Center for Consumer Freedom

[Guest guest]

There's already plenty to look at, at the website, seemingly one-sided.

ConsumerFreedom.com

on 4/25/2005 10:44 AM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

>

> Hi Francesca:

>

> I shall watch whatever they supply as 'evidence' with interest. Of

> course they are not what one would call disinterested observers. So

> I would expect to see them pursue an entirely one-sided hunt for

> information that appears able to be slanted to support their case,

> while studiously ignoring any evidence for the other side of the

> argument. Perhaps, but not likely, I will be pleasantly surprised.

>

> All we need to do is follow your admonition to take account of all

> the evidence from serious sources.

>

> Of course I support food suppliers' efforts to supply consumers with

> whatever it is they demand as evidenced by what they preferentially

> buy. In the past couple of decades that has meant larger and larger

> portions of food on the one hand, and with no regard to the health of

> the contents of those servings on the other. So one cannot blame the

> food suppliers for supplying the foods people show by their

> purchasing behaviour they are determined to buy.

>

> Rodney.

>

[Guest guest]

This is a follow up article about the group I mentioned yesterday that took

out a full page ad in the WP.

_________________________________________________

The Escalating Obesity Wars

By Caroline E. Mayer and Amy Joyce

The full-page newspaper ads shout " Hype " at readers, warning them that

they have " been force-fed a steady diet of obesity myths by the 'food

police,' trial lawyers, and even our own government. "

The sponsor, the Center for Consumer Freedom, is a " nonprofit organization

dedicated to protecting consumer choices and promoting common sense, " the ad

notes.

The group was founded about 10 years ago with tobacco-company and

restaurant money to fight smoking curbs in restaurants. Back then, the group

called itself Guest Choice Network. But it changed its name in 2001, as it

shifted its focus to food and beverage issues, raised by concerns about

obesity, mad cow disease and genetically modified products.

The group and its ads are the brainchild of Berman, a Washington

lobbyist and lawyer who is the center's executive director. Berman is also

president of Berman & Co., a public affairs firm that in 2003 received more

than $1.1 million in compensation from the nonprofit group -- more than a

third of its revenue that year, according to its most recent tax returns.

Berman, 62, also is the founder of two other restaurant-supported groups:

the American Beverage Institute, which fights restrictions on alcohol use,

and the Employment Policies Institute Foundation, which has argued against

raising the minimum wage -- a move that would hurt restaurants because of

their large staffs of low-wage workers.

Philip 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. Under the 1998 settlement, the documents

were made public. Philip continued to give money to Berman for

several years, as did restaurant firms such as Host Marriott Corp. and

Brinker International Inc., which owns the Chili's Grill & Bar and

Maggiano's Little Italy restaurant chains. Neither firm returned phone calls

about their ties to the Center for Consumer Freedom.

Berman declined to give specifics about who funds the Center for Consumer

Freedom. He said only that it is funded by a coalition of restaurant and

food companies as well as some individuals. " It doesn't add anything " to

give details, Berman said.

According to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a

watchdog group funded by several educational foundations, Berman and his

firm have received more than $7 million since 1997 from the Center for

Consumer Freedom and one of the other groups he founded. Last fall, the

watchdog group asked the Internal Revenue Service to revoke the Center for

Consumer Freedom's 501©(3) tax-exempt status. The watchdog group said

Berman has used the center to funnel money to himself and his company, a

violation of federal tax law that bars companies or individuals from running

a nonprofit for their private benefit. The organization also said that the

group's activities were solely to promote the causes of restaurants and food

producers, not consumers. Its activities, the organization said, are " not

remotely charitable. "

S. Tenenbaum, a Washington lawyer who specializes in nonprofit tax

law, said that generally, for a group to qualify as a 501©(3) educational

organization " there has to be bona fide education of the general public on

given issues as compared to advocating particular industry positions. "

Otherwise, the group should qualify as a 501©(6), a trade and professional

group. While both are both tax-exempt, a 501©(6) cannot receive

tax-deductible charitable contributions.

Berman called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington's

charges " a silly thing . . . totally and factually false. " It's not unusual,

he said, for public affairs firms to manage nonprofits, and the expenses his

firm received were to " buy all sorts of things, including employee time,

rent, phones. " Berman said the Center for Consumer Freedom is a legitimate,

nonprofit educational group. " I haven't heard from the IRS, and I don't

expect to; there's nothing to it. "

" It's pretty obvious we're advocating from a point of view, " Berman said.

" But you can advocate and educate at the same time. "

Berman said the charges are the " cost of doing business " of criticizing

well-known activist groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of

Animals, Center for Science in the Public Interest and the Physicians

Committee for Responsible Medicine. " It's to be expected when you give

people a little heartburn, they don't like what you're doing. "

Berman is not shy about going after groups his organizations oppose. A Web

site sponsored by the Center for Consumer Freedom, ActivistCash.com,

includes in-depth profiles of groups, including Mothers Against Drunk

Driving, detailing their funding and key players. " Despite their

innocent-sounding names, many of these organizations are financial Goliaths

that use junk science, intimidation tactics, and even threats of violence to

push their radical agenda, " the Web site says.

Berman himself has said these groups have " a violent side to them " and will

try to shut down firms whose activities run counter to their goals. He said

that is why he won't name the companies who support his organization.

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine scoffed at that

assertion, saying its " policies would specifically exclude anyone promoting

violence or illegal activity from functioning as a spokesperson or having

any role in the organization. "

" I'm troubled by this message and this industry that sells unhealthy things

and are so willing to sacrifice the health of consumers, " said Neal Barnard,

president of the physicians group.

PRWatch, a nonprofit critic of the public relations industry, lists what it

claims are the Center for Consumer Freedom's sponsors on its Web site. Those

companies include Brinker International; RTM Restaurant Group, the owner of

Arby's; Tyson Foods Inc.; HMSHost Corp.; and 's International Inc.

Few of those companies returned phone calls seeking comment. A Tyson

spokesman said the company does " not share lists of organizations we

support. " A 's spokesman, Denny Lynch, said the company has supported

Berman's group in the past but declined to say when or how much. Lynch said

Berman's group provides " a balancing perspective . . . another voice " in the

increasingly loud debate over obesity.

Berman called PRWatch's list inaccurate and said the only reason the group

is criticizing him is because he had criticized some of its leaders for a

book they wrote about mad cow disease and its chances of occurring in the

United States. " They have had it in for me for a long time, " Berman said.

Sheldon Rampton, co-author of the book and research director of the Center

for Media & Democracy, which owns PRWatch, said his group first learned of

Consumer Freedom when the group attacked the book. But " we write about a lot

of groups and would have reached the same conclusion about him if that had

not been the case, " he said.

Food industry officials who spoke only on the condition that they not be

identified by name or by where they work said that by keeping the sponsors

anonymous, Berman's group can be more vociferous, provocative and irreverent

in its criticisms than a trade association. Berman's " stuff is factual, but

everyone chooses the facts they represent, " one executive said.

Berman agrees that his group can be edgier. " There's no doubt about that.

Most trade associations try to insulate individual companies and brand names

from cutting-edge rhetoric. "

Over the years, the group's attacks on food critics have intensified. Last

fall, the group ran a television ad featuring the " Seinfeld " Soup Nazi

character barking at an overweight consumer, " Nothing for you! Come back

when you're thinner. " The ad asks: " Has the war on obesity gone too far? "

In February, immediately before and after the president's State of the

Union address, the group broadcast another ad, showing a lawyer grilling a

Girl Scout for selling cookies. " Learn more about lawyers cashing in on

obesity, " the ad said, calling on viewers to check out the group's Web site.

The center's campaign comes as Americans are bombarded with books and

documentaries criticizing the fast-food diet. While many restaurants have

introduced healthier fare to address these concerns, some are also offering

consumers even bigger portions, such as the Enormous Omelet Sandwich at

Burger King, the Monster Burger -- two one-third-pound patties -- at

Hardee's and the Ultimate Colossal Burger -- two half-pound burgers on a

triple-decker bun with cheese -- at Ruby Tuesday.

The immediate catalyst for this week's $600,000 newspaper advertising

campaign was an announcement earlier this month by the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention that it had vastly overestimated the number of deaths

caused by obesity. The ads appeared in six major newspapers, including in

Atlanta, where the CDC is based. Ads will soon appear in Washington's Metro

system to get the attention of the nation's " opinion leaders, " congressional

staff members and other key government employees, according to the group's

spokesman, Mike Burita. In March 2004, the CDC published a report linking

obesity to 400,000 deaths a year in the United States. Three months later,

the Center for Consumer Freedom began challenging that statistic, issuing

its first of many statements saying the deaths were vastly overstated.

Last week, the CDC announced new estimates, linking 112,000 deaths to

obesity.

Now, Berman said, the CDC needs to " come clean, to say it made a mistake, "

one that led to school boards, state legislatures and even members of

Congress calling for all sorts of restrictions on food sales.

The CDC needs to announce its mistake " loudly and often, " Berman said.

But so far, the CDC appears to have no such intentions. " We still consider

obesity to be a major public health threat, although there's uncertainty

about the number of deaths from obesity, " said Hunter, a CDC

spokeswoman. " There is no debate in our mind that obesity plays a role in

increasing the risk of serious chronic disease like diabetes, heart disease

and certain cancers. "

[Guest guest]

> There's already plenty to look at, at the website, seemingly one-

sided. > ConsumerFreedom.com

>

Hi All,

TK:

I'm a new member and have been reading files and posts while getting

acclimated.

This website (above) and their jargon is uncanny in its semblence to

the old tobacco co's attempts to discredit science that showed that

smoking is bad for one's health, linked with lung cancer, etc. Even

now, tobacco co's state that " smoking causes disease in *some*

people, " (rjrt.com) and that one has to stand up for smokers'

rights. They use nonprofit groups such as forces.org, (a site that

also falsely states that the obesity epidemic is a tactic by big

pharma to drum up obesity drug sales) and mysmokersrights.rjrt.com.

I think it's particularly hypocritical that consumerfreedom.com

vilifies the Center for Science in the Public Interest (cspinet.org)

and list their contributers, as if the Pew Charitable Trusts is a

subversive organization, yet doesn't list their own financial

backers, merely stating that they are " supported by restaurants,

food companies and more than 1,000 concerned individuals. "

I think we can write this off as an attempt by large corporations to

make cash by ignoring public health. In the wise words of sage V.I.

Warshawski: " Follow the money. "

TK