Value [the] Meal

McLocal?

2010-08-04T07:22:00.000-07:00

As food issues get pushed more and more into the national spotlight McDonald’s is trying harder to convince the public that it too can be environmentally and nutritionally conscious. Its latest attempts can be seen through a new ad campaign in the state of Washington, where McDonald’s is brazenly seeking to jump on the “local foods” bandwagon.

Billboards and commercials throughout the state cleverly insinuate that McDonald’s uses local produce. The billboards are plastered with slogans like “"Served in Seattle, grown in Pasco." A recent press release issued by McDonald’s states that “88% of apples served at McDonald's in western Washington are from Washington State” and that “95% of French fries and hash browns served at McDonald's in western Washington are from Washington.”

This new campaign doesn’t reflect any changes in McDonald’s industrial approach to food production. Instead, McDonald’s is capitalizing on the fact that many of their industrial farms happen to already be located in Washington. For a more accurate representation of these farms, click here.

The local foods movement is about making a conscious decision to buy foods that are grown in the area rather than foods that are shipped across continents and oceans. Implicit in the movement is an appreciation for the environment and for the safety and quality of the food we are consuming.

McDonald’s new ad campaign is a gross example of the fast food industry continually seeking new ways to misrepresent themselves to the public.

For a closer look at the billboards, click here.

Photo by grist.org

The momentum continues to build...

2010-07-21T14:55:00.000-07:00

Kudos to the Center for Science in the Public Interest for challenging McDonald’s role in the current childhood epidemic of diabetes and other diet-related diseases, as seen in a July 19 article in the Boston Globe. The Globe reports that $1.6 billion is spent annually on marketing to kids. That's $1.6 billion worth of targeted messages that a parent has to work against when trying to teach their child healthy eating habits! The Globe quotes a study by the Institute of Medicine that food and beverage marketing pose "a direct threat to the health of the next generation.’’

The stakes are high. Kids are getting sick at staggering rates, as the fast food industry lures young customers through predatory marketing practices. At Corporate Accountability International, our successful campaign to retire Joe Camel shows that stopping advertisements of harmful products to children can save lives.

The public agrees: A recent national poll found that nearly half the public would like to see McDonald’s stop using Ronald McDonald to hook kids on fast food. We’ve found Ronald marketing directly to kids in children’s libraries, hospitals and all over the internet, even though young kids are unable to understand Ronald’s persuasive intent.

It’s time for McDonald’s to put away the toys, retire Ronald, and stop marketing to kids!

Post by Jamie Gordon

The Case of the Missing Calories

2010-07-15T11:17:00.000-07:00

Do lawsuits change the nutritional value of foods? For McDonald’s, the answer seems to be yes. Thanks to blogger Michele Simon, the public is now aware of some tricky misinformation from McDonald’s.

In a recent action, the consumer group the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) asked McDonald’s to stop using toys in their Happy Meals as a way of enticing children to eat unhealthy food and threatened to sue them if they would not end the practice. One statistic cited by CSPI was that none of the happy meals on the McDonald’s happy meal menu, even those with “apple dippers” and milk or apple juice, had less than 430 calories, the recommended caloric intake of one meal for a child 4-8 years old. According to McDonald’s own nutrition facts at the time, this was true.

But that was back on June 22. By June 25, three days after CSPI’s announcement, the new nutrition facts on McDonald’s website showed each of the meal combinations that contained McDonald’s “apple dippers” with 70 fewer calories, so that three of the 12 combinations would fall under 430 calories. McDonald’s offered no explanation of how their apple dippers suddenly lost 70 calories, but Simon wonders if they just opted to omit their sugary caramel dipping sauce that comes as a side to this “healthy” alternative to fries. This mysterious nutrition revision is just another question McDonald’s will have to answer about their marketing to children if CSPI continues with their litigation.

Post by John Skinner

Childhood Obesity or Teen Smoking?

2010-07-14T06:51:00.000-07:00

“If you had to choose one public health problem to attack, which would it be: teenage smoking or childhood obesity?”

This was the opening line for a recent NY Times article contrasting the increasing support for fighting childhood obesity with the decreasing funds available for anti-smoking campaigns. Many advocates fighting the good fight against Big Tobacco lamented the fact that it seems necessary to sacrifice anti-smoking efforts amongst teenagers in order to fully fund projects to prevent childhood obesity.

We would like to point out something that the author of the article takes for granted—that childhood obesity and teenage smoking are public health concerns of a comparable nature. Both lead to a lifetime serious medical conditions. Both are also preventable.

One of the most effective strategies employed to reduce the relevance of teenage smoking was to change kids' preferences. We made it illegal for tobacco companies to directly advertise to kids. Mascots such as Joe Camel and the Marlboro Man became icons of a past era, and information about the dangers of smoking could be presented in an environment where Big Tobacco was no longer welcome. Educators had the opportunity to speak to youth about the consequences of smoking without having to compete with glitzy advertising portraying tobacco as enjoyable and fun.

Retire Ronald is representative of a similar effort to get corporations to stop marketing directly to children. Preventing tobacco corporations was a logical step in the fight against teenage smoking, and similar restrictions on the fast food industry should be the next step in reversing the trend of childhood obesity.

It will be easier to educate kids about good nutrition and healthy choices in an environment free from the constant bombardment of commercials for chicken nuggets and fries.

Different Pitches: McDonald’s and the World Cup

2010-07-02T09:24:00.000-07:00

Back in February, we blogged about the disconnect between the Winter Olympics and one of its biggest sponsors, McDonald’s. It’s a disingenuous partnership: are we really supposed to believe that the world’s best athletes would undermine their health by eating food we know is dangerously unhealthy?

And now, with the World Cup underway, it’s the same story all over again -- McDonald’s is a prominent sponsor of the most widely watched tournament on Earth. The corporation boasts that it “supports children’s well-being as an Official Sponsor and the Official Restaurant of the FIFA World Cup.”

But we know that McDonald’s practices are a primary factor in a growing generation of kids who are struggling with unprecedented levels of diet-related disease. And we know that McDonald’s spends millions each year on advertising that “is inherently deceptive and exploits children.”

Recent polls in both the UK and the US show that the majority of people want to keep McDonald’s out of events like the World Cup. A global celebration of soccer has no place for a corporation peddling the last thing would-be athletes should be putting in their bodies.

What do you think? Is this the right message to send to the millions of kids dreaming of being the next World Cup hero?

Photo: http://www.sportindustry.biz/resource/binary/cache/3e01dd37946e3d43247a25c11e62abec/568x300_mcdonalds.jpg

Books, Not Burgers

2010-07-01T11:18:00.000-07:00

It’s hard to argue against a program to improve literacy -- but what do you do when encouraging kids to read also means encouraging them to eat more Big Macs?

McDonald’s is collaborating with Detroit libraries to initiate the "Books & Backpacks" program, where kids collect stamps on bookmarks every time they borrow a book. The reward for a fully stamped bookmark is either a McDonald's Happy Meal or Mighty Kids Meal. “A McDonald's backpack and $20 gift card for books also will be given to one youth in a drawing at each library branch each month through the end of the year.”

Supporting local causes to generate positive publicity is a tried and true method of marketing that McDonald’s has been relying on since the late 1950’s. “We got into it for very selfish reasons,” Fred Turner, former CEO and Chairman once told an interviewer. “It was an inexpensive, imaginative way of getting your name before the public and building a reputation to offset the image of selling fifteen cent hamburgers. It was probably ninety-nine percent commercial.”

It also provides a handy shield against criticisms about their other not so image-friendly corporate practices.

Michigan is currently the 10th most obese state in the country, and childhood obesity rates are on the rise. By making McDonald’s a reward for reading, Detroit is sending extremely mixed messages to its children and contributing to the national obesity epidemic.

Encouraging kids to read is a worthy cause. But we should not have to sacrifice the health and physical well-being of our children in order to do so.

Victory for Monsanto or PR spin?

2010-06-30T08:50:00.000-07:00

On Monday, June 21, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a ruling that many headlines proclaimed a victory for seed and chemical giant Monsanto-- but the true story of the decision may lay in details that have been largely overlooked.

Although the Supreme Court ruled that the District Court in San Francisco did not have the authority to impose a complete ban on all planting of the genetically modified alfalfa seed, nor the ability to outlaw a “partial deregulation”, the ruling did not allow for planting to begin. Instead, the Supreme Court allowed the USDA to re-pursue partial deregulation of the seed but left the door wide open for future legal challenges of the testing and planting of the Roundup Ready alfalfa.

One of the strongest arguments for any future action against the deregulation of the Monsanto alfalfa seed came out of the ruling in the Supreme Court’s definition of “environmental harm” due to “gene flow.” Gene flow refers to the process of the spread of genetic material between plants due to cross pollination, wind, and other naturally occurring forces. It can lead to modified genetic material from Roundup Ready alfalfa plants mixing with that of unmodified alfalfa in other fields and farms. The Court expanded its definition of “environmental harm,” to include this almost inevitable process that often leads to contamination of organic and wild varieties of crops and possibly the extinction of these natural genetic structures, meaning that it is accepted as harmful and illegal.

Look for this argument and other ammunition from organic and food safety groups in the next round of legal battles surrounding the hotly contested issue of genetically modified seed and crops.

Post by John Skinner

Some Food For Thought

2010-06-28T11:06:00.000-07:00

We all know that Americans spend a ridiculous amount of time in front of the TV. Whether you’re watching reality shows, news, or the NBA finals you’re going to have to sit through a lot of commercials.

A new nutritional study was released stating that if we ate only the foods we saw advertised on TV we would consume “ 25 times the recommended amount of sugar and 20 times the amount of fat… but less than half the dairy, fiber and fruits and vegetables” recommended in a standard 2,000 calorie diet!

The lead author of the study, Michael Mink, found that, “Just one advertised food item by itself will provide, on average, three times your daily recommended servings of sugar and two and half times your daily recommended servings of fat. That means one food item could give you three days’ worth of sugar.”

We know that people don't eat everything they see on TV. But those marketing campaigns aren't cheap, and companies aren't about to throw millions of dollars at advertising if they aren't achieving results.

Think about it-- what are the foods you crave after you get up from in front of the TV?

We’re guessing that it’s probably not fresh fruits and vegetables.

Tantalizing, Yes. But Tasty Too?

2010-06-24T09:13:00.000-07:00

Once again, a study shows how packaging and marketing can sway children’s perceptions of what they are eating. The results of the newest study about the effects of cartoon characters in food marketing come as no surprise for those familiar with the 2007 Stanford University study that found children consistently preferred hamburgers, chicken nuggets, French fries, and even milk and carrots packaged with a McDonald’s label against the same exact products in unlabeled packaging.

In this new study, researchers at Yale University asked children between the ages of three and five whether the kids thought gummy fruit snacks, graham crackers, and baby carrots with images of Dora the Explorer, Scooby Doo, and Shrek on their packaging tasted better than the same products packaged in blank packaging. When asked which snack they would rather have, 85% of the kids picked the packaging featuring cartoon images. But the packaging didn’t just affect which snack they’d prefer; it actually affected their perception of the food’s taste. Over half of the children thought that the graham crackers and gummies tasted better when they were in cartoon packaging. Fifty percent thought carrots tasted better when packaged with the cartoon character images.

The study’s lead author, Christina Roberto, pointed out that “The food industry spends $1.6 billion on youth-targeted marketing and, of that, 13 percent is dedicated to character licensing and cross-promoting.” It seems as though the real game within the food industry’s assault on children isn’t even about what’s inside of the packaging anymore but instead the techniques to manipulate the tastes and preferences of young kids in ways that have little to do with food.

No More Happy Meal Toys?

2010-06-24T08:15:00.000-07:00

Tell it to the judge, Ronald.

That’s the first line of a press release just out from our allies at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). In an exciting development, CSPI announced today that they will be filing suit against McDonald's if the corporation does not stop using toys to promote Happy Meals. CSPI’s notice says that McDonald’s toy-related promotions violate state consumer protection laws in Massachusetts, Texas, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, and California. CSPI’s letter gives McDonald’s 30 days to agree to stop the practice before a suit is filed.

This case is exciting news for those of us concerned with the fast food industry’s dangerous and irresponsible practice of marketing directly to kids. Together with Corporate Accountability International’s Retire Ronald initiative, this lawsuit builds pressure on McDonald’s to end its long-standing practice of peddling junk food to children.

Pressure like this is absolutely necessary in light of the health epidemic that we face-- today, one in three children will become diabetic during their lifetime as a result of a McDonald’s-style diet. Meanwhile, the fast food industry continues to use Ronald McDonald, happy meals, and a range of other tactics to market directly to kids. That is why Corporate Accountability International, its allies, and supporters advocate for an end to youth-oriented marketing practices such as Ronald McDonald.

CSPI’s actions are commendable and encourage McDonald’s to do the right thing and drop its use of toys before the suit goes to trial.

And hey, tell Ronald: Stop all marketing to kids, won’t ya?

Post by Jamie Gordon

The Screening of FRESH

2010-06-23T06:36:00.000-07:00

Value [the] Meal teamed up with our friends at FRESH last Saturday for a night of discussion about what informed citizens can do to create a more sustainable food system!

FRESH the movie made its theatrical premiere in Boston this past weekend, and director Ana Sofia Joanes was on hand to answer questions and provide more information, and heartfelt stories, from the making of FRESH. She emphasized that change doesn't need to mean a huge overhaul-- it can mean small, achievable steps towards a bigger goal.

One step that anyone can take to build a more just food system is by asking McDonald's to finally Retire Ronald McDonald and stop him from aggressively marketing unhealthy food to our children.

Thanks to Ana, and everyone who signed our petition at the show!

Post by Sarah Cadorette

Press 1 to Retire Ronald

2010-06-21T11:51:00.000-07:00

Last Thursday a team of staff, interns, and action committee members from Corporate Accountability International assembled in the Boston Commons. They had with them three ironing boards, a stack of flyers, and a couple of extra cell phones. They were ready to take part in the national Call in Day to McDonald’s, an event that was being replicated by action committees in Minneapolis and Chicago.

The group split up throughout the commons, asking people to call McDonald’s CEO Jim Skinner and demand that he retire Ronald McDonald. Callers voiced their many concerns about Ronald McDonald, including the fact that he is present in schools and is representative of unhealthy eating habits and choices.

All of those calls were enough to get McDonald’s attention -- they quickly changed their switchboard message in an effort to lead callers into a maze of button-pressing they hoped would discourage us from staying on the line long enough to actually get to talk to someone. When our intrepid callers finally reached an actual representative, they were read a scripted response. It's clear that the Retire Ronald campaign is getting the attention of even the highest-ranking McDonald's executives.

By the end of the day, dozens and dozens of people across the country had flooded the switchboards. Thanks to everyone who made a call!

If you haven't yet joined in, it’s not too late! Click here to make your own call -- and be sure to fill out the online reporting form. With your help, we will continue to generate a steady drumbeat of calls throughout the summer!

It's house meeting time!

2010-06-18T11:11:00.000-07:00

Sarah talks to a member about hosting a house meeting. House meetings offer a comfortable venue to hear about critically important issues like corporate abuse of our food.

Friends, meet Sarah Holzgraf, field organizer for Corporate Accountability International. Sarah has been building a core group of volunteers in the Twin Cities area in Minnesota for the Value the Meal campaign. The group can quickly run events and do media work in response to food industry abuses. Kind of like the Minutemen from Lexington.

But how do these awesome volunteers come together? One way is through house meetings. A house meeting takes place when a Corporate Accountability International member offers their home and invites friends to hear Sarah talk about ongoing corporate abuse of our food. Houses are cozy places to learn about a good cause and connect with new volunteers. You can also write letters to the editor or phone your congressperson. Some people donate money to keep the campaign going. Still others ask to hold their own house meeting! House meetings like this have been critical to community organizing for hundreds of years.

We asked Sarah if she had any memories from her experience running house meetings. Sarah fondly remembers Sue, a volunteer in Minneapolis, who was recently a host. Sue was worried her event wouldn’t be successful. ‘I’m not mobile enough to host,’ she thought. ‘I don’t have enough friends.’ ‘No one will donate.’ In the end, 22 people showed up to Sue’s meeting – there were more people than there were chairs! And Sue was stunned by the generosity of her friends and the huge impact that she could have.

Corporate Accountability International will be organizing house meetings in Boston, Chicago, and Minneapolis all summer long. Interested in hosting? Become a member!

This update from the field brought to you by Alex Lessin with reporting by Madeline Christensen.

Ronald taking a back seat?

2010-06-14T13:06:00.000-07:00

Big news in the wake of our campaign actions at the McDonald's shareholders' meetings!

Last week Crain’s Chicago Business reported that McDonald’s is revamping its marketing strategy, featuring Ronald McDonald less prominently in mass media campaigns. McDonald’s explanation is that it's pursuing a new and more modern image -- one more in line with the fast-casual (Panera Bread, Cosi, etc.) segment of the industry.

It's remarkable how vocal McDonald’s has been about its decision to put Ronald McDonald, the face of its $32 billion brand, in the back seat of its larger marketing campaign. This emphasis on Ronald's new role and the timing of the announcement suggests that it was done in an effort to defuse momentum from the Retire Ronald initiative and our overall campaign Challenging Corporate Abuse of our Food.

We know from our past corporate campaigns that the last thing McDonald's would want to convey is that a grassroots campaign like Retire Ronald can have an influence on its business practices. Yet it is clear that our message has reached those at the very head of the industry.

It's exciting to see that our campaign is having such a wide impact so soon after its launch. But there's plenty of work left to be done.

Ronald McDonald is still in our schools and still targeting our kids; have you signed his retirement card yet? Click here to sign it now -- we know McDonald's is paying attention!

Ronald, your friends are looking for you

2010-05-19T11:20:00.000-07:00

The Value [the] Meal team is in Chicago this week. Tomorrow they'll head to McDonald's corporate headquarters -- but today, they're joining Ronald's corporate mascot friends in the streets!

Joe Camel and the Marlboro Man, along with dozens of Clowns for Retiring Ronald, are combing the city for Ronald McDonald, to take him out of our schools, hospitals and libraries and help him start the retirement he so richly deserves.

After all, our kids are sick. Diet-related disease is a leading preventable cause of death around the globe, and our children are bearing the brunt of the crisis.

McDonald's knows our kids are vulnerable to marketing from brand icons like Ronald. Yet for nearly 50 years the corporation has used Ronald to hook kids on its unhealthy food, helping to ensure that one in three children born in the year 2000 will one day become diabetic as a result of poor nutrition.

Do you have 2 minutes to help them out? Call McDonald's right now and tell CEO Jim Skinner that targeting our kids with fast food marketing isn't funny.

(Or you can send an email if you're just too busy.)

And if you're in Chicago, keep an eye out for Ronald!

KFC: deep-fried and pinkwashed!

2010-04-28T10:00:00.000-07:00

Believe it or not, Kentucky Fried Chicken has a new "pink buckets" promotion with the Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a group that raises funds to fight breast cancer. Here's how it works: for every pink bucket that the Colonel sells, KFC will donate 5o cents to Komen. The "Buckets for the Cure" promotion intends to raise $8 million to fight breast cancer.

The last time I checked, I remember there being increasing evidence linking overweight and obesity to many cancers, including breast cancer. In fact, there have been recent estimates, ranging from nearly 20% to 30% of breast cancer cases, linking obesity and poor diet to breast cancer. So why would a fast food company whose products are clearly linked to overweight and obesity run a promotion to help cure breast cancer? The KFCs infamous buckets have contributed to increasing rates of breast cancer, yet now, the buckets will help lead us to the cure? Can this be any more ridiculous?

Also, why would Susan G. Komen for the Cure partner with a corporation that is clearly part of the problem? This is exactly the question that Breast Cancer Action (BCA) is asking. You can take action against KFCs and Komen's "pinkwashing" partnership from BCA's homepage.

Also, check out our Value [the] Meal Advisory Board Members', Marion Nestle and Michele Simon, reaction to KFC's pinkwashing promotion.

Hungry for Fast Casual

2010-04-21T08:46:00.000-07:00

When you think of fast food, do you think of cheeseburgers and fries or Panera Bread, Boloco and Chipotle Mexican Grill?

A “fast casual” restaurant does not offer full table service but provides conveniences like non-plastic utensils and plates. Fast-casual customers demand low-fat, high-quality ingredients, freshly-baked bread and organic fruits and salads at prices not much higher than true “fast-food” fare. The average check ranges from $8-$15.

These fast casual chains are targeting younger generations who claim to want better ingredients and a clean décor with a lot of different seating arrangements and, of course, music.

The fast-casual sector has earned the reputation as a healthier and fresher alternative to fast-food. Most fast-casual restaurants emphasize the importance of fresh, sometimes organic, ingredients and avoid the deep-fryer.

What do you think, is fast-casual food a healthier and fresher alternative to fast-food?

Photo Credit: http://collateral.jezebelmagazine.com/MassStorage/Articles/077b9206-e10a-4ab7-9eca-c79ee7b7ab1a_139_photo_1.jpg

Corporations attack student legal clinics, threaten funding, when law students practice law

2010-04-09T14:25:00.000-07:00

So, let me see if I got that right.

Law schools across the country operate student clinics where law students gain practice and experience as they study.

A while back, one such clinic at the University of Maryland was presented with a black and white case: a law had been broken (and was continuously violated for more than a decade): Perdue and its chicken growers were polluting the Chesapeake Bay in flagrant violation of environmental regulations.

Accepting the case, the clinic filed a suit against Perdue to challenge their damaging violations.

As a result, the legal clinic – not Perdue – was nearly shut down after Jim Perdue himself headed to Annapolis to introduce legal measures to eliminate funding for the law school program, ultimately challenging their ability to provide the 110,000 hours of free legal services to the community for violence and crime prevention, social work and public service.

According to the New York Times, student law clinics at other universities are facing similar challenges:

In Louisiana, the Legislature is considering a bill forbidding law students at clinics that receive any public money from suing government agencies, companies or individuals for damages unless exempted by the Legislature. [In] response to a suit brought by the Tulane Law School clinic on behalf of an environmental group against federal and state environmental regulators, seeking greater enforcement of air quality standards in the Baton Rouge area.

“There is no reason that tax money should pay for these law students to act like regulators,” said State Senator Robert Adley, a Republican who submitted the bill in response to a request from his state’s oil and gas industry.

Yeah, as if there’d be a need for such law suits if A) Corporations abided by laws, regulations and standards, or B) The regulators regulated (here’s looking at you Senator Adley).

Similar stories continue to crop up across the country. And while any one taken alone plainly demonstrates ridiculous self-serving corporate behavior, together these examples call into question greater concerns about the tremendous influence corporations wield over our political systems, the systems and processes for accountability and reparation when corporations violate laws, and, ultimately, the ability of the public to defend their own rights against competing corporate interests.

Photo: Pesticide Action Network

Orders to close the junk food concessions on Nato bases

2010-04-07T13:36:00.000-07:00

There will be no more late night deliveries from Pizza Hut for fighter pilots at Bagram or Kandahar. Whoppers will be off the menu, too: Burger Kings at both locations are slated to close.

Burger bars and pizza joints in Nato bases across Afghanistan are being closed down in an effort to increase efficiency across the battlefield. Even the newly opened TGI Friday’s on the boardwalk in Kandahar is to close its doors once its contract expires.

“This is a warzone, not an amusement park,” the blog written by Command Sgt Maj Michael T Hall says.

The fast food pull is not due to health concerns among our soldiers, but the removal comes with many positive nutritional benefits including avoidance of such long-term effects of a diet high in fat, salt, and calories, such as increased risk of obesity, heart disease, and diabetes.

Soldiers in need of “comfort food” are not to worry— pizzas and burgers will still be served up in military canteens.

Photo: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2010/0407/No-more-Burger-King-on-Afghanistan-base-Soldiers-grumble.

KSTP TV - Minneapolis and St. Paul - Protesters call for Ronald McDonald's retirement

2010-04-05T11:34:00.000-07:00

KSTP TV - Minneapolis and St. Paul - Protesters call for Ronald McDonald's retirement

Media Roundup on Ronald

2010-04-05T11:17:00.000-07:00

Since the launch of the Retire Ronald campaign, we have been making news all over the place! Here’s some of our media tracks:

Big Name Celebrities

Diane Sawyer is talking about us…

Hollywood gossip Perez Hilton blogged about us…

Blog Spots

Thanks to Marion Nestle for blogging on her website foodpolitics.com

Check out Frances Moore Lappé’s terrific blog post on The Huffington Post

Television

5 WPTZ Vermont

5 Eyewitness News Minneapolis

7 News Boston

WBZ TV Boston sent news anchor Kate Merrell to the Corporate Accountability International Headquarters to interview Deborah Lapidus

KTVU San Francisco

CBS 5 San Francisco

Radio Stations

The John Carlson Show Seattle’s FREEDOM 570 KVI
Talk Radio 99.1 FM FOX NEWS
Michele Tafoya on WCCO Minneapolis News Radio
Up To Speed with Margaux Watt on CBC News Winnipeg
Mitch Alboom Talk 760 WJR Detroit

Corporate Accountability International Headquarters: LIVE UPDATE

2010-03-31T12:48:00.000-07:00

Today is THE DAY to launch the Retire Ronald McDonald campaign and this page will bring you all the breaking news, tweets, photos, and video, all in one place.

The phones have been ringing off the hook. Everyone wants an invitation to Ronald’s retirement party. Headquarters has been busy tracking media updates: ABC World News Diane Sawyer, the Huffington Post and the Chicago Tribune have posted reports about today’s “retirement party” and visibility events are receiving attention in major cities and college campuses around the country.

Here’s what happened so far:

9 a.m. Last minute invitations issued to national media to join retirement parties across the country.

11 a.m. Live national press conference in New York City led by Deborah Lapidus, Senior Organizer, Corporate Accountability International. Frances Moore Lappé, Co-Founder and Co-Director, Small Planet Institute, Dr. Nicholas Freudenberg, Department of Urban Public Health, Hunter College and Mark Keida, Senior Analyst, Lake Research was present to field tough media inquiries from CBS News reporters, the Chicago Tribune and more.

12 p.m. Launch of the Retire Ronald website

12:30 p.m. Events around the country asking citizens to participate in our photo petition

2 p.m. Stacey Folsom, National Spokesperson, Corporate Accountability International held a retirement party-style media briefing at San Francisco City Hall. Michele Simon, Author, Appetite for Profit, Raj Patel, Author, Stuffed and Starved: The Hidden Battle for the World Food System and Wendi Gosliner, Researcher, Center for Weight and Health UC Berkeley answered national press call-in questions.

Liveblogging will be continued all day from CHQ.

Ready to Retire Ronald McDonald: Parents, Health Experts, Children’s Advocates Call on McDonald’s to Retire Ronald

2010-03-31T08:50:00.000-07:00

After close to fifty years of hawking fatty food directly to kids, a groundswell of parents, health experts, and children’s advocates are calling on McDonald’s to retire Ronald McDonald. A new report and national poll released today by Corporate Accountability International find that close to half of the public favors the clown’s retirement.

“This clown is no friend to our children or their health,” said Senior Organizer Deborah Lapidus of Corporate Accountability International. “No icon has ever been more effective in hooking kids on a harmful product. Kids have become more obese and less healthy on his watch. He’s a deep-fried Joe Camel for the 21st Century. He deserves a break, and so do our kids.” In the past 30 years, the percentage of obese children has tripled in children ages 2 to 5, and quadrupled in children ages 6 to 11.

McDonald's spends more than a billion dollars each year on marketing in the U.S. alone. That’s more than any other fast food chain, Coca-Cola, and leading junk food manufacturers like Kellogg’s and General Mills. Much of it is spent advertising directly to children. Kids under twelve command up to $50 billion in direct purchasing power, and influence $670 billion in family purchases.

As the report points out, McDonald’s pioneered the practice of marketing to children; a practice that has since spawned thousands of imitators, and afforded McDonald’s its long reign as the industry leader. Unfortunately, McDonald’s success depends on the exploitation of children’s vulnerabilities not the discretion of free-thinking adults. Young children are unable to understand advertising’s persuasive intent. The American Academy of Pediatrics says that, “advertising directed toward children is inherently deceptive and exploits children under eight years of age.”

“Ronald’s everywhere, so parents can’t constantly monitor his influence and no one’s better at making children desire what's unhealthy,” said Frances Moore Lappé, co-founder and co-director of the Small Planet Institute. “It’s time Ronald stopped inundating our children and hindering parents’ best efforts to feed their kids well. He’s had his day, the sad results are in, and it’s time for him to go.”

For the full poll results, an analysis of Ronald McDonald’s pervasive presence on the American landscape, a background on the psychology behind children’s marketing and more visit www.RetireRonald.org.

Photo Credit: Brandon Bolt

Ronald McDonald, Salesman for Big Ag

2010-03-18T11:54:00.000-07:00

A note from Director of Philanthropic Partnerships, Stacey Folsom:

Concern and awareness about our broken food system are at an all-time high with the release of Food Inc. and works like Michael Pollan’s In Defense of Food. The health and environmental ramifications of Cargill’s factory farming, Archer Daniels Midland’s mass manufacture of high fructose corn syrup, and Monsanto’s business in pesticides and genetically modified seeds are all attracting greater attention. But what of the fast food corporation that has been the engine behind and the face of the industrial food system for the last 50 years?

After all, McDonald’s is one of the largest purchasers of beef, pork, potatoes, and apples in the US. Almost no corporation spends more marketing (read: manufacturing demand for) mass produced food products. No corporation spends more hooking kids on Big Ag’s unhealthy output.

Far from just making practices like monocropping and factory farming more profitable, McDonald’s plays a central role in determining how our food systems work. The corporation demands a high output of cheap, consistent food, giving it tremendous influence over how food is farmed and distributed.

McDonald’s industrialized supply chain has also served as a model for countless competitors, magnifying its negative impacts. In addition, its scale has made it cheaper for food producers to emulate, rather than set-up alternative food production systems. Taxpayer farm subsidies to Big Ag provide another means of keeping prices low and healthier alternatives prohibitively expensive.

In all, changing how McDonald’s does business would create a ripple effect, causing reform up and down the food chain. And breaking the cycle of abuse begins with preventing that clown from hooking kids on a brand built on the back of a broken food system.

Visit www.ValueTheMeal.org to learn how you can help protect children’s health and restore our food systems.

McDonald's and Weight Watchers...'cause that makes sense?

2010-03-16T09:59:00.000-07:00

In this year’s Oscar-winning animated short film, Logorama, a maniacal Ronald McDonald unleashes terror on a not-so-futuristic city awash in commercial logos.

Spoiler Alert: Ronald finds his ultimate and violent demise as an air-borne Weight Watchers building falls on him crushing him to death.

Gross, yes. Weird, certainly. And yet, not nearly as disturbing as the real-life association that’s formed between the world’s largest fast food giant joined and the world’s leading weight management organization.

Customers in New Zealand will soon see the Weight Watchers stamp of approval on some McDonald’s meals and, in return, Weight Watchers will promote those items to dieters.

Several items on the fast food giant's menu including Chicken McNuggets, the Filet-O-Fish and Sweet Chili Seared Chicken Wrap, have been approved for the Weight Watchers program.

This move indicates an interesting shift for the normally number-shy McDonald’s. For years the fast food industry has claimed that changes to menu-boards to include calorie count information would be too costly, time-intensive and confusing to consumers.

It’s clear now that really it’s just certain numbers McDonald’s doesn’t want to see appear along side their menu items. Surely, 6.5 Weight Watchers POINTS looks better next to a Filet-O-Fish meal than would, say 23 (the amount of fat in your meal), or 520 (total calories), or even 1550 (mg of sodium you’re racking up).

Critics have questioned the legitimacy of such an endorsement, suggesting that the marketing implies that the food at McDonald’s is healthy when it’s really loaded with fat and sodium. Others point out that this sort of labeling actually adds more confusion than clarity in this already perplexing eat-by-numbers world.

In this end, it's another example of how the fast food industry would sooner confuse a conversation about health and diet than inform it.

Link to Story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/03/mcdonalds-teams-up-with-w_n_484061.html

Following Disney victory, CCFC forced out!

2010-03-10T15:15:00.000-08:00

As some of you have heard by now, threats made by the Disney Corporation following the successful pressure campaign to refund sales of their Baby Einstein videos have pressured the Harvard-affiliated Judge Baker Children’s Center to severe ties with the advocacy organization, Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood, (CCFC).

For ten years CCFC has organized to protect children from the impact of marketing and commercialism. Throughout that history, the organization has held an uncompromising line in determined defense of children, taking to task any corporation or industry that exploit or profit at their expense.

CCFC’s vision of a commercial free childhood has inspired and informed our criticism of McDonald’s marketing to children.

Specifically, the expertise and guidance of CCFC director, Susan Linn, has sharpened our analysis of the food industry’s tactics, and we are greatly indebted to her for the support she has given to the launch of the Value [the] Meal campaign.

Please take a moment to read CCFC’s Statement below and find a way to support our allies!

With thanks,
The Value [the] Meal Team

Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood Statement

Dear Supporter,

After ten incredibly successful years, the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood has been forced to leave Judge Baker Children's Center (JBCC), a Harvard-affiliated children's mental health center in Boston. CCFC now has a wonderful new home at Third Sector New England, an organization devoted to promoting a more just and democratic society.

We're pleased to have landed in such a great place. But we feel that it is important for you to know why JBCC severed our affiliation at a time when our work on behalf of children and families was being heralded worldwide.

As described in today's New York Times, last fall's successful campaign to get Disney to offer refunds on Baby Einstein videos came at a price. At the height of the media flurry about the refunds, representatives from Disney contacted JBCC, and our relationship with the Center was changed irrevocably. We were pressured to stop talking to the press about Baby Einstein. Questions were raised about whether CCFC's mission was appropriate for a JBCC program. Finally, in January, we were told that we had to leave - quickly. And, for our remaining time under JBCC's auspices, we were forbidden from conducting any advocacy aimed at a specific corporation or product. You may have noticed that you haven't heard from us in a while.

It is chilling that any corporation, particularly one marketing itself as family friendly, would lean on a children's mental health center. We have great admiration for the Center's staff, and the work they do for children. At the same time, we are deeply saddened that the institution ceded its ground and stopped supporting CCFC and our efforts to challenge powerful interests in order to protect children and support parents.

The sudden loss of the home where we flourished was a tremendous blow. Our move was unexpected and expensive. We know that Disney - and Nickelodeon, McDonald's, Coca-Cola, Scholastic and all of the companies whose profits are threatened when we stand up for children - would love to see CCFC go away. But we are more determined than ever to continue our important work. Here's what you can do to help:

Spread the word about CCFC and its unbending commitment to children.

Share this story with friends, colleagues and family.

Blog about it, tweet about it.

And please consider a donation to CCFC to help us through this costly transition.

The outpouring of support has already been amazing. An anonymous donor has pledged an extra $10,000 if we can raise $40,000 in the next few weeks. We're already halfway there. Your tax-deductible donation will ensure that the voices of people like you, who care about children more than the bottom line, will continue to be heard.

Thanks for all you do for children,

Susan Linn Josh Golin
Director, CCFC Associate Director, CCFC

The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood
NonProfit Center
89 South St., #404
Boston, MA 02111
www.commercialfreechildhood.org

CCFC Statement:
http://www.commercialexploitation.org/actions/ccfcnewhome.html

New York Times Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/education/10baby.html

The truth behind the treadmill

2010-03-05T11:37:00.000-08:00

After a long, hard workout, many of us crave a plate full of carbs, indulge in salty french fries or reward ourselves with a decadent desert. As it turns out, we may not be doing ourselves much of a favor. In a recent piece in TIME Magazine, authors and scientists assert that health and weight loss has significantly more to do with what you eat than how frequently you hit the gym.

But, what about the argument that weight is simply an equation of balancing ‘calories in with calories out’? How many of us are taught that exercise is key to weight-loss and health?

The numbers:
• It takes, on average, 3,500 calories to burn or produce one pound of fat.
• In 1980, 43% Americans said they engaged in regular exercise, and by the year 2000, that percentage had grown to 57%.
• From 1971 to 2000, rates of obesity in the U.S. have increased from14.5% to 30.9%.

If a greater percentage of Americans are exercising, then why do we see a much larger increase is obesity? This just doesn’t add up.

It’s no secret that McDonald’s and the fast-food industry promote fitness and exercise and “balanced, active lifestyles” as the real solution to obesity and the diet-related disease epidemic. A lack of exercise and the couch-potato effect are – they claim – the real culprit.

One McDonald’s executive says “Certainly the studies have indicated that the issue is linked to a change on lifestyle - kids exercising less, watching more TV, kids playing video games," he added. He also claimed that most data which blames fast food consumption for an increase in childhood obesity were “inconclusive.”

However, the most recent obesity research shows that the role of exercise in weight loss has been “wildly overstated.” There is simply no amount of exercise that can compensate for a diet high in fast food. So, with all this in mind, it’s time for the industry rhetoric to stop pointing to a lack of fitness as the culprit and address the campaign's demands:

• Reduce the negative health impacts of fast food
• Provide complete, accurate and non-promotional information about the health risks of fast food

Photo found here.

Our Hunch on Mrs. Obama's Lunch

2010-03-03T13:32:00.000-08:00

Mrs. Obama’s ambitious campaign Let’s Move! seems to be running fairly smooth.

The First Lady’s first steps towards ending child obesity in a generation have started in the lunchroom by advocating for healthier foods, nutrition education, improved kitchen facilities and universal access. Baby steps towards tackling a massive problem, but cafeteria change is a welcomed beginning. Here’s a recap on school lunch leaps so far:

3/1/2010
Deputy Agriculture Secretary Kathleen Merrigan announced an earmarked budget of $5 million in funding for the 2010 Farmers Market Grant Program (FMPP)

2/9/2010
School Nutrition Association (SNA) has made a big commitment to support Let's Move!

10/21/2009
The White House chefs held a Healthy Kids Fair with colorful cooking demonstrations showcasing healthy, kid-friendly recipes using ingredients that are available to schools that receive federal funding for their school nutrition programs.

The First Lady’s goal of eliminating food deserts in seven years is a lofty one as 23.5 million Americans live in food deserts, and 6.5 of these are children. Hopefully institutional changes in our public school systems will be the first accomplishment leading towards systemic changes in our food system.

Photo: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_2b_SPCr78uQ/S4ejlORIpLI/AAAAAAAAO48/E_EGDAHGknI/s400/welcome+lawrence+jackson.jpg

day in the life of a field organizer

2010-03-01T12:01:00.000-08:00

Ever wonder what a day in the life of a field organizer is like?

Ruby, Leila and Sarah all agree: when you’re out on the road for a week-long Value [the] Meal tour, coffee shops + free Wi-Fi + caffeine = organizer success.

Ruby on San Fran:

“The Bay Area is a bubble,” Ruby explained while we caught up over tea. “San Francisco is all about the healthy food movement. The notion of Value [the] Meal and our goals against the fast-food industry seem obvious to San Franciscans because they spend so much time buying local and shopping at co-ops and farmers markets. But I could tell when I was meeting residents—PTA mom’s, food groups, teachers and medical professionals— that I was getting their wheels turning.” Ruby will be headed back to the Bay Area in March and hopes to keep up the momentum by organizing some action groups comprised of farmers and slow food folks.

Sarah Takes a Bite of the Mini Apple:
“I met with so many interesting people in Minneapolis. I was especially touched by all of the personal stories about health related disease.” Sarah stayed with a host family while she was on the road and met with three-six groups per day to discuss the goals of Value [the] Meal, including the risks of fast food consumption. “I would have dinner with volunteers and long time members of Corporate Accountability International and the discussion would always end up on individual health stories about obesity and diabetes. These stories made me realize the importance of these campaign goals.”

Leila Plays Six Degrees of Separation:

“My visit to Chicago was snowy but beautiful. I love the architecture. And what a good bunch of activists!” Leila reported that almost every Corporate Accountability member she met in Chicago knew another member somewhere else in the city. “I met two great people who had been involved in activism for 30+ years and have been Corporate Accountability members since the early days of the Nestlé Boycott. They welcomed me to town by bringing together 13 of their friends to talk about the campaign with me.” Next trip, Leila wants to check out some green space at Millennium Park.

To get involved with an Action Committee in San Francisco, Minneapolis or Chicago, please email us at info@StopCorporateAbuse.org

Photo: Leila back at work in the field space at Corporate Accountability International.

Does Slurpee signal a sign of the time?

2010-02-26T14:56:00.000-08:00

So, I woke up to a sobering little sound bite this morning on npr. Given that most things these days are brought to me by a ‘proud corporate sponsor’, and that anything that can fit a corporate logo probably has one, I should not have been surprised to hear that Baltimore’s mounted police unit is but the latest public service to go to market. After all, this is America, where even the walls of classrooms and churches broadcast the messages of advertisers.

Facing funding deficits that would have eliminated the unit, the city of Baltimore turned to the support of private financiers to save the city’s mounted police force. According to last week’s coverage in USA Today,

“Fundraising efforts that brought in about $100,000 and included everything from a $5,000 contribution by 7-Eleven to the receipts from a lemonade stand operated by Sophia Litrenta, 9, who collected about $2,000 in August, says Anthony Guglielmi, a spokesman for the police commissioner's office.”

So while I’ve yet to hear of little Sophia’s ambition to brand herself as ‘Horse Hero of the Year,’ it appears 7-Eleven’s charity may have had a few strings (or at least naming rights) attached. Just ask Barney, Belle, Binx, Buster, Butch and Blackie, who will be known from here on out as Slurpee.

With the ubiquity of McDonald’s promotion and sponsorship these days, perhaps it’s only a matter of time before ‘Butch’ is renamed ‘French Fry’, ‘Binx’ becomes ‘BigMac’ and ‘Buster’ earns his title of “Mayor McCheese”.

Photo: By Doug Kapustin, for USA TODAY

Weigh Less Pay Less

2010-02-22T12:01:00.000-08:00

Would you hit the gym if your employer offered you, say, a free iPod?

Corporate Wellness Programs are creating cool incentives, from cash to coupons, while helping employees improve their health and cut health care costs. America’s employers offer everything from vending machines with healthier snacks to reduced gym memberships and lunch-time walking clubs. Some companies even forbid the hiring of smokers.

Whole Foods recently implemented the Team Member Healthy Discount Incentive Program, which offers employees additional discounts on groceries purchased at the chain; if employees meet certain health related benchmarks, they can get a discount of up to 30 percent. Johnson & Johnson saw a $225 per employee per year reduction in health care costs in 2002 from their corporate wellness program. IBM has given employees more than $130 million in what are called wellness incentives: stop smoking or exercise three times a week and get an additional $150 tagged onto your paycheck.

To those who oppose shape-up programs, it’s important to remember that the programs are entirely voluntary and it’s up to the individual to choose how they will achieve their desired wellness goals. Providing financial incentive to promote healthy behavior seems like a clever way that speaks to employers’ very real concerns about health costs being high and unhealthy behaviors contributing to them.

Photo: ABC News Photo Illustration

Soda Industry Blowing Smoke

2010-02-19T09:00:00.000-08:00

The soda industry is behaving like the tobacco industry of yesterday: marketing to innocent children, claiming the product is healthy (or harmless), and lobbying heavily to prevent change.

The soda industry's main counterclaim is that there are major differences between tobacco and soda. They assert that, in moderate quantities, soda is neither harmful nor addictive. However, the average American drinks about 50 gallons of soda per year. Plus, more and more studies support the idea that soda consumption plays an important role in the increasing levels of childhood obesity.

Attention is being paid: last week, the Obama administration announced a plan to ban candy and sweetened beverages from schools.

A tax on sugary beverages has been implemented in Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington and West Virginia, and Chicago imposed a three percent retail tax on soft drinks. Soda taxes were proposed in at least 12 other states in 2009, although none were approved. Other ideas: tax the syrup used to sweeten soda and a penny-per-ounce tax on sugared beverages (a 75-cent can would now cost 87 cents).

The public war against tobacco worked: Americans smoke at half the rate they once did, half of all smokers have quit, and tobacco companies finance antismoking campaigns. Anti-tobacco litigators fought against Joe Camel and won, however many, such as public health advocates, view this victory as restricted marketing and are pushing for more aggressive actions urging soda advertising be treated like tobacco.

Soda, like tobacco, has no nutritional value and is harmful when consumed on a daily basis. Therefore, a tax on soda will do two things: first, it will decrease the incentive of people to purchase it and two, it will help fund the ever-growing coast of treating diet-related diseases, which today, adds up to the tune of $147 billion!

Photo: http://www.made-in-england.org/images/big.jpg

Nutrition labels – fact or fiction?

2010-02-17T10:49:00.000-08:00

Are back-of-the-box nutrition labels lying to you?

Let’s put it this way: they aren’t telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Ever since companies were required to start printing nutrition labels on their products 15 years ago, they’ve added in enough tricks and half-truths to make it pretty tough to get a real sense of what went into the product they want you to buy.

The good folks at the Center for Science in the Public Interest have proposed an overhaul of the nutrition label that will help clear the air. CSPI is calling on the FDA to roll out a new set of standards that will make nutrition labels easier to read and interpret – so that they can serve as the useful nutrition tool they were meant to be. The changes being proposed wouldn’t just affect the information shown; they would also fix the way it’s displayed.

These are just a few of the big changes:

When a product contains more than 20% of the daily recommended amount of something – sugars, fats, sodium, etc. – the percentage would be printed in red and accompanied by a “High” warning label
Ingredients would be grouped by type (for example, all the different sugars would be clumped together) and the label would display how much of the serving was made up of those ingredients
The label would print precisely what percentage of the grains are actually whole grains

CSPI also proposed a set of smaller changes that would help consumers read through the labels. Instead of clumping the ingredients together in all capital letters, they’d be printed normally and separated by bullets. Plus, the information currently contained on labels that simply isn’t useful for consumers would be eliminated.

The FDA is already considering other changes, like updating serving sizes and moving the nutrition label to the front of the box. It’s time for the label itself to get a makeover, too.

Chime in – do you use nutrition labels? Are they a help, or a hindrance?

Photo: http://smallbitesnutrition.blogspot.com/2007_12_01_archive.html

Brown is the New White Rice: Multicultural Cuisine at Olympic Games

2010-02-12T11:52:00.000-08:00

With its vibrant ornamental gate, traditional garden and Shanghai-style hanging lamps, the suburb of Richmond, an enclave outside of Vancouver, lays claim to the title of Chinatown. Recent immigrants have come in waves from Hong Kong, China, and Taiwan changing the culinary makeup of the city just in time for the Olympics.

When it comes to feeding athletes from 85 countries, rice seems to be the glue that holds Vancouver’s multicultural cuisine together. The two Olympic villages in Vancouver and Whistler, B.C., will be preparing an array of ethnic foods that will be available to fuel athletes. According to Nejat Sarp, who will oversee every aspect of food in the Winter Game’s mess halls, depending on the athletes’ cultural expectations, rice will come in many forms. The Japanese will want their white rice steamed, the Chinese will go for fried rice, the Koreans will like it spicy and Middle Eastern athletes will prefer the basmati variety. For the American athletes, they go for brown rice.

These rice-loving, ethnic hot spots will be steaming and frying throughout the opening and closing ceremonies:

The Noodle Box: A South-East Asian noodle bar with spicy curries and rice-noodles for slurping. (1867 West 4th Ave Vancouver BC V6J 1M3)

Posh Restaurant: A home-grown restaurant serving Japanese Sukiyaki, a form of Hot Pot, with bubbling broth and veggies, tofu, noodles and seafood. (101-1788 West Broadway Vancouver, BC)

Mongolie Grill: Create your own stir-fry by choosing a protein, fresh vegetable and starch combo. (201-4295 Blackcomb Way Whistler, BC)

Regardless of your rice likes, it’s nice to know that there is no need to stray from healthy foods and cultural roots while enjoying the winter games.

Photo: http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1143/1469663407_768109e634_o.jpg

The Golden Arches Groping for Gold

2010-02-10T06:30:00.000-08:00

Imagine Apolo Anton Ohno stuffing down a greasy burger then lacing up his speed skates and winning the gold. Not necessarily a picture of athletic health, ey?

Three new McDonald's have been built to accommodate and feed the 10,000 Olympic athletes and crew that will arrive in Vancouver on this week. McDonald's first infiltrated the Olympics in 1968 when they delivered hamburgers via plane to American athletes in Grenoble, France (the corporate claim: athletes craved the familiar taste of home). Since then McDonald's has provided food service to millions of athletes, their families and fans at the games, but at what price to our health?

This partnership between McDonald’s and the Olympic Games is harmful to our athletes and our children. Promotion of the Olympic Games should be a celebration of health, fitness and acculturation. McDonald’s advertisements and packaging that feature Olympians devouring junk lead kids to the wrong message. Target marketing directly aimed at kids – like Ronald McDonald – further amplifies the problem.

A controversy over allowing local foods to shine at the upcoming London Olympics sheds a spotlight on a debate completely missing in Vancouver; the Olympic committee missed a great opportunity to promote and encourage healthy eating choices at an international forum and introduce the public to the local, sustainable and delicious food alternatives that Vancouver has to offer.

Check in on Friday for delicious ethnic food found in Vancouver for the Olympics...

Photo: http://www.insidethegames.biz/~dontreg/images/stories/McDonalds%20and%20Olympic%20rings.jpg

Organizer Deployment: Chicago, San Francisco & Minneapolis here we come!

2010-02-08T08:49:00.000-08:00

Value [the] Meal is taking off! This week, three top-notch organizers, Leila, Ruby and Sarah hit the ground running in Chicago, San Francisco and Minneapolis respectively. Leila hails from Maine and has organized around international human rights and is eager to hit the ground running in McDonald’s hometown. Ruby joined us from San Francisco and is looking forward to returning to her home turf to activate folks in her home community and Sarah, a New England native, joins us from environmental organizing and is looking forward to Retiring Ronald! These energetic, determined and passionate activists will recruit and establish Action Committees focused on rolling out and galvanizing support for Value [the] Meal!

As a refresher, Value [the] Meal: Challenging the Corporate Abuse of Our Food, calls on McDonald’s and other Fast-Food giants to:

• Stop fast food advertising, promotion and sponsorship that appeals to children and teenagers
• Stop manipulating public health policy and nutrition science
• Provide complete, accurate and non-promotional information about the health risks of fast food
• Reduce the negative health impacts of fast food
• Stop interfering with people’s right to decide whether or where fast food will be sold in their communities
• Pay the high costs of health care associated with diet-related diseases

Leila, Ruby and Sarah all say “If you live near one of our cities, please get involved!”

These hard-workers will keep us posted on events and other ways you can get involved, so keep an eye out for updates in your area! To learn more about our Action Committees, email info@stopcorporateabuse.org or click on your city: Chicago, San Francisco, Minneapolis

Mrs. Obama’s Food Campaign Backed by Burger King?

2010-02-03T11:19:00.000-08:00

Last month Deborah Lapidus, Senior Organizer at Corporate Accountability International attended the U.S. Conference of Mayors where Mrs. Obama emphatically addressed the national epidemic of diet-related diseases. As the First Lady warned, this health crisis will have a worse toll than tobacco unless we change course now.

In terms of interest in public health and the environment, Mrs. Obama has brought national attention by planting the White House vegetable garden, joining in physical activities like hula-hooping, and visiting Sesame Street to discuss the virtues of eating right with Elmo.

The taskforce guiding Mrs. Obama’s decisions are Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Surgeon General Regina Benjamin. The team has just issued a new report The Surgeon General’s Vision for a Healthy and Fit Nation 2010 which makes general recommendations for a healthier America to combat obesity and improve quality of life.

The report is disappointingly vague in its recommendations, and raises several questions:

Can Regina Benjamin put aside her previous industry connections, as a nutritional advisor to Burger King, to call for fast food giants to be held accountable for their role in the epidemic of diet-related disease?

Even as she partners with Sesame Street characters to promote healthy eating, the show itself is sponsored by McDonald's, exposing millions of very young children to fast food branding at a vulnerable time in their development. How will Mrs. Obama deal with mixed messages like this?

And will HHS be brave enough overall to stand up to the food industry, and put our kids health before profits and the corporate agenda?

Photo: http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Michelle+Obama+Hosts+Healthy+Kids+Fair+White+KbZUwe9Wa0Dl.jpg

Can fast food giants teach kids about healthy living?

2010-02-02T13:32:00.000-08:00

The issue of childhood obesity is on everyone’s agenda, including the First Family. Which is why Chicago has implemented a series of programs to help combat the problem. Well before President Obama made this an issue of national concern in The State of the Union Address, the city had already teamed up with the Consortium to Lower Obesity in Chicago Children (CLOCC) to launch media campaigns and promote healthy living. I have to say great work Chicago but, I’m concerned about the organizations helping CLOCC with their efforts.

I worry because corporations like McDonald’s, Kraft Foods, and PepsiCo all sit on CLOCC’s Corporate Advisory Board. Leading me to ask; should corporations whose primary business is to sell unhealthy food be the ones leading this initiative? This is just one more way for corporations to market their unhealthy products to Chicago’s children.

Take for example McDonald’s, who promotes nutrition and physical activity on CLOCC’S website. On one hand that’s terrific, except in the other hand they’re waving a Happy Meal in front of kids faces (Yep that’s right McDonald’s has a convenient location at Children’s Memorial Hospital, a few floors below CLOCC’s office). These corporations are taking a big step forward by promoting healthier living, but giant steps backwards when they continue to market unhealthy products.

Instead of throwing money into a public awareness campaign to clean up their image, why don’t they clean up their products and stop making kids sick in the first place?

Drive-In Diets: Do or Dare?

2010-01-28T13:50:00.000-08:00

Losing weight while eating tacos sounds like a simple and delicious diet. Taco Bell’s new diet Drive-Thru Diet® plugs a low-fat ‘fresco’ menu which can reduce caloric intake by 500 to 1250 calories per day. Spokeswoman Christine Dougherty lost 54 pounds in two years.

Dieticians are unconvinced whether these fast-food diet campaigns (such as Subway and McDonald’s) ultimately help or hinder a nation where more than one third of the population is obese and three meals a week are consumed from the drive-through window.

A drive-thru diet is just a fast band aid, a gimmicky solution. Fast-food, even healthy-option menus, is still higher in sodium and sugar than an average homemade meal. For those with calorie-counting knowhow, this diet’s just another corporate strategy to influence the public’s food choices and health. Remember, as Michael Pollan says in his new book Food Rules: Rule No. 20: “It's not food if it arrived through the window of your car.”

Photo: http://launchpr.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/06/fresco2_2.jpg

The world’s largest urban farm in Detroit: a model of sustainability or the same mistake twice?

2010-01-20T11:38:00.000-08:00

Take the vacant land in the middle of Detroit and turn it into the world’s largest urban farm. Sounds like an idyllic fix: acres of green grass, hay bales, pumpkins in October and furry evergreens for Christmas.

The two shepherds of this redevelopment are John Hantz, financial services millionaire, and Matt Allen, an advocate for Hantz’s vision. Their plan is to create Hantz Farms, a massive for-profit farm in the heart of downtown Detroit. "Hantz Farms will transform this area, increase the tax base, create jobs," says Hantz.

The proposal is to build a 20,000 acre farm (about 26 square miles) in one of the most profound food deserts in our nation. In a city without a single supermarket, the thought of buying asparagus instead of mini-mart junk food sounds awfully alluring. Hantz Farms wants to harvest wind energy, utilize geothermal heat and biomass fuel from recycling compost.

Too green to be true? Probably. Skeptics say Hantz Farms motives are non-local, agri-business driven and disempowering of Detroit’s black community.

The idea that a businessman wants to invest in city land for the purpose of farming seems venerable. However, the idea that they would be taking the land away from the people is disconcerting and I’d rather see all 26 acres used as a community-owned garden, like the Grown in Detroit project, that teaches local kids and parents about organics and healthy food alternatives.

In a phone call to Hantz Farms’ PR firm, I was told (get this!) that the ultimate hope is to sell the farm’s produce across the Eastern seaboard. I also asked whether the project would have a farm stand that would accept food stamp s (see how Philadelphia does it). Their response—they’d have a farm stand but weren’t sure whether or not they would accept food stamps.

Detroit is missing a unique opportunity to create a large public space, community garden and healthy alternatives. It would be a terrible shame to deny access to these local, healthy foods to the very neighbors of this farm. In the wake of the auto industry collapse, shouldn’t Detroit think twice before sowing its seed to a private company?

Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellievanhoutte/1012000289/

New Federal Standards for Foods Marketed to Children

2010-01-08T13:30:00.000-08:00

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) conducted a forum in mid-December entitled ‘Sizing up Food Marketing and Childhood Obesity’. The forum focused on how to alleviate the impact that the marketing of unhealthy foods to children has on childhood obesity and subsequent diet-related diseases. One of the highlights of the forum was the release of new nutrition standards from the interagency working group that Congress requested. The working group includes members from the FDA, USDA, FTC and the CDC and utilizes the acronym 'SNAC PAC'.

All in all, the working group's recommendations appear to be a step in the right direction if adopted by the food industry and relevant agencies or policy-making bodies. First of all, the standards set forth apply to children 17 or younger as opposed to the industry's faulty definition of children at age 12 and under. Second, the recommendations utilize a new calculation for serving size (see our Advisor Marion Nestle's blog on the subject) that adjusts for average amounts actually consumed. Third, the standards more actively promote whole fruits, vegetables, grains, seeds and nuts.

However, for all of the new standards' merits there is one fatal flaw that still exists: the recommendations are completely voluntary. Therefore, it will be up to the food industry to adopt the standards. The same industry who consistently has fought tooth and nail against any meaningful reforms regarding the marketing of unhealthy foods to children including any attempt develop nutrition standards that are not rife with loopholes that continue to allow corporations to peddle mounds of junk food directly to our children.

The proposed standards should be published in the Federal Register in January and there will be a period for public comment. The recommendations are then expected to be finalized in a report to Congress in July.

Is there anyone out there who actually believes that the food industry will not use all of its might to weaken the standards and thwart the voluntary adoption of these standards?

The ABC’s of Mickey D’s, overseas

2010-01-06T16:34:00.000-08:00

Swedish newspapers are reporting that several Swedish schools have been teaching English to fifth grade students using McDonald’s branded worksheets. Parents are appropriately miffed, recognizing the worksheet text as pure manipulative advertising copy. McDonald’s denies any responsibility for the lesson papers (of course). Our very own Judy Grant of Value [the] Meal is quoted on AOL’s Slashfood disputing the notion that McDonald’s Sweden had no idea the worksheets existed. "I find it hard to believe that McDonald's Sweden didn't know. Copyright infringement seems an odd mistake for a publisher to make.”

Why, just look at the innocent English phrases being taught to these grade schoolers. “The first McDonald’s opened in London in 1974. The idea was to serve high quality food in no time at all,” and “you can take carrots with your burger instead of French fries”. Perhaps the corporate copywriters confused the English words “high quality food” with “junk food high enough in fat, sugar and salt to become the driving force behind the epidemic of diet-related diseases.” It’s just a theory.

Since McDonald’s entire business model is based on hooking kids on their unhealthy food at a young age, these teaching tools are the perfect brainwashing tool. Consequently, Sweden is quickly becoming littered with McDonald restaurants. I wonder how many of those McDonald's restaurants just happen to be located near elementary schools.

Ronald's Resolutions for 2010

2010-01-04T14:37:00.000-08:00

So… crazy thing happened. I was in California this year for the New Years Day Tournament of Roses Parade. I was famished after a morning of excitement so I followed throngs of parade viewers and participants into a Pasadena McDonald’s for a quick bite. Sitting there by himself alone at a table in the corner was a dejected looking Ronald McDonald - a shell of the smiling, waving friend I'd watching pass by on a float a few hours before. It seems the folks at Corporate have come down hard on the clown over the past few months for failing to adequately deflect much of the social criticism and stigma that’s come his way of late. Apparently, Headquarters feels Ronald has failed to pull his weight (so to speak) and unless he picks up his game – his days as corporate mascot may be numbered.

At least that would explain the scribbled contents on the crumpled napkin he left behind. It seems Ronald has been working on a few resolutions of his own for 2010.

I, Ronald McDonald, resolve to:

• Hit the books. Learn a few tricks from old marketing pros like Joe Camel and Tony the Tiger.
• Get a few more kids involved in my physical education programs to take some of the heat off this whole childhood obesity thing.
• Use my appeal with kids to get child visitation up to 100% this year.
• Give kids more options; get a McDonald’s within a mile of every elementary school in America.
• Keep in touch with those nice people from NASA who co-sponsored our Rose Parade float, maybe even build a McDonald’s in outer-space.
• Gotta stay ahead of possible government regulation by promoting self-regulatory schemes.
• We need to update store décor so people feel better about visiting McDonalds. Let’s cover the walls with fruits and vegetables so people feel healthy while they pound BigMacs and fries.
• Host SNL, or better yet, Sesame Street.
• Partner with Michelle Obama, or Sam Kass, or Rachel Ray, or Oprah – basically, anyone who would make me seem like part of the food solution.
• Join support group for unwanted corporate mascots.
• Lose 20 lbs.

photo: The image is from the flickr files of taylorkoa22.

Self regulation = NO regulation

2009-12-23T12:02:00.000-08:00

In 2007, major food companies sensing impending regulation over the marketing of unhealthy foods to children announced a grand self-regulatory scheme that would be sure to quiet critics. Several companies came together with the help of the Better Business Bureau to create the Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI). Under this initiative, transnational corporations (including Coca-Cola, McDonald's and General Mills) promised to stop marketing foods of poor nutrition value to children in the US.

However, two recently released reports conclusively demonstrated that the food industry's voluntary efforts have failed to significantly improve the nutritional quality of foods marketed to children. Children Now commissioned a report that found that nearly 3 out of 4 (72.5%) of the foods advertised on TV for children are for products in the Department of Health and Human Services' poorest nutritional category.

Furthermore, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) issued a similar report that despite utilizing different methods came to a comparable conclusion. CSPI found that products that companies identify as appropriate to market to children (approved products) met
each company's own standards. However, the majority (59%) of approved products did not meet a single, third‐party nutrition standard.

Even worse, some corporations really stood apart from the rest with the largest proportions of products approved by the company for marketing to children that did not meet CSPI's recommended nutrition standards. The worst offenders: PepsiCo (100% of products did not meet third party standards), Kraft (90%), and McDonald’s (88%). You mean McDonald's markets junk food to children? Who knew?

Corporate Accountability International have worked against abusive industries for years and we've certainly witnessed a plethora of voluntary initiatives that promise to rectify social concerns. It's strange though, we've never witnessed a single self-regulatory scheme actually work. Let's chalk up another defeat. Unfortunately, it's our children that pay the price for defeat with their health.

For those who were skeptical, SELF REGULATION DOES NOT WORK! The only accomplishment of self-regulation is to provide the industry cover while they stall any meaningful reforms that might actually benefit the health and well-being of our children. I'm hopeful that the release of these reports will serve as an alarm for those who have put their faith in an industry that has an inherent conflict of interest and should not be trusted to protect our children from their dangerous marketing practices.

Where's Ronald? An update from the field.

2009-12-21T15:01:00.000-08:00

The Ronald sightings continue to roll in from our Where’s Ronald? national scavenger hun t. Even though the corporation claims he does not market food to kids, we've caught the clown all across the country doing just that. Here are some examples of submissions we’ve received from our members and activists so far:

Baby Ronald?

One principle of marketing to children is that the younger you can foster brand loyalty, the better. This despite the fact that kids under eight do not understand the persuasive intent of marketing. Here’s an example from a restaurant in Washington, DC of "Baby Ronald" reaching out to even younger audiences (the sign says "Ask about our special toys for children under 3"):

McLiteracy:

Ronald has been visiting libraries in Southern California as part of “National Literacy Month,” promoting reading and handing out McDonald’s gift certificates. Should something as fundamental as literacy become a marketing opportunity for junk food?

Where will Ronald pop up next? Stay tuned, and help us find him at www.WheresRonald.org.

Say Cheeze!

2009-12-15T20:08:00.000-08:00

I read a story this week about a mobile dental care unit that visits schools in low-income counties across northern Arkansas and offers low-cost dental care to children without dental insurance. Bill Mathews, a director of the charity, shared its mission: “to create, find and support programs that directly improve the health and well-being of children.” I was delighted, until I learned that the mobile dental clinic is a project of Ronald McDonald House Charities, and Bill Mathews is a McDonald’s franchisee.

I know that some reading this will say, “don’t fault them for trying” or “it’s not perfect, but it’s a start” and I would have to agree – IF – if I believed McDonald’s actually wanted to improve the health and well-being of children. But McDonald’s is the world’s largest fast food corporation and they exist for the singular purpose of earning money and making profits; and this charity helps them do it. Let’s face it:

A 40-foot trailer parked at an elementary school with a giant picture of Ronald McDonald is marketing.
All the publicity about the charity that bolsters the public image of the parent corporation is marketing.
A palatable social mission that makes parents feel better about feeding their children food that is unhealthy is marketing!

Let’s be clear, Ronald McDonald House Charities do offer tremendous services to children and families in need. And while I appreciate that it’s a sensitive thing to criticize a charity that doubles as a corporate PR arm, the very fact that I feel the need to include that disclaimer demonstrates exactly how influential the charity’s reputation is on McDonald’s corporate image.

Bottom line: it is unacceptable to excuse a corporation whose pursuit of profit causes more harm that could possibly be mitigated by its charitable efforts.

McDonald’s wants you to care about dental health because it “has been associated with diabetes, heart disease and malnourishment.” Guess what, so has fast food.

“Tooth decay is fives times more prevalent than asthma and seven times more prevalent than hay fever.” Yet, obesity is now the second leading cause of preventable death behind tobacco.

“Often parents are unable to take their children to see a dentist because they cannot pay or cannot afford time off from work for an appointment.” At the same time, McDonald’s has aggressively fought minimum-wage laws and denied such benefits to their own workers and their families.

“Ronald McDonald Care Mobile ® is a way for us to have a positive and direct effect on the dental health of children here in Northwest Arkansas,” said Mathews, whose own store would be happy to serve your children the “healthy” happy meal option of nutrient-stripped peeled apple slices in an enamel-hating caramel dipping sauce!

Perhaps the numbers tell it best: Ronald McDonald House Charities provided $21million in programs and services last year, McDonald’s made more than one thousand times ($23.5B) that in revenue last year and spent nearly one hundred times as much ($2B) on advertising.

Is there really still a questions about where McDonald’s priorities lie?

Image: (Chang W. Lee/ New York Times)

Obesity, life-expectancy and health reform: Is this our chance to get it right?

2009-12-10T12:17:00.000-08:00

A new study in the New England Journal of Medicine (as reported on CNN) tells us that, even though the reduced rates of smoking in this country should have increased our overall life expectancy, the rates of overweight and obesity have more than wiped out any gains; Americans, on average, will die about 1 year earlier than they would have if we were all normal weight. Now, of course we’re not all going to be of “normal weight,” but that is a significant decrease in life expectancy for a completely preventable epidemic.

And it gets worse! Another recent study tells us that “obesity is actually the second-largest carcinogen in the United States. Only tobacco causes more cancer than obesity…”
Despite this, policy makers have been slow to implement the kinds of regulations that have been instrumental in curbing smoking. One small proposal including in the major bills in play, which we previously discussed, would require fast-food outlets and other chain restaurants to post calorie information on their menus and other product displays – unfortunately by pre-empting stronger, local regulations, and in exchange for exempting the restaurant industry from lawsuits or further regulation.

Cigarette taxes and restrictions on marketing have been instrumental in preventing young folks from starting to smoke. Yet, a small tax on a beverage with no nutritional value – soda – never made it into health care reform because (according to industry lobbyists) a tax would not change consumer behavior. Lobbyists also claim the tax could disproportionately affect low-income populations. Question: If a soda tax wouldn’t change consumer behavior, it also couldn’t really have that great of an economic effect on low-income folks, or they’d stop buying soda, right? Am I missing something?

This seems so small - are we missing a huge opportunity to get prevention into health reform? Or - as Michael Pollan suggests - once insurers can no longer deny people coverage for pre-existing conditions, will prevention suddenly rise to the top of the agenda?

Image courtesy of Rutgers Health Law Society

KFC urges consumers to "unthink" at a penny per calorie

2009-12-08T23:00:00.000-08:00

KFC’s new product, Kentucky Grilled Chicken (KGC), was recently named 2009 "Most Memorable New Product Launch". The angle? Pay just a penny per calorie for the 395-calorie grilled chicken meal. The meal includes a Kentucky Grilled Chicken drumstick and thigh, green beans and mashed potatoes and gravy.

Imagine what it would be like if other fast food corporations followed suit, charging a penny per calorie for their signature products. That would mean that an average McDonald’s meal, say, a Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese, large French Fries, and a large chocolate shake, would be 1,680 calories, or $16.80. Not exactly a competitive edge over KFC and its claim that they are “asking America to UNTHINK the myth that this meal from KFC can't be both delicious and contain fewer than 400 calories.” But wait, aren’t we missing the “nutritious” piece?

This is a perfect example of how fast food corporations are trying every tactic to manipulate consumers, and push the legitimacy of their junk food brand by strategically offering up calorie counts as part of new “healthier” product advertising. But the reality is, fast food giants are fighting menu labeling laws tooth and nail so they can continue to peddle their dangerous products to children and the public.

Kid Tested, Moms (paid to) Approve!

2009-12-04T09:00:00.000-08:00

From toddlers to parents, clever marketers increasingly target even the most vigilant parents with sophisticated media tactics. On one hand, a recent study indicates that children are consuming more hours of TV than ever, with the youngest (aged 2-5) watching 32 hours per week on average!

On the parent side, Mommy bloggers are increasingly wined, dined and financially compensated by food giants for “evaluating” snack food and promoting brands and products on their blogs. Nutrition activists are worried that the food industry is funding a campaign that is “shrewd marketing” says Barbara Moore from ShapeUp America. Though this type of lavish compensation is far from new, food companies from Kraft to Nestlé to Taco Bell have raised the stakes. An article in the LATimes claims that “Some companies are even offering free kitchen appliances, vacations, groceries and enough fruity snacks to feed a neighborhood's worth of kids.”

Though a recent FTC regulation requires bloggers to divulge financial and product compensation, many remain concerned that the disclosure guidelines don’t go far enough. Even the most vigilant moms who read blogs may not realize that they are actively being targeted by their own community and that their favorite blogs may be tainted by direct marketing, rather than genuine content. When kids watch more TV ads and nearly 25 million moms read blogs, how are even the most careful parents supposed to trust the old product catchphrase “kid tested, mom approved?”

Photo found here http://www.velveteenmind.com/velveteenmind/mommybloggers-the-resource.html

Where's Ronald? We're beginning to find out!

2009-12-02T06:15:00.000-08:00

Since we launched our "Where's Ronald?" scavenger hunt this fall, folks across the nation have been tracking down the clown, finding him in the most unusual places. Folks have found him on the internet, in restaurants, and children's libraries, just to name a few places.

Wherever they go, our members and activists are finding ample evidence to disprove McDonald's CEO, James Skinner's strange assertion that "Ronald has never sold food to kids in the history of his existence."

Here is one example, from the McDonald's Thanksgiving Parade in Chicago (yes, the whole parade is named after the corporation).

Ronald in a big, red clown shoe with the McDonald's logo front-and-center.

Have you seen Ronald? Find out how you can get in on the action at www.WheresRonald.org

Photo found here http://picasaweb.google.com/chicagofestivals/McDonaldSBigRedShoe#5278754157874870146

The restaurant industry's rocky relationship with health care reform

2009-11-23T07:17:00.000-08:00

A couple of weeks ago the US House of Representatives passed its version of health care reform and now the Senate is taking aim at its own version. With little fanfare, the House version included provisions to require chain restaurants to post calories on their menu boards as an effort to educate patrons on calorie counts, which in turn would hopefully prompt them to make healthier choices.

There are indications that menu-labeling is having some early successes and may be affecting consumer choice towards healthier options. Last month, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene released preliminary data that showed that 56 percent of fast food patrons are reading the calorie postings on fast food menu boards (menu-labeling has been in effect for approximately a year in NYC). Furthermore, patrons at 9 out of the 13 restaurants in the study bought items with fewer calories. Other recent studies have questioned the impact that menu-labeling will likely have on public health. Regardless, consumers have the right to know that chain restaurants are peddling high calorie meals, full of fat, sugar and salt with little regard for the negative public health outcome.

In fact, it appears as though the restaurant industry has become extremely vocal in its opposition to health care reform, spending millions to thwart efforts to improve our nation's health care system. The National Restaurant Association, the industry's leading trade association, highly criticized the House version of health care reform in large part because it includes mandates for employers to provide health care to its employees.

It is certainly dubious that an industry that is under scrutiny for both its contribution to the obesity epidemic and for its historical negligence of not providing health care to its employees to become such an outspoken critic of health care reform. Isn't it time that the restaurant industry stop hiding behind its colossal trade association and take responsibility for workers rights as well as its contribution to the global epidemic of diet-related illnesses?

Multimedia illustration: Jason Logan

Value [the] Meal goes to the American Public Health Association

2009-11-17T08:12:00.000-08:00

Last week, we spent an amazing few days at the American Public Health Association’s annual conference. Thousands of public health students, researchers and front-line public health officials gathered to some of our most urgent health issues, including the obesity epidemic. We spoke to hundreds of great people all across the country who are working to figure out how to solve the obesity and diet-related disease epidemic.

Our campaign advisor, Michele Simon, presented on whether self-regulation in the alcohol industry protects consumers from ads – such as overtly sexual ads – that are banned according to industry code. Her analysis? Nope. Lots of parallels here to the food industry, I think.

Speaking of which, Margot Wootan of Center for Science in the Public Interest gave a thoughtful presentation on whether self-regulation in the food industry is working to protect our kids from junk food marketing. The gist of her analysis: It’s working a little (it seems to me because of pressure and vigilance from advocates) but much, much more needs to be done. It does not seem like a workable long-term solution, but is there political will to create governmental regulation?

I saw a presentation on several studies trying to determine whether fast food menu board labeling is working in New York City, where it has been law now for over a year. The evidence seems to support our working assumption – if you are motivated to eat more healthfully, you are educated about the issue and you have the economic means and dietary options available in your neighborhood, it can be a valuable tool. Not a silver bullet, but a piece of a larger picture that helps hold corporations accountable.

Big Ag gets nervous!

2009-11-10T23:34:00.000-08:00

Last month Michael Pollan, bestselling author and well-known critic of industrial agriculture, was scheduled to deliver a talk at Cal Poly in San Luis Obispo. The LA Times reported that somehow the lecture was changed into a panel discussion involving Pollan, a meat-science expert and one of the largest organic growers in the U.S.

How did this happen? A major alum opposed Pollan's talk and threatened to rethink his financial support of Cal Poly if Pollan was the solo speaker on stage. The donor, Mr. David Wood of Harris Ranch Beef Company, wrote the President of Cal Poly threatening to withdraw his promised $500,000 contribution if the invitation to Mr. Pollan was not withdrawn. Marion Nestle posted some great excerpts from Wood's letter on Food Politics.

This negative reaction from Harris and other agricultural interests to Pollan’s lecture is a clear sign that Big Ag is feeling intimidated by his message of health and sustainable eating . Wood even went so far as to call Pollan's views "anti-agricultural."
Pollan asserts:

"It's an open threat to the university…The issue is really about whether the school is free to explore diverse ideas about farms and farming."

Note that Cal Poly teaches agriculture by way of subjects like dairy science and fruit science. The choices for major that include the word "agriculture" are agricultural business, agricultural science, agricultural systems management and biorecourse and agricultural engineering. Doesn’t exactly sound like the academic path to agricultural sustainability.

Windows 7 promo is quite a mouthful

2009-11-06T09:40:00.000-08:00

Microsoft has partnered with Burger King Japan to promote the launch of Windows 7 by offering a limited-time treat: the Windows 7 Whopper. This monstrosity of a sandwich tips the scales at 1.4 lb, stands about 5 inches tall and totals 2,120 calories. That’s 2,120 calories for one burger. And who knows the terrifying numbers that would appear on the menu if they actually displayed fat and sodium content.

It’s rather mind-boggling that Microsoft would proactively associate itself with a fast food chain at all, never mind with a product that serves as an icon of the American obesity epidemic. But Microsoft’s founder Bill Gates has made some peculiar decisions before – namely his statement at the World Food Prize Forum last month, asserting that the Gates Foundations work to end hunger in Africa is being hurt by environmentalists who insist that genetically modified crops cannot be used. But how seriously are we to take Bill Gates’ agricultural development analysis when Microsoft chooses to align itself with the fast food industry?

Oregon Marketing Smackdown!

2009-10-29T12:19:00.000-07:00

The Nutrition Council of Oregon - identified as a group of nutrition professionals representing public health, academic settings, nutrition and food programs, and non-profit organizations interested in promoting the health of Oregonians through healthy food choices - is taking on junk food marketing!

Their Marketing Junk Foods to Kids: Oregon’s Parent Awareness Campaign is designed to educate parents about the issue. They suggest that parents:

Offer children healthy food choices;
Limit TV and computer time;
Teach kids to be media literate and understand the tactics advertisers use.

No word yet if they'll be a policy aspect to this campaign - do you think they can have an impact without some sort of limits on corporate abuses?

"Smart Choices" no longer a choice

2009-10-28T08:30:00.000-07:00

I'm happy to report that due to mounting pressure that the bogus food industry labeling initiative, "Smart Choices", has been suspended indefinitely. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had previously expressed concern over the labeling scheme due to its misleading approval of junk food items such as sugary cereals. The FDA recently issued a letter to food industry members requesting that the industry determine a common set of nutritional criteria that is more in line with FDA criteria that prohibits misleading claims.

In addition, Connecticut's Attorney General announced that he is also investigating the "Smart Choices" program to determine if the labeling campaign violates state consumer protection laws, which prohibits false or misleading product claims.

As part of this fallout, both Pepsi and Kellogg's (who produces a plethora of sugary cereals) have decided to phase out products with the "Smart Choice" seal of approval. At the same time, the Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity released a report demonstrating that the least healthy breakfast cereals are those most frequently and aggressively marketed to children (as young as age two). I guess it's no surprise that many of the junk food cereals listed in the report had already received a favorable "Smart Choice" label.

It almost seems as though the food industry is intent on marketing the worst foods to children while misleading parents on the nutritional values of those same products. Does this mean that Tony the Tiger never really cared about my well-being as a child? How can that be?

The blog "One Dollar Diet Project" has posted a video of Marion Nestle speaking on the marketing abuses of transnational food corporations that may help clarify the situation. Check it out!

2009-10-27T06:19:00.001-07:00

Former NBA basketball player, Will Allen, and his daughter Erika, are pioneers bringing healthy, organic food to the inner city. Mr. Allen, recent winner of a MacArthur genius grant, has developed an incredible system at his organization, Growing Power, that allows for sustainable farming - and economic empowerment - in small, urban areas. His recent op-ed on the state of the food system states:

We need a revolution in our food delivery system because the global $3.2 trillion processed-food industry is undermining our health and significantly contributing to our carbon footprint....The good food revolution cannot stop at farmers’ markets or natural food stores in suburban or wealthier urban neighborhoods. For the revolution to be complete, people in poorer neighborhoods must have access to it, too.

Hear, hear! The farmer's markets and sustainable produce we are coming to realize is vital to our health and the future of our planet is still not the reality for most Americans. To get there, we need to take a good, hard look at the role of the food industry in our inner cities, and how we can level the playing field between them and small producers. Truly revolutionary? Or maybe just common sense?

Image from growingpower.com

Eat as I say, not as I do

2009-10-26T11:09:00.000-07:00

Last week, the New York Post reported that the NYC Department of Health (NYC DPH) has been handing out free coupons to fast food restaurants like McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken. To add insult to injury, the agency is distributing these coupons to the sick -- an incentive to tuberculosis patients to return to clinics around the city for treatment.

As the NYC Department of Health struggles to increase TB treatment completion rates (it is a six month regimen, after all), these public health incentive strategies make sense. But the program underscores the mixed messages being sent by policy makers - the same health authorities that successfully banned trans fats from NYC restaurants in 2006 and recently implemented a menu labeling law. A former DPH employee attests:

"The hypocrisy is that the city launches a campaign, as you well know, of making restaurants list calories and all that, while at the same time they themselves are proliferating free McDonald's incentive cards."

The appearance of fast food incentives in a public health program serves as yet another disturbing example of the fast food industry’s pervasive marketing. Doesn’t that just make you sick?

Where's Ronald? Help us track down the clown!

2009-10-21T07:08:00.000-07:00

Save for Santa Claus, no icon is more recognized by our children than Ronald McDonald. This wouldn’t be so bad if he were bringing them gifts – but in reality he’s hooking them on unhealthy food for a lifetime.

So we’re launching a “Where’s Ronald?” nationwide scavenger hunt to expose how McDonald’s uses the clown as a marketing tactic to hook our kids.

Click here to join the search at WheresRonald.org.

Children are getting sick from the food they eat…more and more children are obese…and more and more are developing diseases like diabetes. Just as Joe Camel lured a generation of kids to cigarettes, Ronald McDonald is luring the next to meals that are unhappily high in salt, sugar, and fat. Incredibly, McDonald's CEO Jim Skinner says "Ronald has never sold food to kids in the history of his existence."

Download our action guide to get started and to help in reversing this trend.

Together we can build a powerful record of where and how McDonald's uses this marketing icon – and it’s as easy as a click of a camera phone.

Smart Choices update: FDA to take on the industry?

2009-10-21T06:24:00.000-07:00

We reported previously about Smart Choices, a voluntary initiative by the food industry to label "healthier" food choices, ostensibly to help out consumers in the grocery store. In a illustration of how self-regulation schemes tend to go, Fruit Loops were labeled as a healthy choice, and there was a general outcry of horror from the food and nutrition community.

The Wall Street Journal is now reporting that the FDA will be investigating this and other labeling schemes, like "Now, trans-fat free!" health claims that distract from the sugar, overall fat and sodium content in processed foods. Kudos to FDA Commissioner, Margaret Hamburg, who sounds like she means business. She is threatening mandatory labeling regulations if the industry doesn't play ball - let's hope the follow-through results in real consumer protections from this kind of manipulative labeling.

Community food security, the world food crisis and fast food - what's the connection?

2009-10-16T12:34:00.000-07:00

I just returned from an amazing few days at the Community Food Security Coalition annual conference in Des Moine, Iowa. I was lucky enough to hear real Iowa farmers talk about their struggles, like George Naylor, president of the National Family Farm Coalition, and profiled by Michael Pollan in The Omnivore's Dilemma. I heard about Minnesota's fledgling efforts to support local food, and I heard from World Food Prize Laureate on how sustainable agriculture can save the world and feed everyone too.

I heard from farmers from Montana to Nicaraugua, who represent La Via Campesina, a global alliance of small farmers united to promote social justice and food sovereignty. Food sovereignty basically says that production of food should be democratic and for the good of the people, not just exploited for profit. La Via Campesina won the first ever Food Sovereignty Prize, a direct challenge to the World Food Prize, which primarily celebrates biotechnology and industry as the way to feed the world. Coincidentally, the World Food Prize annual gathering was also in Des Moines. Featured key note speakers? Bill Gates, whose foundation is working with Monsanto to unleash GMOs on Africa, and Indra Nooyi, CEO of PepsiCo. Hmmm....

But what moved me most was the presentation of Mexican activists, including Alejandro Calvillo, who works for the Mexican affiliate of Consumers International. He and his colleagues talked about not only the damage that NAFTA is doing to Mexican agriculture and traditional farming, but the health impact of the resulting influx of American foods. The rate of obesity in children is nearing 50%. More kids can now recognize Ronald McDonald than important Mexican historical figures, and they are eating junk food at a horrifying rate. Soon, Mexico may overtake the US as the fattest country in the world. I can't think of a situation more opposite to food sovereignty, and more distressing than the utter destruction of a country's indigenous food system and health.

I left the conference inspired by all the great campaigners, farmers and public officials that I met, but with a clear vision of how much work we have to do to protect our environment - and our children.

Image from El Poder del Consumidor

Fast Food and "The Invention of Lying"

2009-10-12T14:20:00.000-07:00

This weekend I went to see “The Invention of Lying”. For those unfamiliar, the film – staring Ricky Gervais, Jennifer Garner, Rob Lowe and Tina Fey – is based in a world where no one can tell a lie.

Truth hurts; the expression goes. Sympathizing as protagonist Mark Bellison endures an assault of utter honesty, I found myself longing for the softening touch of a flattering fib or loving lie. The concept lent itself well to a painfully pithy plot, but it left me with a slightly disturbing thought: When the truth is ugly, don’t we actually prefer the lie?

Take fast food for example. I’m hungry. Hey McDonald’s, what can I get for the five dollars I’ve got in my pocket?

We can all imagine the ad: 100% great tasting pure beefy cheesiness. But what about the truth?

For five dollars, I’m well on my way to an entire day’s worth of calories, fat and sodium, compliments of my not-so-local feed lot where GMO corn-fed cattle were grown for slaughter by under-paid meat packing plant workers. As an added bonus, I get some high-fructose corn syrup, a few additives and preservatives, perhaps even some food dye thrown in. And with each purchase I increase my chances of winning a little heart disease, stroke or diabetes.

In the case of fast food, the truth is pretty ugly and one we’d often rather not think about. And as long as that’s the case, McDonald’s will be there to sell us the lie – the sneaky little jingle – that makes me think i’m lovin’ it.

Calories count!!!

2009-10-09T12:12:00.000-07:00

A report released by New York University and Yale a few days ago gave some evidence that posting calories on menu boards in fast food restaurants may not have a huge impact on the dietary habits of their customers. The study, however, was preliminary and only focused on several low income neighborhoods in New York. The study showed that people noticed the calorie counts and claimed that it influenced healthier purchases - yet the customers still seemed to purchase over the average number of calories for those fast food outlets.

Marion Nestle put forth an interesting critique of the study, noting that despite these preliminary results menu-labeling is still a worthwhile effort that should be continued. She focuses on the need for sustained education efforts that will help consumers better understand calories and daily allowances. Also, menu-labeling will provide real incentive for restaurants to reformulate their products to reduce calorie density.

For me the need for menu-labeling is simple: isn't it a consumer's right to know nutritional information?

The federal government thought so when it required that grocery items include certain nutrition facts in 1990. If we can get this information in grocery stores, then why shouldn't we get it from restaurants that aggressively market their products as if you could maintain a healthy diet with fast food for breakfast, lunch and dinner?

And, by the way, the only reason that restaurants were not included in the 1990 legislation was due to heavy lobbying by the restaurant industry.

As we face the nation's greatest public health challenge of obesity and diet-related diseases, it's clear that consumers are supportive of menu-labeling. The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has compiled poll data that shows that people are overwhelmingly supportive of menu-lableing and believe that fast food restaurants should be required to post calories.

So, despite somewhat negative preliminary evidence, isn't menu-labeling more about education and a consumer's right to know than it is about an immediate impact on food choices?

Photo: Yale University Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity

Angus Overload

2009-10-07T09:27:00.000-07:00

You may have seen the nearly ubiquitous McDonald's advertising for their new Angus burger. Here's a couple interesting facts about the burger:

The bacon Angus burger has 2070 mg of sodium and the Deluxe has 1700 mg - in either case, that's more than one adult should have in an entire day. The Mushroom & Swiss isn't far behind, at 1170 mg. Order a large fry and have a few packets of ketchup, and you can add hundreds of mgs more!

Most of our salt intake comes from processed and restaurant foods. Too much salt intake can lead to hypertension (high blood pressure) and eventually stroke, among other fun maladies. American's excessive salt intake has been linked to kidney stones (ew!) in very young children. Cutting salt intake could save us billions in health care costs.

McDonald's has a new web promotion, you can come up with your own Angus advertisement! Here's mine:

What would you come up with?

Enough? or Enough!!!

2009-10-05T14:51:00.000-07:00

You’ve probably seen them, the anti-smoking ads brought to you by Philip Morris. The ironic promotional material that’s totally ineffective at reducing smoking. Now it seems we can expect more of the same from a recently more-regulated food and beverage industry.

Following today’s announcement by the new director of the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Consumer Protection to clamp down on marketing claims – in particular those of food and beverage advertisers in light of growing rates of childhood obesity – former industry competitors have banded together in unusual cooperation and conscience to form The Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation.

The unlikely health advocates include Kraft Foods, Mars, Inc., Nestle USA, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola and Hershey Co. (among others), makers of sodas, snacks and sweets.

Self-regulation has proven ineffective at reducing the rate of childhood obesity. And voluntary initiatives such as this foundation are considered insufficient by the FTC. So here’s the question:

Is the promotion of a PE program, or the addition of an under-promoted, and infrequently toted “healthier” option to a junky brand portfolio enough to align these food and beverage giants with the best interests of our at-risk youth if they do nothing to remove their risky products such as Oreos, Snickers, Hot-pockets and Doritos?

Tale of Two Much

2009-10-02T07:43:00.000-07:00

Two for $3 – a deal we’ve all taken. But, what if you only want one, even if it costs a bit more? A friend of mine recently went to McDonald's and ordered an Egg McMuffin. When presented with the 2 for $3 deal, this fit, health-conscious twenty-something replied “no thanks, one will do.” To his surprise, he learned that 2 for $3 was the only option, ordering a single Egg McMuffin was not allowed.

Wow! Two is better than one – and not only better, but the only option. Are Egg McMuffins going the way of the Twinkie? Has anyone ever tried to buy a single Twinkie?

So, just to be clear: This is the same McDonald's that touts their new line of healthy options. This is the same McDonald's that has spent untold sums fighting menu-labeling legislation. And this is the same McDonald's that removed their Super-Size items, only to replace them with a model that entices us to consume more. Is McDonald's sending consumers conflicting information?

Image provided from McNewJersey.com

McMoms

2009-09-30T07:34:00.000-07:00

Between the increasing focus on marketing to kids, the obesity epidemic and animal cruelty issues, McDonald's knows it has an image problem. Their strategy to counter their unhealthful image is to engage in extensive marketing to make their products appear healthier than they really are.

The latest front in this PR war is mothers. In an attempt to convince moms it's OK to bring their kids to eat at McDonald's, the corporation has hand-picked a group of seemingly-wholesome, photogenic mothers. (From the profile of one McMom on McDonald's corporate website, "I enjoy spending time with friends and family and cherish every moment spent with both. I find that some of my closest friends are from my church or are Mom's of my children's friends. I enjoy home decorating and have many projects in mind that will hopefully come to fruition some day.") Funny how there are no overweight McMoms.

These women travel the country talking to customers how they trust the creator of the Big Mac and McNugget to serve their kids healthy food. They were in Manhattan last week, giving "helpful hints" to parents like "order the bottled water with your Happy Meal," or "Order the fries with no salt." If that's healthier, why aren't all the meals just served that way to begin with? And what makes these women so eager to defend this corporation, despite the clear connection between the food it pushes and our current health crisis?

Sugary secret to good nutrition: Froot Loops?

2009-09-28T15:02:00.000-07:00

It doesn’t seem like you can take two steps down a grocery aisle without tripping over some new health claim pasted over packaged food products espousing the nutritional benefits of what most would consider junk food. The latest industry-backed scheme to come under fire is the “Smart Choices” labeling campaign, which promotes the nutritional goodness of such brands as Froot Loops, Cocoa Krispies, Fudgsicles and Hellman’s Mayonaisse.

How does a product such as Froot Loops (which is 41% sugar) pass the laugh test as nutritious? It’s simple. The very companies that produce and market these junk foods sat around a table, co-opted some scientists/nutritionists and developed their own labeling campaign. And, voila, now Froot Loops can be marketed as full of fiber and vitamin fortified (just ignore the fact that it has more sugar than many leading cookie brands).

The Smart Choices labeling campaign is an attempt by the food industry (including Kraft, Pepsi, Kellog’s, General Mills, ConAgra, Unilever and Tyson Foods) to capture an expanding market potential for “functional foods” (foods that offer additional health or nutrition benefits). In fact, this market is expected to reach $128 billion in 2013 and the transnational food giants have no intention of being left behind.

The problem is, however, is that the labeling schemes do virtually nothing to reformulate unhealthy products or advise consumers on what is truly healthy (i.e. not the processed foods that these companies push on its patrons). Companies can join the Smart Choices scheme by paying up to $100,000 annually, which generally gives them control over which items get the “Smart Choices” seal of approval.

It’s no surprise that serious conflicts of interests have been raised with the supposed independent nature of the labeling scheme. Michael Jacobson, the Executive Director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, walked off the board in September due to industry interference. Since then, Change.org has launched a campaign against Smart Choices which has resulted in the American Dietetic Association, the American Diabetes Association and the Tufts Friedman School of Nutrition to clarify that they are not in any way associated with the corporate labeling scheme.

Smart Choices suddenly doesn’t seem that smart after all. Marion Nestle, who has written extensively on the food industry’s interference in public health policies, sums it up best: “Social responsibility? I don’t think so. Companies usually get what they pay for. Hence: Froot Loops.”

The food industry will continue to find irresponsible, yet creative, ways to market unhealthy foods to consumers seeking better health. Maybe we should expect the next incarnation of this trend: “McDonald’s: offering immunity-boosting burgers, heart-healthy french fries and slimming sodas”? We can only hope.

Location, Location, Location!!!

2009-09-25T11:21:00.000-07:00

Ray Kroc, the brains behind the Golden Arches, was no fry guy and McDonald’s has never really been a burger business. Ask him and he’d tell you, his art – his craft – was real estate. From the very beginning McDonald’s knew that the secret to selling fast food was location, location, location!

In the early days, Ray Kroc flew around in a single-engine airplane looking for schools and spaces to build new McDonald’s next to them. Later the corporation got more sophisticated and developed GIS software to strategically site new locations.

So how close did Ray come to realizing his dream of a McDonald’s on every corner?

Closer than you may like. The map and data above, compiled by fellow blogger Stephen Von Worley, illuminates (literally) just how successful the McDonald’s corporation has been plastering the countryside with the golden glow of golden arches. Today, the farthest away you can get from a McDonald’s is 107 miles, smack dab in between Meadow and Glad Valley, South Dakota. (anyone else note the irony that it’s called “Glad Valley”).

But ubiquity is not enough for McDonald’s. Strategic ubiquity is better. Earlier this year, Corporate Accountability mapped out all fast food locations and their proximity to schools in Chicago, Boston and San Francisco Bay area, demonstrating the extent to which our children grow up literally surrounded by fast food.

Ray’s dream has come true, but with studies increasing linking obesity rates to the proximity of fast food, Ray’s dream is playing out more like a nightmare!

Africa getting "stuffed and starved"

2009-09-23T07:22:00.000-07:00

Value [the] Meal advisor, Raj Patel, has a fantastic piece in this week's The Nation about Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and rising hunger in Africa. As hunger rates rise in Africa, there is an increasing assertion from some in the West that GMOs will be necessary if we are to feed the continent.

Patel and his colleagues' analysis focuses on the Gates Foundaton, and its massive funding of biotech research. Much of their $1.3 billion so far has gone to groups associated with Monsanto, the granddaddy of patenting seeds and driving farmers into cycles of corporate dependence, debt, and ultimately - for some - suicide when things become unbearable. And then there are the horrific environmental costs, and the destruction of rural economies. So why are they doing this? Patel and colleagues wonder if the goal is not truly to feed Africa but - like so many western corporations before - to make a killing.

At the same time, Africans are beginning to experience the obesity epidemic. As American fast food moves in, and international financial policy discourages local, traditional agriculture through funding schemes like the Gates Foundation's and World Bank austerity measures, we are beginning to see the American diet wreaking havoc. For example, a stunning 75% of Black South African women are overweight or obese, in a country most Americans probably still associate primarily with hunger. I do not have economic figures handy, but I don't believe most African nations are in a position to deal with the economic, productivity and human costs of diabetes, hypertension, cancers, and the other diet-related diseases associated with the new Western diet.

As both hunger and chronic, diet-related diseases take their toll on Africa, we have a choice; we can empower people to feed themselves and protect our planet, or we can hand control of our food system completely over to the world's largest corporations. Which do you think is the better bet?

Image by Denis Farrell / AP

Soda tax = reducing obesity + health care reform?

2009-09-21T10:35:00.000-07:00

Following Obama's recent statement of potential support for soda taxes, a recent report published in the New England Journal of Medicine suggests that levying such taxes could not only help curb obesity rates, but will also help states generate much needed revenue to pay the high helath costs related to diet-related diseases.

The report, whose authors include the Yale Rudd Center's Kelly Brownell and Children's Hospital Boston physician David Ludwig, that a penny per ounce tax on sodas and other sugary beverages could raise an estimated $14.9 billion in tax revenue in its first year and approximately $150 billion within 10 years (the tax would be levied on soda producers and wholesalers instead of retailers to facilitate enforcement).

And, more importantly, the taxes would lower consumption of soda and other sweet drinks enough to lead to a small weight loss and reduced health risks among many Americans. The study cited research on price elasticity for soft drinks that has shown that for every 10 percent rise in price, consumption declines 8 to 10 percent. The proposed tax would raise the price of a 20-ounce drink by approximately 15 to 20 percent. If consumers were to drink one fewer 20-ounce drink daily in response to the tax, each would consume about 174 fewer calories a day, the authors wrote. This all makes perfect sense, right?

The food and beverage industry, however, is on the attack and determined that this proposal does not see the light of day. Earlier in the summer, the industry created a front group, Americans Against Food Taxes - whose members include a "Who's Who" list of junk food purveyors, to launch a coordinated public awareness and lobbying effort that will attempt to divert any responsibility for the obesity epidemic away from the industry. It's clear that the food industry believes the soda tax proposal is misguided and puts unfair focus on a single product.

“If you take diseases related to diet, with obesity as the most visible, where do you start?” said Kelly Brownell, the report’s lead author. “We thought we’d start where the science is strongest. Liquid calories are a target because the body has trouble understanding those calories in a way that allows you to regulate body weight.” Soda and other sugary drinks have been linked to more calories eaten, leading to more pounds, according to background information in the report.

When you consider the spiraling costs of obesity (recently estimated at $147 billion in the US for 2008) and the food industry's irresponsible and ubiquitous marketing of sodas and junk food, it seems like this may be a policy proposal that is well overdue. Let's not forget that states have been paying for the high health costs of tobacco related illnesses by taxing tobacco products, which has also been useful in lowering smoking rates.

If it worked for tobacco, wouldn't soda taxes help reduce obesity and raise much needed funds for health care associated with diet-related illnesses?

(Photo illustration by Katye Martens and Ramon Padilla, USA TODAY)

Raj Patel joins our advisory committee!

2009-09-16T13:20:00.000-07:00

I am thrilled to announce that Raj Patel has joined our esteemed group of advisors! Raj Patel is writer, activist and academic, most recently the author of Stuffed and Starved,a look at the disastrous effects of corporate globalization on our food system, from our health down to the mass suicide of debt-ridden farmers all around the world. We are very excited about his forthcoming book on how to fix the failures of the free-market - The Value of Nothing. He joins our other fantastic advisors, like Marion Nestle, David Katz, Frances Moore Lappe and Michele Simon in guiding our work as we Challenge Corporate Abuse of our Food!

Big Mac, Filet of Fish, Sodium and Hypertension

2009-09-14T14:33:00.000-07:00

With at least two of my favorite bloggers and leading advocacy groups announcing salt as the Next Big Thing to worry about, I thought I'd take a quick look at how the fast food industry is putting us at risk for stroke, heart disease and early death by using breathtaking amounts of sodium to augment the (lack of) taste in their products. Let's look at the industry leader, McDonald's:

A Happy Meal with one little 4-piece of Chicken McNuggets with sweet-and-sour dipping sauce, a small fries and just 3 packets of ketchup, has more sodium than your child should have for an entire day.
One packet of the spicy buffalo sauce for the McNuggets all by itself has about 1,000 mg of sodium - 2/3 of what an adult should get each day.
The double quarter pounder with cheese has almost 1,400 mg, but the new Angus Bacon & Cheese? A shocking 2,070 mg, with the recommended limit for an adult 1,500 mg.
Premium Bacon Ranch Salad with Grilled Chicken has "only" 1,010 mg - but wait! Add the actual ranch dressing, with 530 mg, and you have your entire daily allowance! (Do you notice a bacon = too much sodium theme? Have you noticed how many things have bacon in them lately?)
A Large Deluxe Breakfast will give you over 2,000 mg of sodium, but even your pedestrian Egg McMuffin has 820 mg - and how many times have you seen someone order two of those to go?

I was horrified to learn that just one teaspoon of salt exceeds your daily recommended allowance. But processed and restaurant foods account for 3/4 of our daily salt intake - in other words, cutting back at home won't help that much. So, will McDonald's save lives, and cut back on the sodium? Or will they fight it tooth and nail, like they've fought so many other public health concerns?

Image from wikimedia commons

Syntax of a Sin Tax

2009-09-11T13:38:00.000-07:00

For now, New York has shelved a proposal to tax soda and other sugary drinks. But President Obama seems interested in keeping that idea on the table as he and Congress continue to work towards comprehensive health care reform. In an interview with Men’s Health Magazine, Obama shared the following thoughts:

"There's no doubt that our kids drink way too much soda. And every study that's been done about obesity shows that there is as high a correlation between increased soda consumption and obesity as just about anything else."

"Look, people's attitude is that they don't necessarily want Big Brother telling them what to eat or drink, and I understand that," Obama said. "It is true, though, that if you wanted to make a big impact on people's health in this country, reducing things like soda consumption would be helpful."

But why stop with soda when there’s a whole host of food and drinks out there making people unhealthy? As the Los Angeles Times reports, leading thinking from the Yale Rudd Center and the Urban Institute support the idea of taxing unhealthy foods much in the same way that tobacco products are taxed.

But what do you think? Is this a case of legislating eating habits through tax code, or accounting for the real price - the full price - of unhealthy foods?

2009-09-10T06:38:00.000-07:00

In a New York Times op-ed, Michael Pollan lays out a powerful cause-and-effect for why the current state of the American diet is good for business, even as it kills more and more Americans every year. (Emphasis below is mine.)

"...so far, food system reform has not figured in the national conversation about health carereform. And so the government is poised to go on encouraging America’s fast-food diet with its farm policies even as it takes on added responsibilities for covering the medical costs of that diet. To put it more bluntly, the government is putting itself in the uncomfortable position of subsidizing both the costs of treating Type 2 diabetes and the consumption of high-fructose corn syrup.
"...There’s lots of money to be made selling fast food and then treating the diseases that fast food causes. One of the leading products of the American food industry has become patients for the American health care industry... As things stand, the health care industry finds it more profitable to treat chronic diseases than to prevent them. There’s more money in amputating the limbs of diabetics than in counseling them on diet and exercise."

Michael thinks there's hope around the corner, once insurance companies can't discriminate, price-wise, against the obese or those with diabetes, for instance; with the costs of obesity cutting into profits, health insurance companies themselves may help change this equation. What do you think?

Image from MichaelPollan.com

Michelle Obama looking to open a White House farmer's market?

2009-09-08T13:09:00.000-07:00

It will take a lot more than a farmer's market to break the stranglehold that corporations like McDonald's have on our food system, but sometimes a little symbolism gives strength to the soul. While some are complaining about potential traffic disruptions, folks trying to fix the broken food sytem are cheering the First Lady's newest symbolic step. (And for your viewing pleasure, here is a clip of the harvest from the White House Organic Garden.)

The fast food industry comes out against fast food

2009-09-02T07:54:00.000-07:00

In a bizarre development, the fast food industry does not want fast food restaurants to line Virginia's highways. On Monday, the Los Angeles Times reported that Virginia and other cash-strapped states are choosing to close highway rest-stops to save money. To prevent us all from having to pull over to the side of the road, Virginia is floating the idea of getting a decades-old ban on private business along interstates overturned, and have suggested that private business (fast food and gas stations) step in to “commercialize” the rest stops and keep them open to motorists.

Here’s where it gets weird. Gov. Tim Kaine, (D-VA) supports the commercialization of rest stops. But the Partnership to Save Highway Communities, whose members include McDonald’s, Burger King, the franchises of Taco Bell and KFC and the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers has opposed Virginia's efforts calling it a “dangerous precedent” whereby "any state experiencing budget shortfalls seeing commercialization as a potential solution."

PSHC claims that opening stores along the highway would detract from business in the communities whose economies depend on motor-tourism. However, it seems more likely that their real concern is probably felt by the individual franchise owners who opened stores when commercialized rest stops were illegal, and feel this unfairly shifts the value of their off-highway locations. I certainly don't see any concern for local business here in Massachusetts, where McDonald's already litter the Mass Pike (I-90). A little self-serving? I wonder what truly locally owned and operated businesses might have to say about all this.

Is High Fructose Corn Syrup destroying the planet?

2009-08-31T11:55:00.000-07:00

What would we do without the honey bee? Without bees, we can't grow produce - they are the keystone in the arch of all agriculture, sustainable and otherwise. Happily buzzing from flower to flower, they are what turns our squash blossoms into squash, our pea vines into peas...you get the idea. No bees, and the planet is in big trouble.

There has been a lot of talk recently about "Bee Colony Collapse Disorder," where whole bee hives mysteriously die off, and it's causing farmers panic. One theory is that it's caused by a virus, but another theory focuses on what those bees are eating. You guessed it, it's no longer honey. Commercial beekeepers sell all the honey, and feed the bees High Fructose Corn Syrup(HFCS). (I have not seen any reason for the nouvelle bee cuisine, but I suppose it's to save money - same as why humans are fed the stuff as well.) I remember reading this a few months ago and thinking, that cannot be good for bees.

Well, La Vida Locavore's entry last week on High Fructose Corn Syrup proves me right. Turns out, according to a recent study, HFCS causes "the heating of HFCS raises levels of hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF), a toxin that causes gut ulceration and dysentery-like symptoms in bees." In other words, the bees could be dying of HFCS-induced diarrhea. More scary yet? "In humans it has been linked to DNA damage." Yikes!

That seems to be three strikes against the sweetener: First it's in everything we eat, helping drive up the rate of obesity and diabetes and other diet-related diseases; then, the folks at Institute for Agricultural and Trade Policy tell us there's mercury in it too, perhaps poisoning us directly; and now the bees...and maybe us. When do we get to declare this stuff a toxic substance?

Image from motherearthsgarden.com

Are you smarter with a fried potato?

2009-08-28T10:31:00.000-07:00

We’re back with another obnoxious fast food ad for the end of your week. This one’s served up by Sonic – a new player in the Bay State’s fast food scene. What makes this ad particularly obnoxious to me is not the shoddy nutrition science, nor the suggestion that fried potatoes will somehow lead to superior intellectual capacity and improved accuracy on multiple choice tests. Rather, what’s particularly obnoxious about this ad is that blasted little asterisk.

Here’s the deal, the average child sees about 20,000 fast food commercials every year, and studies show us that children are especially vulnerable to advertising. A child under the age of eight, for example, is not yet able to understand the persuasive intent of an advertisement. And even older children are often unable to recognize various forms of advertising as marketing.

Parents, nutritionists, and other health advocates are engaged in an uphill battle to curb the amount and type of marketing children are exposed to, and to empower the agencies commissioned with regulating advertisers – and that asterisk undoes it all!

The message to industry is thus, Say anything, and if your claim is outlandish enough, just add an asterisk. Imagine the possibilities…

Nicotine is not addictive*
Bottled water is better than tap*
Fast Food is part of a balanced active lifestyle*

Getting Real About the High Price of Cheap Food

2009-08-24T09:41:00.000-07:00

This week’s Time Magazine edition delved into a variety of food issues, including the “high price of cheap food.” Reporter Bryan Walsh outlined the hidden costs of cheap food – from corn subsidies to America’s epidemic of diet-related disease.

“At a time when the nation is close to a civil war over health-care reform, obesity adds $147 billion a year to our doctor bills,” says Walsh.

Walsh concludes by urging readers to support sustainable food production. However, his article doesn’t fully delve into is the extent to which fast food giants, like McDonald’s and Burger King, are driving our current food system.

What role do you think the fast food industry is playing in this crisis?

Are you a Phenylketonuric?

2009-08-21T08:07:00.000-07:00

We've come a long way from the days when food was the tomato you picked from your garden, rinsed in the sink and sliced for a snack. These days, so much of our "food" is highly processed, plastic-wrapped and chemically engineered to travel long distances and sit on a store shelf without browning, caking, rotting, aging, frizzing...(okay, just kidding, but you get the idea) And all this function is added in the form of, well...additives. But how does one makes sense of that polysyllabic confusion of an ingredient list and know which ingredients are safe, adequately tested, or potentially dangerous?

Growing up the daughter of an avid Diet Coke drinker, I’ve seen the warning a thousand times: “Phenylketonurics: Contains Phenylalanine.” But what does that even mean? If, like me, you don’t know and can't pronounce it, you may want to think twice before sipping that refreshing diet cola.

I did a little reading (now that we're blogging and all) and it turns out Phenylalanine is an amino acid found naturally in certain foods like breast milk, and normally part of complex protein molecules that our bodies take hours to break down and digest. Phenylalanine is also found in non-foods such as the controversial artificial sweetener aspartame. When ingested, aspartame breaks down into aspartic acid, methanol, and phenylalanine - but here, the phenylalanine is isolated and easily absorbed by the body in unusually high doses. And for the Phenylketonurics among us - those who lack the enzymes to metabolize phenylalanine - ingestion can lead to brain damage and seizures!

Why don’t we get these warnings in language we can understand? Imagine if food labels were that straight-forward: "Warning: may cause brain damage." If we really knew, and could understand what goes into our "food" these days, how many of us would instead reach for that tomato?

Doctor Forced Out of Health Department for Disparaging Doughnuts

2009-08-20T06:17:00.000-07:00

As reported in the New York Times "Well" blog. Dr. Jason Newsom's electronic signs outside of the Panama City, FL health department saying things like "Doughnuts=Diabetes" and "Hamburgers=Spare Tires" might be a bit crass, but when he took on the almighty Dunkin' Doughnuts, he was asked to leave. Apparently the local franchisees of the transnational objected to his posting of "America Dies on Dunkin’."

While Dr. Newsom may want to leave the corporate campaigning to groups like us, it is refreshing to hear that a public health official understands where the problem is coming from. His outrage at doughnuts served at health department meetings and candy bar-laden vending machines seems appropriate - we wouldn't expect health departments to allow smoking in the office, would we?

Image of Dr. Jason Newsom from Panama City abc news affiliate WMBB

School Daze - What's for Lunch?

2009-08-19T12:09:00.000-07:00

Value [the] Meal advisor and good food heroine, Marion Nestle, has a great entry this week about that most important of topics, school lunch.

Marion comments on the maxims of British school lunch maven and celebrity chef, Jamie Oliver, in a sentiment we couldn't agree with more:

Ban the junk. Please, let’s. It’s time we got rid of vending machines, a la carte service and everything else that competes with federally funded school meals. If we did that, we wouldn’t have to have all those nutrient-based arguments about what’s allowed in vending machines. Kids need water? How about fixing the drinking fountains or supplying tappable containers of filtered water as I’ve seen done in the Berkeley schools.

And let's go one step further - Ban the Brands. The School Nutrition Association's recent survey of schools suggests about 1/3 of all schools serve branded fast food for lunch, and our own mapping shows fast food lurks around the corner, waiting for your child to skip the cafeteria and go to McDonald's instead. No one seems to know the extent of junk food marketing in schools at all (believe me, I've been trying to find out!), but we know for sure that McDonald's and other fast food giants sponsor reading rewards programs, fundraisers, and advertise on the in-school television behemoth, Channel One. There are folks running heroic campaigns to improve school lunch, from farm-to-cafeteria to trying to bring health and sustainability into the industry-dominated Child Nutrition Act reauthorization process, but we win the battle and lose the war if those same schools promote Big Macs at the same time.

Dietitian recommends fast food?

2009-08-17T11:27:00.000-07:00

Last week dietitian Elizabeth Ward appeared on The Today Show to sing the praises of fast food.
Yes, you read that sentence correctly!

Ward recommended Burger King, Taco Bell, KFC Grilled Chicken as healthy sources of road trip food for both adults and children.

Ward certainly failed to mention certain important criteria of “healthy food,” including preservative content, cholesterol, sodium level, etc.

Do you think that Elizabeth Ward believed what she was saying?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Obama's Surgeon General pick is advisor to Burger King

2009-08-13T13:38:00.000-07:00

One of the tactics used by Big Fast Food to make their products seem healthier (sometimes referred to as "nutriwashing") is to have physicians and scientific experts sit on a board of advisors, ostensibly to improve the health of their products and promote "active lifestyles." "Active lifestyles" seem to consist of exercising more, but not necessarily reducing one's intake of unhealthy food. At least one high-profile advisor resigned from the McDonald's advisory board after his suggestions to "cut the calories" fell on deaf ears. It seems change from the inside is slow, at best, and benefits the public image of the corporation more than the public health.

Value [the] Meal advisor, Marion Nestle, hits the nail on the head in the Washington Times article that has "outed" Dr. Regina Benjamin, the President's pick for SG:

"Fast-food companies are not public health agencies; their job is to sell fast food - and the more, the better," Dr. Nestle said. "For me, this would represent an impossible conflict of interest."

An accomplished physician serving the Gulf Coast in Alabama, Dr. Benjamin might otherwise be a stellar choice for SG. But with obesity being THE public health issue facing America, can we really afford to have the nation's top doc to be in the employ of an industry that profits hand over fist from the crisis?

Dallas Hospital Kicks Out McDonald's!

2009-08-12T09:05:00.000-07:00

A few years after the Cleveland Clinic tried and failed to give the McDonald's in their lobby the boot, a Texas hospital has succeeded. The new food vendor still serves fast food, but they do serve brown rice and green vegetables alongside the burgers and fries. In the end, the new vendor was really chosen because they outbid McDonald's, rather than for health reasons.

So why is this important? At least one study has shown that when there is McDonald's in a hospital, patients come away with the impression that the food is healthier. So, it's important what's in a hospital lobby - it's like the hospital endorses that brand. Some hospitals are moving towards a more sustainable, healthy menu in their own cafeterias - it would be great to see more food in the lobby that doesn't harm our health in a place where we're supposed to get well.

Hail Britannia?

2009-08-10T11:57:00.000-07:00

McDonald's seems to have bullied itself into being the only branded vendor for the London 2012 Summer Olympic venues, reports The Observer, prompting local outrage.

Jenny Jones, a London councillor and former head of the strategy group London Food, said: "It's outrageous that McDonald's will be the enduring image of food at this magnificent showcase for London. There are a huge number of British companies who would benefit from being able to openly sell healthier, better produced, locally-sourced food."

There had originally been promises of selling local, sustainable food, apparently. There is also furor over a lack of promotion for the ethnically diverse cuisine of East London, where the venues will be located.

The McDonald's presence seems to grow more noticeable with each Olympics. The funding the fast food giant provides for Olympic athletes seems to be silencing dissenting voices, as the British Olympic Minister found out, when she dared draw the connection between junk food sponsors and childhood obesity. Could we be reaching a turning point?

Image from InsideTheGames.com

Ewww La La!

2009-08-07T12:28:00.000-07:00

A while back we introduced an “obnoxious fast food ad of the week”. Judy and I came across this ad a while ago, but I didn’t post it because I was sure it was a joke; even for fast food, it seemed too over-the-top. Alas, it appears that Hardee’s “French Me” Road Tour is very real, and entirely obnoxious.

Hardee’s has added a new burger to their menu, piling sliced roast beef and Swiss cheese atop a normal thickburger hamburger with a side of au jus. And to promote the new French Dip Thickburger, Hardee’s has employed four women to dress in French Maid outfits, feather-dust and flirt with fans at a variety of sporting events, and distribute coupons for the new burger.

Why is this obnoxious? Oh, where to begin! Let’s start with the name of the URL: www.hotchickseatingburgers.com/frenchdip.

Then there are the outfits, the fake French accents, the “bios” of these French femmes and Antionette’s claim: “People always tell me I get these stems from ma Grand-mère, but I have always believed it was the French Dip Thickburgers that helped me grow so tall.” The marketing tactics that objectify women as sex objects, and portray men as guided solely by their hunger for food and sex. Oh, clichéd gender politics!

Then there’s the minute 1:58 where it becomes clear that a marketing campaign aimed at Hardee’s “loyal fans who enjoy beautiful women,” sometimes reaches those fans’ teenage sons too – and for that matter, their teenage daughters!

Justifying the ‘sex-sells’ messaging, CEO Andy Pudzer has said that the company “do[es] not aim to exclude or offend any other group with our efforts, but merely to appeal and amuse a very specific audience.” He goes on to explain that his brands' comparatively small advertising budget simply necessitates a sexier approach in order to stand out. I guess the message here, kids, is when the going gets tough, the tough get sexy!

Not annoyed with saucy? What about the sauce? For the unscathed there’s always the 650 obnoxious calories this new burger packs, 33 grams of fat, and 2230mg of sodium. Take your pick.

Junk food addicts all

2009-08-06T07:21:00.000-07:00

Arun Gupta has an excellent article on the junk food industry on AlterNet. Gupta explains the corporate origins of the global paradox of hunger and obesity succinctly:

The WTO-enforced system and government subsidies enables food giants -- such as Pepsico, Kraft, Mars, Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Burger King and Wal-Mart -- to source their ingredients globally, giving them the power to force down prices, which drives more and more farmers off the land in the global North and South alike. Then the food companies turn around and manufacture high-profit products that seem like an unbelievable bargain to us."

Gupta does a great job of revisiting (via Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation) how McDonald's has been a driving force in agricultural consolidation. And he hits the nail on the head for why we decided Value [the] Meal should challenge the impact of fast food specifically:

Americans are under the thrall of the food industry. More than half the population eats fast food at least once a week; 92 percent eat fast food every month; and "Every month about 90 percent of American children between the ages of three and nine visit a McDonald's," states Schlosser.

With McDonald's alone having that kind of a grip on our country, farmer's markets, local food and health educators have their work cut out for them. As Gupta says:

We know this food is killing us slowly with diabetes, heart disease and cancer. But we can't stop because we are addicts, and the food industry is the pusher.

What's the first thing you do with pushers? Stop them from pushing their goods on your children. If we are to break out of this cycle, we need to stop fast food giants from marketing to our kids.

Ex-FDA Chief Kessler compares junk food to addictive drugs

2009-08-05T07:00:00.000-07:00

Overall, a great segment. David Kessler stops short of calling out the corporations explicitly, even though he implies their fat/salt/sugar-laden creations create addictions in the human brain similar to speed. Instead, he essentially says that public opinion may one day shift, like it has towards smoking. But if no one calls out the corporations in question, how does public opinion shift?

Fast food study deemed "most influential" by Robert Wood Johnson Foundation poll

2009-08-03T08:47:00.000-07:00

A poll released Friday by RWJ ranked the most influential childhood obesity research of the past year. The winner? A study that we've found influential ourselves, which found higher rates of obesity at schools located within walking distance (1/2 mile) of a fast food restaurant. It also found increased rates of soda consumption and lower fruit and vegetable intake among the students at such schools. Also, the results were not affected by how many restaurants there are near the school. In other words, all you need is one McDonald's for the effect to show up.

Interestingly, this study found that having a national chain near your school makes it more likely that the students will be overweight and obese than just having a local restaurant - like a pizza joint - in the same location. Could this be because of the billions in marketing that McDonald's and other chains spend targeting our youth?

The USDA says that restricting open campus policies for schools near fast food may help. What do you think of the idea that the researchers propose of creating zoning restriction for fast food restaurants near schools?

CDC Chief says junk food ads aimed at kids will seem like pro-smoking ads

2009-07-31T11:19:00.000-07:00

The new head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Thomas Frieden, spoke on unhealthy food advertising to kids at the CDC's "Weight of the Nation" conference this week. According to the Atlantic's politics blog, Frieden's solution would be to "raise the price of bad foods and lower the price of good foods."

Frieden stopped short of saying we have to re-examine our tax structure. But let's remember, we subsidize McDonald's every day with our tax dollars, by giving farm subsidies to the corn and soy that feed the cattle that ends up in Big Macs or acts as filler in the bun. Wouldn't it be great if the head of the CDC came out and said that?

Abstinence-only Lunch - courtesy of The Onion

2009-07-29T11:07:00.000-07:00

The Onion skewers the whole "personal responsibility" argument used by food industry allies when discussing solutions to the obesity epidemic.

In some ways, it's not that funny - kids are bombarded by marketing for unhealthy food, much the same way they are inundated by media images of sexuality. Is it any wonder 1/3 of American kids are obese? The rhetoric of the past couple decades - saying we have so many overweight kids because of lax parenting - doesn't seem to have fixed the problem. Maybe that's because parents don't have billions to spend on marketing consultants and media campaigns like Big Food does.

(Thanks to the fabulous School Lunch Talk for the link!)

Obesity's sticker shock

2009-07-28T09:05:00.000-07:00

A new study in Health Affairs estimates the cost of obesity to our country to be $147 billion annually - that's 10% of our annual spending on health care. As we contemplate health care reform as a nation, this will be an important issue to consider.

Meanwhile, McDonald's made $4.3 billion in profits last year, and has consistently been among the corporations with high numbers of employees on Medicaid rolls. In other words, not only do their products and marketing help drive the obesity epidemic, they aren't even paying medical costs for many of their own employees - we are.

Are we the addicted dupes of the obesity industry?

2009-07-27T06:35:00.000-07:00

In Friday's Boston Globe, columnist Ellen Goodman presents a must-read vision for the future of food in this country. Will we one day see the "obesity industry" in the same light as Big Tobacco, and those who eat their products the same way we now view smokers, as addicts, duped into buying these products by slick marketing?

She says:

"The analogy between Big Tobacco and Big Food is imperfect. You can’t quit eating or wear a food patch...But if the campaign against smoking provides a model, it’s in the effort to label restaurant foods and expose the tactics of Big Food. It’s also recasting the folks who bring us bigger food as obesity dealers."

And isn't that what McDonald's is doing? Pushing obesogenic food on our kids using marketing that is designed to appeal to kids? Is Ronald McDonald the new Joe Camel?

Big Fast Food wants menu labeling their way

2009-07-24T11:42:00.001-07:00

A recent compromise in the Senate may have paved the way for national menu labeling on fast food menu boards. But Big Fast Food wants it on their own terms. First they demanded pre-emption, meaning that a national law would invalidate stronger local laws, such as Philadelphia's, that require sodium and other information to be posted. Remember, it's not just calories alone that are making us sick; salt, fat and sodium aren't so great for us - or our children - in the huge proportions dished out at the drive-through. So if all that other information goes away? That's a win for the industry.

But now some of the biggest chains have decided that that isn't enoug h - they want mom-and-pop shops to have to post calorie counts, too. Yum! Brands (parent company of KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut) and other chains think this would be more fair, that the law unfairly targets chains with 20 or more locations. But those chains have scale, and they have uniformity, which is why menu labeling work. That makes it affordable and practical for large chains to calculate the calories in their product, where the costs and variable ingredients would make it untenable for a local restaurant. And with the big profits they're making, comes big responsibility.

Interestingly, this comes at a time when it appears menu labeling is having a big impact - on restaurant chains. Out in California, where state-wide menu labeling went into effect, patrons are seeing more low-calorie options popping up at some restaurants. I wonder if it will lead McDonald's to change their Deluxe Breakfast formulation, currently packing 1150 calories before you add the syrup and butter - that's more than half of what you need each day. (It also has your ENTIRE DAY'S worth of sodium - yikes!)

Alternatives to Fast Food: San Francisco Mayor Drafts Guidelines to Improve Access to Healthy Foods

2009-07-22T11:08:00.000-07:00

Leading the charge in 2007, he became the first mayor to issue an executive order to cut city spending on bottled water. Now, Mayor Gavin Newsom is making headlines again with a recently ordered executive directive to increase access to healthy foods for the people of San Francisco.

According to his plan, city departments will have six months to audit unused property to assess whether these empty lots, rooftops and median strips could be transitioned into community gardens. An interesting aspect of the plan directs city offices to serve healthier food at work events, although "healthy" has been vaguely defined as "has high nutritional value."

We can't wait to see what comes out of this.

Photo from SFGate.com

Eating healthy costs more?

2009-07-20T14:59:00.000-07:00

The economics of obesity has researchers alarmed by the impact this economic recession is having on consumer’s food choices. And anyone who’s told anyone about the Value [the] Meal campaign has likely heard the objection that fast food is a cheap option for those who can’t afford to eat healthy. Okay sure, when pitted against gourmet health foods like wild salmon or organic spinach, there’s little question that a Big Mac will get you more calories in less time for less money. But as Dr. Adam Drewnowski of University of Washington Center for Public Health Nutrition points out, there are many overlooked healthy foods that aren’t necessarily cost prohibitive. Debunking the myth that health food has to be expensive, Drewnowski says it’s not just about the most nutrient-rich foods, but the most affordable nutrient-rich foods, and advocates for healthy options that won’t break the bank now, and just as importantly, won’t force you to pay with your health either. Check out this article from the Washington Post - it's a good resource for anyone looking for value from their meal.

Obnoxious Fast Food Ad of the Week: Burger King’s Ham Sandwich (Spain)

2009-07-17T10:19:00.000-07:00

Burger King seems to have a new marketing strategy: Offend, Earn Media, Apologize, Repeat.

Taking a break from the hyper-sexualized ads of late, Burger King has taken a new approach of ostracizing ethnic groups. This most recent ad that ran in Spain depicts a Hindu goddess, Lakshmi, seated atop a ham and cheese sandwich, under a caption: “A snack that is sacred.”

Burger King has said it will pull the ad out of respect to the vast number of vegetarian Hindu offended by the goddesses’ suggested endorsement. Still, it’s obnoxious.

Seen worse? Post it in the comments below.

“F as in Fat”

2009-07-10T10:00:00.000-07:00

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and The Trust for America’s Health have just released this year’s obesity report, "F As In Fat" which contains rankings of state obesity rates and a review of federal and state government policies aimed at reducing or preventing obesity. The US once again receives an overall failing grade. Some startling findings include:

Adult obesity rates continued to rise in 23 states. Rates did not decrease in any state.
Thirty-one states have adult obesity rates above 25 percent.
Thirty states have child overweight and obesity rates above 30 percent
Eight of the 10 states with the highest rates of obese and overweight children are in the South, as are nine of the 10 states with the highest rates of poverty.

This report is a stark reminder that not only are we nowhere near to fixing this problem, but also that the obesity epidemic - and the diseases that come with it - are closely bound to poverty.