CNBC reports that the Food and Drug Administration announced last week that it is extending the feedback period for comments about use of the word “healthy” on food packaging. The move gives the food industry and consumer groups more time to weigh in on whether the government should redefine the meaning of “healthy” on food labels. But it also gives the incoming Trump administration more time to review the issue, and could ultimately lead to reforms in the way the government comes up with food and labeling guidelines.
Youth Exposure to Alcohol Advertising in National Magazines in the United States, 2001-2011
A recent study used advertising industry standard sources to evaluate youth exposure to alcohol advertising, and relative advertising exposure of youths versus adults, in 168 national magazines published in the United States . The study found that from 2001 to 2011, magazine alcohol advertising seen by youths declined by 62.9%, from 5.4 billion impressions (single person seeing a single advertisement) to 2.0 billion impressions. Most alcohol advertising (65.1% of ads) was for spirits (e.g., vodka, whiskey). Since 2008, alcohol companies achieved 100% compliance with their limited guidelines. However, youths were overexposed to magazine advertising relative to adults on average 73% of the time. The authors concluded that despite improving compliance with placement guidelines in these magazines, most youth exposure to magazine alcohol advertising exceeded adult exposure, per capita. If alcohol companies adopted stricter guidelines based on public health risk assessments, youths would not be overexposed to alcohol advertising in magazines.
Full citation: Ross CS, Henehan ER, Jernigan DH. Youth Exposure to Alcohol Advertising in National Magazines in the United States, 2001-2011. Am J Public Health. 2017;107(1):136-142.
Another recent review article summarized the literature on the use of digital media to market alcohol.
Full citation: 1: Lobstein T, Landon J, Thornton N, Jernigan D. The commercial use of digital media to market alcohol products: a narrative review. Addiction. 2016. doi:10.1111/add.13493
House Freedom Caucus Targets Regulations to Examine or Revoke in First 100 days
The Freedom Caucus of the U.S. House of Representatives, a group of more than 30 conservative Republicans, released a report listing more than 200 federal rules and regulations that President-elect Donald J. Trump could wipe off the books after he takes office Jan. 20. Among the public health measures on the proposed chopping block:
• Nutrition standards for the school lunch and breakfast program
• Various requirements for the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service
• FDA rules on tobacco
• Coverage of preventive services under the Affordable Care Act
• Various FDA rules that enable drugs that are unsafe or ineffective to be taken off the market.
High costs deter Americans from taking prescribed drugs
Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro has urged Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Tom Cole to revoke his hold on the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Report: Prescription Drugs: Innovation, Spending, and Patient Access. “By blocking the American people from seeing the HHS Drug Price report, Chairman Cole is denying the public critical information on spiraling drug spending in Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal health programs.” The full report is available here. The report found that almost 10% of U.S. Adults aged 18-64 reported not taking drugs as prescribed because of the high costs.
The Scientific Basis of Guideline Recommendations on Sugar Intake: A Systematic Review
A review of the scientific basis of dietary guidelines for sugar intake supported by the sugar and soda industries and published in Annals of Internal Medicine concluded that these “Guidelines on dietary sugar do not meet criteria for trustworthy recommendations and are based on low-quality evidence. Public health officials (when promulgating these recommendations) and their public audience (when considering dietary behavior) should be aware of these limitations.” An editorial on the review criticized its methodology and conclusions. An author of the editorial told the New York Times that the writers of the review were “hijacking the scientific process in a disingenuous way to sow doubt and jeopardize public health.”
Gun Control Advocates Find a Deep-Pocketed Ally in Big Law
A new gun control strategy proposes more legal action to add to demonstrations like the 2013 March on Washington. credit.
In Congress and in the Supreme Court, the gun lobby has racked up some crucial victories in recent years, writes the New York Times. It won again last month when Donald J. Trump, buoyed by the lobby’s money and support, secured an upset victory in the presidential election. On the defensive, gun control advocates are now quietly developing a plan to chip away at the gun lobby’s growing clout: Team up with corporate law firms. This effort is highly unusual in its scale. Although law firms often donate time to individual causes, and some firms have worked on gun control on a piecemeal basis, the number and the prominence of the firms involved in the new coalition are unheard-of for modern-day big law. Other firms are expected to join in the coming months.
The Trump Organization: Corporate Track Record
As Donald Trump moves into the White House next month, health advocates may find it helpful to review the business record of the Trump Organization, the real estate and development conglomerate he leads. The Corporate Research Project, a nonprofit group that assists community, environmental and labor organizations in researching companies and industries, provides a summary of his record. For more than 30 years, Donald Trump has been almost continuously in the public eye, portraying himself as the epitome of business success and shrewd dealmaking, CRP writes. He took a business founded by his father to build modest middle-class housing in the outer boroughs of New York City and transformed it into a high-profile operation focused on glitzy luxury condominiums, hotels, casinos and golf courses around the world. Operating through the Trump Organization, his family holding company, Trump also capitalized on the name recognition gained through years of reality-television appearances in a wide range of licensing deals.
Health Activism Targeting Corporations: A Critical Health Communication Perspective
Health activists and health social movements have transformed medical treatment, promoted public health policies, and extended civil rights for people with illness and disability. This essay in Health Communications explores health activism that targets corporate-generated illness and risk in order to understand the unique communicative challenges involved in this area of contention. Arguing for greater critical engagement with policy, the article integrates policy research with social movements, subpolitics, and issue management literature. Drawing from activist discourse and multidisciplinary research, the article describes how a wide array of groups build visibility for corporate health effects, create the potential for networking and collaboration, and politicize health by attributing illness to corporate behaviors. The discussion articulates the implications of this activism for health communication theory, research, and practice.
Full citation: Zoller HM. Health Activism Targeting Corporations: A Critical Health. Communication Perspective. Health Commun. 2017 Feb;32(2):219-229.
The Public Health Burden of Alcohol and the Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Alcohol Control Policies: An evidence review
The distribution of drinkers in England. Credit
This review was commissioned by the Department of Health of England, which asked Public Health England (PHE) to provide an overview of alcohol-related harm in England and possible policy solutions. The report offers a broad and rigorous summary of the types and prevalence of alcohol-related harm, and evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of alcohol control policies. Effectiveness is defined as the degree to which an intervention reduces the public health burden (health, social, and economic) of alcohol. The findings are interpreted within the English context and will be relevant to academics and researchers, public health professionals and policymakers in the health and non-health sectors. The review provides national and local policy makers with the latest evidence to identify those policies which will best prevent and reduce alcohol-related harm. It covers the following areas: taxation and price regulation, regulating marketing, regulating availability, providing information and education, managing the drinking environment, reducing drink-driving, and brief interventions and treatment.
New Report Exposes “Patient Advocacy” Groups as a Big Pharma Scam
“Patient advocacy” groups have a unique power on Capitol Hill, writes David Dayen in The Intercept. They claim to represent the true voice of constituents, untainted by special interest bias. Politicians and the Food and Drug Administration use their endorsements as reflective of genuine public support. But a new study shows that nearly all of these patient advocacy groups are captured by the drug industry. David Hilzenrath at the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) reports that at least 39 of 42 patient advocacy groups who participated in discussions with the FDA over agency review processes for prescription drugs received funding from pharmaceutical companies. And at least 15 have representatives of drug or biotechnology companies on their governing boards. The study is particularly notable now because Congress is poised to pass the 21st Century Cures Act, which trades temporary additional funding for the National Institutes of Health and the FDA for permanent weakening of the FDA’s approval process. Over 1,400 lobbyists have been working on this bill, which would be a major financial boon to the drug and medical device industries.
Corporations and Health Watch 