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.
