(ANTIMEDIA)Portugal — Highlighting the frustration of many in the business world, a former CEO said at an international conference Monday that U.S. companies no longer know the “rules of the game” under President Donald Trump.
“Right now we don’t know whether we are friendly with Mexico, whether we are friendly with Canada, whether we are friendly with China, whether we are friendly with Russia,” Alan G. Hassenfeld said at the 2017 Horasis conference in Portugal, which was attended by politicians, business leaders, and academics.
Hassenfeld’s family founded the country’s second largest toy company, Hasbro, in the 1920s. Hassenfeld himself was CEO and chairman from 1989 to 2008.
“We thought, you know, if you run a business today you would like to know what the rules of the game are,” Hassenfeld said Monday, adding that under Trump, those rules are “changing constantly.”
The former CEO said a large part of the problem is gridlock in Congress, caused by lawmakers attempting to come to terms with policy reform promises Trump made on the campaign trail:
“Right now, our Congress and in some cases our courts, are caught up in trying to figure out what they are going to do with the executive branch. So right now, we are in that – almost twilight zone – that we are really not sure where things are going.”
And while bringing jobs back to the U.S. was a core element of Trump’s “America First” campaign platform, Hassenfeld says changing modes of manufacturing make that promise a fairly empty one.
“Even if they (the jobs) did come, we’ve all learnt how to automate, we’re all spending money to innovate,” he said.
A recent study published by Cornerstone Capital Group, for example, predicts that 6 to 7.5 million existing jobs will be lost to some form of automation over the next 10 years.
President Trump’s pick for head of the FDA, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, has taken more than $400,000 from drug makers in the last few years alone, and Gottlieb has deep ties to the pharmaceutical industry. [1]
Gottlieb has testified multiple times on Capitol Hill concerning complex drug pricing issues, and is largely approved of by drug companies and pharmaceutical investors for FDA head. He’s on the boards of directors of several small drug and biotech companies, while also serving as an adviser to GlaxoSmithKline PLC. [2]
Brian Skorney, an investment analyst at Robert W. Baird, wrote in a research note:
“Thank God it’s Gottlieb. We view this as a favorable development for the sector.” [2]
Gottlieb is a former FDA deputy commissioner who has advocated further expediting the approval process for new medical products. He has spent the last decade as a partner at New Enterprise Associates, a large venture fund with investments in the life sciences, medical technology, and healthcare services.
These are just some of his links to the pharmaceutical industry.
Mizuho Securities USA Inc. conducted a survey of 53 pharmaceutical executives and found that 72% favored Gottlieb over other potential candidates.
Michael Carome, director of Public Citizen’s health research group and a physician, said in a statement:
“Gottlieb is entangled in an unprecedented web of Big Pharma ties. He has spent most of his career dedicated to promoting the financial interests of the pharmaceutical industry, and the U.S. Senate must reject him.” [3]
He warns:
“If the Senate does not reject Gottlieb, he will have to be recused from key decisions time and time again, otherwise there is no way to be sure he will put the public’s health over industry profits.”
The Money
Gottlieb has for years been the recipient of consulting fees from Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc., receiving about $40,000 in 2013, $50,000 in 2014, and $66,000 in 2015. Vertex and the FDA have been in discussions since early 2016 when the FDA denied approval for Kalydeco, a cystic fibrosis drug, for a certain genetic mutation. [1]
GlaxoSmithKline paid Gottlieb $60,000 in 2015 and $100,000 in 2014 in consulting fees. Gottlieb has served as a member of the drug maker’s product investment board for several years. He also received $50,000 in 2015 from Japanese drug company Daiichi Sankyo Inc., and $11,000 in 2013 and $50,000 in 2015 from Novo Nordisk.
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. paid Gottlieb $9,000 in 2015 and about $1,000 from business unit Salix in 2014. Bristol-Myers Squibb gave him about $2,000 in 2014 and close to $10,000 in 2015.
Gottlieb also received smaller amounts from the following companies:
Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.
It sounds like a bad joke, but it’s the sad truth: Coca-Cola and Pepsi, the nation’s 2 top soda makers, recently gave money to several prominent public health groups – including some run by the government. [1]
Source: Medical Daily
The sadder truth: Those groups were more than happy to accept the funds.
As reported by a new study published October 10 in the American Journal of Preventative Measures, researchers at Boston University School of Medicine reveal that a whopping total of 96 public health groups accepted money from Coca-Cola and PepsiCo (or both companies) between 2011 and 2015.
Some of the organizations might look familiar: American Diabetes Association, the National Institutes of Health, the American Red Cross, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, just to name a few.
Study author Daniel Aaron, a medical student at Boston University, said of the groups:
“To see all these organizations [accepting money] is shocking and surprising. I don’t think companies have a legal duty to protect people’s health, but I think these groups do.”
Take a minute to let that sink in. The American Diabetes Association takes money from soda makers.The very products the organization advises people not to consume. The study’s authors called this link “surprising, given the established link between diabetes and soda consumption.” [2]
Let’s take a deeper look at this bizarre report.
Sweet, Sweet Data
Aaron and his coauthor, Dr. Michael Siegel, a professor of community health sciences at the university, decided to take a closer look at the love fest between soda companies and public health groups last year, when The New York Times ran a piece about Coca-Cola’s financial support of a group called the Global Energy Balance Network. [1]
This now-defunct “network” was composed of university researchers, and to put it in the simplest terms possible, Coca-Cola paid these so-called scientists to shift the blame away from junk food and sugary drinks for causing the global obesity epidemic, and a host of other health problems.
Aaron says:
“We were bothered by that, and a little bit confused, and we wanted to know if this was common.”
So Aaron and Siegel began investigating the links between Coca-Cola and Pepsi and 96 organizations:
63 public health groups
19 medical organizations
7 health foundations,
5 government groups
2 food supply groups
Pepsi sponsored 14% of these groups, while Coca-Cola sponsored 99%. The men think that’s probably an underestimate, however; Coca-Cola recently disclosed its sponsorships, while PepsiCo is “known for making its sponsorship data extremely difficult to track.”
Additionally, the study also only looked at national organizations, and most sponsored organizations are state or city-wide, the researchers report.
Here’s a shocker (note the sarcasm): When the team looked at lobbying efforts by both companies, they found that the soda companies actively oppose legislation that targets soda and is aimed at preventing obesity.
Between 2011 and 2015, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo publicly opposed 28 bills and supported 1. Of the bills the companies opposed:
12 were soda taxes
4 were Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) regulations
1 involved the controversial limit on soda sizes in New York.
However, both companies supported a bill designed to limit the marketing of soda in schools, though beverages like Diet Coke could still be marketed.
All that lobbying had a definite impact. One group, Save the Children, gave up pushing for soda taxes after Coca-Cola and Pepsi gave them a cool $5 million in 2009.
And The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics issued a statement saying that it would not back New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposed limit on soda portions, arguing that the emphasis should be placed on nutrition education.
Marion Nestle, a New York University professor of public health and nutrition, says:
“First, they attack the science. Then, they fund community groups, promote exercise as a solution, and say they’re self-regulated and don’t need to be regulated by an outside source.” [3]
Aaron and Siegel write in the study:
“It is probable that corporate philanthropy is increasing consumption of soda throughout the country.
Rather than supporting public health, organizations may become unwitting partners that contribute to corporate marketing strategy.” [1]
The duo argues that soda companies’ sponsorship of health groups ends up creating positive cultural associations with their brands. It should be noted that sponsorship is considered marketing by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
And never underestimate an industry’s ability to shape the public view.
As I wrote last month, the sugar industry paid Harvard scientists to frame sugar as a mostly-harmless substance, while painting fat as the cause of obesity, heart disease, and all of the health problems we now know are actually caused by sugar.
The sugar industry was so successful, in fact, that – to quote one professor – it was able “to derail the discussion about sugar for decades.”
Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.
U.K. Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt has ordered restaurants, pubs, and cafes to make their food and drink healthier by cutting sugar content, and to shrink the size of desserts. [1]
It’s all part of Britain’s plan to combat obesity.
Hunt met with more than 100 major food chains, including McDonald’s, Gourmet Burger Kitchen, Starbucks, and Pizza Express, and warned them that each restaurant’s performance would be monitored and that a public campaign would name any violators.
Hunt said:
“Going out to eat is no longer a treat. It’s a regular habit for many families and is contributing significantly to the extra calories and sugar that we all consume on a daily basis.
We can’t ignore the changing habits of consumers. This means we expect the whole of the out-of-home sector – coffee shops, pubs and family restaurants, quick service restaurants, takeaways, cafes, contract caterers and mass catering suppliers – to step up and deliver on sugar reduction.” [2]
He also told meeting attendees that people are consuming 1/5 of their sugar intake outside the home and 1/4 of families take children to eat at fast food joints each week.
Duncan Selbie, chief executive of Public Health England, said:
“We need a level playing field — if the food and drink bought in cafes, coffee shops and restaurants does not also get reformulated and portions rethought then it will remain often significantly higher in sugar and bigger in portion than those being sold in supermarkets and convenience shops.
This will not help the overall industry to help us all make healthier choices.” [3]
Additionally, Hunt wants restaurants to join supermarkets and food companies in their efforts to tackle the obesity crisis facing the country. [1]
Supermarkets and manufacturers have both also been ordered to reduce sugar in key products by 20% over the next 5 years – a plan deemed “weak” by critics.
Currently, 2 out of 3 British adults are overweight or obese, and the health secretary fears the cost of treating obesity-related illnesses could bankrupt the nation’s National Health Service (NHS).
The government wants sugar reduced in the following nine categories:
cereal
breakfast foods
yogurts
cookies
cakes
candy
desserts
ice cream
spreads [1]
It will be up to the industry to determine how to proceed and meet the new stringent requirements. The government has promised to check in on the industry’s progress every six months. If by 2020 things are not moving at a suitable speed, the government says it will “add other levers to achieve the same aims.”
Britons will even be able to check up on the companies through a website.
Earlier this year, the U.K. government announced that it would levy a sugar tax on soft drinks beginning in 2018. [4]
Source: Mirror
The U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne told the House of Commons at the time:
“I am not prepared to look back at my time here in this Parliament, doing this job and say to my children’s generation… I’m sorry. We knew there was a problem with sugary drinks. We knew it caused disease. But we ducked the difficult decisions and we did nothing.”
Under the levy, drinks with more than 8 grams of sugar per 100 milliliters will be taxed at a higher rate than beverages with less than 5 grams of sugar per 100 milliliters.
The tax won’t apply to other sugary drinks, such as fruit juices.
Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.
