SourceWatch needs your financial support to survive and thrive. If you've found this information on the people, organizations, and issues shaping the public agenda helpful, please make a tax-deductible donation now.

Center for Consumer Freedom

From SourceWatch

Jump to: navigation, search


This article is part of the Tobacco portal on Sourcewatch funded from 2006 - 2009 by the American Legacy Foundation. Help expose the truth about the tobacco industry.

This article is part of the front groups portal on Sourcewatch. Join our team of citizen journalists researching and exposing industry secrets.

The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) (formerly called the "Guest Choice Network (GCN)") is a front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries. It runs media campaigns which oppose the efforts of scientists, doctors, health advocates, environmentalists and groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, calling them "the Nanny Culture -- the growing fraternity of food cops, health care enforcers, anti-meat activists, and meddling bureaucrats who 'know what's best for you.'"

CCF is registered as a tax-exempt, non-profit organization under the IRS code 501(c)(3). Its advisory board is comprised mainly of representatives from the restaurant, meat and alcoholic beverage industries.

Contents

Overview

CCF is one of the more active of several front groups created by Berman & Co., a public affairs firm owned by lobbyist Rick Berman. Based in Washington, D.C., Berman & Co. represents the tobacco industry as well as hotels, beer distributors, taverns, and restaurant chains. Hotels, motels, restaurants, bars and taverns together comprise the "hospitality industry," which has long been cultivated by the tobacco industry as a third party to help slow or stop the progression of smokefree laws. CCF actively opposes smoking bans and lowering the legal blood-alcohol level, while targeting studies on the dangers of red meat consumption, overfishing and pesticides. Each year they give out the "nanny awards" to groups who, according to them, try to tell consumers how to live their lives. Anyone who criticizes tobacco, alcohol, fatty foods or soda pop is likely to come under attack from CCF. Its enemies list has included such diverse groups and individuals as the Alliance of American Insurers; the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons; the American Medical Association (AMA); the Arthritis Foundation; the Consumer Federation of America; New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani; the Harvard School of Public Health; the Marin Institute for the Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems; the National Association of High School Principals; the National Safety Council; the National Transportation Safety Board; the Office of Highway Safety for the state of Georgia; Ralph Nader's group, Public Citizen; the CDC; and the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Over 40 % of the group's 2005 expenditure was paid to Rick Berman's public relations company, Berman & Co. for "management services. [1] As part of its operations, CCF runs a series of attack websites, including ConsumerFreedom.com, ActivistCash.com, CSPIscam.com (attacking the Center for Science in the Public Interest), Animal-Scam.com, FishScam.com, ObesityMyths.com, Sweetscam.com, PhysiciansScam.com and PetaKillsAnimals.com. [2]

Starting out smoking

Mr. Berman launched the Guest Choice Network in 1995. Its initial funding came entirely from the Philip Morris (PM) tobacco company. GCN was formed so as to appear not to be "owned" by PM; address restaurant owners lack of interest in PM's "Accommodation Program" and broaden industry appeal. According to a September of 1995 letter from Mr. Berman to Barbara Trach, PM's Sr. Program Manager for Public Affairs, GCN was designed to:

"Create an aggressive mentality by (restaurant) operators (to oppose) government smoking bans."

He proposed that PM form an aggressive front group to motivate restaurant owners to aggressively fight bans, while appearing to be acting on their own:

"...if you want to gain more ground quickly for the smokers' rights issue, the (Guest Choice) program must create a proactive, aggressive mentality by (restaurant) operators regarding government smoking bans..."

He described how hiding PM's involvement would allow the group take more aggressive action:

"Additional benefit -- if externally perceived as driven by restaurant interests, there will be more flexibility and creativity allowed than if it is 'owned' by Philip Morris. The American Beverage Institute, which opposes overly aggressive DWI laws, enjoys this profile."[3]

According to a December 11, 1995 letter to Barbara Trach:

"I'd like to propose to Philip Morris the establishment of the Guest Choice Network. ...The concept is to unite the restaurant and hospitality industries in a campaign to defend their consumers and marketing programs against attacks from anti-smoking, anti-drinking, anti-meat, etc. activists. ... I would like to solicit Philip Morris for an initial contribution of $600,000." [4]

The purpose of GCN, as Berman explained in a separate planning document, would be to enlist operators of "restaurants, hotels, casinos, bowling alleys, taverns, stadiums, and university hospitality educators" to "support mentality of 'smokers rights' by encouraging responsibility to protect 'guest choice.'" According to a year end budget, Guest Choice planned to spend $1.5 million during its first 13 months of operation, including $390,000 for "membership marketing/materials development," $430,000 to establish a communication center and newsletter (which Berman promised would have a "60% to 70% smoking focus", $110,000 to create a "multi-industry advisory council," and $345,000 for "grassroots network development/operation."[5], [6]

PM complied with Berman's initial funding request for $600,000 and pitched in another $300,000 early the following year:

"As of this writing, PM USA is still the only contributor, though Berman continues to promise others any day now," wrote Philip Morris attorney Marty Barrington in an internal company memorandum dated March 28, 1996. [7]

Aside from PM, there were no other publicly-known funders of Guest Choice until its public launch two years later in April 1998. [8]

Tactics

Personal responsibility

While most food lobbyists rely on the rhetoric of "personal responsibility" to blame the obesity problem on the failure of people to act sensibly, CCF, in contrast, denies the problem altogether. Their position is to "defend" the very notion of personal responsibility by tying it closely to the All-American values of choice, freedom, and rugged individualism against the food police, militant radicals, and government bureaucrats who want to keep you from enjoying your God-given right to Big Macs, Marlboros, and Budweiser.[9]

"Free to choose"

One of CCF's favorite strategies is to align the interests of food companies with those of the consumers. It portrays these two groups as "allies" and the besieged "victims" of government regulators, nonprofits, parents, and other food-industry critics.[10] By "consumer freedom," CCF means the "right of adults and parents to choose how they live their lives, what they eat and drink, how they manage their finances, and how they enjoy themselves."[11] The free-to-choose argument implies that advocates of sound nutrition policy are diametrically opposed to the interests of everyone else and that they are killjoys with no interest in enjoying food.

A related salvo is CCF's argument that nutrition advocates and other food-industry critics are infantilizing people when they give dietary advice. CCF produced a television commercial showing people trying to enjoy all-American pleasures such as ice cream, hot dogs and beer, only to be foiled by a hand that swoops down and commandeers the offending items. A voice-over inveighs:

"Everywhere you turn, someone's telling us what we can't eat. It's getting harder just to enjoy a beer on a night out. Do you always feel like you're being told what to do? Find out who is driving the food police at ConsumerFreedom.com.[12]

Marginalizing advocates

Part of CCF's method is to direct attention away from the substantive issues and to keep the focus on the messenger rather than the message. For example, CCF has created a website known as CSPIscam, whose sole purpose is to discredit and defame the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). CCF dismisses CSPI's work as media driven and reliant on "junk science" to scare people into believing that the group is trying to take away their right to eat whatever they want.[13]

CCF explains its mission as fighting back against "self-anointed "food police," health campaigners, trial lawyers, personal-finance do-gooders, animal-rights misanthropes, and meddling bureaucrats."[14] An important aspect of such rhetoric is to set advocates apart from the mainstream. These labels are meant to conjure up caricatured images of 1960s-style activism, complete with flag burning, sex, drugs, and rock and roll.[15] CCf has also developed a website called ActivistCash that claims to "expose" the funding sources of various environmental and public health organizations. The site includes a list of "key players" in nutrition advocacy, including New York University nutrition professor Marion Nestle, who is described as "one of the country's most hystieral anti-food-industry fanatics," a food cop with "radical goals."[16]

Implicit in CCF's food cop rhetoric is the idea that people who advocate for eating a healthy diet are motivated by personal agendas. They maintain a long list of people operating under supposed "hidden agendas." CCF is also accuses pro-vegetarian organizations like PETA and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) of hiding behind an "animal rights agenda", though these groups are visibly and vocally trying to protect animals and readily acknowledge such. [17] See also A Visit to the ActivistCash.Com Web Site.

Campaigns

Defending payday loans

In a March 2008 letter to the editor of The Capital Times (Madison, Wisconsin), CCF's Tim Miller defended the payday loan industry. "Research shows that when politicians respond to the calls of overzealous interest groups ... to eliminate payday lending, borrowers are forced to turn to more expensive and less desirable options," he wrote. "Economists with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that after North Carolina banned payday loans, those who were experiencing financial stress turned to bounced checks, bankruptcies and delinquent bill pay." [18]

Anti-PETA and pro-mercury

CCF runs PetaKillsAnimals.com, a campaign against People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), as well as campaigns questioning the health impact of mercury in fish. According to Forbes:

"Berman has already moved onto his next topic: scares about mercury levels in fish. He'll soon be adding FishScam.com to a growing collection of Web sites that includes AnimalScam, CSPIscam and ActivistCash.com, which exposes the financing behind do-gooder groups and lefty celebrities."[19]

In February 2004, there was an ad campaign on the Washington, D.C. Metro featuring a photo of a mouse next to a photo of a sick girl in a hospital bed, criticizing PETA for its stance on animal testing and imploring viewers to visit the website to find out more and donate money for similar ads. A search on SamSpade.org reveals that the website is owned and operated by Guest Choice Network and Berman & Co. See also Richard Berman cares about animals: clients exposed.

Anti-anti obesity

A September 2005 Forbes article describes ads CCF ran in its "anti-anti-obesity" campaign:

"In one ad, Seinfeld "Soup Nazi" character actor Larry Thomas plays a chef who weighs customers, then barks "salad!" or "no food for you" depending on how far they push the scale. In another, heavy-handed "food police" rip an ice cream cone away from a whimpering kid, whack a beer from a man about to enjoy a sip and snuff out a hot dog on the ground." [20]

To rebut claims showing a link between obesity and junk food consumption, and to establish itself as the respected authority on the issue, CCF has adopted a multipronged approach, including:

  • Lobbying against nutrition legislation unfriendly to industry interests.
  • Preparing well-time press releases.
  • Publishing op-ed articles and letters to the editor.
  • Advertising its views in print and electronic media. [21]

In April 2005, following a U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study that "obesity accounts for 25,814 deaths a year in the United States"; in contrast to earlier CDC studies suggesting 365,000 annual obesity-related deaths, [22] CCF launched a $600,000 ad campaign. The ad ran in such major newspapers as the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and USA Today and called "obesity" a "hype":

"Americans have been force-fed a steady diet of obesity myths by the 'food police,' trial lawyers, and even our own government." [23]

CCF's Mike Burita said the ad campaign was part "putting pressure on the leadership of the CDC, who has still not endorsed this new figure" for obesity-related deaths. Claiming that CCF wanted "some perspective," Burita added, "Obesity is certainly a genuine problem. But when genuine problems become political issues they tend to become exaggerated, as this has." [24] In early 2002, CCF ran national radio ads targeting studies on the link between food consumption and health. One ad referred to "red-faced picketers wielding pointed wooden sticks with signs that read 'eat tofu or die' on the way to your classic cheeseburger and fries."

CCF sponsors the ObesityMyths.com website, which purports to debunk "myths" about obesity.[25]

CCF's claims about obesity frequently make a straw man argument about the body mass index (BMI), a statistical measurement which compares a person's weight and height and is used to assess how much an individual's body weight departs from what is normal or desirable for a person of his or her height. CCF claims that the BMI is a "flawed" standard [26] because people with more muscle than average may weigh more than others of the same height, without necessarily having excess body fat. The CCF website mocks the BMI standard by listing muscular Hollywood action heroes and professional athletes; claiming that the government has deemed them "officially overweight."

In fact, U.S. government health standards do not rely exclusively on body mass index when giving weight loss advice. As the Obesity Education Initative of the National Heart Blood and Lung Institute explains, "assessment of overweight involves using three key measures: body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, and risk factors for diseases and conditions associated with obesity." A BMI higher than 25 is considered overweight, and higher than 30 is considered obese. However, the government's guidelines only recommend weight loss for people who are considered obese or who are considered overweight and have "two or more risk factors" such as high blood pressure, high LDL-cholesterol, a family history of premature heart disease, physical inactivity or cigarette smoking.[27] Contrary to what CCF claims, these guidelines would not recommend weight loss for people such as Brad Pitt, Denzel Washington or Sylvester Stallone. CCF also loads the dice by misrepresenting the weight of many of the celebrities on its list. For example, it states that Brad Pitt is 6 feet tall and weighs 203 pounds. Other sources list Pitt's weight at between 150 to 175 pounds. (He was at his thinnest when filming Fight Club but bulked up for the movie Troy.) [28]

Creating controversy

CCF's efforts to appear as an authority on obesity appear to work in spite of their lack of any identifiable credentials as a scientific body. CCF is regularly consulted by journalists on health issues and often positioned as the "other side" of relatively uncontroversial issues. For example, a September of 2005 article in the Los Angeles Times on data concerning the increasing the prevalance of obesity, quoted several health experts as well as CCF in order to create controversy. In the article, Dan Mindus, a senior analyst at CCF said that he didn't disagree with the data, but cited other studies showing tremendous drops in the level of children's physical activity and no evidence of higher caloric intake:

"In case after case, we see evidence kids aren't eating any more than they used to, but exercising less. It's almost too easy to blame snacks in schools when it's more difficult to try to get kids moving again." [29]

CCF also likes to publish well-timed, strategically placed op-ed articles in leading newspapers, aimed at putting an industry-friendly spin on potentially damning scientific studies. On August 26, 2004, for example, CCF director Rick Berman trashed a story published that week in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) showing a clear connection between soda consumption and diabetes in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. In an article entitled "Soft Drink Hysteria Hard to Swallow," Berman wrote:

"Frankly, the contortions that the authors went through to demonize soda would make our own gold medal gymnasts proud."[30]

Neither Berman or the Journal-Constitution explained why CCF should be more scientifically compelling than JAMA.

Anti-menu labeling

In 2004, California state senator Deborah Ortiz introduced a menu-labeling bill that was brought down by a CCF spearheaded campaign. CCF and other major food companies complain that menu labeling is costly and ineffective, claiming, instead, that the solution to the nation's obesity epidemic lies in better consumer education and personal responsibility.[31] Joining the opposition was the California Restaurant Association, which predictably argued that the proposed law "sent the wrong message about personal choices and responsibility."[32] The bill never made it out of the Assembly Health Committee.

Quotable and notable

In a 1999 interview with the Chain Leader, a trade publication for restaurant chains, Berman boasted that he attacks activists more aggressively than other lobbyists:

"We always have a knife in our teeth. Since activists "drive consumer behavior on meat, alcohol, fat, sugar, tobacco and caffeine," his strategy is "to shoot the messenger. ... We've got to attack their credibility as spokespersons." [33]

In November 2001, the Guest Choice Network launched a separate web site, ActivistCash.com, which purports to expose the "hidden funding" of various activist groups that support animal rights, food safety and smoking prevention. In January 2002 the Guest Choice Network renamed itself the Center for Consumer Freedom.

In a May 11, 2002 San Francisco Chronicle article, CCF spokesman John Doyle responded to questions about nationwide radio ads put out by the group. He said the ads were meant to attract people to their website and:

"draw attention to our enemies: just about every consumer and environmental group, chef, legislator or doctor who raises objections to things like pesticide use, genetic engineering of crops or antibiotic use in beef and poultry."[34]

On November 16, 2004, the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) alleging that CCF had violated its tax exempt status. According to the complaint, CCF engaged in prohibited electioneering; made substantial payments to Richard Berman and his wholly owned, for-profit Berman & Co. and was generally engaged in non-charitable activities. [35]According to CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan to Forbes:

"It doesn't seem to me that someone should get a tax deduction while they're writing public relations memos about how people should be able to smoke in restaurants."[36]

In January of 2006, CCF's David Martosko was asked, in the context of CCF's campaign dismissing concerns about mercury concentration in seafood, whether they received funding from the seafood industry, from coal companies or utilities:

"Well, I know that we never accepted money from utilities or coal companies. I don't know exactly which companies in the food sector support us. You know, it's not my job to know. I really don't pay attention. I do know that the vast majority of our, say, institutional funding, comes from the food sector. Beyond that, I just don't know," he said. [37]

Affiliated organizations

In addition to the Center for Consumer Freedom, Berman & Co. sponsors several other organizations and web sites, including the Employment Policies Institute (which fights to keep the minimum wage low and opposes mandatory health insurance for workers), and the American Beverage Institute, which opposes restrictions on drinking and driving.

Funding

CCF is registered as tax-exempt nonprofit organization and is required to disclose some financial information to the Internal Revenue Service which is publicly available by inspecting their IRS Form 990s. Like Berman's other front groups, it does not disclose the identity of its funders, but some information about it has become publicly available thanks to the 1998 attorney generals' settlement with the tobacco industry, which required tobacco companies to release millions of pages of previously secret company documents.

CCF claims to represent "more than 30,000 U.S. restaurants and tavern operators." However, the IRS Form 990 which it filed for the the six-month period from July to December 1999 (under the name of "Guest Choice Network") shows that almost all of its financial support came from a handful of anonymous sources. Its total income for that period was $111,642, of which $105,000 came from six unnamed donors. It received no income from membership dues. Some of its funding apparently came from one of Berman's other organizations, the American Beverage Institute, which "contributes monthly amounts to the Guest Choice Network to assist with media expenses." The Guest Choice Network did not report paying salaries to any of its employees, who were presumably paid by Berman & Co.

CCF's Form 990 for the year 2000 showed total income of $514,321, almost all of which ($492,500) came from seven unnamed donors. Once again, it received no income from membership dues and did not report paying salaries to any employees. However, it did list $256,077 in compensation paid to Berman and Co., Inc., for "management services."

In 2004, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a complaint with the IRS alleging that CCF violated its nonprofit, tax-exempt status. IRS law prohibits private individuals from benefiting from nonprofit organizations, but CREW alleges that Rick Berman and his for-profit lobbying and public relations firm have received nearly $2 million from CCF and its predecessor organization since 1999.[38] Tax-exempt organizations must have a charitable purposek, but CREW notes that CCF lobbies exclusively on behalf of food producers and the restaurant and tobacco industries.

2005 finances

CCF's Form 990 for the year 2005 listed total revenue of $3.67 million. [39] Of its expenditure of $3.82 million in 2005, $2.19 million was for a series of major advertisements, $856,699 was for running a series of websites and distributring a daily emnail newsletter to "approximately 30,000 subscribers" and a further $214,000 on maintaining a "database of foundations grants and funding sources of organizations dealing with food and beverage issues."[40]

Of the group's $3.82 million of expenditure in 2005, $1.62 million was paid as compensation to Berman & Co., representating approximately 42% of the group's total expenditure.[41]

Contributions

Through a whistleblower, the Center for Media and Democracy has obtained the following information about corporate contributions to the Guest Choice Network/CCF:

Contributors
Corporation Pre-2001 2001 2002 Total
Coca-Cola Company $200,000   $200,000
Excel/Cargill $100,000 $100,000 $200,000
Monsanto $200,000   $200,000
Tyson Foods $100,000 $100,000 $200,000
Wendy's International, Inc. $200,000   $200,000
Outback Steakhouse $164,600   $164,600
Pilgrim's Pride Corp. $100,000   $100,000
HMS Host Corporation $50,000 $25,000 $75,000
RTM, Inc.     $64,872 $64,872
White Castle System $43,872   $43,872
Perdue Farms, Inc.     $40,000 $40,000
Hatfield Quality Meats $33,700   $33,700
Brinker International     $25,000 $25,000
Quantum Foods $18,000   $18,000
Standard Meat $17,500     $17,500
Applebee's International, Inc. $15,000   $15,000
Coldwater Seafood $15,000   $15,000
P.F. Chang's China Bistro $15,000   $15,000
Performance Food Group $15,000   $15,000
Rare Hospitality $15,000   $15,000
Marie Callendar Pie Shops $11,900   $11,900
Advantica Restaurant Group $10,000     $10,000
National Steak and Poultry $10,000   $10,000
Packaging Corporation of America $10,000   $10,000
T. Marzetti Company $10,000   $10,000
Trinchero Family Estates $10,000     $10,000
King and Prince Seafood $9,200   $9,200
Paradise Tomato Kitchens, Inc.     $7,500 $7,500
Michigan Turkey Producers Cooperative     $7,000 $7,000
Fired Up $6,000   $6,000
Restaurant Concepts $6,000   $6,000
Rosemount Estates (Southcorp Wines) $5,300   $5,300
TriOak Foods $5,100   $5,100
Armour-Swift Eckrich $5,000     $5,000
Darifair Foods     $5,000 $5,000
Dean Foods Company     $5,000 $5,000
Ken's Foods Inc.     $5,000 $5,000
Simmons Foods, Inc.     $5,000 $5,000
Sugar Foods Corporation $5,000   $5,000
Casual Restaurant Concepts $3,300   $3,300
LTP Management Group $3,250   $3,250
Anton's Airfoods, Inc. $3,000   $3,000
Cameron Mitchell Restaurants $1,250 $1,250 $2,500
Chart House Enterprises $2,500     $2,500
Max & Erma's Restaurants, Inc. $2,500     $2,500
Royal Cup $1,000 $1,500 $2,500
Pro Edge $2,400   $2,400
Comarco Products $2,000     $2,000
Save-on Seafood $2,000   $2,000
Sun Orchard, Inc.     $2,000 $2,000
Custom Cuts $1,500   $1,500
Good Humor/Breyer's Ice Cream     $1,500 $1,500
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. $1,500     $1,500
Pro Clean     $1,500 $1,500
Worldwide Restaurants Concepts $1,500   $1,500
Bestfoods Foodservice $1,250     $1,250
Kagome, Inc. $1,086   $1,086
Campagna-Turano Bakery, Inc. $,500 $,500 $1,000
Carlson Hospitality Worldwide $1,000     $1,000
Country Kitchen International $1,000     $1,000
Daisy Brand $1,000   $1,000
Eli's Cheesecake Company     $1,000 $1,000
Jeff's Gourmet Pies $1,000   $1,000
John Soules Foods     $1,000 $1,000
KPR Foods $1,000   $1,000
Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers $1,000   $1,000
Revolution, Inc.     $1,000 $1,000
Ruth's Chris Steak House, Inc. $1,000     $1,000
John R. Daily Company $,750   $,750
Mexican Restaurants $,750   $,750
Not Your Average Joe's $,347 $,347 $,694
Buca, Inc. $,500     $,500
Louise's Trattoria $,500     $,500
National Everclean Service     $,500 $,500
North American Enterprises $,500   $,500
Real Food Marketing $,500   $,500
Ruby Tuesday, Inc. $,500     $,500
Syracuse's Italian Sausage     $,500 $,500
China Mist     $,400 $,400
KorBert, Inc. $,300   $,300
Crystal's International $,252   $,252
4 B's Restaurants $,200     $,200
North American Provisioners $,150   $,150
Coffee Reserve, Inc.     $,140 $,140
Total $56,950 $1392,007 $402,509 $1851,466

Personnel

Officers

The IRS Form 990 filed for 2005 lists the following officers:

Advisory panel

CCF also has an advisory panel. In 1998 it included the following individuals:

Media

Former personnel

The IRS Form 990 filed for the the six-month period from July to December 1999 by CCF (then calling itself the Guest Choice Network), listed, in addition to Berman, the following officers:

Contact

Like other Berman & Co. front groups, CCF is headquartered at:

Berman & Co.
1775 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 463-7110
FAX: (202) 463-7107
Email: rberman@new-reality.com

Web address: http://www.consumerfreedom.com/

Articles & sources

SourceWatch articles

References

  1. ↑ "The Center for Consumer Freedom", Form 990, 2005, p.3.
  2. ↑ "The Center for Consumer Freedom", Form 990, 2005, Statement 1
  3. ↑ Richard Berman, Untitled letter to Barbara Trach at Philip Morris, Tobacco Legacy Library, 3 pp. September 5, 1995
  4. ↑ Richard Berman Letter to Barbara Trach, Phillip Morris, December 11, 1995
  5. ↑ R. Berman/PM planning document, PRWatch, December 1995
  6. ↑ year-end Berman/PM 1995 year-end budget, PRWatch, December 1995
  7. ↑ Martin J. Barrington PM Internal Memo, PRWatch, March 1996
  8. ↑ Mark Berlind Activist Cash.com, Tobacco Legacy Library, January 4, 2002
  9. ↑ Michele Simon Appetite for Profit pg 48
  10. ↑ Michele Simon Appetite for Profit pg 48
  11. ↑ About Us, CCF, accessed January 2010
  12. ↑ Advertisements, CCF, accessed January 2005
  13. ↑ Michele Simon Appetite for Profit pg 50-51
  14. ↑ About Us, CCF, accessed January 2010
  15. ↑ Michele Simon Appetite for Profit pg 52
  16. ↑ Marion Nestle Biography on ActivistCash, Activistcash.com, accessed January 2010
  17. ↑ Michele Simon Appetite for Profit pg 53-53
  18. ↑ Tim Miller Payday Loans a Helpful Option for Consumers," Letter to the editor, The Capital Times (Madison, WI), March 7, 2008.
  19. ↑ Seth Lubove Food Fight,Forbes, September 23, 2005
  20. ↑ Seth Lubove, "Food Fight," , Forbes, September 2005
  21. ↑ Michele Simon, Appetite for Profit: How the Food Industry Underminds Our Health and How to Fight Back, (paperback) (Nation Books, 2006), 173.
  22. ↑ Marilynn Marchione Obesity is health threat, CDC says, Associated Press, June 3, 2005
  23. ↑ Obesity Hype, CCF, April 2005
  24. ↑ Restaurant/Food Processors/Alcohol Front Group Runs Flat Earth Ads on Health, Reuters, April 2005
  25. ↑ WHOIS Search Results. Network Solutions. Retrieved on September 18, 2008.
  26. ↑ Government Warning: Tinseltown Hunks Are Actually Hollywood Chunks. Center for Consumer Freedom (July 16, 2004). Retrieved on September 18, 2008.
  27. ↑ Aim for a Healthy Weight: Assessing Your Risk. National Heart Blood and Lung Institute. Retrieved on September 18, 2008.
  28. ↑ How Brad Pitt got in shape for films like Fight Club and Troy. Sixpacknow.com. Retrieved on September 18, 2008.
  29. ↑ Carla Rivera "Childhood Obesity Off the Scale in California" Los Angeles Times, September 9, 2005
  30. ↑ Rick Berman "Soft Drink Hysteria Hard to Swallow" Atlanta Journal-Constitution August 26, 2004
  31. ↑ Michele Simon Appetite for Profit: How the Food Industry Undermines Our Health and How to Fight Back (Nation Books, 2006), 199
  32. ↑ Dorsey Griffith "Food Industry Puts its Weight into Obesity Fight", Sacramento Bee May 24, 2004
  33. ↑ Nancy Goldstein Biting the hand that spins you, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington , March 2005
  34. ↑ Carol Ness Hand that feeds bites back: Food industry forks over ad campaign to win hearts, stomachs, San Francisco Chronicle, May 11, 2002. Page A-3
  35. ↑ Crew Files IRS Complaint Against the Center for Consumer Freedom Alleging Violations of Tax Exempt Status, CREW, November 2004
  36. ↑ Seth Lubove, "Food Fight," Forbes, September 2005
  37. ↑ Bruce Gellerman, "Mercury in Fish: Casting Caution to the Wind?", Living on Earth, January 13, 2006
  38. ↑ Michele Simon Appetite for Profit pg 61
  39. ↑ "The Center for Consumer Freedom", Form 990, 2005, p.1.
  40. ↑ "The Center for Consumer Freedom", Form 990, 2005, p.3.
  41. ↑ "The Center for Consumer Freedom", Form 990, 2005, p.5.

External resources

This article may include information from Tobacco Documents Online.

Search the Documents Archives of the Tobacco Industry
Legacy Tobacco Documents Library:

External articles

Retrieved from "http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom"
Personal tools

Be a SourceWatcher!

Enter your e-mail address to get the Center for Media and Democracy's free weekly e-newsletter.