Michele Simon

Cross posted from Corporate Accountability International

 

As the frequent bearer of bad news about the food industry, I am thrilled to share a positive story. Last month, MOM’s Organic Market, a small retail chain based in the Baltimore area, announced it would stop carrying products featuring children’s cartoon characters:

 

Products ranging from Dora the Explorer frozen soybeans to Elmo juice boxes will be discontinued and replaced with organic alternatives in cartoon-free packaging.

 

Company CEO Scott Nash blogged last August about how his young daughter begged for a cereal she never tasted because of “Clifford the Big Red Dog” on the box, putting the store’s policy into motion. The company sent me this list of discontinued items, which includes numerous Earth’s Best products, along with a few other natural food companies.

 

While MOM’s is a small chain targeting a specific audience, the move is still significant, especially considering the greenwashing many natural and organic companies engage in. MOM’s community outreach representative Laura Holley-Poole told me many food makers were taken by surprise:

 

Several producers said they thought their products would be OK because they used mostly organic ingredients, or because they choose cartoon characters who had a positive or educational message. But they may be missing how using cartoon characters to target kids doesn’t go over to well with a lot of parents who buy their products.

 

As an example, she pointed to this confused apology from green household products maker Seventh Generation, in the wake of customer outcry over the company’s decision to co-brand its diapers with Dr. Seuss’ “The Lorax.”

 

The move is very significant in the current discourse over the ongoing problem of marketing to children.

 

As I’ve written before, our federal government has turned its back on this issue so the only place left to demand change is with industry. But food companies are engaging in a massive public relations charade designed to make us believe they are making positive changes.

 

For example, Kellogg has a new product, Scooby-Doo! That’s the actual name of the cereal – Scooby Doo! – but this is less important the image on the box. Some think this product is a positive development because it contains “only” six grams of sugar per serving. But it’s very likely that Kellogg’s motivation was to be eligible for the very lucrative WIC (Women, Infants, and Children federal assistance program) market, for which six grams of sugar per serving is the maximum allowed. Kellogg says as much on this community feedback page where it also appears not everyone is so happy with the product, leading Marion Nestle to ponder if the product will last very long.

 

When I asked MOM’s CEO Scott Nash about marketing “healthy food” to children, he answer was simple: “The ends don’t justify the means. Marketing to children is wrong, no matter what is being marketed.” He believes marketing to children “should be illegal.” I couldn’t agree more and that’s why I support Corporate Accountability International’s ongoing campaign to stop McDonald’s from exploiting children (as opposed to just making “healthier” Happy Meals).

 

Supermarket News described the market’s announcement as “bold” and showing leadership but noted that “MOM’s caters to a specific demographic, so this kind of action wouldn’t float at a mainstream retailer.” Still, the article noted “taking a stand is controversial, but it’s empowering; it defines the retailer against the backdrop of everyone else.” This is exactly the point: the policy creates a new standard for other retailers to follow. Are you listening Whole Foods CEO John Mackey?

 

The company also hopes others, such as progressive co-ops and independent retailers follow its lead. Holley-Poole told me the largest impact would be on product manufacturers in the organic food industry. “I would not be surprised to see many of the discontinued items re-introduced with new cartoon-free packaging in a couple years,” she said. Susan Linn, director of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood praised the new policy:

Using beloved media characters to sell kids on a particular brand of food is wrong, even if it’s healthy food. Children should not be trained to pick foods based on the cartoon on the box. We congratulate MOM’s for taking this courageous stance on behalf of families and urge other companies to follow suit.

 

I am often asked: who in the food industry is doing it right? I am very happy to finally have an answer to that question.

 

Cross-posted from Appetite for Profit

 

This week I’ve been writing about the National Restaurant Association (the other NRA) and why we should care about food workers, in part to bring attention to the new book Behind the Kitchen Door by labor advocate Saru Jayaraman. Today I want to offer practical resources for how to help improve the lives of the 20 million food workers who help us put food on our own tables every day.

 

Get Informed

 

In addition to buying the book, Behind the Kitchen Door, the following books and reports will help arm you with the information you need.

 

• American Way Eating: This book by Tracie McMillan opened my eyes to the plight of workers in the three settings where she went undercover for a first-hand experience: the farm fields of California, a Walmart in Michigan, and an Applebee’s in New York City.
• Fast Food Nation: This 2001 best-selling book by Eric Schlosser still resonates today, especially the description of the horrific dangers workers face in meat slaughterhouses, as well the exploitation of fast food workers.
• Hands that Feed Us: This report by the Food Chain Workers Alliance is the best overview I’ve seen on workers in every sector of the food industry: 1) production – farmworkers; 2) processing – slaughterhouse and other facilities; 3) distribution – warehouse workers; 4) retail – grocery workers; and 5) service – restaurant and other settings.
• Serving While Sick: This report from the Restaurant Opportunities Center based on national surveys revealed that 63% of workers reported cooking or serving while sick and that most faced high rates of exposure to dangerous working conditions.
• Dime a Day: This report from the Food Labor Research Center at University of California, Berkeley (which Jayaraman directs) explains how a reasonable increase in the minimum wage would have a minimal impact on food prices. As I have explained, scaremongering about higher food prices is a favorite talking point of the National Restaurant Association, regardless of the facts not supporting lobbyist claims.
• Tipped Over the Edge: This report from the Restaurant Opportunities Center documents disturbing gender inequalities in the restaurant industry. (71% of servers are female.) Women are kept in lower paying jobs and suffer from sexual harassment, among other mistreatment.
• The Color of Food: This report from the Applied Research Center examines the gender and racial divides across various food sectors, revealing a disturbing pattern of discrimination that keeps women and workers of color at the bottom of the food chain.
• Good Food and Good Jobs for All: Building upon the Color of Food, this report connects the dots between the good food movement and the dire need for labor reforms, recommending that we combine efforts.

 

Get Active

 

In addition to supporting campaigns to raise the minimum wage, both federally and in cities and states across the nation (sign this petition), please support the following organizations and campaigns:

• Coalition for Immokalee Workers: CIW’s hard work on behalf of farmworkers in Florida has resulted in numerous victories against such corporate behemoths as Taco Bell, McDonald’s, and Burger King. Check out their Fair Food Standards Council, which monitors conditions for tomato growers, their Anti-Slavery Campaign, which helps investigate the worst labor abuses, resulting in criminal charges, and join their March for Rights, Respect and Fair Food from March 3-17.
• Fast Food Forward: A movement of New York City fast food workers to raise the minimum wage, which is a paltry $7.25 an hour thanks to the powerful restaurant lobby there.
• Food Chain Workers Alliance: this amazing coalition of organizations brings together those who “plant, harvest, process, pack, transport, prepare, serve, and sell food, organizing to improve wages and working conditions for all workers along the food chain.”
• Restaurant Opportunities Center United: The group co-founded by Saru Jayaraman that works to improve the lives of 10 million restaurant workers. They have numerous locations in cities around the nation, as well as targeted corporate campaigns, such as Dignity at Darden. You can also download their handy Diner’s Guide (and app of course), which ranks the most popular restaurant chains on worker treatment.
• Unite Here Food Service: As anyone working on school food knows, food service workers are among the least respected professionals. Unite Here represents food service workers across the U.S. and Canada, in colleges, K-12 schools, corporate cafeterias, airports, stadiums and event centers.
• United Food and Commercial Workers Union: UFCW advocates for better conditions for 1.3 million workers in the U.S. and Canada, in grocery and retail stores and in the food processing and meat packing industries. Their largest locals include UFCW Local 1500 in New York City and UFCW Local 770 in Southern California.
• Warehouse Workers United: Among the least visible workers are those (mostly immigrants) moving tons of goods through the nation’s busiest ports often under deplorable conditions, en route to huge retailers such as Walmart. In 2011, I spoke on a panel with a warehouse worker who told his harrowing tale of abuse through a translator. He said the workers were treated like cattle. It was a humbling experience.

 

Finally here are a few tips about dining out that Saru Jayaraman suggests in Behind the Kitchen Door: 1) Talk to the workers to find out how they are treated; 2) ask restaurant managers about their promotion policies; and 3) adopt a definition of “sustainable food” that includes labor practices. As Jayaraman puts it so bluntly: it’s not enough to obsess over corn syrup or farm-raised salmon: “we absolutely must care about the health and sustainability of the workforce preparing, cooking, and serving our meals.”

 

Read Michele Simon’s other recent posts on food workers

 

Top 10 Reasons to Care About Food Workers

How the Other NRA is Making Us Sick

Why the Other NRA Loves the First Lady

The Other NRA: National Restaurant Association

 Cross-posted from  Corporate Accountability International

 In the report I recently released, (covered by the New York Times) “And Now a Word from Our Sponsors,” I described the various ways the food industry influences the largest trade group of nutrition professionals – the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics – through corporate sponsorship. While other corporations such as Coca-Cola play a more prominent role by being an “Academy Partner,” McDonald’s engaged in its trademark health-washing at the Academy’s annual meeting last fall.

 

To visit McDonald’s booth at the event’s expo hall, you would never know that it was the nation’s leading fast-food corporation. While several other companies (such as Kellogg) tried to get registered dietitians (RDs) to come to their booths for a free breakfast, McDonald’s was the most successful with this strategy. But they weren’t serving up the corporation’s common breakfast items like the Egg McMuffin or Sausage Biscuit. Rather, to visit the McDonald’s booth, you’d think the fast-food giant only sold oatmeal and smoothies. As I approached, a McDonald’s rep offered me some oatmeal, insisting that I just try it. (I declined, explaining that I make my own at home; I later learned that default version of McDonald’s oatmeal contains a whopping 32 grams of sugar.)

 

I asked a few RDs why they were there and they just said they were hungry. Fair enough, but it was clear that McDonald’s had succeeded in positioning itself as a purveyor of healthy food while feeding RDs breakfast. In addition, most of the banners at the McDonald’s booth showed images of healthy foods like smoothies, never mind the McRib or Big Macs. (See photos.)

 

McDonald’s also was spinning tall tales at an education session called “Making a Difference: Improving Nutrition at QSRs.” (QSR stands for quick service restaurant, industry’s euphemism for fast food.) While numerous other sessions were listed in the program as officially sponsored, this one was not. Moderating the panel was Ilene Smith, an RD with Porter Novelli, a public relations firm with a long list of Big Food clients, including McDonald’s.

 

The first panelist was a consultant to numerous fast-food chains who goes by “Dr Jo®” – yes, she actually trademarked her name. The other was Cindy Goody, director of nutrition for McDonald’s. Goody introduced the “McDonald’s nutrition team” (most were wearing red jackets, like a sports team), including several RDs and chefs.

 

This session was a 90-minute infomercial for the fast-food giant. In fact, when I turned to an RD sitting next to me afterward, that’s exactly what she called it. She told me she was disappointed because she came to the panel expecting substantive information about what chain restaurants were doing about nutrition. Instead, we saw slide after slide about how wonderful McDonald’s is for posting calories on its menus (never mind how the company lobbied for decades against menu labeling) and for adding apple slices to Happy Meals. Goody touted McDonald’s “commitment to children’s well-being… Now parents feel better feeding their kids Happy Meals.” But not a word about how the Happy Meals still contain hamburgers or fried chicken, and are marketed to young children. (Goody’s slides from that presentation are available online.)

 

When it came time for questions and answers, I was the only one willing to challenge what we just heard. I asked Goody why McDonald’s continued to market to children as young as age two, despite calls from public health professionals and others to stop exploiting kids. She simply repeated the same PR line about alleged nutrition improvements, without addressing the ongoing problem of marketing to kids. I was cut off when I tried to ask a follow-up.

 

Later I had a troubling conversation with an RD friend about this session. As I began to tell her about it, she countered that McDonald’s did not “have a session” at the event. I had to insist that I had witnessed it myself to convince her. This exchange demonstrated the problem with how the sessions are listed in the program. Because this particular panel did not say “Sponsored by McDonald’s,” this RD had no idea it was in fact a McDonald’s-run session.

 

Which made me wonder, how did McDonald’s get on the program in the first place, if it weren’t an official sponsor like the other food companies? Did Cindy Goody (or someone else at McDonald’s) actually submit an abstract to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and apply to be a speaker? According to the Academy submission guidelines, proposals are “reviewed based on their individual merit and their application to the Academy’s strategic mission, vision and goals.” But how could McDonald’s PR spin possibly apply to the Academy’s stated vision of “optimizing the nation’s health through food and nutrition”?

 

I would expect McDonald’s to push its public relations agenda at a nutrition conference, but shame on the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics for so readily offering up the forum in which to do so. You can read my full report (or the executive summary) on corporate sponsorship of the Academy, see photos of the expo and read what former members are saying about why they left.

Cross-posted from Appetite for Profit

 

 

 

 

 

California’s Proposition 37, which would have required labeling of GMO foods, died a painful death last night. Despite polling in mid-September showing an overwhelming lead, the measure lost by 53 to 47 percent, which is relatively close considering the No side’s tactics.

 

As I’ve been writing about, the opposition has waged a deceptive and ugly campaign, fueled by more than $45 million, mostly from the leading biotech, pesticide, and junk food companies. Meanwhile, the Yes side raised almost $9 million, which is not bad, but being outspent by a factor of five is tough to overcome.

 

While we can always expect industry to spend more, the various groups fighting GMOs for years probably could have been better coordinated. I was dismayed and confused by all the fundraising emails I received from different nonprofits on Prop 37 and wondered why they weren’t pooling their resources.

 

But would more money and better strategy have made a difference? Given the opposition’s tactics, it seems unlikely. I am not easily shocked by corporate shenanigans but the No on 37 campaign is my new poster child for propaganda and dirty tricks. It’s worth recapping the most egregious examples.

 

Lying in the California voter guide: The No campaign listed four organizations in the official state document mailed to voters as concluding that “biotech foods are safe.” One of them, the American Council on Science and Health, is a notorious industry front group that only sounds legit. Another, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, actually has no position and complained about being listed. (I was attending the group’s annual meeting when this came to light and promptly notified the Yes campaign, but the damage was already done.) The other two organizations, the National Academy of Sciences and the World Health Organization, in fact have more nuanced positions on GMOs than just “safe.”

 

Misuse of a federal seal and quoting the Food and Drug Administration: This one caused even my jaded draw to drop. In a mailer sent to California voters, the No campaign printed the following text along side the FDA logo: “The US Food and Drug Administration says a labeling policy like Prop 37 would be “inherently misleading.” That is exactly how they wrote it, with the incorrectly-placed quotation marks. How can a $45 million campaign make a mistake like that? They can’t, it’s deliberately confusing. It also may even be a violation of criminal law to use a federal seal in this manner. I am told that some California voters were fooled into thinking FDA opposed the measure. Of course, that was the idea.

 

Misrepresenting academic affiliation: More than once, the No campaign gave the false impression that its go-to expert Henry Miller was a professor at Stanford University, in violation the school’s own policy. (In fact, he’s with the Hoover Institute, housed on the Stanford campus.) Only when Stanford complained did the No campaign edit the TV ad, but many already saw it, and then they repeated the lie in a mailer.

 

Deploying unfounded scare tactics: I fully expected the No side to use distracting arguments to scare voters while ignoring the merits of issue. But they took this common industry strategy to new heights, making wild claims about higher food prices, “shakedown lawsuits,” and “special interest exemptions.” While each of these claims is easily debunked, being outspent on ad dollars makes it hard to compete, especially when all you can really say is, “that’s not true.”

 

Additional lies and dirty tricks: 1) claiming the San Francisco Examiner recommended a no vote when in fact the paper endorsed yes; 2) putting up doctors and academic experts on the dole from Big Biotech as spokespeople without disclosing the conflict of interest; 3) securing a major science group’s endorsement just two weeks before Election Day; 4) somehow convincing every major California newspaper to endorse a no vote, often with the very same industry talking points; and 5) placing ads in deceptive mailers that looked like they came from the Democratic party, cops, and green groups.

 

Each of these tactics, combined with a $45 million megaphone to spread the lies and deceit, simply overwhelmed the yes side. Some on Twitter criticized Californians for voting no on 37, but do not under-estimate the effectiveness of scare tactics such as claims of higher food prices. Industry uses them because they work. And voters believe the arguments not because they are stupid or don’t care about the food they eat, but because they are pummeled with ads, getting only one side of the story. This is a problem inherent to the proposition process. (I live in California and have seen scare tactics work on everything from tobacco taxes to gay marriage.)

 

Indeed, the California experience may seem like déjà vu’ all over again to Oregonians who recall the ballot initiative there to label GMO foods in 2002. It lost miserably (70 percent voted no) and guess what the winning argument was then? And that measure also enjoyed an overwhelming lead in early polling, but a muli-million dollar ad blitz in the final weeks claiming higher food costs turned that right around.

 

While a lot has changed in 10 years for the food movement, the same industry tactics still work. (At least we came a lot closer here in California.) Advocates have also tried in 19 states to go through the legislature and failed there too, thanks to industry lobbying.

 

It’s a shame because we really need a win at the state level to boost the federal Just Label It campaign, which aims to get the FDA to require labeling. I disagree with Gary Hirshberg, chairman of Stonyfield Farms and leader of Just Label It, for putting all his eggs in the federal basket. While Hirshberg and his company endorsed 37, he donated relatively little to the campaign and was even quoted in the New York Times saying he doesn’t think this problem can be solved state by state. Obviously not, but how does Hirshberg ever expect to get anywhere at the federal level unless and until we can gain traction locally? This is exactly how most policy change is made, especially when we face massive industry opposition. Some are already predicting that the California loss will set back the effort nationally.

 

But the campaign is still an important step forward in the larger political fight against Big Food, one that raised a lot of awareness about GMOs, food production, and corporate tactics, both in California and nationally. As Twilight Greenaway noted at Grist, win or lose, the effort to pass Proposition 37 in California demonstrates a “bona fide movement gathering steam.”

 

Now we have to keep gathering more and smarter steam. It was never enough to just be right, or even to have the people on our side. Not when the food industry gets to lie, cheat, and steal its way to victory.

Cross posted from Appetite for Profit

With about a week to go before California voters head to the polls to decide the fate of Proposition 37, which would require GMO foods to be labeled, I expected an already ugly campaign to get even uglier.

 

But the latest gift to the No on 37 campaign smells especially bad. Last week, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS – goes by “Triple A-S”) released this “statement” on GMO labeling that sounds like it was drafted by Monsanto. The statement ends with the non-scientific but very quote-worthy conclusion that “mandating such a label can only serve to mis­lead and falsely alarm consumers.” While Prop 37 is never mentioned, what purpose could the timing serve other than persuading Californians to vote no on the measure?

 

This paragraph of the AAAS press release sounds especially familiar:

 

Several current efforts to require labeling of GM foods are not being driven by any credible scientific evidence that these foods are dangerous… Rather, GM labeling initiatives are being advanced by “the persistent perception that such foods are somehow ‘unnatural,’” as well as efforts to gain competitive advantages within the marketplace, and the false belief that GM crops are untested.

 

These talking points come straight from the No on 37 campaign. For example, “gain competitive advantages”? What does that have to do with science? Nothing, but it’s a favorite refrain from the No side, which I know because it showed up on the mailer sent to my home.

 

Also, it’s not a “false belief” that GM crops are untested, it’s scientific fact. According to David Schubert, professor and Laboratory Head Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory at the Salk Institute: “Any statement suggesting extensive safety testing of all genetically modified crops is absolutely false. A majority of the new GM crops coming through the agriculture biotech pipeline have had zero testing done on them.”

 

Also, Michael Hansen, senior staff scientist with Consumers Union, notes that unlike in other countries, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require safety testing for genetically-engineered plants or foods. He also says the AAAS statement “is filled with distortion and misleading statements. If mandatory labeling of GM foods would ‘mislead and alarm consumers,’ does the AAAS really believe that 60 other countries are misleading and alarming their consumers?”

 

Just as suspicious for its pro-biotech spin is how the AAAS statement lists other organizations as claiming that GMO foods are safe to consume, using rhetoric that strongly echoes the No campaign:

 

The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion…

 

Where did this handy list come from? The No campaign listed three of these four groups – the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, and the National Academy of Sciences – in the official California voter guide as concluding GMO foods are safe. But in fact, the World Health Organization says that ongoing risk assessments are needed and that “GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.” Meanwhile, the American Medical Association favors pre-market safety testing, which the FDA does not require. How did a science organization miss all of that?

 

But back to the suspicious timing of the statement’s release: who exactly instigated it? The statement says it’s from the AAAS board of directors. Who are they? The board chair, Nina Federoff has an impressive pedigree, including a stint as science advisor to Condoleezza Rice. Curiously, Federoff has been listed as a leading scientist on the No on 37 website since June, where she is quoted as being “passionately opposed to labeling.” Maybe her previous board membership with Sigma-Aldrich Chemical Company helped drive that passion.

 

And perhaps the anti-GMO labeling statement from AAAS has been in motion at least since June, timed to be released as Election Day neared. Looking over this page of AAAS “policy statements,” others also seem well-timed, but they are on bland issues that warrant little scientific debate. For example, in March AAAS urged the Tennessee legislature to reject a silly bill aimed at undermining science education on evolution and climate change. Other letters appear to take similarly uncontroversial scientific positions or are simply asking Congress not to cut federal funding for science programs.

 

So the question remains: Why this position right now? Why would such a mainstream scientific organization stick its neck out on a highly controversial issue just days before the election? And how we can trust any future AAAS statements to be based on science, instead of what this looks like: A carefully-orchestrated political and public relations maneuver that puts the AAAS motto to shame: “Advancing science, serving society.” The only interests this charade serves are those of the biotech, chemical, and junk food industries.

 

 

Cross posted from Appetite for Profit

 

This week, the New York City Board of Health is expected to approve Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposal to limit the size of sugary soft drinks. Motivated by rising diet-related chronic diseases (along with healthcare costs), the mayor’s attempt to rein in out of control portion sizes caused quite a media firestorm. Predictably, the soda lobby has come out swinging, complete with an industry front group called, “New Yorkers for Beverage Choices.”

 

A better name would be, “Soda Pushers for Continued Profits.”

 

According to Beverage Digest, fountain sales (versus packaged) make up about 24 percent of the 9.3 billion cases of soda sold each year, or $18 billion in a total market worth $75.7 billion.

 

Coca-Cola will be especially impacted by cup size limits, as that company controls 70 percent of U.S. fountain sales, followed by Pepsi with 19 percent and Dr Pepper Snapple with 11 percent.

 

While it’s obvious that the soda industry would be on the defense, largely missing from the debate so far has been the role of the fast food and restaurant industry as a significant driver of soft drink sales. (Due to legal constraints, the city’s soda proposal would only apply to food service establishments and not retailers.)

 

The fast food industry has gotten plenty of flak for pushing a diet of cheeseburgers, French fries, and other highly processed pseudo-foods, but they should also be recognized as a major purveyor of sugary beverages.

 

For example, McDonald’s should be held accountable for its role in allowing the creeping up of cup sizes from a reasonable 7 ounces in 1955, to the current large of 32 ounces (310 calories for Coke), a more than 4-fold increase. Even a child size at 12 ounces is almost twice as large as the original.

 

The fast food king has already expressed its displeasure with cup size limits, suggesting instead “a more collaborative and comprehensive approach.”

 

No wonder, since Edward Jones estimates that five percent of McDonald’s revenue comes from soft drinks. Last year, McDonald’s revenue reached a record $27 billion; therefore at least $1.35 billion came from beverages.

 

That figure may be an underestimate because according to the research firm Technomic, carbonated soft drinks account for about 10 percent of fast-food and fast-casual restaurants sales in the U.S.

 

Factor in the profit margins on such beverages—estimated to top 90 percent—and as Ad Age noted, “the potential impact on the bottom line becomes clear.”

 

Whatever the figures, the money at stake here is huge—for both the beverage industry and the fast food industry.

 

This explains why among those listed as alleged “New Yorkers for Beverage Choices” are not only the major soft drink companies but numerous restaurant chains, including: Carls’ Jr, Chick-Fil-A, Domino’s Pizza, Hardee’s, and of course, the National Restaurant Association, whose members include McDonald’s.

 

That trade group, along with its network of state restaurant associations, boasts more than 200 national, state, and local lobbyists. The restaurant industry has fought against every common sense nutrition policy over the decades, including menu labeling and regulating marketing to children.

 

Speaking of children, the downsizing of soft drinks will have an important impact on them as well. Children learn acceptable standards by what appears normal. McDonald’s has been teaching kids that supersized fries, Big Macs, and large sodas are A-OK. By bring cups down to size, children get a better message.

 

And that’s another reason McDonald’s and the rest of the fast food industry is teaming up with the soft drink lobby to stop this proposal. They don’t want kids to grow up thinking 16 ounces is normal, because that means setting kids up for a lifetime of saner (and healthier) drinking habits.

 

Industry also knows that if limits are enacted in New York City, it’s only a matter of time before other cities around the nation follow Mayor Bloomberg’s lead.

 

Get ready for the next front group to pop up in your area, but don’t fall for it. Instead, let’s tell McDonald’s and Coca-Cola that enough is enough.

 

This post originally appeared on the Corporate Accountability blog.

Cross-posted from Appetite for Profit

 

The food industry really hates it when you compare them to Big Tobacco. They try to deny the negative association by claiming that food is different than tobacco. Of course that’s true, but why are the same consultants that have worked for the tobacco industry now shilling for Big Food, opposing the ballot initiative that would require labeling of all foods containing GMO ingredients?

 

Hiring Secret Consultants for the Dirty Work

 

The latest financial filings in California for the “No on 37: Coalition Against the Deceptive Food Labeling Scheme” – reveal a $7,500 payment to the Sacramento-based political consulting firm, MB Public Affairs. Here is how the Los Angeles Times described the firm last year:

 

MB Public Affairs is headed by Mark Bogetich, a garrulous operative known to his friends as “Bogey,” who has helped a number of Republican candidates neutralize their opponents. In recent years, MB Public Affairs has worked for Altria, once known as the Phillip Morris Cos. …

 

Bogetich has also been called “the go-to guy for [the Republican] party,” and “the only game in town.” The L.A. Times article explains how last year MB Public Affairs filed more than 50 public record act requests to dig up dirt on a small but effective group called the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy. No wonder, since the organization has scored such important victories as a living wage for workers, which would threaten plenty of businesses.

 

But which ones? Who knows, because by hiring MB Public Affairs to do its dirty work, industry gets to keep its nose clean – a classic Big Tobacco tactic. Well-known brands such as PepsiCo (which I wrote about last week) and Kraft don’t want to be associated with negative campaigning, so they farm out the job to consulting firms. In this case, they went right to the top, or the bottom. Things are likely to get ugly.

 

Creating Front Groups for the Dirty Work

 

Another tactic honed by Big Tobacco is to form a front group, which appears to be made up of small businesses and others designed to give the impression of a grassroots campaign, but in reality is funded by large corporations. This tactic, known as an Astroturfing, is alive and well with “No on 37,” which describes itself as, “A broad coalition of family farmers, scientists, doctors, taxpayers, small businesses, labor, food companies, biotechnology companies and grocers.

 

Small farmers and small businesses? I don’t see any listed on the “Who We Are” page. I do see many not-so-small trade groups representing numerous not-so-small corporations, some of them from outside California, including CropLife America, which is a trade group for the biotech and pesticide industry.

 

Also, the “No on 37” campaign is represented by the law firm, Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, which has a sordid history of stealth tactics such as Astroturfing. And no wonder, with former Phillip Morris outside council Tom Hiltachk as the campaign’s treasurer. (His firm’s address is listed on the webpage for where to send donations; can’t get much cozier with the No campaign than that.)

 

Hiltachk had this disingenuous quote about the GMO labeling initiative back in February: “Farmers and food producers strongly oppose this costly, ill-conceived labeling proposition.” There are those invisible farmers again.

 

No stranger to California politics, Hiltachk’s firm represents the California Republican Party and helped make Arnold Schwarzenegger governor by orchestrating the statewide recall campaign of former Governor Gray Davis.

 

According to PolluterWatch, Tom Hiltachk and his firm are well known for creating front groups that promote or attack ballot initiatives at the behest of the firm’s wealthy corporate clients: “In the past Hiltachk has attacked anti-smoking initiatives while being paid by major tobacco corporations.”

 

And this scathing article at ThinkProgress from 2010 describes Hiltachk’s attempt to repeal California’s clean energy policy and says his “under-the-radar tactics of shifting money around and using phony groups are nothing new.” Specifically:

 

During the eighties and nineties, Hiltachk and his law partners helped the tobacco industry, with funding from Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds, coordinate a variety of stealth front groups. While his law firm received over a million from tobacco interests, Hiltachk helped organize “Californians for Smokers’ Rights,” a supposedly “grassroots” group that relied on tobacco industry consumer lists to mobilize opposition to anti-smoking initiatives.

 

Another Big Tobacco front group Hiltachk’s firm managed was “Californians for Fair Business Policy,” which fought local efforts to enact smoke-free bans in California in the early 1990s.

 

This is going to be a busy election season for Hiltachk, as he is also the mastermind behind the deceptive union-busting Proposition 32, about which a local California paper writes: “if you liked Citizens United, you will love Prop 32.” As the New Yorker sums it up in an article describing the firm’s shady operations, “They specialize in initiatives that are the opposite of what they sound like.”

 

Another group with Big Tobacco origins now spreading lies about the GMO labeling initiative is the unsubtle front group, “California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse,” whose executive director recently warned us to “beware of trial lawyers lurking in your food.” (It seems lawyers are scarier than altering the genetic code of the food supply.) According to the Center for Media and Democracy’s Sourcewatch, Philip Morris is a primary funder of various “Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse” groups, which under the guise of tort reform aim to make it harder to bring lawsuits for problems caused by hazardous products.

 

Doubt is Their Product

 

In sum, the food industry, to oppose a simple labeling law, is hiring lawyers and consultants with ties to the tobacco industry, to deploy stealth tactics such as creating front groups, digging up dirt on opponents, and spreading outright lies.

 

For decades the tobacco industry and its shills hid the truth by deploying its most effective weapon: manufacturing doubt about the health hazards of smoking. How many millions of Americans died as a result of Big Tobacco’s deceptive and cynical campaign? Why would we trust these same operators now?

 

You can hardly blame industry for calling on such shady characters. Big Food has seen the polling data showing that more than 90 percent of consumers want to see GMO foods labeled. When you don’t have the people or the truth on your side, all you have left is playing dirty.