Food fight: The war on junk food | Bread & Butter

While the United States juggles two wars abroad, politicians, policy makers and the First Lady alike are declaring a few more of their own at home. But just exactly who are these formidable foes?

Salt and junk food and soda companies, oh my!

The unhealthy ilk has been vilified for their links to heart disease, high blood pressure and childhood obesity among Americans. It would appear the stage is set for 2010 to be a year of food revolution with government initiatives springing up left and right. Politicians such as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and First Lady Michelle Obama are leading the charge as they turn up the heat on food industry heavyweights to both lean and desalinate their products.

We’ve got a food fight of national proportions on our hands, and it’s enough to make any health- conscious foodie cry out, “Viva le broccoli!” But if we’ve learned anything about the power of industry lobbyists’ ability to squelch reform — with the overturning of the corporate campaign finance ban mere weeks ago — we know that Little Debbie isn’t going down without a struggle.

Michelle Obama’s announcement last Tuesday of her campaign — dubbed Let’s Move — in hopes to end childhood obesity within a generation, came just weeks after Bloomberg announced an initiative urging restaurants and food manufacturers to voluntarily reduce the salt in their products by 25 percent in the next 5 years. Obama’s campaign is also, for the most part, a voluntary one; simply urging food providers to increase the amount of produce served in schools, reduce the salt, sugar and fat content of their products and implement a uniform caloric labeling system for soda.

While several major companies such as Aramark and Sodexho, school lunch providers, have pledged their cooperation and integration of healthier menus over timelines spanning tens of years, many are already questioning whether or not either initiative — while well meaning — goes far enough.

While both initiatives are speculated to have some far-reaching impact on how the food industry operates, the Center for Science in the Public Interest implored Obama to take it a step further and capitalize on her strong bully pulpit to remove junk food from schools altogether in a statement released last week:

“For far too long, the nation’s response to childhood obesity has been underwhelming, considering obesity’s massive impact on the nation’s physical and fiscal health.”

PepsiCo. and Coca-Cola Co. have pledged their support of Obama’s new initiative and promised a new front-of-container nutritional labeling system for their soft drinks by 2012.

“We are honored to play a role in this important action. We are going to be seen as part of the solution,’’ said Coca-Cola CEO Muhtar Kent.

Coca-Cola’s promise of cooperation, however, seems an abrupt change of heart that comes on the heels of Kent more or less calling President Barack Obama a commie last September in response to a proposed soda tax that would’ve likely reduced consumption, helped fund health care reform initiatives and essentially gone toward correcting the health woes soda has contributed to.

“I have never seen it work where a government tells people what to eat and what to drink,” Kent said at the Rotary Club of Atlanta in response to an audience question. “If it worked, the Soviet Union would still be around.”

While PepsiCo.’s vow of support comes just days after its net income doubled in the fourth-quarter as America's snack revenue continues to rise.

When companies — whose bottom line depends on the rampant unchecked consumption of their irrefutably unhealthy product — throw their “support” behind a campaign that seemingly threatens its lifeblood has been cause for skepticism. Perhaps the reason these companies feel comfortable at all making small concessions to placate politicians is that they’re confident they’re paid up where it counts.

When faced with the possibility of a soda tax last year, the American Beverage Association, according to OpenSecrets.org, didn’t bat an eye at pouring $18.85 million toward lobbying the government (successfully) against it last year. Compare that to spending a relatively trifling $667,590 on government lobby in 2008.

It’s great to see attention being paid to the health of Americans and children, but it’s important to remember that these “voluntary” initiatives aren’t actually cutting to the core of United States health and food issues.

If we really hope to make any sort of dent in reducing Americas growing waistline, it would be wise for politicians (especially when they have such a potentially strong influence) to take note that they need to stop asking and start telling.