THE REAL ENEMY!

[Guest guest]

 

Adela4Total-Animal-Lib

[Adela4Total-Animal-Lib]

Wednesday, July 06, 2005 9:02 PM

Undisclosed-Recipient:;

Fw: WANT to KNOW WHO'S ***DESTROYING*** our HARD ANIMAL WORK?

DO READ....

 

<<...food issues became the organization's [Center for Consumer Freedom]

focus, and the center's been bankrolled by hefty contributions from the

food and restaurant industries...He openly describes the group as a

" nonprofit coalition supported by restaurants, food companies, and

consumers. " ...[Center supports, among others] meat giants (Tyson Foods

and Perdue Farms), soft-drink manufacturers (Coca-Cola), and fast food

chains (White Castle, Outback Steakhouse)... [his] audacity with which

he's straddled his dual roles as consumer " advocate " and industry

lobbyist.>>

 

-

BB <bbkchowsky 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

<http://www.consumerfreedom.com/> , 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

<http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedo

m> . 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 C 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.