Coca Cola and Monster: Open Happiness Teams up with Meanest Energy Drink on the Planet

Posted on August 20, 2014 by Corporations and Health Watch

: Credit: Bloomberg Businessweek

Last week, Coca Cola, the world’s largest soda company, paid $2.15 billion to buy a minority share in the energy drink maker Monster Beverages, the Number 2 energy drink maker in the United States. The deal, which also includes a trade of brands between the two companies, provides a useful illustration of what happens when big companies get worried about falling revenues. The Wall Street Journal called Coke’s purchase of a 16.7% stake in Monster “a risky bid to jolt sagging sales”, noting that “Coke badly needs some big new ideas” after a third straight year of sagging global sales.

What makes energy drinks so attractive? Last year Monster’s revenues rose 9% to $2.2. billion and its deal with Coke may allow it edge out Red Bull, the nation’s largest energy drink maker. The stake in Monster gives Coca Cola a chance to become dominant in another part of the drinks market, a sector that until recently was expanding even as soda sales fell. In recent months, Coca Cola has struggled to change its image. As Businessweek noted recently, “Coke (has been) on the wrong side of just about every consumer lifestyle trend.” The new head of Coke’s North American division, Sandy Douglas was hired to reverse Coke’s declining sales. His goal is to refocus the company on the one thing it does best: sell bottles of Coke. This is the beginning, he says, of “what I might call the phased relaunch of Coca-Cola in the U.S.” But will buying Monster contribute to that goal?

In buying a stake in Monster, Coca Cola risks adding to its reputation as one of the world’s leading contributors to obesity, diabetes and other diet related disease an additional set of health concerns. A 2009 article in Drug and Alcohol Dependence warned that caffeinated energy drinks present growing health problems—include caffeine intoxication and dependence and a gateway to dependence on other drugs. A 2014 report from the CDC shows that energy drinks contain caffeine that ranges from 50 mg to 500 mg per can or bottle and other ingredients that claim to boost energy. Used in excess, they can lead to elevated blood pressure and dehydration because of their high caffeine content. The American Academy of Pediatrics in 2011 recommended that because the stimulants in energy drinks, they should never be consumed by children or adolescents. Earlier this summer, the Center for Science in the Public Interest released a report showing that the FDA had learned of 276 adverse events related to energy drinks since 2004, including 34 deaths. Eleven of these deaths were linked to Monster drinks.

In choosing to buy a stake in Monster, Coca Cola stakes its future on dominating beverage industry sectors that contribute most to global health problems. Faced with a choice between products that have the potential to hook customers and healthier, less addictive or habituating alternatives, food and beverage companies—like tobacco and alcohol corporations– have consistently chosen to invest in products that keep their customers coming back for more.

In a society where government agencies fulfilled their mandate to protect public health against private profit, Coke’s strategy could be risky. But history shows that Coca Cola’s optimism that regulators will not dent their profits is based on experience. In 1981, reports Leonid Bershidsky in Bloomberg News, it was Pepsi Cola that convinced the FDA that caffeine was a “flavor enhancer”, not regulated by the agency, rather than a psychoactive ingredient which could have been regulated as a drug. Now Coca Cola spends $4.8 million a year on lobbying, more than twice as much as Pepsi, to make sure Congress heeds its regulatory and other concerns.

The bottom line is that Coke’s decision to invest in Monster connects it to another product associated with premature death and aggressive and deceptive marketing. For those who wonder whether Coca Cola’s decision to improve its image represents a public relations ploy or a serious effort to scale back its damage to the health of the world’s population, the decision to invest in Monster provides a clear answer.

Calories, sugar, sodium and caffeine in Coca Cola and two Monster Beverage products, Peace Tea and Monster Energy Drink.

Product	Size ounces	Calories	Sugar gms	Sodium mgs	Caffeine mgs	Ingredients
Coca Cola	20	240	65	75	58	Carbonated water, high fructose corn syrup, caramel color, phosphoric acid, natural flavors, caffeine.
Monster Peace Tea	24	150	33-39 By flavor	60	60	Brewed natural tea (pure filtered water, tea), sugar, apple juice concentrate, lemon juice concentrate, citric acid, natural flavors, sodium citrate, sucralose.
Monster Energy	16	200	54	360	160	l-camitine, glucose, caffeine, guarana, inositol, glucronolactone, maltodextrin

Why the Drug Industry Hasn’t Come Up with an Ebola Cure

Posted on August 20, 2014 by Corporations and Health Watch

The lack of an Ebola cure amid the deadliest outbreak in the disease’s history is highlighting a significant challenge in the public health world: developing life-saving cures to those who need them the most. In many cases, the Washington Post reports, drug manufacturers don’t have strong enough economic incentives to devote resources to making drugs for populations that would have trouble affording them.

Gunwars Report on Gun Rights and Regulations After Newtown

Posted on August 20, 2014 by Corporations and Health Watch

Gunwars, a new report on gun rights and regulations by the Carnegie-Knight News21 program reports that twenty months after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, some would say little has changed when it comes to guns in America. Others would say everything has.

Who Is Pulling the Strings at the School Nutrition Association?

Posted on August 13, 2014 by Corporations and Health Watch

Why the largest school pizza supplier might be behind the school food lobby’s scuffle with the first lady

Cross-posted from Al Jazeera

: photo credit

As I wrote in June, a bitter fight erupted in Washington, D.C., when the School Nutrition Association (SNA) — representing the nation’s 55,000 school food professionals — decided to oppose nutrition improvements to federally subsidized school meals, claiming that districts face insurmountable challenges from too many changes happening too quickly. Michelle Obama has made the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 one of her top causes and she is pulling no punches defending the new rules, which require schools to serve lower-sodium and lower-fat meals with more whole grains and fruit and vegetable servings. The result is an unfortunate standoff between the White House and the SNA’s current leadership.

At the trade group’s annual meeting last month in Boston, I searched for clues. Why did the SNA reverse its earlier position supporting healthier school meals? I also wanted to hear directly from workers who have the thankless job of serving millions of schoolchildren every day.

My first inclination was to suspect influence from the SNA’s food industry sponsors; after all, the organization’s largest donors include Domino’s, PepsiCo and General Mills. But walking through the expo hall, it was clear that the food industry is having no problem meeting the new nutrition rules (a sign of how weak they are). “Whole grain blueberry turkey sausage breakfast sticks” from Jimmy Dean pass muster and, according to an account from Mother Jones, so do “toaster waffles with built-in syrup and endless variations on the theme of breaded poultry.”

Asked about the new regulations, the Domino’s rep shrugged them off, saying, “We can turn on a dime.” He proudly told me that the company’s “Smart Slice” pizza was formulated just for schools and even expressed some frustration over the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s previous flip-flops (for example, the USDA changed its policy earlier this year on caps for meat and grains), because companies such as his invest a lot of money in making changes. In other words, it could actually be harmful to some vendors for the USDA to reverse course now.

As for those actually serving the meals, two food service workers — one from Maryland and another from Texas — told me that the nutrition changes were happening too soon, and all at once. But others, such as a team from New Orleans and another from Maine, didn’t understand the SNA’s position; their schools had been serving healthier meals for years, so the changes are no big deal. In other words, some schools may be struggling, but many others are not. It also means that the narrative the SNA is pushing — that the rules are too difficult to meet — may not be the full story.

Success stories

Implementing healthier school meals takes time and effort: It requires the cooperation of everyone — from students to distributors to principals. But it’s certainly quite feasible.

For instance, during a panel I attended, Helen Phillips, senior director of school nutrition at Norfolk Public Schools in Virginia, described her early transition to healthier meals in 2008, when the Institute of Medicine, a scientific advisory body, first released its school nutrition recommendations. She figured it was where the USDA was headed and wanted to get ahead of the game. It took several years to work out the kinks, she explained, but now the program is a great success. The key was to involve students. “I cannot emphasize enough,” she said repeatedly, “the importance of conducting taste-tests with the kids.”

Could the SNA’s flip-flop trace at least partially back to Schwan, a top donor whose pizza products can be found in 75 percent of the nation’s 96,000 K–12 schools?

Similarly, Kiera Butler recently reported for Mother Jones how the director of food service for Cincinnati’s public schools, Jessica Shelly, steered her program toward a $2.7 million profit. Shelly got her produce distributor to create affordable salad bars so that schoolchildren could choose which vegetables they liked.

And success is not just happening in cities. According to Mother Jones, the director of a rural Vermont district where 43 percent of the students are on free or reduced lunch said he “had no problems whatsoever implementing the new changes.” Plenty of other success stories also demonstrate that it can be done.

The changes are largely a function of willpower, and those districts with the right leadership are not only coping, but also thriving, with some going beyond the minimum standards required by the federal government. More than 200 health and children’s organizations, as well as 19 past SNA presidents, also support the federal changes.

So why is the SNA digging in its heels — and picking a fight with the first lady, to boot? Especially when its vendors are already in full compliance and so many of its own members are having such success?

Schwan’s way

The answer may lie — at least partially — in the SNA’s complicated connections with the food industry. Let’s take a closer look at one of SNA’s patrons (and top donors): Schwan. The Minnesota-based company’s pizza products can be found in 75 percent of the nation’s 96,000 K-12 schools. Of course, Schwan’s products meet the new rules, as pictures from its booth boasting “regulation ready” food indicate.

According to the Star Tribune, the company says it has not taken a position on the controversy. But Schwan has a seat on the School Nutrition Foundation’s board (as does PepsiCo); through it, Schwan offers scholarships to SNA members for professional development. More importantly, as the Washington Post explains:

At a 2012 SNA meeting, a Schwan executive and other industry advocates pushed for the group’s leadership to be more aggressive in asking for changes in the school lunch program, according to a person who witnessed the exchange but requested anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about it.

Remember when Congress declared pizza a vegetable? Schwan was behind that too. As the Star Tribune explained in 2011, without pizza sauce counting as a vegetable, schools would have “a difficult time serving pizza without spending more on other vegetables to serve with it — a potential blow to Minnesota’s Schwan Food Co.” On the SNA’s current agenda (PDF) is the removal of the requirement that schools serve a half-cup of either fruit or vegetables to children, which can cause strain on tight school budgets. That sounds exactly like the earlier concern that led to the absurd pizza-sauce-as-vegetable-serving outcome.

Could all this explain the chumminess I witnessed between Schwan and the SNA at the Boston meeting? One of the panelists at the SNA’s policy session was Craig Burkhardt, a lawyer with the group’s new lobbying firm, Barnes and Thornburg (whose clients include the National Rifle Association). Afterward, I noticed that the rep from Schwan was the first to greet Burkhardt, congratulating him on a great job; they obviously knew each other.

So is Schwan behind the SNA flip-flop? Of course, we can’t know for sure. But if one company really does have that much power over an organization whose mission is to “ensure all children have access to healthful school meals,” those battling for healthier school food have a long fight ahead.

Critic of Artificial Sweeteners Pilloried by Industry-backed Scientists

Posted on August 13, 2014 by Corporations and Health Watch

Susan Swithers is no stranger to food industry criticism, writes Chris Young for the Center for Public Integrity. Still, even Swithers was surprised by the way in which the diet food industry attacked a paper she published last summer that raised health concerns about popular sugar substitutes used in snack foods and diet drinks. Perhaps the strongest, most wide-ranging attacks came from the Calorie Control Council, a lesser-known industry group with a penchant for stealthy public relations tactics.

How Wall Street Tobacco Deals Left States with Billions in Toxic Debt

Posted on August 13, 2014 by Corporations and Health Watch

In November 1998, attorneys general from across the country sealed a historic deal with the tobacco industry to pay for the health care costs of smoking. Then, Wall Street came knocking with an offer many state and local politicians found irresistible: Cash upfront for those governments willing to trade investors the right to some or all of their tobacco payments. Things haven’t exactly worked out as planned, finds Pro Publica in an analysis of more than 100 of these deals.

Back to School Books on Corporations and Health

Posted on August 6, 2014 by Corporations and Health Watch

For those who make a living teaching about health, August means getting ready for returning to the classroom and introducing new students to what we think is important. A basic premise of Corporations and Health Watch is that every health professional should understand something about the ways corporations influence health and what can be done to prevent or modify corporate practices that harm health.

To help CHW readers contribute to that goal, I suggest five books to add to public health, medical, nursing, social work or related course readings and discussions. These books have been published or updated in the last year or so, are available for less than $30, and can be used in a variety of courses including introductory public health, health policy, social and behavioral health, epidemiology or social epidemiology and more specialized courses.

I suggest books –in addition to the texts and journal articles we usually assign—because they give students an opportunity to read in more depth on a single topic, evaluate the range of evidence that authors present, and react to the opinions the authors draw from this evidence. The brief descriptions of each book are those provided by the publisher.

Corporations Are Not People: Reclaiming Democracy from Big Money and Global Corporations

By Jeff Clements, Updated Edition, 2014, Berrett and Kohler

Describes the new fabrication of rights and power for corporations and money, at the expense of the rights of human beings and of democracy itself. A resource for everyone who want to join the historic work to overcome partisan divides and re-engage in self-government by all Americans — community by community, state by state, and, ultimately, in Washington itself. This 2014 edition is updated throughout with surprising information and analysis about the impacts of unlimited money in federal, state, and even local elections; the spreading “corporate capture of the courts” resulting from the dangerous fabrication of “corporate rights” in the Constitution; and the growing, historic response from people of all political viewpoints to defend democracy and rebuild government of the people. A completely new chapter—“Do Something”- shows how thousands of so-called ordinary people are working to build the “most dynamic, grass-roots movement in the United States,” and offers “portals” for people to connect and act.

The Gun Debate What Everyone Needs to Know
Philip J. Cook and Kristin A. Goss, Oxford University Press, 2014

No topic is more polarizing than guns and gun control. From a gun culture that took root early in American history to the mass shootings that repeatedly bring the public discussion of gun control to a fever pitch, the topic has preoccupied citizens, public officials, and special interest groups for decades. The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs to Know® delves into the issues that Americans debate when they talk about guns. With a balanced and broad-ranging approach, noted economist Philip J. Cook and political scientist Kristin A. Goss thoroughly cover the latest research, data, and developments on gun ownership, gun violence, the firearms industry, and the regulation of firearms. The authors also tackle sensitive issues such as the effectiveness of gun control, the connection between mental illness and violent crime, the question of whether more guns make us safer, and ways that video games and the media might contribute to gun violence. No discussion of guns in the U.S. would be complete without consideration of the history, culture, and politics that drive the passion behind the debate. Cook and Goss deftly explore the origins of the American gun culture and the makeup of both the gun rights and gun control movements.

Lethal But Legal Corporations, Consumption, and Protecting Public Health
Nicholas Freudenberg, Oxford University Press, 2014

Decisions made by the food, tobacco, alcohol, pharmaceutical, gun, and automobile industries have a greater impact on today’s health than the decisions of scientists and policymakers. As the collective influence of corporations has grown, governments around the world have stepped back from their responsibility to protect public health by privatizing key services, weakening regulations, and cutting funding for consumer and environmental protection. Today’s corporations are increasingly free to make decisions that benefit their bottom line at the expense of public health. Lethal but Legal examines how corporations have influenced — and plagued — public health over the last century, first in industrialized countries and now in developing regions. It is both a current history of corporations’ antagonism towards health and an analysis of the emerging movements that are challenging these industries’ dangerous practices. The reforms outlined here aim to strike a healthier balance between large companies’ right to make a profit and governments’ responsibility to protect their populations. While other books have addressed parts of this story, Lethal but Legal is the first to connect the dots between unhealthy products, business-dominated politics, and the growing burdens of disease and health care costs. By identifying the common causes of all these problems, then situating them in the context of other health challenges that societies have overcome in the past, this book provides readers with the insights they need to take practical and effective action to restore consumers’ right to health.

Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients
by Ben Goldacre (New paperback edition, 2014) Macmillan Publishers.

We like to imagine that medicine is based on evidence and the results of fair testing and clinical trials. In reality, those tests and trials are often profoundly flawed. We like to imagine that doctors who write prescriptions for everything from antidepressants to cancer drugs to heart medication are familiar with the research literature about these drugs, when in reality much of the research is hidden from them by drug companies. We like to imagine that doctors are impartially educated, when in reality much of their education is funded by the pharmaceutical industry. We like to imagine that regulators have some code of ethics and let only effective drugs onto the market, when in reality they approve useless drugs, with data on side effects casually withheld from doctors and patients. All these problems have been shielded from public scrutiny because they are too complex to capture in a sound bite. Ben Goldacre shows that the true scale of this murderous disaster fully reveals itself only when the details are untangled. He believes we should all be able to understand precisely how data manipulation works and how research misconduct in the medical industry affects us on a global scale. With Goldacre’s characteristic flair and a forensic attention to detail, Bad Pharma reveals a shockingly broken system in need of regulation. This is the pharmaceutical industry as it has never been seen before.

Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health by Marion Nestle, University of California Press, Revised and Updated Paperback, 2013

We all witness, in advertising and on supermarket shelves, the fierce competition for our food dollars. In this engrossing exposé, Marion Nestle goes behind the scenes to reveal how the competition really works and how it affects our health. The abundance of food in the United States—enough calories to meet the needs of every man, woman, and child twice over—has a downside. Our overefficient food industry must do everything possible to persuade people to eat more—more food, more often, and in larger portions—no matter what it does to waistlines or well-being. Like manufacturing cigarettes or building weapons, making food is very big business. Food companies in 2000 generated nearly $900 billion in sales. They have stakeholders to please, shareholders to satisfy, and government regulations to deal with. It is nevertheless shocking to learn precisely how food companies lobby officials, co-opt experts, and expand sales by marketing to children, members of minority groups, and people in developing countries. We learn that the food industry plays politics as well as or better than other industries, not least because so much of its activity takes place outside the public view.

For previous Corporations and Health Watch Back to School posts see:
Corporations and Health Watch Goes Back to School: 10 Recent Articles for Fall 2013 Courses
Bringing Corporations and Health into the Public Health Curriculum
Corporations and Health Watch Goes Back to School: 10 Ways to Bring the Health Impact of Business Practices into the Classroom

After Deadly Blast in China, GM Doesn’t Plan to Change Supply-Chain Safety Process

Posted on August 6, 2014 by Corporations and Health Watch

General Motors Co said it has no immediate plans to review how it manages safety standards further down its supply chain, three days after a deadly blast at a supplier’s contractor in China, reports the Wall Street Journal. The auto maker will continue the prevailing industry practice in which car makers rely on their direct component suppliers to monitor the safety standards of indirect suppliers further down the chain, the company’s president said.

Children See, Children Do: Will Mexican Kids Slim Down by Watching Fewer Candy Ads?

Posted on August 6, 2014 by Corporations and Health Watch

Just a week after Mexico banned commercials for soda, snacks and confectionery products during cinema showings of children’s movies and during children’s TV programming, reports Food Navigator, Mexican authorities say ads for Nestlé, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Hershey´s and Holanda products are already out of line with the new rules.

“Hide No Harm” Bill Will Tip the Balance in Favor of Science and Safety over Corporate Profits

Posted on August 4, 2014 by Corporations and Health Watch

Cross-posted from The Equation

On July 16, Senators Richard Blumenthal (CT), Tom Harkin (IA) and Robert Casey (PA) introduced S. 2615, the “Hide No Harm Act.” Their legislation would impose criminal penalties—fines and even imprisonment—on corporate executives if they knowingly failed to warn the public about life-threatening dangers in their products.

Senator Blumenthal introduced the “Hide No Harm Act” because it is time to hold executives accountable when public health and safety are at stake.

The bill was prompted by revelations that executives at General Motors had ignored red flags about the ignition switch in many GM models, a switch that could suddenly shut down power to the car, including its air bags. The product defect has been implicated in at least 13 deaths and many injuries. After GM learned about the defective part, the company took years to warn consumers or address the problem.

But the “Hide No Harm” bill addresses a more fundamental problem than one company’s mishandling of a significant product hazard. It aims to give the public and regulatory agencies timely access to public health and safety information, so that deaths and serious injuries can be avoided.

The bill requires that corporate officers and executives—the people running companies—disclose information about these dangers to the appropriate government agency, and warn employees and consumers. They must issue these warnings promptly, not years after the company detects the problem. The bill also makes clear that corporate managers may not retaliate against any conscientious employee who discloses these dangers.

The science connection

What does this legislation have to do with scientific integrity? Quite a bit. In numerous cases, scientists, engineers, and technicians working for corporations have raised concerns about product safety, only to be ignored by corporate accountants, marketers and lawyers.

If corporate executives know that they can be held directly accountable for their actions, it may persuade them to pay more attention to the potential harms a product may cause, and may tip the balance in favor of the scientific evidence that raises red flags. Whistleblowers are invaluable in helping to identify problems before they create deaths and injuries.

In GM’s case, Courtland Kelley, then the head of an inspection program for GM products throughout the country, raised concerns about safety problems he was finding in GM models in 2002. He tried to take his concerns to company managers, but was rebuffed. He sued the company to help prompt corrective action, using Michigan’s whistleblower law. But his efforts sandbagged his career at the auto company, with the company downgrading his duties.

The way that engineer was treated affected others at GM, who kept quiet when in 2004, reports were surfacing about another safety defect in ignitions. The recall of millions of cars, not to mention the loss of lives, could have been prevented if GM managers welcomed safety concerns and did not punish whistleblowers.

No spinning science

Vioxx was a huge money maker, a painkiller that reportedly was easier on the stomach than older pain pills such as aspirin. But as early as 2000, in a clinical trial of 8,000 patients comparing Vioxx to the painkiller naproxen, researchers found that five times as many Vioxx patients had heart attacks as those on naproxen.

Merck did disclose the findings of the clinical trial to the Food and Drug Administration and to the media, but it spun the message. It stressed that Vioxx caused fewer digestive problems than naproxen, and concluded that naproxen must have some property that protects the heart, thus explaining away any possible harm Vioxx might do.

In truth, Merck’s scientists were concerned about the clinical trial, wondering whether the drug was truly safe. Some corporate scientists were so worried that they proposed withdrawing the drug until their questions could be answered.

Merck failed to address its scientists’ concerns. The company did not try to determine what caused this uptick in heart attacks. Was naproxen really protective for the heart, or did Vioxx potentially cause heart problems?

Instead, the company opted to monitor clinical trials looking at other aspects of Vioxx to see if any disturbing trends turned up. It continued to insist on the safety of its drug even after the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 2001 published the findings of two Cleveland Clinic cardiologists who re-analyzed data from several Vioxx clinical trials and concluded that the drug did raise the risk of heart attack and stroke.

Even worse, despite all these unresolved questions and emerging red flags, the company sold the drug to doctors for a use that the FDA had not yet approved—to treat rheumatoid arthritis.

At Merck, the marketers and bean counters prevailed over the scientists who wanted more answers. Merck took four years to voluntarily withdraw the drug from the market. Withdrawal occurred only after a much larger clinical trial established the damage Vioxx could do. As a consequence, tens of thousands of patients who took Vioxx suffered fatal heart attacks.

Accountability is important

Merck ultimately sold Vioxx to 25 million Americans. Global sales of the drug totaled $2.5 billion the year before it was withdrawn. (The FDA also has earned justifiable criticism for its lax regulation of Vioxx and its efforts to suppress the warnings of Dr. David Graham, an FDA scientist who also sounded the alarm about the painkiller).

After misrepresenting the science, Merck was able to celebrate billions of dollars in profits off a drug that was directly linked to thousands of heart attacks.

The government did punish the company, levying a $950 million fine in 2011, which also resolved civil suits in several states. In 2007, Merck paid more than $4.8 billion to settle 27,000 lawsuits by those who claimed they or their relatives suffered injury or death due to Vioxx.

But Merck executives were not held accountable by the U.S. Department of Justice. The DOJ’s charges concerned illegal marketing, and not the more fundamental wrongdoing of failing to adequately or promptly warn patients of the potential dangers of the drug, and not taking action for four years, while the evidence of serious concerns about Vioxx’s safety continued to mount. Indeed Merck’s press release announcing the negotiated deal made just that point: “As part of the plea agreement, the United States acknowledged that there was no basis for a finding of high-level management participation in the violation. The government also recognized Merck’s full cooperation with its investigation.”

It is time for corporate executives to be held personally accountable for subsuming the concerns of their scientists and others in the scientific community for the sake of profits and share price. Fines, even large ones, can be offset by the astounding money that can be made from an unsuspecting public.

As Erik Gordon, an assistant professor of business at the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan told the New York Times: “It’s just a cost of doing business until a pharmaceutical executive does a perp walk.”

Celia Wexler is a senior Washington representative for the Scientific Integrity Initiative at UCS. A former award-winning journalist, Wexler is the author of Out of the News: Former Journalists Discuss a Profession in Crisis, published in 2012 by McFarland. At UCS, Wexler’s issue portfolio includes food and drug safety, protections for scientist whistleblowers, and government transparency and accountability. See Celia’s full bio.