“Using FOIA, Sunlight obtained memoranda of meetings for the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) over a two-year period, yielded dozens of industry contacts with the regulators who oversee them. Industry group representatives were present at meetings four times as often as representatives of consumer interests.”

Winning the prize for the most frequent visitor to FDA over the two-year period was Miriam Guggenheim of the law firm Covington & Burling. Thanks to her efforts, members of the American Bakers Association (ABA) will likely be exempt from FSMA’s proposed regulations regarding warehouse temperatures, measures, FDA says, “prevent problems that can cause foodborne illness.” The exemption, the ABA press release notes, “was allowed under language in FSMA that was included at ABA’s recommendation.” Well done. Guggenheim also accompanied representatives from Mars candy when the company wanted faster approval processes for food additives and held telephone calls with FDA about “bottled water labeling,” among other client needs. But, despite Guggenheim being identified as a frequent visitor to FDA, according to Sunlight, she has not been registered as a lobbyist since 2010, before FSMA even passed. How so? Sunlight says it just shows the weakness of our lobbying disclosure rules and a lack of enforcement:

“Guggenheim’s work on behalf of food industry heavyweights shows how much of the influence game in Washington still remains in the shadows. Not everyone who pushes private agendas in Congress and at regulatory agencies registers to lobby. Those who are registered to lobby disclose minimal information about their activities.”

The only way Sunlight was able to obtain the information it did was because “agencies keep track of which special interests come calling and why.” However, “those records are rarely made available to the public without a Freedom of Information Act request.” The documents Sunlight obtained from FDA revealed a wide variety of lobbying by industry, in no way limited to the FSMA rulemaking process. Several issues reveal an interesting cause-and-effect pattern: Soon after an industry-tarnishing report appears in the media, meetings at FDA ensue. Take, for example, highly caffeinated energy drinks, which have caused a lot of controversy lately. On Nov. 14, 2012, The New York Times ran a story with the headline, “Caffeinated Drink Cited in Reports of 13 Deaths.” The next day, D.C. lawmakers, led by U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), once again called on FDA to investigate the safety of energy drinks, following up on letters the senators sent in April and September of that year. “We urge the agency,” they wrote, “to assert its regulatory authority over caffeine levels in energy drinks marketed as beverages.” Just two weeks later, on Nov. 30, 2012, Guggenheim and three of her Covington colleagues, as well as Thomas P. Davis, the chief scientific officer for their client, Monster Energy Drink, sat down with 13 members of FDA. The description of the discussion in the official memorandum is vague, but proving the drinks were safe was clearly a top priority. Dr. Davis provided “studies relating to the safety of Monster energy drink ingredients” and “emphasized the safety of Monster’s products.” Almost a month-and-a-half later, on Jan. 11, 2013, the Times ran another story on the dangers of energy drinks, this one with the headline, “More Emergency Visits Linked to Energy Drinks.” Just four days later, on Jan. 15, FDA hosted another meeting with energy drink insiders, this time with Kraft Foods representatives, on the topic of their new energy beverage, MiO Liquid Water Enhancer (which was not specifically named in the Times article). Another hot topic in the news has been arsenic in rice. A Consumer Reports study published on Sept. 19, 2012, revealed that organic rice, baby cereal, and numerous other rice products contained arsenic, often “at worrisome levels.” Within a few weeks, on Nov. 8, 2012, members of the Organic Trade Association, rice producer Lundberg Family Farms, California Natural Products, USA Rice, and others met with representatives from FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. The subject, according to the memorandum, was “Arsenic in Rice.” That large corporate interests lobby our lawmakers to legislate (or not legislate) in their favor is nothing new. But the Sunlight report shines a light on a dark corner of the workings of the Big Food lobby that — in part thanks to the complicated FOIA process — we rarely get to see. A review of the agency’s records shows that, while FDA also takes meetings with consumer interest groups, the vast majority of the agency’s schedule is composed of meetings with large corporations such as Coca-Cola and Campbell Soup Company, along with major trade groups, including the National Chicken Council, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, and the American Spice Trade Association (turmeric and cardamom need lobbyists, too). According to Sunlight, consumer groups were present at only 18 percent of the meetings, while industry representatives were showing up 78 percent of the time. So how can those of us not adept at filing regular FOIA requests even know that these meetings with government officials in charge of food safety are happening? The report’s author, Nancy Watzman, told me that federal lobbying disclosure rules are “very porous, rely on the honor system, and give a very incomplete picture of what’s really going on.” Given these weaknesses, Sunlight’s government affairs consultant recommends several improvements, including a requirement that all lobbyists report the name of the official contacted by the lobbyist, a summary of issue discussed, specific actions requested, and the name of the client. This sort of transparency Sunlight says, would have an important impact on democracy:

“Had these principles been in place while the lobbying for an exemption to the food safety rules had been ongoing, it would not have taken the relentless digging of an intrepid reporter to uncover who was shaping the rules. More importantly, real time, public disclosure of industry’s efforts for special treatment is paramount for healthy debate.”

This editorial originally appeared on the blog of the Center for Food Safety on Oct. 15.

“Under Washington’s public disclosure law, any organization that ‘bundles’ contributions must declare itself as a political action committee. Moms for Labeling is citing underground industry sources to support its claim that the Grocery Manufacturers Association is fronting for the companies that gave heavily in California last year.”

While Superior Court Judge Chris Wickham recently dismissed the lawsuit, the attorney for the “No on 522” campaign may have overstated the decision when she called it a “complete victory.” The judge did not actually rule on the merits of the case, so the allegations that GMA is fighting with junk-food companies’ money still stand. Instead, the judge said that the timing of the case wasn’t right, “not that there isn’t merit in the underlying claim.” In other words, as the Post-Intelligencer put it: “The basic issue of the suit — the public’s right to know where money spent in the I-522 campaign comes from — remains unresolved.” While dismissing the lawsuit based on timing, Judge Wickam also hit the non-profit with a $10,000 sanction (plus defendant attorney’s fees) under a statute meant, ironically, to protect against frivolous lawsuits brought by large corporations to stop public interest groups from speaking out. Known as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP), anti-SLAPP laws are designed to protect David from Goliath. But GMA turned the tables, accusing Moms for Labeling of making a “strategic attempt to suppress [its] political speech.” And the judge agreed. Still, the attorney who filed the suit on behalf of Moms for Labeling, Knoll Lowney, says he’s not backing down. Last week, he filed a legal notice to give the state attorney general’s office 10 days to file its own case, after which Lowney says Moms for Labeling will have met the requirements to bring the lawsuit again themselves. According to the letter, newly released 2012 tax filings show that GMA received contributions from member companies that it funneled to the “No on Prop 37” campaign in California last year. “The new evidence we delivered to the attorney general makes it even more clear that ‘No on 522’ is illegally concealing its donors,” says Pam Johnson, co-chair of Moms for Labeling. In addition, Lowney says that sources within these companies told him the $7 million is the result of GMA’s soliciting “voluntary special assessments” (donations on top of usual dues) from its members. While his whistleblowers can’t say with certainty that the special assessments are to defeat I-522, “Everyone knows where the money is going.” That GMA has yet to issue a flat-out denial is also suspect, Lowney says. It’s really not hard to figure out. Just take a look at the executives running the show at GMA. The board of directors is a veritable who’s-who of Big Food. For starters, Ken Powell, chairman and CEO of cereal giant General Mills is board chair. Other notable GMA board members include:

• John Bryant, president and CEO of Kellogg
• Brian C. Cornell, CEO of PepsiCo Americas Foods
• W. Anthony Vernon, CEO, Kraft Foods
• J. Alexander M. Douglas, Jr., senior vice president and global chief customer Officer, Coca-Cola

Each of these companies relies heavily on genetically engineered ingredients to make its products, so it’s really no mystery what’s going on. During the California fight, food companies suffered significant backlash for opposing Prop 37. No wonder these corporations want to let GMA be the public face of their opposition this time around. But doing so just may be a violation of law. The question is, will they get away with it? Meanwhile, overall the opposition to I-522 has donated $17 million to keep Washington State consumers in the dark.

“You all know that our kids are like little sponges – they absorb whatever is around them. But they don’t yet have the ability to question and analyze what they’re told. Instead, they believe just about everything they see and hear, especially if it’s on TV. And when the average child is now spending nearly eight hours a day in front of some kind of screen, many of their opinions and preferences are being shaped by the marketing campaigns you all create. And that’s where the problem comes in.”

Next, the first lady explained how ads get children to nag their parents, saying that, “Kids who see foods advertised on TV are significantly more likely to ask for them at the store – a phenomenon known as ‘pester power’ … And research shows that a child’s first request for a product happens as early as 24 months, and, 75 percent of the time, this request takes place in a grocery store.” Mrs. Obama also explained how marketing works to influence what children ask for and how that makes parents’ jobs so hard, saying that 45 percent of kids’ food requests were for junk food such as burgers and fries and candy. “So from the time our kids are still in diapers, we as parents are already fighting an uphill battle to get them interested in the foods that will actually nourish them.” Then she even dispensed with another of industry’s favorite talking points: that parents should just “turn off” the TV:

“Now, like many parents, Barack and I do our best to limit our daughters’ TV time. But, as you all know, these ads aren’t just on TV. They’re on the Internet, in video games, smart phones, billboards. They’re in schools and store displays. They’re everywhere, and parents just can’t keep up, no matter how hard we try. So whatever we all might believe about personal responsibility and self-determination, I think we can agree that it doesn’t necessarily apply to children.”

My favorite line came as she called on industry “to empower parents instead of undermining them as they try to make healthier choices for their families.” The first lady said that industry should stop undermining parents. That’s a pretty big deal. Thank you, Mrs. Obama, for echoing the sentiments that so many parents, healthcare professionals and advocates have been saying for a long time. Only one problem: The first lady’s office is in the wrong wing of the White House. Imagine if these words were uttered by the president instead. What if our nation’s leader told the executives of food and media corporations to stop undermining parents? How much more powerful would those words sound coming from Mr. Obama? Now imagine an alternative scenario to the secret “closed-door” meeting that came after the speech, where various “stakeholders” were brought together in an unrealistic attempt to forge voluntary solutions defined only by industry, given that the first lady has zero policy-making authority. What might that look like? How about hearings in Congress during which medical and health experts testified about the terrible toll that diet-related diseases such as diabetes are taking on children and the correlations between predatory marketing and children’s eating habits, and parents explained how their best efforts were undermined by the ubiquity of junk food and targeted marketing? Now imagine our political representatives holding a dramatic hearing that demanded answers from the CEOs of Coca-Cola, McDonald’s and Nickelodeon about why they continue to target children in the midst of this public-health crisis. All of this would be followed up by legislation or regulation to legally restrict industry’s predatory business practices – in the name of protecting children from exploitation. Of course, this is all just fantasy: neither President Obama nor our very broken Congress has shown any willingness to take on the food industry. Indeed, when the Interagency Working Group (led by the Federal Trade Commission, the agency that regulates advertising) came together in President Obama’s first term to try and improve the food industry’s own voluntary guidelines by simply making them science-based, the entire effort went down in flames. Now Mrs. Obama is trying to use her charm to accomplish what four federal agencies could not. Of course, food corporations may make minor tweaks to their marketing practices in hopes of gaining the first lady’s stamp of approval and scoring a press conference with her, as Disney and Walmart did. But let’s not fool ourselves into thinking these will be meaningful or long-lasting improvements. This sort of voluntary self-regulation has a long track record (across numerous industries) of generating a lot of positive PR with few actual results. In her speech, the first lady joked that some industry members may be waiting things out, figuring that “in a few years, this lady will be gone and this whole ‘Let’s Move’ thing will finally be over, so we can go back to business as usual.” That’s exactly what they are thinking. But she correctly reminded them that this issue isn’t going away when the Obamas leave office in a few years. Even if today’s elected leaders lack the backbone to protect children’s health, the public climate is growing increasingly inhospitable to predatory marketing. For that we have the first lady, advocacy groups such as Corporate Accountability International, and a growing chorus of organizations and advocates to thank.

Last month, I participated in an important panel at a childhood obesity conference to discuss the current strategy backed by some advocacy groups: asking industry to market “healthier” foods to children. But as Susan Linn and I recently 

McDonald’s website for Happy Meals goes a step further, inviting children to make a music video by uploading their pictures and encouraging them to share the video with up to four friends, who then receive an email from McDonald’s: “You’ve been tagged for fun by a friend! Check it out! It’s a Star in Video at the McDonald’s Happy Meal Website.”

That Happy Meals contain apple slices and milk seems rather irrelevant when you consider how low this corporation will stoop to exploit children. According to McDonald’s internet privacy policy (almost a year after this complaint was filed) the company still encourages children to share friends’ names and email addresses but assures us that such information is deleted after McDonald’s contacts the friend. That’s a relief. Most importantly, research suggests that this sort of stealth advertising can be more effective than traditional television commercials because children are less aware of online ads, probably because they are too busy having fun. According to a report from the Kaiser Family Foundation:

From a marketer’s perspective, one of the potential advantages of an “advergame” is the ability to draw attention to your brand in a playful way, and for an extended period of time (at least relative to a 30-second television ad) … On the Internet, the boundaries between advertising and other content may be harder for a child to distinguish. This medium does not have the natural breaks between commercial and non-commercial content which typify television.

That could help explain why the most recent federal government report on food marketing to children suggested that corporations were shifting their advertising spending from television to “new media” such as online, mobile and viral marketing, which are also relatively inexpensive. An incremental approach to ending food marketing to children Some advocates contend that tweaking the nutritional content of foods marketed to children is a good approach because it’s incremental, while stopping marketing altogether is asking for too much. But why must this be the only way to engage in incrementalism? I can think of many incremental alternative solutions to the nutrition approach to food marketing to children. The possibilities are truly endless, starting with the above examples of branding and internet targeting. Let’s take branding. Even if McDonald’s won’t agree to Corporate Accountability International’s demand to Retire Ronald, there are plenty of smaller steps the fast food giant could take right now. For example, Ronald could stop visiting grade schools. I would consider that a pretty huge victory; far better than the addition of apple slices and milk to Happy Meals. Or Ronald’s image could stop appearing on children’s toys. Speaking of toys, McDonald’s could stop including them in Happy Meals. As could other fast food chains like Burger King, which is now promoting its “BK Crown Activity Box” with various toy tie-ins. Imagine, parents buying food for the food, not the toys. These and many other incremental steps the food industry could take to stop targeting children have the advantage of not being dependent on nutrition standards that industry gets to define and manipulate. It’s also far easier to monitor and enforce a policy such as “no advergaming” than one based on grams of salt, sugar and fat. But most importantly, marketing to children is inherently deceptive and harmful and we should demand corporations stop engaging in this unethical behavior. Because that’s the right thing to do. This article was originally published by Corporate Politics International July 8, 2013. 

Healthy and health-conscious, the Sozas always inspect their foods and select organic produce. They were surprised to learn that some of the fruit from Townsend Farms of Fairview, Ore., was from outside the United States. But the packaging convinced the Sozas the fruit was all-American because it bears the slogans “Grower. Processor. Distributor.” and “Field to Farm to Family, since 1906.”

Soza’s wife put it plainly: “It was our distinct impression that these are raised under U.S. standards, especially organic food standards.” (More on this later.) I asked Mark Kastel, co-founder of The Cornucopia Institute, an organic watchdog group, if he thought the Townsend label was confusing as to the product’s origins. “Yes, it’s deliberately deceptive, to make you think you’re buying local fruit from the farm up the road. There are many examples of this. Often companies with the word ‘farm’ in their name don’t even do any growing themselves, they just contract with farms, sometimes from all over the world. Or they just buy from brokers in the farms or an anonymous source.” How does this connect to food safety risks? While small, local farms are not immune, the difference is in the magnitude of the impact: with a small farm, any adverse impacts are only felt locally, but with globalization, the potential hazards are spread far and wide, and to a much larger population. Also, about the antioxidant claim on the package, registered dietitian Andy Bellatti tells me it’s pretty meaningless. “All whole, plant-based foods contain antioxidants. So any combination of fruit can be ‘an antioxidant blend’ and what matters most is diversity of antioxidants, not just from berries.” Can We Trust Organic Labels on Imported Foods? Among the most frequent questions I get regarding organic is, “What about imported food; can we trust the standards in other countries?” The Townsend berries sports the USDA organic seal, indicating that even though the mix contains imported fruit, it still conforms to the high U.S-based organic standards. As Food Safety News explains, imported foods are evaluated by organic certifying agencies approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Townsend Farms’ products are certified as organic by both Oregon Tilth, a private third-party certifier, and the Washington State Department of Agriculture. But how is it that berries grown in Turkey, Chile and Argentina can get packaged in Oregon and certified as organic by the standards of the U.S. Department of Agriculture? The short answer to that question lies in the fact that firms worldwide have the ability to certify farms according to the standards set forth by the USDA. As long as a proper authority can verify that a farm operates according to organic standards once a year, that farm can become USDA-certified organic whether it’s outside Indianapolis or Istanbul. OK, but can we trust these foreign certifiers? Some watchdog groups such as Center for Food Safety and Cornucopia Institute have greater confidence in U.S. farms and U.S.-based organic certification than from imports. These groups and many others have grave reservations about particular countries with an increasing presence in the U.S., particularly China and India. How Many Sick People Will it Take to Get Feds to Act? Most importantly, this serious outbreak underscores once again how the stalled food safety regulations, as mandated by the Food Safety Modernization Act (enacted in 2011), are adversely impacting public health. The law, which numerous groups pushed hard for, mandates significant upticks in foreign inspections by the Food and Drug Administration, although how those increases will be funded remains a serious question. Additional import safeguards include giving FDA authority to require certification for food coming from certain countries as a condition of admission to the U.S. But the required regulations for how these preventive measures would be implemented have been overdue for more than a year now. In April, a federal court agreed with the Center for Food Safety’s lawsuit that the Food and Drug Administration has failed to adhere to statutory deadlines for final regulations. The judge ordered FDA to work with CFS to submit a new timeline for the rules, which the court would then require FDA to follow. George Kimbrell, senior attorney with Center for Food Safety, says this process is currently underway, which is the good news:

Congress required FDA to dramatically improve import safety. The firm, timely deadlines for new import regulations underscored how overdue and urgently-needed the improvements are. The court should soon set new deadlines for the regulations, and FDA will finally do the job Congress required of it and protect the American public from continued outbreaks.

The bad news is that while FDA continues to drag its feet, Americans continue to get sick. Whether it’s hepatitis A in imported berries, Listeria in imported cheese, or Salmonella in imported papayas, our regulators have a lot more work to do to safeguard the food supply. Let’s hope it won’t take more illnesses to get them to take action. Editor’s note: This article originally appeared on the Center for Food Safety Blog June 11, 2013. The outbreak statistics have been updated to reflect the most current information. Bill Marler, whose blog is mentioned in the piece, is publisher of Food Safety News. Marler Clark, the firm that underwrites Food Safety News, is representing Geoff Soza.

• Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood
• Corporate Accountability International
• Dietitians for Professional Integrity
• Food Democracy Now!
• Food and Water Watch
• New York Coalition for Healthy School Food
• Nutritional Therapy Association
• Organic Consumers Association
• Reese Richman, LLP
• Andy Bellatti, MS, RD, Registered Dietitian
• Ann Cooper, Founder, Food Family Farming Foundation
• Nancy Huehnergarth, Food Policy Consultant
• Frances Moore Lappé and Anna Lappé, Small Planet Institute
• Janet Poppendieck, PhD, author, Free for All: Fixing School Food in America and Professor Emerita, Hunter College

This article originally appeared on the Center for Food Safety‘s website.

The rider pertains to transgenic crops that have been deregulated by the USDA but then had that approval overturned by a judge — a scenario that has occurred with genetically engineered alfalfa and sugar beets. In such a situation, the agency “shall” immediately issue permits or a partial deregulation order that would temporarily allow farmers to continue growing and selling the crop until USDA is done re-evaluating its environmental effects, according to the rider.

Why is this such a big deal? The court system is often our last hope, with Congress, the White House, and regulatory agencies deep inside industry’s pocket. Several legal challenges have resulted in court decisions overturning USDA’s approval of new GMO crops, for example, sugar beets. So the biotech industry, unable to make its case to a judge, figured why not just rewrite the Constitution instead, with the help of a Democratic Senate led by Senator Barbara Mikulski, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Despite Montana Senator Jon Tester’s best attempts to stop the so-called biotech rider, the measure was pushed through. (Industry had tried to get a similar measure passed more than once last year.) Tester minced no words in an article in yesterday’s POLITICO about this and other industry power grabs such as weakening small farmer protections:

These provisions are giveaways, pure and simple, and will be a boon worth millions of dollars to a handful of the biggest corporations in this country. They deserve no place in this bill. We simply have got to do better on both policy and process.

If President Obama signs the budget deal with this provision, it could have long-lasting and serious consequences. This list of pending petitions to USDA to approve genetically engineered crops includes new versions of corn, soybean, canola, and cotton. Once these crops get planted, it will be too late to do much about it. That’s why groups such as the Center for Food Safety file lawsuits when USDA turns a blind eye to the potentially harmful environmental consequences of these unique crops. Here is how Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety described the situation:

In this hidden backroom deal, Senator Mikulski turned her back on consumer, environmental, and farmer protection in favor of corporate welfare for biotech companies such as Monsanto. This abuse of power is not the kind of leadership the public has come to expect from Senator Mikulski or the Democrat Majority in the Senate.

The biotech industry, with the help of Congress, is attempting an end-run of the judicial system. Since judges can’t get be bought off, just go to your friends in Congress instead. Unfortunately, most of the mainstream media has not picked up on this unprecedented Big Biotech power grab, and in the case of NPR, has even spread misinformation about the rider’s effects:

But a closer look at the language of the provision suggests it may not be granting the USDA any powers it doesn’t already have. “It’s not clear that this provision radically changes the powers USDA has under the law,” Greg Jaffe, director of the Biotechnology Project at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, tells The Salt.

This interpretation was echoed, unsurprisingly, by the biotech industry, in Capital Express:

“It doesn’t require the USDA to do anything it wouldn’t otherwise have the authority to do,” said Karen Batra, communications director for the Biotechnology Industry Organization. “The language is there to protect farmers who have already made planting decisions.”

But as Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety explains, the new language makes what is currently discretionary or optional on USDA’s part mandatory, a huge difference:

The word “shall” forces the USDA to continue allowing biotech crop cultivation even if its commercialization was overturned. They’ve taken away the discretion of the secretary of agriculture. Its real not-so-hidden purpose is to take away the ability to effectively vacate the approval of a crop that’s been approved illegally.

If there is any good news, it’s that the continuing resolution the provision hitched a ride on is only valid for six months. But industry seems confident it can make the workaround permanent. Likely what will follow is a protracted court battle over the policy’s constitutionality; remember that whole separation of powers thing? Still, any such legal challenge will likely take years to be resolved. Even USDA thinks the provision is unconstititional. Secretary Vilsack’s office told POLITICO that he has asked the Office of General Council to review the language, “As it appears to pre-empt judicial review of a deregulatory action which may make the provision unenforceable.” Meanwhile, the grassroots movement continues to grow to demand labeling of foods containing genetically engineered ingredients. While important, we cannot let labeling distract us from pro-biotech policies at the other end of production. The fewer GMO crops that are allowed to be planted in the first place, the fewer end products containing GMOs. But it’s not too late. You can still demand that President Obama refuse to sign the budget bill into law unless the biotech rider (aka Monsanto Protection Act) is removed. Food Democracy Now! has already gathered more than 175,000 signatures demanding Obama do the right thing. From that organization’s action alert:

By sneaking Section 735 into a federal appropriations bills, Monsanto has successfully planted a dangerous provision in U.S. law that strips judges of their constitutional mandate to protect American’s health and the environment while opening up the floodgates for the planting of new, untested genetically engineered crops. Even if their new GMO crops are ultimately proven to be harmful to human health or the environment, Section 735 allows them to be planted the minute the USDA approves them! Even more alarming, currently 13 new crops are awaiting approval at the USDA and AquaBounty’s GMO salmon is on the verge of being approved by the FDA. This new provision opens the door wide open for these approvals.

If the biotech industry can so easily override our court system, which is our last resort in stopping these dangerous crops from being planted, we will have no place left to turn. And Monsanto will have completed its hostile takeover of the U.S. government. Take action now by calling and emailing the White House here. Editor’s Note: This article originally stated that Senator Barbara Mikulski was the chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, when in fact she is the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. The article has been updated to reflect this correction.

All employees would accrue one hour of sick time for every 40 hours worked and could earn up to 56 hours in a calendar year. Furthermore, the paid sick leave could be used for anything from being physically sick to caring for a sick family member or friend, or a doctor’s appointment.

The horror. How many NRA and restaurant industry executives enjoy these very privileges, or better? Locally, worker rights groups are gaining some traction, with numerous states and cities enacting paid sick leave bills. However, the NRA is also striking back wherever it can. According to this PR Watch story from 2011, the NRA teamed up with the notorious right-wing lobbying group, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to pass a state-wide law in Wisconsin to override a local referendum to require paid sick days that had passed in Milwaukee in 2008 with more than 70 percent of the popular vote, democracy be damned. Also helping ALEC lead the charge on this issue was YUM! Brands, which owns Kentucky Fried Chicken, Pizza Hut, and Taco Bell. As PR Watch noted: “The effect of the repeal will be more sick workers at work, making others ill, in order to save or increase profits by corporations.” This is exactly what the research shows. Results from this 2011 study of food workers (conducted in part by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) were not pretty: Almost 12% (of 500 surveyed) worked while suffering vomiting or diarrhea on two or more shifts. (Previous studies showed only five percent of workers.) Factors associated with working while vomiting or experiencing diarrhea included high volume of meals served and lack of policies requiring workers to report illness to managers. For those of us thinking we are immune if we don’t eat at fast food outlets or chains, it hardly mattered, as independent restaurants were also at risk. The researchers conclude that paid sick days could help. Obviously. Yet in response to this study, the NRA told CNN: “There is no greater priority for the restaurant industry than food safety.” Really? Then stop lobbying against paid sick leave and start protecting your customers, even if you don’t care about the workers. A survey conducted by the Restaurant Opportunities Center (co-founded by Jayaraman) found that an incredible 63 percent of restaurant workers reported cooking and serving food while sick. Perhaps less surprisingly, 87.7 percent of restaurant workers reported not having paid sick days. In her recent article for CNN, author Jayaraman explained how the current flu season puts more workers and customers alike at risk. She also stressed that those of us fighting for better food safety laws should be paying just as much attention to worker rights:

If we don’t pay food industry workers decent wages and ensure they receive paid sick days, then no matter how much the FDA regulates the boiling temperature for processing cheese, restaurant workers will keep sneezing on our dinner and food-borne contamination and illness will continue to be a problem.

More than half of all reported U.S. foodborne disease outbreaks occur in restaurant settings. While outbreaks have various origins, according to the CDC, about 50 percent of all outbreaks of food-related illness are caused by the highly infectious norovirus, the leading cause of illness from contaminated food. No wonder the CDC recommends against preparing food when sick:

If you work with food when you have norovirus illness, you can spread the virus to others. You can easily contaminate food and drinks that you touch. People who consume the food or drinks can get norovirus and become sick. This can cause an outbreak.

That’s why we need better laws to help workers be able to afford to do the right thing to protect restaurant patrons. Not to mention that food outbreaks are costly to society at large. As Jayaraman puts it: “If we pay restaurant workers a living wage and ensure they can stay home when they’re sick, that means fewer taxpayer dollars on public health emergencies and fewer stomach aches for diners as well.” Everyone wins, right NRA? Please support the campaign for paid sick days and check out the book, Behind the Kitchen Door. You can also register for this upcoming pubic health law webinar on the need for paid sick days, and current campaigns and legal issues.

Internet promotional activities have become an anchor for food marketing, with more than 90% of the reporting companies engaging in online marketing in 2009. Online marketing is far less costly than TV and other media, and more interactive and engaging.

Moreover, cross-promotions, such as when food companies team up with movie studios, video games, theme parks, etc., which FTC calls “a hallmark of marketing food to young people” increased from 80 reported examples in 2006 to more than 120 in 2009. In a sign that it’s becoming increasingly impossible to separate TV from online entertainment, FTC offers: “SpongeBob episodes, for example, could be viewed on food company websites with cross-links between Nickelodeon’s SpongeBob website and the food company site.” Also, it’s not just that spending is shifting from TV to online that’s significant, but that digital marketing techniques are more interactive and at times downright creepy, especially when it comes to teens. (See my post about PepsiCo’s online video game designed – according to the ad agency – to “scare the crap out of teenagers.”) The FTC report describes the social intent of “advergaming:”

One game directed the child to hold a cereal box up to a webcam in order to interact with the game. Other popular online marketing activities included allowing children to create their own avatar and personalize their virtual world, creating art work to share with a friend online, joining online “clubs” that offer free or discounted meals on a child’s birthday, and downloading screen savers, “emoticons,” ring tones, videos, and other items.

The agency also examined industry market research confirming the effectiveness of online techniques:O

Online marketing activities are a worthy investment because they keep children engaged with the company and promote brand loyalty. Other research underscored the importance of frequently updating online content to keep it fresh, and using streaming video and interactive icons to appeal to teens.

Other examples of non-traditional forms of marketing included:

• An energy drink company sent sampling teams in branded vans and buses to distribute products at places where teens congregate – beaches, ski venues, sports events, music festivals and concerts, summer camps, college fairs and SAT prep courses;
• The Jonas Brothers Band – which was featured in both a concert tour and a movie – appeared in television, radio and Internet ads for cheese slices; a free download of their music was available by purchasing the product;
• A candy company sponsored a safe driving program for high school students.

Also missing from the mostly positive FTC press release was ethnic targeting, while the report contained these examples of marketing to Hispanics:

• Ads for beverages, energy drinks, snack foods, yogurt, cereals, canned pasta and candy, as well as QSRs, aired ads on Spanish-language radio or television stations or networks. Most were aimed at a general Spanish-speaking audience, while some ads were teen-directed and a few were child-targeted;
• Workshops on healthy eating for Hispanic parents and children were sponsored by a non-carbonated beverage company, while town-hall meetings on college applications and scholarship opportunities for Hispanic teens were sponsored by a QSR;
• One marketer looked at purchasing patterns among Hispanic consumers and identified families with children as accounting for the biggest growth in sales for that company. This research also observed that Hispanic children are the primary drivers of acculturation within their families and are reached effectively through a typical kid’s media buy.

Translation: Marketers think the best way to get Hispanic adults to buy stuff is through their children. (Presumably this finding applies beyond just food.) Of course, it’s not just Hispanic parents who want to please their kids. Market research from the companies showed how effective “pester power” is in getting parents to cave in to their child’s requests. Again, from FTC:

For example, one company’s study found that a child seeing an ad for a food product or seeing the product on the shelf was a key factor in purchase and that 75% of the purchasers surveyed bought the product for the first time because their child requested it. Another study showed that in-store advertising campaigns using child-targeted character-based themes outperformed those using mom-targeted themes.

Keep Industry in Charge, Why Fix What’s Broken? So then, what does the agency charged with protecting children from this sort of predatory marketing offer up as a solution? Just more of the status quo, based on the food industry’s alleged “improvements” in the nutritional quality of the foods they are marketing to children. According to FTC: “Many food companies have continued to improve the nutritional profile of their foods by reformulating existing products and introducing new ones… the Commission believes that the food industry can – and should – make further progress in using its marketing ingenuity and product portfolio to address childhood obesity.” That the FTC has determined its role is to nudge the food industry along in making minute reformulations to its products is troubling to say the least. Even FTC had to admit to less than a one gram decrease in sugar-packed cereals along with “slightly more whole grain”  (an increase of 1.6 grams, or one-tenth of one serving). Of course, the food industry is jumping for joy over the feds’ mostly positive spin. And it’s ironic because in the report the FTC admits, while attempting to assess industry’s self-regulatory system, that nutrition analysis is not its strength: “Although the Commission does not have the expertise to assess specific nutrition criteria…” Despite this admission, a good portion of the report is devoted to a nutrition analysis of the foods being marketing to children, along with a review of survey data on dietary patterns, presumably to connect any alleged “progress” of the food industry with how kids are eating, despite the lack of scientific merit of connecting those two dots. (Kids’ eating habits may get worse or better over time for any number of reasons unrelated to industry marketing practices.) Moreover, as I have argued before, it’s simply unethical to market to children, whether the product is fruit or Froot Loops, so I remain unimpressed with any approach that gives over so much ground to industry. It also defies logic that the FTC believes voluntary self-regulation could ever work. The report admits that industry conveniently exempts key forms of marketing from its own guidelines: “Product packaging and in-store promotion, including the use of licensed characters from popular children’s movies and TV shows, are exempt and continue to be used extensively to market to children.” Probably not so coincidentally, industry’s own reported market research identified these very strategies as the most effective. Anyway, industry showed its true colors when four federal agencies led by the FTC (this could explain why the agency is so fatigued over this issue) tried to make recommendations to improve the food industry’s self-serving system of nutrition standards and suggested science-based, uniform, industry-wide guidelines instead. Two years later, Congress brought the effort to a screeching halt, thanks to a huge outcry from the food, advertising and media industries. It now appears the federal government is out of ideas, and is just going through the motions. That we cannot count on the Obama administration to protect children from predatory marketing when the first lady had made childhood obesity her main cause demonstrates the political power of the food, media and marketing industries. So that’s it parents, you’re on your own. For additional perspectives on the report, see my two interviews: Is Big Food Playing Games with Data Reported to Feds on Marketing to Children? A Q&A with ex-industry insider Bruce Bradley Feds’ Nutritionism Approach to Food Industry “Progress” on Marketing to Children – Q&A with registered dietitian Andy Bellatti Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared in Corporate Accountability International on January 7, 2013 and was reprinted with permission from the author.

As I wrote in March at the height of the media uproar and consumer backlash, the entire pink slime affair should be viewed as a huge wake-up call to the harsh realities of our industrialized meat supply. To recap: News that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) planned to use the ground beef filler in school meals prompted a popular online petition, along with several news broadcasts by ABC News, exposing how “lean finely textured beef” (industry’s preferred euphemism) was manufactured. ABC News relied on interviews with several experts, including the USDA scientist Gerald Zirnstein who coined the product “pink slime.”

Consumers were outraged to learn their beloved hamburgers contained what some claimed was previously used as dog food. As a result of the massive backlash, several large grocery chains stopped using the product, and eventually, (so the company claims) BPI was forced to shut down several facilities and lay off hundreds of workers. The gallant (and appalling) display of political muscle that included three governors, a website to get out “the facts” (beefisbeef.com) and even a “Dude, It’s Beef!” t-shirt just weren’t enough to stem the tidal wave of angry consumers who didn’t want the product in their burgers.

But isn’t this how the market is supposed to work? When consumers decide they don’t like your product, maybe your company should reconsider its business model to conform to the marketplace? Funny how when the market responds in the way capitalism intends, and in this case, without any pesky government regulation, industry’s response is to sue somebody, aka shoot the messenger.

The arguments contained in the 257-page ridiculously redundant and tedious legal complaint come down to this: The defendants deliberately disparaged the beef product numerous times and in various ways, despite the meat industry’s repeated attempts to set the record straight. The alleged price tag for doing so: $1.2 billion. The most amusing part is BPI’s argument that ABC News conspired to prompt the consumer backlash:

The purpose of the ABC Defendants’ actions was to grow the so-called “grassroots” movement against LFTB [lean finely textured beef] that they created themselves. The ABC Defendants knew that consumer pressure would force many of the chains to decide to stop selling ground beef with LFTB. Indeed, the “grassroots” movement created by the Defendants’ disinformation campaign was successful. The major grocery store chains had little choice but to respond to the consumer backlash, and they did so by cancelling or suspending future orders of ground beef made with LFTB.

But the complaint offers no motivation that ABC News would have to “grow” such an anti-LFTB movement. And if the grocery stores had no choice but to respond to consumers, how is that the defendant’s fault exactly? While they’re at it, why not sue the consumers for “interfering” with BPI’s contracts (another silly claim in the complaint)?

Despite the issue being reported by numerous media outlets at the time, the target of this lawsuit is clearly ABC News. In addition to the company, the suit names World News Tonight anchor Diane Sawyer, Senior National Correspondent Jim Avila (who bravely stayed with the story) and correspondent Dave Kerley. Also named are two former USDA scientists, Zirnstein and Carl Custer, along with ex-BPI employee turned whistleblower Kit Foshee. (Iwrote about Foshee’s dramatic presentation at a food safety conference last year while BPI executives kept a close watch in the audience). All three of these defendants, made relevant comments elsewhere, but are cited mainly for the statements they made on ABC News broadcasts. The suit also claims that ABC should have known these three were not reliable experts.

One problem. The lawsuit ignores how the issue had already been made public at least several years earlier in one of a series of New York Times articles by Michael Moss. In his 2009 story, “Safety of Beef Processing Method is Questioned,” Moss quotes both Zirnstein and Custer, and even refers to “pink slime”, possibly the first time the phrase was used publicly. Moss wrote:

Carl S. Custer, a former U.S.D.A. microbiologist, said he and other scientists were concerned that the department had approved the treated beef for sale without obtaining independent validation of the potential safety risk. Another department microbiologist, Gerald Zirnstein, called the processed beef “pink slime” in a 2002 e-mail message to colleagues and said, “I do not consider the stuff to be ground beef, and I consider allowing it in ground beef to be a form of fraudulent labeling.

Pretty damning stuff. So why didn’t BPI sue the New York Times in 2009? Reporter Michael Moss cited the same (supposedly unreliable) experts ABC did. But, of course, the Times story didn’t cause a massive consumer backlash.

Considering how the ABC reports were hardly even news, combined with the broad free speech protections the media enjoys, BPI’s lawsuit seems pretty weak, as others have noted. Drake University Agricultural Law Professor Neil Hamilton told a South Dakota news outlet (the case was filed in BPI’s home state) that it will be a tough case to win, given that defamation cases are always difficult and, “… [p]articularly in a situation like this, where you are arguing food product disparagement…” ABC News will argue First Amendment protection. The case is based in part on South Dakota’s “food disparagement” law, passed in 1994.

If this all sounds vaguely familiar, it should. You may recall how Oprah Winfrey was sued in 1996, along with ex-cattle rancher Howard Lyman, by the beef industry for talking about the risks of Mad Cow Disease. The basis for that lawsuit was the Texas food disparagement law. Such statutes passed in the 1990s and dubbed “veggie-libel laws” are still on the books in numerous states. As I wrote back in 1998, these laws were (and are) “an effort by big business to chill the free speech efforts by those seeking to raise legitimate questions about the safety of our nation’s food supply.”

At the end of the day, this is what the BPI case is really about. Even if found to be without merit and thrown out of court, the intended message will be sent: scare the media and others out of speaking out against the meat industry. This is known as a SLAPP suit, which stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. According to the First Amendment Project, most SLAPP cases are unsuccessful. However, they still can have their intended effect:

While most SLAPPs lose in court, they “succeed” in the public arena. This is because defending a SLAPP, even when the legal defense is strong, requires a substantial investment of money, time, and resources. The resulting effect is a “chill” on public participation in, and open debate on, important public issues.

Even the strong media force Oprah Winfrey felt the sting of being SLAPP’d, despite her winning the lawsuit. According to this recent analysis, Winfrey declined to speak publicly about the case and even refused to distribute the offending episode to journalists or anyone else who requested it.

Bettina Siegel, the blogger who started the original petition to stop USDA from allowing the filler in the beef that the agency supplies to schools, doesn’t think the current case will change anyone’s mind, at least about pink slime:

Unfortunately for BPI, no litigation can return us to the time when Americans were unaware that LFTB was in the nation’s ground beef supply. Now that they understand the nature of the product, many consumers have made it abundantly clear that they don’t want it to eat it. You can’t un-ring the bell.

This article was originally published by the Center for Food Safety on September 27, 2012.

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

Another Big Tobacco front group Hiltachk’s firm managed was “Californians for Fair Business Policy,” which fought local efforts to enact smoke-free bans in California in the early 1990s. This is going to be a busy election season for Hiltachk, as he is also the mastermind behind the deceptive union-busting Proposition 32, about which a local California paper writes: “If you liked Citizens United, you will love Prop 32.” As The New Yorker sums it up in an article describing the firm’s shady operations, “They specialize in initiatives that are the opposite of what they sound like.” Another group with Big Tobacco origins now spreading lies about the GMO labeling initiative is the unsubtle front group, “California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse,” whose executive director recently warned us to “beware of trial lawyers lurking in your food.” (It seems lawyers are scarier than altering the genetic code of the food supply.) According to the Center for Media and Democracy’s Sourcewatch, Philip Morris is a primary funder of various “Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse” groups, which under the guise of tort reform aim to make it harder to bring lawsuits for problems caused by hazardous products. Doubt is Their Product In sum, the food industry, to oppose a simple labeling law, is hiring lawyers and consultants with ties to the tobacco industry, to deploy stealth tactics such as creating front groups, digging up dirt on opponents, and spreading outright lies. For decades the tobacco industry and its shills hid the truth by deploying its most effective weapon: manufacturing doubt about the health hazards of smoking. How many millions of Americans died as a result of Big Tobacco’s deceptive and cynical campaign? Why would we trust these same operators now? You can hardly blame industry for calling on such shady characters. Big Food has seen the polling data showing that more than 90 percent of consumers want to see GMO foods labeled. When you don’t have the people or the truth on your side, all you have left is playing dirty. This article originally appeared August 13, 2012 on Appetite for Profit.

Last week, the nation’s top public health experts gathered at a much-trumpeted obesity conference hosted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention called Weight of the Nation. (A quick glance at the agenda reveals nothing that would even begin to challenge the food industry.)

Released at this bland event was an equally uninspired report from the Institute of Medicine (IOM, an advisory arm of Congress) called, Accelerating Progress in Obesity Prevention: Solving the Weight of the Nation. The irony of the report’s title gets lost among the 478 pages that aim to solve “this complex, stubborn problem” with “a comprehensive set of solutions.”

One of the recommendations intended to speed things up is for the food industry to “take broad, common, and urgent voluntary action to make substantial improvements” to marketing aimed at kids. This is certainly important, as advocates have for years been sounding the alarm about the intractable problem of junk food marketing to children and its connection to poor health. But another part of the IOM dictate sounded vaguely familiar:

If such marketing standards have not been adopted within two years by a substantial majority of food, beverage, restaurant, and media companies that market foods and beverages to children and adolescents, policy makers at the local, state, and federal levels should consider setting mandatory nutritional standards for marketing to this age group to ensure that such standards are implemented.

Two years? Where have I heard that deadline before? Oh yes, it was another IOM report, this one focused entirely on food marketing to children, from 2005, which reviewed the science showing a clear connection between junk food marketing and children’s dietary habits. That report said if voluntary efforts by industry to clean up its act were unsuccessful, “Congress should enact legislation mandating” a shift in advertising. Also, that “[w]ithin 2 years the Secretary [of health] should report to Congress on the progress and on additional actions necessary to accelerate progress.”

So it’s been 5 years since that earlier deadline has passed and now the food industry has 2 more years to show how much it really cares about kids? Did anyone at IOM bother to check its earlier reports before writing this one? But it’s hardly IOM’s fault. If anyone is to blame for lack of action on this issue, it’s Congress and the White House, as two recent reports make painfully clear.

An in-depth investigation by Reuters describes the dirty details of the onslaught of Big Food lobbying in the wake of an effort by the federal government to improve voluntary guidelines on food marketing to kids. Reuters found that food and beverage lobbyists spent more than $175 million lobbying since President Obama took office in 2009, more than double that spent in the previous three years, during the Bush Administration. “In contrast, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, widely regarded as the lead lobbying force for healthier food, spent about $70,000 lobbying last year — roughly what those opposing the stricter guidelines spent every 13 hours.”

Reuters also examined lobbying visits to the White House, finding that a “who’s who of food company chief executives and lobbyists visited the White House” including:

CEOs of Nestle USA, Kellogg, General Mills, and top executives at Walt Disney, Time Warner, and Viacom, owner of the Nickelodeon children’s channel — companies with some of the biggest financial stakes in marketing to children. Those companies have a combined market value of more than $350 billion.

Another damning report emerged this month from the Sunlight Foundation found similar influence from Big Food. The strategy was for industry lobbyists to give money to members of Congress in exchange for their sending letters objecting to federal agency efforts. Here is how Sunlight describes one such transaction:

Days after receiving several campaign checks from the food lobby last May, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat who is up for re-election this year, sent a letter raising concerns about the Federal Trade Commission’s efforts to develop voluntary guidelines aimed at toning down the marketing of junk food to kids.

Seems Klobuchar wasn’t the only Democrat on the dole. Sunlight found that while most letter-writers were Republicans, lobbyist campaign donations held particular sway with Senate Democrats. Those who wrote letters of objection “collected on average, more than twice as much campaign money from food lobbying interests since 2008 as those who did not write letters.” A similar pattern also held in the House, where 38 Democrats wrote letters of protest.

As Jeff McIntyre, policy director for the advocacy group Children Now told Reuters: “We just got beat. Money wins.” That’s why it’s irrelevant how many more recommendations or deadlines come from the Institute of Medicine or any other panel of experts on how to “accelerate” progress. The only thing getting accelerated is lobbying dollars into politicians’ pockets. And kids’ poor health.

——————-

Michele Simon, a public health lawyer, is a policy consultant with the Center for Food Safety. “More Empty Recommendations on Junk Food Marketing to Children was originally posted at Center for Food Safety.

As I wrote in my book, focusing on obesity is problematic for many reasons. One, it ensures the focus stays on the individual, instead of the food industry. What do you think when you see a fat person? That it’s their fault, they just need to eat better and exercise more. Granted, my public health colleagues are trying to change this conversation to one of the “environment” (far too apolitical a word) but as long as we keep talking about obesity, the framing is all about individual behavior change.

Next, scientific evidence shows that fat people have enough problems dealing with discrimination, bullying, etc, and the last thing they need is more hate brought to you by the federal government and cable television. All the images I have seen coming from news accounts of the conference are negative. Even while the headlines may attempt to reframe from blame and shame, the images do not. For example, this Reuters story headline reads “Obesity fight must shift from personal blame-U.S. panel” but the image is of a fat person. Journalists take note: you are adding to the problem of bias and shame by using these images. (Recently, I wrote an article for the UK Guardian about PepsiCo and they wanted to run it with an image of a fat person. I insisted they change it and thankfully they did.)

Finally, obsessing over obesity is a great gift to the food industry because this is a problem food companies can supposedly help fix. They can market healthier foods! They can help fund playgrounds and exercise programs! Indeed, the big announcement coming out of the CDC event yesterday was how the first lady’s Let’s Move program has its newest corporate partner in the frozen vegetable company, Birds Eye, which is launching a marketing campaign to encourage kids to eat their veggies. Problem solved, thanks Birds Eye. Never mind all that junk food marketing to kids, which Let’s Move ignores. (If you missed it, this recent excellent Reuters investigation explains the food industry politics at play.)

The only thing bringing me any sanity this week is reading Julie Guthman’s excellent critique of the obesity wars, Weighing In: Obesity, Food Justice, and the Limits of Capitalism. While Guthman’s style is too academic, she does a good job explaining why obesity is over-hyped and offers some interesting alternative theories to the tired calories in, calories out model. It’s the first book I’ve read in a long time that offers new and challenging insights on this issue. Additional resources I can recommend include:

A critical thinkers guide to the HBO series

Deconstructing HBO’s Weight of the Nation

Linda Bacon’s book, Health at Every Size

Health at Every Size Community.

——————-

Michele Simon, a public health lawyer, is a policy consultant with the Center for Food Safety. “Why I Am Not Attending or Watching ‘Weight of the Nation’ ” was originally posted May 8, 2012 on her Appetite for Profit website.

In a long-awaited decision, last week the Food and Drug Administration disappointed health advocates once again by allowing Bisphenol A or BPA, a known endocrine disruptor, to remain approved as a chemical additive in food containers such as plastic bottles and metal cans.While the agency says it’s still studying the matter, a number of groups say the science is clear enough. Indeed, in the four years since the filing of a legal petition asking for a ban (a court order was needed to force FDA to respond), evidence of potential harm from BPA exposure has only increased. Of particular concern are young children, as the chemical often lines infant formula containers and baby bottles. Ironically, some of the more alarming research is funded by the federal government. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences is spending $30 million to study BPA, with much of it published already and more to come. Not surprisingly, the chemical industry claims the additive is perfectly safe.

But with the scientific studies piling up to show how BPA increases the risk of everything from cancer to heart disease to fertility problems, and more recently, even obesity, this latest industry-friendly move by FDA is especially troubling. Meanwhile, without a hint of irony, FDA also maintains several web pages with helpful information for parents and others wishing to avoid BPA, such as: “What You Can Do to Minimize Your Infant’s Exposure to BPA.”

So if FDA admits the chemical is scary enough to avoid and previous independent scientific advisory panels have derided the agency for ignoring the mounting evidence, why did the agency back down yet again?

A revealing article in the New York Times on Tuesday entitled “White House and FDA Often at Odds” could explain what’s behind this disconnect:

“The internal clashes over FDA policy played out against a broader backdrop of regulatory politics. Republicans have made the charge that Mr. Obama is an overzealous and job-killing regulator — a central element of their case against his re-election. And on issues from clean air to investor protections, the White House has been carefully calibrating its election season positions.”

Lack of support from the White House to allow FDA do its job would certainly explain other politically safe decisions during the Obama Administration. These include refusing to act on the overuse of antibiotics in animal feed and continuing to ignore demands to label foods containing genetically-engineered ingredients.

But if the recent uproar over “pink slime” is any indication, Americans are waking up to the stark reality that our food supply is controlled by corporate entities with powerful influence over our political system. This increasing awareness, combined with strong consumer backlash means more companies are feeling the heat and starting to respond. For example, Campbell’s Soup recently announced plans to phase out BPA from its cans, following other food makers.

FDA seems to be in favor of this voluntary approach: “The Food and Drug Administration is supporting current efforts by industry to stop the manufacture of infant bottles and feeding cups made with BPA from the U.S. market.”

How nice. But we can’t only rely on the kindness of companies. The White House should get out of FDA’s way and let public health guide the agency, not politics.

—————————–

Michele Simon, a public health lawyer, is a policy consultant for the Center for Food Safety as a Policy Consultant. This commentary was first posted April 4, 2012 on the Center for Food Safety website. 

Image from http://public.health.oregon.gov

While the testing program may be inexpensive, it’s critical because no other federal mechanism currently exists to conduct regular testing of fresh produce. (The Food and Drug Administration–which technically has jurisdiction over produce safety–conducts only limited inspections.)

To date, the MDP has tested high-risk produce such as alfalfa sprouts, cilantro, green onions, peppers, tomatoes, spinach, and other leafy greens. Every one of these vegetables has caused a food-borne illness outbreak or recall over the years, some of them lethal thanks in part to an industrialized food system that transports bugs nationwide. You might recall, a shocking 34 people (and counting) died from a listeria outbreak last year in cantaloupe in 26 states (yes, melon – also on USDA’s tested produce list). That tragedy alone should cause the Obama Administration to rethink this thoughtless budget cut.

It’s not like this is some wasteful government program. It’s a relatively cheap way to help save lives, so what’s going on? Here is how food safety attorney Bill Marler explains who just might be behind the idea:

The produce industry hates this program as it has found pathogens in domestic and imported samples and FDA has responded to the information and recalled products. The produce industry–via the fruit and vegetable advisory committee–recommended to USDA and Congress that the program be terminated.

Nestle also called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps) “the huge elephant in the farm bill” because its enormity trumps everything else. This entitlement program (the budget expands as more people enroll) provides modest monthly benefits for food purchases and represents a critical lifeline to many people in need.

In recent years, public health and food policy experts have sounded the alarm about how farm bill programs supporting all the wrong crops (think corn and soy) contribute to America’s epidemic of obesity and diet-related diseases. This is certainly true, along with a host of other economic drivers.

But are we focusing too much on the commodity title and not enough on the nutrition title when it comes to how the farm bill truly subsidizes Big Food? After all, even if the commodity title was completely eliminated, most economists believe it would have minimal impact on healthy food consumption.

SNAP spending dwarfs all farm bill programs

According to federal data, food assistance made up 68 percent of the farm bill budget in 2008 and SNAP accounts for almost that entire amount. (Other food assistance programs such as school meals are funded through other legislation.) In contrast, the next three largest farm bill programs were commodity support (12 percent), crop insurance (10 percent), and conservation (9 percent).

Looking at the dollars and cents, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that in fiscal year 2011, taxpayers spent $71.8 billion on SNAP benefits, compared to $64.7 billion in 2010. The total number of enrolled participants was 44.7 million last year compared to 40.3 million in 2010. Obviously these increasing numbers reflect our struggling economy, and SNAP benefits are a crucial component of addressing hunger in the U.S. Sadly, estimates are that about 30 percent of Americans who qualify for SNAP aren’t even enrolled.

So how exactly was close to $72 billion of the taxpayers’ money spent last year? Good question. Unfortunately, we have little clue. We have somewhat better information on  commodity payments. See for example, the Environmental Working Group’s handy Farm Subsidy Database. (But EWG also warns of an increasing lack of transparency in farm bill commodity and insurance subsidies.)

Other than broad categories of retailers (e.g., large versus small) we don’t know where SNAP dollars go because USDA does not require retailers to report specific purchase data; rather, all the agency wants to know is the total amount to be reimbursed.

Bill would require retailers to report SNAP receipts

In December, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced the FRESH Act (Fresh Regional Eating for Schools and Health), which (in addition to other provisions) aims to “increase accountability” in the SNAP program by requiring corporations receiving more than $1 million a year “to provide taxpayers with an itemized receipt for their share” of the SNAP program.

Sounds pretty reasonable, since any retailer large enough to rake in over a million bucks a year from SNAP is almost certain to have the technology necessary to send an electronic report to USDA on how that money was spent.

Such information is a crucial factor in the debate over restricting benefits, which is once again heating up in states around the country, with Florida being the most recent example. (However, that measure appears to be dead for now.)

In 2010, New York City applied to USDA for a waiver to conduct a 2-year pilot test to exclude unhealthy beverages such as soda from the SNAP-eligible food list. (The feds denied the request, citing complexity.) An unfortunate divide exists between public health experts targeting “sugar-sweetened beverages” as enemy number one and anti-hunger advocates, who vociferously oppose any SNAP restrictions.

But conveniently left on the sidelines of this very public debate, and laughing all the way to the bank, has been the food and beverage industry. Of course, they made their voices heard loud and clear through their usual behind-the-scenes lobbying efforts.

Senator Wyden’s bill should spark a conversation that’s long overdue: exactly how much does Big Soda and Big Food benefit from SNAP funding? Some of my colleagues are concerned that such data could backfire by giving more fodder to certain politicians who will use any excuse to cut benefits for the poor.

Yes, the data is likely to show that SNAP participants’ purchase habits parallel those of other Americans, who are also consuming too many empty calories. But that’s not a valid reason to fear collecting the information. The “personal responsibility” argument – that individuals alone are responsible for how they eat regardless of their environment and shear lack of affordable healthy options – will continue with or without Uncle Sam picking up the tab.

But how will we ever improve and strengthen SNAP if we cannot accurately evaluate it? How else will we truly integrate public health into our food assistance programs? Why should Walmart–probably the single largest beneficiary of SNAP–have access to information that the USDA doesn’t?

Now more than ever we need to ensure the nation’s largest food assistance program is truly helping those in need, instead of just lining the pockets of Corporate America.

——————

Michele Simon is a public health lawyer specializing in industry marketing and lobbying tactics. She is the author of “Appetite for Profit: How the Food Industry Undermines Our Health and How to Fight Back” and president of Eat Drink Politics, a consulting firm. “SNAP: the other Corporate Subsidy in the Farm Bill?” first appeared on her website, Appetite for Profit, on Feb. 14, 2012.

You might recall in 2010 how that product gained much notoriety for sending scores of college students to the emergency room as a result of its dangerous combination of alcohol with caffeine. In a rare victory of government action in favor of public safety, in November 2010, the Food and Drug Administration forced Phusion and other companies to remove the caffeine. (Read my case study here.) But of course, the story doesn’t end there, as these companies always have another trick up their sleeve to get youth hooked.

Now, the “caffeine-free” versions of these highly sweet, soda-like concoctions known as alcopops have grown to high-octane super-size cans, containing as much as 4-5 servings of alcohol, and all for the price of a cheap beer. Public health advocates, policymakers, and state attorneys general have been trying to bring these products down to size through a variety of legal measures. Now comes the Federal Trade Commission with its proposed agreement with Phusion Projects, not to actually reduce the container size or amount of alcohol. But rather, to require better labeling, which will serve as a great advertisement.

That’s why I asked colleagues and groups to sign on my letter in opposition to the proposal. Numerous others submitted similar comments raising many objections, including the American Medical Association, the New York City health department, and Public Health Law and Policy. Most importantly, a strong group of state attorneys general who have been working on this issue for years raised five pages worth of objections in their impressive letter. (It was thanks to these state officials that FDA acted on the caffeine.)

In addition, several industry members took the side of public health, and not just for the usual self-serving reasons. For several years, I called upon beer wholesalers to speak out against dangerous products such as caffeinated alcoholic beverages. While several business owners expressed to me privately that they hated these youth-oriented beverages, (and the bad publicity that accompanies them) none took a public stand against them. I am therefore happy to report that the National Beer Wholesalers Association, a powerful lobbying group, wrote a pretty strong letter to oppose the agreement. From their comments:

The label contemplated by the proposed settlement could actually serve to entice consumers, especially younger ones seeking high-alcohol, low-priced products, to possibly over consume these products.

This important point made by myself and others is not the sort of rhetoric we are used to hearing from the likes of beer lobbyists. In addition to this large trade group being on the right side of the issue, several individual beer distributors also opposed the settlement. For example, John Dickerson, a distributor based in Ohio signed on to my letter. Also, Robert Archer, president of Blue Ridge Beverage, wrote his own very strong letter, saying that “the issues surrounding large containers and high alcohol content are not effectively addressed simply by putting a ‘message’ on the container.” His comments are especially significant because Archer is next in line to become chair of the National Beer Wholesalers Association.

As someone whose work is centered around criticizing industry for its misdeeds and disingenuous pro-health positions, it’s rare for me to give praise. But this show of support for public health from beer wholesalers and their lobbyists is genuine, and should be applauded as a true sign of progress.

Let’s hope the Federal Trade Commission hears our collective concerns and either proposes a more effective solution or allows states to assert their legal authority to do a better job.

—————————-

Michele Simon is a public health lawyer specializing in industry marketing and lobbying tactics. She is the author of “Appetite for Profit: How the Food Industry Undermines Our Health and How to Fight Back” and president of Eat Drink Politics, a consulting firm. “Beer Wholesalers Join Public Health to Oppose Four Loko Settlement” was first posted on her website, Appetite for Profit, on Jan. 17, 2012.