As more and more children grow obese
eating fatty foods saturated with sugar, consumer advocates
battling to curb marketing by food companies are threatening to
use their big guns: lawsuits and bad press.
And it appears to be working.
Although no lawsuits have been filed, the Center for
Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is talking with Kellogg
and representatives for soft drink companies -- including
Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc. -- about the way they sell
products to children, CSPI lawyer Stephen Gardner said.
"Unfortunately, many food companies maximize their profits
by pitching junk foods to kids," Richard Daynard, a law
professor at Northeastern University in Boston, said via e-mail
while abroad.
"Selling sugared soft drinks in schools is a good example.
Asking them nicely to stop hasn't worked. Only the threat of
litigation, which threatens their benign public image and their
bottom line, really gets their attention."
Daynard is also a long-time critic of tobacco companies and
their marketing practices.
In the past three decades, obesity has tripled among
American children ages 6 to 11, according to data from the
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which is pushing to improve
nutrition in school lunches.
Daynard, who is working with CSPI to ban soft-drink vending
machines from schools, cited the surge in childhood obesity and
soaring rates of diabetes as the reason for his push.
A spokesman for the American Beverage Association, which is
representing the soft drink companies in the talks with CSPI,
said his association "would talk to any group," adding the
industry already has a sound policy on selling sodas in
schools.
CSPI has threatened to sue Kellogg and Viacom Inc. if they
do not stop advertising food high in sugar and fat on the
Nickelodeon children's television channel during certain hours.
A spokeswoman for Kellogg would not comment on the talks or
the threat of litigation.
But one product-liability attorney said the response from
food companies so far is really more about their aversion to
bad publicity than any fear of legal action.
"The threat of a lawsuit is really not that meaningful and
I don't think those consumer groups would have standing to
bring those actions," said Susan Dwyer, a defense-side product
liability partner with the New York firm of Herrick, Feinstein
LLP. "The pressure they can exert on the manufacturer is
through negative media coverage."
CSPI's Gardner said it would be "disingenuous" to think his
group does not consider public reaction when threatening to
bring lawsuits, but added: "These are all good cases that we
should win and the law is on our side."
Gardner characterized the talks with the soft drink makers
as "positive" and said he would know in a couple of weeks
whether or not litigation was needed.
Media-savvy CSPI -- best known for exposing the amount of
fat in fast food -- also earlier this month notified PepsiCo's
Frito-Lay snack food division and Kellogg and Viacom that they
face legal action unless certain conditions are met.
In the case of Frito-Lay, CSPI and others want the company
to print health warning labels on products containing the
olestra fat substitute, which may cause diarrhea and cramping.
The CSPI has already logged a victory -- a settlement with
Pinnacle Foods Inc., the parent of the Aunt Jemima brands.
Under threat of legal action, Aunt Jemima promised to
change labels to make it clearer that blueberries in its
waffles were imitation, made from ingredients such as maltic
acid, soy protein concentrate and salt.
© 2006 Reuters
###
