The GMO Industry Doesn’t Want You to See This Video

Print Email Share Tweet

In this video, the GMO industry’s main PR firm, Ketchum, brags about how it spun the media on GMO issues, and how it snoops on the social media accounts of people concerned about GMOs.

The video was just taken down after we called attention to it, probably because it’s embarrassing to Ketchum and the agrichemical industry.  But we’ve put it up again, so that you can see it.

Ketchum is a fascinating PR firm.  In addition to advocating for GMOs, they are also Russia’s PR firm*.  We Americans don’t trust them when they speak for Russia and President Putin, so why should we trust them when they speak for GMOs?

Ketchum was also apparently involved in an espionage effort against nonprofit organizations concerned with GMOs.

Please do spread the word about this video.  Thanks!

*[Update: Ketchum PR announced in March 2015 that it ended its partnership with Russia for undisclosed reasons. The Russia account was actually spun off  to fellow Omnicom property GPlus, as Patrick Coffee reported in Adweek. Ketchum’s service to Russia provides “two perfect examples of why the public at large distrusts the PR industry,” Coffee wrote. In its DOJ filing, Ketchum reported terminating its relationship with the Russian Federation on Jan. 1, 2016.]

The Junk Food Industry Loved FDA’s Margaret Hamburg

Print Email Share Tweet

Margaret Hamburg, Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, announced yesterday that she would soon leave her post.

Here’s one easy way to tell that she was a greater friend to the junk food industry than to consumers:

Pamela Bailey, president and chief executive officer of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, told Food Business News “I commend Dr. Hamburg for her years of dedicated service as F.D.A. Commissioner…Under her leadership, the agency successfully ushered in the most sweeping set of reforms to our nation’s food safety system in a generation through the implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act (F.S.M.A.). She was an activist commissioner in the best sense of the term: personally engaged in the important issues and always seeking the views of all stakeholders.”

That’s high praise from the leading trade association of the junk food industry.

International Dairy Foods Association – key facts

Print Email Share Tweet

Summary

International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) represents dairy manufacturers, processors, and marketers

Petitioned to add artificial sweeteners to milk without special notation on package

Consumers Union sharply critical of petition to add sweeteners to milk without labeling

* Close ally of the sweetener and candy manufacturers

Calls ice cream a “nutritious” snack for kids…

… but opposed more fruits/vegetables in Women & Infant Children nutrition program

Opposed FDA changes to recommended daily nutrients since dairy could seem less healthy

Spent more than $1.5 million annually in lobbying from 2011-2013

Spent over $60,000 to send members of Congress and staff to tropical destinations

IDFA Petitioned to Put Artificial Sweeteners in Milk without Additional Labeling

In 2013, the IDFA petitioned the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to allow the use of artificial sweeteners in milk without additional labeling requirements.

According to the FDA, the petition calls for FDA to change the “standard of identity” for milk. A standard of identity is the federal requirement that determines what ingredients some food products must (or may) contain to be marketed under certain names.

The petition asks the FDA “to amend the standard of identity for flavored milk and 17 other dairy products (including nonfat dry milk, heavy cream, eggnog, half-and-half and sour cream) so that non-nutritive sweeteners are among the standard ingredients. The products would then not require any additional description on the label.”

“If we granted the petition, a carton of chocolate milk made with non-nutritive sweeteners would simply say ‘chocolate milk,’ the same as a carton made with nutritive sweeteners, such as sugar,” said Felicia Billingslea, director of FDA’s Food Labeling and Standards staff. “You would need to read the ingredient list, which is typically on the back or the side of the product, in order to tell the difference between the two.” [Food & Drug Administration]

The Food & Drug Administration provides the following visual representation of how the change would impact labeling:

ucm347940

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Food & Drug Administration]

Consumers Union: IDFA Proposal “Would Decrease, Not Increase, Fair Dealing In The Interest of Consumers”

The Consumers Union opposes IDFA’s petition and issued comments critical of the plan.

“We urge the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to reject the IDFA/NMPF petition, because we believe the proposed changes will not “promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers,” as claimed by the proponents, but instead could have just the opposite effect,” Consumers Union wrote to the Food and Drug Administration.

“We think this does not ‘promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers’ as claimed in the petition. Indeed, we believe the petition is misleading in that regard, and that the proposed change would decrease, not increase, fair dealing in the interest of consumers. [Consumers Union comments of IDFA petition, 5/21/13]

Chicago Tribune: Petition “Has Caused an Uproar Among Some Parents, Consumer Activists and Physicians”

According to the Chicago Tribune, “The request has caused an uproar among some parents, consumer activists and physicians, who see it as little more than a ploy to sell more milk by confusing consumers about what’s in the product.”

“The critics particularly object to the idea of marketing the milk to children as part of the federal school lunch program because, they believe, children are not likely to read ingredient lists. They also cite doubts — including those of government-commissioned medical committees — about whether artificial sweeteners are safe for developing bodies,” the Tribune reported. [Chicago Tribune, 5/9/13]

Green Bay Gazette: IDFA Proposal “Distorts Reality”

A 2013 editorial in the Green Bay Gazette criticized the IDFA plan to use artificial sweeteners in milk without additional labeling.

The proposal would “make it less apparent whether artificial ingredients have been added to your regular or flavored milk,” the Gazette wrote.

“In other words, nowhere on the label of the milk carton will it say “reduced calorie” or “reduced sugar” or words that would let you know they’ve been artificially sweetened. So you might grab a jug of regular milk only later to realize it tastes sweet or your chocolate milk tastes differently. Then when you examine the ingredients you see that it has been artificially sweetened. (At that time let’s hope that you’re not allergic to such artificial additives.)…
“… This idea is wrong on many counts. Let’s put aside the safety of artificial sweeteners. Promoting consumption of milk with an artificial sweetener without putting that on the label distorts reality, plus we question the effectiveness of serving kids (or adults) artificially sweetened drinks in a fight against obesity…”

“… If the dairy industry believes in artificially sweetening milk, then it should believe in labeling its products as such.” [Green Bay Gazette, 4/9/13]

IDFA is Closely Tied to the Sweeteners and Candy Industry

The International Dairy Foods Association is a close ally of the sweeteners industry.

Member of the Coalition for Sugar Reform

The IDFA is a member of the so-called “Coalition for Sugar Reform,” a front group that lobbies for candy makers who want access to cheap sugar from overseas. [Coalition for Sugar Reform; Philadelphia Inquirer, 5/20/13]

Co-Hosts International Sweetener Colloquium

In 2014, the IDFA was a co-host of the International Sweetener Colloquium at the St. Regis Monarch Beach in Dana Point, California. The Sweetener Colloquium is one of the premier events of the sweeteners industry. [IDFA.org]

The IDFA will once again co-host the Sweetener Colloquium in 2015, this time at the Waldorf Astoria Orlando in Orlando, Florida. [Supermarketnews.com]

IDFA Says That Ice Cream is a “Nutritious” Snack for Kids…

In 2013, the IDFA commended the U.S. Department of Agriculture for its “Smart Snacks in Schools” foods standards that included ice cream as options.

“We applaud USDA for highlighting the importance of dairy in children’s diets and taking the necessary steps to help kids meet the dietary recommendations for milk and dairy products,” said Clay Hough, IDFA senior group vice president. “Milk, yogurt, cheese, dairy snacks and ice cream are all options that are nutritious and tasty snacks for kids.” [IDFA press release, 6/27/13]

… But Opposed Changes to Add More Fruits and Vegetables to Women and Infant Children (WIC) Nutrition Program

In December 2002, then-IDFA CEO E. Linwood Tipton vowed that his organization would oppose adding more fruits and vegetables to the Women and Infant Children (WIC) program if that meant fewer dairy products in the program.

“In July, for instance, the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee that [Sen. Herb] Kohl chairs demanded the USDA immediately publish revised food specifications consistent with ‘the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and USDA’s Food Guide Pyramid.’ But that was before the dairy industry, a powerful constituency in Kohl’s home state, started to worry that a government effort to combat obesity in Americans might lead the Agriculture Department and Congress to replace some dairy products with fruits and vegetables in federal nutrition programs. Simply adding fruits and vegetables to the WIC program probably would not have touched off the current lobbying battle. But Congress is unlikely to increase funds for the program, so adding new foods would mean cutting money for dairy. E. Linwood Tipton, president and CEO of the International Dairy Foods Association, wrote [Dept. of Agriculture Secretary Ann] Veneman on Sept. 6 that the organization ‘will vigorously oppose WIC food packages that detrimentally affect the rightfully prominent role of dairy products in the package, unless USDA grounds its new policies in sound science that fully supports the revisions.’” [CQ Weekly, 12/13/02]

IDFA Opposed Adjusting Recommended Daily Values of Nutrients Because They Could Make Dairy Products Appear Less Healthy

In July 2014, the IDFA submitted a comment to the Food and Drug Administration, which was considering rule changes regarding recommended daily values of nutrients, claiming that such changes would make dairy products appear less nutritious.

“Changes to nutrients that are required to be declared or to the daily values and corresponding percent Daily Values declared, can make a food appear to have a lower nutritive value, even if no changes have been made to the product. This may be particularly true for foods and beverages such as dairy products that are naturally nutrient-rich, or that may not be able to modify nutrient levels to accommodate newly proposed Daily Values because of specific provisions in the standards of identity.” [IDFA comment on proposed FDA rule, Docket No. FDA-2012-N-1210, regulations.gov, submitted 7/31/14]

Spent More Than $1.5 Million Annually Lobbying Congress

According to OpenSecrets.org, IDFA spent more than $1.5 million annually lobbying Congress between 2011 and 2013.

In 2011, IDFA spent, $1,515,000 on lobbying, which increased to $1,616,000 in 2012, and $1,730,000 in 2013. In most other years, IDFA’s lobbying spending was typically close to $500,000 annually. [Center for Responsive Politics, opensecrets.org, accessed 12/21/14]

Spent More Than $60,000 Sending Members of Congress and Staff to Warm-Weather Destinations

According to federal travel records maintained by Legistorm, from 2000 to 2014 the IDFA spent $64,216 sending 35 members of Congress or their staff on trips to conferences, with nearly every trip going to a warm-weather destination like Florida or southern California during the winter months. [Legistorm.com, accessed 12/21/14]

U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance – key facts

Print Email Share Tweet

Summary

* Funders include Monsanto and DuPont

* Small farmers criticized use of mandatory marketing fees to promote “Big Ag”

* Other partners include BASF, Dow

USFRA is represented by PR giant Ketchum

Ketchum’s clients include the Russian Federation

Ketchum’s work for the Russian Federation include pushing propaganda for Putin, aiding in a campaign to have Putin named Time Magazine’s 2007 “Person of the Year”

* LA Times: USFRA-funded documentary “lobbyist propaganda”

Funders Include Monsanto, DuPont

As of 2011, USFRA was to have an $11 million annual budget.

The funding would come partly from mandatory marketing fees the Department of Agriculture helps collect from farmers, and from corporations like Monsanto and DuPont, each of which committed to an annual contribution of $500,000. [New York Times, 9/27/11] 

Organization Now Claims Budget is “Less than $12 Million,” But Plans to Expand

USFRA says that its current budget “is less than $12 million,” but “Over time, we expect our program budget to grow as more affiliates and industry partners join our movement.” [http://www.fooddialogues.com/content/faqs]

Organization Claims a Third of Funding Comes from Industry Partners

According to USFRA, 32 percent of its funding comes from its industry partners.

“68 percent of our funding is coming from farmer- and rancher-led affiliates,” the group claims. [http://www.fooddialogues.com/content/faqs]

Partners Include BASF, Dow, Merck and Others

USFRA’s “Premier Partner Advisory Group” includes both DuPont and Monsanto, while its “Industry Partner Council” includes BASF, Cargill, Dow AgroSciences, Elanco Animal Health, Merck Animal Health, Syngenta and Zoetis. [http://www.fooddialogues.com/content/affiliates-board-participants-and-industry-partners]

Small Farmers Upset Mandatory Marketing Fees Used to Promote “Big Ag”

 In a January 2014 article, Bloomberg Businessweek reported that smaller farmers were complaining about the use of mandatory marketing fees, or checkoffs, to fund USFRA, claiming that they had to “fork over money to support activities and advertising that benefit agribusiness, but not necessarily those with small and mid-size operations.”

The article noted that USFRA’s affiliates and partners “are just the kinds of groups that are normally associated with Big Ag,” and that the articles on the USFRA tend to support industrial agriculture, including supporting the benefits of genetically modified crops.

But this caused anger from smaller farmers, including Mike Callicrate, a Colorado rancher who said he found it “very offensive” that USFRA was receiving mandatory marketing fees.

“The whole purpose of those checkoffs being made available to [USFRA] is to promote industrial agriculture that is driving the family farm right out of business,” Callicrate said. [Bloomberg Businessweek, 1/29/14]

PR Giant Ketchum Represents USFRA

In 2011, USFRA announced that PR giant Ketchum would serve as its primary communications agency. [Agri-Pulse, 3/24/11]

Russian Government Among Ketchum’s Clients, Helping Putin Generate Propaganda

Since 2006, Ketchum has served as the PR firm for the Russian Federation, helping the Russian government to place opinion pieces in American news sources, including the New York Times, the Huffington Post and MSNBC.

One of the op-ed columns, which appeared in the New York Times, was published under the byline of Vladimir Putin. [ProPublica, 9/12/13; New York Times, 8/31/14]

The New York Times reported in 2014 that “The company still works with Mr. Putin’s closest advisers, according to current and former employees of Ketchum.

The Times reported that Ketchum “said it worked with Time magazine to have Mr. Putin named the magazine’s Person of the Year in 2007.” [New York Times, 8/31/14]

Ketchum Represented Russian Government-Controlled Energy Company Gazprom

Until recently, Ketchum served as the PR firm for the Russian government-controlled energy company, Gazprom. [New York Times, 8/31/14]

Ketchum Worked for Dow Chemical

Ketchum has worked for (and may continue to work for) Dow Chemical. [DC Court Records]

Other Ketchum Clients Include Drug Companies, Chemical Companies, Food Producers

    • Clorox Company
    • Frito-Lay
    • Hershey’s
    • Pfizer
    • Procter & Gamble
    • Wendy’s International

[O’Dwyer’s Public Relations Firm Database]

LA Times: USFRA-Funded Documentary “Lobbyist Propaganda”

In May 2014, the Los Angeles Times published a review of the documentary Farmland, that was made with the “generous support” of USFRA.

The Times review claimed the film “often comes off like lobbyist propaganda,” and a “puff piece.” While the documentary contains farmers who both support and oppose organic farming technique, the film “does not supply statistics or unaffiliated experts to substantiate or dispute any of the farmers’ claims and provide a broader perspective.” [Los Angeles Times, 5/1/14]

RWJF Goes Soft on Marketing to Kids

Print Email Share Tweet

American children are suffering from and epidemic of marketing- and food-related diseases, such as obesity and type 2 diabetes.

Today, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) released its recommendations on marketing to children. Alas, they read like a kindergarten teacher wagging a finger at a wayward kid. They propose only voluntary measures. This is not a way to get tough with the food industry.

The food industry likes voluntary measures, because they are ineffective.

With “advocacy” like this, no wonder our children are in trouble.

The marketing of junk food to children should be illegal. Parents and children deserve the right to be let alone. There is no reason why corporations should have more rights than parents to influence our own children.

Our nation’s children need us to stand up for them. They need us to stand up to the commercial speech doctrine, and to say that children are more important than the first amendment rights of corporations.

Seedy Business: What Big Food is Hiding with its GMO PR Campaign

Print Email Share Tweet

For Immediate Release: Tuesday, January 20, 2015
For More Information Contact: Gary Ruskin (415) 944-7350

Download report at http://usrtk.org/seedybusiness.pdf

Download report at http://usrtk.org/seedybusiness.pdf

U.S. Right to Know – a new nonprofit organization — released a new report today on Big Food’s PR campaign to defend GMOs: how it manipulated the media, public opinion and politics with sleazy tactics, bought science and PR spin.

Since 2012, the agrichemical and food industries have mounted a complex, multifaceted public relations, advertising, lobbying and political campaign in the United States, costing more than $100 million, to defend genetically engineered food and crops and the pesticides that accompany them. The purpose of this campaign is to deceive the public, to deflect efforts to win the right to know what is in our food via labeling that is already required in 64 countries, and ultimately, to extend their profit stream for as long as possible.

This campaign has greatly influenced how U.S. media covers GMOs. The industry’s PR firm, Ketchum, even boasted that “positive media coverage has doubled” on GMOs.

The report outlines fifteen things that Big Food is hiding with its artful PR campaign on GMOs.

#1: The agrichemical companies have a history of concealing health risks from the public. Time and again, the companies that produce GMOs have hidden from consumers and workers the truth about the dangers of their products and operations. So how can we trust them to tell us the truth about their GMOs?

#2: The FDA does not test whether GMOs are safe. It merely reviews information submitted by the agrichemical companies.

#3: Our nation’s lax policy on GMOs is the work of former Vice President Dan Quayle’s anti-regulatory crusade. It was designed and delivered as a political favor to Monsanto.

#4: What the agrichemical and tobacco industries have in common: PR firms, operatives, tactics. The agrichemical industry’s recent PR campaign is similar in some ways to the most infamous industry PR campaign ever – the tobacco industry’s effort to evade responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans each year.

#5: Russia’s PR firm runs the agrichemical industry’s big PR salvo on GMOs. We don’t trust the PR firm Ketchum when it spins for Russia and President Putin. Why should we trust its spin on GMOs?

#6: The agrichemical industry’s key front groups and shills aren’t trustworthy. Many of the industry’s leading advocates have records of defending the indefensible, or other scandals and conduct that inspires no confidence.

#7: The agrichemical companies have employed repugnant PR tactics. These tactics include attacks on scientists and journalists, and brainwashing children.

#8: The agrichemical companies have a potent, sleazy political machine. They have allies in high places, and employ their power vigorously – and sometimes corruptly — to protect and expand their markets and their profits from GMOs.

#9: Half of the Big Six agrichemical firms can’t even grow their GMOs in their own home countries. Because of the health and environmental risks of GMOs, citizens of Germany and Switzerland won’t allow farming of BASF, Bayer and Syngenta’s GMO seeds.

#10: Monsanto supported GMO labeling in the UK but opposes it in the USA. Although Monsanto is based in St. Louis, Missouri, Monsanto believes that British citizens deserve stronger consumer rights than Americans do.

#11: The pesticide treadmill breeds profits, so it will likely intensify. It is in the financial interest of the agrichemical companies to promote the evolution and spread of the most pestilential superweeds and superpests, because these will spur the sale of the greatest quantities of the most expensive pesticides.

#12: GMO science is for sale. Science can be swayed, bought or biased by the agrichemical industry in many ways, such as suppressing adverse findings, harming the careers of scientists who produce such findings, controlling the funding that shapes what research is conducted, the lack of independent U.S.-based testing of health and environmental risks of GMOs, and tainting scientific reviews of GMOs by conflicts of interest.

#13: There are nearly no consumer benefits of GMOs. The GMOs that Americans eat are not healthier, safer or more nutritious than conventional foods. They do not look better, nor do they taste better. By any measure that consumers actually care about, they are not in any way an improvement. Profits from GMOs accrue to the agrichemical companies, while health risks are borne by consumers.

#14: The FDA and food companies have been wrong before: they have assured us of the safety of products that were not safe. Many drugs and food additives that the FDA allowed on the market have subsequently been banned because they were toxic or dangerous.

#15: A few other things the agrichemical industry doesn’t want you to know about them: crimes, scandals and other wrongdoing. The agrichemical industry’s six major firms — Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow, DuPont, Bayer and BASF — have been involved in so many reprehensible activities that documenting them would require at least an entire book.

U.S. Right to Know is a new nonprofit food organization. We expose what food companies don’t want us to know about our food. We stand up for the right to know what’s in our food. We bring accountability to Big Food and its compliant politicians. For more information, please see our website at usrtk.org.

-30-

Calorie Control Council (CCC) – key facts

Print Email Share Tweet

Summary

Calorie Control Council is a trade group for manufacturers of artificial sweeteners

The CCC has “a penchant for stealthy public relations tactics”

* CCC is run by a public relations company, “functions more like an industry front group than a trade association”

 * The PR firm that runs CCC represents asbestos manufacturers, oil companies, Monsanto, fireworks manufacturers and others

Conducts own health studies, erased reference to studies into “mutagenicity,” “carcinogenicity” from website

 * CCC uses intimidation tactics against academic researchers

Defended International Dairy Foods Association petition to put artificial sweeteners in milk without additional labeling

Downplayed study that correlated diet soda consumption with premature birth

Led petition to remove saccharin from FDA list of carcinogens

Calorie Control Council is a Trade Group for Manufacturers of Artificial Sweeteners

According to its website, the Calorie Control Council represents manufacturers and suppliers of low and reduced calorie foods and beverages.

“The Calorie Control Council, established in 1966, is an international association representing the low- and reduced-calorie food and beverage industry. Today it represents manufacturers and suppliers of low- and reduced-calorie foods and beverages, including manufacturers and suppliers of more than two dozen different alternative sweeteners, fibers and other low-calorie, dietary ingredients.” [Calorie Control Council website, caloriecontrol.org, accessed 12/19/14]

CCC Has a “Penchant for Stealthy Public Relations Tactics”

According to the Center for Public Integrity, the Calorie Control Council is “a lesser-known industry group with an innocuous-sounding name, a long history and a penchant for stealthy public relations tactics.” [Center for Public Integrity, 8/6/14]

CCC Run by a PR Firm, “More Like an Industry Front Group than a Trade Association”

According to the Center for Public Integrity, the CCC “is run by an account executive with a global management and public relations firm, represents the low- and reduced-calorie food and beverage industry. But it functions more like an industry front group than a trade association.” [Center for Public Integrity, 8/6/14]

President of CCC is Haley Stevens, an Account Executive at PR Firm

Haley Stevens is the president of the Calorie Control Council. [Calorie Control Council web site]

Stevens is actually an account executive for the PR firm the Kellen Company. [Kellen Company web site]

Stevens is Also the Face of Other Front Groups Represented by Kellen

In addition to her duties as an account executive for the Kellen Company and president of the Calorie Control Council, Stevens also serves as the Executive Director of the International Food Additives Council, a Kellen Company client. [Foodadditives.org, Kellen Webinar]

Stevens has previously served – and may continue to serve – as a “Scientific Affairs Specialist” for the International Formula Council, another Kellen Client. [Kellen Company web site; New York Daily News, 9/26/11]

Kellen Group Represents Other Clients, Front Groups

In addition to the Calorie Control Council, the International Food Additives Council and the International Formula Council, the Kellen Group and its subsidiary, Kellen Adams, work for a number of other businesses, organizations and front groups, including:

  • The American Pyrotechnics Association: The American Pyrotechnics Association works to prevent bans on dangerous fireworks. [Kellen Company web site]

CCC Conducts “Scientific” Studies into Low-Calorie Foods…

According to its website, CCC does its own scientific research on low and reduced calorie foods.

“As part of this objective, careful attention to scientific research has been a cornerstone of the Council since its founding. The Council has sponsored numerous studies on low- and reduced-calorie ingredients, foods and beverages—including investigations of ingredient safety, consumer usage and public opinion.” [Calorie Control Council website, caloriecontrol.org, accessed 12/19/14]

…But Removes References to Studies into “Mutagenicity, Carcinogenicity” of Low-Calorie Foods from its Website

In September 2009, the Calorie Control Council edited its page to remove references to its studies on “mutagenicity” and “carcinogenicity” of low-calorie foods.

“As part of this objective, careful attention to scientific research has been a cornerstone of the Council since its founding. The Council has sponsored numerous studies on low-calorie ingredients, foods and beverages—including investigations in the areas of mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, metabolism, consumer usage and public opinion.” [Calorie Control Council website via archive.org, 8/20/09 vs. 9/21/09]

Uses Intimidation Tactics against Researchers Who Identify Health Risks Associated with Artificial Sweeteners

In 2013, Purdue University researcher Susan Swithers published a review article showing adverse health impacts on people frequently consuming artificial sweeteners, including an increased risk of excessive weight gain, type-2 diabetes, and heart disease.

The Calorie Control Council sent a letter to Purdue demanding that the university stop “promoting biased science.”

“The intimidation tactics, going to somebody’s employer, it just seems to go beyond the realm of what’s reasonable,” says Swithers. [Center for Public Integrity, 8/6/14]

CCC Downplays Health Risks of Aspartame and Artificial Sweeteners…

“But a spokeswoman for the low-calorie sweetener industry was highly critical of the research, noting that the study involved just 27 rats. “I think studies like this are a disservice to the consumer because they oversimplify the causes of obesity,” registered dietitian Beth Hubrich of the Calorie Control Council tells WebMD. “It is true that there has been an increase in the use of low-calorie sweeteners at the same time that we have seen an increase in obesity, but there has also been an increase in the use of cell phones and nobody is suggesting that they are causing obesity.” [CBS News, 2/11/08]

… While 2005 Study Saw Link Between Aspartame and Cancer in Rats

In 2005, a study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives showed a link between aspartame and cancer in lab rats.

“A study in rats links the popular artificial sweetener aspartame to a wide range of cancers, but industry officials charge that the research is badly flawed. Aspartame is found in the low-calorie sweetener Equal and in many other sugar-free products under the brand name NutraSweet. It is the second best-selling nonsugar sweetener in the world. Researchers in Italy concluded that rats exposed to varying doses of aspartame throughout their lives developed leukemias, lymphomas, and several other cancers in a dose-dependent manner. The study appears in the Nov. 17 issue of the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, which is published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.” [WebMD Health News, 11/18/05]

Downplayed Result of Study Showing Diet Soda Consumption Contributed to Premature Birth

In July 2010, Calorie Control Council Executive Director Beth Hubrich downplayed the results of a new study showing a link between diet soda consumption and premature birth, saying that the results could “unduly alarm” pregnant women.

“New research suggests that drinking lots of artificially sweetened beverages may be linked with an increased risk of premature births. … In a statement, the Calorie Control Council, a lobbying group for companies that make and distribute low-calorie foods, called the study “misleading.’ “This study may unduly alarm pregnant women. While this study is counter to the weight of the scientific evidence demonstrating that low-calorie sweeteners are safe for use in pregnancy, research has shown that overweight and obesity can negatively affect pregnancy outcomes,” Beth Hubrich, a dietitian with the council, said in the statement. “Further, low-calorie sweeteners can help pregnant women enjoy the taste of sweets without excess calories, leaving room for nutritious foods and beverages without excess weight gain – something that has been shown to be harmful to both the mother and developing baby.” [Reuters, 7/23/10]

Supports Using Artificial Sweeteners in Milk without Additional Labeling

In 2013, the Calorie Control Council defended a 2009 petition by the International Dairy Foods Association to allow the use of artificial sweeteners in milk without additional labeling requirements beyond including the sweetener in the list of ingredients.

“Recently, the Doctor Oz show aired a segment about the use of low calorie sweeteners in flavored milk and other dairy products and made several unfounded allegations. The segment centered on a petition put forth to the FDA back in 2009 by the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) asking for permission to provide reduced-sugar alternatives to flavored dairy products, such as chocolate milk, without an added label claim such as “reduced calorie” or “no sugar added.” It is important to note that products using a low-calorie sweetener will still be labeled as such in the ingredients list.” [Calorie Control Council press release, 4/1/13]

CCC Led Petition in 2003 to Remove Saccharin from List of Carcinogens

In 2003, the Calorie Control Council led a food industry petition seeking removal of saccharin from the Environmental Protection Agency’s list of carcinogens, a request that was granted in 2010.

“EPA has finalized its rule removing saccharin — a common artificial sweetener found in diet soft drinks, chewing gum and juice — and its salts from the agency’s list of hazardous substances. With the Dec. 14 announcement, EPA is granting a seven-year-old industry petition that argued scientific data suggests the food additive is not as harmful as once was thought. EPA had previously included saccharin on its list of hazardous substances and wastes when the lists were created in 1980 because the Food & Drug Administration had previously concluded the additive was a potential human carcinogen, the industry group Calorie Control Council (CCC) wrote in its 2003 petition.” [Superfund Report, 12/27/10]

CCC Pushed for Overturning of Ban on Cyclamate Sweetener in 1980s

In 1984, Forbes reported that the Calorie Control Council was working to overturn a 1969 ban on the artificial sweetener cyclamate.

“And then there is cyclamate, which may not give Searle even three years of room. Since 1969, when the FDA banned cyclamate because it allegedly caused cancer in mice and rats, one of the cyclamate manufacturers, Abbott Laboratories, and an industry group called the Calorie Control Council have been campaigning to reverse the decision. In 1980 the FDA again rejected Abbott’s claims. But last April the FDA’s cancer assessment committee finally changed course, requesting that the National Academy of Sciences conduct an in-depth review. The way now seems open for cyclamate to reenter the marketplace by late 1985.” [Forbes, 8/27/84]

Hillary Clinton’s Two Missteps

Print Email Share Tweet

As the 2016 campaign shapes up, it’s interesting to watch the candidates for clues about their food politics. Thus far, Hillary Clinton has made two missteps.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Clinton’s team has hired Wendy Clark, a senior vice president at Coca-Cola. As our nation struggles with an epidemic of obesity, type 2 diabetes and other food-related diseases, we don’t need a Coke executive whispering in the ear of the presumptive Democratic favorite.  And Coca-Cola has given more than $5 million to the Clinton Foundation.

Speeches matter too. On June 25, 2014, Clinton gave the keynote address to the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and essentially endorsed genetically engineered crops. She told the biotech crowd: “I stand in favor of using seeds and products that have a proven track record, you say, and are scientifically provable [sic] to continue to try to make the case to those who are skeptical.”

Thus far, the tea leaves suggest that Ready For Hillary also means Ready for Monsanto and for the Obesity Lobby.

American Beverage Association — key facts

Print Email Share Tweet

Summary

* The American Beverage Association is a trade group for the soda, soft drink and junk food industries

ABA was previously called the National Soft Drink Association

Some U.S. soft drinks contained BVO, a flame retardant; ABA says “so is water!”

While ABA defends use of a flame retardant in soda, Coke and Pepsi announced they would remove it from their products

Downplayed risks of benzene discovered in soft drinks

Referred to articles raising risks of artificial sweeteners as “internet myths”

Bashed study showing link between caramel coloring and cancer, yet companies changed drink formulation shortly after study released

* One-third of Americans are obese, but the ABA wants to take another ten years before cutting calories in its products

“The Masterminds Behind the Phony Anti-Soda Tax Coalitions”

Fought disclosure of donors to anti-tax campaign

Spent nearly $30 million on lobbying in 2009 and 2010

Previously Known as National Soft Drink Association

The American Beverage Association was founded in 1919 as the American Bottlers of Carbonated Beverages, and renamed the National Soft Drink Association in 1966.

The organization changed its name in 2004. [http://www.ameribev.org/about-aba/history/]

ABA Defends the Use of BVO Because Water is Also a Flame Retardant     

According to Environmental Health News, the use of brominated vegetable oil (BVO) in food has been banned in Europe and Japan.

Yet on its website, ABA defends use of BVO in soft drinks, even noting that while BVO is a flame retardant, “so is water!”

“For example, you may have heard, seen or read some media coverage of the ingredient brominated vegetable oil, or BVO for short. Some have reported that it is a flame retardant (so is water!), and unsafe for use in foods and beverages. Well, we wanted to make sure that our readers got the facts: BVO is an emulsifier which is used in some fruit-flavored beverages to improve the stability of the beverage by preventing some ingredients from separating. Readers can rest assured that our products are safe and our industry adheres to all government regulations.” [American Beverage Association website, ameribev.org, posted 8/18/14]

While ABA Defends Use of BVO, Coke and Pepsi Stopped Using It

In May 2014, USA Today reported that “Coca-Cola and PepsiCo said Monday they’re working to remove a controversial ingredient from all their drinks, including Mountain Dew, Fanta and Powerade.”

“The ingredient, called brominated vegetable oil, had been the target of petitions on Change.org by a Mississippi teenager who wanted it out of PepsiCo’s Gatorade and Coca-Cola’s Powerade. In her petitions, Sarah Kavanagh noted that the ingredient has been patented as a flame retardant and isn’t approved for use in Japan and the European Union.” [USA Today, 5/5/14]

ABA Downplayed Presence of Benzene Discovered in Soft Drinks

In 1990, and again in 2006, the ABA downplayed health risks from benzene discovered in soft drinks in both years.

“When small amounts of benzene, a known cancer-causing chemical, were found in some soft drinks 16 years ago, the Food and Drug Administration never told the public. That’s because the beverage industry told the government it would handle the problem, and the FDA thought the problem was solved. A decade and a half later, benzene has turned up again. The FDA has found levels in some soft drinks higher than what it found in 1990, and two to four times higher than what’s considered safe for drinking water. Both the FDA and the beverage industry said the amounts were small and that the problem didn’t appear to be widespread. ‘People shouldn’t overreact,’ said Kevin Keane, a spokesman for the American Beverage Association. ‘It’s a very small number of products and not major brands.’” [Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/4/06]

Benzene is a Known Human Carcinogen

Benzene is classified as a known carcinogen based on occupational studies in adults that demonstrated increased incidence of several types of leukemia in exposed adults. Benzene has also been shown to be genotoxic (cause damage to DNA) in experimental animal studies. The primary targets of benzene exposure in humans are the hematopoietic (blood cell-forming) system and the immune system.  [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency]

ABA Rejected Report Linking Caramel Color Ingredient to Cancer…

In March 2012, the ABA called a report from the Center for Science in the Public Interest linking soft drinks’ caramel coloring to cancer “outrageous.”

“Can drinking soda cause cancer? A report Monday from the U.S. consumer watchdog The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) said popular sodas contain high levels of a chemical that’s used to give cola its caramel coloring – and that chemical could raise a soda-drinkers’ cancer risk. … The American Beverage Association also slammed CSPI’s findings. It said in a statement, ‘This is nothing more than CSPI scare tactics, and their claims are outrageous. The science simply does not show that 4-MEI in foods or beverages is a threat to human health.’” [WLTX, 3/6/12]

… Then Coke and Pepsi Changed Formulation Shortly After Study

Despite ABA’s description of a study that linked caramel coloring with cancer as “ridiculous,” both Coke and Pepsi changed their drinks’ formulations shortly after its release.

“Coca-Cola and PepsiCo (PEP) are changing the way they make the caramel coloring used in their sodas as a result of a California law that mandates drinks containing a certain level of carcinogens bear a cancer warning label. The companies said the changes will be expanded nationally to streamline their manufacturing processes. They’ve already been made for drinks sold in California. The American Beverage Association, which represents the broader beverage industry, said its member companies will still use caramel coloring in certain products but that adjustments were made to meet California’s new standard.” [Associated Press, 3/8/12]

Talking Loud and Saying Nothing: ABA Promises 25 Percent Calorie Cut… by 2025

In 2014, the American Beverage Association pledged to cut sugary drink calories by 20 percent in 10 years through education, marketing and packaging. [Reuters, 9/23/14]

34.9% of Americans over 20 years of age are obese, according to the Journal of the American Medical Association.

ABA Says that Stories about Risks of Artificial Sweeteners Are Just “Internet Myths”

On a website aimed at dispelling what it sees as misconceptions about its products, the ABA refers to stories about the risks of artificial sweeteners as “internet myths.”

Foods and beverages use many types of low-calorie sweeteners. Despite some of the internet myths that may end up in your inbox, these low-calorie sweeteners are safe. In fact, they have been approved by regulatory agencies around the world, including the World Health Organization, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), as safe for use in foods and beverages.” [ABA’s “Let’s Clear It Up” website, letsclearitup.org, accessed 12/20/14]

Called Harvard Study Linking Sugary Drinks to Obesity-Related Deaths “Sensationalism”

In March 2013, the ABA said that a new study linking consumption of sugary beverages to more than 180,000 annual obesity-related deaths worldwide amounted to “sensationalism.”

“Sugar-sweetened beverages are linked to more than 180,000 obesity-related deaths worldwide each year, according to new research presented this week at an American Heart Association conference. … Among the world’s 35 largest countries, Mexico had the highest death rates from sugary drinks, and Bangladesh had the lowest, according to the study. The United States ranked third. However, the American Beverage Association dismissed the research as ‘more about sensationalism than science.’” [CNN, 3/19/13]

Downplayed Yale Study Showing Ingestion of Fructose (Often Added to Soft Drinks) Promoted Overeating

In January 2013, the ABA downplayed the results of a Yale study showing that ingestion of fructose helped to promote overeating, calling for the findings to “be kept in perspective.”

“Ingesting fructose can lead to brain activity that promotes overeating, according to a recent study conducted by researchers at the Yale School of Medicine. The study, published Jan. 2 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, or JAMA, suggests that obesity is linked to consumption of fructose, a simple sugar found in foods containing high-fructose corn syrup. … Given the study’s limitations, the American Beverage Association downplayed the significance of the research findings, according to an email they sent to CBS News. ‘These findings should be kept in perspective,’ the ABA wrote. ‘The researchers gave 20 adults a beverage sweetened with either fructose or glucose — neither of which are found alone in any sweetened beverage.’” [Yale Daily News, 1/15/13]

“The Masterminds Behind the Phony Anti-Soda Tax Coalitions”

A 2012 column in the Huffington Post entitled, “The Masterminds Behind the Phony Anti-Soda Tax Coalitions” exposed the numerous front groups created by the American Beverage Association.

“The deep-pocketed American Beverage Association, which is funded by Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Dr. Pepper/Snapple and others, has been successfully framing the sugary beverage tax issue across the nation with the help of astroturf coalitions created by Goddard Claussen/Goddard Gunster.” [Huffington Post, 7/3/12]

Among the projects highlighted on Goddard Gunster’s web page are:

NO ON QUESTION 2: STOP FORCED DEPOSITS
In a campaign one top Massachusetts pollster characterized as “a work of art,” Goddard Gunster delivered a 73% victory over bottle bill expansion proponents. See more here.

NO ON E: STOP UNFAIR BEVERAGE TAXES
In the days leading up to Election Day 2014, we helped remind voters that the last thing they needed was a tax that made San Francisco an even more expensive place to live and work. See more here.

NEW YORKERS FOR BEVERAGE CHOICES
With more than 600,000 members and nearly 4,000 businesses, New Yorkers for Beverage Choices is taking a stand for consumer freedom of choice. See more here.

NO ON “H” / NO ON “N” CALIFORNIA
In 2012, proposals to levy a penny-per-ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages popped up on ballots in both El Monte and Richmond, California. But by reaching out early to key Hispanic and African American communities, we helped ensure both measures were defeated by huge margins. See more here.

STOP THE TELLURIDE BEVERAGE TAX
With the help of our local Telluride business partners, Ballot Issue 2A, the Telluride beverage tax, was defeated by an overwhelming 69% of the vote.

AMERICAN BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION
With politicians pushing for new beverage taxes and bans across the country, it was time to take a stand for consumer freedom of choice and say, “Gimme a break!” Our 2013 campaign sent a clear message that Americans have the right to make their own food and beverage choices. View more here.

[http://goddardgunster.com/work]

ABA Spearheaded Super Bowl Ad for Front Group

In 2011 during the Super Bowl, the ABA ran an ad (via a group called Americans Against Food Taxes) that opposed taxes on food and soft drinks.

“Along with Doritos and Bud Lite commercials on Super Bowl Sunday, viewers in the Washington area saw a political ad against taxes on food and soft drinks.…First, some background on the group airing the ad, Americans Against Food Taxes. The group is spearheaded by the American Beverage Association, which represents the makers of sodas and other drinks. According to Advertising Age,  the American Beverage Association decided to form the coalition in June 2009, when the idea of taxing sodas and other sweet beverages was being considered as a way to fund the Democratic health care bill. The coalition includes dozens of members, including 7-Eleven, Inc., Burger King Corp., Domino’s Pizza, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, McDonalds, the National Association of Convenience Stores, Snack Food Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Wendy’s/Arby’s Group, Inc.”  [Tampa Bay Times, 2/7/11]

ABA Front Group Successfully Sued to Block Disclosure of Funders in California

In September 2012, a federal judge blocked disclosure of the donors of the Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes, a group funded by ABA aimed at blocking a one-cent sugary beverage tax.

“A federal judge in San Francisco on Friday blocked the city’s attempt to force a beverage industry-funded campaign group to comply with campaign-disclosure rules on its political mailers. The Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes, which is funded by the American Beverage Association, has spent more than $350,000 in an effort to defeat Measure N, a November ballot measure that could force local businesses to pay a penny-per-ounce tax on sales of sugar-sweetened beverages. A companion measure advises the city to spend the estimated $3 million in annual revenues on recreation and anti-obesity programs.” [Contra Costa Times, 9/7/12]

Spent Nearly $10 Million Fighting Beverage Taxes in California in 2014

According to National Public Radio, the ABA spent nearly $10 million fighting referendums to impose a one or two cent tax on sugary beverages in some California cities.

“The measures, which voters will decide on Nov. 4, would impose a penny-per-ounce tax on sugary drinks in Berkeley and a two-cent-per-ounce tax in San Francisco. … Along Berkeley’s main streets and in the underground subways here, advertisements blasting the proposed soda tax are everywhere. The American Beverage Association, the soda industry’s lobbying group, has spent some $1.7 million fighting the measure in Berkeley and $7.7 million in San Francisco, according to campaign filings.” [National Public Radio, 10/27/14]

Deluged Washington State with $16.7 Million in Spending to Repeal Soda Tax in 2010

In 2010, the ABA spent a state-record $16.7 million to repeal the state’s two-cent soda tax.

“The American Beverage Association has poured a state-record $16.7 million of industry resources into the Initiative 1107 campaign to repeal Washington’s temporary two-cent tax on soda pop and a few other new taxes. … Yes on 1107 campaign spokeswoman Kathryn Stenger has said for months that the initiative would stop taxes recently enacted on ‘the grocery cart,’ which the campaign hammers home incessantly in its flood of ads. The campaign, which has spent $11.8 million, also claims the new sales tax on candy is confusing and arbitrary, because some similar products are treated dissimilarly.” [The Olympian, 10/23/10]

Fought Bottle Deposit Referendum in Massachusetts

In 2014, the ABA contributed $5 million to “No on Question 2: Stop Forced Deposits,” a group in Massachusetts trying to defeat the expansion of the state’s bottle deposit law.

“A coalition of opponents to a ballot initiative that would expand the state’s bottle deposit law released their first television ad Monday, funded by a $5 million donation from the American Beverage Association. … The opposition group, ‘No on Question 2: Stop Forced Deposits,’ is funded by the beverage and grocery industry and has far more money than the supporters of the ballot initiative. The American Beverage Association donated $5 million to the campaign. Stop and Shop gave another $300,000. The Springfield-based Big Y Foods gave $90,000.” [The Republican (Springfield, MA), 9/15/14]

Spent Millions Trying to Make Fee Hike Harder in California

In the 2010 election, the ABA contributed $2,450,000 to the “No on 25 Yes on 26” campaign. [National Institute on Money in State Politics, followthemoney.org, accessed 12/20/14]

Prop 25 Allowed Budget Passage by Simple Majority, Prop 26 Required Voter Approval on Fees

According to the Associated Press, passage of Prop 25 would allow the state budget to pass by a simple majority, while Prop 26 would make it more difficult to raise fees.

“Proposition 25 seeks to put an end to the stalemates by allowing the Legislature to pass a budget by a simple majority vote, instead of the current two-thirds threshold. … Proposition 26, which is being pushed by the California Chamber of Commerce and businesses, would make it harder for state and local governments to levy fees. Seeking to close loopholes allowing governments to disguise taxes as fees, supporters want to make fees subject to the same rules as taxes: two-thirds approval by the Legislature for state fees and voter approval for local fees.” [Associated Press, 10/1/08]

ABA Spent $18.9 Million on Lobbying in 2009 and $9.9 Million in 2010

According to OpenSecrets.org, the ABA spent $18,850,000 on federal lobbying in 2009, and another $9,910,000 in 2010. This marked a massive increase over its past expenditures, which did not top $1 million from 2003 to 2008.

In 2014, the American Beverage Association spent $890,000 on lobbying. [Center for Responsive Politics, openscrets.org, accessed 12/20/14]

Lobbying Centered on Preventing Beverage Tax from Becoming Method of Funding Obamacare

According to The Fiscal Times, the ABA’s lobbying efforts were aimed at preventing the creation of a federal tax on sugary beverages to partially fund Obamacare.

“2009 was both a successful and expensive year for the beverage lobby, which was victorious in crushing federal proposals to impose a federal excise tax on sugary drinks as a means of paying for a health care overhaul package. This nationally televised ad is from The American Beverage Association, which represents Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo Inc. and Dr. Pepper Snapple. They spent at least $18 million on lobbying and millions more in campaign donations in 2009 in an effort to keep the government from becoming the nation’s food nanny.” [The Fiscal Times, 3/15/10]

Center for Consumer Freedom — key facts

Print Email Share Tweet

Summary

* Founded in 1995 as the Guest Choice Network

* Phillip Morris provided $600,000 in seed money for the organization

* Restaurant, tobacco company funds were used to fight restaurant smoking bans

* Over 40% of expenses funneled to Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) founder Rick Berman’s lobbying shop

* Payments to Berman lobbying firm led Charity Navigator to post donor advisory against CCF

* TIME: Attacks on Humane Society “a low blow”

Center for Consumer Freedom Originally Funded by Tobacco and Restaurant Industries to Fight Bans on Smoking in Restaurants

According to the Washington Post, the Center for Consumer Freedom – then named the Guest Choice Network – was originally funded with “tobacco-company and restaurant money to fight smoking curbs in restaurants.”

The Post reported that “Philip Morris USA Inc. pledged $600,000 — most of the seed money — for Berman’s group in 1995. The company said it needed a consultant who was both a ‘hospitality industry insider as well as a legislatively astute individual,’ according to documents collected as part of the multi-state lawsuit against tobacco companies.” [Washington Post, 4/27/05]

TIME reported in 2013 that the group was funded by money from Philip Morris, and was created to promote “smokers’ rights” in the restaurant and hospitality industries. [TIME, 8/12/13]

Since Tobacco-Funded Roots, CCF Has Expanded to Other Dubious Areas of Interest

Following its name change to the Center for Consumer Freedom in 2001, the Washington Post reported that “it shifted its focus to food and beverage issues, raised by concerns about obesity, mad cow disease and genetically modified products.” [Washington Post, 4/27/05]

TIME reported in 2013 that CCF had expanded to promote meat consumption, and countering scientific evidence on the dangers of mercury and high fructose corn syrup. [TIME, 8/12/13]

Over 40% of CCF’s Expenses Went to Berman and Company from 2002-2012

The table below details both CCF’s total expenses and compensation paid by CCF to Berman and Company from the 2002 tax year through the 2012 tax year.

During that period, over 40% of all CCF expenses went to Berman and Company, and in five of those years (2002, 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2011) more than half of CCF’s expenses went to Berman and Company.

TaxYear TotalExpenses Compensation to Berman and Company % of Expenses toBerman and Company
2012 $1,024,582 $246,874 24.10%
2011 $2,121,780 $1,294,488 61.01%
2010 $2,640,780 $1,682,126 63.70%
2009 $8,831,659 $1,461,597 16.55%
2008 $1,594,299 $1,043,604 65.46%
2007 $1,951,753 $1,562,280 80.04%
2006 $3,291,050 $1,190,512 36.17%
2005 $3,818,769 $1,623,186 42.51%
2004 $3,246,452 $1,435,056 44.20%
2003 $2,752,519 $1,252,344 45.50%
2002 $1,970,803 $1,044,553 53.00%
TOTAL $33,244,446 $13,836,620 41.62%

[CCF IRS Form 990 filings]

CCF’s Excessive Payments to Berman Led Charity Navigator to Issue a Donor Advisory

Charity Navigator, America’s largest independent charity evaluator, currently has a Donor Advisory regarding CCF.

In the advisory, Charity Navigator stated that their analysis of CCF’s 2011 IRS Form 990 revealed that the majority of CCF’s expenses were paid to Berman and Company, and that “we find the practice of a charity contracting for management services with a business owned by that charity’s CEO atypical as compared to how other charities operate.” [Charity Navigator donor advisory]

A Long History of Making False Attacks against Respected Organizations

The Center for Consumer Freedom has a long history of making false and outlandish attacks against respected organizations, including the Humane Society, Mothers Against Drunk Driving and even Trout Unlimited.

Berman has claimed that such groups have “a violent side to them.” [Washington Post, 4/27/05]

TIME: Attacks on Humane Society a “Low Blow”

In August 2013, TIME reported on CCF’s funding of ads attacking the Humane Society.

The ads claimed that only 1% of Humane Society revenue went to local shelters, an attack TIME called a “low blow.” [TIME, 8/12/13]