Like a good mother, General Mills loves all of her “Big G” cereals the same. Consumers, however, should not. The company has chosen to market all of its Big G cereals as containing “More Whole Grain Than Any Other Ingredient*” (the asterisk takes you to the disclaimer “*as compared to any other single ingredient”). The side panel states “That’s why it’s first on the ingredient list” and tells consumers the USDA suggests looking for foods that list whole grains first. A recent report by the Environmental Working Group found that parents should be especially aware of sugar content when buying breakfast cereals for children.

Federally mandated weight-based cereal serving sizes, and the industry sponsored front-of-package Nutrition Keys labeling scheme has meant that when consumers compare calories most cereals look just about the same. The Big G cereals Wheaties, Kix, Lucky Charms, Cookie Crisp, and Cinnamon Burst Cheerios all have 100 or 110 calories per serving. But sugar content and serving size by volume varies widely. For example, Kix and Cinnamon Burst Cheerios both list 110 calories per serving, but Kix has just 3 grams of sugar per 1 ¼ cup serving while the pre-sweetened Cheerios product has 9 grams of sugar per 1 cup.

General Mills’ use of a uniform campaign for its Big G cereals is designed to make its entire portfolio of products look healthy by distracting attention from sugar content. Its website even features a page about sugar  comparing plain Cheerios (1 gram of sugar per serving) to Trix (10 grams of sugar per serving ) that asks: “From a calorie and nutrient standpoint, are both products a good breakfast choice?” The answer:  “Yes, they are. In fact, all General Mills cereals are lower calorie, nutrient dense choices.”

Perhaps this campaign is a sign that its sugary cereals are losing market share? If it is, General Mills should put its resources into developing breakfast products that are actually healthy for children instead of trying to prop up sugary cereal sales with claims about whole grain content.

New Big G Cereal Boxes

Big G Cereal Box Side Panel

Lucky Charms Box

Share/Print/E-Mail

The passage of San Francisco’s Healthy Food Incentives Ordinance and McDonald’s recent decision to “comply” with the law by charging 10 cents in order to be able to include toys with meals that do not meet minimal nutritional criteria has engendered a lot of public debate. The following table summarizes information from a 2005 Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board decision with Happy Meal cost information from the period between 1999 and 2001:

Toy, Food, Condiment & Paper Costs to McDonald’s Restaraunts of Massachusetts (1999-2001) in US Dollars

For the periods covered, McDonald’s reported that it paid its toy supplier 43 cents per toy. The total cost to McDonald’s for the toy and packaging of the Happy Meals was greater than the cost of food for each Happy Meal type. McDonald’s included a toy with every Happy Meal and sold the toys separately for a retail price of $1.69. The company  noted that it had a dedicated key on its registers in order to process separate toy sales.

In an issue advertisement run by McDonald’s explaining its 10 cent Happy Meal toy plan, the company wrote: “we feel a responsibility to our customers – including parents…who would like to have the option of purchasing…[a toy] separately for their kids.” In reality, prior to the ordinance all customers, including parents, had the option to purchase a toy separate from a Happy Meal. To comply with the letter and the spirit of San Francisco’s ordinance, McDonald’s could have stopped putting toys in with Happy Meals that did not meet nutritional criteria. Customers wanting to buy a toy separately, including parents, would then be treated as they always have been—rung up using the dedicated register key and charged the retail price of the toy.

The good news is that, as Michele Simon points out, there is an easy legal fix to the 10 cent toy strategy. In the short term, McDonald’s response amounts to an incredible missed opportunity to break away from a business model whereby the inedible portion of its children’s meals cost more to produce than the edible portion. The cost spent on toys could be spent to improve the nutritional profile of its children’s menu. The result could have been less trash in the form of discarded toys, a boon to fruit and vegetable producers all over the United States who supply McDonald’s, and, most importantly, healthier kids.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT PESTER POWER MARKETING STRATEGIES PLEASE SEE OUR PESTER POWER ISSUE BRIEF.

Share/Print/E-Mail

Deceptive and unfair marketing to promote high-calorie low-nutrient foods and beverages affect parent-consumer food purchasing decisions and induce demand among children for products that contribute to obesity and overweight. Such marketing campaigns can run afoul of an array of legal authorities that provide consumer protection from such practices.

PHAI conducted extensive 50-state research examining the provisions of state consumer protection laws of the United States that prohibit unfair, deceptive or unconscionable sales and marketing campaigns. Depending on the state, these consumer protection laws may be used by stakeholders in child health, including parents, as well as state attorneys general to stop unfair or deceptive marketing and advertising of unhealthy food and beverage products linked to overweight and obesity in children and adolescents.

The research focuses on the legal limits of: (1) direct marketing to children and teens in an effort to get them to use their own spending money to purchase food products for themselves; and (2) “pester power” marketing that targets children in an effort to get them to persuade their parents into buying products for them. To make it easy to find and compare state consumer protection laws, we have created an  interactive map linking to consumer protection law profiles of every state and the District of Columbia.

Key findings of our state consumer protection research also are summarized in a report and a legal issue brief:

• Major Findings from 50-State Survey of State Consumer Protection Law to Limit Junk Food Marketing to Children by Cara Wilking, JD and Mark Gottlieb, JD summarizes and contextualizes our research (pdf).
• Reining in Pester Power Food and Beverage Marketing by Cara Wilking, JD applies our research to food marketers who appeal to kids’ ability to nag adults to purchase unhealthy foods (pdf).

A clear understanding of consumer protection rights and the sources of their legal authority will provide guidance for policymakers and advocates for children’s health who seek to curb these practices without the need for new legislation and regulatory measures.

Click to vist our interactve consumer protection map

This research was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Healthy Eating Research Program (#66968).

Share/Print/E-Mail

U.S. District Court Judge Stefan R. Underhill on Friday denied R.J. Reynolds’ motion for a new trial or for judgment as a matter of law in the case of Izzarelli v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Barbara Izzarelli smoked Salem King cigarettes for 25 years until she was diagnosed and treated for larynx cancer at the age of 36. On May 26, 2010, a Connecticut jury determined that RJR was 58% responsible for her injuries and that Ms. Izzarelli was 42% responsible for her injuries.

An amended judgment, which includes punitive damages ($3,970,289.87) and interest, amounted to $28,079,629.27. Ms. Izzarelli is represented by Silver, Golub & Teitell of Stamford, CT. The firm’s telephone is 203-325-4491.

Judge Underhill concluded his ruling as follows: “R.J. Reynolds’ motion for a new trial or for judgment as a matter of law raises a myriad of claims, issues and arguments. Many of the assertions made in support of its motion fail the straight-face test and rely on a wholly inaccurate description of the trial record. Although this ruling does not address every one of R.J. Reynolds’ arguments, I have considered them all and find them to be meritless. Accordingly, R.J. Reynolds’ motion for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative for a new trial, is denied.”

Edward L. Sweda, Jr., Senior Attorney for the Tobacco Products Liability Project (TPLP) based at Northeastern University School of Law in Boston, described Judge Underhill’s ruling as a “resounding repudiation of R.J. Reynolds’ legal arguments and distortions of the trial record.”

The ruling is available for download from tobacco-on-trial.com

Share/Print/E-Mail

Share/Print/E-Mail

by Cara Wilking, J.D.

The National Restaurant Association announced last week  that a number of chain restaurants will be offering healthier children’s meal menu options. McDonald’s has opted not to participate in the initiative.  Likely it will point to the fact that it already offers apple slices and milk and that it only advertises the healthier versions of its Happy Meals. These steps, however, do not appear to have translated into making its healthier Happy Meal combinations its most popular Happy Meal combinations.

In a letter dated June 7, 2011, McDonald’s touted its range of children’s menu options and included fact sheets providing nutritional information for its children’s meals. The fact sheets feature six Happy Meal combinations and state that the meal combinations pictured “represent two advertised meals, three most popular meals and Cheeseburger, Apple Dippers and low-fat milk meal.” According to McDonald’s  Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative advertising pledge its “advertised meals” are the 4-piece Chicken McNuggets Happy Meal with apple dippers, low fat caramel dip and a jug of 1% low fat white milk and the Hamburger Happy Meal with apple dippers, low fat caramel dip and a jug of 1% low fat white milk. By process of elimination, the three “most popular” meal combinations emerge as:

• McDonald’s Chicken McNugget Happy Meal with small french fries and a 12 oz. soft drink,
• McDonald’s Hamburger Happy Meal with small french fries and a 12 oz. soft drink, and
• McDonald’s Cheeseburger Happy Meal with small french fries and a 12 oz. soft drink.*

The three most popular combinations include french fries and soda despite the fact that McDonald’s only advertises combinations with apple slices and milk.  This is most likely because these less healthy options remain the default when filling Happy Meal orders. If McDonald’s is serious about child health it should take real measures to ensure that its healthiest Happy Meal options become its most popular options.

*McDonald’s was contacted last week to confirm this interpretation of its fact sheets and has yet to do so.

Share/Print/E-Mail

CLICK HERE DOWNLOAD THIS POST AS A PDF

INTRODUCTION

The United States has the highest per capita rate of carbonated soft drink consumption in the world at 736 eight-ounce servings or 46 gallons per person in 2009.[1] The soft drink industry is dominated by three major companies: The Coca-Cola Company (“Coke”), PepsiCo. (“Pepsi”), and Dr. Pepper Snapple (“DPS”).  Soft drink companies produce concentrate and fountain syrup, and are responsible for marketing existing products and developing new products. Bottlers mix concentrate from soft drink companies and mix it with sweeteners and water to produce bottled and canned beverages. The American Beverage Association (“ABA”) is the industry association representing the non-alcoholic beverage industry. While the United States still has the highest per capita consumption of carbonated soft drinks in the world, overall sales of full-sugar carbonated soft drinks have been declining in recent years. In response to this decline in sales, the soft drink industry has reinvigorated its efforts to engage the public via corporate social responsibility tactics designed to rehabilitate the image of its products.

SOFT DRINK INDUSTRY CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

As large corporations, Coke, Pepsi and DPS, all undertake corporate social responsibility (CSR) campaigns. Corporate social responsibility generally encompasses a company’s activities and value statements with respect to philanthropy, community, workplace diversity, safety, human rights, and environment. There are various reasons why companies pursue CSR including: organizational values, reaction to threats to transaction costs, brand and competitive positioning, marketing, publicity, and innovation.[2] Concerns generally motivating the soft drink industry’s CSR efforts are evident in The Coca-Cola Company’s 2009 Annual Report:

Consumers, public health officials and government officials are becoming increasingly concerned about the public health consequences associated with obesity, particularly among young people. In addition, some researchers, health advocates and dietary guidelines are encouraging consumers to reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, including those sweetened with HFCS or other nutritive sweeteners. Increasing public concern about these issues; possible new taxes and governmental regulations concerning the marketing, labeling or availability of our beverages; and negative publicity resulting from actual or threatened legal actions against us or other companies in our industry relating to the marketing, labeling or sale of sugar-sweetened beverages may reduce demand for our beverages, which could affect our profitability.

When faced with such public concern, CSR efforts aim at “legitimizing a corporation’s activities and increasing corporate acceptance.”[3] Philanthropy and cause-marketing campaigns are key parts of the soft drink industry’s CSR efforts.

Soft Drink Industry Philanthropy

Coke and Pepsi both have corporate foundations that make grants to non-profit organizations and institutions.  In 2008, the Coca-Cola Foundation Inc. made over $36 million in grants to organizations worldwide.[4] In 2009, the PepsiCo. Foundation, Inc. made $27.9 million in domestic grants.[5] In order to receive a grant, applicants must engage in work that meets the stated goals of the foundation, make an application and, once funded, follow the grant guidelines. The Coca-Cola Foundation and the PepsiCo. Foundation are required to publicly disclose grant recipients and total assets and expenditures to the Internal Revenue Service in order to maintain tax-exempt status.

Soft Drink Industry Cause-Marketing Campaigns

The use of cause-marketing campaigns is a growing trend facilitated by the rise of social networking online. Also referred to as “cause-related marketing,” cause-marketing traditionally has been defined as “a mutually beneficial collaboration between a corporation and a nonprofit in which their respective assets are combined to: create shareholder and social value; connect with a range of constituents (be they consumers, employees, or suppliers); and communicate the shared values of both organizations.”[6] Cause-marketing is distinct from corporate philanthropy because the corporate funds distributed “are not outright gifts to a nonprofit organization, so they are not treated as tax-deductible charitable contributions.”[7]

The Pepsi Refresh Project is an example of a cause-marketing campaign. Pepsi-Refresh is a program whereby members of the public submit ideas with a funding request and vote on whether or not to fund the concept. In 2010, PepsiCo pledged $20 million in funds for the Refresh campaign. This amount is distinct from its corporate foundation giving made through the PepsiCo Foundation and, as a marketing expenditure, is not subject to the same public disclosures required of private foundations. The underlying goal of the Pepsi Refresh cause marketing campaign is to sell more Pepsi products. When asked if Pepsi Refresh has been successful, Melisa Tezanos, Communications Director of PepsiCo Americas Beverages, replied:

Pepsi Refresh has been an overwhelming success. With over 2.8 billion (with a “B”!) earned media impressions, the project exceeded our internal benchmarks early in the year and we’ve seen an improvement in key brand health metrics. In fact, when Millennials, an important cohort group for Pepsi, know about the Refresh Project their purchase intent goes up.[8]

Ms. Tezanos clearly defines “success” not in terms of work done in the community funded by the program, but rather in terms of increasing the profile of Pepsi products and increasing sales amongst a key demographic. Social media is an important tool in cause-marketing campaigns as it facilitates the sharing of campaign materials that are embedded with product advertising and enables individuals to recruit other individuals to the campaign with relatively little effort.

ENSURING THE INTEGRITY OF YOUR ORGANIZATION’S HEALTH PROMOTION EFFORTS

The practical reality is that soft drinks are now for sale in almost every venue, e.g. hospitals, universities, youth centers, and public buildings via vending machines and on-site retail establishments.  In addition, corporate philanthropy by the soft drink industry and other private companies provides funding to a number of institutions and organizations that also have an interest in health promotion.  While organizations should re-examine traditional arms-length business relationships and donor/recipient relationships, emerging soft drink industry corporate social responsibility efforts that use cause-marketing and public relations tactics require special attention.  As part of a deliberate CSR strategy, these campaigns are embedded with product advertising, and often require participants to enlist other participants via social networking online. In addition, cause-marketing seeks to build an association between a company’s products and a trusted non-profit organization in order to build market share.  Organizations that care about health should establish a policy that identifies and distinguishes between traditional business relationships, corporate philanthropy and cause-marketing and should commit to not participate in cause-marketing campaigns that promote products, such as sugary drinks, that pose a public health threat.

Share/Print/E-Mail

RICHMOND, VA. – Just eight days before the Altria Group, Inc. 2011 Annual Shareholders Meeting in this historic city,  Altria Group’s former Chief Executive Officer, Louis Camilleri, complicated matters for his successor.  At the Philip Morris International Annual Shareholders Meeting in New York City on May 11, 2011, Camilleri answered a question from a shareholder who is also a nurse who has treated many smokers with serious diseases.  While admitting that smoking is addictive, Camilleri added the comment that “it is not that hard to quit” using tobacco products.  That comment made international headlines after the Associated Press reported it.

So, when Altria Group’s Szymanczyk gave management’s report at the meeting in Richmond on May 19^th, he specifically, on page 10 of his prepared remarks stated: “Because tobacco use is addictive and it can be very difficult to quit, our tobacco companies help connect adult tobacco consumers who have decided to quit with cessation information from public health authorities.”

During the question and answer session, shareholder Rev. Michael Crosby of the Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility and I both pressed Szymanczyk to state whether, as Altria Group’s CEO, he disagreed with Camilleri’s comment and, if so, why.  Refusing to do so, he stated that “I would simply say that what I said is on our website.  There is nothing new here.”  The juxtaposition between the public statements of two tobacco executives just six days apart was the central focus of the Richmond Times-Dispatch article on the meeting.

I also pressed Szymanczyk on the issue of the ongoing Engle Progeny trials taking place in Florida.  Noting that 30 out of 43 (now, as this report is written, 32 out of 46) such trials resulting in verdicts have seen jurors return plaintiff verdicts, I asked whether Altria Group, for the sake of its shareholders, would abandon its no-settlement policy regarding the thousands of  Engle Progeny cases remaining throughout Florida.  His response was simply to refer shareholders to the company’s 10Q form, which restates its standard policy of refusing to settle these cases.

Virginia shareholder Anne Morrow Donley, citing studies from March 2011 which showed that a fetus subjected to secondhand smoke is at a higher risk of stillbirth, lower birth weight and lower birth length , asked Szymanczyk whether he would publicly advise smokers not to smoke around women of child-bearing age.  His response was to acknowledge that pregnant women should not be exposed to secondhand smoke, but he refused to broaden that recommendation to include women of child-bearing age.

Cathy Rowan, representing shareholder Trinity Group, noted Altria Group’s willingness to address concerns about implementing internally agreed upon code upholding the human rights of tobacco farm workers and about ensuring that the company’s suppliers are enforcing those rules.  Altria Group’s cooperation with shareholders following a 2009 vote of shareholders where 25% supported a resolution to protect the human rights of farm workers stands in contrast to the rigid opposition by the management of Reynolds American, Inc.  to similarly worded resolutions.

In his prepared remarks, Szymanczyk also bragged about Altria Group’s donations to various charitable and civic organizations, including the Boys and Girls Clubs, 4H, as well as the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, the Kennedy center and the National gallery of Art.  He boasted that “Altria made nearly $50 million in cash and in-kind corporate contributions to non-profit organizations” in 2010, without noting that the $50 million figure represented just 0.205% of the company’s net revenues ($24.363 billion) in 2010.

A shareholder resolution was offered, calling on the Board of Directors to move “to ensure that Altria stops the production of any of its tobacco products with characterizing flavoring added, as well as their distribution and marketing, unless and until it can be proven by independent and evidence-based research that such added characterizing flavors do not contribute significantly to youth initiation of tobacco use.”   That resolution was defeated, with 97.5% of shares voting NO, with 2.5% voting YES.

“]

At a Richmond restaurant after the 2011 Altria Group, Inc. Annual Shareholders Meeting. From left to right: Anne Morrow Donley, Rev. Michael Crosby, Cathy Rowan and Edward L. Sweda, Jr.

Share/Print/E-Mail

Share/Print/E-Mail

Santa Clara County, CA and the City and County of San Francisco, CA enacted ordinances requiring restaurants to meet nutrition criteria for children’s meals that use incentive items such as toys to drive child consumer demand. Neither law bans the use of toys or other incentive items, and both laws are designed to protect children from being baited into requesting unhealthy meals.  The Governor of Arizona recently signed into law a provision barring local governments from putting any limits on the use of “consumer incentive items” in “retail food establishment marketing.”  Florida currently has an even broader law on the Governor’s desk that would prevent local control over “all matters related to the nutritional content and marketing of foods offered” at public food and lodging establishments. As chronicled by the LA Times, both of these laws were carefully orchestrated by the restaurant industry in response to so-called “toy bans.” In point of fact, both laws go far beyond Happy Meal toys.

In addition to protecting vulnerable child consumers, local governments regulate business conduct under their police power and zoning authority for a number of reasons including aesthetics, public health and public safety.  Arizona’s consumer incentives law essentially exempts food retailers from any local regulation that may have an impact on their business activities related to consumer incentives.  “Consumer incentives” are broadly defined to include:  “any licensed media character, toy, game, trading card, contest, point accumulation, club membership, admission ticket, token, code or password for digital access, coupon, voucher, incentive, crayons, coloring placements or other premium prize or consumer product” associated with a meal served by or acquired from a restaurant, food establishment or convenience store.  The legislation pending in Florida strips local control over “all matters related to the nutritional content and marketing of foods offered” at public food and lodging establishments.

Many communities maintain the character of their communities through local aesthetic-related zoning laws. Imagine a small city with a historic downtown preserved by local zoning ordinances to protect the aesthetic character of the city. The community becomes concerned when a quick service restaurant starts putting large signs in its windows marketing a combo meal with a wrapper that one can scan with one’s phone to get points towards a future purchase.  A local authority goes out to talk to the franchise owner and ask him to remove the signs as they are not in keeping with the local zoning ordinance. The restaurant owner refuses to remove the signs.  Under the legislation enacted in Arizona and pending in Florida, the city would be powerless to challenge the practice.

The as yet to be enacted Florida law, is so broad that it would prevent local governments from requiring additional nutritional disclosures to consumers about the calorie or sodium content of restaurant menu items.  In addition, some states delegate consumer protection authority to city and county attorneys. Such authority was used by a city attorney to make the first formal challenge to misleading “Immunity” claims on children’s cereal marketed at the height of the swine flu outbreak. The pending Florida law arguably would even exempt any food marketing by a restaurant or public lodging from local city or county attorney enforcement of deceptive and unfair business practices laws.

A recent story by Reuters run in a number of news outlets analogized  the current legislation to “cheeseburger” or “commonsense consumption” bills, also sponsored by the restaurant industry. Cheeseburger bills are on the books in over 20 states and bar personal injury claims against food makers and restaurants for injuries related to long term over-consumption of food. Many state cheeseburger bills, however, do not immunize food sellers from liability when they knowingly violate laws pertaining to marketing, distributing, advertising, labeling or sale of the goods such as state consumer protection statutes prohibiting deceptive, unfair or unconscionable trade practices. The very purpose of local ordinances tying child incentive items to nutritional quality is to protect children from the fundamentally unfair and deceptive use of toys to generate child requests for unhealthy foods. The Arizona and Florida laws contain no such exemption to allow local intervention to protect vulnerable consumers from deceptive and unfair food marketing.

The law in Arizona and the pending legislation in Florida, strip local governments not only of the ability to protect children from harmful business conduct, their expansive nature jeopardizes local control over many other important business conduct issues.  These laws fundamentally change the rules of the game that local governments have depended on to maintain community character and to protect their communities.

Share/Print/E-Mail