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.

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 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.