|
We were deeply disappointed by the IOM's call
for Congressional action to mandate a specific
shift in the way companies allocate their ad
spending. This is a radical and unconstitutional
proposal that would have an impact far beyond
food advertising. It sets a dangerous precedent
that would allow the government, if it
determines that certain types of speech have
some adverse consequences, to dictate the
substance of the speech the public hears. It not
only is contrary to good policy, but most
certainly would violate the First Amendment. |
Apparently, Mr. Jaffe missed Informed Eating’s
report from the symposium we co-hosted at Loyola Law
School in October that busted the myth of the First
Amendment being a barrier to regulation. (See November
issue) While the
conclusion that food marketing has a profound impact on
children’s eating patterns may seem obvious, for a
relatively conservative scientific body (and one that
included several industry representatives) this report
is significant and should be utilized for its reliable
research evidence that defies industry’s claims to the
contrary.
To
purchase the 450-page report:
http://www.iom.edu/?id=31330&redirect=0
Grocery Manufacturers Association statement:
http://www.gmabrands.com/news/docs/NewsRelease.cfm?DocID=1588
Association of National Advertisers remarks:
http://promomagazine.com/news/institute_medicine_study_120705/
Coca-Cola Facing Campus Boycotts
Over the
past two years, Coca-Cola has increasingly become the
target of campus activism to stop the soda giant from
peddling its sugar water to students. But unlike the
public school concerns over childhood obesity, older
students are outraged about the company’s poor human
rights record among workers in Columbia and
environmental abuses in developing countries such as
India. Since last May, three of the nation’s largest
universities have removed and banned the sale of Coke
products on their campuses: the University of Michigan,
Rutgers University, and New York University. In the
latest victory, the University of Michigan announced on
December 29 that that it has suspended sales of
Coca-Cola products after a year-long campaign by the
Coalition to Cut the Contract with Coca-Cola, a group of
20 campus organizations. Student activists want Coke to
agree to an independent third-party probe of labor
violations at its Colombian bottling plants. There have
been at least eight killings in Colombia involving seven
union officials and one plant manager since 1989,
according the Campaign to Stop Killer Coke. The company
denies the charges.
Meanwhile in India, one of Coca-Cola's largest bottling
plants remains shut down since March 2004 because the
local community refuses to allow it to operate, charging
the plant with creating severe water shortages and
pollution in the area. Regular demonstrations against
the company's operations all across India include a
December march of more than 1,500 people demanding the
closure of the factory in Rajasthan. “We are putting the
Coca-Cola Company on notice. It will continue to lose
lucrative contracts with more colleges and universities
until it cleans up its act in India," said Amit
Srivastava of the India Resource Center. Similar actions
are spreading across Canada as well. So far, 20 campuses
in North America have kicked Coke out and more than 130
colleges and universities (mostly in the U.S.) have
actions pending. In Europe, the National Union of
Student Services Limited is being pressured not to renew
a contract with Coke that expires in March covering more
than 200 campuses and five million students.
For more
information:
www.KillerCoke.org
www.IndiaResource.org
School Soda Lawsuit Planned
In other
Coca-Cola backlash, last month, the New York Times and
the Washington Post reported that several lawyers who
took on the tobacco industry are preparing a case to be
filed in Massachusetts to get soda out of schools. Also
involved is the Center for Science in the Public
Interest (CSPI), the Washington DC-based group that has
been a thorn in the side of food companies for decades.
“The idea is to get soda machines out of schools because
they are clearly making a substantial contribution to
the obesity epidemic," Richard A. Daynard, of
Northeastern University School of Law and one of the
group’s lead lawyers, told the Post. "This is an unfair
practice under state consumer-protection laws," he said.
CSPI’s director of litigation, Stephen Gardner
explained: “It is unfair to sell junk drinks to a
captive audience when the parents are not there. This is
just wrong.” Gardner said that soda companies are
marketing to children “so they will become Pepsi or Coke
drinkers for life” and having these products available
in schools, “carries the school’s imprimatur. Kids
believe the schools are endorsing them.” Massachusetts
was chosen as the first state because of its strong
consumer protection laws. Depending on the outcome
there, CSPI will consider suits in other states. CSPI
will not target states that already ban junk food in
schools, such as California and Texas. If the companies
voluntarily end their involvement with schools or if
Congress passes legislation, Gardner says, lawsuits
won’t be necessary.
(In the
interest of full disclosure, CIFC's Michele Simon is
consulting on this case.)
Sources:
New York Times, 12/07/05
Washington Post, 12/02/05
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/01/AR2005120101467.html
School Board News, 12/20/05
http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_sbn_issue.asp?TRACKID=&VID=55&CID=682&DID=37516
Wisconsin Insurer Funds Healthy
Eating
Physicians Plus, a Madison, Wisconsin-based insurance
company is encouraging its 95,000 members to join the
community supported agriculture (CSA) movement. CSA
farms sell shares of their harvest, and throughout the
growing season members receive boxes of fresh produce
weekly or biweekly. Memberships can run $300 to $700 for
a season. The insurance company's new Eat Healthy Rebate
subsidizes CSA memberships by $100 for single
policyholders and $200 for families. Kathryne Auerback,
the company's director of marketing, came up with the
idea in part because she is a CSA member herself. She
has been exposed to vegetables she wouldn't have
otherwise tried: fennel, dandelion greens, and kohlrabi.
Laura Brown, program coordinator for the Madison Area
Community Supported Agriculture Coalition, which
represents 23 farms, helped Auerback work out what Brown
called "essentially a very simple program that will
benefit all the farms, the community, and Physicians
Plus as well." The program - likely the first of its
kind - has the potential to expose CSAs to a whole new
community that may not be familiar with them, Brown
said. "It's not only innovative but it sets an amazing
precedent for other health insurance companies across
the country that may realize that a fresh, healthy and
local diet leads to healthier lifestyles and a stronger
community."
Source:
The Capital Times, 01/06/06
http://www.madison.com/tct/news//index.php?ntid=67793&ntpid=1
To find out more about the program:
www.pplusic.com
New Resource: Responding to Personal
Responsibility
The
Center for Informed Food Choices (publisher of
Informed Eating) has just posted brand new FAQs on
its website. As loyal readers know all too well, the
food industry is engaged in a massive public relations
campaign designed to deflect government regulation. The
centerpiece of this campaign is the idea that the real
solution to the current public health crisis caused by
poor diet is “personal responsibility.” To help you in
responding, we have drafted brief answers to such
questions as, why can’t people just choose to eat
healthy foods; why can’t parents just say no to their
kids; and, what is the impact of marketing on our food
choices. The new web page also includes other FAQs on
food politics more generally. While these answers only
provide summaries of complex issues, they should help
when you need a pithy retort. Feel free to send us
feedback or more ideas at:
talkback@informedeating.org.
FAQs on
Food Politics:
http://www.informedeating.org/faqsonfoodpolitics.html
