By Rick Berman
Berman & Co. The average American would probably be inclined to write off a busybody like Michael Jacobson, co-founder and executive director of the fanatical activist group, Center for Science in the Public interest (CSPI).
The average American would, at worst, find him annoying, or just crazy, for suggesting that people stop drinking coffee and socialize in "carrot juice houses" rather than cafes.
But beverage retailers like you will likely be less inclined to indifference. You already know how CSPI has made alcohol one of its biggest targets.
Their Alcohol Policies Project promotes a combination of pseudoscience and moralizing that wouldn't have been out of place at a 1920' prohibition rally. As Jacobson has said, "The last thing the world needs is more drinkers, even moderate ones."
For CSPI, the goal is to reduce overall alcohol consumption across the board. At every turn they are promoting legislation and policies (higher taxes, underage drinking legislation that sanctions retailers, mandatory labeling, etc.) that they hope would help drive down even moderate drinking.
So when CSPI files a class action lawsuit against a major company like Kentucky Fried Chicken for how it fries foods, ABL members can be assured that they will probably be caught in the crosshairs of yet another "junk science" crusade in the name of public health.
Last month, CSPI filed suit against KFC over the fast food chain' use of a cooking oil known to be high in trans fat, which are found in most frying oils. Never mind the fact that CSPI spent years pressuring restaurants to stop using oils high in saturated fat–like beef tallow–and at the same time, largely dismissing the health claims about trans fats in its own newsletter. CSPI is now demanding damages for anyone in the Washington, D.C., area who can claim to have eaten at a KFC.
CSPI, insisting that money is not the issue, merely wants the restaurant to change its practices. Taking them at their word, this is no small matter.
What happens if (when?) KFC eliminates these hydrogenated oils from its fryers? CSPI will have the momentum to go after other retailers, company by company, until the change affects all businesses that fry foods.
As the tobacco lawsuits demonstrated, litigation can have powerful ripple effects on society, scaring entire industries into changing their practices, if only to avoid being bankrupted by lawyers' fees or to avoid the bad press.
In the wake of the commotion caused by the KFC lawsuit, CSPI has begun focusing its attention on Starbucks, which it claims is harming customers with its rich desserts and sweet frozen drinks. By focusing on these large companies, CSPI triggers a sea-change throughout the entire industry--targeting one product at a time.
CSPI' track record proves it will not stop with trans fats and KFC or with Starbucks. Rather, it will continue to impose its anti-choice agenda upon Americans, leveraging the way businesses operate and what people eat.
Because the average customer is happy to make his or her own choices about what to eat or drink, CSPI has historically had little luck when it relies on public campaigns and legislative efforts. But litigation is a different story. CSPI can successfully pressure (or bankrupt) businesses into conforming to its agenda, regardless of what consumers want.
Of course, anti-business lawsuits are not a new phenomenon but, over time, the compound effect is being felt throughout the retail community. The on-premise industry continues to reel in the wake of the anti-tobacco lawsuits that drove smoking out of so many establishments.
Today, it' trans fats. Who knows what lawsuit will be filed tomorrow?
CSPI and other groups that use frivolous litigation to define your business, will keep up the attack unless groups like ABL are prepared to fight back.
By understanding the big picture--and then engaging in campaigns to balance the public debate over these issues--beverage retailers can prevent their livelihoods from being threatened by Jacobson and his band of "food cops."