Menu Labeling bill strategy, California Public Health Advocacy
Transcription
Menu Labeling bill strategy, California Public Health Advocacy
Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, Yale University A Case Study of California’s Menu labeling Legislation January 2008 Summary In 2007, California State Senator Alex Padilla introduced a bill to mandate that calorie information be listed on menu boards and menus of all restaurants which have 14 or more chains in the state. It would have been the first statewide policy of its kind in the nation. The goals were twofold: to provide consumers with the nutrition information they need to make informed choices; and to prod the industry to reformulate their recipes to make them healthier. Chains such as Subway were using menu labeling as a platform to say “we care about our customers” and it was hoped that peer pressure would build, and others would follow suit. The bill was shepherded successfully through both chambers of the legislature, but vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on October 14, 2007. It will be reintroduced in January 2008. For this case study, I interviewed Amanda Purcell, Director of Policy at the California Center for Public Health Advocacy (CCPHA), the lead advocacy organization for the bill, and Mike Miller, President of Brown Miller Communications, Inc., who coordinated the publicity for the bill. Bill specifics • Bill number/name: SB 120 on Food Facilities: Nutritional Information • Filed: January 2007 • Introduced by: Senators Alex Padilla (D-San Fernando Valley) and Carole Migden (D-San Francisco) • Principal co-author: Assemblyman Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord) • Coauthors: Assembly Members Coto, Hernandez, Mendoza, Saldana, and Solorio • Vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger: October 2007 • Third such bill brought before the California legislature • Mandates chain restaurants to label their menus and menu boards with nutrition information at the point of purchase. • Major opposition included: the California Restaurant Association, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the State Chamber of Commerce, and the California Independent Grocers Association. The lobby groups took the “heat” for the restaurants so the latter would not appear to be against health and nutrition issues. Major provisions of the bill SB 120 would mandate that nutritional information be made available for all standard menu items in restaurants with common ownership or control, with at least 14 other facilities of the same name in the state. On menu boards, only the total calories must be posted in a clear and conspicuous manner (restaurants can choose to add other information if they wish.) Menus must list total calories, grams of saturated fat, trans fat, carbohydrates and milligrams of sodium. The political context The success of the bill depended greatly on advocacy organizations taking the lead role to promote it. After careful deliberation, CCPHA, the American Heart Association, Western States Division, the American Cancer Society and the California Optometric Association decided that menu labeling would be a significant public health measure and so took the lead as sponsors of the bill. The quick and seemingly successful trajectory of this bill was due to a positive political context during its life, called a “perfect storm” of circumstances by both CCPHA and Brown Miller Communications. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had been elected on a platform which included highlighting health care, children, and obesity prevention; after many years of public focus on obesity, the epidemic reached a higher status on many legislators’ agendas, resulting in many bill filings on nutrition and physical activity. Legislators were becoming more well-informed on the obesity issue, which was reflected in their speeches on the Assembly floor. Senator Alex Padilla, although newly elected to the Assembly, was gaining respect and stature, could command loyalty to his causes, and was being watched as a rising star. And, coincidentally and significantly, he was looking for a good nutrition bill to sponsor when he was approached by CCPHA and the American Heart Association (AHA. The “inside” (State House) process and strategy The bill language was written by CCPHA and the American Heart Association, using model language provided by the Center for Science in the Public Interest. It was vetted by lawyers who edited the language in several ways to respond to concerns. Responsibility for enacting the law was shifted to local jurisdictions rather than the State Department of Health. Language was also added that would prevent liability lawsuits being brought against the restaurants. Lawyers found that because most chain restaurants already provide nutrition information (albeit not on menus or menu boards) and use disclaimers, there would be no increased liability. In searching for the best legislative author, CCPHA and AHA initially looked for the strongest returning legislator who wielded power and respect, was seasoned, and able to withstand the opposition that would come his or her way, and of course, had an interest in public health. Not finding the right fit among returning legislators, they instead turned to Alex Padilla, a young, first term, “rising star.” Padilla had served on the LA City Council, and had run for the Assembly seat without party support—a move described by Amanda Purcell as “taking “gumption.” In addition, Padilla had done local work on nutrition, had a longstanding relationship with the American Diabetes Association, was deemed an up-andcoming leader, and fortuitously, was looking for a good nutrition issue to highlight in his first term. He willingly took on the menu labeling legislation, and as promised, worked hard for its passage. The latter is a crucial element to the success of any legislation, but particularly one as controversial as menu labeling. The Senator contacted all of his colleagues to lobby for the bill. The bill was given a fiscal impact study, which helped its successful passage through the Senate Appropriations Committee. While the Senate found the bill to not have any state costs associated with it, the Assembly Appropriations Committee nevertheless gave it a $100,000 price tag. While this was deemed a purely “political” move, it did not have a negative impact on the bill’s passage. The bill sponsors organized panels of experts for the legislative hearings. Although hearings are sometimes only a formality (because the members’ votes are secured beforehand), the bill sponsors strategically packed the hearing room, and asked each attendee to submit a letter of support, which was recorded in the analysis of the bill. The “outside” process and strategy The exceedingly quick trajectory of this bill toward successful passage through both chambers was due not only to the “perfect storm” of political circumstances but also to waging a strong grassroots advocacy campaign, led by the bill sponsors. The key elements of the campaign included educating the public, enlisting the help of grassroots organizations and individuals, and strategic use of the media, including the internet. Preparing for and responding to opponents was a thread woven through each of these elements as well. Educating the Public To educate and activate the public CCPHA arranged a series of forums in the summer of 2006. Margo Wootan, Director of Policy at Washington D.C.’s Center for Science in the Public Interest was the keynote speaker. The forums were scheduled to take place in those districts represented by legislators who did not yet support the concept of menu labeling. The well-publicized and well-attended forums presented people with basic information on menu labeling and why people should care, and encouraged participants to become activists by signing up for the CCPHA network and sending letters to their legislators in support of the bill. They also trained spokespeople around to state to communicate the message to the media. Grassroots and organizational support CCPHA decided on a strategy of “tiered” support. Four groups became the top tier of “sponsors” of the bill: CCPHA, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association and The California Optometric Association. These groups committed to lobbying at the State House, testifying at the hearing, speaking to the media, and allowing the use of their logo on materials. The second tier was a group of “endorsers,” including groups which had historically supported school foods legislation, and many other grassroots membership organizations whose members could be approached for support. The goal was to build a robust database of activists who could activate on short notice, sending faxes, letters, and emails to legislators. (Indeed, they jammed the Governor’s fax machine with incoming letters once the legislature had passed the bill and it was on Schwarzenegger’s desk.) They also sorted the database by legislative district and were able to enlist constituents in districts represented by “wavering” legislators to call and make their opinions known. While there is sometimes doubt amongst advocates that form letters actually make a difference, the bill sponsors determined that in this case they would, after hearing from legislators that they were getting a lot of correspondence in opposition to the legislation from restaurant owners. The bill sponsors then made sure that the legislators heard from a critical mass of supporters. Using the Media One overarching media strategy was to always keep the message simple and to the point: people have a right to this information. By framing the message as “the right to know” and the “need for information” they were strategically positioning legislators to respond positively on record. After all, no legislator would say that people don’t have a right to know! In addition, details on the bill were kept to absolute essentials. To create a “buzz” on the topic, CCPHA with assistance from Brown Miller Communications and the other bill sponsors commissioned the Field Research Corporation to add menu labeling questions to its poll of 523 registered California voters in March of 2007. Field asked if respondents supported requiring fast-food and chain restaurants to post nutrition information on their menus and menu boards, and gave them a “fast food nutrition quiz” to test their knowledge of nutrition in foods served in popular chain restaurants. (See attachment for poll questions and results). The results showed an overwhelmingly positive attitude toward menu labeling and proved to be extremely useful in getting the message out through the media. Overall, a majority (84%) favored menu labeling. Even when broken out by specific demographics, the support was overwhelmingly in favor. For example, those in support included: • 78% of Republicans and 89% of Democrats • 83% with a high school or less education, 82% with college or trade, and 80% of college graduates • 85% of southern Californians, 84% of northern, and 77% of Central valley residents • 83% white, non-Hispanics, 90% African-Americans and Asians, and 88% Latinos • 85% of those earning less than $20,000/yr, 87% earning $20-40,000, 85% earning $40-80,000, and 82% earning more than $80,000. The “fast food nutrition quiz” included four seemingly easy questions about items served at fast food restaurants, asking participants to pick the one they thought had the fewest calories, salt, or fat. No one answered all four questions correctly and 68% were unable to answer even one correctly. These scores were poor, regardless of education or income levels. When CCPHA and Brown Miller distributed the quiz to the media, their strategy proved to be exceptionally smart and, inadvertently became a strategic viral marketing tool. When journalists took the quiz and did as poorly as the average citizen, their amazement at their own ignorance and inability to answer the questions correctly prompted them to send the quiz to other press rooms around the state. After that the story “wrote itself,” as Mike Miller put it, showing up in editorials, features, and food sections in all the major California newspapers, and many local papers as well. The media’s reporting of the poll results also helped to educate the public and enabled advocates to counter the National Restaurant Association’s assertion that people don’t need or want the information because they already knew how to select healthy options. CCPHA anticipated that the bipartisan support for menu labeling would help them when it came time for the Governor’s vote. As stated previously, another aspect of the media strategy was to train spokespeople who would get their local newspapers to report on the issue. Legislators follow their local papers closely, and so CCPHA and Brown Miller were very thorough in getting to all those “fence sitting” legislators’ districts. They found success except with a few very conservative newspapers which wouldn’t develop the story. Throughout the campaign, the another aspect of the strategy was to use the media to keep the Governor’s 2007 platform of health care reform, and his history with it, in the public’s eye and to serve as a reminder to the Governor of his commitments. News “events” (not actual press conferences, because there often was no “news”) were used as a visual opportunity to show the level of support for the bill. At times, they gathered groups of people for the events, and used props such as menu boards showing typical fast food calorie counts to demonstrate the issue. Just before the Governor was scheduled to consider the bill, the bill sponsors and Brown Miller reinvigorated his arguments about childhood obesity and health care, reiterating that this was a “no brainer,” the right direction at the right time, and declaring that “of course” he would pass it. They were essentially challenging him to take the reins, lead the nation on the issue, and giving him media attention for it. By characterizing it as a “natural” for Schwarzenegger they were, in a sense, trying to create a positive spin on Schwarzenegger’s stance so it might prove embarrassing for him to think of taking an opposing one. Brown Miller and CCPHA had a few other media tactics ready to use. One was to take out a full page ad in the Sacramento Bee (the capitol’s major newspaper) and the Capitol Weekly. The other was to post several videos about the issue on YouTube. The videos were shot, but never posted. They may be used for the next round of the legislation. Post mortem The bill sponsors and Senator Padilla launched this menu labeling campaign expecting it to be a multi-year process, and so were surprised and of course thrilled to watch its quick progress through the legislative process, all within the space of about a year. But in retrospect, both CCPHA and Brown Miller expressed some concerns about the pace of this march. One was that having used significant political capital to get this far, it may be difficult to get the bill to the Governor’s desk again in the near future. When a bill takes longer to navigate the legislative process, advocates also have the advantage of building a gradual comfort level with legislators who might either see the bill as less “radical” or are simply worn down after years of exposure to the issue, and so may vote for it. On the other hand, part of the “perfect storm” for this bill was its tremendous momentum, and general lack of questioning of its premise. As Amanda Purcell reported, no one said “I don’t know why you’d do this.” The Governor vetoed the bill on October 14, 2007. His publicly stated reasons for the veto included that it: • would place burdens and costs on some restaurant owners while imposing no burdens or costs on others. • provides restaurants with little flexibility for how they give consumers nutritional information. He asserted that many restaurants are already providing this information in a variety of ways, including on the internet. The latter way, he said, would allow customers to make comparisons between restaurants. • was not, as an “inflexible mandate applied sporadically,” an effective way to educate Californians about healthy living. He also maintained that California restaurants have demonstrated to him their commitment to work toward menu labeling on their own, and called on them to continue that work. In response to Governor Schwarzenegger’s veto, CCPHA’s executive director, Harold Goldstein issued a statement expressing his disappointment in seeing the Governor “walk away from his opportunity to lead the nation on a critical public health issue.” He reiterated the need for basic information in order to make healthy decisions and pointed out that this decision contradicts Schwarzenegger’s commitment to Californian’s health, which included menu labeling as a key element in a comprehensive obesity prevention plan. He also criticized the Governor for kowtowing to “rich special interests” including the “powerful restaurant lobby” rather than serving the people’s needs. The Future The bill sponsors and Senator Padilla are considering their options for re-introducing a menu labeling bill in 2008. Also it is expected that the California Restaurant Association will introduce its own weakened version of a menu labeling bill as a way of fighting any version of SB 120 that might be re-introduced in 2008. The CRA bill will most likely require nutrition information to be posted in some other location other than on menus and menu boards. The Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, 309 Edwards St. PO Box 208369, New Haven, CT 06520-8369; www.yaleruddcenter.org; (203) 432-6700.