Obesity: Personal Responsibility, Corporate Liability, Govern Mentality and Food Justice

Johanesen 1

Jasmine Johanesen COMM 114J Professor Keith Pezzoli 31 May 2015

Obesity: Personal Responsibility, Corporate Liability, Govern mentality and Food Justice

The rise of obesity health related conditions has stimulated the debate big between accountability in individual responsibility vs that corporate liability. The Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act, also known as the Cheeseburger Bill was proposed in 2005 at the national level and protects the fast food industry from liability of the foods they serve in relation to obesity related disease. Some states have their version of the cheeseburger bill, as seen by

Minnesota’s Common Sense in Consumption Act. These acts pose dangers in perpetuating food injustices because it limits litigation which is a powerful public interest tool for consumers to expose the correlation between the unethical practices and harmful effects of their food with the rise in obesity, in relation to to larger structural issues that are at play such as food desserts, economic dependency, inequitable education and the health care system. Food justice seeks to ensure that “the benefits and risks of where, what and how food is grown and produced, transported, distributed, accessed and consumed are shared fairly” (Gotleib): I find this definition so critical to mention because it is so ironic that we look to our judicial system for remedy of our injustices, but when regarding FOOD, ethical accountability is absolved in capitalist America into a matter solely attributed to personal responsibility. Gotleib and Joshi use a cost benefit analysis (benefits and risks) to define food justice, and when applying this definition to the Johanesen 2 correlation between the fast food industry and obesity, as we come to see the benefit and risks are not shared fairly, therefore food justices are occurring and we are limited legally! Litigation is a powerful tool to slow fast food down and protect consumers, communities and a sustainable food culture for the future. Many scholars compare litigation as a tool for the fast food industry as having the same potential as tobacco industry revolution of the tobacco industry and, however, these bills threaten that potential, and therefore limit change. limit bringin it can be used to implement consumer protection such as zoning laws and other regulations. Litigation allows the government to hear the side of the consumer; our voices are powerful and should not be muted by corporations pushing the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act (PRFCA).

The benefits and risk are not shared fairly in many ways surrounding the Gotleib and

Joshi food justice definition, but for the sake of thoroughness, I will limit myself to the categories of: production, distribution, marketing and consumption. Production: the foods are produced at a low price hence a great profit margin for the corporations, with addictive ingredients giving disease cost on consumers and the united states healthcare system. They are also produced/distributed at a low wage at the expense: “Its labor practices also leave millions of workers without a livable income or the benefits that allow working people to escape poverty.”

(Gagnon) and lastly in the category of production: “raising the millions of animals demanded by the industry for its menu items contributes to global climate change. the low wages and meager benefits that McDonald’s and other fast food corporations offer employees keep prices down but workers poor.” (Gagnon)

Distribution: the disease laden food is distributed unevenly throughout the nation in low income neighborhoods with lack of education, and even in schools and hospitals. Johanesen 3

Marketed: inexpensive and marketed to naive and vulnerable consumers, and visually depicted in commercials as fresh and healthy. In addition, “corporations like McDonald’s can afford to spend hundreds of millions on advertising, which they can then deduct from their taxes as a business expense, allowing them to attract more customers than the mom and pop food stores that can’t afford advertising.” (Gagnon)

Consumed: the people who consume the foods are economically, physically and locatativley dependent on these foods, and while save a money on the value later, they incur diabetes and obesity related diseases in the future which leads to other health costs which they can’t afford. “First, meals served in fast food outlets contain high levels of sugar, fat, sodium and calories. Growing scientific research shows that eating foods high in these substances increases the risk of heart disease, stroke, depression, diabetes, asthma and other chronic diseases, all of which contribute to premature death. Beyond tragic emotional and physical consequences, these health risks in turn impose huge costs on our health care system.” (Gagnon) “Unfortunately, the

“value meals” that McDonald’s, Burger King and other chains offer are often high in calories and low in nutrients, forcing low-income consumers to exchange today’s low prices for tomorrow’s risk of heart disease or diabetes.” (Gagnon)

The fast food industry profits from promoting products that contribute diet related diseases like diabetes. They are able to get the price of their food that low because processed foods are cheaper to produce. Meanwhile “Millions of people across the United States suffer needlessly from diet-related conditions, putting an increasing burden on our already broken health care system In 2011, McDonald’s reported revenues of $27 billion and an operating profit of more than $8.5 billion.8 Meanwhile, PepsiCo, maker of soft drinks and salty snacks (among many other foods), saw revenues of $66 billion and profits of more than $9 billion.9 Although Johanesen 4 both corporations proudly introduced new products they claimed were healthier, the vast proportion of sales, advertising and profits came from their core business: selling high-fat, high- salt and high-sugar products around the world.” (Gagnon) Applying it to food justice which seek fairness, NAME OF THE PERSON AND FROM WHAT INSTITUTION claims “it is unfair for big corporations to profit by speculating on the well-being of the 99 percent who aren’t multi- millionaires. Just as many want to hold big banks and speculators accountable for the damage to the economy and the misery they have caused, and the tobacco industry accountable for its legacy of illness and death. Many now feel it is time to tell the fast food industry to stop sacrificing our health for its profits.” Which is why the bill should be heavily considered because it takes away our right to seek justices in injustice. Like martin Luther kinds states “an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” (Cite) and THIS PERSON FROM WHAT

INSTITUTION STATES “dangerous trend that could gradually limit communities’ abilities to protect themselves through policy.” (Gagnon)

The Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act (PRFCA) is a federal bill was introduced in 2005, sparked by a class action law suit brought up in 2002 by two teenagers from the Bronx, suing them for being Obese. While, PRFCA and has not yet passed senate to officially reach national level, at least 20 states have made their own version of the

“cheeseburger bill” more accordingly “the common sense in consumption act.” (Hartman 2) The

Act states that

“food-producing or retailing corporations cannot be legally held responsible for obesity, heart disease, or other health-related issues caused by consumption of their food, save for situations where actual food quality or handling was held responsible for such issues” (Wikipedia) while other states have similar acts such as Common Sense in Consumption act, with the personal responsibility in food consumption act comes to federal level, I call to question the Johanesen 5 importance of unveiling framing discourses that uphold the wording of the both the state and federal version of the acts.

The PRFCA as it functions to reduce corporate liability and accountability of production and dissemination of products, doesn’t absolve it completely, rather the framing of the act its self creates a discourse on the grounds by which one can have standing in the first place. For example

PRFCA states “save for situations where actual food quality or handling was held responsible for such issues.”(Wiki) I argue that “actual food quality or handling was responsible for such issues” is framed as a discourse because it functions to not apply to the situation at hand, even though it does: the actual food quality and handling is responsible for heart disease, and other related issued caused by the consumption of the product or the SCIENCE BEHIND THE PRODUCT.

“Unhealthy foods such as chocolate, sugar, meat and cheese are physically addictive. Overeaters also demonstrate typical addiction behaviors such as craving lkoss of control, and relapse.”

(Simon 2) research shows that eating foods high in sugar, saturated fats these substances increases the risk of heart disease, stroke, depression, diabetes, asthma and other chronic diseases, all of which contribute to premature death. (Gagnon)

Minnesota governor vetoed their cheeseburger bill, acknowledging the discourse and framing issue previously discussed, Harman states “but he disagreed with language of allowing people to sue over weight gain if the company committed a ‘knowing and willful’ violation of state or federal law.” Claiming that those two words create “two broad of an exemption from liability.” (Hartman 2) this is attributed to the fact that one wouldn’t be able to discover intent or knowing without litigation moreover, acknowledge large structural issues that take part in consumption and therefore perpetuating the injustices, because how can food consumers access proof malicious willful intent of addictive additives, predatory marketing etc. without having the Johanesen 6 industry on the defense? They can’t despite discoveries from Physicians Committee for

Responsible Medicine that “some food manufacturers deliberately target consumers who are vulnerable to certain food addictions.” (Simon 2) The framing discourse of the PRFCA stresses

Personal Responsibility, and allowing a system of companies “The idea is that if people believe that only individuals are responsible for their own eating behaviors, then companies cannot be blamed for the consequences, whether through litigation or legislation. This strategy conveniently absolves corporations from any accountability for the billions of dollars they spend each year on marketing their unhealthy products.” (Simon 2) while subsequently reducing the problem of obesity to personal choice.

The “Common Sense” in Consumption Act is a mockery to consumers everywhere because quite frankly, McDonalds ingredients are far from common knowledge to the average consumer let alone to the young consumers they target and those living in an educationally improvised areas in addition to advertising techniques that imply health.

Ellen Fried, who teaches food law at New York University, says the suit is not about obesity per se, but about how McDonald’s has deceptively advertised its food as healthy. "Most people didn’t think that going to McDonald’s every day was a problem. It was advertised as healthful and perfectly OK to eat every day. The lawsuit is not about ‘I ate this and it made me fat," it’s about what you told me about eating this way, or didn’t tell me.” The lawsuit also alleges that McDonald’s failed to advise customers of risks that were not common knowledge, due to unfamiliar ingredients. In his initial decision, the judge in the case made this statement about Chicken McNuggets. “Rather than being merely chicken fried in a pan, [they] are a

McFrankenstein creation of various elements not utilized by the home cook.” this sort of information that is being kept from consumers thanks to industry lobbying to ensure that Johanesen 7 restaurants are not required to label ingredients in menu items. (Simon 3) One person claims that

“he thought it was healthy” (Simon 3)

The wording of the bill is wrong because it implies a hypethetical equality with the word

“if”: "If a person knows or should know that eating copious orders of super-sized McDonald's. products is unhealthy and may result in weight gain," Sweet wrote in January, “if” because it is arbitrary, clearly in the case, the plaintiff’s did not know that eating McDonald’s would lead to their condition” In January, the judge dismissed the first version of the suit, saying the plaintiffs failed to show McDonald's food was "dangerous in any way other than that which was open and obvious to a reasonable consumer." How do we deny the fact that but still the fast food industry has fought the labeling, and expect their ingredients to be “common sense?” especially when they are visually depicted as healthy? And what does it say about the fast food industry who has constantly “Resisted efforts to require outlets to provide customers with accurate, accessible nutrition information” (Fedup)

Time and time again we have seen the government side on personal responsibility to favor corporate America, claiming that earing those food and their effects are “common sense.”

Meanwhile, the government claims that pizza and French fries are vegetables. (FedUp) and given that McDonald is the largest purchaser if beef and potatoes in the world. (Food Inc) at some point the government needs to address that other factors others than personal “excesses” is fueling obesity. “It is not the place of the law to protect them from their own excesses."(CNN)

Litigation is strong tool to expose the in LARGER STRUCTUREs surrounding food justice such as food desserts, economic inequalities and environmental impacts and intent, science behind the food, and address change Johanesen 8

Litigation is a strong tool as seen in the Tabaco industry, and can be used to expose the correlation between unethical practices and the science biologically harmful effects of products with the obesity epidemic, and expose larger structural issues needed for change. Many scholars stress the importance of litigation as a public interest tool by relating the modern fast food industry to contemporary battles against the Tabaco industry because they both have made efforts to fight off liability: “The food industry has learned from tobacco that litigation is a powerful public interest tool” (Simon 1) “Some advocates have suggested that the health warning labels on cigarettes, which have shown to contribute to reductions in smoking, might serve as an example for fast food.”(Simon 2) Claiming that a number of lawsuits led to “a massive 50 year scheme to defraud the public. This well documented trail of industry deception was critical to shifting public opinion, giving policymakers the support they needed to pass significant public healthy measure that have reduced smoking rates and lessened exposure to secondhand smoke.” (Simon 2)

Litigation can also be beneficial exposing larger structural problems such as food desserts or disproportionate food distribution of adequate food in low income areas, and expose “zoning laws can restrict the number of fast food outlets, as well as encourage economic development that is beneficial—not detrimental—to public health.” (Gagnon) through implementation and design of these acts, the government ignores larger structural issues at play such as urban planning in regard to accessibility to groceries stores both in terms of placement and transportation to them, and the economic dependability of the unhealthy products produced by the food industry. The PRFCA shields the exposure of voices that need to be heard such as

Jazlyn Bradley, the Bronx teenager that brought the first lawsuit against McDonald, and by which fueled the acts implementation itself. Simon acknowledges my point that litigation can be Johanesen 9 used to expose other issues regarding food justice and compares it to the case that fueled the cheeseburger bill when she states “Also, often overlooked is how people in wealthier areas have much greater access to healthier foods. There are as many as four times the number of supermarkets -- which carry a wide variety of fresh produce -- in white neighborhoods than in most predominantly black ones. Often, in neighborhoods like the one where Jazlyn Bradley lived, McDonald’s and the corner liquor store are the only food options available.” (Simon 2)

Research suggests that low-income neighborhoods have disproportionately higher concentrations of fast food outlets and Jan Perry, a south Los Angeles city counsilwoman states “If people don’t have better choices or don’t have the time or knowledge or curiosity, they are going to take what’s there. To say that these restaurants are not part of the problem would be foolish.”

(Gagnon)

The Corporate Accountability International claim that it is unethical to advertise to children given their vulnerable state of critical thinking, and view fast food practices that facilitate play structure, toys, and other child luring propaganda as malicious. The American

Academy of Pediatrics published the following statement: “Advertising directed toward children is inherently deceptive and exploits children under eight years of age.” (Gagnon) Local ordinances have helped challenges the industry-perpetuated myth that parental responsibility somehow precludes corporate accountability for abuses like the saturation of children’s lives with marketing.(Gagnon) The ordinance—and others that have followed—targets the undue influence huge corporations have on children’s behavior, in spite of parents’ best efforts

(Gagnon) “And, kids are especially targeted by the likes of McDonald’s, through toys, playgrounds and other tactics that exploit children’s unique vulnerabilities.” “eSchools should be a place where children are free from corporate marketing. And yet across America, schools are Johanesen 10 succumbing to economic pressures and opening their cafeteria doors to corporations such as

Pizza Hut and Taco Bell”

By attributing obesity as sole a matter of personal responsibility, larger structural issues are ignored, and implementing the PRFCA dons allow for exposing the obvious correlation between obesity and the fast food practice. How can we expose and make change to fact that research that finds that “unhealthy foods such as chocolate, sugar, meat and cheese are physically addictive. Overeaters also demonstrate typical addiction behaviors such as craving loss of control, and relapse,” (Simon 2) if we cannot sue them for it. Or the malicious intent to target vulnerable demographics as seen from the findings of Physicians Committee for Responsible

Medicine that “some food manufacturers deliberately target consumers who are vulnerable to certain food addictions.” (Simon 2) The vast majority of TV food ads are for products high in sugar, salt and fat, the ingredients most related to chronic disease risk. (Gagnon) Attributing obesity to personal responsibility is such a capitalistic move is not even funny: “Fast food corporations want us to think the reason that people are eating so much of their products is because they are simply providing what people demand. In this report we take a longer view of this common industry argument, making the case that fast food consumption has increased as a result of the industry’s concerted effort to create a world where fast food is the cheapest, easiest, most available choice. By remaking our food environment, the fast food industry has limited our ability to take control of our food system and make healthier choices.” (Gagnon) the consequences poses threats for a sustainable food, health and economic environment for the future: “Moreover, by resisting policies that would make these corporations pay their fair share of the health burdens to which their marketing practices contribute, the fast food industry adds Johanesen 11 unsustainable costs to our health care system”.(Gagnon) The PRFCA perpetuates food injustices founded Goteleib and Joshi’s definition.

Work Cited

Simon, Michelle. "CorpWatch : Food Giants on the Run." CorpWatch : Food Giants on the Run. 21 Mar.

2005. Web. 12 June 2015.

Food, Inc. Magnolia Home Entertainment, 2009. DVD.

Hartman, Pat. "Whatever Happened to the "Cheeseburger Bill"?" Childhood Obesity News. 29 Feb. 2012.

Web. 12 June 2015.

CNN. Cable News Network, 20 Oct. 2005. Web. 12 June 2015.

Fed up. Weinstein Company, 2014. Film.

Gagnon, Monica, and Nicholas Freudenburg. "Slowing Down Fast Food." (2012). Web. 12 June 2015. .