, as well as corporate sponsorship and advertising. This section also evaluates the evidence for the influence of tobacco marketing on smoking behavior and discusses regulatory and constitutional issues related to marketing restrictions. Part 3 explores how both the tobacco control community and the tobacco industry have used news and entertainment media to advocate their positions and how such coverage relates to tobacco use and tobacco policy change. The section also appraises evidence of the influence of tobacco use in movies on youth smoking initiation. Part 4 focuses on tobacco control media interventions and the strategies, themes, and communication designs intended to prevent tobacco use or encourage cessation, including opportunities for new media interventions. This section also synthesizes evidence on the effectiveness of mass media campaigns in reducing smoking. Part 5 discusses tobacco industry efforts to diminish media interventions by the tobacco control community and to use the media to oppose state tobacco control ballot initiatives and referenda. Finally, Part 6 examines possible future directions in the use of media to promote or to control tobacco use and summarizes research needs and opportunities.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union.  The Two Faces of Tesco.  Washington, D.C.: United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, June 2008. Available in [pdf]

From the press release for the report:
In June 2008, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, a US union representing 1.3 million workers in the retail food market, launched a UK campaign to expose The Two Faces of Tesco. The report examines how Tesco operates in the United Kingdom, its home base, and the United States, and compares Tesco policies and rhetoric with its practices.

At a London press launch chaired by UK Member of Parliament Jon Cruddas the union said that it is stepping up a campaign already begun in the United States to shame Tesco to talks on union recognition and employee pay and benefits.

The UFCW seeks to represent some of the lowest-paid and least secure retail workers in the USA, more than half of whom are women, and has been seeking talks with Tesco for two years since the world’s third-largest retailer announced its entry into the US grocery market. All attempts have so far fallen on deaf ears, reports the UFCWU, and Tesco launched its chain of Fresh & Easy supermarkets in 2007 as non-union stores. UFCW says that it is seeking the chance for dialogue, to build the same constructive partnership that Tesco enjoys in the UK with the shop workers’ union USDAW.

Tracking on Corporations and Health

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

Those seeking to modify corporate practices that harm health often have to track changes in corporate or government policy to assess their progress. Here, Corporations and Health Watch describes a few databases and websites useful for tracking local and nation policy and the social responsibility performance of major corporations.

Tracking local policies:

Looking for policies to propose to solve a local problem related to food industry practices that reduce access to healthy food? Visit Prevention Institute’s Local Policy database, an online resource of local policies that can improve opportunities for healthy eating and physical activity. For example, a search for policies on unhealthy foods located 21 specific local policies, mostly in California, enacted to reduce promotion of unhealthy foods.

 

Tracking federal legislation:

Open Congress tracks legislative proposals and bills on various issues and industries. Its website explains different ways to use the site. For example, OpenCongress bill pages bring together news coverage, blog buzz, insightful comments, and more. Linking to OpenCongress thus gives readers access to the big picture as well as the official details on specific legislative proposals. If you write a blog post about a bill and include the official title (for example, H.R.800), then a link to your blog post will appear on that bill page. Another section shows the most-viewed bills, or hot bills by issue area. The site includes one-click sharing to Digg, StumbleUpon, Facebook, e-mail a friend, and more. It also allows visitors to find their members of Congress and to track their actions and what people are saying about them.

To illustrate topics of interest to Corporate and Health Watch readers, visitors can track legislative proposals on the following topics, among many others:

Alcohol taxes
Automobile industry
Firearms
Food industry
Pharmaceutical research
Tobacco industry

 

Tracking corporate responsibility:

Several organizations have ranked corporations on their social responsibility.

Fortune Magazine ranks 100 of the Fortune 500 on business responsibility.

The Ethics & Policy Integration Centre provide a user-friendly resource for tracking US and emerging global standards in corporate responsibility. It includes sections on environmental and human righs standards, but not health or consumer protection standards.

Corporate Responsibility Index The British group Business in the Community’s CR Index is the United Kingdom’s leading benchmark of responsible business. It helps companies to integrate and improve responsibility throughout their operations by providing a systematic approach to managing, measuring and reporting on business impacts in society and on the environment. Each year the CR Index lists and rates the top 100 companies in the UK.

 

Stuffed and Starved: The Hidden Battle for the World Food System, an Interview with Raj Patel

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

Raj Patel is currently a researcher at the University of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa and a visiting scholar at the Center for African Studies at the University of California at Berkeley. He has degrees from Oxford, the London School of Economics & Cornell University and has worked for the World Bank, interned at the World Trade Organization, consulted for the UN and been involved in international campaigns against his former employers. His new book, Stuffed and Starved tells the story of the global food system that has created one billion overweight people and left 850 million going hungry and about the millions of people who are fighting back to create a different food system. In June 2008, Corporations and Health Watch staffer Alex Lewin interviewed Raj Patel. An edited transcript follows.

Transcript also available in [pdf].

CHW: I enjoyed reading your book, Stuffed and Starved, and listening to you on NPR. Some themes emerged from your book that I’d like to ask you about today and I hope we might discuss some of the challenges and potential hopes for our food system.

One of the over-arching themes in your book is corporate control, whether it’s companies consolidating, control of knowledge, or bio-piracy issues. In your view, what might be some of the negative consequences for consumers with having such a small number of companies controlling such a large part of our food system?

PATEL: Well as a consumer your range of choice is restricted; the kinds of things that are put before you are things that were designed to be profitable rather than good for the environment or for farmers or anyone else other than food system executives. And I think that the surrendering of our knowledge and control of the food system to these corporations is anti-democratic as well. There’s something profoundly wrong when we are reduced to mere consumers as opposed to richer kinds of people and induced only to change the world through shopping habits.

CHW: In that same vein, around company consolidation there were a lot of examples that you gave in your book about umbrella companies buying out seemingly contradictory companies. So for example, Nestle owns Jenny Craig, Unilever, the owner of Ben and Jerry’s, is also the owner of Slim Fast. How do you wrestle with this contradiction?

PATEL: There’s no contradiction there. These are companies that are in the market not to make us better people or in any way improve our lives other than insofar as their ventures are profitable. So there’s absolutely no contradiction. You know if they’re in the business of smashing something and then they’re in the business of selling you something that will fix it, that’s just good sense. Monsanto does it with its biotech crops, to engineer something to withstand a broad-spectrum herbicide and sell you the herbicide too. And here a company is doing exactly the same thing, where at the end of the day the bottom line is profit.

CHW: And do you think there’s any way for them to incorporate more of a public health model into their financial bottom line, or do you think that changes that they’ve made are merely rhetoric and don’t really even tackle any part of the food system that needs improvement?

PATEL: The only way that a public health model or any other model gets integrated into a corporation’s bottom line is if it helps that bottom line. So for example Diet Coke Plus helps Coke’s bottom line because it offers a product range that allows them to cater to people who are mad enough to think that the way to achieve some nutritional goals is to buy Diet Coke Plus and therefore drink their vitamins at the same time as they drink their Diet Coke. That looks like complete compliance with the idea of public health goals together with a company making money. But of course that’s an example of the insanity that such pining for corporate generosity and charity in a food system reaches. The idea of Diet Coke Plus with added vitamins is insane. I saw Snickers Charged the other day, which is a regular Snickers bar with caffeine and taurine and a few other ingredients.

The only way that systemic change has ever happened is from outside. The history of social change is about conflict. One needs to be very suspicious of corporations that are seeking to transform the food system by rebranding and remarketing, because at the end of the day any CEO of any corporation who does anything to weaken their bottom line will be out of a job. And that’s not anything other than an inherent feature of the way that capitalism is structured. Now the problem here is that actually the way that we get our food today is entirely implicated in capitalism. In my view, capitalism is the problem here. Tempting though it is to say well we must be in partnership with corporations, I think that’s entirely wrong-headed. If you’re in partnership with corporations, you’re in partnership with the people who are profiting from the current situation.

CHW: That makes me think of your distinction between choice and instinct in the book. How do we as consumers learn how to navigate a food environment that’s full of health claims, full of what seems like choice to the average consumer, to help create a more healthful food environment? Or are we just in the dark?

PATEL: Well I think mistrusting labels is a good idea. Packaging is already a sign that you’re staring at unhealthy food in some way. If it comes in a packet the chances are its not going to be as healthy for you as something that doesn’t come in a packet. That’s not something that’s terribly complicated and yet I think it is a nice way of educating oneself and reconnecting with certain kinds of food. I do see education as having a role here. I don’t want to suggest something as simple as saying Don’t eat anything that comes in a packet or don’t go into a supermarket. That’s a fairly straightforward thing, but I don’t want to underestimate how hard that is.

CHW: As consumers are starting to demand healthier food items and becoming more aware of the food system, companies are clearly realizing this and the buzzwords are flying. So you walk into a store and all you see is environmentally friendly green fair trade healthy etc, etc. How in the world does one know what’s legitimate?

PATEL: We don’t. We’re in an era where there’s a battle over the epistemology of food, you know a way of knowing if something is legit or not is the main domain of the certification business. Different kinds of certification are battling over whether they can gain your trust. And that’s why there was such a big fight over the USDA organic standards, which at the end of the day turned out not to be very stringent and quite watered down as opposed to the other private labeling standards. So labels are a window, but the problem is that they are always a very small window—a window the size of a postage stamp. And that restricts your line of sight quite considerably.

CHW: Is it then about restoring the balance between corporate power and government oversight? Where does corporate accountability come into the picture? Do we need local food, organic and sustainable standards set by the federal government? Is the answer in restoring power to the government?

PATEL: Yes, but that means there does need to be a more active model than you see right now. But yes, more governmental control and regulatory authority over our food system can’t be a bad thing because the government has for a very long time been involved in regulating food. It is only now, since the rollback of government involvement in the regulation of food, that we’ve seen the outbreak of all kinds of disease, the obesity epidemic. I’m not saying that the obesity epidemic is directly because the government isn’t regulating food but I’m certainly saying that it’s a symptom of the fact that corporations are far more powerful than they should be.

CHW: Your book also touches upon the need for a more collective responsibility for the public’s health. I would ask you how we can start to move away from this notion of individual choice, individual responsibility, and freedom into one where the government is responsible for the public’s health and isn’t called the food police or a nanny state.

PATEL: We are held responsible for our food choices because there’s been a rollback of the government and a rollback of the idea that we can collectively do something. It is important for government as an impartial and not corporate owned body to weigh in with the best available science; the best science money can buy, and go with the best kind of public science. I feel that the government does have a role in taking care of our food system, but that only goes together with a role in taking care of our government.

CHW: And what would you suggest we do as consumers or as citizens?

PATEL: That’s the distinction, right? Because I think that we are more than consumers, we are citizens. As consumers, all we can do is shop. But as citizens we can do a lot more and I think we should be at the very least writing to our elected representatives, organizing within our school districts to change the purchasing policies of our schools, organizing local food policy councils at the municipal level so that can we again institute certain kinds of food policies that are not amenable to being bought by corporations.

CHW: Do you know of national examples where there was enough political leverage to shift away from personal responsibility?

PATEL: Not yet, no. In Britain, however, the model of personal responsibility was important but the Achilles heel was around school dinners. Jamie Oliver’s work around school dinners was a very interesting example of how public policy and the idea of individual choice was rolled back a bit. Not a perfect example, but it is one of the examples that shows that things can be done even at a national level. But it’s like climate change, where there isn’t really a country on earth that’s doing a good job on climate change but you’ll see more and more cities, more and more local and regional organizations and government bodies taking a very aggressive stance on climate change. We have to make that happen from below because the government has been so completely bought by corporate interests.

CHW: Do you think it’s worth engaging industry in this debate?

PATEL: I think it’s a waste of time. If you’re serious about effecting change, talking to Nestle or Monsanto or whoever is an entire waste of time. They’ve got an infinite amount of money; they can soak up as much time as you care to give them with committees and protests and other stuff like that. The proper way to engage with them is democratically through democratic organizations in which their voices should count for nothing because they are not human. These are corporations, they’re not real people, they’re legal people. And they shouldn’t belong and they don’t belong in a government process that’s about people, about real people.

CHW: Is there a way in your mind to make their practices more transparent to everyday citizens who might be unaware of corporate practices?

PATEL: I was reading a very good article that was explaining the idea of transparency and the need for it. It’s a strange delusion that there are crazy things going on behind the scenes and they’re very dark and nasty, whereas most of the crazy things are happening completely in the open. As one critic put it, the Bush Administration, wasn’t elected to commit crimes so much as to make the crimes that were being committed legal. And I think that that is a nice way of thinking about how the food system is operating. It’s not like there are dark people sort of spiking our food. Rather, through legal and open government processes we’re being utterly kept in the dark about how the food system works. The answer has to come through taking back our government.

CHW: Where would you draw the distinction between, say a retailer like Whole Foods who has a good reputation on the surface at least and, say McDonald’s or Coke? Are they all part of the same system?

PATEL: Yes, they are. Whole Foods is most successful in portraying itself as a friend to the farmer. But they use exactly the same practices as Wal-Mart. I mean if you look at the geography of your local Whole Foods, just as with Wal-Mart, the milk is always at the back.

CHW: It makes you go through the entire supermarket.

PATEL: And that’s Whole Foods, right? That’s the people-friendly chain. Yet there’s nothing that demonstrates so much as that Whole Foods really is in the same business as Wal-Mart. And they are in the business to ship as much stuff as they reasonably can into your car.

Sustainability involves communities making the decisions themselves, and not about some guy deciding what is or isn’t good. And I think that the real comparison is between Whole Foods and a regular farmers’ market. Because at a regular farmers’ market farmers get a much bigger share of the profit, it is a more open place, it is more public, and certainly in most farmers’ markets food is cheaper than at Whole Foods. That’s the kind of production and consumption system that I’m more tilted towards than Whole Foods.

CHW: It seems like a great idea but at the same time it may be difficult for people who, especially in poorer areas, lack the ability to shop elsewhere or who have the time to go to the farmers’ market. Are they just at the whim of other people changing their practices?

PATEL: No, I think historically the things that people in working communities have always done is banded together and organized. We have to be in that business of organizing and mobilizing. If we’re serious about shifting away from this ethical, this personal responsibility paradigm into a sort of social, governmental responsibility paradigm then that does mean getting organized. It’s not like there’s going be some saint elected to the White House, for example, who will suddenly bring good things. It’s all about communities everywhere getting involved. And that’s why I like the Italian Communists , for example, a party of socialist origins involving unionism and organizing around the length of the working day and these sorts of things. These aggressive working class militant approaches.

CHW: As we’ve seen with other social issues and social problems over time. Obesity is one of those issues where as local governments, states and communities do more and as the policies and programs become increasingly fragmented, there’s a chance that policy change can trickle up to the federal level.

PATEL: Yes. There’s also an interesting example that I’ve been reading recently in a book by Mark Shapiro called Exposed. He makes a very interesting argument about toxic chemicals, but it also works for obesity. He notes that the levels of permitted chemicals in the European Union is far, far lower than in the U.S. and that many more products are banned in the European Union than in the United States. He wonders why, for example, cosmetics that are sold in the United States and contain things that are known to cause cancer are banned in Europe. Why is that allowed to happen? And the conclusion that he comes to is that in Europe, because there is universal health care, the government has a financial interest in reducing the incidence of cancer; otherwise they’d have to pay the bills for treating people with these kinds of exposure related diseases.

A government in Britain can announce a ban on advertising to children, a ban on advertising of food to children, for example. Now in the U.S. you would have corporations howling about First Amendment rights, whereas in Britain there’s none of that. I mean you still have corporations howling, but you also have, the government standing up for itself. We’re very clear that we don’t want to be paying the bills for an obesity rate of 50% among children. So just deal with it.

I think that is another dynamic that is absent in the United States which makes things a little harder. The government doesn’t have to bear the cost of unhealthy practices because healthcare is privatized here too.

CHW: We’ve been talking a lot about corporate behavior and corporate decisions, and their contribution to these negative health consequences that we’ve seen, be it hunger or obesity. To what extent do you think that the rise in childhood obesity rates or the rise in food insecurity is actually due to corporate behavior?

PATEL: Quite a lot. There’s no other natural explanation for why Americans have so much corn or high fructose corn syrup in their diet. That has everything to do with government policy and with a few corporations begging for support for their particular pet project. You can certainly trace the obesity epidemic to changes in diet and you can trace those changes in diet to a shift towards food that is more profitable for a few corporations. And while I understand that there’s an impulse to say well of course people will have the choice not to eat these things, when you have billions of dollars spent on advertising, all of a sudden those choices kind of recede. That again is something that is a result of corporations, so I think that there’s a lot of responsibility on the corporations.

CHW: Is there one final success story that comes to mind?

PATEL: Los Angeles has some interesting stuff going on there. They banned Coke in the schools and they’re working on a comprehensive program with the Los Angeles unified school district and they’re doing some very exciting stuff.

CHW: Thanks so much for your time.

 

Image Credits:

1. mccord
2. nataliemaynor

Chips and Chocolate: Competing Interests on Cornell’s Campus

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

Students and staff in the Division of Nutritional Sciences at Cornell University worked with Cornell Dining and the vending company to improve the nutritional quality of foods in the Division’s vending machine. The paper below outlines the background leading up to these changes, the process undergone to implement these changes, selected results and findings, as well as lessons and challenges learned along the way. The project is still ongoing and Cornell University is now looking to roll out healthier vending items throughout the rest of Cornell’s campus.

Background

The vending machine in Savage Hall, Cornell University’s home to the Division of Nutritional Sciences, has traditionally stocked common vending foods – highly processed candy bars, chips, chocolate, gum and other products of poor nutritional quality.

Next to the snack food vending machine is a beverage machine selling the typical array of soda and juice. It is from these two – the food machine and the beverage machine – that one can buy a quick snack. Students, staff and faculty can bring food and leave it in the refrigerator in the adjacent room but if one wants to purchase something on the spot, they are left with a set of unhealthy food choices. This easily accessible, cheap, unhealthy food created an unhealthy food environment in the Division of Nutritional Sciences.

Actions and Outcomes Prior to Changes in the Vending Machine

Graduate students in the Division of Nutritional Sciences decided to take on improving the healthfulness of this food vending machine. It was, more than anything, embarrassing to host visitors, only for them to see this machine as the center piece of our dining area. We began this endeavor, working with Cornell Dining and the vending company, to improve the offerings in this machine.

A vending team consisting of two graduate students and a Senior Extension Associate was formed to spearhead this effort. Once the team was formed, a few crucial events and information gathering sessions occurred. Selected events and outcomes below.

– The vending team conducted research to learn about the vending contract between the Division, Cornell Dining and the vending company. The Division of Nutritional Sciences has a contract with Cornell Dining and Cornell Dining has a contract with a specific vending company.
– The vending team approached Cornell Dining to see whether or not it would be possible to include healthier offerings in the vending machine. Cornell Dining and the vending company agreed that Savage Hall could serve as a pilot program for healthier offerings in vending machines throughout campus.
– Cornell Dining asked the vending team for a set of food standards that could guide the healthier options. The vending team used standards already in place in multiple school districts (and similar to those in the not yet published by the Institute of Medicine’s Nutrition Standards for Food in Schools Report).
– The vending team met to assess products brought forth by the vending company, as possibilities for the updated machine. Cornell Dining and the vending company decided that the entire machine would be healthier options, removing all traditional vending options (with the exception of gum and mints). In addition to healthier options, nutrition facts for each product were posted on the outside of the vending machine.
– The vending team emailed the Division of Nutritional Sciences (faculty, staff and graduate students) soliciting feedback about preferred foods and to increase awareness of project.
– The vending team met with Cornell Dining and the vending company to go over email responses, list of foods presented to the vending team and to determine a timeline for the implementation of healthier foods.
– The vending team provided Cornell Dining and the vending company with a prioritized list of foods (from the initial list they provided to the vending team). Cornell Dining asked the vending team to provide a “wish list” of healthy foods and their respective brands.
– Phase 1 of the project, the healthier food line-up, began at the beginning of the fall semester and lasted until mid-October.

Results: The Product Line-Up for Phase 1 and 2

Phase 1 (August 2007-January 2008)

Foods included: Sun Chips, Smart Food popcorn, baked chips, crackers, pretzels, rice snacks, Oreo Thin Crisps, trail mix, Nutter Butter Bites, peanuts, tuna, fruity snacks, Snackwell’s sandwich cookies, Fig Newtons, granola bars, Nutrigrain bars, sunflower seeds, oatmeal, sugar-free wafers, graham crackers and animal crackers.

These food options remained in place until mid-January, at which time Cornell Dining and the vending company reevaluated the offerings.

Phase 2 (January 2008-March 2008)

Selected products were changed based on availability. The vending company adds “Balanced Choice” labeling.

“Balanced Choice” label affixed to specific foods based on vending company’s supplier. A “green leaf” sticker on a slot in the vending machine indicates a “Balanced Choice” and meets the following nutritional criteria:

  • 7 net grams of fat, or less
  • 260 calories, or less
  • 250 mg of sodium, or less

Phase 2 sales results: For the periods 1/22/07 – 2/15/07 vs. 1/21/08 – 2/15/08, sales transactions were down by 17%, and dollar value of sales were down by 9%. According to Cornell Dining, the machine could not sustain itself with phase 2 sales and product line-up.

Phase 2 sales were compared to vending sales throughout the rest of Cornell and it was determined that the drop in sales might not be due solely to healthier options. Sales also declined for traditional vending machines.

Results: The Survey

The vending team conducted a survey during Phase 2. Thirty individuals completed the survey; 100% of respondents were from within the Division of Nutritional Sciences, 58.6% were graduate students, 6.9% were faculty and 37.9% were staff. The information below represents selected survey responses.

69% of respondents noticed changes in the vending machine. In response to an open- ended question, some changes noticed included:

– Healthier and more hunger-satisfying options – I can now count on finding something I want to eat, at least when it is stocked (which it often isn’t).
– Changes disguised as healthier options but still same old companies with same old corn syrup and allergens.
– Healthier better foods!!
– The tuna fish caught my eye–love it.
– The selection has narrowed somewhat — mostly chips and crisps, mostly high sugar low fat. The high-end entrees are nice though (oatmeal, tuna).
– Nutritional info on the vending machine, 100-cal packs.

29/30 respondents noted additional food or beverage items he/she you would like to see offered in the vending machine. In response to an open-ended question, some desired foods included:

– A trail mix with something sinful in it, ideally bits of chocolate. whole grain crackers (maybe there are some and I just haven’t caught them stocked?). chocolate covered coffee beans (beans are vegetables, right?). reduced fat/salt chex mix. snyder’s honey wheat prezels.
– Organic chocolate.
– More types of nuts and dried fruit varieties.
– CHOCOLATE! Not a lot, nothing crazy — peanut m&m’s or hershey bars…plain good old chocolate.
– Fruit leather.
– Stacys brand pita chips. annies brand cheddar bunnies. fruit leather. small packs of chocolate covered raisins or some other kind of lower fat candy options. any kind of kashi tlc cereal bar or snack chip.
– More chocolate the choices are very bad. Here’s what I think I’m an adult and don’t need someone tell me what I should and shouldn’t eat, I can make the decision myself. I like having healthy choices but bring back the candy. If I’m going to eat bad make it dark chocolate not poptarts.

There were many suggestions for fresh fruit, yogurt, bagels, and other refrigerated items we were unable to stock. There were also suggestions for beverage changes. Our intervention did not alter the beverage selection in any way.

Respondents where then asked the importance of 1) brand, 2) personal preference, 3) health, and 4) price in making purchasing decisions on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being least important and 5 being most important.

34.5% of respondents ranked brand as the least important in making a purchasing decision. Personal preference was ranked highest by 51.7% of respondents. Somewhere in between these two variables were health and price.

Respondents answered an open-ended question that asked about their top three most frequently purchased items. Selected answers are listed below.

 

Most Frequently Purchased Items Why Purchased Most Frequently
Nut/fruit mix, crackers, granola bars. Satisfy hunger and, in the case of granola bars, also a sweet tooth. not too awful health wise.
Water, baked chips, nuts. Those are the only things I would eat from the vending machine. I don’t like chocolate bars or regular chips.
M&Ms. Need chocolate at work.
Nutrigrain bars, low fat microwave popcorn (when it was available). I don’t really eat potato chips or packages of cookies, so low fat versions of those items aren’t appealing to me. If fruit/veggies/yogurt, etc were available, I’d be buying that instead.
I would buy candy if it was there. Chips. No other choices. Extra comment. I am an adult I don’t need Cornell Dining telling me I can’t have something by not providing it. Currenty I have to walk to another building to get what I want. Takes away from my job and is inconvenient. Please make the vending machines for EVERYONE not just what you THINK I should eat. I can do that myself. Also parents send their kids to us because they are smart and ready to make their own choices. I don’t think we should police what they eat, after all we aren’t their parents.

Choices yes but no choices no.
Dairy sandwich (or closest alternative). Because I need energy (and food) to be able to study at school, with least time spent in going to and coming back from home.
Pretzels (any kind); granola bar (crunchy); popcorn. Low in fat, sustaining, nice snacks.
Nuts, popcorn, trail mix. They are the least processed and the ones that will not compromise me in terms of allergies.
Trail mix. Only recognizable ‘whole’ food available.
Natural nut mix, baked Lays. They make me feel better rather than worse after I eat them. They do not have trans fats or too much sugar.
Fruit chips fruit and nut trail mix. They are cheap and healthy.
Water, diet soda. No cal.
Strawberry yogurt bars. I love the taste. Cheap.
Mixed nuts, popcorn, pretzels. I like them.
Popcorn (much prefer the low fat version when it is in the machine), Coke, Baked Lays Potato Chips. Popcorn can be shared. Coke tastes yummy.
Peanuts, wheat thins, tuna and crackers. They taste good and are reasonably healthy.
Tuna, chips (baked lays), granola bars (crunchy quaker– not gooey kind). Dessert for lunch late afternoon snack; chocolate needs no explanation.
Popcorn; pretzels; granola bars. Volume of food; fat content; satiety.

Results: Product Line-Up for Phase 3

Phase 3, March-May 2008

The vending company reinstated some of the traditional snack items, and included more chocolate and fruit (dried or as chips). More chocolate and fruit were a reflection of the survey results.

More specifically, Phase 3 eliminated the 10 or so worst-selling items from the Phase 2 healthier food line-up. 10 or so high-selling traditional snack items were reintroduced into the machine. 2/3 of the items, then, were healthier items and approximately 1/3 were traditional snack products.

Phase 4, May 2008-Present

Cornell Dining and the vending company are meeting to review the current food line-up in Savage Hall and to implement selected high-selling healthier options in other vending machines around Cornell’s campus.

Challenges, Concerns and Lessons Learned

Defining “Healthy”

Establishing a definition for “healthy” is complex and can take many forms, making it difficult to determine a set of food standards. The vending team confronted tradeoffs and unknowns beyond nutritional quality such as feasibility, taste, and likability. Some of the questions asked included:

– What may be realistic guidelines?
– What guidelines would align with consumer preferences?
– Is it necessary to cater to consumer preferences, or should improved health and well-being be maintained as the ultimate goal?

The vending company decided that the new machine was to include only healthier foods that met a minimum standard. Previous experience with pilot projects have showed that altering only selected foods is not an accurate indication of the potential for healthier food sales. If the entire machine is overhauled, consumers may be more apt to buy these healthier items.

Contractual Obligations

Contractual obligations between the Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell Dining and the vending company constrained the vending team’s ability to source from other healthy vending (see http://www.yonaturals.com, for example) companies.

Consumer Demand

Because the vending machine is located in a nutrition building it may not be indicative of potential healthier food sales throughout the rest of campus.

Baseline demographic data of those that bought and did not buy food from the vending machine was unknown. This made it difficult to know whether or not the same individuals used the vending machine before and after the implementation of healthier options.

The vending team also confronted internal challenges. After sending an initial email to the entire Division of Nutritional Sciences soliciting feedback about preferred healthy options, staff, faculty and graduate students responded.

Below are selected responses, highlighting the spectrum of consumer demands:

– Thanks for doing this. How about (1) bagels, (2) milk (including skim), (3) yogurt, and (4) fruit (if the quality is good).
– What a wonderful initiative. However, some of us still want need our occasional Snickers/Twix, etc.! Don’t obliterate junk food completely – please.
– Best wishes with the negotiation with vendors.

These responses, ranging from a desire to keep the status quo to encouragement and demand for healthier options, raise a number of questions.

– Should nutritionists, or those working in a nutrition department, eat (or be expected to eat) differently than people in other departments?
– Should selected nutritionists impose these changes on other nutrition and non-nutrition staff working in the building?
– Is it our job to be a role model for other departments? Given the great amount of support for these healthier changes, we may wonder whether there is a stigma attached to eating junk food in the nutrition department.
– Perhaps individuals want the current food offerings but fear being shunned by fellow nutritionists?
– Do nutritionists eat differently elsewhere, in the privacy of their office or home?

Transparency and Availability

The entire list of in-stock and special order foods was never made available to the vending team. Instead, Cornell Dining and the vending company reviewed the vending team’s food standard and product suggestions and approached the vending team with a range of choices, pre-selected from an unidentified master list. The process of selecting foods from this master list of in-stock foods remains unknown.

Although it was clear that Cornell Dining and the vending company were invested in this project, the updated vending machine was severely constrained by the healthier options available. From the food lists the vending team was privy to it was clear that the healthier foods were healthier than traditional vending foods but would still be considered junk food by many health professionals.

This raised additional questions:

– Were there items that were healthier that they had in stock but hadn’t been reviewed by the vending company?
– Does the vending company have a contract with certain brands that limits our ability to get a greater array of healthier foods in the machine?
– If we did have to special order foods, how would it impact the price of products in the vending machine

In order to have even healthier foods, such as whole fruit or milk, the vending company would have to special order them, the machine would require refrigeration and/or the Division would have to work with a different company.

Truck drivers stocking the machine may also influence the availability of healthier options in the machine. Because the vending machine in Savage Hall is different from the rest of Cornell’s campus, the truckers have an added step to ensure what they stock in Savage Hall is indeed what the vending company, Cornell Dining and the vending team has agreed on. This required the truck drivers to set apart Savage Hall foods from the rest of the vending foods. The vending company told us that the drivers may try to “cheat” – that if there was a food that didn’t belong in the machine to notify Cornell Dining. It is easier for the truckers to stock the machine with the same traditional snack foods they use to stock the other machines on campus.

As noted previously, Phase 3 plans do allow these drivers increased flexibility.

A Financial Bottom Line

The vending company is open to stocking healthier items but this is largely because sales may decrease with increased consumer demand for healthier options. Additionally, school wellness policies require healthier options in grade school, forcing companies to make significant changes to their product line-up. The distinct school wellness policies between districts results in a series of fragmented policies and a food industry that can no longer use one standard to determine the specific products available in vending machines. They don’t know what sells, they don’t know which foods may be considered healthier, and importantly, they don’t know how to market themselves. The healthier vending machine in Savage Hall provided an opportunity for this vending company to pilot healthier foods and to ultimately improve their current and future bottom line. The implementation of these school wellness policies, although unfunded, has had a positive impact on vending company buy-in.

Final Thoughts

We all know we are supposed to eat healthfully and exercise regularly. But translating theory into practice involves a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the values at play, the politics of the situation, consumer demand and perhaps most of all, the distinct group of stakeholders involved in the decision-making process.

Mainstream thinking is that nutritionists tend to frame policy decisions around science. We view experts as credible, our science as facts and improving public health as the ultimate goal. If we base our decisions around what science tells us are good and bad foods, we’d likely remove the vending machine altogether. There’s nothing in the machine that even resembles a “health food.” Science tells us, generally, that minimally processed foods are better than processed foods, and that low-salt, low-sugar foods are better than high-salt, high-sugar foods. But beyond this general notion of what’s good and what’s bad, there is much ambiguity and controversy over labeling specific foods as healthy or unhealthy. If we want a healthy machine, should it be filled only with milk? Should it be stocked only with fruit? Or is a mixed fruit and nut granola bar healthy?

One might also expect nutritionists to rebel against traditional snack foods but for years this vending machine has been profitable for the vending company. Although it’s the norm for vending machines to contain high fat, high sodium and highly processed products, we debate whether or not this is acceptable for nutritionists. One questions whether or not, as nutritionists, we should behave differently, desire different foods, and serve as role models for the standards we teach.

We again ask ourselves what it means to be part of the Division of Nutritional Sciences. Do we have a responsibility to be healthy? How do we, and should we, be responsible for changing the set of choices available to individuals? If we create a healthier vending machine, will the consumer base change? Will those who want junk food walk over the next building to buy the traditional unhealthy food offerings? There are no simple answers and no one opinion, even within the Division of Nutritional Sciences. Perhaps most of all, we ask ourselves, is “better-for-you” good enough?

At the end of the day it comes down to who determines our set of choices. The vending team is not trying to taking away choice, but is instead implementing a new set of choices. We are trained to believe choice is set by food companies. If the vending team’s bottom line is public health, and the vending company’s bottom line is dollar signs, who should have the final say? Someone has to set the choices – it’s just a matter of who, and how.

This research was conducted as part of Alexandra Lewin’s doctoral research. The author would like to thank Jennifer Wilkins (Senior Extension Associate, Cornell University), Marion Nestle (Professor, New York University) and Sue Wernimont (graduate student in the Division of Nutritional Sciences) for their contributions and help with this project.

*This research was exempt from human subjects.

 

Photo Credits:
1. trp0
2. programwitch

The Snack Food Association: Washington’s Voice for Sugar, Fat and Salt

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

A recent study at Brown University Medical School published in the journal Appetite found that reducing the number of snack foods available to consumers could lead to reductions in consumption and therefore lower rates of obesity. However, the trend is in the opposite direction: each year hundreds of new snack foods are introduced to the market, advertised heavily, and retailed in more places. Snack foods represent an important growth opportunity for the food industry both in the U.S. and globally.

In 2005, sales of snack foods exceeded $61 billion in the U.S.3 Snack foods, which tend to be high in calories, sugar, and sodium, have become daily staples for millions of Americans, and, increasingly, for consumers in other parts of the world. Snack foods are among the most heavily advertised products on television, and the U.S. corporations that manufacture them are among the largest and most influential global companies. Retailers like snack foods because they are convenient to sell and have a high profit margin. Remarkably, candy and confectionary products are the third largest food category sold in the U.S., behind carbonated beverages and milk.2 The fourth largest category is salty snacks, and cookies rank seventh.2

Why are products consistently implicated in the growing rates of obesity continuing to expand their market share?

One reason is that makers of snack foods have a far more powerful voice in Washington, where the rules governing food and health are set, than do ordinary eaters or those concerned about obesity. According to its website, the Snack Food Association (SFA) is “the international trade association of the snack food industry.” 2 Founded in 1937, the SFA represents more than 800 manufacturers and suppliers of snack foods worldwide. Members include “manufacturers of potato chips, tortilla chips, cereal snacks, pretzels, popcorn, cheese snacks, snack crackers, meat snacks, pork rinds, snack nuts, party mix, corn snacks, pellet snacks, fruit snacks, snack bars, granola, snack cakes, cookies and various other snacks.”

What does the Snack Food Association do?

Its mission is “to provide value for SFA members by offering services and relationship building forums that strengthen the performance of member companies and support industry growth.” Its activities include serving as the voice for the snack food industry before government; researching and compiling annual snack industry sales and consumer data; promoting increased snack consumption by sponsoring National Snack Food Month in February; providing a positive industry voice to the national, local and trade media; educating manufacturers on technological advances in equipment and raw ingredients, and on consumer trends pertaining to the snack industry; sponsoring the largest convention and trade show in the world devoted exclusively to snacks (to sign up for the 72nd Annual Snaxpo in Orlando, Florida in 2009, visit http://www.snaxpo.com/); and providing technical support to its members through direct assistance, videos, seminars and publications.

In 2007, for example, the Snack Food Association held its annual Spring Summit in Washington, D.C.4 Some 40 snack food executives met with members of the House and Senate, heard a presentation from a top Defense Department official, who encouraged snack food companies to contribute products for troops who visit United Service Organization locations at America’s airports, and were treated to a VIP tour of the U.S. Supreme Court by Chief Justice John Roberts, who answered members questions about corporate law. In a luncheon address, Republican Senator Pat Roberts told the snack execs, “I don’t think the founding fathers felt that the federal government should get into what food we eat. Obesity is a big problem, but it is not the proper role of the federal government to tell people what to eat.” Instead, the Senator stated, consumers should use “moderation” in their diets and he called for legislation requiring schools to include physical education programs in their curriculum. The SFA also supports such legislation.

Other legislative priorities of the SFA include:

  • Opposition to limiting choice for Food Stamp Program participants
  • Opposition to redefining Foods of Minimal Nutritional Value
  • Opposition to the Country of Origin Labeling provision for Processed Peanuts
  • Opposition to union card check legislation, the Employee Free (Forced) Choice Act
  • Support for the Fair Labor Standards Act–Motor Carrier Exemption (Overtime Rules for Drivers of Vehicles Under 10,001 lbs.)
  • Support limited liability for food manufacturers (Commonsense Consumption Act)
  • Support for National Uniformity for Food
  • Support for requiring physical education in schools
  • Support for reform of the U.S. Sugar Program

The SFA has also sponsored research on the effects of sodium on blood pressure and health, and presents health information to the government panels that determine the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.2 The SFA is a sponsor of Best Food Nation , a public relations effort launched by the food industry respond to any criticism of the U.S. food system and to represent the industry’s views on the scientific evidence on obesity. Box 1 shows the members of Best Food Nation.

Box 1. Members of Best Food Nation

American Farm Bureau Federation
American Meat Institute
Cattlemen’s Beef Board
Corn Refiners Association
Food Products Association
International Franchise Association
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
National Chicken Council
National Council of Chain Restaurants
National Milk Producers Federation
National Pork Board
National Pork Producers Council
National Potato Council
National Restaurant Association
National Retail Federation
National Turkey Federation
Produce Marketing Association
Snack Food Association
U.S. Potato Board
United Egg Producers

Recently, the SFA went before Congress to seek financial assistance from the U.S. government to alleviate the increasing commodities prices of corn, wheat, and other products that are affecting snack foods manufacturers. In fact, the growing price of snack food staples represents a significant threat to the industry’s continued profitability.

The SFA actively opposes any restrictions on the right of corporations to advertise unhealthy products. As required by the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, the SFA is registered as a lobby organization with the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Secretary of the U.S. Senate. Among other measures, the SFA has joined with the Alliance for American Advertising.6 According to The Wall Street Journal, at the time of its formation, the Alliance for American Advertising was the most ambitious effort yet to oppose government regulation in food advertising aimed at children; funders include industry giants General Mills, Kellogg and Kraft.7 The SFA has also joined with the lobby organization known as the American Council for Fitness and Nutrition in opposing restrictions on vending machines in schools; funders include PepsiCo, Coca Cola, Kraft Foods, and the National Soft Drink Association.7 These relationships illustrate the complex web of trade associations that work to protect industry interests in Washington and elsewhere.

The SFA also seeks to provide the media with positive messages on the snack food industry. For example, in an April 2007 press release, the SFA announced its support of voluntary school nutrition standards, stating, “The Snack Food Association is delighted to be part of a growing coalition of companies and trade associations that are doing their part to help parents, educators, and health professionals teach kids about healthier lifestyles.”9

Motivated by threats of tighter regulation and costly lawsuits, several multi-billion dollar corporations have agreed to voluntary measures to limit junk food advertising to children over the past two years. In August 2007, the Federal Trade Commission issued subpoenas to 44 food and beverage companies, including Coca Cola, McDonald’s, Kraft, General Mills, and Procter & Gamble, to request information on how they market their products to children.5 Products such as Trix cereal, Oreo cookies, and Pringles potato chips, are some of the products that contribute to childhood obesity. In an effort to convince skeptics that the snack and junk food industries can regulate themselves, some major corporations have implemented voluntary measures. Proposed measures include having at least half of junk food advertising directed at children under the age of 12 include the promotion of “healthier food options” or physical activity.10, 11

Critics of the Snack Food Industry

Critics question the value of these voluntary guidelines. According to Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, under these guidelines, so-called healthy ads could include advertisements for sugary cereal because they meet the FDA’s definition of “healthy” which does not speak to sugar content.10 He said the healthy lifestyle message could include Ronald McDonald pedaling a bicycle while eating fast food. 10 He stated, “That message still does more harm than good. It’s a joke.” 10

In recent years, many legislators have become concerned with the role of the food industry in contributing to the high rates of obesity in the U.S. In late 2006, Sen. Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, ordered the Federal Trade Commission to look into the issue of junk-food advertisements targeting children. Commenting on the obesity epidemic, he stated, “We must take steps to protect our children’s health. Parents are being undermined by the junk-food culture that is increasingly promoted to our kids on TV.”5

The bottom Line

In sum, the SFA uses a variety of mechanisms to advance industry interests. The SFA claims to be a positive voice for snack food manufacturers, and it says it supports initiatives aimed at curbing the childhood obesity epidemic. But with most nutritionists agreeing that the central nutrition message today should be to eat less highly processed food, the Snack Food Association remains a powerful force for the opposite message, Eat more of the products our members make. Thus, the SFA serves as a powerful accelerator of the trends that that are making so many Americans overweight, sick and dying prematurely.

References

1. Raynor HA, Wing RR. Effect of limiting snack food variety across days on hedonics and consumption. Appetite. 2006;46(2):168-76.
2. Food Association website. Accessed April 22, 2008 at http://www.sfa.org
3. “Snack Food Trends in the U.S.: Sweet, Salty, Healthy and Kids Snacks.” July 1, 2006 Report published by Packaged Facts. 308 pages — Pub ID: LA1119533. Available for purchase at
http://www.marketresearch.com/map/prod/1119533.html
4. Gatty B. “Hitting ‘the hill’: Snack Food Association members lobbied congress about key issues.” June 1, 2007, Snack Food & Wholesale Bakery. Accessed June 1, 2008 at http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-trade/food-beverage-stores-
specialty-food/4510508-1.html
5. Lopes, G. “FTC not sweet on junk-food ads targeting children.” The Washington Times. November 7, 2006.
6. Institute of Medicine, Committee on Food Marketing and the Diets of Children and Youth, J. Michael McGinnis, Jennifer Appleton Gootman, Vivica I. Kraak, Editors. Food Marketing to Children and Youth: Threat or Opportunity.  2006. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.  Available online at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11514#toc
7. Ellison S. “Divided, companies fight for the right to plug kids’ food.” January 26, 2005. The Wall Street Journal.
8. Source Watch: A project of the Center for Media and Democracy. Article on the American Council for Fitness and Nutrition. Accessed June 1, 2008 at http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Council_for_
Fitness_and_Nutrition
9. Snack Food Association press release dated April 26, 2007. “Snack Food Association Supports Voluntary School Nutrition Standards.” Accessed April 22, 2008 at: http://www.sfa.org/pressreleaseclinton.aspx
10. Martin, A. “Leading makers agree to put limits on junk food advertising directed at children.” The New York Times. November 15, 2006.
11. Brooks Barnes. “Limiting ads of junk food for children.” The New York Times. July 18, 2007.

Photo Credits:
1. bmcfee

No Such Thing As A Free Lunch: The impact of food price increases on school food and food inequities

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

If you are feeling a pinch from increased dairy prices, imagine the impact of a program serving 30 million school meals a day—with each meal including 8 oz of milk on the tray.
— Jennifer Weber, Manager of National Nutrition Policy, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, April 2008

Gas prices are exorbitant and the price of wheat and milk is through the roof. Consumers may make lifestyle adjustments—drive a bit less, opt out of a cappuccino or attend fewer movies, but there are also large institutional changes occurring. And it’s shaping our kids, literally. In the face of rising obesity rates, especially in low-income communities where obesity rates are disproportionately high, schools are having an even tougher time battling the bulge. In the long run, these changes could reduce access to healthy food for children in low-income communities, further exacerbating inequities in health between these and better off children.

Both the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and competitive foods, those foods sold a la carte outside the NSLP, are affected by rising food and gas prices. As documented by the Economic Research Service, in 2007 milk prices increased by 17%, cheese by 15%, bread by 12% and rice and pasta by 13%.

Kids in poorer communities will suffer most – these already cash-strapped schools are looking for ways to cut costs, undermining many efforts districts have made to implement the mandated, but unfunded, school wellness policies.

School wellness policies, mandated through the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004, required that all school districts participating in the NSLP established wellness policies by July, 2006 and adopted these policies by the start of the 2006 school year. This law requires, among other actions, that schools define their goals for nutrition education, physical activity and nutrition guidelines selected by the local educational agency for all foods available on each school campus.1

But this was more easily said than done and under-resourced school districts are facing major challenges. Schools with good intentions are finding they can’t keep up with the nutritional guidelines set through the program. Many times the healthier items that meet the standards aren’t available, and more recently, to increase revenues , some schools are looking for ways to bring back hot ticket items—highly processed junk sold outside the NSLP by private food and beverage companies.

For the past two decades, school districts have traditionally relied heavily on sales from both vending machine pouring rights contracts and a la carte items to increase school funding. Restricting these foods is clearly beneficial for kids’ health in both the short and long term, and may prove to be financially beneficial in the long run. At least for now, however, schools are feeling the pinch from this lost revenue. And disparities among districts cause certain areas to feel the brunt of this more than others – for example, compared to mostly white school districts, districts with proportionally more Latinos have earned more revenue from pouring rights contracts.2, 3 At the same time, these are frequently the communities in dire need of obesity prevention programs. Low-income, urban, African-American and Latino communities have rates of overweight or obesity that can exceed 40% of elementary school kids.4

But that’s only part one of the double whammy. The NSLP, which serves more than 30 million children, over half of whom receive either free or reduced price lunch, is also suffering from rising food costs. Increasingly expensive meals are causing schools to grapple with how to keep healthier, quality items on the menu. Districts throughout the country are cutting back on fruits and vegetables as costs continue to soar.

Below is a breakdown, as compiled by the School Nutrition Association (SNA), detailing school food prices, reimbursement and total revenue, excluding labor and other costs:

Cost of School Lunch

  Average Meal Prices for Students Reimbursement Rates Total Revenue per Lunch
Full Paid Lunches Elementary: $1.66
Middle School: $1.85
High School: $1.90		 $0.23 Elementary: $1.89
Middle School: $2.08
High School: $2.13
Reduced Price Lunch* $0.38-$0.40 $2 $2.38-$2.40
Free Lunch** $0 $2.40 $2.40
*Students with household incomes between 130%-185% of the poverty level receive meals at a reduced price rates
**Students with household incomes below 130% of the poverty level receive meals for free.


Compiled by the School Nutrition Association (SNA)
Sources: School Nutrition Operations Report: The State of School Nutrition 2007 and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
SNA researchers found that based on an estimated average cost to prepare a school lunch (including labor, food and other inputs) of about $2.70 to $3.10, and revenue of anywhere from $2.00 to $2.60 to offset that cost (from federal reimbursements, commodity entitlement and the average price paid for a school lunch) school nutrition programs are experiencing a potential loss of $5 to $8 million per school day based on 30 million school lunches provided.5

Their research also indicates that more than 60% of school nutrition directors had meal costs that exceeded the NSLP reimbursement6 and more than 78% of school nutrition programs have increased costs, largely from the cost of healthier items as a result of implementing district’s nutrition standards,7 coupled with rising food costs. At the same time, about half the school nutrition directors ranked both funding and cost of food/food preparation as the biggest obstacle within their programs.8

Some school administrators are lobbying schools to use general funds for school foods – clearly easier in high-resource areas with a larger revenue stream. For many low-income districts, schools either lack these funds altogether or end up cutting other valuable programs instead, risking widening gaps in educational achievement as well as health.

Food prices show no sign of decreasing and with the lack of necessary funding for school food programs, districts are forced to pass along this increased cost to kids’ parents. According to the School Nutrition Association, about one-third of school districts raised the cost of full-price lunch by about 9% during the 2006-2007 school year. Errors in verifying eligibility can magnify the adverse impact of price rises. A 2004 USDA study found that under current verification procedures, children in more than one of every three families selected for verification in metropolitan areas lost their free or reduced-price meal benefits despite being eligible for such meals.9, 10

Recently some food analysts have argued that rapidly rising prices for unhealthy foods (e.g., wheat and corn) will encourage people to eat more fruits and vegetables, whose prices are increasing more slowly. But schools in these resource-poor districts have never been able to afford lots of fruits and vegetables. Now they are merely adding to the growing list of increasingly expensive and out of reach foods.

If there is one glimmer of something positive to come from this, perhaps it’s that schools are learning to conserve, cook from scratch, be creative. A recent article in the Birmingham News said the following about one school district in Alabama:

In Hoover schools, nutrition program personnel are controlling costs by monitoring food purchases and keeping an eye on inventory to prevent waste, Wood [coordinator of the school system’s child nutrition program] said. They’ve also substituted food items as prices fluctuate. They’ve eliminated maraschino cherries as a garnish, for example, and opted for apples and bananas instead of pricier grapes. They are using more mandarin oranges and less fruit cocktail, and they’ve started making their own steak and gravy instead of buying pre-made product.

But these are modest changes and bigger, threats to affordable and healthy school food loom ahead. As food prices increase and federal support remains flat or declines, schools will find it ever more difficult to say no to an easy source of revenue: soda, cookies, and other junk food. Here we go again.

Alexandra Lewin is a staff person at Corporations and Health Watch and is finishing her PhD in nutrition at Cornell University.

 

References1. School Nutrition Association and School Nutrition Foundation. From Cupcakes to Carrots: Local Wellness Policies One Year Later. September 2007.
2. Johnston LD, Delva J, O’Malley PM. Sports participation and physical education in American secondary schools: current levels and racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities. Am J Prev Med 2007;33(4S):S195-S208.
3. Johnston LD, Delva J, O’Malley PM. Soft drink availability, contracts, and revenues in American schools. Am J Prev Med 2007;33(4S):S209-S225.
4. Slusser WM, Neumann CG, Cumberland WG, Browdy BL. Overweight in urban, low-income, African-American and Hispanic children attending Los Angeles elementary schools: research stimulating action. Public Health Nutr 2005;8:141- 8.
5. School Nutrition Association. SNA Statement on USDA Meal Cost Study. 11 April 2008.
6. School Nutrition Association. SNA 2007 Trends Report. Alexandria, VA: School Nutrition Association; 2007.
7. School Nutrition Association. From Cupcakes to Carrots: Local School Wellness Policies One Year Later; September 2007.
8. School Nutrition Association. School Nutrition Operations Report: The State of School Nutrition 2007; August 2007.
9. Neuberger, Z. Reducing Paperwork and Connective with Low-Income Children with School Meals: Opportunities under the New Child Nutrition Reauthorization Law. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 22 November 2004.
10. Neuberger article references: Case Study of National School Lunch Program Verification Outcomes in Large Metropolitan School Districts, prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. under a research contract with the Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, Report CN-04-AV3, April 2004, available at http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/CNP/CNP.HTM and What Have We Learned from FNS New Research Findings about Overcertification in the School Meals Programs?.
11. Osburn, L. Rising food prices forcing schools to get creative at lunchtime. The Birmingham News. 21 April 2008.

 

Image Credit:

1. freefoto.com

Corporate Targeting and the Impact of Corporate Practices on Socioeconomic, Racial/ethnic, Gender and Age Inequities in Health

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

Selected Peer-reviewed Articles

A small but growing number of studies examine how corporate practices influence health inequities. Studies have described and analyzed how corporations target selected populations for marketing of unhealthy products, assessed the impact of these practices on differences in health behavior and health, and explored other ways that corporate decisions maintain or exacerbate health disparities.

Here Corporations and Health Watch summarizes a few of these recent reports and invites readers to submit additions to the list for subsequent posting.

 

Baker EA, Schootman M, Barnidge E, Kelly C. The role of race and poverty in access to foods that enable individuals to adhere to dietary guidelines. Prev Chronic Dis.2006; 3(3):A76.

Analyzes the results of an audit of community supermarkets and fast food restaurants to assess the location and availability of food choices that enable individuals to meet the dietary guidelines established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The researchers used supermarket and fast food restaurant audit tools to assess the availability of healthy food choices in the urban area of St. Louis, Missouri. The researchers found that two factors (race and income) are associated with the location of food outlets and the selection of foods available. Individuals living in mixed or white high-poverty areas and in primarily African American areas are less likely to have access to foods that would enable them to make healthy food choices. The researchers recommend collaborations with the business community and political structures to make it economically viable to provide equal access to healthy food choices.

 

Brody H, Hunt LM. BiDil: assessing a race-based pharmaceutical. Ann Fam Med. 2006; 4(6): 556-60.

Analyzes scientific evidence on BiDil, the first drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration to be marketed to a single racial-ethnic group, African Americans, for the treatment of congestive heart failure. The authors discuss the problems that can arise when race is viewed as a biological-medical construct, leading to an overly simplistic assumption of a racial and hence presumed genetic difference while obscuring the “economic, social, cultural, and ethical issues lurking in the background.” The authors predict that the manufacturer will launch a publicity campaign targeting African Americans, and that family medicine doctors will be asked by their patients for the new “for blacks only” medication.

 

Freudenberg N, Galea S, Fahs M. Changing corporate practices to reduce cancer disparities. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2008; 19(1):26-40.

Reviews data on disparities in cancer morbidity and mortality in the United States, and reviews evidence on corporate practices contribute to cancer risk behavior, incidence, and cancer disparities. The authors propose that the practices of the tobacco, alcohol and food industries be considered as modifiable social determinants of health. The authors conclude with recommendations for research, practice, and policy that would lead to what they term “less carcinogenic” corporate practices.

 

Kwate N O A. Fried chicken and fresh apples: Racial segregation as a fundamental cause of fast food density in black neighborhoods. Health and Place 2008;14:32-44.

Analyzes pathways by which racial segregation contributes to higher density of fast food outlets in Black neighborhoods in US. The author proposes that population characteristics, economic characteristics, physical infrastructure and social processes of Black neighborhoods each contribute to creation of “localized geographic areas for targeting by fast food corporations and operators.”

 

Kwate NO, Lee TH. Ghettoizing outdoor advertising: disadvantage and ad panel density in black neighborhoods. J Urban Health. 2007;84(1):21-31.

 

Investigates correlates of density of outdoor advertising in predominantly African American neighborhoods in New York City. Authors found that that black neighborhoods have more outdoor advertising space than white neighborhoods, and these spaces disproportionately market alcohol and tobacco advertisements. By linking census data with property data at the census block group level, investigators found that two neighborhood-level determinants of ad density were income level and physical decay.

 

Macdonald L, Cummins S, Macintyre S. Neighbourhood fast food environment and area deprivation-substitution or concentration? Appetite. 2007l;49(1):251-4.

Investigates associations between area deprivation and the location of the four largest fast-food chains in Scotland and England. The authors report statistically significant increases in density of outlets from more affluent to more deprived areas for each individual fast-food chain and all chains combined. They conclude that these findings support a “concentration” effect whereby environmental risk factors for obesity appear to be ‘concentrated’ in more deprived areas.

 

Monsivais P, Drewnowski A. The rising cost of low-energy-density foods. J Am Diet Assoc. 2007; 107(12): 2071-6.

Discusses the results of a study on the energy density and retail prices of 372 foods and beverages in major supermarket chains in the Seattle, WA metropolitan area in 2004 and 2006 (energy density and prices were calculated in terms of $/100g and $/1,000 kcal). The researchers discuss the role of lower energy-density foods as a strategy for managing overweight and obesity. The two-year price change for the least energy-dense foods was +19.5% whereas the price change for the most energy-dense foods was -1.8%. The researchers suggest that the lower price of energy-dense foods and the resistance of energy-dense foods to price inflation may help explain why the highest rates of obesity in the United States are observed among those with limited economic means.

 

Morrison MA, Krugman DM, Pumsoon P. Under the radar: smokeless tobacco advertising in magazines with substantial youth readership. Am J Public Health. 2008; 98(3): 543-48.

Reviews the level of advertising of smokeless tobacco products before and after the Smokeless Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (STMSA). The researchers determined that the STMSA appears to have had a limited effect on adolescents’ exposure to the advertising of smokeless tobacco in magazines with high youth readership. The researchers determined that adolescent boys (aged 12-17) are at greatest risk for exposure to smokeless tobacco advertisements.

 

Primack BA, Bost JE, Land SR, Fine MJ. Volume of tobacco advertising in African American markets: systematic review and meta-analyses. Public Health Rep. 2007; 122(5): 607-15.

Reviews the peer-reviewed literature on the density of pro-tobacco media messages. Of the studies identified for inclusion, 11 met the eligibility criteria for the current review. The researchers pooled the results of these studies in a meta-analysis and conclude that African Americans are exposed to a higher volume of pro-tobacco advertising. The researchers also cite evidence demonstrating that African Americans bear the greatest morbidity and mortality burdens due to smoking, and that exposure to pro-tobacco media messages predicts cigarette smoking.

 

Schor JB, Ford M. From Tastes Great to Cool: Children’s Food Marketing and the Rise of the Symbolic. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 2007; Spring issue on Childhood Obesity: 10-21.

Discusses the increasing participation of children in the consumer markets, their heavy media use and exposure to high levels of advertising. The researchers discuss deteriorating diets and rising obesity, as well as the shift in children’s food advertisements from product attributes to symbolic messages. The researchers cite studies that demonstrate that exposure to junk food marketing is much higher for low-income children as well as racial and ethnic minority children, groups that also have higher rates of obesity.

 

Thompson DA, Flores G, Ebel BE, Christakis DA. Comida en venta: after-school advertising on Spanish-language television in the United States. J Pediatr. 2008; 152(4): 576-81.

Analyzes the content of food and drink commercials aired during after-school hours (3 to 9 p.m.) on two Spanish-language television stations in the United States. The researchers found that children viewing Spanish-language television in the United States after school are exposed to food and drink commercials, mostly advertising unhealthy foods, including fast foods and sugared drinks. The researchers propose that food and beverage advertising to children via Spanish-language television may contribute to the high rates of obesity among Latino children.

 

Yerger VB, Przewoznik J, Malone RE. Racialized geography, corporate activity, and health disparities: tobacco industry targeting of inner cities. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2007; 18(4 Suppl): 10-38

Reviews more than 400 internal documents from the tobacco industry to explore the ways in which the tobacco industry targeted inner cities populated predominately by low-income African American residents in the 1970s-1990s. The authors cite studies demonstrating that smoking rates remain higher among the poor, the less educated and other underserved populations, despite significant reductions in the overall smoking rate in the United States. This archival analysis demonstrates how the tobacco industry’s promotion activities and the “menthol wars” fought by tobacco companies in America’s inner-cities have contributed to the tobacco-related health disparities that we observe today.

Corporations, Health and the 2008 Presidential Race, Part Three: Clinton, McCain, Obama and the Food Industry

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

As public concern about obesity and nutrition has increased, the food and beverage industry has worked tirelessly to avoid any additional regulation of its practices. Most recently, legislation to restore the Federal Trade Commission’s power to restrict junk food marketing, update school food standards, and mandate nutrition information on chain restaurant menus have all been introduced but none have been successful. Among others, the American Beverage Association, National Restaurant Association, Grocery Manufacturers Association, the Snack Food Association and the National Automatic Merchandising Association work to hold on to their ability to have their members rather than the government monitor their business practices. The industry and its trade associations use their political muscle to shift the decision-making process away from Congress and the President and into their own hands.

To help achieve this outcome, during the 2006 Congressional election cycle, the food and beverage industry contributed more than $3.5m to Democrats and nearly $7.5m to Republican federal candidates (from both PACs and individuals). In 2008, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the food and beverage industry has already contributed more than $2m to Democrats and more than $3m to Republicans.

The top twenty food and beverage industry
political donors 2008
  1. The National Restaurant Association ($426,500)
  2. Osi Restaurant Partners ($340,500)
  3. McDonald’s Corp ($134,420)
  4. Coca-Cola Co ($97,750)
  5. Ilitch Holdings ($96,100)
  6. Starbucks Coffee ($84,979)
  7. Wendy’s ($82,850)
  8. Mjkl Enterprises ($65,100)
  9. Brinker International ($63,650)
  10. Coca-Cola Enterprises ($60,250)
  1. Yum! Brands ($55,950)
  2. Triarc Companies ($51,150)
  3. Coca-Cola ($47,575)
  4. Aramark Corp ($45,160)
  5. Darden Restaurants ($42,050)
  6. American Beverage Assn ($41,350)
  7. Pizza Hut Franchisees Assn ($39,750)
  8. Waffle House ($36,800)
  9. Trident Seafoods ($34,700)
  10. Davco Restaurants ($34,200)

 

Presidential Candidates and the Food Industry

In the 2008 primary campaign, Senator Clinton has been the top recipient of money from the food and beverage industry ($689,378); Senator Obama ranks fourth ($216,273), and Senator McCain, sixth ($114,600), as of February 11, 2008.

As obesity rates continue to climb and as we near the presidential election, it’s critical to examine how the three remaining Presidential candidates have responded to the food industry’s political agenda to avoid government oversight.

mcdonalds The “Cheeseburger Bill,” known officially as the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Acti in the House and the Common Sense Consumption Act in the Senate, would protect food companies from being sued by individuals for weight gain. It passed in the House in 2004 and 2005, failed to pass in the Senate but has garnered more co-sponsorship support than perhaps any other federal food-related bill. Republicans have been the main backers of the Cheeseburger Bill. Neither Senator Clinton, Senator McCain nor Senator Obama has supported any version of this bill.

The majority of the bills to further regulate the food and beverage industry go through the Senate’s Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee. None of the three candidates sit on this committee. Other health-related bills fall under the jurisdiction of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HeLP) committee. Both Senators Clinton and Obama are members of this committee. An examination of their committee work and the bills they have co-sponsored can provide a window into these candidates’ perspectives on multiple health-related issues.

Perhaps the bill with the most momentum this year (although it ultimately died) was Senator Harkin’s bill (S.771) to revise the definition of “foods of minimal nutritional value” which would further regulate competitive foods sold in schools, at any time of day. Senator Clinton supported this bill along with 27 of her Senate colleagues. Senator McCain and Senator Obama did not cosponsor this bill.

Below is a table showing how the three main candidates chose to sponsor or cosponsor additional selected obesity-related bills in 110th Congress. Some of these bills would work to further regulate the food and beverage industry. For example, one element of Senator Harkin’s Healthy Lifestyles and Prevention America Act (S.1342) requires some restaurants and vending machines to provide nutritional information about each food available for purchase.

2008 Presidential Candidates sponsorship and cosponsorship of obesity-related bills in the 110th Congress

 

Bill # Bill Title Clinton McCain Obama
School Foods
S.2066** A bill to establish nutrition and physical education standards for schools(aswell as other food issues) N N Y (sponsor)
S.1432 A bill to amend the Food Stamp Act of 1977 and the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to improve access to healthy foods, and for other purposes. Y N N
Physical Activity
S.2173 A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to improve standards for physical education. N N N
S.651 A bill to help promote the national recommendation of physical activity to kids, families, and communities across the United States. Y N
S.2066** See above N N Y (sponsor)
Funding and Research
S.1068 A bill to promote healthy communities. Y N Y (sponsor)
S.866 A bill to provide for increased planning and funding for health promotion programs of the Department of Health and Human Services. Y N N
S.1067 A bill to require Federal agencies to support health impact assessments and take other actions to improve health and the environmental quality of communities, and for other purposes. Y N Y (sponsor)
S.1172 A bill to reduce hunger in the United States. Y N Y
Employee Wellness
S.1753 A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a tax credit to employers for the costs of implementing wellness programs, and for other purposes. N N N
Broad-Based
S.1342 A bill to improve the health of Americans and reduce health care costs by reorienting the Nation’s health care system toward prevention, wellness, and self care. N N N

Source: THOMAS, Library of Congress.

**Although Senator Obama did not support Senator Harkin’s bill to update school food standards, he did sponsor S.2066. This bill would also update standards for competitive foods sold in schools. Standards would be consistent with recommendations made by the Institute of Medicine’s Report Nutrition Standards for Food in Schools. It is stalled in the Ag, Nutrition and Forestry Committee and has no cosponsors.

In a previous Congressional session, Senator Clinton spoke about her concern for media’s effect on children. On March 8, 2006, she explained her support for Children and Media Research Advancement Act (S.1902):

The bill I introduced with Senators Lieberman, Brownback, Santorum, Bayh, and Durbin included pilot projects to look at the effect of media on young children, and to look at food marketing and obesity. Although those projects were not included in this manager’s package, I continue to be very pleased with the bill. It’s a step forward for children. And I look forward to working with my colleagues in other venues to ensure that the pilot projects get done.

None of the candidates have cosponsored Senator Harkin’s Menu Education and Labeling (MEAL) Act, requiring, among other practices, nutrition information on chain restaurant menus.

Junk Food Marketing

Commonsense Media posed the following questions on junk food marketing to the presidential candidates.

Childhood obesity has reached epidemic proportions in this country. The latest research suggests that junk food ads are a major contributing factor. Would you support legislation to regulate the type of foods that could be advertised during children’s programming (similar to laws considered in Australia and the United Kingdom)?

Senator Clinton’s response:

According to a Kaiser Family Foundation report released this year, “Food for Thought: Television Food Advertising to Children in the United States,” a committee convened by Institute of Medicine found that “television advertising influences the food preferences, purchase requests, and diets, of children under age 12 years and is associated with increased rates of obesity among children and youth.” That’s why, according to the report, policymakers in Great Britain have banned ads for foods high in fat, salt, or sugar in programming aimed at children under 16 years of age and have prohibited the use of premiums or children’s characters in food ads to young people.

In the United States, we are going in the right direction: In December 2006, 10 of the top food companies in the country announced a new Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative that includes a commitment to devote at least 50 percent of all advertising to healthier foods or to messages that encourage fitness or nutrition. I believe there is more work to be done. I would like to see the entire food industry come together to develop voluntary guidelines that take their responsibility to children seriously. I think that there are a lot of steps that the private sector and the public sector, working together, can take to curb marketing and availability of unhealthy products to our children. In the Senate, I co-sponsored the Improved Nutrition and Physical Activity Act — which passed in the Senate — to address obesity and eating disorders in children, and I introduced the School Food Fresh Program that links schools with local farmers to bring healthy locally grown snacks to schoolchildren. When I am president, I will continue to explore these options and support measures to put our children on a path to healthy living.

As I mentioned earlier, I championed the Children and Media Research Advancement Act to study the impact of electronic media on child development. This bill provides targeted funding to research the links between advertising and childhood obesity. Since 1980, the proportion of overweight children has doubled, and the rate for adolescents has tripled. We have to understand the relationship between advertising and obesity if we are to build the public will to take action.

And Senator Obama responded:

We’re never going to be able to shield our children from all the potentially bad influences out there. And it would be counterproductive to just build walls that shield them entirely. Our best hope is to educate our children and give them the information and the tools they need to make wise choices. Our children are bombarded by all sorts of messages all the time. If it’s not from television commercials, it’s from somewhere else. We need to teach them how to sort out these messages. I question whether legislating to control certain types of advertising is going to help our children in the long run. I think there are other, helpful steps we can take to reduce childhood obesity. A generation ago, nearly half of all school-aged children walked or biked to school. Today, nearly 9 out of 10 children are driven to school. And once there, children are not very physically active — only 8 percent of elementary schools require daily physical education. Childhood obesity is nearly epidemic, particularly among minority populations, and school systems can play an important role in tackling this issue. For example, only about a quarter of schools adhere to nutritional standards for fat content in school lunches. I will work with schools to create more healthful environments for children, including assistance with contract policy development for local vendors, grant support for school-based health screening programs and clinical services, increased financial support for physical education, and educational programs for students.

Senator McCain has yet to issue a response to these questions. On his campaign website he explains his belief in personal responsibility:

  • We must do more to take care of ourselves to prevent chronic diseases when possible, and do more to adhere to treatment after we are diagnosed with an illness.
  • Childhood obesity, diabetes and high blood pressure are all on the rise. We must again teach our children about health, nutrition and exercise – vital life information.
  • Public health initiatives must be undertaken with all our citizens to stem the growing epidemic of obesity and diabetes, and to deter smoking.

In their focus on education, Senators Obama and McCain reinforce a more conservative framework that emphasizes teaching children as the key to healthier lifestyles, rather than restricting, regulating or more closely monitoring the food industry. Senator Clinton’s language does address junk food advertising directly, but she advocates voluntary self-regulation and increased funding to study the links between advertising and childhood obesity.

The Candidates on Family Farms

Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama preach support for family farms. In a questionnaire from the Congressional Hunger Center and Drake University Law School, the presidential candidates were asked:

In both rural and urban areas, many Americans lack convenient access to food. As President, how would you increase individuals’ and communities’ access to food?

Senator Clinton’s response:

I will work to increase access to locally grown and distributed food. As Senator, I was proud to start the Farm-to-Fork initiative, to provide consumers with better access to fresh, high quality, locally grown products through farmers’ markets, retailers, restaurants and schools. Given Farm-to-Fork’s success, I would consider working to replicate it around the country.

And Senator Obama’s response:

I support improved access to food through local and regional food systems. As president, I will emphasize the need for Americans to Buy Fresh and Buy Local, implement USDA policies and promote local and regional food systems, support funding for farm-to-school projects, and allow schools to give priority to local sources when ordering food (and grow vibrant and rural economies).

Senator McCain did not respond by the deadline.

Both Clinton and Obama voted for an amendment which would limit farm subsidies in the 2007 Farm Bill. McCain did not cast a vote but was a cosponsor of this amendment, initially introduced by Senator Dorgan (D-ND). This amendment has since been rejected.

All three candidates failed to vote either for or against the 2007 Farm Bill. This Bill, passed in the Senate this past December, is largely viewed as more of the same – subsidies to the largest agribusinesses — and would have been an opportunity for these candidates to take a stand against Big Food. The Senate and the House have passed distinct versions of the bill which now must be negotiated in Congress.

Can food be a political issue in the 2008 election?

At the end of the day, none of the candidates have been outspoken critics of the powers that rest in the hands of the food and beverage industry, nor have any called on the federal government to take a more direct approach in restricting this industry’s influence on society. As the Presidential campaign plays out in the coming months, nutrition,food advocates and journalists have the opportunity to ask the candidates – and voters – to consider what role the next President should play in addressing our nation’s food problems and confronting the growing epidemics of obesity and diabetes.

Alexandra Lewin is a doctoral studuent in nutrition at Cornell University and is completing her dissertation on federal obesity policy.

 

View CHW’s coverage on Corporations, Health and the 2008 Presidential Race:

Part 1: Following the Money
Part 2: Clinton, Obama and McCain on the Role of Corporations

New Alliances: Food Safety and Animal Welfare Organizations Join Forces to Demand Change

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

This past February, the nation saw the largest recall of meat in American history. More than140 million pounds of frozen ground beef slaughtered by the Hallmark Meat Packing Corporation in the last two years and supplied to Westland Meat Company was recalled after an undercover Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) video revealed evidence of widespread mistreatment of “downed” cattle. Hallmark employees were seen attempting to force downed cattle to slaughter by kicking them, applying electrical shocks, battering them with the blades of forklifts, and jabbing them in the eyes. In addition to outrage over inhumane treatment, the video raised the alarm of food safety organizations, as downed cattle are more likely to be infected with foodborne pathogens. Such concerns were heightened by the disclosure that Westland Meat Company was a supplier to the National School Lunch Program and commercial outlets.

In this case, researchers, advocates and policy makers concerned about public health, food safety and animal rights worked together to expose and seek to correct a situation that they believed violated food safety rules, animal rights and basic public health principles.On February 20, 2008, one day after the the United States Department of Agriculture announced the recall of Hallmark/Westland beef, seven food safety and animal rights organizations wrote a joint letter to USDA Secretary Ed Schafer urging the department to list the retail recipients of the Hallmark/Westland meat to better inform consumers about the recall. These organizations, Center for Foodborne Illness Research & Prevention; Center for Science in the Public Interest; Consumer Federation of America; Consumers Union; Food & Water Watch; Government Accountability Project and Safe Tables Our Priority [S.T.O.P.], further urged Schafer to enforce a rule proposed in March 2006 that would allow the agency to list retail consignees on USDA press releases. Though the rule had widespread consumer support it has not been approved.

The seven organizations argued that the public had a right to know to which retail outlets Westland had distributed the meat. Consumers Union issued a press release on February 28, 2008 stating that thanks to a 2007 law that Consumers Union (CU) helped to pass, the State of California had published the names of retailers that had carried the recalled Hallmark/Westland meat. However, because USDA had not taken action to approve changes to its internal policies regarding recall disclosure, consumers outside of the California received no such information. “Recalled meat was shipped beyond California’s borders, and because of USDA’s continuing secrecy about the names of the retailers, consumers in other states have no way of knowing if they purchased any of the recalled beef,” CU argued. The organization located the recent recall in a series of food safety failures that CU including bacterial contamination of chicken and the rise of beef contaminated with E Coli and suggested the incidents cumulatively suggested a “gaping hole in the food safety net.”

CSPI, an organization with a long history of fighting for the release such information from the USDA, argued that the USDA’s obscuring the names of retail establishments that received recalled beef “creates confusion by suggesting that recalled products do not reach consumers. In fact, the bulk

Protecting Industry at the Expense of Public Health and Safety

When the USDA published January 2004 regulations on   Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) following the first U.S. case in December of 2003, the agency claimed that all meat from downed cattle would be prohibited from entering the food supply. However, following publication of the regulations, the agency issued Notice 5-04 which instructed inspecting veterinarians to allow those downed cattle which appeared healthy and whose nonambulatory status was the result of an injury rather than illness. Food safety organizations, researchers and other experts on BSE immediately took issue with the loophole arguing that because illness may predispose livestock to injury, and because the exact cause of an animal’s nonambulatory state is difficult to ascertain, all downed animals should be prohibited from slaughter for food. In written comments to the USDA, former USDA senior staff veterinarian Linda Detwiler stated, “I urge the USDA to not alter this definition and to continue to prohibit for food any bovine which cannot walk to the ‘knock box’ [area of slaughter] regardless of reason.”

Following a period of public comment, an analysis by the Humane Society illustrated that although trade associations publicly supported the regulations following the 2003 BSE case, behind the scenes these organizations worked to weaken the ban to allow for slaughter those cattle which cannot walk from injury rather than illness.

Strategic Alliances, Flexible Coalitions

Beyond working together to publicize the HSUS findings and demand that consumers have access to a full list of Hallmark/Westland retail distributions, humane treatment and food safety organizations made other alliances in the Hallmark/Westland case.

Following the HSUS investigation, Food & Water Watch published information on their website about the longstanding problems with understaffing and unfilled meat inspector vacancies at the USDA. Food & Water Watch learned from the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) that the vacancy rate for FDA inspectors at the Alameda district in California, where Hallmark is located, was 11.33% at the end of FY 2007 and that inspectors at the Hallmark site were instructed that they should not enter the pens because a FSIS veterinarian would conduct all of the human handling checks. In a letter to USDA Secretary Schafer of the USDA, Food and Water Executive Director Wenonah Hauter and Stan Painter, President of the National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals argued: “In slaughter plants with inspector shortages or vacancies” plant employees know there is no chance that a government official will be able to visit the pens to do any checks, until the slaughter line is stopped. This would give company employees plenty of notice to halt behaviors that violate regulations, before any government official reaches the pens.”

Weeks after the video release, HSUS posted a series of comments and letters from religious leaders around the country responding to the Hallmark/Westland case. Comments posted by HSUS illustrate that religious leaders were concerned both by the inhumane treatment of downed cows and food safety. Religious leaders emphasized the interconnectedness of life and the inconsistency between cruelty to animals and core Judeo-Christian values. Some also pointed to the importance of eating a vegetarian diet and highlighted environmental concerns associated with factory farming. Others argued for greater corporate and regulatory accountability. Brother David Andrews, Coordinator for Justice and Peace Congregation of Holy Cross stated that food companies needed to “take notice, to review their practices and to ensure that the animals in their care are treated humanely. Citizens need to be demanding that the entire food and dairy system be reviewed with an examination of the guarantees that need to be in place to protect animals from treatment evidenced by this shocking example, more than lip service or verbal assurances are needed.”

These alliances between food safety, animal welfare, labor and religious leaders, facilitated in large part by the internet and “net roots” organizing, demonstrate the potential for broad-based coalitions that can challenge inhumane and health harming corporate practices and demand a stronger regulatory system.

Each of the participating organizations has framed issue in slightly different terms. HSUS and Food and Water Watch primarily focus on the inhumane treatment suffered by downed cows but also emphasize the food safety issues associated with processing such cattle for slaughter. Food and Water watch has worked to expose the food safety, animal welfare, environmental and economic effects of factory farming which leads to conditions such as downed cattle. CSPI and Consumers Union/Consumer Reports, while touching upon humane treatment issues, focus largely upon the rights of consumers to healthful food and a stronger food safety system. What these differing emphases share is a moral stance that contrasts with the meat industry’s position that the industry itself is best suited to regulate its own behavior, a perspective challenged by the video images.

By working collectively to demand a common bottom line such coalitions – even when temporary – can mobilize broader constituencies for change. At the same time, by framing the issue in slightly different terms, the organizations maintain an independent focus on different areas of expertise. Moreover, the groups have different tactical and strategic repertoires, such as HSUS’ undercover operations or CSPI’s use of lawsuits, enabling the coalition to operate on a variety of fronts.

Moving Forward

In addition to raising concerns about the failing of the nation’s food safety inspection system, a situation that puts the health of American public and especially children and other vulnerable groups at risk, the Hallmark/Westland case also revealed the productive capacity of coalition work between humane treatment/animal rights and food safety organizations to change health harming corporate practices. One reason why these alliances seem to work is that while the animal welfare organizations highlight their opposition to cruelty to animals, including the fate suffered by factory farmed animals, and discuss a vegetarian lifestyle, they take a more moderate position than animal rights organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

While alliances may be difficult where there are differences along ideological lines, the Hallmark/Westland case illustrates the potential for broader coalitions that might have broader application for other issues. For example Food and Water Watch’s work touches upon environmental and labor issues pertaining to factory farming and that group’s letter to USDA Secretary Ed Schafer was coauthored by the President of the National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals. Working closely with environmental and labor organizations could strengthen the demand for greater food safety regulations, reduce the environmental impact of farming, and improve working conditions and humane treatment of animals.

Following the Hallmark/Westland expose, two Hallmark employees were charged in California courts for the actions captured by HSUS. While such charges may deter some future violations, these two employees were likely operating under the direction of Hallmark, which seemingly had a vested interest in getting downed cattle to slaughter. Improving conditions for farm animals would require a reconfiguration of the factory farming system. For instance, the HSUS reports that improved bedding and surface area could cut the number of downed cattle by up to 90%. However, the best footing for cows (sand) is also much harder to move and to clean than concrete floors, which are currently used. Unfortunately industry seems unlikely to make changes that would be considered cost prohibitive but would result in healthier cattle and ultimately increased food safety. Under the current administration, the USDA seems unwilling to pass rules and regulations which would favor public health and safety when they conflict with industry positions. By including labor rights, food safety and animal welfare organizations in these emerging coalitions, advocates can help to refocus attention back on industry and away from the actions of a few employees who will be held up as exceptions to the rule. When such coalitions can successfully pose an alternative approach to assuring food safety and animal protection, they can begin to mobilize the political support needed to implement these alternatives.

Food and pharmaceutical industries win big in 2007 International Bad Products Awards

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

In Fall 2007, Consumers International—a federation of more than 220 consumer groups in 115 countries that work together to protect and empower consumers around the world—released its International Bad Products Awards for 2007. Nominations for the list were submitted by CI international member organizations and the winners were chosen by the CI Secretariat. Topping the list this year were products of the food and beverage industry and Big Pharma.

How to sell tap water and make a profit:

Coca-Cola was one of CI’s top winners and received the honor for their repackaging of tap water sold under the brand name Dasani. Dasani’s source is not obvious on the bottle itself or in Coca-Cola’s marketing. However, in the FAQ of the Dasani website, the company states Dasani is created with the local water supply, which is then filtered for purity using a state-of-the-art process called reverse osmosis. The purified water is then enhanced with a special blend of minerals for a pure, crisp, fresh taste. The website calls attention to the mouthwatering taste of flavored Dasani beverages and notes that Dasani Plus is enhanced with nutrients and delicious flavors giving you what your taste buds want and the goodness your body craves.

Coke introduced Dasani in 1999 as a purified, noncarbonated water with minerals added. In 2003, the company hired the New York ad firm Berlin Cameron/Red Cell, part of the Red Cell division of the WPP Group, to design a campaign for Dasani. The Berlin Cameron/Red Cell ads portrayed Dasani, at that time the #2 bottled water behind Pepsi’s Aquafina, as a beverage associated with youth and sexuality. The New York Times described the ads as: replete with quick editing cuts, fast-paced music and fast-moving plot. Then, too, there is all the sexiness, as embodied by multiple scenes of attractive young people dancing, running and embracing, interspersed with shots of water splashing into open mouths.

A year later, however, questions emerged about the health benefits of enhanced tap water. Only weeks after Dasani was launched in Great Britain, Coke was forced to recall more than 500,000 bottles after tests found excess levels of bromate. Bromate is a chemical produced in Dasani’s water purification process. A recent review concluded that based on an extensive database of relevant research, it is reasonable to assume that bromate induces tumors via oxidative damage that causes chromosomal breakage. British law permits 10 parts of bromate per billion; Dasani water was found to contain up to 25 parts per billion. Long term exposure to bromate is linked to a higher risk for cancer. Following the recall, Coca-Cola halted a scheduled April 2004 release in France and Germany.

Despite these recalls, Coca-Cola’s Dasani brand sales have continued to grow internationally and in the United States. In October 2007 Coca-Cola reported a 13% quarterly profits increase, largely due to international sales. Worldwide sales volume for noncarbonated beverages rose 14%, as compared to 4% for carbonated drinks. The difference in sales between carbonated and noncarbonated beverages may be due to the increasing evidence that consumption of soda is linked to obesity. In the US, this concern has resulted in more consumers choosing water and other purportedly healthful beverage options. Although Coca-Cola does not deny the source of their Dasani water, as CI points out, their advertising is misleading in that it uses terms such as pure, crisp and fresh. As CI stated in awarding its Bad Product listing, by bottling up this universal resource to sell back to us, corporations such as Coca-Cola have created a US$100 billion industry at the same time when one billion people in the world lack access to safe drinking water. Making profits out of increasingly fragile water supplies is unsustainable, irresponsible and against the basic rights of consumers everywhere.

Hey Kids! Develop amazing physical attributes with 40% sugar!

Another winner of the 2007 Bad Product Award was the Kellogg Company for its marketing of low nutrient junk food to children. According to CI, Kellogg’s achieved global net sales of $10.9 billion in 2006 and spent $916 million on advertising. Kellogg President-CEO David Mackay stated that of the total amount spent on advertising in the United States, 27% is directed to children under age 12. Increasing concern over food and beverage marketing to children has put pressure on Kellogg’s and other big food companies. In response to this pressure, including a 2006 lawsuit threatened by Center for Science and the Public Interest and the Campaign for Commercial-Free Childhood, Kellogg’s agreed to make changes.

During the second half of 2007 and 2008, Kellogg’s promised to stop advertising many of its most popular items to children under 12 if these products did not conform to new nutrition guidelines limiting sugar to no more than 12 grams and total calories to no more than 200 per serving. The company also promised to work on reducing salt and fat, limiting per serving amounts to no more than 230 milligrams of sodium, zero grams of trans fat and no more than 2 grams of saturated fat. Kellogg’s further agreed to limit licensed cartoon characters in its ads and to not advertise in schools.

Despite these promised changes, Kellogg’s still won a CI award for its low nutrient food marketing to children. One reason for this dubious honor is that while Kellogg’s is making changes in the U.S market, it seems to be business as usual around the world. CI reported that Kellogg’s marketed cereals containing between 33-40% sugar to children around the world. In addition, Kellogg’s continued to use cartoon characters and other imagery appealing to children to market their high sugar cereals. In Australia, CI reports, Kellogg’s used social networking techniques aimed at children to promote Coco Pops while in the UK, the same cereal was cross promoted with the film Shrek. The most egregious example, however, came from Mexico where Kellogg’s ads promised children that their high sugar cereals would help children develop amazing physical attributes, according to CI. Thanks to the advocacy efforts of El Poder del Consumidor, a CI member organization, the ads were pulled.

Back to school with sleeping pills.

Top honors in the CI Bad Products Awards went to the US subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceuticals for marketing sleeping pills to children. Takeda, a US $10 billion company, is the largest pharmaceutical maker in Japan. It was their promotion of sleeping aid Rozerem that earned them the overall Bad Product Award with CI. Why? Because of Takeda’s September 2006 ten second ad featuring images of school bus and images of children wearing backpacks and writing on chalkboards with the voiceover, Rozerem would like to remind you that it’s back to school season. Ask your doctor today if Rozerem is right for you.

Beyond the generally distressing suggestion that children be prescribed sleeping aids, Takeda’s own product labeling states that It is not known what effect chronic or even chronic intermittent use of ROZEREM may have on the reproductive axis in developing humans…Safety and effectiveness of ROZEREM in pediatric patients have not been established. In addition, Rozerem is associated with increased thoughts of suicide in adults.

According to CI, it took the FDA six months to remove the ad, long after the ‘back to school’ promotion had gone. However, in March 2007, the agency sent Takeda Pharmaceuticals a letter stating: The combination of these statements and images of school-aged children and school-related objects suggests that Rozerem is indicated for and can be safely used in the pediatric population. The FDA also noted that the ads failed to present the indication and information relating to major side effects and must make adequate provision for dissemination of the FDA-approved labeling.

Despite these violations, the FDA did not fine Takeda, which in 2006 spent $118 million on advertising Rozerem alone. During the same year, Big Pharma spent $600 million on advertising sleeping products. Sales of sleeping aids continued to rise, increasing 60% between 2000 and 2005. In addition, in the adult population, the FDA has raised concerns that sleeping aids are associated with strange side effects such as sleeping walking, hallucinations, violent outburst, nocturnal driving and engaging in sexual intercourse during sleep.

In the past, pharmaceutical companies have sought to increase their market through direct-to-consumer marketing and advertising to physicians. However, just as Big Tobacco learned the value of enticing young people to smoke or to associate tobacco brands with good feelings, it seems that Big Pharma is now increasingly and directly going after a youth market as well. As early as 2000, the New York Times described campaigns by Roche Pharmaceuticals and others to promote prescription acne medications directly to teens. One pharmaceutical industry consultant told the Times, The idea is to expand the market and just get them interested and motivated. And teenagers aren’t the easiest patients to motivate. The ad showed a boy with acne being called Pizza Face by his peers.

In recognition of this alarming trend, CI noted in its award to Takeda, This case demonstrates the lengths to which some drug companies will go to increase sales of their products, how direct to consumer advertising can promote irrational drug use, and how weak regulation can foster irresponsible corporate behaviour.