CSPI Report Targets Soft Drink Makers’ Use of Philanthropy to Advance Interests
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has published a report
titled “Selfish Giving: How the Soda Industry Uses Philanthropy to Sweeten
its Profits.” Noting that the African-American and Hispanic organizations that
brought a successful court challenge against New York City Mayor Michael
Bloomberg’s size restrictions on sugar-sweetened beverages were the recipients
of grants from the soft drink industry, the report suggests that industry
sponsorships are used to leverage their reputations. While the money allows
organizations serving minorities and underserved populations to achieve
their goals, CSPI contends, “The [beverage] companies sometimes exploit
those partnerships to support their political objectives.” CSPI calls for recipient
organizations to think twice about accepting money from the industry.
According to the report, advocacy organizations, government officials and
health-care providers have increased their efforts to reduce sugar-sweetened
beverage consumption, which CSPI indicates has dramatically increased and
accuses of “increasing the risk for diabetes, heart attack, stroke, and cancer”
and contributing to an obesity epidemic that drains “between $147 billion
and $210 billion annually from the U.S. economy.” The industry’s response,
says CSPI, has been aggressive, including an often overlooked element—the
implementation of “corporate-responsibility and marketing programs to
advance the industry’s policy and profit objectives.”
CSPI discusses how some cities that proposed taxes on soda and prohibitions
on sugar-sweetened drinks on government property were offered millions
of dollars in prize money by the American Beverage Association (ABA) to
develop “personal responsibility-driven wellness campaigns.” The report
states that program rules for another anti-obesity contest obligated cities that
accepted the grants “to host a promotional press event at which they, alongside
the ABA, would publicly announce their awards.” From CSPI’s perspective,
“The grants appear to be an attempt by the beverage industry to blunt
budding local efforts to reduce soda consumption through such interventions
as taxes, removing sugar drinks from government property, and education
programs.”
Claiming “[i]t should come as no surprise that the soft-drink industry pursues
its own self-interest in constructing giving strategies,” the report concludes by
stating, “Years ago health advocates began to question the tobacco industry’s
generous contributions to popular social welfare (and other) causes, including
those representing the interests of minority communities. Despite the clear
need for such support, many groups recognized the potential for conflicts
of interest between cigarette-company largesse and the public health and
gradually reduced their dependency on funds that often came with political
and policy strings attached.” The report includes a list of 30 organizations
that have “ties to the beverage industry,” organizations that support the ABA’s
“Americans Against Food Taxes” initiative and model guidelines, developed
by the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, for nonprofits to evaluate proposed
relationships with other organizations. See CSPI News Release, March 19, 2013.
