American Beverage Association
Cities and counties have long played a valuable role as laboratories of democracy for important public policy innovations, including public health policies. As cities and counties across the county introduce taxes on sodas and sweetened beverages to counter the rise in obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other serious public health challenges, they are facing sophisticated opposition campaigns spearheaded by the deep-pocketed American Beverage Association (ABA) and allied groups.
In numerous localities, the ABA partners with U.S. Chamber of Commerce affiliates like the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce or the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce. Statewide retail and grocery groups like Illinois Retail Merchants Association and PA Food Merchants Association have also been very active and in Oregon, the Northwest Grocers Association is taking a leading role on a soda tax preemption referendum on the ballot in 2018.
Cities with Soda Taxes
Many U.S. localities have moved to implement a soda tax.
- Berkeley, California.
- Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
- San Francisco, California.
- Oakland, California.
- Albany, California.
- Boulder, Colorado.
- Santa Fe, New Mexico, tax defeated 2017.
- Cook County, Illinois, repealed in 2017.
- Seattle, Washington.
Participants and Board of Directors
The American Beverage Association (ABA) is a 501(c)(6) trade association and a lobbying powerhouse bankrolled by the largest players in the soft drink industry including Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola. (ABA’s full membership directory can be viewed here.) The D.C.-based ABA is currently led by Susan K. Neely, President and Chief Executive Officer.
The ABA’s Board of Directors is composed of soda industry executives. The CEOs of these institutions receive generous compensation for their efforts to push surgery drinks.
- Susan K. Neely, President and CEO of ABA: $1,704,665 (2015) [1]
- James Quincey, President and CEO of Coca-Cola: $1,300,000 (2017) [2]
- Indra K. Nooyi, Chairman and CEO of Pepsico: $1,700,000 (2017) [3]
- Larry D. Young, President and CEO of Dr. Pepper Snapple Group: $1,132,692 (2016) [4]
According to its latest available tax filing (2015), the ABA had a total of $78.9 million in revenue, $75.3 million in expenses, and $34.1 million in net assets. The ABA also has a number of related organizations including: American Beverage Foundation for a Healthy America; Americans Against Food Taxes; Americans for Food and Beverage Choice; American Beverage Association Fund for Consumer Choice; and American Beverage Association PAC.
Led by the ABA, the soda industry spent $48.9 million on recent soda tax opposition campaigns in Cook County, IL; Philadelphia, PA; Boulder, CO; San Francisco, CA; Oakland, CA; Seattle, WA, Santa Fe, NM; and Albany, California, according to a November 2017 report [5] by the watchdog group Center for Science in the Public Interest.
Recent Campaign Websites
The ABA itself maintains a strong internet presence with a website, Twitter account, Facebook account, and YouTube account. In addition, the organization creates and maintains a large number of “campaign websites” with linked social media accounts.
Below is a list of the some of the more recent ABA campaign websites.
- No on V, Enough is Enough: Don’t Tax Our Groceries (San Francisco)
- Ax the Bev Tax (Philadelphia)
- No on HH: No Grocery Tax (Oakland)
- Can the Tax Coalition (Cook County)
- Better Way for Santa Fe & Pre-K
- Keep Seattle Livable for All
- No on 2H: Stop the Beverage and Grocery Tax (Boulder)
Tactics in the ABA Playbook
Because most of the soda taxes that have been implemented were enacted by ballot initiative, the ABA has spent most of this money on television advertising campaigns. When the fight shifts to a state measure to preempt these local ordinances, it is likely that the ABA will inflate campaign and lobby spending as well in an attempt to influence state lawmakers.
In each locality that introduces a soda tax, the ABA quickly sets up a “grassroots” public relations front group whose primary purpose is to shields brand-name soda companies, like Coke and Pepsi, from responsibility and culpability. The Center for Media and Democracy calls the practice of a big dollar PR industry campaigns acting like an organic grassroots operation “astroturfing.”
In Richmond in 2012 for instance, the ABA front group fighting a soda tax referendum on the ballot was called “Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes.” In El Monte in 2012 the ABA front group was called “El Monte Citizens Against Beverage Taxes.” The overall PR campaign is also given a name, and TV ads, campaign websites, and social media accounts are created and commonly themed. Because residents only see the front group name or campaign name such as “Can the Tax Coalition,” the public is not generally aware of that it is industry behind the ads.
If one industry tactic is to hide behind a front group with a diverse array of spokespersons, another is to use the front groups to shift the terms of the debate or refocus the debate on a different topic altogether. Thus, we see ABA front groups and ad campaigns working hard to shift the discussion from “soda tax” to “grocery tax” and from the public health impacts of sugary drinks to the “high cost of living.” Many ABA ads in soda tax campaigns across the nation pound the “grocery tax” theme, claiming that it hurts small business and all consumers, even those who don’t drink soda.
State Preemption of Local Ordinances
When all else fails, powerful industries sometimes move to ban local control of policies they do not like, including nutrition-related policy. In this tactic, industry is taking a page from the big tobacco playbook. Tobacco has battled across the nation to preempt all sorts of local tobacco controls, for instance, twelve states preempt local smoke-free ordinances that are stronger than state standards.
There has already been preemption of local ordinances related to nutrition in nine states. [6]
- Alabama
- Arizona
- Florida
- Georgia
- Kansas
- Mississippi
- Ohio
- Utah
- Wisconsin
- Michigan, 2017
- Arizona, 2018
In August 2005, the ABA announced a new school-based policy to provide lower calorie and/or nutritious beverages to schools and to limit the availability of soft drinks at the annual meeting of the National Conference of State Legislatures [7] "The first salvo in a broader public-relations counterattack by beverage companies to help the industry reverse its tarnished image", the Wall Street Journal reports, is voluntary restrictions on drink sales in schools. The guidelines, touted "in full-page ads in several national newspapers," suggest that new school contracts remove carbonated soft drinks from elementary schools and remove sugary drinks from middle schools during school hours. All beverages will continue to be sold in high schools.[8]
Susan Neely, "the creator of the 'Harry and Louise' ads that helped torpedo President Clinton's health-care plan in the early 1990s," heads the industry group and is leading the "multimillion-dollar advertising and PR campaign to show that the beverage industry derives a substantial portion of its sales and growth from healthier beverages." Neely told the Wall Street Journal, "you have to have an industry voice."[8]
"Soda industry touts school ban to quiet obesity critics," reads the PR Week headline on a story outlining the soft-drink industry's latest defensive move in response to national concerns about childhood obesity. Even leading food-industry publication "Vending Market Watch" noted that, "This new policy is clearly designed to counteract criticism from consumer activists and politicians who say the beverage industry is profiting at children's expense" [9] PR giant Porter Novelli is working with the American Beverage Association to promote the trade group's school vending policy. The voluntary code recommends some limits on the sale of sugary carbonated beverages in schools, but still allows for sales of juices and sports drinks.[10]
According to PR Week, Porter Novelli "will assist [ABA] in talking about the new policy with educators, parents, legislators, regulators, and other groups interested in school nutrition issues." The group has already run full-page ads in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and USA Today publicizing its new policy. Porter Novelli also worked on developing the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Guide Pyramid.[10]
The ABA policy, however, has no government enforcement or oversight mechanism, and only applies to vending machines, imposing no restrictions on other venues where drinks are sold in schools, such as school canteens and sporting events. The policy applies only to new school contracts, too; it can be amended to old agreements only with the consent of both parties. Beverages are also sold to schools through local distributors, which operate under the jurisdiction of their parent companies, and as such, have the ultimate say regarding which products are made available to schools and under what terms [11] This point is conceded by the ABA itself: "the success of the policy is dependent on voluntary implementation of it by individual beverage companies and by school officials"[12]
In the months after ABA's announcement, Iowa lawmakers rejected a bill aimed at removing soda from schools. Democratic Governor Tom Vilsack supported the move and applauded the American Beverage Association for its leadership in "taking pop out of machines located in elementary and middle schools" [13] Massachusetts legislators introduced a bill that basically mirrored the ABA's voluntary policy a few months later.[14]
Taking a different tack, in May 2006, the American Beverage Association joined with soda companies, the Clinton Foundation and the American Heart Association to announce a new voluntary school policy to limit the portion size and number of calories available to students [15]
Political contributions
The American Beverage Association made the following political contributions to federal candidates through its political action committee as of December 2010:[16]
| Election cycle | Amount | To Democrats | To Republicans |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | $133,002 | 69% | 31% |
| 2008 | $120,865 | 45% | 55% |
| 2006 | $107,357 | 22% | 77% |
Lobbying
The Association spent $18,850,000 for lobbying in 2009.[17]
ABA has lobbied on behalf of Coke and other soda companies against legislation that would limit consumption of their products. It has claimed that "sugar-sweetened beverages are not driving health issues like obesity and diabetes." [18] Yet, a Centers for Disease Control Study has found that "sugared beverages... "have been linked with weight gain, obesity, poor diet, and, in adults, type 2 diabetes." [19]
In 2009, the ABA spent $18.9 million on lobbying, much of which was directed towards an ad campaign trying to stem efforts to implement a federal soft-drink tax to finance the Obama health care bill. [20]
The ABA partnered up with Coke in Philadelphia to lobby against similar legislation: "In Philadelphia, they defeated a modest tax on soft drinks by using the tobacco industry tactic of applying strategic philanthropy to purchase leverage in the form of goodwill. The ABA formed a deceptively-named front group, the Foundation for Healthy America, that they then used to funnel a $10 million donation to the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia to, of all things, expand its obesity program." [21]
Personnel
As of December 2010 includes:[22]
- Susan Neely, President
- James A. McGreevy III, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs
- Maureen Storey, Senior Vice President, Science Policy
- Kevin W. Keane, Senior Vice President, Public Affairs
- Barbara Hiden, Vice President, Federal Affairs
- Tracey A. Halliday, Vice President, Communications
Board:
- Chair Tom L. Bené (Tom L. Bene), President, Pepsi-Cola North America Beverages
- Vice Chair Claude B. Nielsen, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Coca-Cola Bottling Company United
- William B. Cyr (Billy Cyr), President and Chief Executive Officer Sunny Delight Beverages Co.
- Jim Johnston, President, Beverage Concentrate Sales and Latin American Beverages, Dr Pepper Snapple Group
Associations
- Alliance for Better Foods, ABA was associated with this front group when it was called National Soft Drink Association
- American Council for Fitness and Nutrition, ABA is a member
- American Council on Science and Health, front group supported by ABA
- Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, ABA is a member of front group opposing unions
- International Food Information Council, when ABA was called National Soft Drink Association
Contact details
American Beverage Association
1101 16th St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Main Telephone Number: (202) 463- 6732
Fax Number: (202) 659-5349
Press Questions: (202) 463-6770
Email: info AT ameribev.org
Web: http://www.ameribev.org
Articles and resources
Related SourceWatch articles
- Industry-funded organizations
- International Bottled Water Association
- Obesity PR
- The Food Industry Campaign to Undermine 'Chew On This'
References
- ↑ ProPublica, "Nonprofit Explorer - American Beverage Association," April 2, 2018.
- ↑ Investis, " United States Securities and Exchange Commission Schedule 14A Information for PepsiCo, Inc.," April 2, 2018.
- ↑ United States Securities and Exchange Commission, "Beverage Industry Announces New School Vending Policy," April 2, 2018.
- ↑ Bloomberg Markets, "Stocks," April 2, 2018.
- ↑ Center for Science in the Public Interest, "Big Soda vs. Public Health: 2017 Edition," September 5, 2017.
- ↑ Grassroots Change, "Preemption Watch," April 2, 2018.
- ↑ American Beverage Association, press release "Beverage Industry Announces New School Vending Policy," August 16, 2005.
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 Betsy McKay, "Soda Marketers Will Cut Back Sales to Schools", Wall Street Journal, August 17, 2005.
- ↑ Elliot Maras, Beverage Industry Group Supporters Limiting Carbonated Soda in Schools, "Vending Market Watch," August 17, 2005.
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 John N. Frank, "Soda industry touts school ban to quiet obesity critics", PR Week, August 26, 2005.
- ↑ Michele Simon "Appetite for Profit: How the Food Industry Underminds Our Health and How to Fight Back," Nation Books: 2006, pg 14-15.
- ↑ American Beverage Association, press release "Beverage Industry Announces New School Vending Policy," August 16, 2005.
- ↑ Tom Dorman, Vilsack: Educate Kids on Making Good Food Choices, "Quad-City Times," February 16, 2006.
- ↑ Tracy Jan, A Sweet Tooth is Tough to Pull: Even When Schools Ban Candy Machines, Pupils Indulge, "Boston Globe," February 15, 2006.
- ↑ Clinton Foundation "Alliance for a Healthier Generation and Industry Leaders Set Healthy School Beverage Guidelines for U.S. Schools" May 3, 2006.
- ↑ PAC Summary Data, Open Secrets, accessed December 2010.
- ↑ Lobbying expenditures, Open Secrets, accessed December 2010.
- ↑ American Beverage Association Statement on NCHS Data Brief, PR Newswire, August 31, 2011, accessed October 21, 2011
- ↑ CDC: Why do Half of American Teens Consume Sugary Drinks? International Business Times, September 1, 2011, accessed October 21, 2011
- ↑ ALEC and Coca-Cola: A "Classic" Collaboration PR Watch, October 12, 2011, accessed October 21, 2011
- ↑ ALEC and Coca-Cola: A "Classic" Collaboration PR Watch, October 12, 2011, accessed October 21, 2011
- ↑ ABA team, American Beverage Association, accessed December 2010.
External articles
- "It's a‘Bevolution': National Soft Drink Association Changes Name To American Beverage Association to Reflect Wide Range of Beverages Industry Produces", Media Release, November 11, 2004.
- Betsy McKay, "Soda Marketers Will Cut Back Sales to Schools", Wall Street Journal, August 17, 2005. (Sub re'qd).
- Laura Miller, "ABA's School Vending Policy Fizzes On Obesity Prevention", PR Watch Blogs, August 23, 2005.
- John N. Frank, "Soda industry touts school ban to quiet obesity critics", PR Week, August 26, 2005. (Sub req'd).
- Michele Simon, "Big Soda's Puyblicity Stunt: The trade group responsible for pushing sugary drinks to children of all ages has just trumpeted another set of useless new guidelines", AlterNet, August 29, 2005.
- Anemona Hartocollis, "Failure of State Soda Tax Plan Reflects Power of an Antitax Message", The New York Times, July 2, 2010.