Editor’s
note:
This month, we devote the entire issue to the latest PR
stunt by the soda industry. Last August, Informed
Eating exposed the sham of a school policy announced
by the American Beverage Association. Now Big Cola is
trying once again to convince us that they really do
care. But this time, they had help from two major
players: former President Clinton and the American Heart
Association.
But the headlines
didn’t tell the real story behind the deal, which is
this: just like last year’s school "policy" from
industry, this pact is completely voluntary and
unenforceable.
In the interest of full
disclosure, this move made me particularly incensed
because for several months prior, I had been part of a
team of public health groups and attorneys who were in
private negotiation with lawyers from the American
Beverage Association, Coca-Coca, and PepsiCo. From these
meetings—operating under the threat of litigation being
planned in Massachusetts—we got close to an agreement
that was strikingly similar to the one announced with
Bill Clinton. What a brilliant strategy by the soda
companies, telling us they were bargaining in good
faith, all the while planning another deal behind our
backs. Apparently, Coke and Pepsi were shopping around
for the best PR opportunity; it looks much better to
have a former president at your side than a bunch of
lawyers. Moreover, if soda industry representatives
deliberately deceived our team to further their own
ends, why should we believe their promises to the
Clinton Foundation?
If we needed any more
evidence that the beverage companies cannot be trusted,
consider this: for Coca-Cola, this is the third
time the company has “pledged its support” for bogus
voluntary school guidelines with zero impact. The first
attempt was in 2003 with its “Model Guidelines for
School Beverage Partnerships” and the second time around
was last August as part of the American Beverage
Association’s PR stunt. So what’s different now? Has
this become an annual event? How often can the public be
fooled?
Most importantly, this
so-called agreement—which was negotiated without any
input from grassroots advocates—could undermine the
massive public health effort currently underway in
schools all across the nation. In light of the local
impact, Informed Eating is publishing for the
first time a guide to renegotiating soda contracts in
schools. Many thanks to contract attorney Debora Pinkas
of the Public Health Law Program (based in Oakland,
California) for this excellent analysis. Be sure to
share this invaluable resource with parents and others
currently trying to put strong school wellness policies
in place.
Despite
the mainstream news accounts, the fight to rid schools
of unhealthy soft drinks is far from over. Please pass
this special issue along to school-based advocates (and
anyone else who cares about children’s health) to help
spread the truth. Thank you!
Big
Cola’s Latest PR Stunt
By Michele Simon, posted to CommonDreams.org, May 5,
2006
The
headlines certainly sound impressive: “Companies pulling
sodas out of school” claimed the Associated Press;
“Bottlers agree to a school ban on sweet drinks” said
the New York Times.” These and hundreds of other news
stories around the nation this week gave the impression
that the beverage industry had an epiphany and
magically, all soda will disappear from schools forever.
Only one problem: nothing could be further from the
truth. On Wednesday, Big Cola announced yet another
voluntary school sales policy, this time, one brokered
by the Clinton Foundation (the former president has made
childhood obesity one of his post-presidency causes) and
the American Heart Association.
Read
full commentary:
www.commondreams.org/views06/0505-32.htm
Bill Clinton
Triangulates the War on Fat
While
most of the news accounts missed the mark, in contrast,
this article from Slate hits the nail on the head in
describing how Clinton operates. State’s William Saletan
writes:
According to the Public Health Advocacy Institute, which
threatened for months to sue the soda companies, their
"agreement with the Clinton Foundation … comes after
sustained pressure from potential litigation and
negotiations with public health groups and their
lawyers." In other words, the lefties did the dirty work
so Clinton could score the winning bucket.
Read
full article:
http://slate.com/id/2141080/