Appetite for Profit

Last post on Blogspot - visit me on my new website

2011-01-10T07:11:00.000-08:00

Dear readers, I have switched over to blogging with WordPress, which is now integrated into my new and improved website here. There you will find my first post of 2011:

Top 5 food policy gains in 2010 (and what’s lagging behind)

Thanks and see you there!

Happy Meal Makeover: How a Healthy Food Coalition Defeated a Fast Food Icon

2010-11-10T21:01:00.000-08:00

On election day, while most of the nation was distracted with the mid-term election, another vote was taking place in San Francisco City Hall. The Board of Supervisors approved an ordinance to place limits—based on specific nutrition criteria—on how toys are marketed by restaurants in the city and county of San Francisco.

Most media accounts got the story wrong. The Los Angeles Times for example, called it a “Happy Meal ban.” (It’s true that, according to McDonald’s, none of the current Happy Meals meet the criteria, but that’s fixable.) The real story is, how did McDonald’s—the nation’s most beloved fast food brand—get so beat up?

It’s easy to dismiss this victory as just another liberal law passed in “wacko” San Francisco. While the majority of the Board of Supervisors do lean to the left, passing this bill was by no means a slam dunk. To the contrary, it took months of organizing and coalition-building to get the job done. Along the way, proponents faced numerous obstacles, including underhanded lobbying, deceptive polling, and more.

How did they do it? According to Judy Grant, Value [the] Meal campaign director for Corporate Accountability International (CAI), the lead organizing group on the ground, “the old-fashioned way – we hit the phones and the pavement.” [full disclosure: I'm on the advisory board of CAI's Value [the] Meal campaign.] Once the bill was introduced by Supervisor Eric Mar, CAI quickly realized the industry would defeat it without a solid grassroots voice. Grant explains:

We worked with Mar’s office to form a coalition from every corner of the City. Many San Franciscans felt the time for this law had come, so it was easy to find many residents in support. We took local activists to farmers’ markets and food-related events to get their fellow San Franciscans involved.

Many other organizations also played an important role, including the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, Prevention Institute, and the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, whose mailing lists and resources were critical to garnering support.

Testimony from doctors at the University of California, San Francisco was also key. Pediatricians told heartbreaking stories about how the children they see suffer.

Another critical organizing group was the Bayview Food Guardians, based in the low-income San Francisco neighborhood of Bayview / Hunters Point. Here is an excerpt from Food Guardian Jameela Toups’ powerful testimony:

The youth in my community are getting diet-related diseases like diabetes and hypertension at younger and younger ages. This is largely because of an unhealthy food environment that lacks fresh, affordable food and instead has an overabundance of fast food and relentless fast food marketing, including these toy incentives.

We at Food Guardians have helped some folks in our neighborhood change the way they eat. But we can’t reach everyone. There are hundreds of others that we have not been able to talk to yet. To reach everyone, we would need millions more in funding.

But the fast food industry has those millions. They can reach pretty much everyone, almost 24-7, and their message is counter to what we want our neighbors – particularly our youth – to hear. We try to reach youth before their habits are set, but far too often the industry has gotten to them first.

All of this organizing and testimony was needed to go up against a full-court press counter-lobbing effort by McDonald’s and the California Restaurant Association, the industry’s powerful statewide lobbying arm.

At the bill’s very first hearing, dozens of local supporters showed up while McDonald’s flew lobbyists in from corporate headquarters to testify, including the company’s “director of nutrition.” But the hearing got really bizarre when a parade of Mandarin-speaking individuals testified against the bill, each with similar talking points. One of these speakers was even seen consulting a script in the hallway.

Given that most Chinese people in San Francisco speak Cantonese and not Mandarin, were these alleged McDonald’s supporters even locals? “We were not able to confirm that they were from San Francisco, though we got the sense they were not,” said Supervisor Mar in a statement. “We’re also not able to confirm their connection to the fast-food industry. It’s all very suspicious.”

Another underhanded move involved expensive polling conducted by the California Restaurant Association that allegedly showed San Franciscans were largely opposed to the bill. But the survey questions were so biased that the tactic actually backfired. For example, the lobbyists asked, do you agree or disagree that “It should be up to parents, not city politicians, to decide what to feed their children,” and, “A working parent coming home after a tough day should have the option of occasionally purchasing a meal with a toy for their child.” Not exactly objective scientific survey methods.

While San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom (who was just elected lieutenant governor of California) has promised to veto the bill, organizers were able to secure a veto-proof majority, which was a tremendous effort in itself, requiring hundreds of phone calls and hours of meetings to get the key swing vote to come on board.

So how much money did McDonald’s and friends spend on lobbying against the measure? According to Deborah Lapidus, senior organizer for Corporate Accountability’s Value [the] Meal, at least tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of dollars. But no amount of corporate cash was enough to overcome the passion of a few hundred community leaders and residents who said enough is enough. As San Francisco is often a national leader on health issues, other cities are sure to follow. McDonald’s may have to start loading up a few more buses.

One health blogger's change of heart over Pepsi Refresh

2010-10-31T12:44:00.000-07:00

My readers know by now that I am not exactly a fan of PepsiCo's mega-marketing campaign disguised as philanthropy known as the Pepsi Refresh Project. As I wrote about previously, the nation's largest food company is exploiting schoolchildren as young as age 6 in an effort to brand itself as the world's savior.

Even healthy food projects are lining up to feed at the trough of Pepsi Refresh, without a hint of shame that these corporate, tax-deductible donations rely on sales of Cheetos and Mountain Dew.

So I was surprised and disappointed when I noticed fellow health blogger, Megan Yarbrough post to Twitter a call to vote for a Pepsi Refresh project. Because I know we are usually on the same page, I reached out to her privately with a direct message and asked that she not promote this awful program. She responded immediately, acknowledging my concern and recently posted to her blog about how I changed her mind. Here is that eloquent post in its entirety:

I’ll admit, when I first heard about the Pepsi Refresh Project, I couldn’t have been more on-board with the idea if I tried.

Times are tight right now. And although we’re in a recession, that hasn’t stopped the problems we face as a nation from continuing to grow. If anything, it’s worsened them. The simple fact is: communities need money. And nonprofits desperately need money just to continue the great work they are doing – forget about starting new, game-changing initiatives. So at first, I saw Pepsi Refresh as a great opportunity for the do-gooders of our country to get the financing they require to really improve the lives of people all over our nation.

I thought it was so fantastic, in fact, that I was involved in more than one attempt to enter the Pepsi Refresh Project. Both for great causes. Sure Pepsi is a part of a lot of the problems we face as a nation. But shouldn’t corporations give back more often, particularly in times of great need? And while I wasn’t naive enough to not recognize that the entire Pepsi Refresh Project was a brilliant PR move, I thought it was also great opportunity for worthy causes to fund amazing projects all across the nation.

I was wrong, but it took me awhile to accept my realization that Pepsi Refresh ultimately harms our society – not helps it. That realization came to me after I became more involved with the food revolution movement and read Michele Simon’s book, Appetite for Profit.

PepsiCo, not just a maker of soda, but also the maker of Frito-Lay products, isn’t just a part of a lot of the problems we face as a nation – PepsiCo itself is a huge problem. If we ever hope to change the direction our country is headed, we need to fundamentally change the way we function as a society. We need to change our understanding of food, and change the way we eat. The type of food and beverages we need to reclaim our nation’s health really don’t come ready-made in a box, bag, or can.

As Michele Simon writes on her blog, “these grants give credibility to the notion that we can (and should) rely on Big Food to fix our broken food system. But nothing could be further from the truth. PepsiCo is happy to spend relatively small amounts of money in exchange for getting to hitch its PR wagon to the likes of farmers markets and school gardens.”

Yet, knowing this, I gave in last week when a cause that means a lot to me asked me to retweet their Pepsi Refresh project to my followers. That’s when Michele Simon (@Appetite4Profit) sent me a direct message to remind me that as a public health advocate, I really should not – cannot – promote the Pepsi Refresh Project. She put it in terms I could easily relate to given my involvement in tobacco control: “imagine if PM [Philip Morris] were promoting it.”

Big Food corporations are following the tobacco industry’s footsteps step-by-step. And I mean exactly. If you read about the tobacco industry’s deceptive marketing, their false health claims, the life-saving legislation they constantly defeat with the millions of dollars they spend on lobbying, the way they promote their products overseas in the developing world, and the way they set up fake science institutes to conduct “research” … and substitute ‘Big Tobacco’ for ‘Big Food’ – the two can be used interchangeably.

Food companies spend over $36 billion a year to market their products. They wouldn’t spend that kind of money, nor would they give away millions of dollars in the name of philanthropy, if they didn’t know for a fact that it is effective in getting people to buy their products. They want you to think that they aren’t part of America’s health problem – they are part of the solution. And, of course (just like the tobacco industry), they love to remind you that personal responsibility is part of the solution as well, since they know you don’t really want to give up those dinners from a bag either.

So, my friends, that is why I will no longer be tweeting about your very-worthy project or organization’s attempt to win a Pepsi Refresh grant. I admire your work, but I can’t go against the very ideas I preach.

If you’re interested in learning more (or if perhaps you think I’m crazy), I highly encourage you to check out Michele Simon’s blog, Appetite for Profit, as well as her book. One particular post worth reading describes how elementary school students in Illinois expressed their thanks to Pepsi after winning a Pepsi Refresh grant. Hopefully you’ll see the problem with the picture painted for you. Another great resource is Value the Meal, a blog by Corporate Accountability International.

Thank you Megan, for saying it so well. But mostly, thank you for taking a look at this issue more deeply, being willing to change your mind, and then speaking out about it. And if your friends are also harassing you to vote, just point them to Megan's post instead.

In the wake of Jon Stewart's recent call for a more civilized discourse in our nation, this experience gives me hope. Maybe if we could each stop and listen to each other, learn about an issue, and not react in haste, mindlessly forwarding emails, posting to Facebook, or retweeting what others (even our friends) want us to, things could get a little better. Maybe.

Too noisy to save the environment? Frito-Lay responds to SunChips compostable bag debacle

2010-10-10T16:54:00.000-07:00

These days, many companies--and especially food companies--are falling over each other to prove their green cred to consumers. But given the usual challenges of trying to save the planet while you're destroying it, most efforts amount to a whole lot of greenwashing.

So when Frito-Lay announced last week that its SunChips compostable bag was a bust due to complaints that the bag was too noisy, the company found itself on the receiving end of some well-deserved, internet-fueled snark. One of the snarkiest came from Change.org's Sustainable Food Editor Sarah Parsons, who writes:

The switcheroo came after Americans complained about the bags' noise level—the little sacks apparently cause quite the ruckus as folks stick their paws in and out to grab fistfuls of chips. In the past year alone, SunChips sales decreased by more than 11 percent, mostly due to the boisterous bags. A Facebook group called "Sorry But I Can't Hear You Over This SunChips Bag" boasts more than 44,500 fans. Apparently a SunChips bag that drowns out the sound of one's own chip-crunching was very disconcerting for a populace that's come to expect a more subtle rustling from its potato chip sacks.

Next, Change.org started a petition to ask Frito-Lay to reconsider its decision; after all, the planet will ultimately suffer more than consumers' ear drums. No worries, Frito-Lay (a division of PepsiCo that makes truckloads of salty snacks) is on the job. Here, reprinted in its entirely, is the email response I received from Director Consumer Relations Cathy Dial after I signed the Change.org petition:

Hi Michele,

Thanks for your email about the SunChips compostable package. Marc forwarded your email to me for follow up with you. Frito-Lay is taking steps to improve the SunChips 100% compostable packaging launched in early 2010. The new steps help address consumers' feedback about the bag's noise level, while continuing to build on the environmental benefits.

While Frito-Lay works to develop a next-generation compostable package, SunChips Original snacks will remain in the current 100% compostable package, while the other SunChips flavors have transitioned back to their traditional packaging. Once the improved compostable bag is ready, it will be featured in the SunChips Original flavor.

As with many leading-edge technologies, there is an ongoing process of improvement and refinement. We are confident the approach we are taking will allow us to continue our sustainability progress, while also showing our consumers that we are committed to responding to their needs and preferences.

Frito-Lay has a long track record of progress and leadership in environmental responsibility, and the compostable bag is an important step in our sustainable packaging journey. Thank you again for your feedback.

I had no idea it was even possible to be on a "sustainable packaging journey," but it sure sounds precarious. Well, I had a few more questions for Cathy, so I asked her to clarify, and here are those questions, with her answers below each, in italics:

Thanks, Cathy,

I am a little confused. Perhaps you can clarify:

1) Why keep just one flavor in the noisy bag if it's such a problem?

We are keeping the current 100% compostable packaging on one SunChips SKU because we are still very much committed to developing sustainable packaging, but are trying to address feedback from consumers at the same time. By keeping a SKU active with the compostable packaging, it also provides a path to quickly bring the next-generation bag to market, which we are aggressively developing.

2) Are you saying the new bag will be only for the Original flavor? Why wouldn't all of the flavors be offered in the new bag?

When the next-generation bag is ready, we will initially make it available with Original flavor SunChips. We will then continue our evaluation process, collect feedback from consumers and other stakeholders and determine an appropriate strategy to potentially extend it.

3) Why just SunChips? Why isn't the company interested in protecting the environment for all of its products?

Frito-Lay’s R&D team is working on a wide range of potential sustainable packaging options beyond just the SunChips compostable bag, and we are looking at how other brands in our portfolio could bring them to life. SunChips was our starting point for bringing sustainable packaging to market and we are hoping to build on that with other product lines.

OK, I guess we will just have to follow Frito-Lay along its sustainable packaging journey. Let's hope it's a quiet path.

Why are healthy food advocates stumping for Pepsi?

2010-09-19T21:02:00.000-07:00

As I wrote last month, it can get pretty annoying when your friends harass you to vote for their favorite cause to "win" a grant from the now-ubiquitous Pepsi Refresh Project.

But lately I've been especially disappointed to see so many worthy food causes jumping on this marketing-disguised-as-philanthropy bandwagon. Let's not forget that PepsiCo owns not only Pepsi-Cola and other unhealthy beverage lines such as Gatorade, but is also the king of salty snacks. The company's Frito-Lay division owns Doritos, Cheetos, Tostitos, you get the idea.

And yet without a hint of irony, in this promotional video to get people to submit project ideas to the contest, the Pepsi Refresh Project "Food and Shelter Ambassador" Allison Arieff waxes sentimental about gardening, surrounded by nothing but greenery, not a soda or chip in sight.

Here are just a few projects that have so far been crowned winners of Pepsi Refresh grants: First, there is the Bikeloc project. Pepsi introduces the celebratory video this way:

Robert DuBois and Aaron Zueck are "potlucking across America" in one hundred days, and they're doing it on bicycles. A $5,000 Pepsi Refresh grant put them in the saddle and allowed them to collect multimedia stories of the local food movement from coast to coast.

Just $5,000, was there really no other way of raising that money? Another project also won $5,000, this time for a school garden at an elementary school. Here's how Pepsi describes it:

Jeanne Acutanza had the idea to build a sustainable garden at her kids' school, where students and locals could plant crops together and donate the harvest to local food banks. She submitted her idea, you voted, and it won a $5,000 Pepsi Refresh Grant.

And in another heartwarming kid project, a farmers market manager in Illinois featured here describes how he won $25,000 to help teach schoolchildren about eating fresh fruits and vegetables, a worthy cause for sure. But what about the mixed messages kids receive from all the promotion with Pepsi logos associated with these two projects?

Now, it's no wonder that in these hard economic times, so many groups would be desperate enough to turn to the nation's largest purveyor of processed food to try and promote the healthy kind. But what these organizations don't realize is that are really doing more to promote the Pepsi brand then they are to advance their own cause. Indeed, they are undermining the very ideals they espouse.

Moreover, these grants give credibility to the notion that we can (and should) rely on Big Food to fix our broken food system. But nothing could be further from the truth. PepsiCo is happy to spend relatively small amounts of money in exchange for getting to hitch its PR wagon to the likes of farmers markets and school gardens.

Meanwhile, the sale of junk food and soda continues unabated.

While we battle over ingredients like HFCS, Big Food is winning the processed food war

2010-09-14T22:32:00.000-07:00

If there was Twitter for food only, today's trending topic would have been the Big News that the Corn Refiners Association (yes, there are lobbyists for people who refine corn) is asking the Food and Drug Administration to rename high-fructose corn syrup (aka HFCS) "corn sugar." This, the latest in the corn industry's attempts to restore the tarnished reputation of its omnipresent by-product. Tara Parker-Pope, health blogger for the New York Times, quotes Audrae Erickson, president of CRA, who explains:

Clearly the name is confusing consumers. Research shows that ‘corn sugar’ better communicates the amount of calories, the level of fructose and the sweetness in this ingredient.

Clearly the name is confusing? That must explain the PR campaign the corn refiners embarked on not long ago (cutely dubbed "sweet surprise") to un-confuse consumers. But now, focus group results in hand, industry is doing what they do even better than PR: lobby the federal government to get its way.

But as Food Politics author Marion Nestle succinctly points out, "HFCS is the new trans fat." In other words, the public, driven by an ingredient-obsessed approach to healthy eating has latched on to HFCS as the black sheep de jure. I don't even want to get into the debate over whether or not HFCS has caused the obesity epidemic (Professor Nestle says no and I believe her). To me, that has always been besides the point.

The reason that HFCS became so ubiquitous in the food supply, the reason it replaced sugar decades ago, is that it was cheaper, thanks to federal corn subsidies. This in turn helped drive super-sizing, especially of soda, as other authors have eloquently written about. But unfortunately, this message got lost in the shuffle as most of the media's emphasis has been on the nutritional aspects of HFCS.

So now, the public has decided that HFCS is simply the wrong sweetener. As a result of this demonizing, we are now in the ridiculous situation where food companies are falling over each other to remove HFCS from their products, slap on a natural label, and get brownie points for helping Americans eat better. Exhibit A, Pepsi Natural:

Pepsi Natural is made with all-natural ingredients, including lightly sparkling water, natural sugar, natural caramel and kola nut extract.

Only Big Food would find a way to make a product full of refined white sugar (which at one time was also demonized) seem like a healthy alternative. It's like I always say, the food industry is very good at taking criticism and turning it into a marketing opportunity.

PepsiCo, which also owns Frito-Lay, is especially adept at this strategy. The company honed its magical ingredient swapping skills a few years back when trans fat was still the poster child for bad eating. That's when we got "trans-fat free" Cheetos, among other new and improved junk foods brought to you by Frito-Lay. This product line "improvement" was such big news in 2002 that PepsiCo put out an entire press release to chest-thump about it: Frito-Lay Eliminates Trans Fats from America's Favorite Salty Snacks: Doritos, Tostitos, and Cheetos. Problem solved.

The trouble with how Americans eat is not because of high-fructose corn syrup any more than it was trans fat, or any other single ingredient in the food supply. I realize some may contribute more than others to specific health problems, but the real issue is how Americans are eating too much highly-processed food, period. The ingredients are far less important than the bigger picture.

We need to stop obsessing over details like food labels, salt content, carbs, and grams of this fat vs. that fat. Instead, we need to talk about (and get the media to focus on) the importance of eating a whole foods (mostly plant-based) diet. One message scares Big Food more than any other: that people should be eating whole food that comes from nature and not from a factory. Industry really has no solution to offer, because their business model is based on processing nature, packaging it, and marking it up for high profits.

But Big Food can easily handle ingredient-bashing, because companies can always find replacements. Don't like this fat any longer? We've got another at the ready. That new sugar is now on the nutrition hit-list? No problem, we'll revert to old sugar. These are all just temporary glitches in Big Food's factory production schedule. Eventually, it's back to business as usual.

Right now, R & D departments are hard at work in Purchase, New York (PepsiCo HQ), Atlanta (Coca-Cola), and elsewhere testing the next no-calorie sweetener, or natural flavor enhancer, or some other chemical concoction to trick people into buying their new and improved, better-for-you beverages and junk foods. And with each innovation, they get to look like the good guys. How ironic is that?

As long as we keep singling out ingredients to demonize, this cycle will continue. So can we please stop obsessing over HFCS and focus on the real problem: A cheap, endless supply of highly-processed foods. And when we do focus on raw ingredients, the discussion should be about how federal subsidies keep the wrong foods cheap and the right foods expensive. In other words, we should be having an economic discussion about ingredients, not one based on nutrition.

What do you think?

Tweet Responsibly: Tips for being an effective food activist (or any other kind) on Twitter

2010-09-11T17:28:00.000-07:00

First of all, I am no Twitter expert. But after about 6 months I've noticed a few things that drive me nuts. Because 140 characters is insufficient to explain, I'm airing my concerns in this longer format. I've been writing about the food industry, food policy, and the politics of food for about 14 years now, and as a lawyer, I take pride in being accurate about policy, as well as industry practices. While I am used to writing in long format, I also appreciate the fun of saying things quickly and succinctly.

What I love most about Twitter is sharing with, and learning from, my fellow food activists, writers, experts, parents, and just anyone who cares about the politics of what's on our plate. I love the up-to-the-minute news, blog posts, action alerts, and even the waxing sentimental about whatever local food is in season.

But what I don't like is the sloppiness that typing up to 140 characters at lightning speed can sometimes foster. Lately I have felt the urge to correct a few things being posted to Twitter. Now I realize it may be annoying when I hit reply and wag my finger, but I think accuracy is important. So if it can't be said correctly in 140 characters, than either be very vague, just give the url, or leave it alone. And here are few more rules for how to be an effective activist on Twitter:

Do make sure the source material in the link actually backs up the content of the tweet.
There is really no excuse for not checking your links, one to be sure it goes to the right place, and two, if you are re-tweeting someone else, to ensure the other person got it right. Which leads me to....

Do not point to a story or blog post, etc, if you have not read the story, etc, yourself.
Now I realize some stories are long and we are all in a hurry to get to the next tweet, but if you are telling me to read something then I expect that you have at least verified that it's worth the read. Yes, a quick skim is OK, I do that myself at times, just enough to vouch for it.

Do not perpetuate lazy newspaper headlines that may be incomplete or inaccurate.
This is especially important when referencing newspapers. (My poster child is USA Today.) In my book (warning, shameless promotion) Appetite for Profit, I described the importance of not taking as gospel any newspaper headline about food industry practices or food policy. Now in the age of 140 characters or less, people are tweeting newspaper headlines without knowing if they are accurate. Most newspaper headline writers do not understand the nitty gritty of policy details, but that is no excuse to help dumb headlines go viral. A typical example (paraphrasing): "PepsiCo no longer selling soda in schools," when in fact, the company just has voluntary nutrition standards. If you see a headline like that, which sounds too good to be true, it probably is, so don't tweet it. You only help Big Food's PR machine.

Just like in the real world, consider your source. Also, trust but verify.
I follow many food industry accounts on Twitter, so I can see how they market in that medium and call them out at times. But if an industry source tweets a news story, my BS radar goes up and I read especially carefully to see if what they are pointing to supports their claims. It usually doesn't. On the flip side, there are lots of great activists on Twitter, and some I trust more than others, but just because someone has lots of followers or covers the White House, that doesn't mean you should take their word as gospel.

Do not tweet sweeping statements when details are needed to explain nuanced law and policy.
This one I can best explain by example and as a lawyer, has me most frustrated. Pending in Congress right now is the Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act, which is the legislation that funds critical programs such as school meals. Since the Senate passed its version of the bill last month, I've seen numerous inaccurate headlines and tweets exaggerating what the bill would accomplish if enacted. They are all along the lines of, "new bill would rid schools of junk food."

This is far from the case. Instead, the measure at long last gives USDA the much-needed authority to regulate foods sold outside of school meals, so-called "competitive foods." And while the language of the bill does suggest that subsequent regulations should adhere to sound nutrition standards, the regulatory process is inevitably fraught with its own politics. In other words, the fight to get unhealthy foods and beverages out of schools is far from over. That the food industry did not put up much of a fight over this aspect of the bill is a pretty good indicator that they don't feel threatened by its language.

So please, I am begging you, do not tweet that this bill gets junk food out of schools, especially once the bill finally does get signed by President Obama, because the celebrating is premature at best.

Now I realize that we can't all be lawyers (please no jokes) and I don't expect everyone on Twitter to spend hours pouring over boring legislative language (I hate it too) but my point is, if you're not sure of what you're saying, please don't say it, or ask an expert to clarify. As an advocate, I know how important credibility is. It's often all we have, given the enormous power of industry. While Big Food may have endless resources, we have the truth on our side. So we shouldn't mess with it.

If you have questions, email me or, you can always find me on Twitter.

Why is McDonald's listed a resource for Childhood Obesity Awareness Month?

2010-09-05T11:58:00.000-07:00

I am not a fan of any sort of "awareness" month as I find the concept trivializes important health issues. Are we only supposed to care about heart disease, diabetes, etc, during that one month of the year? And I rarely see anything of substance come from the month-long activities, just the usual ineffective educational campaigns, instead of meaningful public policy reforms. Plus many issues tend to crowd themselves into certain months, so it all becomes background noise. September is one such month. Among other causes (e.g., "cholesterol education"), September has been proclaimed "Childhood Obesity Awareness Month" by Congress and President Obama.

When I first heard about about it, I though, oh god, please no ribbons or walks. Thankfully, no signs of either, yet. But there are still plenty of early indicators that the idea is doomed to failure. For one, the Presidential Proclamation itself is pretty milk-toast when it comes to policy change. For example, referring to the report of the President's Task Force on Childhood Obesity:

The report outlines broad strategies to address childhood obesity, including providing healthier food in schools, ensuring access to healthy affordable food, increasing opportunities for physical activity, empowering parents and caregivers with better information about making healthy choices, and giving children a healthy start in life. I invite all Americans to visit LetsMove.gov to learn more about these recommendations and find additional information and resources on how to help children eat healthy and stay active.

All of those ideas have been on the table for years, but little progress has been made. And he's inviting Americans to find resources to help kids eat better? Not exactly cutting-edge. Finally, nothing even mentioning the role the food industry plays in undermining parents, no matter how much the First Lady tries to "empower" them with her Let's Move campaign.

Then I looked a little further to find the official website for Childhood Obesity Awareness Month, which seems innocuous enough at first. The American College of Sports Medicine is listed as the main contact, which tells me the emphasis is more on physical activity than on healthy food, or god forbid, food marketing. Other partners listed include the NAACP, Richard Simmons' Ask America, American Society for Nutrition, and various other private health companies and associations, an odd lot to say the least.

But what caught my eye was the list of "external resources," which includes some usual suspects such as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, American Academy of Pediatrics, and Let's Move, along with several other government agencies. Then inexplicably, at the very bottom, is a link to "McDonald's Stage M," which appears to be a video game site intended for young children to "learn" about nutrition. As described on the fast food giant's main website:

McDonald's is proud to introduce Stage M - an exciting and entertaining place for kids, where they can watch music videos all about the fun and great taste of fruits and vegetables. The whole family will want to sing along! Kids can even put themselves in a music video!

So many exclamation points, it must be fun!

What a coup for the company most closely associated with contributing to childhood obesity to get listed as a resource, right after the US Department of Agriculture, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. This same list can also be found on the website for Congresswoman Marcia L. Fudge of Ohio, who sponsored the resolution that established the event. Kudos to her for taking leadership on this issue, but perhaps her staff is unaware that she is giving McDonald's some great PR? (I tried emailing the American College of Sports Medicine to find out how much money McDonald's paid for the privilege, but have not yet heard back.)

Other industry players are also jumping on the "awareness" bandwagon. For example, the American Beverage Association, the powerful trade association for Coke and Pepsi et al, blogged about it last week under the silly headline, Childhood Obesity Awareness: What a Difference a Month Can Make! Without a hint of irony, ABA tell us to:

Get informed. Get connected. Get involved. That’s the message on the “Healthier Kids, Brighter Futures” website. There, families and individuals can learn how taking even small steps can make a big difference in their lives. National, state and local leaders, as well as businesses and organizations, are encouraged to observe the month.

National, state, and local leaders are encouraged to observe the month, like it's a religious event? Because they cannot possibly be encouraged to actually do anything about the problem, since then Big Soda will just pour even more lobbying dollars into obstructing public policy for real change.

So brace yourselves for the rest of September, as your local school or neighborhood group just might take up the mantle to "observe" Childhood Obesity Awareness Month. And then, on October 1, everyone can go back to whatever they were doing before, having observed and been made aware. Problem solved.

9/10/10 Update: See also Melanie Warner's scathing piece on this topic, Childhood Obesity: The Food Industry's Latest Marketing Ploy.

Back to school with PepsiCo stealth marketing?

2010-08-31T21:34:00.000-07:00

I recently blogged about questions regarding how PepsiCo's voluntary beverage guidelines, announced in March, would be implemented in schools given that contracts are made at the local level. Now with back- to-school in full swing, I have even more questions about how PepsiCo may be using stealth marketing techniques to gain access to that coveted captive K-12 audience.

Today, the company announced a new program it calls Score for Your School. From the press release:

PepsiCo's Frito-Lay North America business unit kicks-off high school football season with the "Score for Your School" program for Texans only that invites fans to help schools win up to a $10,000 donation for their sports programs. Beginning today, Texas fans can visit www.scoreforyourschool.com, enter the 9-digit product code from ANY Frito-Lay product (chips, dips, salsa and more) and then select the Texas high school of their choice.

So in order to even vote for your school, you have to purchase a product. How nice of Frito-Lay to "invite" fans to buy Fritos, Doritos, Tostitos, Cheetos, Lays, etc. But it's "ANY" product, so generous! Why just Texas schools? The company's marketing guy explains: "Frito-Lay snacks and high school football are a Texas tradition," said Michael Del Pozzo, director, marketing, Frito-Lay North America.

Frito-Lay snacks are a Texas tradition? I will let the words of someone who replied to me on Twitter today speak to that: "Being that TX has a high obesity rate, this sure crushes any efforts being made 2 teach kids about eating healthy!!!" In other words, that's one tradition Texas can do without. Frito-Lay's Del Pozzo continues:

As high school sports programs face many challenges, we thought this promotion would be an easy and fun way for fans to help. Now, each single purchase can add up for a chance to win up to $10,000 for their school when they go online and 'Score for their School'.

How thoughtful of Frito-Lay to create a fun and easy way for fans to help sports programs. Couldn't have anything to do with how many more chips would get sold would it? Because if the company really cared, how about just sending a check to each Texas high school football team instead? This program, which runs through December 31, is capped at $90,000 in donations, a drop in the bucket for the nation's largest salty snack purveyor.

But this marketing-disguised-as-philanthropy is by now old territory for PepsiCo. For the past year, the company has been gaining much positive PR with its ubiquitous Pepsi Refresh donation program. If you're like me, you've been annoyed by friends and colleagues begging you to vote for their nonprofit or other worthy cause, like a high school popularity contest.

Last week, a parochial elementary school in Alton, Illinois held a "thank you assembly" for Pepsi employees after the school won a Refresh Everything grant of $25,000 to purchase computers. The article describing the event is worth checking out for the image of little 6-year old Matthew Dixon holding a "thank-you Pepsi" sign; yes 6. The reporter explains how the youngsters showed Pepsi employees their gratitude:

The entire school signed a large, thank-you poster, and the younger students made individual thank-you drawings in red, white and blue, the soda brand's colors. [my emphasis] Teachers wore turquoise shirts that read, "Every Pepsi Refreshes the World," and the children pinned on Pepsi buttons....

The highlight of the 15-minute assembly in the gymnasium came when Father Delix Michel riled up the youngsters with a T-shirt toss. Similar to professional baseball games - but minus the slingshot - Michel showed a good pitching arm as he deftly threw Pepsi shirts to all areas where students were sitting, including landing one shirt in the back row. Some of the shirts landed in the students' laps.

A priest handing out Pepsi T-shirts, it doesn't get any better than that for positive PR. Now it's great that PepsiCo wants to give back to the community, but there is only one word for this and it's not philanthropy, it's branding. It's sad that schools feel they must participate and don't see through it.

The Pepsi Refresh website has an entire section devoted to education. Please let me know if your school is involved in either of these stealth marketing campaigns. Pepsi does not belong in schools, whether it's soda vending machines or voting contests.

Must-read aricles on egg recall that I did not write

2010-08-28T18:01:00.001-07:00

In case you missed it, either because you don't watch the news, don't eat eggs, or like me, both, about 1,500 people have so far been sickened by an outbreak of Salmonella in eggs. A massive recall of half a billion eggs from two Iowa factory farms ensued. I was planning to write my own blog post on this when I realized that others have already done such a good job saying what needed to be said. So instead, I am offering up my list of favorite articles by people I already knew or have just come to admire.

As you might expect, the authors I chose don't include any tips on how to cook your eggs properly to avoid getting sick. (Beware, the "Egg Safety Center" is a front website put up by Big Egg.) Rather, I chose those experts who get to the heart of the matter and the bigger picture: Our concentrated food system driven by insatiable profit, combined with a broken regulatory system held hostage by powerful economic interests. If there's any good that can come from tragedies like this, it's how the dark side of our food supply gets exposed to the light of day. These stories are worth the read, whether you're worried about egg safety, only buy eggs from your local farmer, or don't eat eggs at all, because we must change the system for everyone.

For the overall story and analysis of entrenched politics:

Hellena Bottemiller, Egg Gaps Illustrate Fractured Food Safety System, Food Safety News, 8/25/10

Jill Richardson, Out of Control Egg Producer Flouts Regulations: Consumers Deal with 500 Million Salmonella-Tainted Eggs, AlterNet, 8/25/10

Two by Tom Philpott on Grist, my new favorite Big Ag politics writer:

A ‘habitual offender’ unleashes nearly half a billion salmonella-tainted eggs, 8/19/10

Iowa ag secretary boasted of state’s vast egg industry, failed to regulate it, 8/27/10

On how cramming hens into cages is both cruel to animals and bad for public health:

John Robbins, How Egg Industry Greed Caused the Salmonella Outbreak, Huffington Post, 8/27/10

Carolyn Lochhead, Egg recall heats up debate over caging chicken, San Francisco Chronicle, 8/27/10

On how decades of deregulation caused this disaster and how to fix the system:

Jonathan Cohn, Reagan, Bush, and Rotten Eggs, The New Republic, 8/25/10

David Kirby, Lessons from the Egg Recall: Cheap Food Makes You Sick, Huffington Post, 8/19/10

Mina Kimes, Egg recall is a golden opportunity to whip food safety into shape, CNNMoney.com, 8/25/10

Bill Marler, What if I had a food safety magic wand?, Marler Blog, 8/27/10

On the inevitable PR campaign by Big Egg:

Rupal Perekh and Maureen Morrison: As Egg Fears Mount, Farmers Launch Reassurance Campaign, Ad Age, 8/25/10

And finally, it seems fitting to end with this hilarious take on the egg industry's PR campaign by the expert who literally wrote the book on food safety politics; by now, we all need the comic relief:

Marion Nestle, Egg industry response to recalls (in translation), Food Politics blog, 8/26/10

If I missed any good articles, please let me know.

Also, see the video in my previous post of my interview on MSNBC.

Video of my MSNBC interview on egg recall

2010-08-20T21:18:00.000-07:00

Today I was interviewed on the Dylan Ratigan Show about the massive egg recall this week, now at more than half a billion eggs, with at least 1,000 people made ill and counting. The host understood that the root cause of the problem is our industrialized, factory farm food system. The segment starts about a minute into the video clip.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Will schools follow new PepsiCo beverage guidelines even if students want Mountain Dew?

2010-08-15T19:24:00.000-07:00

This past March, soft drink giant PepsiCo announced with much fanfare a new global school policy. The specific guidelines, to take effect by 2012, limit the types of beverages that are to be sold in schools. According to the press release, the policy will "stop sales of full-sugar soft drinks to primary and secondary schools."

That's why the announcement last week that Union County High School in Indiana was signing on to a brand new five-year contract with Pepsi (thereby ending its exclusive contract with Coca-Cola) came as a surprise. Not the contract itself, but what one school official had to say about it. From the news article:

The new contract is expected to earn the high school and middle school and booster groups $20,000 more over five years, Union County Middle School Assistant Principal Mark Detweiler said. Prices for soft drinks will remain $1.25, but school officials expect sales to increase with Pepsi products. "Students drink Mountain Dew," Detweiler said.

They sure do, only problem is, PepsiCo says those products aren't for sale. Or are they?

I asked Derek Yach, director of Global Health Policy at PepsiCo for an explanation and he told me that the vending machines have not been put into place. He also said:

Our intent from the outset has been that the contract be 100 percent compliant with the American Beverage Association / Alliance for a Health Generation guidelines and other relevant PepsiCo policies. Our local teams in Indiana are well aware of this and will work closely with local school officials to ensure compliance.

Yach was referring to yet another voluntary policy announced by the soft drink industry back in 2006.

Someone should have probably clued in the school officials in Indiana at the time they signed the new contract. Were they even made aware of the PepsiCo policy not to sell the worst products, even if they are the most popular?

This raises many questions about how PepsiCo's school policy will play out in each school district. Indeed, the language of the policy is pretty vague on implementation and enforcement:

PepsiCo will encourage our bottlers, vending companies and third-party distributors to work closely with parents, community leaders and school officials to ensure that only products that meet the following guidelines are offered...

"Encourage?" "Work closely?" And while it's nice to mention them, what do parents and community leaders have to do with school contracts?

Here's what New York University Professor Marion Nestle, author of Food Politics has to say about the Indiana contract:

In my experience, you have to see for yourself, which is why I love visiting schools when I get the chance. With school officials in tow, you can watch kids using the vending machines during the lunch hour with nobody saying a word. The incentive here is to sell MORE product, not less, and that’s the problem.

Right. And here we have the odd situation where the vendors will essentially be telling its customers: Sorry, but we can't sell you Pepsi and Mountain Dew, those products that the kids love best and that will bring you all that extra cash you need to run your programs.

Let's see how well that works.

Court not buying Coke's defense of its deceptive marketing of vitaminwater as lawsuit proceeds

2010-08-08T13:32:00.000-07:00

My friends at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) recently scored an important court victory in its lawsuit against Coca-Cola for deceptive marketing of its product vitaminwater. (In case you missed it, the soft drink giant purchased Glaceau, maker of vitaminwater, back in 2007 for a cool $4.2 billion in cash.)

The class action, filed in January 2009 in federal court in New York, alleges that Coca-Cola's claims about vitaminwater's heath benefits are false, misleading, deceptive, and unfair. As CSPI's press release explained:

Vitaminwater's website, marketing copy, and labels claim that vitaminwater is healthy, claiming, for example, that "balance cran-grapefruit" has "bioactive components" that promote "healthy, pain-free functioning of joints, structural integrity of joints and bones" and that the nutrients in “power-c dragonfruit" "enable the body to exert physical power by contributing to the structural integrity of the musculoskeletal system."

If those claims sound like they belong on a pharmaceutical product, you're right. As CSPI notes, they go way beyond anything the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows "and cross the line into outright fraud." Then there's the sugar. According to CSPI, "the 33 grams of sugar in each bottle of vitaminwater do more to promote obesity, diabetes, and other health problems than the vitamins in the drinks do to perform the advertised benefits listed on the bottles."

An important hurdle in a lawsuit like this is surviving what's called a motion to dismiss. That's what Coca-Cola's lawyers filed to ask the judge to throw out the case before it can even get to trial. Last month, U.S. District Court Judge John Gleeson denied Coke's motion on almost all grounds, a huge victory for the plaintiffs.

In even more good news, the judge's language in his order was very favorable to CSPI. You can read why on Public Citizen's Consumer Law and Policy Blog, in a post by CSPI's litigation director Steve Gardner.

Here are a few highlights. The court said: "Because vitaminwater does not meet minimum nutrition requirements [of FDA law], any health claim about the product is contrary to FDA regulation." This is important because of what is known as the "jelly bean rule." As the court explains:

The FDA regulations restricting health claims (or implied claims of “healthiness”) to foods which meet certain minimum nutrient levels, colloquially termed “the jelly bean rule," were developed in order to prevent food producers from encouraging the consumption of “junk foods” by fortifying them with nutrients.

In other words, FDA developed this rule precisely with the type of marketing being deployed by vitaminwater in mind: promoting sugary soft drinks under the guise of good health and nutrition.

And then there's this:

The fact that the actual sugar content of vitaminwater was accurately stated in an FDA-mandated label on the product does not eliminate the possibility that reasonable consumers may be misled.

This is important because defendants often try to hide behind the federal nutrition labeling law to avoid being held liable under state consumer deception statutes. But the court rejected this argument. In doing so, the judge cited to an earlier decision in a lawsuit over Gerber’s “Fruit Juice Snacks” that nicely captures the reasoning:

We do not think that the FDA requires an ingredient list so that manufacturers can mislead consumers and then rely on the ingredient list to correct those misinterpretations and provide a shield for liability for the deception. Instead, reasonable consumers expect that the ingredient list contains more detailed information about the product that confirms other representations on the packaging.

Translation: Front-of-package marketing should match what's in the nutrition facts on back. Imagine! (My colleague Marion Nestle has long called on FDA to fix the problems associated with front-of-package labeling - see her recent commentary in JAMA on this very topic.)

Last week, author John Robbins wrote on Huffington Post about the "staggering feat of twisted logic" by lawyers for Coca-Cola by asserting that "no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking vitaminwater was a healthy beverage." He wonders:

Does this mean that you'd have to be an unreasonable person to think that a product named "vitaminwater," a product that has been heavily and aggressively marketed as a healthy beverage, actually had health benefits? Or does it mean that it's okay for a corporation to lie about its products, as long as they can then turn around and claim that no one actually believes their lies?

Excellent questions. At least one judge isn't buying Coke's silly defense. And apparently this case has touched a nerve, as least with HuffPo readers. According to the site's stats, Robbins' article is the most popular this week, with close to 600,000 views. Also, so far the article has more than 1,000 comments, with over 13,000 Facebook shares and over 22,000 posts to Twitter. I asked John Robbins what he makes of this response and here's what he told me:

I am grateful to the 35,000 or so people who have posted the article I wrote about the dark side of vitaminwater to their Facebook pages and/or tweeted about it. Coca-Cola would like us to believe that it’s a responsible corporate citizen, but the truth is decidedly otherwise. In fact, the company constantly lies to the public. What’s even more insulting, Coke then has the audacity to turn around and say, in court, that a product they have marketed as healthy actually isn’t, and the public would have to be stupid to think otherwise.

This case should put all food companies on notice that they can't dress up junk food and nurtitionally-deficient beverages with healthy-sounding names or over-the-top marketing claims.

Often once a case survives a motion to dismiss, the defendant is more likely to negotiate a settlement and change its marketing practices to avoid expensive and embarrassing litigation. Stay tuned.

My latest article on AlterNet - how PepsiCo is buying up top-notch health experts

2010-08-05T19:20:00.000-07:00

My latest article on AlterNet is entitled: "How Junk Food Giant PepsiCo Is Buying Up High-Ranking Experts to Look Like a Leader in Health and Nutrition."

And the subhead is just as fun: "Pepsi's strategy: Create a research environment so scientists and public health experts don't feel out of place at the corporate HQ of sugar, salt and fat."

You can read it there and add your comments.

Yale Alumni Magazine covers PepsiCo / Yale School of Medicine partnership controversy

2010-08-01T14:21:00.000-07:00

This past March, I blogged about how soda and snack food giant PepsiCo formed a partnership with the Yale School of Medicine, where I earned my public health degree. The grant included $250,000 for a 5-year research fellowship to be awarded to an MD/PhD student.

That post apparently set off a chain reaction of coverage of the deal, first in the Yale Daily News ("Critics fizz over Pepsi gift"), followed by the Wall Street Journal ("Boola Moolah! Food Fight at Yale") and on the San Francisco Chronicle health blog.

Now, in the current issue of Yale Alumni Magazine, fellow alum Carole Bass pens "Critics question Pepsi partnership," quoting me and others on the wisdom of Yale linking arms with the nation's largest promoter of sugar, salt, and fat. Adding to the irony, Yale is already home to the Rudd Center on Food Policy and Obesity, which is headed up by Kelly Brownell, a frequent critic of Big Food.

And anyway, what sort of research could possibly come of this largesse that didn't benefit PespiCo? Playing defense in the article is Yale School of Medicine Dean Robert Alpern: "There are numerous safeguards in place to protect the integrity of our research."

It's probably a bad sign when you have to use the word "safeguard" to defend taking money. Safeguards are usually for doing risky things, like skateboarding and skydiving, not philanthropy.

Alpern also responds to those who worry that the medical school's scientific principles may have been sacrificed in the name of Cheetos and Mountain Dew. Not so, Alpern assures my fellow alumni: "PepsiCo will have no involvement in who is chosen for the fellowship or the project to which the student is assigned." I for one am not assured.

The article ends aptly with a quote from Professor Jerome Kassirer, expert in conflicts of interest at Tufts School of Medicine: (Could the author find no such expert at Yale?)

The problem is that it's impossible to know whether the money given to the school can in some way have an influence on what people in the [nutrition] department might say about PepsiCo products.

And that's just for starters.

Back in April I posted the lame response I got from Yale's public affairs office upon signing a petition started on Change.org, which now has more than 1,000 signatures. But let's keep the pressure on. You can either sign the petition or email Dean Alpern directly.

And thanks to reporter Carole Bass for a job well done.

Bangkok Post covers release of Appetite for Profit in Thailand as problem spreads there

2010-08-01T11:23:00.000-07:00

OK, so is not one my usual blog posts, but I can't help sharing my excitement. As I wrote about previously, my book has been translated into Thai, with 1,000 copies already distributed.

The translation and distribution of Appetite for Profit was commissioned by the Chulalongkorn University-based Health Consumer Protection Project, which is now releasing more copies, as was reported yesterday by the Bangkok Post. The article ("Taking a bite of out fast food: An expose details the industry's attack on food") includes graphics with pull-out quotes from the book.

If you're wondering why folks in Thailand would be interested in a book that is admittedly pretty America-centric, it seems there are warning signs that the problem is spreading there. For example, a survey conducted by the Thai Office of the Basic Education Commission found that sodas are available at 20 percent of the 20,000 schools in the country.

And this will sound familiar. Another study found some schools had agreed to allow a beverage giant to sell soda on school property in exchange for the company providing a van.

Here is how Siriwat Tiptaradol, Public Health Ministry deputy permanent secretary and the editor of the Thai version of the book explains it: "The influence of the food industry isn't limited to the US, but extends all over the world." The article also makes the case for policy change:

Developing countries like Thailand should be alert about this transnational issue and work with authorities, academics, and the public and private sectors to come up with policies to safeguard people from conditions that result from poor diet such as diabetes, high blood pressure and strokes. Otherwise, these problems will end up costing billions of baht in health care spending every year, Tiptaradol said.

A wise call for prevention before its too late.

Family doctors debate if they should take Coke money, after they took it

2010-07-22T15:50:00.000-07:00

In this week's Health Blog, the Wall Street Journal's Katherine Hobson asks readers to chime in on a "debate" among family doctors over the ethics of corporate sponsorship of medicine.

But first, the backdrop. Last year, the American Academy of Family Physicians announced "a new corporate partnership program" and its first partner was to be The Coca-Cola Company. Soon thereafter, about 20 doctors resigned from the organization in protest, drawing attention to the matter by Food Politics author Marion Nestle as well as advocacy groups such as the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. (Full disclosure: I serve on CCFC's steering committee.)

The grant amount was described as being in the "strong six figures" by AAFP. Here is how the group described the partnership in its October 2009 press release:

The Consumer Alliance is a program that allows corporate partners like The Coca-Cola Company to work with the AAFP to educate consumers about the role their products can play in a healthy, active lifestyle. As part of this partnership, The Coca-Cola Company is providing a grant to the AAFP to develop consumer education content on beverages and sweeteners for FamilyDoctor.org, an award-winning consumer health and wellness resource.

Consumer education? That must explain how a search for "Coca-Cola" on FamilyDoctor.org, brings up helpful content on hydration like how "even caffeinated drinks, such as coffee, tea and soda, count toward your daily water intake," and why sports drinks are useful for athletes, and how safe the artificial sweeteners aspartame and saccharine are. All of this brought to you by Coca-Cola under the guise of consumer education. Even the disclaimers on each of these pages is misleading:

This content was developed with general underwriting support from The Coca-Cola Company.

That makes it sound as if the Coca-Cola is just paying someone else to do the writing. But it appears the company is directing the substance of the content as well, since the verbiage is pretty similar to that found on Coca-Cola's own website on these very topics. (See for example, the company's page on sweetener "facts and myths.)

It's bad enough for a medical trade organization (and "award-winning" website) to be bought off by American's number one promoter of unhealthy beverages, especially to children, but now apparently, almost a year later, the issue has turned into fertile ground for navel gazing as a way of justifying the move after the fact.

This week, AAFP's journal, the Annals of Family Medicine, has published two perspectives on the matter. One penned by Dr. Howard Brody, AAFP member and director of the Institute for the Medical Humanities at the University of Texas Medical Branch. He's not in favor of the idea:

The physician has a duty to prescribe medications or make dietary recommendations based on scientific evidence. The companies have an interest in selling more beverages, or more drugs, regardless of the evidence.

Precisely. In contrast, AAFP president, Dr. Lori Heim, sees no need to assume conflict of interest:

To gauge an individual or organization’s ethics, one must view its behavior over time, define the goal of that behavior and compare the outcome with the mission and values. Within this context, one can determine whether the assumption or appearance of conflict of interest or ethical lapse was, in fact, correct.

What? She lost me somewhere between outcome and values.

Taking money from Coca-Cola is not a science experiment that you watch over time, gather data, and then publish the analyzed results. But if one were to approach the issue that way, there's no shortage of evidence of Coca-Cola's "ethical lapses." Whether your concern is marketing to children, labor abuses, or contaminating water supplies in developing nations, Coca-Cola would be the one company you'd not choose as a partner. Journalist Michael Blanding has written an entire book called The Coke Machine: The Dirty Truth Behind the World's Favorite Soft Drink, due out in September, which chronicles these misdeeds and more.

But why, almost a year later, is the AAFP journal publishing what amounts to an academic debate between two doctors over an issue that has obviously already been decided? I realize that wheels of academic publishing turn very slowly and that perhaps these articles were submitted months ago, but why was there no public debate before AAFP took the money?

All this does now is give credence to idea that taking corporate money is a worthy subject of debate in the annals of medical journals, right up there with questions like, what sort of treatment a doctor should give patient X or Y. What about those 20 member doctors who resigned in protest last year? Where are their opinions published in any medical journal? This no debate at all. It's simply an effort to whitewash the situation so now AAFP can say: See, we grappled with the issue in our journal under the heading "Ethical Issues." Oh and by the way, we're keeping Coke's cash.

As I blogged about in March, Coca-Cola isn't the only soda company seeking to infiltrate the medical establishment. The Yale School of Medicine has partnered with PepsiCo to allow the soft drink and snack food giant to fund a research lab and fellowship. Where does this end? At what point will we no longer have truly science-driven research institutions and unfettered medical professionals available to help Americans sort through the confusing clutter of health and nutrition information? Or has that time already come? Let's hope not.

You can send a letter to AAFP asking them to end the Coke deal here, on the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood's website.

Nestle Stoops to New Low, Launches Barge to Peddle Junk Food on the Amazon River to Brazil's Poor - AlterNet article

2010-07-14T20:46:00.000-07:00

After previously blogging about the Nestle junk food barge, AlterNet asked me to write an article on the topic. How could I say no? Please read the expanded version of this story, this time with plenty of quotes, including an NGO in Brazil working to stop this very sort of marketing.

Happy Meal Lawsuit Update: Is McDonald's Playing Games with Nutrition Facts?

2010-07-11T19:50:00.000-07:00

Last week I blogged about how the Center for Public Interest (CSPI) is threatening a lawsuit against McDonald's for using toys to promote Happy Meals to kids. Since then, McDonald's has responded, sort of. In a letter apparently fed to the press even before CSPI got to see it, McDonald's CEO Jim Skinner attempts to "set the record straight:"

We have a long history of working with responsible NGOs who are interested in serious dialogue and meaningful engagement; and we are open to constructive feedback.

Really? Like how McDonald's worked with those two activists in the UK by suing them for libel in the 1990s for putting out a simple brochure? The case (dubbed McLibel) spawned a book and a movie and became notorious for being the longest English trial ever, not to mention the stupidest public relations move short of New Coke.

Skinner continues to dig his own grave:

Ronald McDonald also serves as an ambassador for children's well-being, promoting messages around physical activity and living a balanced, active lifestyle.

Right. That must explain why an entire campaign was launched in March by Corporate Accountability International to Retire Ronald based on an investigation that showed how the clown's main job is to promote McDonald's unhealthy foods, in schools and just about anywhere children can be found.

And finally, Skinner asserts the company has "more choice and variety than ever before" in Happy Meals, and:

Furthermore, McDonald's makes available in-depth, comprehensive nutrition information about our food to give parents the support they need to make appropriate choices for their children.

OK, now this is kind of true, and is where things get interesting. It appears that McDonald's has already changed the nutrition facts on its website for Happy Meals. But only some Happy Meals, the ones that come with "Apple Dippers," the healthy alternative to French fries.

In its June 22 press release about the potential lawsuit, CSPI complained that:

Of the 24 possible Happy Meal combinations that McDonald’s describes on its website, all exceed 430 calories (430 is one-third of the 1,300- calorie recommended daily intake for children 4 to 8 years old).

In documents provided by CSPI, here is what the nutrition listing looked like on the McDonald's website as of June 15. If you compare these figures to this listing, which says is effective as of June 25, just 3 days after CSPI's news release about the lawsuit, you will see for each of the Happy Meals that come with Apple Dippers, the number of calories has been reduced by exactly 70.

Could that be because McDonald's has decided not to include the caramel dipping sauce in the total? Who knows? Any clever nutritionists out there want to help?

Not that this re-do really helps McDonald's all that much, given that it only makes three of the 12 Happy Meal combinations with Apple Dippers below the 430 calorie level that CSPI says should be the cut-off. (And of course, all the others are still way over 430.) Never mind, CEO Jim Skinner has a retort to CSPI on that too:

On this point, it seems that you purposefully skewed your evaluation of our Happy Meals by putting them in the context of a highly conservative 1,300 calorie per day requirement. I'm sure you know this category generally applies to the youngest and most sedentary children.

The youngest? Ages 4-8 seems to fit squarely into McDonald's Happy Meal demographic. The most sedentary? So now McDonald's is saying as long as kids hop on the treadmill, Happy Meals full of chicken nuggets, fries, and soda is A-OK? You won't find a health professional (not on Big Food's payroll) to go along with that idea.

Also, as CSPI also pointed out, in 2007, McDonald’s pledged not to advertise to children meals that have more than 600 calories, and even with the revised calorie listings, 4 of the 24 combinations are still in violation of that pledge. Whatever the calories, it appears McDonald's is headed to court. Here is Steve Gardner, CSPI's litigation director, in response to the McDonald's letter:

We're encouraged to read that McDonald's is signaling a willingness to make changes that are in the best interests of its customers. We hope that McDonald's takes us up on our offer to negotiate an end to the practice of using toys to market unhealthful foods directly to children. If it doesn't, that will all but guarantee that we will have to resort to litigation.

Stay tuned.

Update: Reporter Melanie Warner called McDonald's to get an explanation for the calorie change. A spokesperson claimed they were just correcting a mistake. You can read her take at BNET.

McDonald's Facing Potential Lawsuit for Luring Kids With Happy Meal Toys - It's About Time

2010-07-05T10:23:00.000-07:00

It was only a matter of time. Last month, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) served McDonald's with a notice of its intent to sue if the fast food giant continues to use toys to promote Happy Meals. (An "intent to sue" letter is a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit in some states.) The basis for the potential case is that using toys to market to small children is unfair and deceptive under the consumer protection laws in a number of states. According to CSPI's letter, McDonald's toy promotions violate the laws of California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Texas, and the District of Columbia.

CSPI's litigation director Stephen Gardner explained in a statement that "McDonald's is the stranger in the playground handing out candy to our children. McDonald's use of toys undercuts parental authority and exploits young children's developmental immaturity."

The letter more specifically spells out the legal basis for the case:

McDonald’s practices are predatory and wrong. They are also illegal, because marketing to kids under eight is (1) inherently deceptive, because young kids are not developmentally advanced enough to understand the persuasive intent of marketing; and (2) unfair to parents, because marketing to children undermines parental authority and interferes with their ability to raise healthy children.

This is important because CSPI is saying that McDonald's practices are both deceptive to children and unfair to parents, the latter to deflect the argument that it's really all the parents' fault. For that perspective, CSPI's press release quotes Sheila Nesbitt of Minnesota, a parent of a six-year-old boy and a three-year-old girl:

McDonald’s makes my job as a parent more difficult. They market cheap toys that appeal to kids and it works. My kids always want to go to McDonald’s because of the toys. I try my best to educate my kids about healthy eating but it's hard when I am competing against the allure of a new Shrek toy.

According to a CSPI study, despite McDonald's recent attempts at healthwashing Happy Meals with Apple Dippers and milk, French fries come with Happy Meals 93 percent of the time. The letter also explains the harm that Happy Meals cause:

McDonald’s practice of dangling toys in front of children is illegal, regardless of what meal the child eventually gets. Not only does the practice mobilize “pester power,” but it also imprints on developing minds brand loyalty for McDonald’s. Because most of the company’s options are of poor nutritional quality, eating Happy Meals promotes eating habits that are virtually assured to undermine children’s health.

Next, the letter explains how voluntary, self-regulation by industry has been a dismal failure:

Through the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, McDonald’s pledged to advertise only Happy Meals that meet McDonald’s nutrition standards for children. However, that pledge fails to address McDonald’s insidious use of toys to market its products to children. Regardless of the Happy Meal combinations shown in advertising, the vast majority of possible Happy Meals are nutritionally inappropriate for children.

This is important because (as documented in my book, Appetite for Profit) McDonald's, along with every other major food company, has been hiding behind the veil of self-regulation of marketing to children for years. And sadly, the federal government has so far been going along with the charade. This lawsuit could become one way to expose this ruse, and even lay the groundwork for changing the laws to protect children. Because companies fear lawsuits even more than they fear regulation, the case could be a game-changer.

McDonald's response in the press has been to defend the Happy Meal, not surprisingly. William Whitman, vice president of communications for McDonald’s USA, told Nation's Restaurant News: “We are proud of our Happy Meal, which gives our customers wholesome food and toys of the highest quality and safety. Getting a toy is just one part of a fun, family experience at McDonald’s.”

It's all fun until someone gets hurt. Chicken McNuggets are wholesome? Here are the ingredients, as listed on McDonald's own website:

White boneless chicken, water, food starch-modified, salt, seasoning (autolyzed yeast extract, salt, wheat starch, natural flavoring (botanical source), safflower oil, dextrose, citric acid, rosemary), sodium phosphates, seasoning (canola oil, mono- and diglycerides, extractives of rosemary). Battered and breaded with: water, enriched flour (bleached wheat flour, niacin, reduced iron, thiamin mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid), yellow corn flour, food starch-modified, salt, leavening (baking soda, sodium acid pyrophosphate, sodium aluminum phosphate, monocalcium phosphate, calcium lactate), spices, wheat starch, whey, corn starch. Prepared in vegetable oil (Canola oil, corn oil, soybean oil, hydrogenated soybean oil with TBHQ and citric acid added to preserve freshness). Dimethylpolysiloxane added as an antifoaming agent.

That last ingredient sounds especially wholesome.

Toys of the highest quality and safety, like those toxic Shrek glasses?

As I wrote about here in April, the Santa Clara County, Calif., Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance to stop chain restaurants from using toys or other kid-oriented incentives to market unhealthy meals. This case is a logical next step and is certainly more efficient than going county by county to get fast food chains to halt this insidious practice. Of course, this case will only be about McDonald's, for now. Other food chains (think Burger King) that don't want to be next may be forced to re-think their kids marketing practices as well.

Of course, already the potential case is already being attacked by those who say it's all up to parents. CSPI's executive director Michael Jacobson responds to the parental argument this way:

I’m sure that industry’s defenders will blame parents for not saying ‘no’ to their children. Parents do bear much of the responsibility, but multi-billion-dollar corporations make parents’ job nearly impossible by giving away toys and bombarding kids with slick advertising.

So will this case mean the end of all toys in Happy Meals or will CSPI settle for McDonald's setting nutrition standards on those meals the company markets with toys? CSPI's not saying, but Michael Jacobson did say in the press release that "regardless of the nutritional quality of what’s being sold, the practice of tempting kids with toys is inherently deceptive." I couldn't agree more.

McDonald's has 30 days (from June 22) to stop marketing with toys before a case is filed. I asked Steve Gardner today if he's heard back from McDonald's yet and here's what he said:

We've gotten an acknowledgment from McDonald's that they got the letter, but no response to the suggestion that we discuss before suit is filed. One thing is certain: if McDonald's chooses not to negotiate, we will sue.

And that's when things will get interesting. For those who think lawsuits are too extreme, consider this: We have only three branches of government, and two have been failing us for too long. The executive branch, even with Obama at the helm, has shown little interest in fixing the problem of junk food marketing to children. And the legislative branch (aka Congress) has been bought out by corporate interests for decades. That leaves only the judicial branch, which is why this case make sense, and why it was only a matter of time until someone sued over this issue.

Meantime, you can take action by sending an email message to McDonald's CEO Jim Skinner asking the company to stop marketing toys to kids. You can also join a related campaign by Corporate Accountability International asking McDonald's to Retire Ronald.

How Did PepsiCo's CEO Infiltrate the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Annual Report on Obesity?

2010-07-01T07:45:00.000-07:00

Because I tend to focus my attention on news being generated by the major food companies, I don't always pay close attention to the latest scary reports on obesity data. So when the annual report called F as in Fat: How Obesity Policies are Failing America came out this week, I just thought, Oh there's that report again with the awful name, with the same gloomy numbers as last year.

But then I got an interesting email message forwarded from New York University professor and food politics maven Marion Nestle that made me realize I should pay closer attention to this year's report. The email was from Harold Goldstein, executive director of the highly effective non-profit, California Center for Public Health Advocacy. He was questioning how the CEO of PepsiCo was given 2 pages of airtime in the report. What was that? The CEO of a major company contributing to the very facts and figures contained within the 124-page document was offered space to make her case?

Under the heading, "A Personal Perspective," here is just a sampling of what PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi had to say: (her entire missive is on pages 44-5 of the report)

At the heart of America's obesity epidemic us achieving a balance between the calories we put into our bodies and the calories we burn. It's a simple equation but a complex challenge that companies must help their employees and consumers to overcome....

We firmly believe companies have a responsibility to provide consumers with more information and more choices so they can make better decisions... I believe the food industry can play a leading role in this area. In fact, we must play a leading role... It’s a challenge, but increasingly PepsiCo and other companies recognize and accept our responsibility to help our associates and consumers succeed.

OK, so this rhetoric is certainly nothing new and on its own reads like the usual PR-speak that we've come to expect from the likes of the maker of Cheetos and Mountain Dew. But let's place these remarks into context. This report, which has been published annually for the past seven years, is put out by the organization, Trust for America's Health (TFAH) a fairly well-known public health nonprofit based in Washington, DC. Obesity is one of TFAH's several issue areas and they describe themselves as a "non-partisan organization dedicated to saving lives by protecting the health of every community and working to make disease prevention a national priority." Noble enough.

This report gets a lot of press each year and is especially popular for how it ranks each state according to its obesity statistics. It also provides federal and state policy progress in a variety of areas, is fairly comprehensive, and relies heavily on government sources. In other words, the document makes a major contribution to the national conversation regarding obesity prevention and public policy.

Moreover, the report is co-published by its funder, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) the nation's largest healthcare foundation. One of RWJF's most ambitious goals is to "reverse the childhood obesity epidemic by 2015." Since 2007, the foundation has backed that up with an impressive $500 million in grants to myriad programs around the nation. These days, it's hard to run into a childhood obesity prevention program that isn't funded by RWJF.

So how did the nation's largest healthcare funder and a prominent public health organization let the nation's largest food company get airtime in their annual obesity report? Good question.

In the introduction to the report is this attempted explanation: "TFAH asked the following policy-makers and experts in the field of obesity to offer their perspectives on what needs to be done to address the obesity crisis in the United States." And then PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi is listed among other contributors including Senator Tom Harkin and Kelly Brownell, director of Yale's Rudd Center on Food Policy and Obesity. That's quite a coup, for CEO Nooyi to be listed among the very same experts who are fighting PepsiCo's lobbying efforts.

Reporter Melanie Warner, who just published an excellent piece about this at BNET, (Obesity Report Chronicles the Sad State of America -- and Tells Us How Great PepsiCo Is) asked TFAH to explain itself. Here is what she learned:

Laura Segal, spokesperson for the Trust for America’s Health, says that having Nooyi’s comments in the report was an innocent attempt to have the “industry perspective” and not the result of any shady financial relationship. “We reached out to a number of companies and Pepsi was the first one to respond. We want to represent a range of opinions and the industry segment is a significant component of dealing with obesity,” says Segal.

Harold Goldstein (who gets the credit for first sounding the alarm) sees this incident as part of a troubling trend:

There seems to be a growing interest among public health organizations to appear "unbiased" when discussing obesity prevention by providing a forum for industry. It would be the equivalent of providing a forum for the tobacco industry to espouse their "personal responsibility" message in reports on smoking-related deaths.

As a national public health organization, I would have hoped TFAH would provide a clear and scientifically based public health perspective on issues like personal responsibility, rather than simply providing a forum for dissenting perspectives.

Also, the placement of the PepsiCo text is either suspect or ironic. It comes right after two pages describing recent efforts by various states to enact soda taxes, a contentious issue that PepsiCo lobbies hard against, despite mounting evidence that it may be one of the most effective policies available. Recognizing the connection, Harold Goldstein describes what Nooyi left out of her statement:

She doesn’t mention the highly sophisticated multimillion dollar national marketing and lobbying campaign they have undertaken to promote themselves as good corporate citizens and undermine efforts to establish state and local policies to reduce consumption of sugar sweetened beverages, which have been the single leading contributor to the obesity epidemic.

It's bad enough when the government invites industry executives to "workshops" on food marketing, and for years we have seen corporate sponsorships of nonprofits such as the American Heart Association and the American Dietetic Association. But this hurts even more, because it was unexpected. If we can't even read a major public health report on obesity data and policy solutions without running into a PR statement by Big Food, then no place is safe.

As Melanie Warner points out: "the inclusion of Nooyi’s remarks in a public health report feels a bit like if Congress were to suddenly decide to give BP several pages with which to defend itself in forthcoming congressional reports on the oil spill."

While most of the information contained within the report may still be reliable, the fact that PepsiCo was allowed to participate also raises the question, what other editorial decisions were made that might have been favorable to the food industry? We'll never know, and that's the heart of the problem: Once the door is open to providing industry a forum in a public health context, no longer can we trust that we are getting the best information available from those sources.

Finally, I asked Marion Nestle for her reaction:

By this time, research has clearly demonstrated that partnerships and alliances of health organizations with food companies benefits the food companies far more than the health organizations. The goals of public health and food companies differ. Food companies enter such alliances for public relations and to deflect public attention from the need to regulate their marketing practices. RWJF ought to be well aware of the risk of such alliances and to protect its integrity against them.

What do you think? It would be great to hear from RWJF grantees. You can make comments on this blog anonymously if you prefer.

All Aboard for Ice Cream: Nestle Peddling Junk Food on Amazon River to Reach Brazil's Slums

2010-06-19T16:06:00.000-07:00

I have many things to do today and writing this post was not on my list. But as I was cleaning out my in-box, an especially disgusting news item caught my attention and writing about it is the only way I know to release my outrage. My version of screaming from the rooftop.

The offending article, on Bloomberg.com (Nestle to Sail Amazon Rivers to Reach Consumers) describes how the world's largest food company will soon "begin sailing a supermarket barge down two Amazon river tributaries as it competes with Unilever to reach emerging-market customers cut off from branded goods."

A supermarket barge? Has Big Food already run out of customers in cities and other locales that are more readily accessible by land? Cut off from branded goods? I don't think these people are lost or have been camping out too long, they're just living their lives. They probably don't even realize they are missing out on Toll House, Raisinets, and Sno-Caps. But no matter, if there are people out there so backwards to still be subsisting on food found in nature, Big Food will find them, by land or by sea, and set them straight.

The boat, with more than 1,000 square feet of supermarket space, will journey to 18 cities, reaching 800,000 potential consumers in Brazil, and will even provide access for the disabled and elderly.

But how can these poor Bralizian residents even afford to purchase processed foods when they are probably struggling as it is? No worries, Nestle has that little problem all figured out too. According to the article:

Nestle sells 3,950 products in “popularly positioned” formats designed for low-income consumers. Smaller packs allow poor consumers to afford branded goods like richer shoppers rather than turn to generic alternatives. The Swiss company has a team of 7,000 saleswomen who peddle packs of Nestle goods door-to-door in Brazilian slums.

Translation: Because Nestle knows that poor people cannot afford the same super-sized packages commonly sold in the West, the company sells starter products to get poor customers hooked on their brands. The threat of "generic alternatives" looms large because, god forbid, these people figure out that juice is just juice and brand really makes no difference. The strategy of hooking poor people on smaller, cheaper goods is commonplace but was pioneered by the tobacco industry, which still sells single cigarettes in developing world. (The practice is banned in most other nations.)

And what, pray tell, will the floating supermarket carry? Surely, necessary food items for these hard-to-reach residents. Bloomberg.com notes, "The vessel will carry 300 different goods including chocolate, yogurt, ice cream and juices." Yup, all the essentials. But wait maybe Nestle is taking care of the poor's nutrition needs after all: "The company often adds nutrients such as iron, zinc, iodine and vitamin A to address deficiencies among the poor." How heartwarming.

Nestle's press release proudly announcing the vessel's voyage adds:

The floating supermarket develops another trading channel which offers access to Nutrition, Health and Wellness to the remote communities in the north region of Brazil.

Who better to teach nutrition than the maker of Drumstick ice cream?

As I wrote about previously here, with Western nations becoming more and more saturated while regulatory pressures mount in the U.S. to curb unsavory marketing practices, Big Food has no choice but to step up the sales pace in the developing world. As the article explains:

Nestle had 2009 food and beverage sales growth in emerging markets of 8.5 percent, more than double the rate of its total business. The company has said it aims to boost the proportion of sales from developing countries to 45 percent in a decade from 35 percent now.

Just in case you missed that: Within ten years, the world's largest food company will do almost half of its business in the developing world. That's astounding by any measure of any industry.

And yes, Brazil is already showing signs of diet-related health problems. This article from Time magazine last year describes the concern over rising obesity rates found by Brazil's own Health Ministry. While the numbers there are still small compared to here, as Nestle keeps reloading its ice cream barge to reach more "brand-deprived" poor people, it won't take long before that gap narrows.

Letter from NGO in Thailand re: Appetite for Profit

2010-06-12T14:02:00.000-07:00

At the risk of tooting my own horn, just wanted to share this really nice letter I got from the director of the Health Consumer Protection Program at Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok. They had previously requested permission to translate Appetite for Profit and distribute 1,000 copies of the book. Apparently, it's been a hit, so they need more copies, and I am happy to oblige.

Dear Ms. Michele Simon,

I would like to express my gratitude for your permission for the translation and the printing of translated version of the book “Appetite for Profit: How the food Industry Undermines Our Health and How to Fight Back” of which 1,000 copies were published. Free copies have been distributed to local consumer advocates and those in alternative agricultural networks in country. Apparently, the book is welcome with great enthusiasm as it has broadened the readers’ perspective on food industry system and impact of the industry’s marketing manipulation towards the public’s well-being. Such awareness will definitely help protecting Thai consumers’ right and eventually promoting their healthier eating habit.

As the first edition is running out so fast, I would like to ask for your permission for a reprint of yet another 1,000 copies. This lot will be distributed without any charge to the general public as well as to university libraries across the country.

Yours sincerely,

Association Professor Vithaya Koolsomboon, Ph.D.
Director of Health Consumer Protection Program,
Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok

PepsiCo Teams up with White House to Whitewash Worthless Snack and Sodas - AlterNet article

2010-06-03T21:45:00.000-07:00

Food and beverage giant PepsiCo claims to be "investing in a healthier future for people and our planet." But how is that possible when their top-selling products include Mountain Dew and Doritos?

Check out my article on PepsiCo over at AlterNet. Please post comments there, if you're so inclined, since editors love that.

PepsiCo's latest "local" ad campaign for Lay's reveals that potato chips come from... potatoes!

2010-05-27T21:07:00.000-07:00

In case potato chips lovers had no idea where their favorite salty snacks came from, America's largest chip maker has launched a new ad campaign clearing up the confusion once and for all.

As explained by the New York Times this week (in the advertising section, not food, and rightly so) the ads appear to stem from recent concern over the high salt content and other nutritional challenges of the likes of Lay's. To quote columnist Stuart Elliot, the campaign "is intended to help consumers think of Lay's as a food rather than a snack" and is "centered on farmers who grow potatoes for the maker of Lay's, the Frito-Lay unit of PepsiCo."

Not to miss out on the current "love your local farmer" movement, the campaign features ads of regional farmers in local markets, along with an online "Happiness Exhibit" photo gallery at lays.com.

The Times describes why the stakes are so high. Lay's is PepsiCo's third best-selling product, second only to the company's Pepsi-Cola and Mountain Dew brands. Total Lay's sales topped $2 billion last year. Yet, growth is the key to continued success, and according to the Times:

Sales growth for Lay’s had slowed to less than 1 percent from 2005 to 2007, raising concern among executives at Frito-Lay as well as PepsiCo.

Surveys revealed that Frito-Lay had a perception problem on its hands. Apparently, a third of respondents thought the ingredients were "not real potatoes." That's when the marketing machine sprung into action. New ads were designed to convey the "three simple ingredients" in the main variety of Lay’s, called Lay’s Classic: potatoes, "all-natural" sunflower oil and "a dash of salt."

The addition of farmers to the ad campaign is an aim, says Gannon Jones, vice president for portfolio marketing at Frito-Lay, "to put the hometown face on it, and the hometown face is our farmers."

How touching. Funny the company didn't put the "hometown face" of the local factory workers who pulverize the potatoes, and then douse the mixture in salt (more than a dash) along with many gallons of ("all-natural") oil. Or the other numerous local factory workers who must work very hard turning those "simple ingredients" into fried chips. Then there are even more local factory workers on the assembly line where all of those many chips are put into bags. Hmmm.

Oh wait, they also left out the local factory workers who put the bags into boxes, seal the boxes and get them ready to leave the factories. And who can forget all the local truckers who have to drive the big trucks to the regional distribution centers before they can be delivered by yet other local truck drivers to all those local stores. Nope, just gonna focus on the local farmers. Wonder why?

I thought this local angle sounded familiar. Indeed, when Frito-Lay first tried to go the "Local Lay's" route last year, there was plenty of skepticism to go around. (See for example, Frito-Lay Embraces Local Movement, But Movement Does Not Embrace Frito-Lay.)

Also, I was interviewed for this article in Ad Age at the start of the campaign and called it disingenuous then. (That was an understatement.) Here's what else I had to say about it:

Let's be honest: It's processed junk food. It's just companies scrambling to save themselves as they see the trend happening as people are waking up and getting a clue that maybe packaged food isn't good for you.

Then I got the last word in that story:

They have factories all over the country so they're locally processed? Give me a break. That's hilarious. You might as well say 'I rolled this cigarette in my backyard so it's local.'

Sorry for recycling old quotes, but if it still works, why not?

Thanks to my esteemed colleague Marion Nestle who pointed me to this story. Her clever name for it? Farmwashing!

Wondering where in the world Big Food will put 1.5 trillion calories?

2010-05-23T17:33:00.000-07:00

Last week, 16 major packaged food companies "pledged" to Michelle Obama's Let's Move campaign that they would somehow remove 1.5 trillion calories from the U.S. food supply by the end of 2015. As I wrote here, there are many reasons to be skeptical about this announcement. Since my post others have chimed in with their own doubts. For example, see business writer Melanie Warner's excellent analysis, Food Industry's Calorie Reduction Pledge: Smart Marketing, but Dumb Nutrition.

I also had this nagging feeling that even if these food companies were to honor their promise, those calories would not just disappear, rather they would likely just turn up in other countries. Sure enough, with the ink barely dry on the calorie-reduction agreement, in came a press release from one of the most important pledgers - PepsiCo.

PepsiCo proudly announced that it's investing $2.5 billion in China, on top of the $1 billion the company has already spent there since 2008. The soft drink and snack food giant intends to build a dozen new food and beverage plants, to add to the current 27 facilities.

According to the Wall Street Journal, this announcement, made at the Shanghai Expo, indicates stepped-up competition with Coca-Cola, who announced its own $2 billion investment in China late last year. (Both companies are major sponsors of the Expo.) WSJ explains why Coke and Pepsi are so eager to find fertile ground:

Both beverage giants are expanding aggressively in China, India and Russia, among other emerging markets, where growth is much faster than in the U.S. Soft-drink sales have declined for five years in the U.S.

"Emerging markets" is corporate-speak for developing nations. While sales slump here at home, PepsiCo is seeing double-digit growth overseas:

Its international business boosted first-quarter results, with its Asia, Middle East and Africa unit posting 13% growth in snack volume and 10% in beverage volume, largely because of growth in China and India.

Meanwhile Coca-Cola, never to be outdone by PepsiCo in the chutzpah department, quietly announced, the week prior to the Big Food White House Pledge, that they were investing $300 million in Pakistan. The plan is to build two more (adding to the current six) manufacturing plants in that country. This is another direct challenge to PepsiCo, which already has a major presence in the Middle East. (A friend who is currently teaching at Lahore University of Management Sciences tells me that students there eat in the "Pepsi Dining Center.")

One article explains Coca-Cola's motives: "Pakistan is a growing market. It has a population of 170 million and majority of them are youngsters," said Rizwan U Khan, Coca-Cola’s country manager for Pakistan and Afghanistan. "We view this country has a favourable place for expansion."

The majority are youngsters, of course, since youth is the optimum time to get more loyal customers. Funny how we didn't hear any such honest assessment coming out of Big Food last week at the White House. They were on their best behavior there. And while PepsiCo previously endorsed the First Lady's Let's Move campaign, it seems Big Food only cares about childhood obesity in America. Indian kids, Pakistani kids, Chinese kids, who cares?

Of course, the cigarette industry wrote this playbook years ago. Once regulations started becoming inhospitable in the United States, Big Tobacco just stepped up their marketing efforts overseas, especially in the developing world and as a result, smoking is an international epidemic. To quote Dr. Margaret Chan, World Health Organization director-general:

If Big Tobacco is in retreat in some parts of the world, it is on the march in others. As we all know, the tobacco industry is ruthless, devious, rich and powerful.

Just replace the word tobacco with food in that quote, and you will see our future.

Why humane meat is an oxymoron - the Lyman v. Niman debate

2010-05-21T10:07:00.000-07:00

Last night I attended an entertaining debate between ex-cattle rancher turned vegan Howard Lyman, author of Mad Cowboy, and Nicolette Hahn Niman, author of Righteous Porkshop and wife of Niman Ranch founder Bill Niman. The event was co-sponsored by VegNews Magazine and Earth Island Institute and held in the impressive David Brower Center in Berkeley. (I know, where else?)

The subtitle of the event asked the question, Can you be a "good environmentalist" and still eat meat?

Full disclosure: this is not an objective review of what transpired. While I don't tend to put it front and center in my writing these days, I have been vegetarian (mostly vegan) for close to 15 years. My own thinking has evolved over the years and I now advocate more broadly for a mostly plant-based, whole-foods diet, which no educated person can argue with nutritionally. While I realize it may not harm your health to eat a small amount of meat here and there, I have decided for ethical reasons not to do so. I decided to write this post because much of what I heard last night was not adequately addressed by the speakers and I want to add my own thoughts.

The two authors began by agreeing that factory-farmed meat is a disaster and has no place on our planet. The debate boiled down to whether or not humanely and sustainably-raised animals were a viable alternative to the current system, from both an ecological and ethical perspective.

Ms. Niman certainly held her own when it came to the scientific and environmental arguments for sustainable meat, disputing Lyman's claims that any type of animal farming harms the planet.

But when Niman tried to argue that animals were essential to sustainable farming, she never did explain why they have to be killed in order to be part of the closed loop system she espouses.

Once the discussion turned directly to the ethics of killing animals for food, Lyman easily had the moral high ground. And Niman herself seemed uncomfortable making several tired and twisted arguments.

First, she said that humans have been eating meat for hundreds of thousands of years, so it's a natural part of our diet. But humans have not been slaughtering cows and chickens for all that time. It's certainly true that humans have eaten meat throughout our evolution and Niman was right to correct Lyman when he claimed that we are natural herbivores. Humans are omnivores, which simply means that we can eat both meat and plants, not that we have to. The dispute is really whether we should.

The anthropological evidence is clear that early humans either ate the leftover meat that was killed by carnivores (when was the last time you chased down an animal and bit into it?) or killed small animals like rabbits, all for the purpose of survival when little else was available. Since modern agriculture kicked in (along with modern marketing), humans have been brainwashed to eat a diet mainly comprised of animals, but that was not the diet of our ancestors. Rather, they subsisted largely on nuts, seeds, and fruit, and it is such a plant-based diet, according to decades of established science (not to mention Michael Pollan) that humans thrive on.

Next, Lyman and Niman disagreed on just how much destruction is caused by our conventional food system in general. Niman tried to argue that all food production causes harm to animals, presumably from various disruptive farming techniques. Lyman dismissed this argument by saying there's a difference between nematodes and cows, to which Niman responded that she also meant wild animals.

I am willing to accept the argument that conventional farming methods causes harm to animals, and that vegans cannot claim that their eating habits cause no harm. But because wild animals are harmed as a by-product of plant production is not a reason to deliberately raise and slaughter more animals who would never exist in the first place. Why not try to minimize all animal suffering?

Niman then proceeded to bury herself even deeper in the ethical morass by making the astonishing claim that animals suffer a lot in the wild, since it's such a dangerous world out there, and aren't they better off under the care of humane, kind ranchers like her husband? This sounded chillingly like the arguments for slavery. You know, blacks were really much better off getting free room and board and they weren't treated all that badly were they?

This argument once again fails to acknowledge that there is a vast world of difference between animals in the wild (who yes, have to navigate all sorts of dangers, that is nature and cannot be helped) and the breeding of countless animals who would otherwise never be brought into this world.

Next, Niman had to explain the disconnect between how she herself is a vegetarian and her defense of humane meat. She said in many different ways that being vegetarian is a personal choice and that she does not try to persuade others to make the same decision. But isn't factory farming also an ethical issue and isn't she trying to persuade those to perpetuate those immoral business practices to stop doing so? Why do her ethics of caring about how animals are treated stop at the point of slaughter?

Moreover, it's an ethical cop-out to claim that being vegetarian is a personal choice. Of course it is, but that doesn't mean we cannot as a society recognize moral standards we expect others to follow. We do it all the time in many contexts. For example, when we say murder is wrong, rape is wrong, driving too fast is wrong, etc. You name your law, I will give you a moral argument that backs it up.

I am not saying we should out-law meat eating, but claiming a decision is "personal" does not take it off the table for discussion. Again, slavery is a helpful analogy. At one time, slavery was acceptable, thought to be a personal choice (but of course, only for the owners, not for the slaves; similarly, the animals do not get a choice). In time we recognized as a society that slavery was immoral and then we outlawed it. That is the natural course of the evolution of human values. Our treatment of animals has also evolved over time and it can and should continue to do so.

When asked if she ever bonded with an animal, she talked about a cow she and her husband loved so much because she was "special" and so they decided to give her a "pass" from slaughter. How lucky for that animal, and how unlucky for all the others on the ranch who apparently were not special enough.

During the Q&A session, I tried to ask Niman how exactly sustainable meat could ever work on a mass scale considering that her husband's own company failed to live up to difficult economic challenges. (See this article for how Niman Ranch was forced to merge last year with its largest investor due to economic hardship; Bill Niman himself left the business back in 2007 over ethical standards disputes.)

She bypassed the heart of the question, instead explaining how an academic report showed that it's theoretically possible for humanely-raised, sustainable meat to feed the world, but only if people cut down on their meat consumption, a concept which she supports (on this point we agree).

But she failed to acknowledge that in our current profit-driven, capitalistic society, it's extremely difficult for anyone who wants to run a business "ethically" to compete, again, as her own husband learned the hard way. Lyman tried to make this point by saying the system is rigged in favor of the large, unethical producers. This is exactly right, as the recent oil disaster also proves.

Moreover, I don't hear any "eat less meat" messages coming out of the American Grassfed Association. Rather, you can learn at an upcoming meeting, about "growing your grassfed business." And herein lies the rub. In order for any large business to succeed in our economy, it must grow or die. Growth and sustainability simply do not fit in the same sentence.

At the end, Lyman got to the heart of the ethical question when he asked, would the Holocaust have been OK if the Jews had stayed in 5-star hotels and been fed lavish meals before they were escorted to their deaths? This to me sums up the moral conundrum that people such as the Nimans must face.

Last night, I became more convinced than ever that humane meat is an oxymoron.

Big Food pledge placates White House - Who needs policy when you've got promises?

2010-05-17T20:25:00.000-07:00

You've got to hand it to the food industry. They certainly know how to get the attention of the White House just when they need it most. As announced today by Michelle Obama herself, the nation's leading food companies have made yet another pledge, this one in the form of an agreement signed with the Partnership for a Healthier America, an off-shoot of the First Lady's Let's Move campaign.

Mrs. Obama said that 16 corporations accounting for up to 25 percent of the American food supply chain would trim a total of one trillion calories by 2012 and 1.5 trillion calories by 2015. Sounds impressive, but I am not really sure exactly what it means. Trim calories, from what? OK, to be fair, here's how the press release attempts to explain it:

Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation manufacturing companies will pursue their calorie reduction goal by developing and introducing lower-calorie options, changing recipes where possible to lower the calorie content of current products, or reducing portion sizes of existing single-serve products.

First off, who is the Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation? Good question, certainly sounds official, but a quick perusal of the website reveals a virtual who's who of Big Food: Coca-Cola, General Mills, Kraft Foods, and of course, PepsiCo, whose CEO Indra Nooyi serves as vice chair. (Kellogg's CEO got the top spot and was at today's White House briefing, see leadership.)

And you gotta love this mission statement: "Our mission is to try to help reduce obesity – especially childhood obesity – by 2015." Try to help? Reduce? Especially? Sounds pretty lame. But I digress.

The member companies are pledging to do three things: One, develop and introduce lower-calorie options. But if they are making new products, isn't that actually adding calories to the food supply? Next, for current products, where possible they will lower calorie content. When is it not possible? Why, when Big Food says so, that's when.

Finally, they will reduce portion sizes. Now all of the member companies are packaged food manufacturers, not restaurants, where portion sizes are out of control and where Americans spend roughly half of their food dollars. So this just means that we might get more products like the current "100-calorie packs," which just encourages more packaging waste, at higher prices to boot.

As this is just another voluntary promise by industry, how will we even know if the companies follow through? No worries, they thought of everything. As the press release explains, under the agreement, "the Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation will report annually to the Partnership on the progress that we are making toward this pledge." So I guess that should cover it.

What's going on here should be obvious to anyone who has been paying close attention to food industry tactics over the past few years. It's certainly no coincidence that this announcement comes on the heels of last week's report from the White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity. Indeed, with less than 5 business days in between the two media events, the memory of that comprehensive report, containing 70 policy recommendations is now conveniently overshadowed by Big Food's promise of 1.5 trillion fewer calories. That's industry math: 1.5 trillion beats 70.

But before we toss the Task Force report into the historical dust bin, let's see which policy recommendations might have gotten Big Food upset. First there's # 2.6: "All media and entertainment companies should limit the licensing of their popular characters to food and beverage products that are healthy." Uh oh, that could mean no more SpongeBob Squarepants Popsicles, that would stink.

Then there's # 2.7: "The food and beverage industry and the media and entertainment industry should jointly adopt meaningful, uniform nutrition standards for marketing food and beverages to children, as well as a uniform standard for what constitutes marketing to children." Meaningful? Uniform? Those are dirty words to Big Food. They prefer words like "try" and "reduce."

Oh and they really don't like recommendation # 2.9: "If voluntary efforts to limit the marketing of less healthy foods and beverages to children do not yield substantial results, the FCC could consider revisiting and modernizing rules on commercial time during children’s programming." What was that, the FCC? Why, that's an actual government agency named in the report, how did that happen?

Food companies that market to children (including pledgers Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods, and PepsiCo) are afraid that Michelle Obama's Let's Move campaign might result in actual policy making, otherwise known as laws and regulations, those things that government agencies make when they are doing their jobs.

Every so often, when the threat of government regulation rears its ugly head, the food industry pounces on it to beat it down, by announcing new and improved promises, pledges, commitments, initiatives, partnerships, or coalitions at just the right time, all aimed at keeping government at bay and the public convinced that they are acting responsibly.

Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Center on Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University called it right when he told the Wall Street Journal that this move was little more than public relations:

This is where the market is taking these companies anyway, and I don't know that this represents much of a concession. I also believe that the motive behind this is to fight off government regulation by creating the appearance of voluntary changes by the industry.

Sadly, this time industry made sure that government came on board even before the announcement. At the press conference, Michelle Obama predicted, "In the weeks and months to come, we expect to hear more announcements regarding specific steps on reducing sugar, fat and sodium in the foods that our children eat." Great, brace yourself for even more PR and empty promises.

If I was skeptical about the likely success of Let's Move before, I am downright cynical now.

Post-script: For a somewhat less cynical viewpoint, see Marion Nestle's blog post.

Big Food Goes North to Buy Out Dietitians of Canada Too

2010-05-08T22:46:00.000-07:00

Some things in Canada just seem so much more sane than here in the states. Better (any) health care of course is the most touted reason to move north of the border.

If you're like me and many others fed up with the American Dietetic Association's ongoing affiliation with the likes of Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and McDonald's, (see previous post and comments) you might wonder if this insane hypocrisy is something unique to America. You might think that dietitians in a country humane enough to provide its citizens with decent health care would steer clear of Big Food influence over its nutrition professionals. I am sorry to report that this is not the case.

As recently described in painful detail by a Canadian dietitian blogger (Nutrition Nibbles) Sybil Hebert, the ADA equivalent trade group, Dietitians of Canada (DC) "partners with industry, including Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Monsanto, and Nestle." As a new member, Ms. Hebert was not happy to learn this troubling information, and inspired by Marion Nestle's call to ADA members on the same topic, decided to make her distaste known with a letter of her own.

Her impressive missive details numerous examples of industry partnerships such as raking in over $200,000 dollars from corporate sponsorships, including the pharmaceutical industry. She concludes with this reasonable request to the organization's leadership:

Board of Directors, as long as DC continues to align itself with food, beverage and pharmaceutical industries, and rely on these corporations for funding, it will never be respected, and neither will I. As a member of the purported “nation-wide voice of dietitians,” I hope my voice, and my concerns, are heard, and that DC will carefully review its advertising and sponsorship policies to recognize the many conflicts of interest that exist, and their consequences, and take steps to minimize them in order to restore DC’s credibility.

Well said. I've heard from many dietitians in the U.S. who are no longer members of the ADA for this very reason, that the organization cannot be respected as long as it is compromised.

Unfortunately, the DC leadership has not taken too kindly to Ms. Hebert's request, and in particular to the fact that she has posted her letter on her blog. Despite (or maybe because of) the many comments in support, Ms. Hebert has received more than one email asking her to take down the post.

What is the leadership of Dietitians of Canada so afraid of? It's certainly no secret that the organization partners with industry. It only took me a minute to find the program for DC's upcoming annual conference in Montreal, which lists among its sponsors: General Mills, Danone, Unilever, PepsiCo, and a plethora of drug companies. In just one day you can attend the Kellogg Breakfast, followed by the Kellogg Nutrition Symposium, and then take a Kellogg break. Maybe the Dietitians of Canada should consider changing its name to Dietitians of Kellogg. Then again, maybe that would make all those other corporate sponsors too upset.

This isn't the first time the trade group has been called out for its conflict of interest. Dr. Yoni Freedhoff is a family doctor in Ottawa who has wondered (among other conflicts) what the heck the Dietitians of Canada was doing putting out a joint press release last year with the Dairy Farmers of Canada making nutrition recommendations that essentially served as a "milk advertisement" (his words).

Professional associations such as the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada must renounce their corporate affiliations and stop taking money from the very companies that are undermining their own members' ability to do help people eat right. Until they do so, these groups risk becoming little more than a tool of corporate interests, which is exactly what Big Food wants.

We need more dietitians like Sybil Hebert taking a public stand. Please post comments both here and on her blog in support and if you're a member of either the American Dietetic Association or Dietitians of Canada voice your concerns directly to the leadership. If you're no longer a member, tell them why you left. Together, our voices can make a difference.

Santa Clara County Begins the Fast Food Toy Rebellion - Parents Rejoice!

2010-04-29T17:37:00.000-07:00

Any parent who has ever driven by a McDonald's with little ones in the back seat knows how hard it can be to resist the lobbying, often made even worse due to the marketing of toys with Happy Meals. And of course, other fast food chains also lure kids in with the latest installment of some toy series, often tied to the latest blockbuster movie.

I've been saying for years that it's only a matter of time until some city or county figures out that a simple change in law is all that's needed to make such promotions illegal at the local level. (Localities have tremendous public health authority that is often underutilized.) On Tuesday, it finally happened, and I am proud to say, in a county in my home state of California.

Yesterday, I posted the press release from Santa Clara County Supervisor (and Board President) Ken Yeager's office celebrating the passage of an ordinance that limits to use of toys and other incentives to fast food that meet certain nutrition criteria. As Supervisor Yeager put it:

This ordinance levels the playing field. It helps parents make the choices they want for their children without toys and other freebies luring them toward food that fails to meet basic nutritional standards.

There's no doubt that luring kids with toys works. The Federal Trade Commission estimated that restaurants sold 1.2 billion meals accompanied by toys to children under 12 in 2006 alone. Further, a 2008 study by the Center for Science in the Public Interest identified 12 restaurants with kids’ meal offerings that routinely exceed the recommended caloric limits for children. Ten out of 12 of those restaurants offer toys with their kids’ meals.

Now, let's look at the details of this law, since that often gets lost on the press. It's not just about toys, it's about a number of "incentives" and here is how that word is defined:

any toy, game, trading card, admission ticket or other consumer product, whether physical or digital...or any coupon, voucher, ticket, token, code, or password redeemable for or granting digital or other access to [those items previously mentioned.]

And here are some of the nutrition standards that limit the use of such incentives:

More than two hundred (200) calories for a Single Food Item, or more than four-hundred eighty-five (485) calories for a Meal;
More than four-hundred and eighty milligrams (480 mg) of sodium for a Single Food Item, or more than six hundred milligrams (600 mg) of sodium for a Meal;
More than thirty-five percent (35%) of total calories from fat.

Now I don't think that toys should ever be used as food incentives, regardless of the nutrition standards, and I am concerned about the message that fast food companies should market "healthy food" to kids, but this is a still good start and we have to start somewhere.

So how important is this new law, given that it only applies to the unincorporated areas of one county? I can almost hear the shrugged shoulders and people saying, there goes California again, that wacky state. While Santa Clara County may be just an hour south of San Francisco, and is known for being out in front when it comes to public health, with increasing recognition of the health problems related to childhood obesity and poor eating habits in general, we are probably seeing the beginning of the end for fast food companies using toys to hook kids.

First of all, Santa Clara County was also a leader on menu labeling, along with San Francisco. That idea then trickled up to Sacramento, and California became the first state to enact a similar law. And recently, a federal law passed requiring restaurant chains to post basic nutrition information.

Also, Santa Clara is the home of San Jose, the third largest city in California with more than 7 million residents. While this ordinance does not cover San Jose (due to jurisdictional limitations), if the city council takes up the issue there, it would have a huge impact. Meanwhile other cities known for cutting-edge food policies such as San Francisco and New York, are taking notice. Anyone could be next, and of course, it's just this domino effect that scares the pants off of Ronald McDonald.

So what happens now? Just like they did with the menu labeling ordinance, it seems likely that the restaurant industry will file a lawsuit, if for no other reason than to scare other cities and counties away from enacting similar bills. Industry could try to challenge the law on First Amendment grounds, but targeting small children with toys and fast food does not exactly sound like protected free speech.

Indeed, I asked the Santa Clara County Counsel's office if they expect a lawsuit, and here is what Acting County Counsel Miguel Marquez told me today:

I wouldn’t be surprised if the restaurant industry sued the County, but we are confident that any case they bring would be unsuccessful. The California Restaurant Association asserted First Amendment challenges to the menu labeling requirements Santa Clara County (and other localities) adopted two years ago, but they now tout menu labeling as an important service they provide to their customers. We hope the restaurant industry would instead put its resources into designing effective ways to promote healthy eating for children.

So just like with menu labeling, a lawsuit is likely to just be a temporary setback. And, by way of responding to those who might think the County has over-reached, he added:

Local government plays an important role in advancing public health. The restaurant industry often works against parents by luring children into developing a taste for unhealthy foods.

Amen. We need more local leadership like that being displayed by Santa Clara. It's only a matter of time before McDonald's and friends sees the writing on the wall and realizes they will have to stop this insidious marketing strategy or risk very bad public relations. And when they do, industry is sure to take all the credit, claim to be responsible corporate partners, and act like they planned it all along.

You can read the full text of the law here and for good local coverage, see the San Jose Mercury News.

Santa Clara County (Calif) bans toys in unhealthy fast food - press release

2010-04-28T16:36:00.000-07:00

I will write more about this soon, but here is the press release:

County Officials Pass Nation’s First Childhood Obesity Ordinance to Address Restaurant Toy Giveaways

San José – Today [Tues 4/27], the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors approved an ordinance proposed by Board President Ken Yeager that is the first of its kind in the United States. The new law will combat childhood obesity by preventing restaurants from using toys and other incentives to lure kids to meals that are high in fat, sugar and calories. Today’s action supports parents’ efforts to choose more nutritious options for their children.

Restaurants encourage children to choose specific menu items by linking them with free toys and other incentive items, and research shows that parents frequently make purchases based on requests made by children. In 2006, the Federal Trade Commission estimated that restaurants sold 1.2 billion meals accompanied by toys to children under 12. While there are currently no nutritional standards for meals marketed to children, a 2008 study by the Center for Science in the Public Interest found that 10 out of 12 meals exceeding the recommended caloric limits for children came with toys.

“This ordinance levels the playing field,” said Yeager. “It helps parents make the choices they want for their children without toys and other freebies luring them toward food that fails to meet basic nutritional standards.”

One in four youth in Santa Clara county are either overweight or obese, and one in three low-income children in Santa Clara County between ages two and five are overweight or obese. Nationally, childhood obesity has tripled since the 1970s. Obesity is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer. Thirty percent of boys and 40% of girls born in 2000 will be diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes, which can result in the loss of, on average, 10-15 years of life.

“The latest generation of children may be the first to live shorter lives than their parents,” said Yeager of the childhood obesity crisis. “Using toys to entice children into poor health habits is a problem that needs to be addressed.”

The ordinance supports the health of children in the County by setting basic nutritional standards for children’s meals accompanied by toys or other incentive items. It permits restaurants to offer toys and other incentive items long as it is with food that meets national nutritional criteria for children.

The ordinance imposes very specific, common-sense restrictions. Restaurants cannot use toys as rewards for buying foods that have excessive calories (more than 120 for a beverage, 200 for a single food item or 485 for a meal), excessive sodium (480 mg for a single food item or 600 mg for a meal), excessive fat (more than 35% of total calories from fat), or excessive sugar (more than 10% of calories from added sweeteners.) The criteria are based on nationally recognized standards for children’s health created by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and recommendations for children’s food published by the Institute of Medicine (IOM).

The Santa Clara County health system has seen rapid increases in children seeking healthcare for obesity-related problems at a cost of millions of dollars each year. The County even created a Pediatric Healthy Lifestyle Center to address the complex medical needs of obese children in the county.

“Childhood obesity is a critical public health issue,” said Dr. Sara Cody, Acting Public Health Officer. “If we can help parents break the link between eating unhealthy food and getting a prize, we should.”

The ordinance affects all restaurants in the unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County. Before going into effect, the ordinance requires a second reading that will happen at the May 11 Board of Supervisor’s meeting. Restaurants will then be granted a 90-day grace period. During that time, restaurants will be given the opportunity offer alternative measures to meet the goals of the ordinance. If no suitable alternative is created and adopted by the Board of Supervisors, the ordinance will go into effect.

Taking on Big Soda over Taxes: Lessons Learned from Fighting Big Alcohol

2010-04-25T12:54:00.000-07:00

This article of mine was recently published on the Corporations and Health website.

Since I started working at Marin Institute, an alcohol industry watchdog group, in 2007 it’s become painfully clear that corporations have the same playbook. Whether it’s the food industry, tobacco, or alcohol, they all use the same talking points and lobbying strategies. While Big Tobacco may be most infamous for decades of hiding scientific evidence of harm and the deceptive marketing, all industries have similar tactics.

In my work at Marin Institute, raising alcohol taxes has been a primary focus of our policy agenda because we know that increasing prices is one of the most effective ways to prevent underage drinking and adult overconsumption. With soda taxes becoming an increasingly attractive policy option to help prevent diabetes and obesity, the soft drink industry is fighting back, and hard. While tobacco is often mentioned as the analogous issue, in fact, alcohol is more similar to soft drinks.

Besides the obvious (they are both beverages), alcohol and soft drinks each hold a special place in American culture. There’s nothing more American than relaxing with a Coke, or a Bud. Also, unlike smoking, which everyone (well, except the tobacco industry) can agree should simply be stopped, when it comes to beverages, the message is more about cutting down.

Here, I offer a few of the lessons that alcohol control advocates have learned from decades of fights with industry over raising taxes, fights that continue to this day.

Lesson One:
Don't let industry claim that soda doesn't cause obesity or that taxes won't work

This is a tried and true tactic: attack the science, discredit the scientists, and make unscientific predictions that are in direct conflict with the published science. As is the case with tobacco, the alcohol industry has abandoned its futile attempts at claiming there is no scientific connection between alcohol consumption and health problems. However, because the science is less far along in obesity, the soda industry attempts to refute what science there is on the connection between drinking soda and poor health. Still, this argumentation is easily countered by showing those studies that claim no connection between soft drinks and obesity tend to be funded industry, big surprise.

A related argument is that raising taxes will not result in the desired public health goal of lowered consumption, and thus fewer health problems. The alcohol industry does try to make this argument, claiming that people will continue to drink and of course, what we really need instead is better education and parental oversight. The soft drink industry loves to point out how there are “many causes” of obesity and that they should not be singled out, and that soda taxes won’t work due to this “complexity.”

Now it’s true that we do have less science when it comes to predicting behavior change from soda taxes than either tobacco or alcohol, both of which have been studied for decades by economists and other researchers. So it’s imperative that when we are making claims related to “elasticity” (the economic term for consumer response to price change) that we get it right.

We also have to be honest by saying that we may need more research to fully understand pricing effects. One thing we’ve learned from alcohol is that taxes can be a very blunt instrument in effecting price change because companies are very clever in how they absorb the added business expense. Companies can keep cheap products cheap while marking up more expensive products, or simply cut costs instead. Product pricing is extremely complex and cannot always be predicted accurately. One study suggests that minimum pricing on all alcohol may be a better policy than raising taxes, due to price manipulation by industry.

Minimum pricing is when the government sets a floor; for example, that retailers cannot sell below cost. Such a policy has a more direct impact on prices than taxes. Perhaps minimum pricing should be considered for soda.

Lesson Two:
Don't let industry claim that a penny per ounce tax will cause massive job loss

Job loss and adverse economic impacts are industry’s most effective talking points. It cannot be underestimated how powerful and persuasive this argument is with politicians, as it gives them a convenient excuse to curry favor with industry by voting against a tax increase. Already, lobbyists for Big Soda have descended on New York State to convince lawmakers there to vote against a tax, with unsubstantiated claims of massive job loss. A recent story in the New York Daily News estimated that the beverage industry spent $3 million on lobbying against the state soda tax proposal.

The alcohol industry has been extremely effective claiming job losses so it’s no surprise the soda industry is following this path. And of course, in these tough economic times, such arguments carry even more weight. “We are already struggling. Don’t kick us when we are down. This is the worst time to raise taxes,” we hear all the time. Of course, meanwhile, every state legislature is in the red, desperate for revenue, which is precisely why soda taxes are even being considered in so many states in the first place.

But there is no good time to raise taxes. If and when the economy improves, the soft drink industry won’t suddenly stop opposing taxes. Alcohol control advocates have countered industry’s job loss claims in a few ways. First, they argue that the tax increase being proposed is so small that the impact on business will be negligible. Of course, it will still be enough to see a public health impact, but it won’t put anyone out of business, even the small “mom and pop stores.” Secondly, there is no good science to back up industry’s wildly exaggerated claims of job losses. Unfortunately, we do not have any science on the public health side either to examine what any potential job loss might be based on, either from an alcohol or soda tax increase, and this is an area of research that is sorely needed. We do have decent studies on indoor smoking laws that showed bars did not go out of business, despite industry claims to the contrary during those battles.

Another response to the economic argument is that when people stop buying one type of product (whether tobacco or alcohol or soda) those consumer dollars do not disappear. Rather, people spend that money in other parts of the economy, so there is no net loss. Moreover, the money to be gained in tax revenue will be spent on programs that will create jobs. For example, in New York, the Healthcare Education Project is projecting that 29,000 healthcare jobs will be lost if the soda tax there does not pass. This dwarfs the beverage industry's job loss projections of 6,000 if the soda tax is passed.

Lesson Three:
Don't let industry claim they care about poor people and working families

The beer industry has been particularly shameless about arguing that beer taxes are regressive because they hurt poor Joe and Jane Six-pack. We make the obvious counter argument, that beer, like soda, is not a necessity of life. (Moreover, research shows that people with higher incomes actually consume more alcohol.) The soda industry, through its ad campaigns and front group, Americans Against Food Taxes, is promoting the imagery of family picnics, and claiming that average Americans would never be in favor of such policies. In alcohol, polling has proven very useful to demonstrate the overwhelming support for higher alcohol taxes, especially when the funds are applied to alcohol-related programs. Polling could also be useful in countering soda industry claims that all Americans think taxes are always bad. Positive polls also offer politicians cover.

Lesson Four:
Make sure to index all excise taxes to inflation (Industry hates this)

One of the biggest challenges in the alcohol field is that excise taxes (based on volume sold) are not indexed to inflation. As a result, because most states have not raised their excise taxes in years, the real value of tax revenue has significantly declined. For example, in California, the real value of alcohol excise tax revenue, which was last raised in 1991, has declined 37 percent. (See Marin Institute’s maps that demonstrate the impact of neglected and outdated alcohol excise taxes in each state.) This amounts to a subsidy for industry, since product prices remain artificially low. Here, you have not only industry to battle, which hates indexing to inflation for obvious reasons, but also many lawmakers who do not believe in placing automatic increases on taxes. But without it, you will find yourself fighting the same battles year after year for increases. Note that because sales taxes are usually assessed as a percentage of price, sales taxes will go up as prices increase. This is one benefit to sales tax over excise tax.

Lesson Five:
If and when you start gaining success locally, do not allow industry to get preemption at the state or federal level (This is really important)

Most excise taxes on products such as tobacco and alcohol are assessed at both the federal and state level and for good reason, as both levels of government rely on the revenue generated by taxing these products. Some states also allow the local taxation of tobacco and alcohol, which is of critical importance, especially now when so many counties and cities are hurting for revenue. And of course, it’s at the community level that the adverse impact of harmful products is felt most severely. Unfortunately, the alcohol industry has successfully preempted localities from assessing taxes in most states. In other words, only states can levy alcohol taxes, not cities or counties. (There are some exceptions; for example, California allows local fees under limited circumstances.)
For soda taxes, it’s imperative that cities and counties retain the right to assess local taxes and fees as they see fit. Also, if there is ever to be a soda tax at the federal level, under no circumstance should such a law preempt state-level taxation. Doing so would be a public policy disaster and makes no sense from a states-rights or public health perspective.

Lesson Six:
Be Prepared for the Long Haul

Finally, do not underestimate how much industry will lobby to the death against taxes. This is unlike any other fight--school food, menu labeling, you name it--and the food industry cares more about taxes. Taxes go to the heart of the corporate business model: having complete control over pricing, which is critical to maintaining steady profits.

Also, unlike other issues for which there may be grounds for compromise (such as menu labeling), industry will not compromise on taxes. This issue is non-negotiable.

Instead, industry will kill bills, and when they can’t stop a bill, they will successfully water it down to a much lower, perhaps insignificant tax rate. (Then when you try to raise it next time, it will look like a huge, unreasonable increase, which will be used against you.) Big Soda, in cahoots with distributors, restaurants, and the retail sector, will out-spend and out-maneuver public health advocates for decades to come. Already the soft drink industry has increased its lobbying against soda taxes by 750 percent both in Congress and the states, which indicates how seriously they take this threat. They can spend millions of dollars fighting taxes and still get a good return on that investment due to the money they save in the long run.

And the fight will never be over, because even if you get a tax this year, it will probably be small, and you will have to fight to increase it next year, and the year after that. Public health advocates will have to decide if the enormous resources it will take to succeed are ultimately worth spending decades fighting on taxes, or if other policies, such as reducing corn subsidies, would be more effective. Either way, the lobbyists will remain employed.

PepsiCo Triples its Chances of Hooking Teens on Gatorade, Targets their "Emotional Relationship with Sports"

2010-04-24T18:27:00.000-07:00

Every few years, when sales decline in a flagship brand, the parent company has to figure out how to "refresh the brand" to re-boost sales and keep investors happy. Such is the case now with PepsiCo's Gatorade line, which has been in a sales slump for three years.

Invented in 1965 by University of Florida researchers, Gatorade is PepsiCo's third-biggest selling global beverage brand after Pepsi-Cola and Mountain Dew. So when its sales declined 14% last year, this was cause for concern on Wall Street. Enter "G" brands, PepsiCo's first in a series of marketing strategies aimed at reviving Gatorade sales. If you've been wondering what all those G ads were for, you're not alone. But odds are, you're also not the target audience.

Critical to maintaining brand loyalty of course is reaching young customers. According to a recent story in the Wall Street Journal called, "Gatorade Before and After: PepsiCo's New Ad Campaign Aims to Boost Its Struggling Sports-Drink Business," the company says the renaming effort has been a hit with teens. To create the "G Series" line, Gatorade interviewed more than 10,000 teen athletes, parents and coaches, says WSJ:

The first stage of Gatorade's return to its athletic roots came last year with a makeover dubbing the drink "G." The move fell flat with some consumers who said they were confused by the new packaging, but [Gatorade's chief marketing officer] Ms. Robb O'Hagan said the "G" campaign achieved its aim of reconnecting with teenagers, who saw the drink as something "my parents drink."

Reconnecting with teenagers, the needed demographic to replace the aging consumers from previous decades, check. Now comes stage 2 of getting the brand off life support: inventing entirely new ways to promote the products as performance enhancing for athletes, or athletic-wannabes.

Not satisfied to merely be a thirst-quenching "sports drink," PepsiCo has created not one, not two, but three ways to drink Gatorade, called the "G Series." (No doubt, the "science" behind this new 3-pronged approach was cooked up at the PepsiCo-funded Gatorade Sports Science Institute, and yes, that's a real place.) Now kids can mimic their favorite basketball star before, during, and after the game. The three products—Prime, Perform and Recover—together will cost about $7, which is more than triple the price of one plain old 20-oz. Gatorade bottle. How brilliant is that, triple your sales while tripling the empty-calorie consumption, cha-ching!

But of course the costs may be much higher from the resulting health care stemming from the adverse health effects of promoting needless beverages to teens. As the WSJ notes, "teens are Gatorade's main target." And Gatorade's O'Hagan minced no words when she described the teen years:

It's the most critical time in their emotional relationship with sport. Without a doubt, that's when consumers enter the Gatorade franchise.

Emotional relationships, entering the franchise, does this sound like corporate responsibility to you? This is the same company that touted itself as being on board with Michelle Obama's Let's Move campaign to end childhood obesity. I guess Ms O'Hagan didn't get that memo.

The need to save a struggling brand by targeting teens could certainly explain why PepsiCo's recent announcement of a "global policy" on school beverages was suspiciously silent on Gatorade. When I tried to ask PepsiCo management about this disconnect, I was told the products were for "athletes" but no specifics were given on how to keep Gatorade out of the hands of non-athletic students, which, let's be honest, describes the overwhelming majority of sedentary kids these days.

In my research for Appetite for Profit, every nutritionist and health professional I spoke to agreed that the average teen certainly has no need for "sports drinks," at least not until we start suffering from a national de-hydration epidemic, which seems unlikely. Meantime, teens, who are already heavily targeted with PepsiCo's Pepsi-Cola and Mountain Dew brands, will now be bombarded with even more messages to drink highly-caloric, nutritionally-deficient beverages. As a result, we can expect even higher risks of obesity and related health problems that go along with over-consumption.

And with reports of PepsiCo spending $30 million to revive the Gatorade brand, the marketing effort is likely to succeed. Despite the company's claims of corporate responsibility, all that really matters to PepsiCo is the bottom line, and Gatorade is already showing positive signs of a comeback. Again, from the WSJ article:

"Gatorade is still down but it's not down as much as it has been previously," Chief Financial Officer Hugh Johnston said in an interview. "I really do feel good about the fact that we're getting the Gatorade business back on track."

At least someone feels good. I am feeling a little ill myself.

Kick-Ass Shameless Product Placement - Eat, Drink, Shoot, and Drive (repeat)

2010-04-21T19:42:00.000-07:00

In a previous post I called out Iron Man 2 for its over-the-top product placement and co-branding deals with the likes of Burger King and Dr. Pepper, but now it seems another movie deserves top honors as shameless promoters of all things bad for you. As described by Brandchannel, the new superhero parody, Kick-Ass (I am sorry to have to even type that awful title) hawks no fewer than 40 brands. Here's how some of the products break down into what's bad for you, bad for the planet, and/or can maim you or others. PepsiCo scores the highest for most brands under one corporate umbrella (5).

Beverages - 8: Amp Energy Drink, Aquafina, Budweiser, Clover Milk (arguable), Hi-C, Mountain Dew, Sierra Mist, Welch's
Junk food - 7: Count Chocula, Dunkin' Donuts, Honey Puffs, Hungry Man, Land-O-Lakes, SunChips, Twizzlers
Cars - 6: Chrysler PT Cruiser, Ford, Ford Mustang, GMC, Range Rover, Rolls Royce
Guns - 4: Beretta, Glock, Heckler & Koch, Steyr (I had to look these up)
Sexually-exploitative dolls: Bratz! (OK, I made a special category for this, but they are awful.)

I suppose that unlike with Iron Man 2, these movie producers could argue that there is no disconnect with superheroes eating and drinking and shooting and driving themselves into oblivion in a parody, but I still say given how popular this movie will be with young people, it's inexcusable. Yes, the film is rated R, but we all know how teenagers flock to R movies to feel grown up. But if these teens use many of the products promoted in the film, they may not get to.

What do you think?

Shame on Susan G. Komen - KFC's Pink Buckets are for Profits, not Breast Cancer

2010-04-21T14:29:00.000-07:00

Ok, so since I don't watch TV, I am sometimes a tad behind on the latest marketing travesties. But thanks to free TV on Jet Blue airlines, I can catch up. So while traveling last week I saw the KFC ads asking me to support the breast cancer cause by purchasing a bucket of chicken. It was then I realized what I miss most about TV: the outrage.

Here's the deal: For every pink bucket of cancer-promoting, heart-clogging, animal-torturing fried chicken you purchase, KFC will donate a whopping 50 cents to Susan G. Komen for the Cure. Even more disgusting, as the Komen website explains: "Names of breast cancer survivors and those who have lost their battle with breast cancer will be listed on the sides of the bucket." (Is that kind of like a war memorial?)

So I was happy this morning to sign Breast Cancer Action's petition to ask both KFC and Susan G. Komen to stop "pinkwashing" -- Breast Cancer Action's term for exploiting breast cancer victims in the name of charity. For the complete pinkwashing treatment, you really must visit KFC's Buckets for the Cure.

Then came back this lame reply from Margo Lucero, Susan G. Komen's director of "Global Corporate Relations" (a bad sign right there), which first simply repeats the verbiage already on the org's website:

Thank you for your e-mail to Susan G. Komen for the Cure® – we do appreciate you taking the time to tell us how you feel about this partnership. You should know that our partnership with KFC is designed to help reach millions of women we might not otherwise reach with breast health education and awareness messages which we consider critical to our mission. This additional outreach is made possible through KFC’s 5,300 restaurants (about 900 of them in communities not yet served by a Komen Affiliate). This partnership also helps us to generate funding toward the nearly $1.5 billion in research and community programs that Komen has funded over 30 years – programs that are literally saving women’s lives through better treatments and early detection.

Next comes the excuses, and the troubling framing of food choices being a matter of personal responsibility, not to mention giving KFC props for providing "healthy" choices and nutrition "advice." (!)

Our partnership focuses on healthy options at KFC – grilled chicken and vegetables, for example. Ultimately, we believe that the decision to maintain a well-balanced diet lies in the hands of the consumer. KFC provides tools to make those choices, by providing a healthy choice menu and advice on its Web site on how consumers can limit fat and calorie consumption in its products.

In other words, we need the cash, so leave us alone. But KFC has the most to gain out of this arrangement. In addition to positive PR, the campaign will of course encourage more purchases, and 50 cents a bucket is well, just a drop in the bucket. Meanwhile, KFC's parent company, Yum Brands posted an impressive 10 percent increase in profits in the first quarter while revenue topped $2 billion.

You can sign Breast Cancer Action's petition here and find them on Facebook here.

How did the American Dietetic Association get taken over by Big Food?

2010-04-20T07:17:00.000-07:00

A colleague sent me this image of the tote bag from the 2008 American Dietetic Association annual meeting. Is it any wonder why Americans are confused about how to eat when the nation's top nutrition-advice professional group has been co-opted by the very corporations making people sick?

Iron Man 2: Junk Food Marketing at a Theater Near You

2010-04-19T21:13:00.000-07:00

The opening of the next installment in the blockbuster Iron Man franchise may still be a few weeks away (May 7), but the promotions are in full swing. As Advertising Age describes today, the movie has attracted more than $100 million in media buys, retail tie-ins, and giveaways. Of the ten brands listed in the Ad Age article, five promote foods that are are not exactly conducive to Iron Man's heroic image. But who cares about the disconnect, with so many dollars up for grabs. And of course, with so many youngsters likely to see the film, the brand loyalty-building potential is key.

Here, as Ad Age describes them, are the five shameless product placements / co-branding deals:

BURGER KING
A returning sponsor from 2008 (and a co-star in a key scene in which Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark requests a cheeseburger that happens to come from the home of the Whopper), Burger King is upping its "Iron Man" marketing machinery this time around with a major company-wide push that kicks off April 26. The fast-feeder will feature an "Iron Man 2"-branded sandwich, the "Whiplash Whopper," and eight film-related toys -- four for boys and four for girls. A bevy of TV ads targeted separately toward adults and kids will roll out as well, in addition to a heavy online presence at ClubBk.com.

7-ELEVEN
Another repeat partner, 7-Eleven, is executing several marketing firsts on Marvel's behalf, including its first movie tie-in TV ad to promote its custom "Iron Man" straws, Big Gulp cups and other merchandise, as well as a Live Like a Billionaire Sweepstakes for slurpee.com. The initiative will be supported with radio and web ads as well as a presence on 7-Eleven's in-store TV network.

LAND O'FROST
Tony Stark sandwiches? Land O'Frost lunchmeats are back with a major two-and-a-half month push that will feature "Iron Man" sweepstakes, TV ads, print placement in major titles such as Family Circle and Ladies Home Journal and an in-store blitz that includes 10 million Land O'Frost packages and point-of-sale materials such as life-size Tony Stark standees.

DR PEPPER
Dr Pepper has already kicked off a three-month ad and retail campaign that includes 14 collectible cans and a series of TV ads featuring "Iron Man" creator Stan Lee. Mr. Fleming told Ad Age that "Iron Man 2" represents the brand's first big movie partnership since 2008's "Indiana Jones & the Crystal Skull." Even the movie's director, Jon Favreau, got with the program, posting pictures of the cans on his Twitter feed.

HERSHEY'S

For its first "Iron Man" campaign, Hershey's is using its Reese's brand to engage fans in the Marvel universe, much as it did with Warner Bros. for 2008's "The Dark Knight." The peanut-butter cup is sponsoring a sweepstakes offering fans a chance to win a walk-on role in an upcoming Marvel movie, and is using "Iron Man 2"-branded packaging in the U.S. and over a dozen global territories. The extensive effort will continue through the end of September.

Lame response from Yale PR office re: PepsiCo / medical school deal

2010-04-05T22:53:00.000-07:00

Here is what I received from Yale after I signed the petition at Change.org to ask the Yale School of Medicine to end its deal with PepsiCo, which I wrote about here and here.

Thank you for your recent e-mail regarding the Yale School of Medicine. Dean Alpern has asked the Office of Public Affairs to respond, since you refer to a recent news release which we issued.

The Yale MD/PhD Program is funded by many different public, corporate and private sources. However none of the donors can influence the content - or compromise the quality - of the program, which is considered one of the most rigorous in the country. For almost 200 years, the Yale School of Medicine has maintained the highest standards of academic and research integrity. The nutritional research conducted by Yale clinical scientists addresses important diseases including metabolic syndrome, diabetes and obesity.

Only through the generosity of our many donors can Yale School of Medicine continue to push the frontiers of clinical research and translational medicine.

Sincerely,

--
Charles Robin Hogen Œ70)
Deputy Director of Public Affairs
Yale University
O:203-432-5423
C:203-856-8115
robin.hogen@yale.edu

So let's write directly to Robin and explain that why this won't cut it.

Yale / PepsiCo Deal Making for Bad PR in Wall Street Journal and Yale Daily News

2010-04-02T14:32:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago I wrote about how the soda and snack-food giant PepsiCo had bought a piece of the Yale School of Medicine (my alma mater - MPH, 1990) by funding a "lab" and a fellowship program. Earlier this week, the Yale Daily News reported, "Critics fizz over Pepsi Gift." In that article, we learn part of the price tag for the sell-out:

These activists have criticized the soft-drink giant’s decision in December to sponsor a graduate fellowship in the school’s M.D.-Ph.D. program, worth $250,000 over five years, for students who want to perform research on nutrition and obesity-related diseases.

Really, only $50K a year? That's a pretty cheap price for a company that netted $1.7 billion in one quarter of 2009. If Yale is going to sell its good name, maybe they could negotiate a better deal than that.

But the price to pay may be higher in bad public relations. It's one thing for the school newspaper to raise questions, but today, the Wall Street Journal, the nation's most respected business voice took notice. In an opinion piece entitled, "Boola Moolah! Food Fight at Yale," Eric Felten writes:

PepsiCo is finding out just how hard it is to appease the nutritionistas. Two weeks ago the company was getting kudos in the New Haven Register for setting up a healthy-eating research lab at Yale's commercial Science Park; for putting a quarter of a million dollars into a doctoral-student fellowship in obesity studies at the Yale School of Medicine; and for agreeing to limit the calories in drinks it sells in schools. "World gets Healthier (Pepsi) Generation" raved the Register's headline. By this week the cola and snack conglomerate found itself getting smacked for the same good deeds. "Critics fizz over Pepsi gift" was the headline in Monday's Yale Daily News, reporting that activists are accusing the university of selling out for a few soda-stained dollars. Michele Simon, a Yale School of Public Health grad, was perfectly aghast that her alma mater would have anything to do with such merchants of death: "They own Cheetos, for God's sake."

Yale's School of Medicine dean replied soothingly that the arrangement is "perfectly ethical"—and there's no reason to doubt that. We aren't likely to see journal articles flowing from Pepsi Scholars documenting the salubrious properties of high-fructose corn syrup.

The WSJ then hits the nail on the head:

Still, Yale isn't quite as innocent here as the administration makes out. The Yale Bowl could be renamed PepsiCo Stadium and there would be no suggestion that the arrangement was anything but a mercenary one—a straightforward advertising deal. But the corporate naming game has different implications when it invades the tweedier precincts of campus. When a business gets its name worked into the academic fabric of a school, it is buying something more than a place to slap a corporate insignia. There is the implication that the firm is a partner in the intellectual enterprise.

What both papers fail to mention is that the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, frequently critical of Big Food, is housed at Yale, so it's hard to view PepsiCo's motives as pure. With this latest bad press, maybe the powers that be at both Yale HQ and the medical school will see how stupid this move was. It hardly seems worthy of one fellowship.

Also see how the Yale Daily Journal story got spun on the MSNBC web site in an article somewhat mis-titled, "Yale Takes Heat for Pepsi-Funded Obesity Study."

Please share these articles with others to help keep the pressure on Yale to end this ill-conceived deal. Also, email medical school Dean Robert J. Alpern and/or sign the petition at Change.org. Thank you!

Why it's Time to Retire Ronald McDonald - my media statement

2010-04-01T07:54:00.000-07:00

Here is what I said at yesterday's press conference / retirement party for Ronald McDonald:

We know Ronald McDonald is everywhere, especially where ever kids are. Why target kids? For starters, children under age twelve command up to $50 billion in direct purchasing power, and influence $670 billion in family purchases.

And McDonald’s knows that vulnerable children are the perfect advertising audience, since they don’t even know they’re being marketed to. Children under the age of eight do not have the cognitive capacity to understand that Ronald is trying to sell them something; they just know they love the friendly clown.

The American Academy of Pediatrics says that “advertising directed toward children is inherently deceptive and exploits children under eight years of age.”

The First Amendment, which marketers often try to hide behind, does not protect deceptive advertising, which means McDonald’s is on treacherous legal ground and it’s only a matter of time before the law catches up to Ronald.

McDonald’s knows that brand loyalties established in childhood last a lifetime. Get them while they are young, and you’ve got them hooked for life.

But children aren’t just little adults. Their minds are still forming, making them especially vulnerable to the manipulations of marketing, and of course, their growing bodies need optimum nutrition, not Happy Meals.

But what about the parents, I hear all too often. After all, kids don’t drive themselves to McDonald’s or purchase those Happy Meals themselves. Any parent can tell you how difficult it is, after a long day at work, to resist the pestering, sometimes daily, by their children to take them to McDonald’s, usually just because of the lure of the toys, and of course, the clown.

And what better way to bypass parents and market directly to children than through a clown – the icon of circuses and children’s parties.

But parents have a right to raise their children in a safe environment, without constantly worrying about predatory corporate marketing. And children have the right not to be preyed upon by a clown with a corporate agenda. That’s why McDonald’s should retire Ronald.

Please visit: Retire Ronald to support this important campaign. Thank you.

Time to Retire Ronald McDonald

2010-03-31T08:36:00.000-07:00

Today, Corporate Accountability International is launching a campaign to ask McDonald's to retire its child-exploiting mascot, Ronald, who for almost 50 years has been getting kids hooked on fast food. I am speaking at a press conference this morning at San Francisco City Hall, while another takes place in New York City, and events are being held at McDonald's outlets around the nation to get the clown to step down. Read more about the campaign at RetireRonald.org, including poll results that show almost half of Americans agree that it's time to retire Ronald. More to come.

Michelle Obama's Let's Move - Will it Move Industry?

2010-03-14T14:04:00.000-07:00

So what's all the fuss over Michelle Obama's Let's Move campaign to end childhood obesity, and will it make a difference? Of course, it's too soon to know for sure (it just launched last month), but early signs indicate more talk than action and deafening silence on corporate marketing practices.

The most obvious problem is framing the issue around obesity, which implies a couple of troubling assumptions. One, that skinny kids are just fine, no matter what garbage they are being fed, and two, that exercise, which has long been a convenient distraction, will continue to be so.

What is Let’s Move?

I highly recommend spending a few minutes perusing the Let's Move website, which is simple, but informative in describing the campaign. (For a more detailed description, read the press release.) While the name Let's Move implies a program all about exercise, in fact 3 of the 4 components have to do with food, which leads me to wonder why the White House wanted that to be less obvious. According to the home page:

Let’s Move will give parents the support they need, provide healthier food in schools, help our kids to be more physically active, and make healthy, affordable food available in every part of our country.

All laudable goals indeed, but notably absent is any criticism of the billions of dollars a year Big Food spends successfully convincing both parents and children to eat highly processed junk food and sugary beverages. Michelle Obama may be able to withstand the call of the Happy Meal, but most parents aren't so lucky to have a White House chef at their disposal.

To her credit, the First Lady is saying many good things about parents needing more support. Also, for the first time I heard the phrase "food desert" uttered on national TV. So she really does seem to understand that it's not all about education or personal responsibility.

But how exactly will Mrs. Obama and her husband attempt to end childhood obesity "within a generation." First is the formation of yet another task force. As the President's memo explains, members of the Task Force on Childhood Obesity are to include the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Education, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff to the First Lady. Heavy hitters yes, but might they have just a few other items already on their to-do list?

Also, in key language, the memo explains that "the functions of the Task Force are advisory only," meaning that this body, at the end of the day (or many months), will only make recommendations for another body (Congress?) to then maybe, someday, consider.

Do We Really Need Another Task Force?

The Obama Administration may be surprised (since they are calling it the "first ever") to learn that theirs is not the first federal task force on this issue. The previous administration had a few failed attempts. We already tried the Task Force on Media and Childhood Obesity, which the Federal Communications Commission spearheaded. Perhaps it never really went anywhere thanks to its members, who included the likes of Coca-Cola, McDonald's, and Disney.

Then there was the Food and Drug Administration's Obesity Working Group, which was broader than just childhood obesity, and whose pathetic achievement was the startling discovery (and accompanying silly web-based tool) that "calories count."

But given that we really can't count anything tried under the previous administration, I am willing to wait and see if this task force can come up with something better. It certainly can’t be any worse than the lame "Small Steps" program (still online).

And let's not forget the still active Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children, which is comprised of officials from four agencies: the Federal Trade Commission, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In December of last year, this body released "tentative proposed nutrition standards" (for food products the government says are A-OK to market to kids) and is planning a final report with recommendations (for voluntary standards) to Congress this July. (Read author and fellow blogger Jill Richardson's excellent description of its public panel and proposed standards)

This is the historical backdrop into which Michelle Obama now brings us Let's Move. It’s not as if we haven’t been here before; she’s building on many failed attempts. But let’s take a closer look at one of the four Let’s Move components – school food.

How to Improve School Nutrition?

Under the "Healthier Schools" tab of the campaign's website, I recognize a few programs that have been out there for some time. For example, the underfunded Healthier US School Challenge and the ineffective Team Nutrition program, both under the U.S. Department of Agriculture, that agency whose number one mission is to prop up Big Agriculture. (The USDA also happens to be in charge of school nutrition and other food assistance programs, which has never proven to be a good combination.)

A few things are new under Let’s Move, including doubling the number of schools that meet the Healthier US Schools Challenge and adding 1,000 schools per year for two years after that. And the President proposes to increase the federal budget by $1 billion annually to improve the quality of school meals. This sounds impressive, but as school lunch expert and Chef Ann Cooper pointed out in a recent Washington Post article, a mere 10 percent increase is a drop in the bucket. Currently, we feed 31 million students a day on $9.3 billion, which amounts to only $2.68 per meal. When was the last time you ate a decent lunch less than 3 bucks? (No, the dollar menu meal doesn't count.)

And nowhere is any mention of the ongoing problem of competitive foods, which is government doublespeak for Coke and Pepsi vending machines in every school hallway, Doritos, Milky Way, and Good Humor sold in school stores, not to mention fast food like Pizza Hut that has taken over many school lunchrooms. Maybe that’s because the Obama Administration has decided that the success of Let’s Move depends in part on "the creation of public private partnerships." That sounds familiar.

Working With Industry?

Since signing up for the Let's Move email updates, I haven’t been too impressed. Here are two topics that landed in my in-box last week: Attention Techies! Apps for Healthy Kids Launched Yesterday and Paralympic Games Show All Athletes Can Be Champions. Now please don't send hate mail; I have nothing against apps or the Paralympics, I just don't understand how these concepts will solve childhood obesity “within a generation.”

In an especially bad sign, Michelle Obama is speaking at a gathering of the Grocery Manufacturers Association this Tuesday. As I chronicled in Appetite for Profit, GMA, the lobbying arm of packaged foods conglomerates such as Kraft and PepsiCo has a long history of undermining school nutrition standards, among other positive policies.

As another blogger suggests, Mrs. Obama's own ties to Big Food may explain her deferential treatment of industry. She served on the board of directors of TreeHouse Foods (a spinoff of conglomerate Dean Foods) for two years until 2007, when her husband's presidential campaign became all consuming. This same blogger predicts that at the GMA meeting:

Mrs. Obama will focus on "the pressing need to pursue comprehensive solutions to combat childhood obesity" and call upon food manufacturers to join these efforts by "providing healthier food options and better information about healthy food choices."

But Kraft, PepsiCo, Kellogg's and others have been all over that idea for several years now with their "smart choices" foods and claims of responsible marketing to children through its bogus Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative.

We won't hear any scolding or warning aimed at industry. Instead, the First Lady will simply ask the major food corporations to jump on the Let's Move bandwagon. And they will do so gladly. With no threats looming (for example, that Congress might pass legislation to restrict marketing to kids) Big Food has nothing to fear; quite the contrary, industry gains positive PR in the process. Indeed, not missing a beat, GMA sent the White House a letter of support for the campaign on the same day that Let's Move launched.

Let’s Move the Corporations Out of Washington

The bottom line for me is that while there are many things to like about Let's Move and it's certainly encouraging for a First Lady to talk about access to fresh, healthy food as a national priority, much of it is still rhetoric we've heard before.

To turn the talk into real action will take a ton of leadership from President Obama and even more political will from Congress. Most importantly, unless and until the ubiquitous junk food marketing stops, both in schools and out, very little of substance will change and we will be back here once again with the next administration's childhood obesity task force.

Let me know what you think.

Postscript (3/17): Michelle Obama tells GMA curb junk food marketing to kids, wants more "healthy food" marketing instead. Read about her talk on Marion Nestle's blog and see the transcript.

Co-optation of the week: Kraft and community gardening

2010-03-12T14:21:00.000-08:00

It's hard not to overuse the descriptor Orwellian, but the food industry often leaves me no choice. This story in Brandchannel explains how Kraft Foods is "supporting" community gardening through its Triscuit crackers. As the article describes:

Kraft is making an unusually large commitment to the concept of home farming by offering free basil and dill herb seed cards on four million Triscuit boxes. The brand is also sponsoring an educational website with a wealth of information on how to start a home garden and how to find local community farms.

Even more scary, the phrase "community farms" links to a Kraft web page that invites us to "join the movement" of "home farms" (a phrase new to me) and claims to be partnering with a nonprofit called Urban Farming. No wonder, since their supporters include other massive members of Corporate America such as Home Depot and Starbucks.

Where to even begin? A multinational food conglomerate promoting community gardening? That's like the WTO promoting local currency. Seeds with your Triscuits? Is Kraft really the best source for seeds?

And let's take a gander at the food ingredients in a Triscuit cracker, shall we? Here: WHOLE WHEAT, SOYBEAN AND/OR PALM OIL, MALTODEXTRIN, SALT, SPICES (INCLUDES ROSEMARY), MONOSODIUM GLUTAMATE (FLAVOR ENHANCER), ONION POWDER, NATURAL FLAVOR, OLIVE OIL.

Funny how there are no instructions on Kraft's "home farming" website about exactly how one can grow maltodextrin or monosodium glutamate or even onion powder or palm oil (and/or soybean oil) in one's backyard. But hey, free seeds could get the company to move those four million cracker boxes faster, not to mention garner some positive PR.

This just in: My friend (upon seeing the story) wants to know: But how do I grow Triscuits?

Soda giants team up for school vending PR campaign

2010-03-11T20:47:00.000-08:00

This revealing March 9th Ad Age article describes how soft drink giants Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Dr Pepper Snapple Group have teamed up to run ads showing off about how they are removing sugary soft drinks from schools. The companies claim an 88% decrease in calories since 2004, but some experts are skeptical about the health impact.

And the timing of the ad campaign seems awfully suspicious, as Ad Age notes:

While the school initiative was in place well before the industry was put on the defensive against the proposed taxes, the promotion of the program is certainly well-timed. New York Gov. David Paterson has called for a one-cent-per-ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, while Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter last week proposed a two-cent-per-ounce tax on sugary beverages.

The soft drink industry certainly knows how to deflect attention and confuse the issues. Calling their latest "initiative" (is anyone else sick and tired of hearing that word?), "Clear on Calories," Big Soda seems to think that placing calorie numbers on the front of beverage containers and vending machines equals good nutrition and "has painted the voluntary commitment as an answer to First Lady Michelle Obama's call to eradicate childhood obesity." Funny, I don't remember seeing anything about soda calorie labels in the First Lady's program.

The ever-ready with a quote PR guy Kevin Keane, of the American Beverage Association (i.e., lobbying trade group) explains: "These are the fiercest rivals you're going to get. But our companies felt [the campaign] was the strongest way to convey what they'd done and that they'd done it together." How warm and fuzzy. Of course, these same companies have been lobbying together for years to undermine school nutrition policy, so this teamwork is really nothing new.

Fast food race in China: Subway v. McDonalds

2010-03-11T20:11:00.000-08:00

As this March 8th Reuters article explains, fast food giant Subway, which currently has only 150 outlets in China compared to McDonald's 2,000, aims to catch up to the golden arches within 10 years. And why not, with a population of 1.3 billion, China's a potential goldmine for sub sales.

"Our biggest challenge is getting customers to try the product," Subway President Fred DeLuca said, adding that they were considering lowering prices to attract more customers.

Yeah, that can be annoying, when people in foreign lands don't understand your bastardized version of food. But the submarine research brain trust is on the job. The company is testing sandwiches such as Beijing roast duck and local sauces like "hot spicy Szechuan sauce." Guess that makes it local.

Also, and without a hint of irony, DeLuca figures that Subway's emphasis on "fresh eating and lots of vegetables" will help the chain grow as Chinese diners look for healthier options (compared to McDonald's?), with the country becoming aware of obesity. "People are starting to understand there is a bit of a problem. This may match up with our growth trajectory and put us in a position where we can grow quite fast," he said.

So let me get this straight: China had no obesity problem before Western-style fast food and a meat-centered diet was introduced (see T. Colin Campbell's excellent book, The China Study) and now, it's American fast food to the rescue? Oh right, that's the company's solution here at home too.

Another report shows failure of self-regulation in junk food marketing to kids

2010-03-09T16:05:00.000-08:00

The Center for Science in the Public Interest, that venerable organization that never seems to tire of studying the same problems over and over again, has once again demonstrated that food and media companies are failing miserably when it comes to improving its marketing practices toward children. The report gives 3/4 of companies reviewed a failing grade for either having weak policies or having no policy whatsoever. The report's poster child (so to speak) is shown here, Chuck E. Cheese's "pizza maker," which doesn't actually make pizza, thankfully.

From the press release is this horrifying product description:

Candy company Topps also got an F. That company makes, among other things, Baby Bottle Pop, a powdered candy sold in a miniature baby bottle, eaten by dipping a candy nipple in a sugary powder and licking it off. Over the years Topps has retained the services of the Jonas Brothers and the Clique Girlz singing groups to convince children to purchase that infantilizing product, whose 140 calories all come from sugar.

Gross. Since this is hardly earth-shattering news, the real question is when we are going to see any political will to do something about it. While Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" program is admirable for its emphasis on school nutrition and food deserts, it's painfully silent on junk food marketing. No amount of exercise can overcome the food habits being pushed on America's kids by Corporate America's billions of advertising dollars. Let's move on that.

PepsiCo opens "research" center at Yale Medicine - I may return my degree

2010-03-07T19:14:00.000-08:00

This is really embarrassing. I attended the Yale School of Public Health back when it was still a separate department within the Yale School of Medicine. I just received my alumni newsletter, only to find out that Yale Medicine has teamed up with soft drink and snack food giant PepsiCo to create a "research laboratory" in Science Park, which is adjacent to Yale's campus.

What will sort of alleged science will this Orwellian place produce? Why, the "development of healthier food and beverage products," what else? But that's not all. It seems that Yale's price tag was a tad higher. To complete the sell-out, PepsciCo is also sponsoring a fellowship in Yale's M.D.-Ph.D. Program. According to the company's press release, "the endowment will specifically fund work that focuses on nutritional research, such as metabolic syndrome, diabetes and obesity." Just great. Here's how Dr. Robert Alpern, Dean and Ensign Professor at Yale School of Medicine justifies the deal:

PepsiCo's commitment to improving health through proper nutrition is of great importance to the well-being of people in this country and throughout the world. We are delighted that they are expanding their research in this area and that they have chosen Yale as a partner for this endeavor. Extending this partnership to the M.D.-Ph.D. Program represents a visionary investment in one of the finest researcher training programs in the world and thus to the future of science.

Sickening. And ironic since Yale is also the home of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, which is fast becoming the nation's leader in the field. I can't help wondering if this is a coincidence, of if PepsiCo figured this was a good way to neutralize the Rudd Center's increasing influence over policies detrimental to the company's bottom line. Let's take, for starters, how Rudd is gaining national expertise on soda taxes, as evidenced by numerous articles penned by Rudd director Kelly Brownell such as this one published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Also making me suspicious is another Yale / PepsiCo connection. When the Rudd Center was first formed, Derek Yach, formerly with the World Health Organization and tobacco control hero, was on staff there. Then in 2007, to the great shock and dismay of public health advocates around the world, he became PepsiCo's Director of Global Health Policy, whatever that means.

And now here he is (second from left, standing), posing with numerous other smiling PepsiCo executives, side by side with Yale School of Medicine faculty members. It's almost like he has returned to buy out his previous company.

Now I understand that everyone is hurting for money these days. The dean whines here about the university's projected 25 percent drop in its endowment for 2009. But really, I don't think that can possibly justify this arrangement. It's not like the alternative was laying off faculty. The alternative was not affiliating with the purveyor of Cheetos and Mountain Dew.

Even though I always say I never learned a damn thing about nutrition at Yale Public Health, at least I could say I went to Yale. But now I am not sure I want to anymore. After writing my book, I admit to being pretty jaded and not easily shocked by industry influence, but this one really hurts. Who can I even complain to? Is nothing off limits to corporate control?

Coca-Cola sees (profit) health in India, China while Americans remain confused

2010-03-05T15:47:00.000-08:00

I always say you have to follow the business news to understand what's really going on with corporations; it's the one place they tell the truth. In this revealing interview with Coca-Cola CEO Muhtar Kent, Bloomberg explains how the soft drink giant, "has relied on overseas markets to offset at least four years of declining soft-drink volume sales in the U.S." Sound familiar? It should, as it's the exact same strategy as the tobacco and alcohol industries: once sales in the U.S. are saturated, the only place to go is overseas, and the developing world is the last available opportunity for growth.

The article describes Coke's CEO as saying that "emerging-market economies such as China and India are beginning to bounce back quickly, while more developed regions will take longer to recover." Even more chillingly, Kent is directed quoted: "The emerging world is in a healthier situation as we are exiting the tunnel." Of course, he means the tunnel of the recession, but never mind how the health of the "emerging world" is being increasingly threatened thanks to the invasion of U.S.-style fast food, soda, and other non-native foodstuffs, as this 2007 article on childhood obesity in China explains.

As for the lagging economy in the U.S. and other western nations, Coke's chief says that “the consumer is still confused." Yes, we are so confused that we've cut back on drinking sugar water full of chemicals, how very inconvenient for Corporate America. But there's always other nations to exploit.

Great New Resource on Legislation

2010-03-04T21:11:00.000-08:00

The Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University has launched an amazing new searchable database for pending and enacted legislation, both at the federal and state levels. You can search by either state or issue, such as school nutrition or soda taxes. I've been tracking legislation for years on both food and alcohol and I know how limited the tools out there are. This is truly a fantastic contribution to the field of food policy. Check it out here.

Speaking Event Wed March 10 at UC Berkeley

2010-03-04T20:01:00.000-08:00

Join me and Jill Richardson, author of Recipe for America. Details here.