Together in Denver: Ian
McLoughlin, Frank Chaloupka, Andrew
Hysell, Kelly Brownell.
Denver, Colorado. ‘Choosing
meals is not child’s play’ was one
headline in USA Today, the
nationwide newspaper also delivered
to hotel guests throughout the
country, on 8 November. The story
continued: ‘There are only a dozen
or so healthful kids’ meals out of
thousands of possible combinations
at the nation’s popular fast-food
chains, a comprehensive new analysis
shows’.
The leader page the next day
featured ‘Today’s Debate’ on ‘Child
obesity’. This was about the
decision by the city of San
Francisco to prohibit fast food
outlets from giving away or selling
toys with their snacks and meals.
San Francisco legislator and prime
mover Eric Mar stated: ‘Childhood
obesity rates have tripled in the
last 30 years since the introduction
of the Happy Meal... Each year, the
fast-food industry sells more than a
billion junk food meals to kids
under 12 on the wings of toy
giveaways... We know that reducing
the consumption of junk food by kids
could spare the health of millions
and save billions of dollars to our
overstrapped health system. That’s
why pediatricians, educators,
parents, community health advocates
and thousands of individuals lined
up to support this ordinance’.
Media impact
Having read the children’s junk food
story in USA Today, placed outside
the doors of guest rooms in
thousands of US hotels, participants
at the 138th conference of the
American Public Health Association
held this year in Denver, whose
first full day was 8 November, who
tuned into television in their rooms
or in the fitness centre, saw it all
over again on-screen. This
professionally organised media
coverage was the work of Yale
University’s Rudd Center for Food
Policy and Obesity, accessible at
www.yaleruddcenter.org. The
Center’s report Evaluating Fast Food
Nutrition and Marketing to Youth was
released that day and launched at
the Denver conference, and is
available at
www.fastfoodmarketing.org. And
there was more! Rudd Center director
Kelly Brownell and colleagues from
the Food and Nutrition chapter of
the APHA had masterminded two
sessions in Denver that very morning
and afternoon. Punchy summaries of
the findings of the report were on
every participant's chair. This was
fancy footwork. Both sessions were
packed, with delegates standing and
sitting on the floor.
Proof of harm
Kelly Brownell, who has a beguiling
style of presentation, began the
afternoon session by asking, why tax
sugared soft drinks?. Then he
answered his question. They are
‘empty calories’. They cause
overconsumption, because the body
doesn’t properly recognise calories
delivered as liquids. There is good
evidence that added, ‘free’ sugars
are addictive. Many soft drinks have
caffeine added. They are marketed to
vulnerable populations. And – as
said above – ‘there is rock solid
proof of harm’. Plus in the US,
average personal consumption of
sugary soft drinks amounts to 175
calories a day or, put another way,
50 gallons a year. That’s the
average. Above average consumption
is higher – sometimes, a lot higher.
At nutrition conferences, sessions
on problematic issues typically end
with speakers saying that something
really ought to be done, and that
more research is needed. Not the
Rudd, which is handsomely supported
in its work by the Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation. Kelly Brownell’s
colleagues and associates include
leaders from the civil society
organisation Corporate
Accountability International, and
economists and lawyers. As
mentioned, a penny (cent) an ounce
excise tax on soft drinks would in
ten years in the US, raise $US 180
billion. Estimates indicate that
such a tax would also have the
effect of decreasing consumption by
somewhat over 20 per cent, and thus
reduce health care costs.
Furthermore, he added, there already
is soft drink legislation in 17 US
states, one reason being that
industry-led voluntary codes are
well-known to have ‘completely and
utterly failed’. Indeed, he said,
with a soft smile, the furious
lobbying of the soft drinks industry
against taxes on their products
itself proves that taxation works.
The economic and legal case
The economist Frank Chaloupka from
the University of Illinois was next
on. He explained the principle that
when the market fails, the law
should be invoked. Clearly in this
case the market has failed. Rates of
obesity continue to increase. In
2006 in the US, the cost of obesity
was estimated to be $US 147 billion,
or 20-25 per cent of all health care
costs. He reckoned that a 20 per tax
on sugared soft drinks would result
in a 33 per cent drop in
consumption.
Two lawyers followed. Ian McLoughlin
from Massachusetts has been named a
‘Rising Star’ as a Boston business
litigator. He confirmed that in the
US, the states have authority to
levy taxes – there is no violation
of the UN Constitution (and see the
following story, on Brazil). An
excise tax, like that levied on
cigarettes, is the best instrument,
one reason being that it is apparent
to the purchaser. Yes, in the US
taxes can be ‘earmarked’ – meaning
that taxes on soft drinks can be
diverted to positive public health
initiatives. However, agreements
with state legislators in urgent
need of funds are most likely when
revenue is shared, with some going
specifically to protect public
health, some to projects like urban
renewal that also have public health
benefit, and some for general
purposes. A total of 20 proposals
for taxes of sugary drinks are now
being progressed at US state level,
he said. The people in the room
rustled with excitement. It is all
happening!
Finally Andrew Hysell from
Connecticut summarised the ‘Campaign
for Healthy Kids. Yes, individual
freedom, liberty and choice is one
of the US ‘narratives’. But when
market failure causes externalised
costs, these hit tax-payers in their
wallets. This also taps into another
US narrative, that of fairness.
As with most other sessions at the
Denver conference, the presenters
were disciplined, and there was
plenty of time for contributions
from the room, and real discussion.
This was an outstanding feature of
the conference as a whole. One
observation from the room was as
follows. The chief executives of
some of the most colossal food and
drink manufacturers have declared
that they themselves and their
companies are dedicated to the
improvement of public health. A
‘free-for-all’ ideology, with
inadequate regulation, gives unfair
advantage to the most ruthless and
cynical companies. Regulation and
taxation resulting in massive
amounts of revenue to devote to
public health policies and actions
will result in a ‘level playing
field’ that will help
public-spirited companies, as well
as support for legislators working
in the public interest. It follows –
doesn’t it? – that aforementioned
chief executives will be strongly in
favour of taxes on their products.
Has Kelly Brownell been approached
by any such good people with pledges
of support? Again, he softly smiled.
No, he said. Not yet. I look forward
to this. Laughter from the room.
Brazil.
Regulation of food advertising |
The unstoppables – Brazil
|
Rio de Janeiro. Fabio Gomes
reports. The struggle continues!
As I reported last month, the
Brazilian federal health
surveillance agency ANVISA has
specified that food advertising –
notably to children – will be
regulated; but its decision has been
suspended as apparently
unconstitutional by a judge.
Immediately after the decision of
judge Gilda Sigmaringa Seixas,
scientific and civil society
organisations from all over the
country got quickly connected to
mobilise the Brazilian society,
jurists and communicators and to
overcome that decision. A letter has
been signed by 41 institutions
dedicated to public health,
children's protection, consumers'
defence, communication public
policies, food and nutrition
security and many other fields of
work, with one goal: to support
ANVISA and to get its regulation
implemented.
In its appeal, the group cites
Article 6 of the chapter of Social
Rights of the Brazilian Constitution
of 1988. This guarantees the right
to: 'education, health, food, work,
housing, leisure, safety, social
security, motherhood and childhood
protection, assistance to the
destitute'. As the judge used the
argument that regulating foods would
be unconstitutional, on the rather
absurd basis that advertising of
food is not explicitly mentioned in
the constitution, this may remind
her that the right to health and
food is in Brazil constitutionally
guaranteed.
The jurists that published the
position of the Centre of Studies
and Researches on Health Law (Centro
de Estudos e Pesquisas de Direito
Sanitário) have confirmed that
ANVISA has competency in these
matters. ‘Federal Law 9782/99 gives
ANVISA the duty to control,
supervise and monitor...
advertisement and publicity of
products... such as foods... and
advertisement of products, practices
and services that may be harmful to
health.'
Protection of health implies a duty
to inform about the risks of
excessive consumption of foods high
in calories, sugars, unhealthy fats
and salt, characteristics of the
great majority of ultra-processed
foods. A total of almost 95 per cent
of the food advertisements
broadcasted in Brazil, including on
those specifically driven to
children, are of such
products.states Renata Monteiro,
professor of Nutrition Policy at the
University of Brasília.
Association Council member
Carlos Monteiro, says: ‘The last
Brazilian representative household
survey conducted in 2008-2009
confirms the explosive increase of
obesity in Brazil in the last three
decades. Now, half of the adult
population, one-third of children (5
to 9 years of age) and one-fifth of
adolescents are overweight or
obese’.. Traditional and healthy
foods of the Brazilian diet, such as
rice and beans, have been replaced
by ultra- processed, high energy
dense and low nutrient dense
products.
Tobacco control in Brazil has been
successful. This also may encourage
the judge to see the value of
regulation of unhealthy food and
drink products. And now? The next
step is with the judge.
Listed below the 41
signatories of the letter sent to
the judge that support statutory
regulation of food advertising and
marketing in Brazil:
Ação Brasileira pela Nutrição e
Direitos Humanos (ABRANDH) -
www.abrandh.org.br
Agência de Notícias dos Direitos da
Infância (ANDI) -
www.andi.org.br
Associação Brasileira de Nutrição (ASBRAN)
-
www.asbran.org.br
Associação Brasileira de
Pós-Graduação em Saúde Coletiva (ABRASCO)
-
www.abrasco.org.br
Associação Catarinense de Nutrição (ACAN)
-
www.acan.xpg.com.br
Associação Gaúcha de Nutrição (AGAN)
-
www.agan.com.br
Associação de Nutrição do Estado do
Espírito Santo (ANEES) -
aneesnutricao.blogspot.com
Associação Paulista de Nutrição (APAN)
-
www.apanutri.com.br
Campanha Quem financia a baixaria é
contra a cidadania -
www.eticanatv.org.br
Children’s Food Campaign -
www.sustainweb.org/childrensfoodcampaign
Conselho Estadual de Segurança
Alimentar e Nutricional Sustentável
do Rio
Grande do Sul (CONSEA-RS)
Conselho Federal de Nutricionistas (CFN)
-
www.cfn.org.br
Conselho Regional de Nutricionistas
da 9ª Região (CRN9) -
www.crn9.org.br
Conselho Regional de Psicologia da
6ª Região (CRPSP) -
www.crpsp.org.br
Escola de Comunicação da UFRJ (ECO-UFRJ)
Federação de Órgãos para a
Assistência Social e Educacional (FASE)
-
www.fase.org.br
Federação Nacional dos
Nutricionistas (FNN) -
www.fnn.org.br
Federação Nacional dos Jornalistas (FENAJ)
-
www.fenaj.org.br
FoodFirst Information & Action
Network International (FIAN
International) -
www.fian.org
Fórum Brasileiro de Soberania e
Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional (FBSAN)
-
www.fbsan.org.br
Fórum de Segurança Alimentar e
Nutricional do Espírito Santo (FOSAN-ES)
Fórum Estadual de Segurança
Alimentar de Nutricional de Mato
Grosso do Sul (FESANS-MS)
Fórum Nacional pela Democratização
da Comunicação (FNDC) -
www.fndc.org.br
Grupo de Estudos em Segurança
Alimentar e Nutricional (GESAN) -
gesan-ppk.blogspot.com
International Baby Food Action
Network (IBFAN) -
www.ibfan.org
Instituto Brasileiro de Análises
Sociais e Econômicas (IBASE) -
www.ibase.org.br
Instituto Brasileiro de Defesa do
Consumidor (IDEC) -
www.idec.org.br
Instituto de Nutrição / Universidade
do Estado do Rio de Janeiro -
www.nutricao.uerj.br
International Obesity Taskforce (IOTF)
-
www.iotf.org
Intervozes - Coletivo Brasil de
Comunicação Social -
www.intervozes.org.br
Núcleo de Estudos Transdisciplinares
de Comunicação e Consciência (NETCCON)
/
Núcleo de Pesquisas Epidemiológicas
em Nutrição e Saúde (NUPENS) /
Universidade de São Paulo -
www.fsp.usp.br/nupens
Observatório da Mídia Regional:
direitos humanos, políticas e
sistemas -
www.ufes.br/observatoriodamidia
Observatório de Políticas de
Segurança Alimentar e Nutrição /
Universidade de Brasília -
164.41.105.58/opsan
Projeto Criança e Consumo do
Instituto Alana -
www.criancaeconsumo.org.br
Sindicato dos Nutricionistas do
Estado de São Paulo (SINESP) -
www.sindicatonutricionistas.com.br
Sindicato dos Nutricionistas no
Estado do Ceará (SINDNUCE)
Sindicato dos Nutricionistas no
Estado de Mato Grosso do Sul (SINDNUTRI-MS)
Sindicato dos Nutricionistas no
Estado do Rio Grande do Sul (SINURGS)
-
www.sinurgs.org.br
Textos & Idéias -
www.textoseideias.com.br
World Public Health Nutrition
Association (WPHNA) -
www.wphna.org
News. The unstoppables -
the US and Brazil |
Please respond below
|
|