|
With lobbyists from the food and beverage industry controlling congress it
becomes more and more difficult to eat properly unless you abstain from all
processed foods. Corporate America has taken over our right to good food
choices.
If you maintain a body mass index of 25.0 or less, your 'need' for any kind
of supplements or medication is greatly reduced.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47205551/ns/business-us_business/
How Washington lost the war on childhood obesity
Food industry hasn't lost a single fight with DC despite mounting evidence
that unhealthy food causes obesity
4/27/2012
In the political arena, one side is winning the war on child
obesity.
The side with the fattest wallets.
After aggressive lobbying, Congress declared pizza a vegetable to protect it
from a nutritional overhaul of the school lunch program this year. The White
House kept silent last year as Congress killed a plan by four federal agencies
to reduce sugar, salt and fat in food marketed to children.
And during the past two years, each of the 24 states and five cities that
considered "soda taxes"
to discourage consumption of sugary drinks has seen the efforts dropped or
defeated.
At every level of government, the food and beverage industries won fight
after fight during the last decade. They have never lost a significant political
battle in the United States despite mounting scientific evidence of the role of
unhealthy food and children's marketing in obesity.
Lobbying records analyzed by Reuters reveal that the industries more than
doubled their spending in Washington during the past three years. In the
process, they largely dominated policymaking -- pledging voluntary action while
defeating government proposals aimed at changing the nation's diet, dozens of
interviews show.
In contrast, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, widely regarded
as the lead lobbying force for healthier food, spent about $70,000 lobbying last
year -- roughly what those opposing the stricter guidelines spent every 13
hours, the Reuters analysis showed.
Industry critics also contend that the White House all but abandoned a
multi-agency effort that recommended healthier food be marketed to children,
even after First Lady Michelle Obama told a grocery trade group two years ago
that food manufacturers needed to "step it up" to protect children.
"I'm upset with the White House," said Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa),
chairman of the Senate Health Committee. "They went wobbly in the knees.
When it comes to kids' health, they shouldn't go wobbly in the knees."
The White House disputed the characterization. Sam Kass, an assistant chef
there and senior policy adviser on food initiatives, said in a statement:
"We are incredibly proud of the commitments that many food companies have
made, and are continuing to work with others to advocate for even more change to
make sure our children are getting the healthy, nutritious food they need."
The political battles over what children eat and drink are crucial to the
nation's health, experts say, because the tripling in childhood obesity in the
last three decades foretells diabetes, heart disease and other illness in
decades to come. America is one of the fattest nations on earth, and the
Institute of Medicine, in a 2006 report requested by Congress, said junk food
marketing contributes to an epidemic of childhood obesity that continues to
rise. The institute is the health arm of the National Academy of Sciences.
Health experts and Harkin say the food industry has employed some of the same
tactics as Big Tobacco in its efforts to fight stricter regulations -- chief
among them the argument that the industry should regulate itself.
Although no major legislative action on childhood obesity is pending during
this election year, the public debate is expected to resume next month. The
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will hold a conference in
Washington from May 7-9 called "Weight of the Nation." It will include
an Institute of Medicine update and the premiere of an HBO documentary series of
the same name. Health advocates also plan a "Sugary Drinks Summit" in
Washington from June 7-8.
"We haven't reversed the epidemic," Dr. William H. Dietz, director
of the division of nutrition, physical activity and obesity at the CDC, said in
an interview. "This may be the first generation of children that has a
lower life span than their parents."
Food and beverage manufacturers and advertisers say they aren't to blame for
obesity. Indeed, they say they are part of the solution.
The American Beverage Association says its members have cut 88 percent of the
calories shipped to schools since 2004 by offering less sugary drinks and
emphasizing water, low-fat milk and juice in elementary and middle schools. The
drinks now list calories on the front of labels.
Sixteen major companies with about 75 percent of the food ads on TV aimed at
children under 12 are regulating themselves under the Children's Food and
Beverage Advertising Initiative of the Better Business
Bureau. They are limiting ads for certain foods and adopting nutrition
standards.
"It's made a big difference," said Elaine D. Kolish, the initiative
director and a former head of enforcement at the Federal Trade Commission. More
than 100 products have been changed or created to cut salt, fat, sugar or
calories, she said. Tougher self-regulation is promised by 2014.
At the same time, Kolish said, there is no proof of "a causal effect
between food advertising and obesity."
The Institute of Medicine had found strong evidence that TV watching was
associated with child obesity. But researchers have found no proof that
obesity is directly caused by ads for sweets or junk food.
Armed with those arguments and a bulging political war chest, the $1.5
trillion food and beverage industry has defeated soda taxes and marketing
restrictions in cities and states across the nation, mounting referendums to
overturn the taxes in the two states that passed them and persuading 16 states
to prohibit lawsuits over fatty foods.
Reuters analyzed spending reported by more than 50 food and beverage groups
that lobbied against the federal effort last year to write tougher -- but still
voluntary -- nutritional standards for foods marketed to children.
The groups have spent more than $175 million lobbying since President Barack
Obama took office in 2009 -- more than double the $83 million spent in the
previous three years, during the Bush Administration.
The totals do not include broader lobbying efforts by the Chamber of
Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and media and advertising
interests that also opposed the federal plan. Those groups lobby on other
issues, and lobbying disclosure reports do not specify how much they spent
targeting the food marketing proposal. The Reuters analysis was based on records
from the Federal Election Commission, the Secretary of the Senate and the Center
for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in politics.
In a stark example of lobbying muscle, PepsiCo Inc, Coca-Cola Co, bottlers
and the American Beverage Association spent more than $40 million lobbying in
2009 when Congress was considering a soda tax. That was more than eight times
the $4.8 million they had spent the previous year, the analysis showed. After
the proposal died, the groups cut spending to $24 million in 2010 and $10
million in 2011.
In recent interviews, lobbyists, lawmakers, policy leaders and industry
insiders described the power of money in politics and the appeal of
self-regulation to explain how they have been so successful countering
legislation backed by public health interests that they portrayed as
overreaching.
The public health advocates "hit a nerve," said Marshall Matz, a
Washington lawyer and industry lobbyist who advised the 2008 Obama campaign on
agricultural issues. "There's a bipartisan feeling you can tell someone
to eat less fat, consume more fiber, more fruits and vegetables and less
sugar. But if you start naming foods, you cross the line."
(more at the site)
Add To Favorites! |