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

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

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.

Interview with Lena Pons

Lena Pons is a Policy Analyst for the Auto Safety Group, a division of the national, nonprofit organization Public Citizen, that seeks to protect health, safety and democracy. The Auto Safety Group focuses on issues of auto safety, government and corporate accountability, human health and environmental sustainability as related to auto emissions. Its recent work has focused on improving fuel economy through both legislative and legal routes. The Auto Safety Group also works with other organizations on issues related to the Clean Air Act, fuel economy and automobile emissions. In January 2008, Corporations and Health Watch’s Zoë MeleoErwin interviewed Lena Pons. We present excerpts here.

CHW: Recently the Environmental Protection Agency ruled that California and the sixteen other states couldn’t set their own, more strict, emission standards. What role did the auto industry play in this defeat?

LP: Congressman Henry Waxman of the House Oversight Committee identified that there was some interference from Vice President Dick Cheney and Chrysler. Following a meeting that EPA administrator Stephen Johnson had with Cheney and Chrysler, they devised this legal argument for why the California waiver should be denied. And the California waiver was denied in a highly unusual way. They presented no technical justification the only documentation on the waiver denial that was given is a three or four page letter from EPA administrator Johnson to California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. It outlines that as a result of the energy bill being signed into law, California standards no longer meet the rubric under the Clean Air Act to say that they’re more protective. The claim by EPA is dubious because the California standards would go into effect sooner and their target emissions reduction is more stringent than that of the new national standards. What the waiver denial is based on is the assumption that the most recently passed energy bill will produce a comparable amount of public health. But there’s absolutely no data to support that; they’ve presented absolutely no estimate of what the public health benefit of the standards that were passed by this latest energy law would be. The states that have full regulations written on adopting these standards plus a handful of environmental groups have all sued EPA on the grounds that their waiver denial has not been properly supported.

CHW: One of the things the auto industry said in response to California waiver was that it would be a confusing and inefficient patchwork quilt of fuel economy programs. How legitimate is that argument?

LP: The seventeen states that have either passed the regulations or have stated intent by executive order to pass the regulations would cover slightly more than half of the entire population of the country. And a big part of that is that there are huge states involved; California and New York alone include over 15% of the total US population. California set separate standards, several states had adopted them and the functional outcome of that is that all of the vehicles sold in the United States meet these low emission vehicle requirements for the most part. The auto industry is saying that you would lose a lot of consumer choice in these states that have passed these regulations because they just wouldn’t be able to sell certain vehicles in the states. But in terms of the patchwork effect, when you’re talking about 50% of the country plus now Canada has standards that will be roughly the same as California, it’s just not going to be cost effective for them to produce two sets of vehicles. They’re never going to comply with a patchwork of regulations; they’re just going to comply to the most stringent set. So the reality of that argument is that they don’t want to meet the more stringent California standards.

CHW: What were the issues involved in the 2006 lighttruck fuel economy rule and what was Public Citizen Auto Group’s involvement in the case?

LP: The biggest issue in that case was that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had valued the reduced carbon dioxide emissions from having improved fuel economy as having zero public benefit. We filed a suit in the 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals on the 2006 lighttruck fuel economy rule in collaboration with several other environmental groups and were represented by an independent law firm. We ultimately won in that the court found that the rule was arbitrary and capricious. It’s been vacated; the agency will have to go back and rewrite it to reflect some of the problems that they identified. The court also found that NHTSA had changed the fundamental way that the fuel economy standards were calculated and that without promoting a backstop, some kind of minimum value for fuel economy, that it was overvaluing consumer choice over the need of the United States to save energy—a specific criterion that was laid out in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act in 1975 which established the fuel economy standards. And so they found that the way that fuel economy standards could be calculated could stand as long as there was a minimum fuel economy value. This is a mixed victory because the new calculation scheme doesn’t actually force the auto makers to promote the best available technologies. But with a backstop it at least prevents a degradation below this minimum value, which is positive.

CHW: In your campaigns on auto safety, public health and environmental sustainability, what strategies does the Auto Safety Group employ? And specifically, how important is litigation as a tactic?

LP: Ideally we try to influence any rule making through the notice and comment period. And if the agency is nonresponsive to our comments then our next recourse is to litigate. So litigation has certainly been a part of our strategy used to a significant public benefit because, as a result of multiple litigation campaigns, we’ve been able to secure much stronger regulations than what the agency initially applied. Some of the time the regulations that the agency has presented us with are not actually in compliance with the law that Congress set forth and then we feel that we have a responsibility to make sure that the agency is upholding the law. So we like to influence the legislative process to get Congress to put forth the best possible law and then through the regulatory process we have an opportunity to influence rulemaking. But when we find that our concerns are ignored by the agency then we have no other recourse than to litigate.

CHW: Recently European Union officials announced that auto makers would have to greatly reduce carbon dioxide tailpipe emissions or face fines. How have automakers responded and do you have any thoughts on how this will influence the United States?

LP: There’s been a lot of skepticism as to whether those regulations will be durable. Probably the best indicator of what auto makers are going to do is the fact that at this year’s auto show they’ve really brought out a lot of highly fuel efficient concept vehicles that we haven’t seen before. For instance, Ford put a concept Focus out on the floor this year that’s supposed to get 20% improved fuel economy, which is an indication that they probably have more technology than they’re willing to admit openly in terms of improving vehicle fuel economy and by extension emissions. There were also stronger Japanese regulations in 2007, I believe Canada has recently strengthened their regulations, and China introduced their first fuel economy standards last year, so I think that auto makers are really starting to think pretty hard about it. With respect to bringing European vehicles to the United States, General Motors produces “Opel” brand vehicles that are much more fuel efficient than a comparable vehicle that would be sold under the Saturn brand in the United States. Now they’re bringing several of those Opel vehicles to the United States and will sell them as Saturn Vehicles. So they clearly do have the technology because they’re building more fuel efficient vehicles in other markets. But not all the auto makers have the flexibility that General Motors has; an auto maker like Chrysler is clearly going to have a more difficult time because they don’t really have a foreign manufacturing brand that is making improved fuel economy vehicles.

CHW: How does consumer demand influence changing fuel economy and emissions standards?

LP: Consumer demand with respect to fuel economy is a really strange relationship. I’ve read a variety of studies about how people use fuel economy as a determining factor in their automobile purchase decisions. And most state that people aren’t particularly longsighted in terms of how they make their vehicle purchase decisions. If you think back to the oil price shocks in the 1970s, one lasted for 14 months and the other one lasted for 19 months and so people haven’t really adjusted to the idea that oil prices are always going to be high.

Even if you look at the last five years, there was a really strong spike in oil prices following Hurricane Katrina and then they dropped back down about 70 cents per gallon. That kind of price volatility really suggests that people will make their decision about fuel economy based on whatever the price of gas is the day that they go to the dealership. And that’s why you see sales figures for a vehicle like the Prius are going to track pretty much with the price of oil and so in a month when gas prices are very high consumers are going to be more likely to purchase a vehicle like the Prius and months where oil prices are lower then consumers are more likely to choose a vehicle that might not get the same kind of fuel economy. But I think that people are really starting to become quite a bit more environmentally conscious and the durability of a problem like global warming, as opposed to something that might be more volatile like the geopolitical effects of Middle East oil consumption, might be starting to shift people’s perspectives about how they factor in fuel economy.

CHW: What strategies does the auto industry use to influence consumer decision making in terms of choosing less fuel efficient vehicles?

LP: The auto industry has consistently taken the position that people make their decision about a vehicle based on a variety of factors and one of the factors is “peak performance,”—the maximum possible zerotosixty acceleration or the towing capacity of a truck. It is fairly well supported that people are often swayed by peak performance but in reality people don’t really actualize that peak performance. For example, over 60% of truck owners never realize the peak performance even one time in their entire ownership of that vehicle. For twenty years or more, the auto industry has really been pushing this idea that you’re getting a better value because you’re going to get this truck that could tow a huge boat but you don’t own a boat and you have no need for this kind of towing capacity. And the auto industry has really consistently pushed this idea that people won’t be willing to trade for a smaller vehicle. But Porsche made this announcement just this week that they’re going to start offering hybrid versions of their vehicles. Now this is highly unusual because these are performance vehicles. Porsche has consistently paid fines for noncompliance with fuel economy standards and so I think that the argument by the auto industry that they can’t provide the same kinds of performance characteristics just doesn’t really hold water in light of these developments that have come as a result of new regulations.

CHW: Is this particular to the US?

LP: There is some perception that in the United States we want these huge SUVs and pickup trucks. But what’s interesting is that there have been several recent studies in Europe that have supported the idea that even though fuel economy standards, or greenhouse gas emission standards which are sort of interchangeable, have gotten more stringent in Europe, the popularity of larger vehicles has increased. In affluent western European countries you’re seeing an increasing number of people purchasing SUVs. I think that probably the bigger determining factor in terms of saying that this is a uniquely American problem, which I don’t really believe that it is, is just that people in the United States for the most part live more spreadout than they do in most places in the world. The average size of vehicles in densely populated urban areas in the United States is pretty much the same as what you would see in Europe.

CHW: One of the arguments the auto industry makes against improving fuel economy and reducing emissions is that the cost would be prohibitive and that this cost would then be passed down to consumers. How legitimate is this argument?

LP: Well it depends on what changes you’re demanding. If you’re demanding that auto makers convert every vehicle into a hybrid, then you might have a pretty good argument that it would be cost prohibitive. And a big part of that is the cost you’re paying for a battery that’s still relatively expensive to manufacture. But as batteries technologies continue to get better and as lithium ion batteries become more viable, that’s going to reduce weight, improve efficiency and reduce costs. The auto industry has been given a tremendous amount of lead time, but they have not been making incremental changes since the 1985 standard were actualized. And not every vehicle has to get 40% better fuel economy next year; over the next ten years the fleet of vehicles has to achieve 40% better fuel economy on the whole. Adding some of these technologies to vehicles would be fairly cost prohibitive, but the vehicles that need the most help are typically the most expensive to begin with. In order to make this incremental improvement in something like a Ford Focus you might add some initial cost to that car but you’re going to have a lifetime savings in terms of fuel cost which is going to get better and better. As the price of oil continues to rise the benefit of burning less fuel is going to get better and better. So I don’t think that the cost argument is necessarily as weighty as the auto industry has made it.

CHW: What is the auto industry’s current stance on the relationship between tailpipe emissions and global warming?

LP: Often when you talk to somebody from the auto industry they’ll talk about how criteria pollutants emissions of the newest vehicles are incredibly low. But when you talk about carbon dioxide, the only way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles, at least from the tailpipe, is to burn less fuel or burn a fuel that is lower in carbon. They generally try to downplay the relationship between tailpipe emissions and global warming, but I don’t think that anybody in the industry is saying that carbon dioxide doesn’t cause global warming and that global warming isn’t happening. And a lot of times they also focus on “well look at this concept vehicle that’s ten or fifteen years down the line.”

CHW: Does the auto industry take any particular position on the relationship between tailpipe emissions and public health?

LP: Well once again, they’re going to discuss the issue of tailpipe emissions in terms of criteria pollutants which have certainly decreased a great deal. You’re seeing lower levels of nitrogenoxides and sulfuroxides and then by extension lower levels of ground level ozone, and ground level ozone is typically the biggest contributor to asthma and other kinds of auto emissions related health problems. But I don’t think that they like to talk about emissions at all. So they won’t say something like “there’s no link between auto emissions and health problems” but they will focus on the fact that through improved aftertreatment and exhaust systems you’re starting to see criteria pollutant emissions that are really pretty low, almost zero. An ultralow emission vehicle is really going to have nearzero criteria pollutant emissions, which doesn’t really affect carbon dioxide. But then carbon dioxide is, at least at current concentrations, not really a public health threat, at least in terms of asthma and inhalation effects. There are certainly health effects related to the problems of global warming.

CHW: What alliances do you see for public health researchers and auto safety and emission standards activists?

LP: There’s a lot of potential for interdisciplinary action related to these huge problems of energy policy and global warming and the places where energy policy intersects with public health. I think that every new solution obviously brings with it new problems. There are concerns about the toxicity of batteries they might use for hybrids. You’ve got a benefit in reduced vehicle emissions, but when you dispose of the batteries they’re generally made of stuff that isn’t necessarily super clean. There will need to be a really aggressive battery recycling program. I think that these are not insurmountable obstacles but certainly there’s always potential for people who come from different viewpoints to work together on these issues.

CHW: Finally, I’d like to ask you about the presidential elections. Do any of the Presidential candidates favor tougher national emission standards and are any of them focusing on that issue?

LP: All of the candidates on the Democratic side have recommended fuel economy standards that are stronger than what was passed in this latest energy bill. As far as I know, no candidate on either side, Democrat or Republican, has taken a position specifically targeting emissions from vehicles. There are a variety of strategies that have been talked about, one of which would be a carbon tax which would then make the price of gasoline more expensive. That might convince consumers to consider improved fuel efficiency. And another proposal to reduce vehicle emissions is a low carbon fuel standard, which is a performance standard for fuels in terms of carbon dioxide emissions.

CHW: Thanks very much for your time.

Corporations, Health and the 2008 Presidential Race, Part 2: Clinton, Obama and McCain on the Role of Corporations

The next President of the US faces some important decisions on the role that corporations will play in politics, the economy and health. He—or she—will need to decide whether to continue or end the Bush Administration’s dismantling of the federal regulatory apparatus, whether and how to restore the FDA’s capacity to protect our food and drugs, what role global corporations will play in setting trade rules, whether to limit or expand the role of money and special interests in politics, and whether or how to counter the health influences of the food, tobacco, alcohol, pharmaceutical, gun, automobile and other industries. As Americans elect their next Decider-in-Chief, what do we know about the positions of the main contenders on these critical issues? In the first of two reports, Corporations and Health Watch reviews the evidence on the positions of Senators Hilary Clinton, John McCain and Barack Obama on these questions.

Predicting how a candidate will act once elected is always difficult. As we have seen, he who campaigns as a compassionate conservative can morph into Scrooge. With three sitting Senators running for office, it is possible to compare their votes on critical issues. In addition, by tracking which industries contribute to whom, we can at least see how industry leaders use their checkbooks to rate the candidates. Finally, public statements, campaign websites and prior involvement with corporations provide additional sources of evidence, as do Presidential ratings by advocacy and political groups of various political perspectives.

Role of federal government in corporate oversight

In the last few years, the US Senate has voted on several issues related to government oversight of corporations, providing some insights into the candidates’ views. For example, Senator Clinton voted for restricting rules on personal bankruptcy (2001) (the business position) and for repealing the tax subsidy for companies that move jobs offshore (2005) (against the business position). She has said there is a culture of corruption and cronyism in Washington and that we need to stop outsourcing critical government functions to private companies, close the revolving door between government and the lobbying shop, and end no-bid contracts.1 Recently, her office has issued a report describing her economic blueprint for the 21st century that includes more populist language on corporations than in earlier campaign documents. She calls for leveling the playing field by reducing special breaks for big corporations, and goes on to note:

Over the past seven years, big corporations and special interests have been given a free pass to profit, often at the expense of the American worker. As President, Hillary will make it a priority to scale back special benefits and subsidies to these corporations and put those resources to work for our economy again. She will again take on the special interests and restore the voices of working families. Hillary’s plan to reign in the special interests will take back at least $55 billion per year from drug companies, oil companies, and firms that ship jobs overseas and invest those resources to improve the lives of working families.2

Senator Obama voted against reforming bankruptcy to include means testing and restrictions (2005) and for repealing the tax subsidy for companies that move jobs offshore (2005), both votes against the business position. Obama has said that corporations should be responsible for work conditions and pensions and that there should be tax incentives for corporate responsibility. He has criticized the excess influence of agribusiness lobbying and said he would work to reduce this if he were president. He states that the US should close tax loopholes for companies that relocate abroad and end tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs.1

In these votes, McCain voted for restricting rules on personal bankruptcy (2001), for reforming bankruptcy to include means testing and restrictions (2005), and against repealing the tax subsidy for companies that move jobs offshore (2005)1 all votes in favor of the business positions on these issues. In January 208, McCain advocated making the Bush tax cuts for corporations permanent, noting, I would make sure that not only the tax cuts are made permanent, but we cut corporate income taxes. That would keep businesses here, and it would keep jobs here and create jobs here.

In 2006, based on 12 key Senate votes, the US Chamber of Commerce noted that John McCain endorsed their positions on 100% of the votes, Senator Clinton on 67%, and Senator Obama on 55%. Seventeen other senators, all Republicans, shared McCain’s perfect business rating. Twenty eight senators, all Democrats and one independent, had lower scores than Obama, i.e., were rated less business friendly according to the US Chamber of Commerce criteria. These ratings suggest that both Obama and Clinton vote with business more often than their Democratic colleagues while Senator McCain represents the most-business friendly sector of Republican Senators. More recently, the Chamber of Commerce lowered its rating of Senator McCain to 80%.

Despite this voting record, compared to the other Republican Presidential candidates, Senator McCain has been perceived to be less friendly to business interests. The ISI Group, a New York brokerage firm, noted, If there was a bill negative for HMOs or pharmaceutical companies during the past eight years, chances were good that John McCain was the Republican sponsor.4

On tobacco, in 1998, McCain proposed anti-smoking legislation that would raise taxes on cigarettes, restrict the industry’s ability to advertise, and grant the Food & Drug Administration broad new authority over tobacco companies. The proposal would also have limited liability suits against the Big Tobacco. McCain estimated that his package would cost the industry more than half a billion dollars over 25 years. In an aggressive lobbying campaign, the tobacco industry defeated the measure in the Senate.

In the 2008 primary campaigns, McCain received less money from the tobacco industry than other Republican candidates and less than Clinton and Obama.5 A Republican operative observed that Senator McCain is not well-beloved by the lobbying world, to say the least, and he’s used that to his advantage with voters.3 The recent New York Times story that Senator McCain had a close and what the Times called an inappropriate relationship with a telecommunications lobbyist.

In the 2007 checkbook primary, lobbyists cast their dollar-votes for Senator Clinton, contributing $823,087 to her, compared to $416,321 to Senator McCain and $86,283 to Senator Obama.7

Energy and the Automobile Industry

The next President will need to decide whether to make incremental or substantive changes in US energy policy. What do their voting records say about the current top contenders?

Senator Clinton voted against terminating CAFE standards within 15 months (2002), for targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010 (2003), against the Bush administration’s energy policy (2003), for banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) (2005), for factoring global warming into federal project planning (2007), for making oil-producing and -exporting cartels illegal (2007), and for removing oil and gas exploration subsidies (2007).1

Senator Obama voted for banning drilling in ANWR (2005), for reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (2005), for factoring global warming into federal project planning (2007), for making oil-producing and -exporting cartels illegal (2007), and for removing oil and gas exploration subsidies (2007).1

Senator McCain voted for oil drilling in ANWR in 2000 and against oil drilling in ANWR in 2002, promising new images of flip-flops in coming days. He voted against terminating CAFE standards within 15 months (2002), for targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010 (2003), against the Bush administration’s energy policy (2003), for banning drilling in ANWR (2005), and against reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (2005). His positions on energy policy are more pro-environmental than President Bush but less than his Democratic opponents.1

On emission standards, the US Chamber of Commerce observes that Clinton has said as President, she would increase fleetwide fuel economy standards to 55 miles a gallon by 2030 with funds to help automakers modernize; Obama would double fleetwide fuel economy standards within 18 years with tax credits and loan guarantees to help automakers modernize and McCain supports raising fuel economy standards but has not specified by how much.2

The Campaign for America’s Future, a strategy center for the progressive movement that advocates more sustainable energy policies, has given Senators Obama and Clinton a rating of 100% and Senator McCain a rating of 17%.

Regulating the drug industry

Another key decision facing the next president is how to shape the nation’s approach to regulation of the drug industry. In the past eight years, the FDA’s reputation and credibility have declined sharply, both because of under-funding and close ties to the industries it regulates.

Senator Clinton has advocated that the FDA should provide more oversight over pharmaceutical companies’ financial relationships with providers. There is no mention of direct-to-consumer advertising or data marketing practices, but seems to focus solely on the relationship with prescribers. Senator Obama has said that some drug manufacturers are explicitly paying generic drug makers not to enter the market so they can preserve their monopolies and keep charging Americans exorbitant prices for brand name products. He has said his health care plan will work to ensure that market power does not lead to higher prices for consumers. In the Iowa primary, McCain said that if there are ways to bring greater competition to our drug markets by safe re-importation of drugs, by faster introduction of generic drugs, or by any other means we should do so….8

A pro-drug industry website that monitors the FDA noted that Clinton, McCain and Obama all favor drug importation. That means that it is inevitable that a president who favors importation will be in the White House with a Democratic House and Senate that will be more receptive to the concept than at any time prior.8

Money in politics

It is likely that the influence of money on politics will be a topic for discussion in the 2008 general election, yet the heavy reliance of all candidates on corporate money (see Corporations, Health and the 2008 Presidential Elections, Part 1, Following the Money) makes it difficult to imagine any pf the candidates supporting substantial reforms.

While McCain has been a strong supporter of limiting the influence of money in politics—he once said his support for McCain-Feingold bill was an issue of transcendent importance to him—he will have a hard time reconciling this commitment with his promise to appoint Supreme Court justices like Scalia and Thomas—consistent supporters of Big Business and opponents of campaign finance reform. A recent story in Business Week asked, Is John McCain Good for Business?, observing that McCain has crusaded against the influence of corporate lobbyists, yet has more K Street fixers raising money for his campaign than any other Presidential candidate.9 The recent New York Times and Washington Post stories on his relationship with a lobbyist emphasize his vulnerability on this issue. In the 2007 primary cycle, 78% of McCain’s contributions campaign from corporate funds. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton appeared on the cover of Fortune magazine as Big Business’s candidate; and last Spring Obama was the top recipient of Wall Street contributions, suggesting that no matter who wins, business will have ready access to the next President.

In future articles in this series, Corporations and Health Watch will examine the candidates’ positions on free trade, the food industry and on FDA reform.

References

1. Campaign Issues 2008.
2. Hilary Clinton. Solutions for America. Economic Blueprint. Hillary Clinton’s Economic Blueprint for the 21st Century
3. US hamber of Commerce. Senate Vote Scorecard, 2006.
4. Quoted in Calmes J, Frangos A. “McCain’s Breaks with GOP left scars but could increase his “electability”.” Wall Street Journal. February 7, 2008, p A1 and A16.
5. Corporations and Health Watch. Corporations, Health and the 2008 Presidential Elections Following the Money.
6. Rutenberg R, Thompson MW, Kirkpatrick D, Laboton S. “For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk.” New York Times. February 21, 2008, p. A1.
7. Open Secrets.
8. Eye on the FDA. Where the Candidates Stand Parts 1-8.
9. Javers E. Is John McCain good for business? Business week. February 6, 2008.

 

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 Part 3: Clinton, McCain, Obama and the Food Industry

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

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.

Time to reclassify malt liquor and flavored malt beverages as a “distilled spirit?”

Ten years ago, Harlem community activists and Bill Perkins, Harlem’s representative to the New York City Council, led a successful campaign to rid Harlem of malt liquor ads that they calledpornographic and disrespectful(1). Several years earlier, legal action had forced malt liquor advertisers to remove similar ads. In the ensuing decades, activists launched comparable campaigns against the advertising and distribution of malt liquor in Portland, Oregon; Chicago; Philadelphia; Washington, D.C. and many other cities, often in the African-American neighborhoods targeted by malt liquor manufactures.

Now, major U.S. breweries are facing declining revenues due to decreased demand for mass market product lines such as Budweiser and a trend toward increased wine consumption and specialty and imported beers (2,3). For the beer industry, young consumers who have not yet established brand and drink preferences are an obvious target for the more aggressive marketing of malt liquor products (2,3).

This story of marketing malt liquor and the resistance to it illustrates some of the ways that free markets can collide with public health. It also demonstrates both the potential and limits of community activism to resist the promotion of unhealthy products. ThisCorporations and Health Watchreport summarizes the health risks associated with malt liquor consumption and describes the marketing of newer flavored malt liquors and caffeinated energy malt liquors to young people. It reviews actions by community activists to restrict the sale and advertisement of malt liquor products in low-income urban communities, and concludes with policy recommendations designed to better protect young people from the risks associated with malt liquor.

The most common malt liquor beverages are produced by the major U.S. brewing companies. These include beverages produced by Miller Brewing Company (Olde English 800 and Mickey’s), Pabst Brewing Company (St. Ides and Colt 45), Anheuser-Busch (King Cobra and Hurricane), and SABMiller (Steel Reserve). Newer products includeFMBs(Flavored Malt Beverages) ormalternativessuch asHard Lemonade,and other malt liquors with added flavors and sweeteners that appeal to younger adults and teens.

Malt liquor is a type of beer that has artificially high alcohol content, produced by adding sugar, corn, rice, dextrose or other adjuncts. The resulting alcoholic beverage is too strong to be legally labeled asbeer,and so it is labeled asmalt liquor.Beers typically have an alcohol content of around 5% by volume, whereas malt liquor has an alcohol content of 6 to 11% alcohol by volume. Malt liquor, which is typically a very pale amber color, tends to lack the bitterness associated with many types of beer because it is produced without hops. Flavored malt beverages are produced in the same manner as malt liquor, but with several additional steps to remove the color and flavors typically associated with beer and malt liquor. The result is a potent, flavorless alcoholic base that manufacturers combine with candy-like flavors and coloring, then market with youth-oriented advertisements.

The public health case against malt liquor

Objections to street corner distribution of 40 ounces

Most malt liquor advertisements urge young men to adopt amasculineidentity by consuming large quantities of potent alcohol in a single sitting, a pattern of consumption that increases the risk for excessive alcohol intake and alcohol dependency (4). In a study funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the University of Buffalo’s Research Institute on Addictions found that malt liquor users were more likely to smoke marijuana when they drink and to consume dangerous levels of alcohol (5). Due to the high alcohol concentration and super-sized bottles, a drinker who downs one or two 40-ounce bottles of malt liquor could be consuming the equivalent of up to 14 standard drinks in one sitting (5).

Another objection is the low cost and ready availability in small groceries in minority neighborhoods (6), stores that often ignore laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol to minors. The high density of these outlets also make them more difficult to police. A 40-ounce bottle, commonly referred to as a40,sells for less than $2, often at a price as low as 99 cents. Because malt liquor is classified as beer, many small grocery vendors are permitted to sell the product and the product is taxed at a lower rate than wine and spirits.

Currently under review by the Tax and Trade Bureau, the division of the U.S. Treasury Department that regulates malt liquor labeling, is a proposal that would allow for the advertisement of malt liquor based on potency (7). Such advertisement of malt liquor is currently prohibited, out of concern that breweries will engage instrength warsusing advertising designed to win over young drinkers with the high potency of their brews (7,8).

In sum, the industry’s marketing plans make a potent and potentially dangerous product readily available at affordable prices in our most disadvantaged communities. The alcohol industry then aggressively markets the products to young men, using sexual images that imply consumption enhances masculinity.

Objections tokiddie boozeandgirlie drinks,also known asalcopops

Another marketing strategy also raises concerns for health professionals. Recently, the alcohol industry has added caffeine, guarana, ginseng, and energy-producing claims to malt liquor products, in addition to flavoring malt liquors and test marketing fruit-flavored malt liquorshots.Flavored malt liquors such as Mike’s Hard Lemonade, a lemon-flavored malt alcoholic beverage made by a producer in Canada, are popular with teens and young adults, especially girls. This gender-specific product design and marketing is making malt liquors an equal opportunity substance, increasing the likelihood that both genders are at risk of malt liquor’s harm.

Groups such as the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, the International Institute for Alcohol Awareness, the Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest have taken issue with marketing practices associated with malt liquor and the over-saturation of the market withkiddie boozeflavored malt beverages and advertisements (9-14). The American Medical Association has commissioned a survey of underage girls, finding that a third of all girls older than 12 have triedgirlie drinksoralcopopsand that teenage girls report drinking alcohol more often than their male counterparts (9). Alcopops is a term used to describe sweetened malt beverages and other sweetened alcoholic drinks. In their paperGirlie Drinks. . . Women’s Diseases,the American Medical Association warns young girls that manufactures use thesweet fruity flavorof thesestarter drinksto appeal to young girls (9), and the Marin Institute credits the increased availability and marketing of inexpensivealcopopsto increased female consumption of alcohol (15).

Due to pressure exerted by national substance abuse prevention organizations, numerous state attorneys general, and public interest groups, Anheuser-Busch ultimately agreed to stop the marketing of its Spykes product line in May 2007 (16-18). Spykes, which were 12% alcohol by volume, were sold within arm’s reach of many cash registers in grocery stores and delis for under $2. Sold in flavors such as spicy mango, hot chocolate, hot melon, and spicy lime, the product was designed for young girls and teens who do not like the taste of hard alcohol and beer, as a product that could be taken either as ashotor added to beer or vodka to mask the taste of alcohol with sweet, fruity flavor. Pam Erickson of the Oregon Partnership applauded the effort noting,From the beginning, we thought this product was aimed at underage drinkers and thanks to others who thought the same thing, it’s now gone(19).

Similar victories were reached back in 1997 with the wave of protest that resulted from the introduction of frozen malt liquors such as St. Ide’s Freeze and Squeeze. At that time, then Mayor Rudy Giuliani, civic and church groups, local borough presidents, and the New York City commissioner of consumer affairs united against small stores selling fruit-flavored frozen malt liquor to children and teens (20-24).

Community struggles against 40 ounce malt liquor

Activists in urban communities of color have long battled for restrictions on the sale of malt liquor, as they struggled with high rates of violence and substance abuse in their communities. Community activists have called for numerous measures, including restrictions on advertising, higher taxes, and better policing of sales to minors. Some groups have urged filmmakers and rap artists to end their promotion of malt liquor. In their desire to target young African Americans, malt liquor makers have hired such artists as LL Cool J, DJ Quik, Bone Thugs-n-Harmony, E-40, Dr. Dre, Snoop Dogg, Eric B & Rakim, EPMD, Wu-Tang Clan, and the Geto Boys to promote their products.

Community activists have also charged that the sale of malt liquor encourages public drunkenness, loitering, urinating in public, and littering. Some research shows that malt liquor 40s are the beverage of choice for many homeless adults and unemployed adults (25), as well as teens (4). Single malt liquor sales are currently prohibited in the state of Florida, and community residents in Washington, D.C. were recently successful in banning the sale ofsinglesin several communities. These coalitions were led by politicians such as Washington D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (Democrat) and Councilman Tommy Wells (Democrat) and by community groups such as the South Columbia Heights Neighborhood Association and the Anacostia Coordinating Committee, where many residents had long complained about theoversaturation of liquor-selling establishments and the impact they’ve had on neighborhoods(26-28).

In Philadelphia, when Colt 45 malt ads began to appear on city buses and trains, residents immediately complained and the ads were removed in August 2007. Councilmember Jim Kenney complained about the ads, notingpeople have been fighting these take-out beer delis for years now(29). As in Harlem, the victories in controlling malt liquor promotion in one setting or time are often difficult to sustain, requiring activists to maintain vigilance and be ready to take on new products or advertising campaigns.

In Portland, Oregon, neighborhood activists concerned about underage and binge drinking protested a billboard advertisement for 40-ounce bottles of Olde English malt liquor. According to Carl Flipper of the Humboldt Neighborhood Target Association, the billboard showedgang members in the ‘hood having a good time drinking large containers of beer.As a result of the protests, Miller discontinued their plans for 44 billboard ads but continues to run local radio, TV and print media ads. The company refused to take any responsibility for youth drinking in a statement, writing,We aren’t responsible for all the drinking problems in your community(30).

Other African American coalitions have protested the sale of malt liquor in 40s calling itliquid crack,with members of the Citizen Reform Action Committee in Philadelphia urging manufacturers of 40s to fund anti alcohol abuse messages (31). In Chicago, an African American Catholic priest named Father Michael Pfleger has generated headlines time and again for his efforts to protect his parishioners from tobacco, alcohol, drugs and gang violence (32). With his 1983 Battle of the Billboards Campaign,he and parishioners counted 118 alcohol and tobacco billboards within a 10-block radius of the parish. He was arrested several times for destruction of property when he took part in whitewashing or removing the billboards. His actions did contribute to ending the distribution of Powermaster, a potent malt liquor sold in African American communities.

A new market for the traditional 40-ounce?

While malt liquor advertisers have traditionally targeted African American communities, the search for new markets continues. On its website, Pabst promotes Colt 45, sayingIt has become an urban American icon. If you’re looking for a thick 40, or an ice cold shorty, Colt 45 is the malt liquor that works EVERYTIMETM!Pabst encourages readers to visit their new website designed for whitehipstersand where they can create their own tales of Colt 45 on paper bags (www.talesofcolt45.com) (33,34).

The case for tighter regulation According to a recent Advertising Age commentary, the new ad campaign is part of an effort to revive the Colt 45 brand, once viewed as anexploitative product that preyed on the urban poorand make it anedgy choice for young hipsterswith creative graphics drawn on brown paper bags (35). On the same website, Pabst adds,A big part of our promise is to be responsible—and we trust that you’ll do the same.

Public health lawyers have sought, so far without success, to reclassify sugary sweet alcopops and flavored malt beverages from their current classification as a beer to a distilled spirit, a category that allows higher taxes (8). Such measures would increase the cost of the products, making them less appealing to young teens, as well as remove them from the shelves of thousands of retail outlets not permitted to sell wines and spirits. By reclassifying malt liquor and flavored malt beverages as distilled spirits, these potent alcoholic beverages would be sold only in establishments licensed to sell distilled spirits. Such a reclassification would reduce young people’s access to alcoholic beverages, thereby reducing underage drinking, drunk driving, and the adverse health consequences associated with alcoholism and alcohol abuse. Other measures designed to reduce the harm from malt liquor include restrictions on outdoor advertisements for alcohol and restrictions on advertisements for alcoholic beverages in youth-oriented magazines and television programs.

For public health professionals and advocates, the story of malt liquor shows how declining profits and the quest for increased market share can push industry to act in ways that threaten public health. While community activism has played an important role in curbing this promotion of malt liquor, the fact that these mobilizations have persisted for more than 25 years, often being forced to re-emerge to defend previous victories, suggests the limits of this approach. In the long run, only government agencies that have the backbone and the resources to fulfill their mandates can ensure that special interests don’t threaten the health of the public.

References

1. Siegal, N.Councilman Condemns Beer Ads as Crude, Racist.New York Times, February 21, 1999.
2. Hirsh J.Beer firms unite, seek a potent mix; SABMiller and Molson Coors hope to better compete for market share as consumers turn to other beverages.Los Angeles Times, October 10, 2007.
3. Ward A.US brewers cry into their beers: competition from imports and local specialty brews hitting home.Financial Times, July 31, 2006.
4. Bradizza CM, Collins RL, Vincent PC, Falco DL. It does the job: Young adults discuss their malt liquor consumption. Addictive Behaviors. 2006; 31: 1559-1577.
5. Collins RL, Bradizza CM, Vincent PC. Young-adult malt liquor drinkers: Prediction of alcohol problems and marijuana use. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2007; 21: 138-146.
6. Bluthenthal RN, Cohen D, Farley T, Scribner R, Beighley C, Schonlau M, Robinson PL.Alcohol availability and neighborhood characteristics in Los Angeles, California and Southern Louisiana.Presentation given at American Public Health Association Annual Meeting, November 6, 2007.
7. Kitsock G.Beer laid bare: labels that tell all.The Washington Post, August 29, 2007.
8.Federal Trade Commission Alcohol Marketing and Advertising: A report to Congress, September 2003. Accessed February 10, 2008.
9.Girlie Drinks. . . Women’s Diseases.American Medical Association. Accessed February 10, 2008.
10.The battle over ‘Alcopops.American Public Health Association newsletter, Winter 2007. Accessed February 2, 2008.
11.Flavored Alcoholic Beverages: The Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing.Policy Brief, International Institute for Alcohol Awareness, April 2006.
12.Underage drinking in the United Sates: A Status Report, 2005.The Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth, March 2006.
13.Center for Science in the Public Interest. Accessed February 10, 2008.
14.The Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth. Accessed February 10, 2008.
15.The Marin Institute, Alcopops.Accessed February 19, 2008.
16. Associated Press.Hot melon in your beer? Bud tests additives.MSNBC.com. January 25, 2007.
17. CSPI Newsroom.Anheuser-Busch’s ‘Spykes’ labels illegal, group says,April 16, 2007. Updated April 30, 2007:TTB agrees; A-B halts production to fix labels.
18. Associated Press.Anheuser-Busch pulls ‘Spykes.’CBS News, St. Louis. May 18, 2007. 19. Oregon Partnership press release.Oregon Partnership claims victory as Anheuser-Busch drops Spykes,May 18, 2007. Accessed February 19, 2008.
20. Kinosian J. “`Alcopops’ Causing a Brewhaha,” Los Angeles Times (Washington Edition), March 17, 1997.
21. Halbfinger DM. “Icy, Fruity Malt Liquor Lures Minors, Critics Say,” New York Times, July 24, 1997.
22. Halbfinger DM. “Malt Drink: Cold, Fruity, Discontinued,” New York Times, July 25, 1997.
23. Halbfinger DM. “Selling Alcohol Disguised As Punch,” New York Times, July 27, 1997.
24. Etzioni A. “Son of Joe Camel,” Washington Post, August 17, 1997.
25. Bluthenthal RN, Brown Taylor D, Guzman-Becerra N, Robinson PL. Characteristics of malt liquor beer drinkers in a low-income, racial minority community sample. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 2007; 29: 402-409. 26. Emerling G.Beer rule a tough sell to retailers; no singles can be sold in Ward 4.The Washington Times, August 14, 2007.
27. Williams C.Grocery is flash point for changing neighborhood; newcomers, longtimers clash over beer sales.The Washington Post, December 10, 2007.
28. Emerling G.Beer rule a tough sell to retailers; no singles can be sold in Ward 4.The Washington Times, August 14, 2007.
29. Vasquez D.Colt 45 wraps pulled off Philly buses.Media Life Magazine, August 3, 2007.
30. Join Together.Miller agrees to drop Portland malt liquor ads.August 17, 2000.
31. Emeno A.Coalition protests sale of malt liquor in ’40s’ Black leaders called the 40-ounce bottles ‘Liquid Crack.’ They want brewers to fund antialcohol abuse messages.The Philadelphia Inquirer, July 10, 2000.
32. Csillag R.Chicago’s renegade priest.The Toronto Star. November 8, 2003.
33.Pabst Brewing Company website. Accessed February 2, 2008.
34.Colt 45 website. Accessed February 2, 2008.
35. Mullman J.Challenge: Make malt liquor look good on paper. Pabst uses icon from controversial brand’s past to reposition it as edgy to new generation of drinkers.Advertising Age, January 28, 2008.

Strategic Alliance: Tools for Shifting the Food Debate Upstream

As more communities become concerned about finding ways to reduce increasing rates of obesity, many coalitions struggle to find a way to move beyond changing individual behavior and local government policies that contribute to overweight to taking on the food industry and other more upstream influences. The Strategic Alliance for Healthy Food and Activity Environments (SA) provides a model for this more holistic approach. SA works to improve the health of Californians by providing solutions for community organizations and residents to take action to create healthier food and physical environments. Here we focus on their work to change the food and beverage industry’s influence on food choices.

The alliance’s programs examine and challenge the food and beverage industry’s influence on daily life, with a particular emphasis on practices that reach the lives of children. For example, SA has worked with others to change corporate policies on food marketing in stores and on television, the use of celebrities to endorse unhealthy products, and exclusive soda and fast food contracts with school districts. are just some of the areas where SA rallies for change. By equipping advocates with resources, research, information, training and assessment tools, SA assists communities to reduce the promotion of unhealthy food.

SA views local initiatives as the driving force for changing local, state, federal and corporate policies. By supporting these initiatives with education, media analyses and policy advocacy, the Alliance strengthens and accelerates the creation of healthier food and activity environments.

Education

SA encourages concerned citizens and organizations to learn more about the ways corporations shape nutrition and physical activity environments. To educate and mobilize parents, advocates, young people and health providers, SA publishes reports, sponsors training programs and distributes assessment tools. For example, a report called Setting the Bar: Recommendations for Food and Beverage Industry Action calls on the food, beverage and restaurant industry to “make meaningful changes to support people in making nutritious food choices.” It lists simple steps these industries can take in the areas of product, price, place, and promotion. The box below shows the suggestions that food industries can use to make products healthier. Presented in simple language, the 3 page report serves as a tool for activists and a guide for sympathetic business owners who want to make changes.

Important Steps for the Food and Beverage Industry

Provide healthy food and beverages as the standard in all children’s meals and on children’s menus.

Add new menu items that are healthy, affordable, tasty, and satisfying, including entrées, appetizers and side dishes.

Reformulate food products to decrease calories and lower saturated fat, trans fat, sodium, and added sugars, and add more fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds.

Make available, and promote low calorie or no calorie beverage options without artificial sweeteners (e.g., water, low-fat milk) that help customers to manage their calorie intake.

Eliminate large and extra-large food and beverages portions.

SA also created the Environmental Nutrition and Activity Community Tool (ENACT), an interactive, networking tool and development guide designed to connect communities with effective strategies to counter health harming industry practices. The guide allows users to review successful programs, input specific needs, and evaluate ongoing projects.

For example, alliance members can use ENACT to determine the extent to which fast food endorsements of preschool educational materials effect children’s health in their communities in order to decide whether to make this action a priority.

The American Public Health Association endorses ENACT, saying it “provides a road map for change, offering a practical starting place for communities and making healthy eating and regular activity a realistic option for everyone.” [1]

Through its educational activities, SA provides materials to create initiatives and challenge the food and beverage industry’s influence in childcare centers, schools, after school programs, neighborhoods, workplaces, health care providers and government agencies. This support has helped local initiatives to, for example, limit fast food businesses in the neighborhood, improve nutrition standards in public schools, and remove unhealthy food marketing in local groceries.

Media Analysis

Since the media exert a powerful influence on food choices and public opinion on food policy options, SA also assists activists and advocacy organizations to analyze media coverage of food issues, to frame their own messages more effectively, and to design media advocacy campaigns in support of policy objectives. To achieve these goals, SA teamed up with the Berkeley Media Studies Group (BMSG) to create an advocacy project called the Rapid Response Media Network. The project serves as an action network and resource for nutrition and physical activity advocates. The goal of the project is to unravel health harming messages that blame individuals for diet related diseases, and move toward an analysis that holds corporate practices and government policies responsible for shaping our daily environments.

Advocates can engage the Rapid Response Media Network through several resources. The project monitors, analyzes and produces reports on food and beverage industry current events. Armed with the network’s reports, alliance members are encouraged to carve out the front-lines of nutrition and physical activity advocacy. The project also provides consulting services and issues ‘Framing Briefs,’ helping tease out complex messages and aiding a unified voice.

To give an example, the Network helped members analyze a quote from Jim Skinner, CEO of McDonald’s, that appeared in the Wall Street Journal. “We [McDonald’s Corp] are not going to solve the world’s obesity problem. But what we can do is be productive and be part of the solution” by providing consumers with “choices” [2].

How can advocates contextualize the underlying health messages in Skinner’s comment? The Rapid Response Media Network ‘Framing Brief,’ Reading Between the Lines, compares Skinner’s focus on “choice” to other corporate marketing and sponsorship campaigns. Philip Morris, PepsiCo and Kraft also attempted to redirect negative media attention away from unhealthy products by evoking the same strategy.

According to the ‘Framing Brief,’ “The emphasis on choice reinforces the common frame in American culture that individuals are solely responsible for their own health. Choice links directly to personal responsibility. Personal responsibility is extremely important, but decisions are always made in a context. Focusing on choice obscures the context” (p. 3).

Larry Cohen, founder of SA’s parent organization, The Prevention Institute, and author of Prevention is Primary (2007), details the importance of broadening media coverage around nutrition and physical activity environments. Cohen’s 2005 article in the California Journal of Health Promotion, The O Word [3], says that an individual-focused prevention response to obesity does not improve health and, in fact, can adversely affect communities. “…The persistent drumbeat of ‘obesity’ oversimplifies a complex issue. It places the blame squarely on the individual, without taking into account the social and economic influence of where people live, work and play” (p. 154).

Using similar reasoning, Lori Dorfman of BMSG, calls on advocates to “reframe” public health issues. To Dorfman, nutrition is just one example of how health prevention efforts can shift from individually-focused efforts to a more holistic context. In order to “reframe” issues, Dorfman says the social, economic and political context must also be considered [4].

By supporting media analysis and advocacy, SA and The Prevention Institute advance their mission of strengthening local efforts to influence corporate and government practices that shape daily nutrition and physical activity environments.

Policy Advocacy

In addition to its educational and media work, SA also seeks to advance a policy agenda that addresses local, state, federal and corporate food policies. Its steering committee includes such organizations as The California Adolescent Nutrition and Fitness Program, California Center for Public Health Advocacy, California Food Policy Advocates, California Pan Ethnic Health Network; California Park & Recreation Society; California Project LEAN; California WIC Association, Child Care Food Program Roundtable; Latino Health Access Prevention Institute, and the YMCA of the East Bay, giving the group access to hundreds of organizations and thousands of individuals. By bringing consistent policy messages to legislators, Mayors and the Governor from these sources, SA enhances its political clout.

Its policy recommendations, included in reports such as Taking Action for a Healthier California: Recommendations to Improve Healthy Food and Activity Options, recommend steps the food and beverage industry can take to improve food environments and also public policies to monitor industries impact on health more carefully. Several recommendations are open-ended, allowing communities to tailor community-specific programs. For youth involved in pre-school, public school and after-school settings, for example, SA recommends the removal of advertising and marketing of unhealthy food, provisions for nutritious food standards, and increasing physical activity programs.

Taking Action for a Healthier California is changing the way some California cities approach prevention efforts. As a result of local policy advocacy, San Francisco and the City of Berkeley have endorsed many of SA’s recommendations, joining more than 75 organizations that have committed to improving nutrition and physical activity environments.

Working to further develop action at the policy level, SA tracks local policy decisions related to food and physical activity through the ENACT Local Policy Database (ENACT LPdB). Policy coverage includes school district, city, county and state levels where community activities and coalitions have worked to achieve change.

Advocates are encouraged to use the ENACT website and ENACT LPdB as both educational and development models. The approach endorsed by SA is designed to motivate advocates to “act locally” through social organizing around the role of the built environment.

A year ago, the Strategic Alliance issued a report called Where’s the fruit? charging the food industry with deceptive labeling and advertising of many processed foods by implying they contained more fruit than they did. The report attracted broad television and newspaper coverage, educating millions of people about the issue. “The deception is really intolerable,” Larry Cohen, executive director of the Prevention Institute, told the San Francisco Chronicle [5]. “There is really no excuse for misleading parents in a way that weakens their ability to encourage their children’s health” [5]. By bringing together researchers, community organizations and policy advocates SA had helped to ‘reframe’ the way society views health behavior and politically popular policy recommendations. Equally important, SA had given local activists the tools they needed to move their fight for healthier food upstream, from individual and parental responsibility to corporate accountability.

 

References

1. Food and Nutrition Resources. American Public Health Association. Summer 2006 Newsletter. Available at: http://www.apha.org/membergroups/ newsletters/sectionnewsletters/food/summer06/2494.htm.

2. Adamy J. Boss Talk: How Jim Skinner Flipped McDonald’s. Wall Street Journal. Jan 5, 2007. B1. Available at: http://wsjclassroomedition.com/monday/mx_07jan08.pdf.

3. Cohen L, Perales DP, Steadman C. The O Word: Why the focus on obesity is harmful to community health. California Journal of Health Promotion. 2005;3(3):154-61. Available at: http://www.csuchico.edu/cjhp/3/3/154-161-cohen.pdf.

4. Dorfman L, Wallack L. Moving Nutrition Upstream: The case for reframing obesity. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2007;39(2 Suppl):S45-50. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1499404606006014.

5. Finz S. Fruit Shown on Lable Often Not in Box, Kids’ Food Study Says. San Francisco Chronicle. Jan 26,2007. Available at: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/01/26/ MNGMHNPK671.DTL.

Tracking the Effects of Corporate Practices on Health