George Orwell would have marvelled at the name, “The Center for Consumer Freedom.” Is that a great name or what? So why are they opposed to food labeling requirements? Why do they claim that the obesity epidemic is a contrivance? And why do they counsel consumers to get written waivers from guests before serving unlabeled Thanksgiving dinners that might have lots of calories and fats?

The “Center for Consumer Freedom” is a front for food processors, manufacturers, and fast food restaurant chains. It was started with seed money from tobacco giant Philip Morris.  According to the Center, it’s the evil trial lawyers that you need to fear at the Thanksgiving table. Full disclosure: While I don’t think of myself as evil, I am, in fact, a trial lawyer.

So here’s a question for the Orwellian people at Center for Consumer Freedom: What are you afraid of? What do you and your funders fear? Is it that informed consumers might make choices that hurt sales and profits? Is it that the calorie dense corn syrup-fueled commodities might lose their sweet and profitable allure once consumers have the ability to make choices? One of the things lost on the deregulation crowd (say, “oink!” all) is that disclosure rules provide the best form of regulation. When consumers have information, they can choose with knowledge. Isn’t that preferable to rules that prohibit things?

At bottom, the food industry makes choices in what it puts in its products. If you want to blame us for “being fat” then surely you can’t oppose giving us the information that allows us to make smart choices. Or can you?

In the end, it’s easy to demonize the trial lawyers. But we didn’t start spiking processed foods with high-fructose corn syrup. But even worse, the disclosure rules opposed by the “Center for Consumer Freedom” would lessen lawsuits.  If consumers know what they’re getting, they have literally no cause to complain. So–to quote one of their fund sources from an old campaign–Where’s the beef?

David Sugerman

For years, Airborne Health touted Airborne as a cold prevention remedy. This Washington Post article reports on the Federal Trade Commission’s settlement of false advertising claims against the manufacturer. According to the story, the company agreed to refunds of up to $30 million dollars settlement to dispose of the false advertising claims.

Bad enough that Airborne was raking in money by the tanker-load on false claims. But if that wasn’t enough, the CEO blames consumer lawyers for the company’s woes.  From the article: “A class-action lawsuit sparked this matter. We’re just one of many major consumer brands across America that are under assault by class-action lawyers.”

The Post article quotes Stephen Gardner, director of Center for Science in the Public Interest.  Steve is one of the country’s top consumer lawyers, and CSPI has done its usual top-notch job here. Curious that Steve and the FTC and other consumer lawyers would get the blame. Steve Gardner didn’t choose to make false claims in advertising the product. Neither did the FTC.  But let’s not let facts get in the way.

Seems to me that consumers have the right to know that they’re buying something real when they spend money on a product.  If the manufacturer chooses to falsely advertise its products, it’s only fair and proper that they pay the price.

David Sugerman