January 2005

Editor’s Note: With all the bad news lately, I decided to focus this month’s issue on just the good news. Can you imagine the federal government ruling that Coke has to print warning labels on its products? They can in India. Or banning junk food ads to kids? It’s happened in Ireland. As usual other countries are way ahead of the U.S. in public health policy. We should use these examples to push for stronger reforms here. Special thanks to Melinda Hemmelgarn (Food and Society Policy Fellow) for allowing us to reprint her excellent commentary on getting schools to place health over profit. Let’s make 2005 a healthy year, for both children and adults.

Fighting Back: Policy Victories and Other Good News

India Orders Review of Soda Health Hazards

The Indian Supreme Court has ordered a thorough examination of the contents of soft drinks marketed heavily by American rivals, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, who together control 99 per cent of soft drink sales in India. The court acted in response to a petition by the Center for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) alleging that the government has not taken action despite research showing that soft drinks are harmful, especially to children. CPIL also requested that the court require soft drink manufacturers to disclose the contents of their products and provide appropriate warnings about ingredients and their harmful effects. Just last month, the Indian Supreme Court also required Coke and Pepsi to prominently print on bottles the extent of any pesticide residues in their soft drinks. The extensive use of pesticides in agriculture has resulted in high pesticide residues in sugar.

Sources: Financial Express, 01/04/05
http://www.indiaresource.org/news/2005/1001.html
Times of India, 12/06/04
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/948506.cms

California Tries to Ban School Junk Food (again)

Despite a devastating loss to the junk food industry last year, California nutrition advocates never say die. State Senator Martha Escutia is back with a new bill that would place nutrition standards on competitive foods (meaning outside the school meal program) sold in public schools, K-12. The California Center for Public Health Advocacy, sponsor of the legislation, also anticipates a separate bill this session to address the sale of soda in high schools, which is still allowed thanks to lobbying by the beverage industry.

Source: California Center for Public Health Advocacy: www.publichealthadvocacy.org

Coke Should Stop Acting Like Big Tobacco

In a scathing commentary, John F. Borowski asks soda giant Coca-Cola to drop their Big Tobacco strategies in favor of the moral high-ground. Borowski compares how, when faced with damning truths, big tobacco relied on obfuscation, bogus science and deep-pocketed PR campaigns. “Coca-Cola, stung by criticism that they too are merchants of immoral marketing aimed at children and unethically denying the health risks of their sugar water is fighting back.” Borowski offers an impressive list of groups around the world that have been standing up to Coke. For example, the Service Employees International Union, with 1.7 million members, passed a resolution to: “support the world-wide call to boycott Coca-Cola and work to win broad AFL-CIO support for the campaign against killer Coke..." and UNISON, the UK's largest union with 1.3 million members, passed a resolution at their national conference, resolving to: "support the call to boycott Coca Cola products."

Source: CommonDreams.org, 12/21/04
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1221-21.htm

Fat Tax Deserves Another Look

In an excellent op-ed article in USA Today, writer Suzanne Leigh recommends that policymakers reconsider the “Twinkie tax” as a way of raising revenue to fight the consequences of obesity. Kelly Brownell, of Yale University, first proposed 10 years ago that revenue from junk-food taxes be used to subsidize more healthful foods and fund public-awareness campaigns. A national tax of one cent per 12-ounce soft drink would generate $1.5 billion annually, he estimates. The idea was revived last year when New York Assemblyman Felix Ortiz proposed taxes on junk food and entertainment contributing to sedentary lifestyles to fund nutrition and exercise programs. Leigh asks, “why not try it.”

Source: USA Today, 12/01/04
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20041202/opcom02.art.htm

Curbing Junk Food Advertising to Kids

For years European countries have been far ahead of the United States in having stricter regulations around advertising of junk food to kids. As of January 1, Ireland imposed a ban on television advertisements for candy and fast food. The law also prohibits using celebrities and sports stars to promote junk food to children. The UK is calling on industry to work with legislators to create a voluntary code of conduct governing the sales, promotion and advertising of junk food to children. If the voluntary response is not satisfactory within two years, the government will enact potentially draconian legislation. "These companies can decide to reform themselves, and they should do it now," said Gerard Hastings, of the Center for Social Marketing at the University of Strathclyde, who recommended the changes. "They have to take responsibility and acknowledge their contribution to the obesity epidemic—to be part of the solution. Otherwise they'll end up facing intense regulation like the tobacco companies, or junk food lawsuits like there are against McDonald's in America."

Speaking of America, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has released Guidelines for Responsible Food Marketing to Children, which call on food manufacturers, broadcasters, restaurants, movie studios, and schools to voluntarily reform the way drinks, snacks, fast-food meals, and other foods are marketed to kids. The Guidelines propose curbing certain marketing techniques but unlike the food industry's self-imposed guidelines, CSPI is proposing basic nutritional thresholds for determining which foods should be marketed to kids in the first place. The amount of marketing aimed at kids has doubled in the last 10 years from $7 billion to $15 billion a year. "No parent would allow a door-to-door salesman to come into the house and spend a few unsupervised minutes with the kids, yet junk-food manufacturers have similar unfettered access to kids’ impressionable minds via advertising and marketing," said CSPI executive director Michael Jacobson. "Food manufacturers like to put all the blame on parents, but these companies go right around parents' backs, directly to kids--and sometimes directly to toddlers--with sales pitches for unhealthful foods."

Sources: International Herald Tribune, 01/06/05
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/05/news/fat.html
Center for Science in the Public Interest
Press Release, 01/06/05: http://www.cspinet.org/new/200501051.html
Full report: http://www.cspinet.org/marketingguidelines.pdf

GUEST COMMENTARY

Educators Should Put Health First, by Melinda Hemmelgarn, RD

Los Angeles Unified School District administrators deserve applause for prioritizing children's health and banning junk-food sales on their campuses. Child advocates at school districts across the country are watching closely as the LAUSD finds alternative, healthful food products, deals with revenue issues, and documents its successes, such as reduced hyperactivity and discipline problems, and less trash on campus. Three cheers for Van Nuys Middle School Principal Tony Delgado, who has said that the initial dip in revenue is a "small price to pay."… Smart administrators and educators put children's health first. It's our job to model the lessons and values we teach in the classroom. A quote posted on the door of an inner-city high school in Kansas City sums it up best: "If we don't model what we teach, we are teaching something else."

Full article: http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20951~2624828,00.html

Informed Reading

If you’ve never heard of T. Colin Campbell, it’s probably because, in his own words, he “challenges a number of sacred cows in science and medicine.” Campbell is Professor Emeritus of nutritional biochemistry, Cornell University. After a 40-year career, he has finally written a landmark book: The China Study: Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-term Health. Campbell uses the China Study, recognized by The New York Times as “the Grand Prix of Epidemiology,” as a jumping off point to present the overwhelming evidence that a plant-based diet is optimum for long-term health. My favorite section is: “Why Haven’t You Heard This Before?” with chapter titles such as, “Science—the Dark Side” and “Government: Is It for the People?” For the first time and from first-hand experience, Campbell exposes the inner politics of nutrition research funding and explains how the most venerable institutions (operating on taxpayer dollars) are corrupted by special interests and cannot be trusted to tell the truth about diet and health. Campbell’s scientific integrity throughout his career is beyond reproach and with The China Study he shares a fascinating story that needs to be told.

For more information: www.thechinastudy.com

Seeking Local Stories of Battling Big Food

CIFC is currently gathering stories at the state and local levels where the food industry is attempting to block nutrition advocacy efforts. Many states, cities, and counties around the country are trying to pass nutrition-related legislation (e.g., limiting junk food in schools or imposing soda taxes), but the food industry is lobbying hard to either stop or curtail these efforts. If you know about any specific fights, we want to hear about them. We are especially interested in stories related to soda contracts in schools. Please contact Michele Simon at: Michele@informedeating.org or (510) 465-0322. Thank you!

The Center for Informed Food Choices in a nonprofit organization that advocates for a whole foods, plant-based diet and educates about the politics of food.

CIFC is proud to make Informed Eating available as a free public service. Unlike industry publications, it is not underwritten by corporate sponsors. We would greatly appreciate your support for this newsletter and our other important policy work. For more information or to make a tax-deductible donation, please visit www.informedeating.org or call (510) 465-0322.

We encourage you to pass this newsletter along to friends.

2005 Informed Eating  -  All Rights Reserved