Search results: tobacco

Hennessey quotes from a speech by Steven Parrish, of the Steve Parrish Consulting Group describing parallels between tobacco and food litigation.

From the first lawsuit filed against [tobacco] industry member in 1953 to mid-1990s, the industry never lost or settled a smoking and health product liability suit. In the mid ‘90s the eggs hit the fan because the industry for all those decades had smugly thought it had a legal problem. But over time, it came to realize it had a society problem. Litigation was a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself.

…When it came time to resolve the litigation, we couldn’t just sit in a room and say, ‘how much money do you want?…A lot had nothing to do with money. It had to do with reining the industry in…We spent so much time early on talking to ourselves about greedy trial lawyers, out-of-touch regulators, media-addicted elected officials and public health people who didn’t know how to run a business. At the end of the day, it didn’t matter. We would have been much better off recognizing these people had legitimate agendas.”

… Maybe there are some parallels, but I urge people not to succumb to the temptation to say, ‘cigarettes kill you, cigarettes are addictive. But mac and cheese, coffee, and Oscar Meyers wieners don’t. That may be true, but there are still risks for the industry.

There’s this idea, which has picked up steam in the media, that large food companies are manipulating ingredients to hook people on food. It hasn’t been manifest in litigation yet, but we’re seeing it with legislative initiatives, like Mayor Bloomberg in New York City saying sugar hooks people and causes diabetes. We’ve seen some with GMOs, though most of that legislation is about consumers’ right to know. But there’s this overarching concept that Big Food is somehow manipulating our food supply and as a result, giving us non-food.

Sounds like the message is getting across loud and clear.

Thoughts?

Anti-tobacco advocates have been worried for years that concerns about obesity would draw funding away from anti-smoking initiatives (see previous posts).  Their fears are justified, as described in today’s New York Times and in a recent editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Years of experience have taught anti-smoking advocates that countering the marketing efforts of cigarette companies required constant vigilance.  It also taught them that cigarette companies take immediate advantage of any weakening of resistance to their efforts.

Cigarettes remain the leading cause of preventable deaths among Americans.  Cigarette marketing aimed at children remains a national—and international—public health scandal.

Health should not be a zero-sum game.  Anti-obesity advocates have much to learn from anti-smoking advocates.  How about joining forces to improve the health of Americans?

I’ve just read an enlightening paper in the July issue of the American Journal of Public Health (see Note below) about the tobacco industry’s role in and funding of “We Card,” a program ostensibly aimed at discouraging smoking among young people by encouraging retail cigarette sellers to “card” underage buyers.

The paper is an analysis of internal food company discussions about this program in cigarette company documents released as part of the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement.  These documents are now publicly available on the University of  California San Francisco (UCSF) website.

This analysis demonstrates that the actual purpose of tobacco industry support for the program was to make the industry look good (public relations) and to convince legislators and health officials that regulation would be unnecessary.

The industry effectively recruited astonishing numbers of private business, retail, and trade groups (expected) and state health, legal, and police agencies (which should have known better) as partners in this program.  The paper lists these groups in tables that take up nearly five pages.

As the paper explains:

Economic theory predicts that industry self-regulation will achieve social benefits far smaller than those gained from government regulation, although governments increasingly view self-regulation as a means to achieve public goals without public spending. However, industries and governments may have competing agendas, suggesting that public health advocates should be wary of self-regulation strategies…. This program’s success in reaching tobacco retailers and attracting independent allies has made We Card one of the tobacco industry’s major public relations achievements. However, despite industry claims that the program is effective, internal industry evidence suggests that We Card has not reduced tobacco sales to minors and that it was not designed to do so. Instead, We Card was explicitly structured to improve the industry’s public image and to thwart regulation and law enforcement activity.

The authors’ conclusion: “Policymakers should be cautious about accepting industry self-regulation at face value, both because it redounds to the industry’s benefit and because it is ineffective.”

Proponents of food industry self-regulation and of partnerships and alliances with food companies should read this study carefully.

Note: Only the Abstract is available to non-subscribers.  The reference is Apollonio DE, Malone RE, The “We Card” Program: Tobacco Industry “Youth Smoking Prevention” as Industry Self Preservation.. Am J Public Health 2010;100:1188-1201.

The Rudd Center at Yale is devoted to establishing a firm research basis for obesity interventions.  Its latest contribution is a paper in the Milbank Quarterly from its director, Kelly Brownell, and co-author Kenneth Warner, an equally distinguished anti-smoking researcher from the University of Michigan.  Its provocative title: The perils of ignoring history: Big Tobacco played dirty and millions died.  How similar is Big Food?

The paper is getting much attention.  A spokesman for the American Dietetic Association, a group well known for its close ties to food companies, emphasizes that food is not tobacco.  Of course it’s not.  But food companies often behave like tobacco companies, and not always in the public interest.  The Milbank paper provides plenty of documentation to back up the similarity.  Worth a look, no?

April 3 update: Evidently, FoodNavigator.com thinks so.  It is asking readers to file 100 word comments on issues raised by the paper by April 8.   And here are the comments.

At the end of December, I received an email from Paula Johns, director of ACT Health Promotion in Brazil.

Today we are celebrating the approval of the tax reform in Brazil. This Tuesday, Dec 17th, the text was approved by the National Congress!!

The tax reform is a historic achievement for Brazil and we celebrate the fact that products harmful to health, such as tobacco, alcohol and sugary drinks, are included in the selective tax. We followed each stage of the discussion and saw the intense lobbying by the economic sector that profits from these products to weaken the selective tax proposal, but it was finally approved, as well as the tax-exempt basic food basket, with healthier products in accordance with the Brazilian Food Guidelines.

…Important to highlight that our National Congress is one of the worst we’ve ever had! To beat The Coca-Cola lobby there is quite an achievement! Wanted to celebrate with you. The inclusion of carbonated drinks in the selective tax now opens the door for a broader discussion about other categories of ultraprocessed foods in the revision that will happen in five years from now.

I also received a press announcement: “Historic Public Health Victory”: Vital Strategies Applauds Brazil’s Approval of Selective Tax on Tobacco, Soft Drinks, and Alcohol

The newly approved legislation includes annual tax adjustments for tobacco, soft drinks and alcohol in line with inflation. Additionally, it establishes an innovative basic food basket of healthy, sustainable products exempt from taxation. The tax reform also grants a 60% reduction in tax rates for horticultural and minimally processed products, nuts, oils, flours, and items from Brazil’s rich socio-biodiversity.  These measures will help ensure better access to nutritious food while discouraging consumption of unhealthy commodities.

…The specific tax rates for tobacco, alcohol, and soft drinks will be determined in 2025. To fully realize the public health benefits of this new tax structure, the levels of tax must be sufficient to reduce consumption. Vital Strategies, Brazil, will collaborate closely with partners to advocate for tax rates that prioritize public health. Setting these rates at levels that significantly reduce consumption of harmful products will protect communities from preventable diseases.

I tried to find more details, and hit upon Covington ‘s Brazil’s historic tax reform: a primer.  This lays out what will have to happen before implementation.  It says almost nothing about the public health taxes except this:

Key Change: the Selective Tax
In addition to the dual VAT (CBS/IBS), the reform establishes a new Selective Tax (IS) to regulate goods and services it characterizes as having significant negative health and environmental externalities. The IS will be charged on production, extraction, sale, or importation of these goods and services.

This will be interesting to watch.  Stay tuned!

The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee may not think there is much to ultra-processed foods (UPF), but companies making them have just been served with a lawuit.

I learned about this from a tweet (x) from Carlos Monteiro, the Brazilian public health professor who coined the UPF term.

CMonteiro_USP (@Carlos A. Monteiro) posted: A first-of-its-kind lawsuit against 11 UPF industries alleging they engineer their UPF products to be addictive with details on the actions taken to target children including internal memos, meetings & the research conducted to create addictive substances.

The lawsuit, filed by several law firms, is aimed at Big Food: Kraft, Mondelez, Post, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestle, Kellanova, WK Kellogg, Mars, and Conagra.

The suit charges that these firms, through their deliberate marketing, are making people sick.

Due to Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff regularly, frequently, and chronically ingested their UPF, which caused him to contract Type 2 Diabetes and Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Plaintiff is now suffering from these devastating diseases, and will continue to suffer for the rest of his life.

The suit makes interesting reading.

Some examples:

• Big Tobacco companies intentionally designed UPF to hack the physiological structures of our brains.  These formulation strategies were quickly adopted throughout the UPF industry, with the goal of driving consumption, and defendants’ profits, at all costs.
• The same MRI machines used by scientific researchers to study potential cures for addiction are used by UPF companies to engineer their products to be ever more addictive.
• Big Tobacco repurposed marketing strategies designed to sell cigarettes to children and minorities, and aggressively marketed UPF to these groups.
• The UPF industry now spends about $2 billion each year marketing UPF to children.
• UPF increase the risks of disease because they are ultra-processed, not because of how many grams of certain nutrients they contain or how much weight gain they cause. Therefore, even attempts to eat healthfully are undermined by the ultra-processed nature of UPF. One cannot evade the risks caused by UPF simply by selecting UPF with lower calories, fat, salt, sugar, carbohydrates, or other nutrients.
• The UPF industry is well aware of the harms they are causing and has known it for decades. But they continue to inflict massive harm on society in a reckless pursuit of profits.

Can’t wait to see what happens with this one.  Stay tuned.

Resources

Consumer Federation of America: “Ultra-processed Foods: Why They Matter and What to Do About It.”

With government officials reluctant to issue advice on ultra-processed foods (UPFs), Consumer Federation of America aims to raise awareness about research on UPFs, explain the leading theories of how they harm health, and build support for public policies to reduce harms from UPFs in our diet.

The report pushes back on arguments that researchers have not consistently defined UPFs, or that the categorization lacks scientific rigor. In fact, researchers have operationalized the “Nova classification” system behind UPFs in a largely consistent manner, defining foods based on whether they contain ingredients that are “industrial formulations” or “rarely used in home kitchens,” with little serious disagreement about which ingredients should be considered “ultra processed.” Consumers can take CFA’s online quiz to test their knowledge of which ingredients are markers of “ultra processing.”

New research: Trends in Adults’ Intake of Un-processed/Minimally Processed, and Ultra-processed foods at Home and Away from Home in the United States from 2003–2018.  J Nutr 2024, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjnut.2024.10.048.  The data show that 50% or more of calories are consumed from UPF at home, away from home, and by pretty much everyone.

New research: Hagerman CJ, Hong AE, Jennings E, Butryn ML. A Pilot Study of a Novel Dietary Intervention Targeting Ultra-Processed Food Intake. Obes Sci Pract. 2024 Dec 8;10(6):e70029. doi: 10.1002/osp4.70029.  Behavioral interventions to reduce UPF intake cut calories by about 600 calories per day.

My post summarizing the three studies demonstrating that diets high in UPF induce intake of an excess of 500, 800, and 1000 calories per day.

This is a report from the WHO Regional Office for Europe: Commercial determinants of noncommunicable diseases in the WHO European Region.  

This report describes how i”7500 deaths per day in the Region are attributed to commercial determinants, such as tobacco, alcohol, processed food, fossil fuels and occupational practices. These commercial products and practices contribute to 25% of all deaths in the Region.

These industries, says WHO, “glamourize and normalize the use of harmful products, including harmful ones often targeting children and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups and others.”

Overall, it documents how these industries use their market power to:

• Maintain monopolistic positions, extend product lines into new sectors, and manipulate pricing
• Engage in political practices to prevent, weaken, and delay public health regulations
• Influence scientific research and public understanding of health issues to favour their commercial interests
• Use CSR [corporate social responsibility] initiatives to improve their public image and gain influence
• Avoid taxes, shift profits to tax havens
• Use financial strategies to deprive governments of revenues needed to fund public health.
• Use laws to oppose policies aimed at addressing the NCD burden
• exploit crises and emergencies to advance their commercial interests

In other words, this report describes how industries use the “playbook” to advance their interests.

While specific to Europe, its findings and recommendations are widely generalizable.

And the report gives plenty of references for everything it reports and recommends.

I received an e-mailed press release from the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), chaired by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT):  NEWS: Sanders and Booker Take on Food and Beverage Industry with New Legislation to Address Childhood Diabetes and Obesity Epidemics.

Sen. Sanders, along with Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Peter Welch (D-VT), have introduced legislation to

Take on the greed of the food and beverage industry and address the growing diabetes and obesity epidemics negatively impacting millions of American children and families across the country. The Childhood Diabetes Reduction Act establishes a first-of-its-kind federal ban on junk food advertising targeted to children in the United States, requires the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to implement strong health and nutrient warning labeling, directs the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to investigate the dangers posed by ultra-processed foods, and develops a national education campaign for children and caregivers through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The press release quotes Sen. Sanders:

“Let’s be clear: The twin crises of type 2 diabetes and obesity in America are being fueled by the food and beverage industry that, for decades, has been making massive profits by enticing children to consume unhealthy products purposely designed to be overeaten…We cannot continue to allow large corporations in the food and beverage industry to put their profits over the health and well-being of our children.

Nearly 30 years ago, Congress had the courage to take on the tobacco industry, whose products killed more than 400,000 Americans every year. Now is the time for Congress to act with the same sense of urgency to combat these diabetes and obesity epidemics. That means banning junk food ads targeted to kids and putting strong warning labels on food and beverages with unacceptably high levels of sugar, salt, and saturated fat.”

Resources:

• Senate hearing:  What is Fueling the Diabetes Epidemic?
• Sanders’ letter  to the FDA to require warning labels on unhealthful food products
• The bill, section-by-section, is here.
• The bill text is here.

At long last, congressional representatives are trying to do something to prevent childhood obesity.  Let’s urge our representatives to sign on to this bill.