What is PepsiCo buying with donations to communities of color?

printer friendlyprinter friendly

When I heard recently that the National Association of Hispanic Journalists had accepted $100,000 from PepsiCo, with half of the money going toward scholarships and internships for journalism students, I was taken back to 1988 to a smoke-filled hotel conference room in Washington D.C.

I had just been elected to NAHJ's board of directors, and we were debating whether or not to accept a sizeable contribution from tobacco giant Philip Morris.

"I don't have any problems with Philip Morris," I remember a fellow board member saying after she took a deep drag from her cigarette, clearly ignoring the irony.

I said something about it not being a good idea while puffing on a Benson & Hedges Deluxe Ultra Light Menthol 100. Several of us were smoking while we discussed the subject.

Like tobacco use, rising consumption of sugary drinks has become a major public health concern. Studies show that soda, sports drinks and other high-calorie beverages are major contributors to obesity and related illnesses including diabetes and heart disease (research shows diet drinks aren't all that good for you either).

And like the tobacco industry, soft drink companies target young people and communities of color -- groups that suffer the highest rates of obesity-related diseases.

I don't know whether anyone on the NAHJ board or staff pointed out the parallels between the generous Philip Morris and PepsiCo gifts. Or whether there was even any debate about accepting the money. These are tough times, especially for the journalism industry.

Yet, just like taking money from tobacco, accepting funding from the soda industry can put organizations like NAHJ on a slippery slope, with the potential to risk their values, integrity and public trust.

There are other parallels between tobacco and soda, as highlighted in a June 19 report by Berkeley Media Studies Group and the Public Health Advocacy Institute, "Soda and Tobacco Industry Corporate Social Responsibility Campaigns: How Do They Compare?"

"Because sugary beverages are implicated in the national as well as global obesity crisis, soda manufacturers have recently employed elaborate, expensive, multinational corporate social responsibility campaigns [that] echo the tobacco industry's use of such campaigns as way to focus responsibility on consumers rather than on the corporations," the study noted.

These campaigns also seek to bolster the popularity of soda companies and their products and prevent regulation (meanwhile employing tobacco industry tactics in aggressively fighting policy proposals such as soda taxes and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's controversial measure to limit sugary drink portion sizes).

In a press release, PepsiCo announced that the NAHJ contribution was part of La Promesa [The Promise] of PepsiCo, a corporate social responsibility campaign "that focuses specifically on Latino empowerment and the issues that matter most to Hispanics including Latino education, employment opportunities, promoting active lifestyles, and investing in science to develop healthier products."

As part of its "Promesa," PepsiCo also made significant contributions to other national Latino organizations including the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute and historic civil rights groups League of United Latin American Citizens and National Council of La Raza.

One only has to watch the latest TV commercial by the American Beverage Association, which represents PepsiCo and Coca-Cola, to see that they are doing everything they can to convince the public -- and their shareholders -- of their corporate social responsibility.

Titled "We're Delivering," the ad touts the beverage industry's role in addressing the nation's obesity crisis (without really saying so): "For our families, our neighbors and our communities, America's beverage companies have created a wide range of new choices, developing smaller portion sizes, and more low and no-calorie beverages. Adding clearer calorie labels so you know exactly what you're choosing. And in schools, replacing full-calorie soft drinks with lower calorie options."

The problem is that despite the fact that beverage companies in the U.S. spent nearly a half billion dollars in 2006 to market directly to children ages 2-17, and each year, youth are exposed to hundreds of TV and digital ads, the beverage industry aggressively rejects claims that its products and marketing practices play any role in the obesity epidemic.

The beverage industry says it's about consumers making poor choices and not increasing their level of physical activity yet ignores the context in which those decisions are made. It is disingenuous and deceptive to deny the contribution sugary drinks make to the obesity epidemic. It fails to recognize the collaboration it will take between industry, government and consumers to solve the obesity crisis.

Meanwhile, the question remains: Should influential organizations representing the media, elected officials and civil rights advocates receive financial support from soda if it means not holding the industry accountable for its part in the obesity problem as well as the solution?

I know that if I were back on the board of NAHJ, an organization I am proudly a lifetime member of, I would at least put it up for discussion -- admittedly between sips of Diet Coke.

This blog has also appeared in Richmond Pulse, AlterNet, New America Media, Reporting on Health, People of Color Organize, and Highbrow Magazine.


Marion Nestle (1) social math (1) abortion (1) Big Food (2) language (6) Johnson & Johnson (1) soda taxes (2) obesity prevention (1) inequities (1) soda tax (11) product safety (1) prison system (1) food access (1) personal responsibility rhetoric (1) genital warts (1) advocacy (3) beauty products (1) media advocacy (21) cigarette advertising (1) chronic disease (2) junk food marketing (3) seat belt laws (1) structural racism (1) El Monte (3) Amanda Fallin (1) social change (1) education (1) soda (12) privilege (1) mental health (2) white house (1) adverse childhood experiences (3) community health (1) choice (1) authentic voices (1) Colorado (1) Twitter for advocacy (1) race (1) nanny state (2) women's health (2) industry appeals to choice (1) equity (3) target marketing (7) tobacco tax (1) Sandy Hook (2) communication (2) news coverage (1) weight of the nation (1) Food Marketing Workgroup (1) reproductive justice (1) new year's resolutions (1) online marketing (1) suicide prevention (2) democracy (1) SB 1000 (1) media (7) Aurora (1) autism (1) healthy eating (1) beverage industry (2) institutional accountability (1) sandusky (2) journalism (1) personal responsibility (3) child sexual abuse (5) gun violence (1) water security (1) marketing (1) Chile (1) cancer research (1) Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes (1) paper tigers (1) childhood obesity (1) public health policy (2) Proposition 47 (1) news (2) auto safety (1) sexism (2) physical activity (1) snap (1) tobacco industry (2) American Beverage Association (1) ACEs (2) vaccines (1) values (1) community organizing (1) prevention (1) health equity (10) campaign finance (1) default frame (1) junk food marketing to kids (2) food (1) Coca-Cola (3) election 2016 (1) Sam Kass (1) sexual health (1) FCC (1) Citizens United (1) Bill Cosby (1) community safety (1) liana winett (1) social media (2) sugary drinks (10) food deserts (1) Pine Ridge Indian Reservation (2) media analysis (5) diabetes (1) Measure O (1) Connecticut shooting (1) McDonald's (1) sexual violence (2) Twitter (1) gatorade bolt game (1) Gardasil (1) childhood obestiy conference (1) Penn State (3) government intrusion (1) Nickelodeon (1) breastfeeding (3) food environment (1) elephant triggers (1) california (1) cervical cancer (1) emergency contraception (1) Pine Ridge reservation (1) prison phone calls (1) Richmond (5) junk food (2) Golden Gate Bridge (2) Proposition 29 (1) Texas (1) Newtown (1) water (1) San Francisco (3) collaboration (1) childhood trauma (3) corporate social responsibility (1) obesity (10) Michelle Obama (1) Dora the Explorer (1) Happy Meals (1) Let's Move (1) Wendy Davis (1) news monitoring (1) suicide nets (1) filibuster (1) media bites (1) childhood adversity (1) SB 402 (1) Catholic church (1) news analysis (2) Joe Paterno (1) children's health (3) Rachel Grana (1) summer camps (1) food industry (4) messaging (3) paula deen (1) Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (1) sports drinks (1) front groups (1) indoor smoking ban (1) sexual assault (1) Oakland Unified School District (1) violence (1) ssb (1) PepsiCo (1) apha (2) cap the tap (1) naacp (1) public health data (1) world water day (1) racism (1) community violence (1) HPV vaccine (1) soda industry (4) Tea Party (1) stigma (1) SSBs (1) gender (1) Bloomberg (3) news strategy (1) gun control (2) soda warning labels (1) Whiteclay (4) violence prevention (8) regulation (2) social justice (1) tobacco (5) diabetes prevention (1) Telluride (1) tobacco control (2) cosmetics (1) environmental health (1) food swamps (1) youth (1) george lakoff (1) sanitation (1) childhood lead poisoning (1) sugar-sweetened beverages (2) alcohol (5) food and beverage marketing (3) Big Tobacco (3) health care (1) digital marketing (2) Merck (1) Big Soda (2) public health (66) food marketing (3) framing (14) Berkeley (2) measure N (2) political correctness (1) Oglala Sioux (3) Jerry Sandusky (3) suicide barrier (2) Donald Trump (2) SB-5 (1) food justice (1) cancer prevention (1) built environment (2)
  • Follow Us On Facebook
  • Follow Us On Twitter
  • Join Us On Youtube
  • BMSG RSS Feed

get e-alerts in your inbox: