MORE ON CENTER FOR CONSUMER FREEDOM!

[Guest guest]

 

Adela4Total-Animal-Lib [Adela4Total-Animal-

Lib]

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 12:43 PM

Aleksandra Yu

Fw: MORE ON CENTER FOR CONSUMER FREEDOM!

 

 

-

 

BB Knowles

 

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 12:13 PM

 

MORE ON CENTER FOR CONSUMER FREEDOM!

 

Berman's Battle

Richard Berman claims to help the average consumer. In fact, he

works for corporate America.

 

By Greg Sargent

Web Exclusive: 01.03.05

 

Print Friendly | Email Article

 

Last spring, when the anti-fast-food documentary Super Size Me began

opening in American theaters, an opinion writer named Richard Berman

swung into action. He cranked out a scathing op-ed for the Chicago

Sun-Times that blasted the film for " serving up a flawed premise:

that we're powerless to stop Big Food from turning us into a nation

of fatties. "

 

When legendary TV chef Julia Child died a few months later, Berman

saw another opportunity. He wrote a piece for The Atlanta Journal-

Constitution that used her death as an occasion to debunk the idea

that soft drinks are linked to diabetes.

 

And last month, when a Cleveland hospital garnered national

attention for trying to evict its in-house McDonald's, Berman was

invited on CNN to critique the move. " I don't see anything wrong

with giving people choices, " he observed mildly.

 

Why did these mainstream media outlets air Berman's opinions on such

pressing health issues? Is he a doctor? A nutritionist? A health-

policy wonk? None of the above. He's a Washington lobbyist.

 

Berman runs an outfit called the Center for Consumer Freedom, which

says it's devoted to defending " the right of adults and parents to

choose what they eat, drink, and how they enjoy themselves. " From

his offices a block from the White House, Berman wages a never-

ending public-relations assault on doctors, health advocates,

scientists, food researchers, and just about anyone else who

highlights the health downsides of eating junk food or being obese.

 

He also targets groups that want animal-treatment standards for the

meat industry, such as PETA, and trial lawyers who want to sue the

food industry -- " obesity lawyers licking their chops in search of

their next super-sized payday. " Such people, Berman notes on the

center's Web site, are " food cops, health care enforcers, militant

activists, meddling bureaucrats and violent radicals who think they

know what's best for you. "

 

However, while Berman presents himself as a defender of consumers

against overbearing bureaucrats and health zealots, he's really

defending the interests of another group: restaurant chains, food

and beverage companies, meat producers, and others who stand to see

profits hampered by government regulations, or even by increased

health awareness on the part of customers.

 

Indeed, Berman has carved out a unique -- and very profitable --

niche in Washington's ever more sophisticated PR universe. At a time

when the politics of food is going mainstream -- similar to the

tobacco wars a generation ago -- he is the food and restaurant

industry's No. 1 weapon against those seeking to regulate or shed

light on its activities.

 

Relying on seed money from Philip Morris, Berman launched his group

in 1995, with the explicit goal of uniting the tobacco and

hospitality industries against the myriad forces of overregulation,

particularly those pushing smoking bans in restaurants. But over

time, food issues became the organization's focus, and the center's

been bankrolled by hefty contributions from the food and restaurant

industries. Berman, interestingly, hasn't taken great pains to

disguise his funding sources in general. (Why bother? After all, it

hasn't disqualified him from appearing on CNN.) He openly describes

the group as a " nonprofit coalition supported by restaurants, food

companies, and consumers. "

 

To be sure, the center won't share the names of individual or

corporate donors. Yet some information has come to light. The

organization PR Watch, relying on an internal whistle-blower, has

posted a list of the center's backers on its Web site. Among them:

meat giants (Tyson Foods and Perdue Farms), soft-drink manufacturers

(Coca-Cola), and fast food chains (White Castle, Outback

Steakhouse). A center spokesman would only say that the list

is " loaded with inaccuracies, " but wouldn't say how.

 

Berman's strategy turns on a simple rhetorical gimmick: By employing

the language of consumer freedom, he protects his client industries

by demonizing (and, hopefully, discrediting) their critics -- all

apparently in service of the hapless consumer. Berman has been

explicit about his approach. " Our offensive strategy is to shoot the

messenger, " he once told Chain Leader Magazine, a trade publication

for restaurant chains (whose readership presumably doesn't include

too many ordinary consumers). " We've got to attack [activists']

credibility as spokespersons. "

 

Berman's efforts might not seem all that remarkable in a city where

industry-funded " astroturf " groups are so emboldened that many no

longer bother concealing funding sources. Yet he stands out, if only

for the sheer, unparalleled audacity with which he's straddled his

dual roles as consumer " advocate " and industry lobbyist.

 

Consider that in addition to running the Center for Consumer

Freedom, a nonprofit 501©(3), Berman also has another day job:

He's the founder and president of an influential Washington lobbying

firm, Berman & Co. According to press accounts, the firm has

performed for-profit lobbying for -- you guessed it -- many of the

same industries served by the center: restaurant chains like

Outback, Hooters, and Red Lobster (a spokesman declined comment).

Berman has also lobbied for the American Beverage Institute, which

represents restaurateurs and beverage manufacturers. (On behalf of

such clients, he opposed the Americans with Disabilities Act, argued

against hikes in the federal minimum wage and helped defeat federal

legislation that would have imposed a uniform lower blood-alcohol

threshold to mark drunken driving -- all regulatory reforms that

threatened the profits of his clients.) It's challenging indeed to

sort out where the for-profit lobbying against regulation ! ends and

the nonprofit consumer freedom fighting against regulation begins.

 

And it gets murkier. Berman's nonprofit center, it turns out, has

also been paying handsome sums for research, communications, and

other services to none other than ... Berman & Co. In 2002, for

example, according to its Internal Revenue Service filing, the

Center for Consumer Freedom paid Berman & Co. more than $1 million.

 

So, to recap: Berman the Defender of Consumers runs a nonprofit that

collects donations from industries served by Berman the Corporate

Lobbyist -- and also pays lucrative fees to Berman the Corporate

Lobbyist for his services. If you managed to follow that, you'll

probably agree that Berman has pulled off a pretty impressive piece

of lobbying jujitsu -- one that says an awful lot about how things

really function at the nexus of government policy, big corporations,

and the media.

 

Berman's roles have grown so blurry that one good-government group

has called on the IRS to revoke the center's tax-exempt status. In

November, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

(CREW) asked the IRS to investigate the center, pointing to its

massive payments to a for-profit company controlled by its own

director, along with other transgressions. CREW argues that Berman's

group is about protecting industry, not aiding consumers, and

therefore is not engaging in the sort of charitable activities that

entitle it to tax-exempt status. Berman has dismissed the

allegations as littered with " non-factual items " and " misstatements

of the law " -- again without saying specifically how.

 

Yet by any measure, CREW has a compelling case. It's partly based on

hard evidence: a host of internal Philip Morris documents that

discussed the 1995 formation of Berman's group (then called the

Guest Choice Network) in remarkably unguarded terms.

 

The documents -- correspondence between Berman and Philip Morris,

plus an internal Philip Morris memo, all released during discovery

on the Big Tobacco lawsuits -- provide an extraordinary glimpse into

the creation of a corporate front group, one apparently designed to

use the language of consumer choice to advance the interests of

major corporations. In a 1995 letter to a Philip Morris executive

asking for startup funds for Guest Choice, Berman wrote: " The

concept is to unite the restaurant and hospitality industries in a

campaign to defend their consumers and marketing programs from anti-

smoking, anti-drinking, anti-meat activists ... I would like to

solicit Philip Morris for an initial contribution of $600,000. "

 

In another 1995 memo to Philip Morris, Berman explicitly described

his strategy as follows: A broad coalition of industries in defense

of the consumer -- and generally devoted to fighting regulations --

would provide effective PR cover for the tobacco giant's specific

goals. " If externally perceived as driven by restaurant interests,

there will be more flexibility and creativity allowed than if it

is 'owned' by Philip Morris, " Berman wrote.

 

Equally revealing is a 1995 internal memo written by a Philip Morris

exec who approved of Berman's strategy. " [berman's] proposed

solution would broaden the focus of the 'smoking issue,' and expand

into the bigger picture of over-regulation, " the memo reads. " We

believe his proposal is worthy of testing. " (For more documents, go

to www.citizensforethics.org.) This is remarkable stuff. How often

do we get such an intimate peek at a major corporation's decision to

bankroll an astroturf group?

 

The only remaining question is whether the IRS will allow Berman's

outfit to continue operating as a tax-exempt nonprofit. The group

has changed names and focus over the years, and it no longer takes

tobacco money. Yet it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that

Berman's MO hasn't changed. His activities continue to be less about

educating consumers than about safeguarding industry profits.

 

As Berman himself put it in the Chain Leader interview: " The fact is

that other groups drive consumer behavior on meat, alcohol, fat,

sugar, tobacco, and caffeine with outrageous quotes, exaggeration,

junk science, and even violent acts ... . Few companies spend any

serious time ... developing long-term strategies to meet these

challenges. Thus our clients have encouraged us to fill this void. "

 

Which is exactly what Berman has done.

 

Greg Sargent is a contributing editor at New York magazine.

 

2005 by The American Prospect, Inc. Preferred Citation:

Greg Sargent, " Berman's Battle " , The American Prospect Online, Jan

3, 2005. This article may not be resold, reprinted, or redistributed

for compensation of any kind without prior written permission from

the author. Direct questions about permissions to

permissions.