In the battle against obesity litigation, compromise will prove to be pointless.
In late September the Public Health Advocacy Institute held its third annual meeting to promote obesity lawsuits against the food industry. One of the speakers was a former top food industry executive. His speech--and the reaction to it--is a lesson in how we should deal with the lawyers and activists who blame restaurants for obesity. The former industry executive, Michael Mudd, previously executive vice president for global corporate affairs for Kraft Foods, observed that the failure of our opponents to coordinate was hurting their cause. He suggested that the 20 or 30 most important activists and lawyers should get together and decide on the few things they really want from us. They should conduct opinion research to make sure the public supports these goals. With that, he suggested, "You've got a powerful weapon that you can bring against the food industry." According to Mudd, the activists should then go to the industry and offer a deal. In exchange for compliance, he argued, they should offer two things: first, that activists won't ask for any more concessions; second, they would withdraw support for lawsuits. … The lesson is clear. Faced with the threat of obesity litigation and constant criticism from nutrition activists, management may be tempted to offer certain concessions. But compromise will not moderate the endless demands of industry opponents. … The most damning comment came from tobacco lawsuit veteran Richard Daynard, the organizer of PHAI's conference. He said, "Kraft's policy suggests marketing high-calorie-dense products to kids is improper and perhaps substantially harmful."
For a copy of the complete article, contact CJRG. |