DOCSLIB.ORG

Paper Presented to the Political Studies Association Conference Midland Hotel, Manchester 16 April 2014 SNAP: the Sound of the U

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Paper Presented to the Political Studies Association Conference Midland Hotel, Manchester 16 April 2014 SNAP: the Sound of the U Paper presented to the Political Studies Association conference Midland Hotel, Manchester 16 April 2014 SNAP: the Sound of the US Food Chain Breaking Please do not cite without author permission Clodagh Harrington (Dr) De Montfort University Leicester [email protected] Twitter @DMUClodagh 1 The challenges facing the Obama presidency have been so numerous and relentless, and some so intense, that a propensity for the administration to focus on high-profile issues such as foreign policy and the economic crisis, became the norm early on. With attention turned to headline-grabbing developments, other more insidious problems were easily overlooked. The early twenty-first century crisis in the American food chain did not start, and will not end, with the Obama administration. The impact of this crisis has been multi- faceted, with a specific and urgent aspect related to the well-being of individuals. The dietary health of a majority of citizens in contemporary America is in a state of disrepair, starkly demonstrated by the highest male obesity rate in the world.1 An additional and associated problem stemmed from the fact that in 2013, 15% of the population were unable to feed themselves without government assistance in the form of food stamps. In contrast, those on the more comfortable end of the nation’s socio-economic spectrum remained largely immune from such ills as the pursuit of high quality locally sourced produce became little short of a fetish for many well-heeled Americans. Meanwhile, the dietary problem and disease burden of the poor continued to grow, even as the Obama administration tried to get a grip on the issues involved in the need to promote a healthier America. A starting point for any public policy challenge is Deborah Stone’s basic question, is a problem in the first place?2 Even the term ‘problem’ is value-laden and open to vastly differing interpretations and solutions. All politics involves a range of perspectives and perceptions, and locating anything resembling a universal truth or collective agreement on action, is little short of mythical. Policy-making inevitably involves a struggle between and amongst institutions, interests and individuals and the realm of food politics and policy is no exception. Few would deny that serious problems existed with the nutritional status of poorer Americans, particularly as poverty and inequality were exacerbated in the post 2008 era. In 2013 one in six Americans received governmental food assistance and one in three adults 1 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Factbook 2013 http://www.oecd- ilibrary.org/sites/factbook-2013-en/12/02/03/index.html?itemId=/content/chapter/factbook-2013-100-en 2 D. Stone, Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making, W W Norton & Co, (2001) 2 were classed as obese.3 At Michelle Obama’s ‘Let’s Move’ campaign launch in 2010, the First Lady did not mince her words, declaring that ‘the physical and emotional health of an entire generation and the economic health and security of our nation is at stake.4’ The initiative came at a time when the US Centre for Disease Control classed 18% of American children aged between 6 and 18 as obese. Clearly this was problematic, and not just for the individuals involved. Hence, if the answer to Stone’s preliminary question was a resounding ‘Yes,’ then progress could be made towards solving the potentially unifying conundrum of ‘what is to be done?’ Firstly however, a more immediate and complex question arose. ‘Whose problem is it?’ Responses ranged from apportioning blame on the individual to take responsibility for their own food choices, to lambasting the government for not sufficiently taxing unhealthy foodstuffs and forcing the overweight public to step up to the (healthy) plate. Both extremes were clearly unrealistic, and in addition, the influential role of the industrial food complex must be considered. It is the purpose of this paper to outline what the problem is, why it matters and to what extent it is relevant to consider whether government may have a hand in fixing it. The Obama administration has at least opened a dialogue on the topic, albeit an increasingly fractious and partisan one, as the controversy involved in efforts to pass the 2012 Farm Bill clearly illustrated.5 Food Stamps When Barack Obama won the 2008 presidential election, there were 28.2 million Americans receiving food stamps. By the time he secured his second term, 47.8 million were Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Programme (SNAP) recipients. During this period, spending on the programme rose from $36.4 billion to $74.6 billion. Throughout the 2012 election campaign, presidential candidate Newt Gingrich repeatedly referred to Barack 3 Global Research (2013) Poverty in the USA: Nearly 50 Million Americans on Food Stamps, (March) http://www.globalresearch.ca/poverty-in-the-u-s-a-nearly-50-million-americans-on-food-stamps/5328986; CDC (2012) Obesity is Common, Serious and Costly, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NCHS Data Brief No 82, (January) 4 Let’s Move launch, 9 February 2010. http://www.letsmove.gov/learn-facts/epidemic-childhood-obesity 5 Politico.com, ‘Farm Bill Talks Intensify,’ 20 November 2013, http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/food- stamp-costs-farm-bill-100158.html 3 Obama as ‘the food stamp president.6’ Gingrich’s label was pejorative, however the rise in the availability of food stamps was not necessarily due to the president’s unqualified desire for increased government expenditure. It may have been more to do with the direct correlation between the poverty rate and the number of individuals requiring food stamps. The 2012 election campaign focused heavily on the nation’s struggling middle classes, with little mention of the 49 million Americans living in poverty. Candidates Mitt Romney and Barack Obama criticised each other’s approach to those on the lower end of the socio- economic scale – the former framed as uncaring and disconnected, and the incumbent vilified for handing out food stamps like confetti. Whilst poorer citizens requiring extra government assistance at a time of crisis had strong historical precedent, the scale and cost of the food stamp programme had reached epic levels by Obama’s second term. The issue went far deeper than the need for a temporary handout. When the first Food Stamps Programme was introduced in 1939, hunger, health and nutrition were key policy challenges for the Roosevelt administration. At its height in the early 1940s, 20 million Americans were recipients of a programme costing $262 million. In 1964, President Johnson introduced the Food Stamp Act and advocated establishing a permanent programme. By the 1970s, one in fifty Americans was receiving food stamps. In 2012, the figure was one in seven. This was a staggering increase, and one that was not fully explained by the 2008 financial collapse as half of all recipients in 2012 had been on the programme for eight years or more.7 In 2013, 15% of the US public received food stamps, with the highest uptake rate in Mississippi (22%) and Washington DC (23%). Usage had increased since the previous year, despite the apparent economic improvement. This raises the question of why there was such a heavy reliance on subsidised food? Perhaps it was because 47 million Americans were in such dire financial circumstances that they could not put food on the table, or maybe it was a result of the administration relaxing the requirements for social welfare 6 Washington Post, ‘Gingrich says Obama is the ‘food stamps president.’ Is he?’ 18 January 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/gingrich-says-obama-is-the-food-stamp-president-is- he/2012/01/18/gIQA1Ino8P_blog.html 7 United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, ‘A Short History of SNAP’ (no date) http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/short-history-snap; Forbes Magazine, ‘Who receives food stamps and why is it critical to continue their support?’ Beth Hoffman, 23 September 2013, http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/09/23/who-receives-food-stamps-and-why-it-is-critical-to- continue-their-support/ 4 programmes as part of his 2009 economic stimulus legislation. Or, conceivably the latter was a response to the former. In any case, the welfare relaxing was a state, rather than a federal initiative.8 The USDA’s Undersecretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services Kevin Concannon explained that SNAP was designed to extend benefits as poverty levels increase and would contract once the economy showed signs of improvement. SNAP eligibility was loosened in the light of the 2008 financial crisis, and for the first time, those entitled could have savings or a low-wage job. For supporters, this appeared a logical response to the severity of the post-2008 situation. The government explained that expanding eligibility would mean that, for example, those searching for work could afford to put gas in their car and pay their phone bill – two essential components of job-hunting. For detractors in Washington and elsewhere, it demonstrated the government’s determination to reinforce a negative situation and expand welfare dependency. Philosophically, Republicans were not comfortable with the idea of food stamps, as they perceived it as counter to that cornerstone of American civic culture, self-reliance. House Budget Committee Chairman, Republican Paul Ryan suggested that SNAP become a block-grant programme, that would allow individual states to control spending, and likely impose cuts to a system that many believed had reached far beyond its original remit, and urgently needed scaling back.9 When President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act in 1996, it stipulated that there would a finite period during which an able-bodied American would be eligible for food assistance.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Food Stamps, Follow the Money: Are Corporations Profiting from Hungry Americans?
    FOOD STAMPS Follow the Money Are Corporations Profiting from Hungry Americans? Michele Simon JUNE 2012 Food Stamps: Follow the Money Are Corporations Profiting from Hungry Americans? 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report examines what we know Each of these sectors has a critical stake (and don’t know) about how food in debates over SNAP, as evidenced by manufacturers, food retailers, and banks lobbying reports, along with important benefit from the Supplemental Nutrition data being kept secret. Assistance Program (or SNAP, formerly known as food stamps). The nation’s Key findings about largest food assistance program, SNAP corporate lobbying on SNAP: expenditures grew to $72 billion in 2011, up • Powerful food industry lobbying groups from $30 billion just four years earlier, and teamed up to oppose health-oriented is projected to increase even more if the improvements to SNAP economy does not improve. • The food industry also joined forces with Right now, Congress is debating the anti-hunger groups to lobby against SNAP 2012 Farm Bill—and some politicians are improvements proposing massive cuts to SNAP at a time • Companies such as Cargill, PepsiCo, and when more Americans than ever need Kroger lobbied Congress on SNAP, while this important lifeline. Meanwhile, some also donating money to America’s top anti- health experts are raising questions about hunger organizations whether it makes sense to allow SNAP purchases for unhealthy products such • At least nine states have proposed bills as soda and candy. Advocates are also to make health-oriented improvements to looking for ways to incentivize healthy SNAP, but none have passed, in part due to food purchases.
    [Show full text]
  • Clowning with Kids' Health – the Case for Ronald Mcdonald's
    Brought To You By: and its campaign Clowning With Kids’ Health THE CASE FOR RONALD MCDONALD’S RETIREMENT www.RetireRonald.org Table of Contents FOREWORD ....................................................................................... Page 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. Page 2 RONALD MCDONALD: A RETROSPECTIVE .......................................... Page 4 Birth of a pioneer…in marketing to kids ................................................ Page 5 Clown at a crossroads ........................................................................ Page 6 Where’s RONALD? ........................................................................... Page 7 What did Americans find? .................................................................... Page 8 Clowning around schools .................................................................... Page 8 McSpelling and Teaching .................................................................... Page 10 The Ironic Ronald McJock .................................................................... Page 11 Providing his own brand of healthcare ................................................... Page 12 Taking to the tube .............................................................................. Page 13 The McWorld Wide Web ....................................................................... Page 14 PUTTING RONALD ON KIds’ BraINS, PAST PARENTS ......................... Page 15 The power of getting the brand in kids’ hands
    [Show full text]
  • The Growing Obesity Disparity Digisha R
    Seton Hall University eRepository @ Seton Hall Law School Student Scholarship Seton Hall Law 2017 The Growing Obesity Disparity Digisha R. Bhavsar Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.shu.edu/student_scholarship Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Bhavsar, Digisha R., "The Growing Obesity Disparity" (2017). Law School Student Scholarship. 931. https://scholarship.shu.edu/student_scholarship/931 The Growing Obesity Disparity ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digisha R. Bhavsar Public Health Law Fall 2016 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….3 II. Identifying the Ongoing Problem………………………………………………………..5 a. Lack of Access to Affordable Healthy Food..………………………………………….5 b. Fast Food Availability in Low Income Communities…………………………………9 c. Limited Access to Safe Places to be Physically Active…..…………………….…...12 III. Currently Adopted Policy Interventions……....……………………………………….14 a. Legislation within Schools..…………………………………….………………………14 b. Legislation Intended for Obese Adult Populations………………………………17 c. Fast Food Availability in Low Income Communities………………………………..18 IV. Recommendations for Change………………………………..………………………...20 a. Solutions to Close the Food Access Gap…………………………………………...…20 b. Regulating the Fast Food Industry…………………………………………………….23 c. Recommendations to Provide Safe Places in Low Income Communities…………25 V. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………..27 2 I. INTRODUCTION Adult obesity rates have more
    [Show full text]
  • Unconstitutional Food Inequality
    Unconstitutional Food Inequality Andrea Freeman* ABSTRACT Racial disparities in food-related deaths and disease are vestiges of slavery and colonization that have persisted for too long. Rhetoric around personal responsibility and cultural preferences obscure the structural causes of these disparities. Regulatory capture by the food industry makes reform through the political process unlikely or subject to severe limitations. This article explores the structural causes of food inequality by examining how two U.S. Department of Agriculture nutrition programs, the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations and the National School Lunch Program, contribute to food-related health disparities. First, it traces food inequality back to slavery and colonization. Most slave owners carefully rationed out food to fuel labor but prevent revolts. On almost all plantations, enslaved people ate a non- nutritious diet that led to a plethora of nutrition-related illnesses and deaths. Similarly, colonization occurred in great part through the destruction of Indigenous foodways. Land theft, displacement, and the intentional elimination of food sources led to starvation and illness. Lack of access to healthy food still represents one of the most significant obstacles to Black and Indigenous Peoples’ full participation in society, contributing to lower life expectancy, serious illness, and cultural erasure. The Reconstruction Amendments provide a constitutional basis for challenging these two USDA nutrition programs, in addition to other laws and policies that lead to health disparities and food injustice. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION......................................................................................... 841 I. FOOD LAW AND INEQUALITY FROM SLAVERY AND COLONIZATION TO THE PRESENT........................................................................... 845 A. Dietary Control During Slavery ..................................... 846 B. Food Inequality After Slavery ........................................
    [Show full text]
  • UC Hastings (Spring 2015) Hastings College of the Law Alumni Association
    UC Hastings Scholarship Repository Hastings Alumni Publications Spring 2015 UC Hastings (Spring 2015) Hastings College of the Law Alumni Association Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.uchastings.edu/alumni_mag Recommended Citation Hastings College of the Law Alumni Association, "UC Hastings (Spring 2015)" (2015). Hastings Alumni Publications. 139. http://repository.uchastings.edu/alumni_mag/139 This Magazine Issue is brought to you for free and open access by UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Alumni Publications by an authorized administrator of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. UC HastingsUniversity of California Made in San Francisco | Ready for the World DRIVING CHANGE How students, faculty, and alumni are making the world a better place Professor Radhika Rao examines the thorny legal issues associated with assisted reproductive technologies. PLUS: Legal strategies to improve public health / How to fix San Francisco’s housing crisis / Lyft’s legal team discusses the new sharing economy SPRING 2015 { CONTENTS } 02 | FROM THE DEAN 03 | FOR THE RECORD Highlights from the annual Swearing-In Ceremony. 04 | TRENDING Social media updates from and about the UC Hastings community. 06 | IN BRIEF A new program in East Asian Legal Studies, the Individual Representation Clinic’s impressive victories, Lawyers for America, and more. 18 | ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP Game-changing legal research and analyses from Professors Radhika Rao, Abe Cable, Kate Bloch, John Crawford, Upfront Heather M. Field, and John Leshy. 60 | COMMUNITY Departments In post-earthquake Napa, two leaders of the county’s criminal justice system rebuild through a UC Hastings connection. 62 | ADVANCEMENT 72 UC Hastings’ second Honors Gala, the Investing in Opportunity campaign, and the record-setting philanthropy of the class of ’64.
    [Show full text]
  • S O U N D C O N S U M
    Dedicated to informing and educating IN THIS ISSUE members and the public about food and agriculture, consumer food concerns, What do egg labels mean?, page 8 and the cooperative business model. PCC board of trustees election, page 9 No. 503 • May 2015 New grass-fed beef, page 12 SOUND CONSUMER Families Helping Families May 1 to May 31 THE FUTURE OF MEAT? PCC Healthy Kids is excited to once again join efforts with Seattle Children’s Hospital for our Fami- lies Helping Families program. All month long, PCC will donate 5 percent of PCC Kid Picks product sales, up to a total of $10,000, to support the Children’s Organic Garden at Seattle Chil- Made from dren’s Hospital. In spring 2013, the hospital launched the garden plants to teach patients and families how to develop and sustain healthy eating and lifestyle habits at home. The purpose of the garden is to provide a hands-on learning environment to help overcome barriers and promote sustainabil- ity of a healthy lifestyle, making Image credit: a lasting impact in the lives of Impossible Foods families. See pccnaturalmarkets. com/r/3260 for more. PCC’s top-rated canned tuna High-tech startups are aiming to revolutionize the food system by certain properties from the molecule found Greenpeace USA ranked 14 in plant hemoglobin that make blood red well-known canned tuna brands creating meat, egg and dairy substitutes derived from plant compounds and gives steak its flavor. It’s hard to tell found in grocery stores across or cultured animal tissue. They can expect legal and political obstacles.
    [Show full text]
  • Tough Guise DVD PRICE REDUCED!
    www.mediaed.org MEDIA EDUCATION The nonprofit Media Education Foundation produces and distributes documentary films and other educational resources to inspire critical reflection on the social, FOUNDATION political, and cultural impact of American mass media. TABLE OF CONTENTS Media & Representation .......................... 04 Gender, Sexuality & Health ..................... 10 The Culture of Consumerism .................. 16 Media & Culture .......................................... 24 Politics & Current Events .......................... 26 Video Index .................................................. 34 Order Form ................................................... 35 BOARD OF ADVISORS Noam Chomsky | Jeff Cohen | Susan Douglas Michael Eric Dyson | Susan Faludi | Henry Giroux Stuart Hall | bell hooks | Jackson Katz Jean Kilbourne | Naomi Klein | Pepi Leistyna Robert McChesney | Jack Shaheen | Juliet Schor Norman Solomon | John Stauber | Ellen Wartella MEDIA EDUCATION FOUNDATION 60 Masonic St. | Northampton, MA 01060 Tel. 800.897.0089 | Fax 800.659.6882 www.mediaed.org | [email protected] SUPPORTING MEF Support MEF’s progressive, independent mission by purchasing the videos in this catalog and using them to inspire critical thinking about media. We also welcome your donation to support the pro- duction and distribution of future films, as well as need-based reduced pricing. Please add a tax- deductible donation to your order or give online at www.mediaed.org. Thank you for helping to keep these critical resources available. SATISFACTION GUARANTEED We take pride in the quality of our videos and guarantee 100% satisfaction. You can return any DVD, for any reason, for a full refund or credit within 90 days of purchase. Your only cost is return postage. MEF offers full-length previews online for your consideration. Please see p.35 for our preview and exchange policies. ADDITIONAL PLACES TO ORDER MEF films are also available through other video vendors.
    [Show full text]
  • Against - Index No
    SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK NATIONAL RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Petitioner, - against - Index No. 654024/2015 THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF IAS Part 15 HEALTH & MENTAL HYGIENE; THE NEW YORK Justice Rakower CITY BOARD OF HEALTH; and DR. MARY TRAVIS BASSETT, in her Official Capacity as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Defendants-Respondents. MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF AMICI CURIAE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION, CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, CHANGELAB SOLUTIONS, COALITION FOR ASIAN AMERICAN CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, THE FOOD TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHRONIC DISEASE DIRECTORS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY AND CITY HEALTH OFFICIALS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL BOARDS OF HEALTH, NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION, NEW YORK STATE ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS, NOTAH BEGAY III FOUNDATION, PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK CITY, AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW CENTER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS Kim E. Richman Seth E. Mermin THE RICHMAN LAW GROUP Thomas Bennigson 81 Prospect Street Jonathan S.M. Francis Brooklyn, New York 11201 PUBLIC GOOD LAW CENTER 3130 Shattuck Avenue Ian McLaughlin Berkeley, California 94705 Sabrina Adler CHANGELAB SOLUTIONS Kerry Cork 2201 Broadway Street PUBLIC HEALTH LAW CENTER Oakland, California 94608 875 Summit Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55105 Counsel for Proposed Amici Curiae TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................................ iii PRELIMINARY
    [Show full text]
  • Spinning Food • Friends of the Earth Contents
    Acknowledgements This report was written by Kari Hamerschlag, Friends of the Earth U.S.; Anna Lappé, Real Food Media Project; and Stacy Malkan, US Right to Know. We gratefully acknowledge Haven Bourque, Haven B Media; Lisa Archer, Friends of the Earth U.S.; Paul Towers, Pesticide Action Network; and Abigail Seiler, Center for Food Safety for providing review of the draft report. We also thank Maria Deloso, Friends of the Earth, for extensive editorial and research assistance as well as Nora Gilbert for fact-checking assistance. This report was made possible in part through the generous support of the Food and Farm Communications Fund as well as generous in-kind donations from Real Food Media Project. We are grateful for their support. The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of its supporters or reviewers. Any errors or omissions in this report are the responsibility of the authors and Friends of the Earth U.S. About Friends of the Earth: Friends of the Earth U.S., founded by David Brower in 1969, is the U.S. voice of the world’s largest federation of grassroots environmental groups, with a presence in 74 countries. Friends of the Earth works to defend the environment and champion a more healthy and just world. Through our 45- year history, we have provided crucial leadership in campaigns resulting in landmark environmental laws, precedent-setting legal victories and groundbreaking reforms of domestic and international regulatory, corporate and financial institution policies. Our current campaigns focus on promoting clean energy and solutions to climate change, ensuring the food we eat and products we use are safe and sustainable, and protecting marine ecosystems and the people who live and work near them.
    [Show full text]
  • Pdf2016-06-28 Food Law and Policy Scholars Amicus
    Case: 15-35960, 06/28/2016, ID: 10032977, DktEntry: 45, Page 1 of 43 No. 15-35960 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. LAWRENCE G. WASDEN, Attorney General of the State of Idaho Defendant-Appellant . On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FOOD LAW & POLICY SCHOLARS in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees Animal Legal Defense Fund, et al. Mahesha P. Subbaraman SUBBARAMAN PLLC 222 S. 9th Street, Suite 1600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 315-9210 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae Food Law & Policy Scholars Case: 15-35960, 06/28/2016, ID: 10032977, DktEntry: 45, Page 2 of 43 Corporate Disclosure Statement In accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, the undersigned counsel hereby certifies that this amici brief is filed on behalf of 15 food scholars, collectively referred to as the “Food Law and Policy Scholars.” These amici speak as individuals and therefore have no parent corporation or shareholders who are subject to disclosure. Respectfully submitted, Dated: June 28, 2016 SUBBARAMAN PLLC By: s/Mahesha P. Subbaraman Mahesha P. Subbaraman SUBBARAMAN PLLC 222 S. 9th Street, Suite 1600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 315-9210 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae Food Law & Policy Scholars i Case: 15-35960, 06/28/2016, ID: 10032977, DktEntry: 45, Page 3 of 43 Table of Contents Page Table of Authorities .............................................................................................. iii Amici Identity, Interest, & Authority to File ....................................................... 1 Summary of the Argument .................................................................................... 4 Argument ................................................................................................................. 5 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Can Food Companies Be Trusted to Self-Regulate - an Analysis of Corporate Lobbying and Deception to Undermine Children's Health Michele Simon
    Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Law Reviews 5-1-2006 Can Food Companies Be Trusted to Self-Regulate - An Analysis of Corporate Lobbying and Deception to Undermine Children's Health Michele Simon Recommended Citation Michele Simon, Can Food Companies Be Trusted to Self-Regulate - An Analysis of Corporate Lobbying and Deception to Undermine Children's Health, 39 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 169 (2006). Available at: http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol39/iss1/7 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CAN FOOD COMPANIES BE TRUSTED TO SELF-REGULATE? AN ANALYSIS OF CORPORATE LOBBYING AND DECEPTION TO UNDERMINE CHILDREN'S HEALTH Michele Simon, JD, MPH* I. INTRODUCTION Despite rising levels of childhood obesity and diabetes, coupled with complaints from public health and children's advocates about the connection to excessive marketing of junk food to children,' the government has maintained a hands-off policy in this area. Instead, the food industry is expected to police itself, with modest guidance from federal regulators. This hands-off policy was made plain last July when the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) co-hosted a workshop entitled, "Marketing, Self- Regulation, and Childhood Obesity."2 A full two-thirds of the Van- elists had financial ties to either the food or advertising industry.
    [Show full text]
  • “It Always Seems Impossible Until It's Done.”
    “It always seems impossible until it’s done.” NELSON MANDELA, 1918-2013 POWER ANNUAL REPORT 2013 “ You give me hope. For more than 36 years your commitment has made this organization bold and effective—and gives the next generation a robust vision of the change that’s possible.” KELLE LOUAILLIER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LETTER FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Dear Friend, If you’ve ever visited Corporate Accountability International’s campaign headquarters, you’ve experienced the fast pace and energy driven in large part by the enthusiasm of our staff, volunteers and young interns. For many of our interns particularly, working here is the first time they are directly challenging abusive global powers. It’s the first time they’re seeing the impact they can make. And it’s the first time they’re contemplating how far we still have to go. So I wasn’t surprised when an intern recently asked me what gives me hope. I didn’t miss a beat: You give me hope. For more than 36 years your commitment has made this organization bold and effective—and gives the next generation a robust vision of the change that’s possible. I’ve had the honor of serving the organization for 25 years, and I am very proud of what we’ve accomplished together so far. Impact requires commitment, and the kind of boldness to believe we can stop nuclear weapons … help establish a precedent-setting, lifesaving global treaty … rebuild a broken food system … move the World Bank. Those of you like Reverend Dick and Shirley Harding, who have been with the organization since its beginning, know what transformational social change looks like.
    [Show full text]