Group uses ad campaign to attack obesity epidemic claim
Group uses ad campaign to attack obesity epidemic claim
The obesity problem in the United States has been grossly overplayed, according to a group of unidentified restaurateurs and food manufacturers.
Under the banner of the Center for Consumer Freedom, the group launched a $600,000 advertising blitz over the last couple of weeks attacking the Center for Disease Control & Prevention and its claims that obesity accounted for hundreds of thousands of deaths in the United States each year. The group, which is structured as a nonprofit organization, has come under scrutiny from the media and health organizations in the past.
According to a number of stories written in the consumer press since the campaign began in late April, the Consumer Freedom group began as the Guest Choice Network a decade ago. At that time, it was fighting the concept that second-hand smoke was injurious to one's health, and was an opponent of smoking bans in restaurants. It has also railed against issues related to Mad Cow Disease. Its target has moved around a bit, but it always focused in some manner on consumption and what it calls the effort by the "food police" to limit choice.
The obesity ads question, Has the war on obesity gone too far? In fact, that was the slogan on a television ad last fall featuring the Seinfeld television series Soup Nazi character barking at an overweight consumer, Nothing for you! Come back when youre thinner. In February, the group broadcast another ad, showing a lawyer grilling a Girl Scout for selling cookies.
The latest advertising campaign was specifically aimed at the CDC. The ads appeared in six major newspapers, including in Atlanta, where the CDC is based. In March 2004, the CDC published a report linking obesity to 400,000 deaths a year in the United States. That figure was amended in April of this year to 112,000 deaths, but CDC still maintained that obesity is a major public health threat.
The ad campaign calls on CDC to come clean and admit it made a mistake. The inference is that obesity is not a problem. In response to the ad campaign, the CDC issued its own press release, which stated, We still consider obesity to be a major public health threat, although theres uncertainty about the number of deaths from obesity.
The Center for Consumer Freedom was apparently formed and is run by Richard Berman, who also has an ad agency. The Consumer Freedom group and its predecessors have been the ad agencys largest clients, funneling millions of dollars to that agency over the past decade. Mr. Berman would not disclose which groups belong to the Center for Consumer Freedom other than to characterize the members as a coalition of restaurant and food companies, as well as some individuals.
Reporters as well as a public watchdog group called Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington have questioned the non-profit status of the Center for Consumer Freedom as well as the source of its funding. The watchdog groups claims that Philip Morris Co. was the original supporter of the organization, giving $600,000 in seed money. It also claims that current contributors include Tyson Foods Inc. as well as restaurateurs such as the Host Marriott Corp.; Brinker International Inc., which owns the Chilis Grill & Bar and Maggianos Little Italy restaurant chains; RTM Restaurant Group, the owner of Arby s; and Wendys International Inc.
The watchdog group has asked the Internal Revenue Service to revoke the Center for Consumer Freedoms 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, claiming that funds are not used to educate consumers but rather to advocate a point of view and funnel money to Mr. Bermans ad agencies.
Its activities, the organization said, are not remotely charitable.
Even as the Center for Consumer Freedom was attacking the CDC for its obesity figures, another study reported that obesity remains a big problem and is especially increasing among affluent Americans. The study, conducted by the University of Iowa College of Public Health, found that obesity has increased nearly threefold over a 30-year period among Americans who earn more than $60,000 per year. The report said that there is now little difference in obesity rates between income groups.
In the 1970s, fewer than 10 percent of the most affluent were obese, compared with almost a quarter of those earning less than $25,000. In 2001-02, just a handful of percentage points separated all income groups.
The anti anti-obesity ad campaign was launched to coincide with the release of the new Food Pyramid Guidelines by the USDA. That new graphic has come under attack from many arenas, including the Produce for Better Health Foundation and editorial writers around the country. Many are questioning if the food industry was too involved in the preparation of the new Food Pyramid, as its main goal appears to be to promote all agricultural products as opposed to clearly directing consumers to the food items that are best for them.
For example, an editorial in the Pasadena (California) Star News was titled MyPyramid poorly designed to promote healthy eating. The editorial began: It took four years and a whopping $2.4 million, but the U.S. Department of Agriculture has finally rolled out a redesigned version of the food-guide pyramid. Unveiled earlier this month, the new 'MyPyramid is supposed to offer Americans clear guidance on how to eat a nutritious diet and maintain a healthy weight. But somewhere, somehow, this ambitious renovation project went terribly wrong. As a nutritionist, I think the result is an unsightly graphic that seems almost deliberately calculated to confuse and mislead consumers struggling with obesity, diabetes, and other diet-related illnesses.
Elizabeth Pivonka of PBH called it very confusing . Another prominent produce industry member who wished to remain anonymous and who worked closely with USDA and the process, said that there is no doubt the new MyPyramid has the hand prints of the processed food industry all over it.
Under the banner of the Center for Consumer Freedom, the group launched a $600,000 advertising blitz over the last couple of weeks attacking the Center for Disease Control & Prevention and its claims that obesity accounted for hundreds of thousands of deaths in the United States each year. The group, which is structured as a nonprofit organization, has come under scrutiny from the media and health organizations in the past.
According to a number of stories written in the consumer press since the campaign began in late April, the Consumer Freedom group began as the Guest Choice Network a decade ago. At that time, it was fighting the concept that second-hand smoke was injurious to one's health, and was an opponent of smoking bans in restaurants. It has also railed against issues related to Mad Cow Disease. Its target has moved around a bit, but it always focused in some manner on consumption and what it calls the effort by the "food police" to limit choice.
The obesity ads question, Has the war on obesity gone too far? In fact, that was the slogan on a television ad last fall featuring the Seinfeld television series Soup Nazi character barking at an overweight consumer, Nothing for you! Come back when youre thinner. In February, the group broadcast another ad, showing a lawyer grilling a Girl Scout for selling cookies.
The latest advertising campaign was specifically aimed at the CDC. The ads appeared in six major newspapers, including in Atlanta, where the CDC is based. In March 2004, the CDC published a report linking obesity to 400,000 deaths a year in the United States. That figure was amended in April of this year to 112,000 deaths, but CDC still maintained that obesity is a major public health threat.
The ad campaign calls on CDC to come clean and admit it made a mistake. The inference is that obesity is not a problem. In response to the ad campaign, the CDC issued its own press release, which stated, We still consider obesity to be a major public health threat, although theres uncertainty about the number of deaths from obesity.
The Center for Consumer Freedom was apparently formed and is run by Richard Berman, who also has an ad agency. The Consumer Freedom group and its predecessors have been the ad agencys largest clients, funneling millions of dollars to that agency over the past decade. Mr. Berman would not disclose which groups belong to the Center for Consumer Freedom other than to characterize the members as a coalition of restaurant and food companies, as well as some individuals.
Reporters as well as a public watchdog group called Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington have questioned the non-profit status of the Center for Consumer Freedom as well as the source of its funding. The watchdog groups claims that Philip Morris Co. was the original supporter of the organization, giving $600,000 in seed money. It also claims that current contributors include Tyson Foods Inc. as well as restaurateurs such as the Host Marriott Corp.; Brinker International Inc., which owns the Chilis Grill & Bar and Maggianos Little Italy restaurant chains; RTM Restaurant Group, the owner of Arby s; and Wendys International Inc.
The watchdog group has asked the Internal Revenue Service to revoke the Center for Consumer Freedoms 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, claiming that funds are not used to educate consumers but rather to advocate a point of view and funnel money to Mr. Bermans ad agencies.
Its activities, the organization said, are not remotely charitable.
Even as the Center for Consumer Freedom was attacking the CDC for its obesity figures, another study reported that obesity remains a big problem and is especially increasing among affluent Americans. The study, conducted by the University of Iowa College of Public Health, found that obesity has increased nearly threefold over a 30-year period among Americans who earn more than $60,000 per year. The report said that there is now little difference in obesity rates between income groups.
In the 1970s, fewer than 10 percent of the most affluent were obese, compared with almost a quarter of those earning less than $25,000. In 2001-02, just a handful of percentage points separated all income groups.
The anti anti-obesity ad campaign was launched to coincide with the release of the new Food Pyramid Guidelines by the USDA. That new graphic has come under attack from many arenas, including the Produce for Better Health Foundation and editorial writers around the country. Many are questioning if the food industry was too involved in the preparation of the new Food Pyramid, as its main goal appears to be to promote all agricultural products as opposed to clearly directing consumers to the food items that are best for them.
For example, an editorial in the Pasadena (California) Star News was titled MyPyramid poorly designed to promote healthy eating. The editorial began: It took four years and a whopping $2.4 million, but the U.S. Department of Agriculture has finally rolled out a redesigned version of the food-guide pyramid. Unveiled earlier this month, the new 'MyPyramid is supposed to offer Americans clear guidance on how to eat a nutritious diet and maintain a healthy weight. But somewhere, somehow, this ambitious renovation project went terribly wrong. As a nutritionist, I think the result is an unsightly graphic that seems almost deliberately calculated to confuse and mislead consumers struggling with obesity, diabetes, and other diet-related illnesses.
Elizabeth Pivonka of PBH called it very confusing . Another prominent produce industry member who wished to remain anonymous and who worked closely with USDA and the process, said that there is no doubt the new MyPyramid has the hand prints of the processed food industry all over it.
