Podcasts about American Beverage Association

Recently I was asked to review a forthcoming book for American Scientist magazine. The book was entitled, Sweet and Deadly: How Coca-Cola Spreads Disinformation and Makes us Sick. I did the review, and now that the book has been published, I'm delighted that its author, Murray Carpenter, has agreed to join us. Mr. Carpenter is a journalist and author whose work has appeared in publications such as the New York Times, and the Washington Post, and has been featured in places like NPR's All Things Considered and Morning Edition. Interview Summary So, let's start with your career overall. Your journalism has covered a wide range of topics. But a major focus has been on what people consume. First, with your book Caffeinated and now with Sweet and Deadly. What brought you to this interest? My interest in caffeine is longstanding. Like many of us, I consume caffeine daily in the form of coffee. And I just felt like with caffeine, many of us don't really discuss the fact that it is a drug, and it is at least a mildly addictive drug. And so, I became fascinated with that enough to write a book. And that really led me directly in an organic fashion to this project. Because when I would discuss caffeine with people, mostly they just kind of wanted the cliff notes. Is my habit healthy? You know, how much caffeine should I take? And, and in short, I would tell them, you know, if you don't suffer from anxiety or insomnia and you're consuming your caffeine in a healthy beverage, well, that's fine. But, what I realized, of course, is that by volume, the caffeinated beverage people consume most of is sodas. And so that led me to thinking more about sodas because I got a lot of questions about the caffeine in sodas. And that led me to realize just the degree to which they are unhealthful. We've all known sodas not to be a health food, but I think that the degree to which they are not healthy surprised me. And that's what led me to this book. Yes, there's some very interesting themes aren't there with addiction and manipulation of ingredients in order to get people hooked on things. So let's talk about Coca-Cola a bit. Your book focuses on Coca-Cola. It's right there in the title. And certainly, they're giants in the beverage field. But are there other reasons that led you to focus on them? Other than that, the fact that they're the biggest? They're the biggest and really almost synonymous with sodas worldwide. I mean, many people don't say ‘I want a pop, I want a soda.' They say, ‘I want a Coke.' I quote a source as saying that. You know, what that means is you want a sugar sweetened beverage. And it's not just that they're the most successful at this game, and the biggest. But as I started doing this research, I realized that they have also been the most aggressive and the most successful at this sort of disinformation that's the focus of the book. At generating these health campaigns, these science disinformation campaigns, we should say. This is not to say Pepsi and Dr. Pepper have not been at this game as well, and often through the American Beverage Association. But it is to say that I think Coca-Cola has been the most sophisticated. The most invested in these campaigns. And I would argue the most successful. And so, I really think it's a league apart and that's why I wanted to focus on Coca-Cola. That makes good sense. So, in reading your book, I was struck by the sheer number of ways Coca-Cola protected their business interest at the expense of public health and also the degree to which it was coordinated and calculated. Let's take several examples of such activities and discuss exactly what the company has done. And I'd love your opinion on this. One thing you noted that Coke acted partly through other organizations, one of which you just mentioned, the American Beverage Association. There were others where there was sort of a false sense of scientific credibility. Can you explain more about what Coke did in this area? Yes, and one of the organizations that I think is perhaps the exemplar of this behavior is the International Life Sciences Institute. It's a very successful, very well-funded group that purports to you know, improve the health of people, worldwide. It was founded by a Coca-Cola staffer and has, you know, essentially carried water for Coke for years through a variety of direct and indirect ways. But so front groups, the successful use of front groups: and this is to say groups that don't immediately appear to be associated, say with Coca-Cola. If you hear the International Life Sciences Institute, no one immediately thinks Coca-Cola, except for people who study this a lot. The International Food Information Council, another very closely related front group. This is one of the ways that Coke has done its work is through the use of front groups. And some of them are sort of these more temporary front groups that they'll establish for specific campaigns. For example, to fight soda taxes in specific areas. And they often have very anodyne names, and names again that don't directly link them to Coca-Cola or a beverage, the beverage industry. And the reason that this is so important and the reason this is so effective is journalists know if they were saying, Coca-Cola says soda isn't bad for you, of course that raises red flags. If they say, the International Life Sciences Institute says it's not bad for you, if they say the International Food Information Council says it's not bad for you. The use of front groups has been one of the very effective and persistent, strategies. It almost sounds like the word deception could be written the charter of these organizations, couldn't it? Because it was really meant to disguise Coca-Cola's role in these things from the very get go. That's right. Yes. And the deception runs very deep. One of the things that I happened onto in the course of reporting this book, Sweet and Deadly, is Coca-Cola two different times, organized three-day seminars on obesity in Colorado. These two attendees appeared to be sponsored by a press organization and the University of Colorado. They were funded and structured entirely at the behest of Coca-Cola. And it wasn't until after people had attended these seminars and reported stories based on the findings that they'd learned there. Much, much later did people find out that yes, actually these were Coca-Cola initiatives. So yes, deception, runs deep and it's a huge part of their public relations strategy. It's like reputation laundering, almost. Well, it is, and, you know, I make frequent analogies to the tobacco industry in the book. And I think one of the things that's important to remember when we're looking at tobacco and when we're looking at Coca-Cola, at the soda industry writ large, is that these are industries that are producing products that science now shows unequivocally are unhelpful. Even at moderate levels of consumption. So, in order for the industry to continue selling this product, to continue leading, they really have to fight back. It's imperative. It's a risk to their business model if they don't do something to fight the emerging health science. And so, yes, it's very important to them. You know, it's easy, I guess, to ascribe this kind of behavior to ill meaning people within these organizations. But it's almost written into the DNA of these organizations. I mean, you said they have to do this. So, it's pretty much be expected, isn't. It is. I think young people when they hear something like this, they often shrug and say capitalism. And, yes, there's something to that. But capitalism thrives also in a regulated environment. I think that's maybe a little bit too simplistic. But the aspect of it that does apply here is that Coca-Cola is in the business of selling sugar water. That's what they're there to do. Granted, they've diversified into other products, but they are in the business of selling sugar water. Anything that threatens that business model is a threat to their bottom line. And so, they are going to fight it tooth and nail. So how did Coca-Cola influence big health organizations like the World Health Organization and any equivalent bodies in the US? Well, so a few different ways. One of the ways that Coca-Cola has really extended its influence is again, through the use of the front groups to carry messages such as, you know, a calorie is a calorie. Calories and calories out. That's, that's one of the strategies. Another is by having allies in high places politically. And sometimes these are political appointees that happen to be associated with Coca-Cola. Other times these are politicians who are getting funding from Coca-Cola. But, yes, they have worked hard. I mean, the WHO is an interesting one because the WHO really has been out a little bit ahead of the more national bodies in terms of wanting soda taxes, et cetera. But there's a subtler way too, I think, that it influences any of these political entities and these science groups, is that Coca-Cola it's such an all-American beverage. I don't think we can overstate this. It's almost more American than apple pie. And I think we still have not sort of made that shift to then seeing it as something that's unhealthful. And I do think that that has, sort of, put the brakes slightly on regulatory actions here in the US. Let's talk about the Global Energy Balance Network, because this was an especially pernicious part of the overall Coca-Cola strategy. Would you tell us about that and how particular scientists, people of note in our field, by the way, were being paid large sums of money and then delivering things that supported industries positions. Yes. This was a Coca-Cola initiative. And we have to be clear on this. This was designed and created at the behest of Coca-Cola staffers. This was an initiative that was really an effort to shift the balance to the calories outside of the equation. So energy balance is one of these, sort of, themes that Coca-Cola and other people have, sort of, made great hay with. And this idea would be just calories and calories out. That's all that matters. If you're just balanced there, everything else is to be okay. We can talk about that later. I think most of your listeners probably understand that, you know, a calorie of Coca-Cola is not nutritionally equivalent to a calorie of kale. But that's what the Global Energy Balance Network was really trying to focus on. And yes, luminaries in the field of obesity science, you know, Stephen Blair at the University of South Carolina, Jim Hill, then at the University of Colorado's Anschutz Center, the Global Energy Balance Network funded their labs with more than a million dollars to specifically focus on this issue of energy balance. Now, what was deceptive here, and I think it's really worth noting, is that Coca-Cola developed this project. But once it developed the project and gave the funding, it did not want to be associated with it. It wasn't the Global Energy Balance Network 'brought to you by Coca-Cola.' It appeared to be a freestanding nonprofit. And it looked like it was going to be a very effective strategy for Coca-Cola, but it didn't turn out that way. So, we'll talk about that in a minute. How much impact did this have? Did it matter that Coke gave money to these several scientists you mentioned? Well, I think yes. I think in the broader scheme of things that every increment of scientific funding towards this side matters. You know, people talk about the science of industrial distraction or industrial selection. And, you know, partly this is this idea that even if you're funding legitimate science, right, but it's focused on this ‘calories outside of the equation,' it's sucking up some of the oxygen in the room. Some of the public conversation is going to be shifted from the harmful effects of a product, say Coca-Cola, to the benefits of exercise. And so, yes, I think all of this kind of funding can make a difference. And it influences public opinion. So how close were the relationships between the Coca-Cola executives and the scientist? I mean, did they just write them a check and say, go do your science and we will let you come up with whatever you will, or were they colluding more than that? And they were colluding much more than that. And I've got a shout out here to the Industry Documents Library at the University of California at San Francisco, which is meticulously archived. A lot of the emails that show all of the interrelationships here. Yes, they were not just chatting cordially - scientists to Coca-Cola Corporation. They were mutually developing strategies. They were often ready at a moment's notice to appear at a press conference on Coca-Cola's behalf. So, yes, it was a very direct, very close relationship that certainly now that we see the conversations, it's unseemly at best. How did this all come to light? Because you said these documents are in this archive at UCSF. How did they come to light in the first place and how did shining light on this, you know, sort of pseudo-organization take place? Well, here we have to credit, New York Times reporter, now at the Washington Post, Anahad O'Connor, who did yeoman's work to investigate the Global Energy Balance Network. And it was his original FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests that got a lot of these emails that are now in the industry document library. He requested these documents and then he built his story in large part off of these documents. And it was a front-page New York Times expose and, Coke had a lot of egg on its face. It's then CEO, even apologized, you know, in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. And you know, the sort of a secondary aspect of this is after this funding was exposed, Coca-Cola was pressured to reveal other health funding that it had been spending money on. And that was, I think over a few years like $133 million. They spread their money around to a lot of different organizations and in some cases the organizations, it was just good will. In other cases, you had organizations that changed their position on key policy initiatives after receiving the funding. But it was a lot of money. So, the Global Energy Balance Network, it is sort of opened a chink in their armor and gave people a view inside the machine. And there's something else that I'd love to mention that I think is really important about the Global Energy Balance Network and about that initiative. As Coca-Cola seems, and this became clear in the reporting of the book over and over again, they seem always to be three moves ahead on the chess board. They're not just putting out a brush fires. They're looking way down the road. How do we head off the challenge that we're facing in public opinion? How do we head off the challenge we're facing in terms of soda science? And in many cases, they've been very, very effective at this. Were Coca-Cola's efforts mainly to influence policies and things in the US or did they have their eyes outside the US as well? I focused the book, the reporting of the book, really on Coca-Cola in the US. And also, and I just want to mention this tangentially, it's also focused not on non-nutritive sweetened beverages, but the sugary beverages. It's pretty tightly focused. But yes, Coca-Cola, through other organizations, particularly the International Life Sciences Institute, has very much tried to influence policy say in China, for example, which is a huge market. So yes, they've exported this very successful PR strategy globally. So, the corporate activities, like the ones you describe in your book, can be pretty clearly damaging to the public's health. What in the heck can be done? I mean, who will the change agents be? And do you think there's any hope of curtailing this kind of dreadful activity? Well, this is something I thought about a lot. One of the themes of the book is that the balance of public opinion has never tipped against Coca-Cola. And we talked about this earlier, that it's still seen as this all American product. And we see with other industries and other products. So, you know, Philip Morris, smoking, Marlboro. Eventually the balance of public opinion tips against them and people accept that they're unhealthful and that they've been misleading the public. The same thing happened for Exxon and climate change, Purdue pharma and Oxycontin. It's a pattern we see over and over again. With Coca-Cola, it hasn't tipped yet. And I think once it does, it will be easier for public health advocates to make their case. In terms of who the change agents might be, here we have a really interesting conversation, right? Because the foremost change agent right now looks like it's RFK Jr. (Robert F. Kennedy), which is pretty remarkable and generates an awful lot of shall we say, cognitive dissonance, right? Because both the spending of SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funds for sodas, he's opposed to that. He has just as recently as the week before last called sugar poison. He said sugar is poison. These are the kinds of very direct, very forceful, high level, initiatives that we really haven't seen at a federal level yet. So, it's possible that he will be nudging the balance. And it puts, of course, everybody who's involved, every public health advocate, I think, who is involved with this issue in a slightly uncomfortable or very uncomfortable position. Yes. You know, as I think about the kind of settings where I've worked and this conflict-of-interest problem with scientists taking money and doing things in favor of industry. And I wonder who the change agents are going to be. It's a pretty interesting picture comes with that. Because if you ask scientists whether money taints research, they'll say yes. But if you ask, would it taint your research, they'll say no. Because of course I am so unbiased and I'm so pure that it really wouldn't affect what I do. So, that's how scientists justify it. Some scientists don't take money from industry and there are no problems with conflicts of interest. But the ones who do can pretty easily justify it along with saying things like, well, I can help change the industry from within if I'm in the door, and things like that. The universities can't really police it because universities are getting corporate funding. Maybe not from that particular company, but overall. Their solution to this is the same as the scientific journals, that you just have to disclose. The kind of problem with disclosure as I see it, is that it - sort of editorializing here and you're the guest, so I apologize for intruding on that - but the problem with disclosure is that why do you need to disclose something in the first place because there's something potentially wrong? Well, the solution then isn't disclose it, it's not to do it. And disclosing is like if I come up and kick you in the leg, it's okay if I disclose it? I mean, it's just, there's something sort of perverse about that whole system. Journals there, you know, they want disclosure. The big scientific association, many of them are getting money from industry as well. So, industry has so permeated the system that it's hard to think about who can have any impact. And I think the press, I think it's journalists like you who can make a difference. You know, it wasn't the scientific organizations or anything else that got in the way of the Global Energy Balance Network. It was Anahad O'Connor writing in the New York Times, and all the people who were involved in exposing that. And you with your book. So that's sort of long-winded way of saying thank you. What you've done is really important and there are precious few change agents out there. And so, we have to rely on talented and passionate people like you to get that work done. So, thank you so much for sharing it with us. Let me just end with one final question. Do you see any reason to be optimistic about where this is all going? I do. And I've got to say maybe you're giving scientists a little bit of short shrift here. Because, as the science develops, as it becomes more compelling and a theme of the book is that soda science really, over the past 15, 20 years has become more compelling. More unequivocal. We know the harms and, you know, you can quantify them and identify them more specifically than say, 15 years ago. So, I think that's one thing that can change. And I think slowly you're seeing, greater public awareness. I think the real challenge, in terms of getting the message out about the health risks, is that you really see like a bifurcated consumption of Coca-Cola. There are many people who are not consuming any Coca-Cola. And then you have a lot of people who are consuming, you know, say 20 ounces regularly. So, there is a big question of how you reach this other group of people who are still high consumers of Coca-Cola. And we know and you know this well from your work, that soda labeling is one thing that works and that soda taxes are another. I think those are things to look out for coming down the pike. I mean, obviously other countries are ahead of us in terms of both of these initiatives. One of the things occurred to me as you were speaking earlier, you mentioned that your book was focused on the sugared beverages. Do you think there's a similar story to be told about deception and deceit with respect to the artificial sweeteners? I suspect so, you know. I haven't done the work, but I don't know why there wouldn't be. And I think artificial sweeteners are in the position that sugary beverages were 10 to 15 years ago. There's a lag time in terms of the research. There is increasing research showing the health risks of these beverages. I think people who are public health advocates have been loath to highlight these because they're also a very effective bridge from sugar sweetened beverages to no sugar sweetened beverages. And I think, a lot of people see them as a good strategy. I do think there probably is a story to tell about the risks of non-nutritive sweeteners. So, yes. I can remind our listeners that we've done a series of podcasts, a cluster of them really, on the impact of the artificial sweeteners. And it's pretty scary when you talk to people who really understand how they're metabolized and what effects they have on the brain, the microbiome, and the rest of the body. Bio Murray Carpenter is a journalist and author whose stories have appeared in the New York Times, Wired, National Geographic, NPR, and PRI's The World. He has also written for the Boston Globe, the Christian Science Monitor, and other media outlets. He holds a degree in psychology from the University of Colorado and a Master of Science in environmental studies from the University of Montana, and has worked as a medical lab assistant in Ohio, a cowboy in Colombia, a farmhand in Virginia, and an oil-exploring “juggie” in Wyoming. He lives in Belfast, Maine. He is the author of Caffeinated: How Our Daily Habit Helps, Hurts, and Hooks Us and Sweet and Deadly: How Coca-Cola Spread

The U.S. stock market is bouncing back today after the tariff shock wore out and countries are coming to the table to make deals. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in town and shared his approach to President Trump's tariffs. SCOTUS sided with President Trump and his use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport dangerous criminals and illegal immigrants. With RFK Jr. leading the charge on Making Americans Healthy Again, Congressman Keith Self's FIZZ-NO Act is back in the spotlight. The FIZZ-NO Act would ban the purchase of soda with SNAP benefits. Rep. Self argues that they have no nutritional value and lead to obesity and other significant health issues. Is this a reasonable law to pass or is the government overreaching? Kevin Keane is the President & CEO of the American Beverage Association to discuss his side of the argument. While adult obesity rates are up around 37.4%, beverage calorie consumption is down 42%. Perhaps soda is not the culprit and maybe what SNAP users need is to be incentivized to make healthier choices. Featuring: Rep. Keith Self Congressman | Texas, District 3 https://keithself.house.gov/ Kevin Keane President & CEO | American Beverage Association https://www.balanceus.org/ Today's show is brought to you by these great sponsors: Wired 2 Fish Coffee Do you want to drink coffee from the finest coffee beans in the world? Wired 2 Fish sources directly from Mexico and Guatemala to bring you the freshest arabica coffee beans in the world. Wired 2 Fish cares so much about the earth that they give back 25% of their net profits to faith-based organizations and clean water initiatives. If you're a coffee lover and want to support a great company doing great work head to https://www.wired2fishcoffee.com/ use code: WECARE for 15% off your first order.  Beam For a limited time got 40% of Beam's Dream Powder. Dream Powder with Reishi, Magnesium, L-Theanine, Apigenin and Melatonin to help you fall asleep, stay asleep, and wake up refreshed. Just head to https://shopbeam.com/SPICER for 40% off. ------------------------------------------------------------- 1️⃣ Subscribe and ring the bell for new videos: https://youtube.com/seanmspicer?sub_confirmation=1 2️⃣ Become a part of The Sean Spicer Show community: https://www.seanspicer.com/ 3️⃣ Listen to the full audio show on all platforms: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-sean-spicer-show/id1701280578 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/32od2cKHBAjhMBd9XntcUd iHeart: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-the-sean-spicer-show-120471641/ 4️⃣ Stay in touch with Sean on social media: Facebook: https://facebook.com/seanmspicer Twitter: https://twitter.com/seanspicer Instagram: https://instagram.com/seanmspicer/ 5️⃣ Follow The Sean Spicer Show on social media: Facebook: https://facebook.com/seanspicershow Twitter: https://twitter.com/seanspicershow Instagram: https://instagram.com/seanspicershow #politics #news #theseanspicershow #seanspicer #conservativemedia #podcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

While nearly 30 states are moving toward banning dangerous dyes in food, the American Beverage Association is fighting back in the same playbook as big pharma lobbyists to bully government officials.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

A major UN conference to negotiate a global treaty on plastic pollution just ended without an agreement. But efforts may resume in 2025 to get a treaty over the finish line. In this two-part episode, you'll hear first from Erin Simon, WWF's vice president for plastic waste and business, about what happened at that conference in Korea (known as INC-5) and what comes next for the global fight against plastic pollution. Then, in Part 2, you'll hear from Sheila Bonini, WWF's senior vice president for private-sector engagement; and Kevin Keane, president and CEO of American Beverage (ABA) – the trade association representing the nation's non-alcoholic beverage industry. Sheila and Kevin's teams have been working together for the last five years to find different ways to achieve material circularity – which means that all the plastic, as well as other materials like aluminum, that get used are collected and remade into new products. Sheila and Kevin will tell us about what's working, what hurdles still remain, and how they plan to advance their mission regardless of whether a global plastics treaty gets adopted. Links for More Info: Erin Simon Bio Sheila Bonini Bio  Kevin Keane Bio  WWF Plastics Page WWF-ABA Partnership  Sustainability Works Blog: “Five Years of Progress: WWF and ABA's Partnership for Practical Solutions”  WWF Statement on INC-5 Outcome  Chapters: 0:00 Preview 0:24 Intro 2:22 Refresher on UN treaty process 5:39 Consensus as a weapon 8:52 What happened at INC-5 11:55 WWF's 4 “must-haves” in a final treaty 13:53 Stumbling blocks in negotiations 17:26 Conclusion of negotiations 23:05 What happens next? 26:27 Role for companies 31:28 Interlude, Part 2 begins 33:07 Explaining the American Beverage Association 34:41 Why does ABA want to address plastic pollution? 38:08 WWF-ABA partnership 41:41 Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policies 46:54 Consumer awareness 48:39 ABA's EPR principles 54:39 Building consumer confidence about recycling 56:30 Lessons for other industries 59:17 Plastic pollution is a bipartisan policy issue 01:02:41 WWF-ABA Lessons Learned 01:07:12 Outro

Earlier this year, we examined how changes to the FTC's Endorsement Guides might affect influencer campaigns and suggested that companies may want to monitor FTC actions in this area to see what types of conduct grab the FTC's attention. Yesterday, we got some initial clues when the FTC announced that it had sent warning letters to two trade associations – the American Beverage Association and The Canadian Sugar Institute – and 12 health influencers over their posts. https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/ad-law-access/ftc-sends-warning-letters-to-companies-and-influencers-over-disclosures-in-posts Gonzalo Mon gmon@kelleydrye.com (202) 342-8576 www.kelleydrye.com/people/gonzalo-e-mon Subscribe to the Ad Law Access blog - www.kelleydrye.com/subscribe Subscribe to the Ad Law News Newsletter - www.kelleydrye.com/subscribe View the Advertising and Privacy Law Resource Center - www.kelleydrye.com/advertising-and-privacy-law Find all of our links here linktr.ee/KelleyDryeAdLaw Hosted by Simone Roach

Air Up, a revolutionary water bottle company, emerged from a unique academic project and rapidly transformed the way we perceive and consume water. In this episode of the Xtalks Food Podcast, Sydney talks about the Munich-based startup, which began as a university project in 2016, combining neuroscience and design. It's the first hydration system that flavors water solely through scent. This innovative approach leverages the fact that about 80 percent of what we perceive as flavor actually comes from our sense of smell. The Air Up bottle uses retronasal smelling to bring flavor to plain water. When users drink from the bottle, the ‘flavored' air from the scent pods mixes with the water, creating a taste experience without actually flavoring the water itself. What sets the Air Up bottle apart from other water bottles is its blend of technology, sustainability and health consciousness. Although they read mixed reviews, the team praises Air Up for its innovative approach to hydration and are eager to try it out for themselves. Also in this episode, Sydney talks about why food industry influencers were recently at the center of a controversy highlighted by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Last week, the FTC issued warning letters to two major groups in the food and beverage sector and several online food industry influencers for inadequate disclosure of paid social media posts that endorsed a sweetener and various sugary products. These influencers, affiliated with the American Beverage Association and the Canadian Sugar Institute, had made posts on Instagram and TikTok. The American Beverage Association, a powerful lobbying group with members like Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo, and the Canadian Sugar Institute, representing Canadian sugar manufacturers, appeared to have hired these influencers. This crackdown aims to establish a new standard for transparency, particularly when the funding sources behind these campaigns are not explicitly stated. The team posits that there should only be one way to disclose ads on social media for complete transparency. Read the full article here:Air Up: Revolutionizing Hydration with Scent and SustainabilityFood Industry Influencers Warned by FTC for Inadequate Disclosure of Paid PromotionsFor more food and beverage industry content, visit the Xtalks Vitals homepage.Follow Us on Social Media Twitter: @XtalksFood Instagram: @Xtalks Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Xtalks.Webinars/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/xtalks-webconferences YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/XtalksWebinars/featured

Join Dr. Jade and Erin Holt, a seasoned functional nutritionist, as they unpack the realities of functional medicine. Listen in as Eric shares her personal journey to becoming a functional nutritionist and the contentious relationship between dietetics and the American Beverage Association. Erin walks you through her unique approach that harmonizes nutrition with energy work, empowering individuals to become their own healers. Learn about how functional medicine is employed to trace and address the root cause of physical and mental health conditions and guide people to their most fulfilled lives. Erin also contrasts traditional medicine with functional medicine, shedding light on certain limitations in treating chronic illness. She explains the oversimplified approach functional medicine often takes to treat complex conditions, its propensity to swap supplements for drugs, and the impact of the burgeoning supplement industry on the field. This conversation further reveals the disconnection between evidence-based practices and the current state of functional medicine. Erin and Dr. Jade emphasize the necessity for practitioners to uphold each other to a higher standard and grasp the underlying mechanisms of the protocols they use. In this discussion, Erin and Dr. Jade also touch on the concept of 'one right way' to heal, highlighting how this mindset can be harmful to those seeking help. They discuss how broadening our perspectives can provide room for growth. They then shift focus to the importance of belief in one's healing journey, discussing the role of mindset, beliefs, outdoor time, natural light exposure, exercise, diet, and individualized medicine that takes into account individual circumstances and access to resources. Tune in to learn how to harness the power of belief to fuel your healing journey. Check out the Next Level Human sponsors! Visit https://paleovalley.com/nextlevel to learn more about the gut-friendly 100% grass-fed beef sticks and save 15%! Connect with Erin Holt: Website: thefunktionalnutritionist.com Instagram: @the.funktional.nutritionist Connect with Dr. Jade Teta: Website: www.jadeteta.com Instagram: @jadeteta

This week Erin finds out the Levi's Store still exists, Nicole Scherzinger is playing Norma Desmond, Bryan rips anti-LGBTQ Congresswoman Lauren Boebert for being straight-up trash at Beetlejuice the Musical, and Erin discusses the American Beverage Association recruiting Tiktok “dieticians” to promote their pro-Aspartame messaging. Join us on the road to 3,000 on Patreon where we will release a new season of Groceries once we hit our subscriber goal! Hear re-releases from the Vault every Monday! Dateline and Columbo Recaps, Dolls! and more await behind the paywall! www.Patreon.com/attitudes  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Last year, we wrote about a challenge that NAD had initiated against various green claims made by the American Beverage Association (or “ABA”). NAD found that several of ABA's claims – including claims that “our bottles are made to be remade” and “we're carefully designing our bottles to be 100% recyclable” – were substantiated, but had concerns with others. ABA appealed the decision. Last week, NARB issued its own decision, siding with NAD. Here are some highlights. https://www.adlawaccess.com/2023/03/articles/narb-recommends-better-distinction-between-current-achievements-and-future-goals/ Gonzalo Mon gmon@kelleydrye.com (202) 342-8576 www.kelleydrye.com/Our-People/Gonzalo-E-Mon Subscribe to the Ad Law Access blog - www.adlawaccess.com/subscribe/ Subscribe to the Ad Law News Newsletter - https://www.kelleydrye.com/News-Events/Publications/Newsletters/Ad-Law-News-and-Views?dlg=1 View the Advertising and Privacy Law Resource Center - https://www.kelleydrye.com/Advertising-and-Privacy-Law-Resource-Center Find all of our links here linktr.ee/KelleyDryeAdLaw Hosted by Simone Roach

In recent months, companies have scored some notable victories in lawsuits involving various types of green claims, including carbon emission claims, aspirational claims, and recyclability claims. As we noted in some of those posts, the decisions may have turned out differently if the cases had been heard by NAD. A new decision in a challenge that NAD initiated against various claims made by the American Beverage Association (or “ABA”) shows how strictly NAD reviews these types of claims. https://www.adlawaccess.com/2022/12/articles/nad-takes-strict-view-of-green-claims/ Gonzalo E. Mon Phone: (202) 342-8576 Email: gmon@kelleydrye.com Bio: www.kelleydrye.com/Our-People/Gonzalo-E-Mon Download the Ad Law Access App www.kelleydrye.com/News-Events/New…ind-Advertising See our LinkeTree for more information linktr.ee/KelleyDryeAdLaw Hosted by Simone Roach Produced by Jeff Scurry

"Learning to Loath GMOs": A Critical Response to the New York Times   Richard Gale and Gary Null PhD Progressive Radio Network, July 27, 2021   In its July 19th issue, the New York Times Magazine published a brilliant piece of twisted pseudo-scientific propaganda. The essay, entitled “Learning to Love GMOs,” is truly stunning. Its author, journalist Jennifer Kahn, takes readers who would have little to no understanding of genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms (GMO) through a fictional labyrinth of out-dated and conflated GMO similitudes to an end point where readers might believe GMOs are really cool and there is nothing to be frantically worried about.    Kahn spins the story of Cathie Martin's research to develop a genetically engineered purple tomato high in the anti-oxidant anthocyacin as the work of a solo humanitarian to improve consumers' health by providing nutrient-rich GMO produce. What is missing from Kahn's equation is that the research was conducted at one of the world's oldest and most prestigious independent centers for plant science, the Johns Innes Centre (JIC) in the UK. The Centre, which is registered as a charity, lists over 500 employees and is funded by some of the largest proponents of genetic-modified plants, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. JIC's website includes purple tomatoes as one of its projects that combines “transcription factors, biosynthetic genes and iRNA [interference RNA] with the availability of natural tomato mutants.”  iRNA, or Post-Transcriptional Gene Slicing, is a method to silence certain genes the researchers desire to curtail their expression.     The Times article makes an effort to advance the flawed agro-chemical mantra of “substantial equivalence” without citing the term. The early acceptance of GMOs was largely based upon the unproven hypothesis of “substantial equivalence.” The USDA's adoption of this concept during Bill Clinton's first term in the White House gave GM seed companies a free pass to avoid submitting trial evidence to prove the environmental and health safety of genetically modified crops. Since the ruling claims that GMOs are fundamentally identical genetically to their natural counterparts, no compliance of safety regulations should necessarily apply. Therefore Big Ag firms did not have to worry over strict regulatory hurdles, which otherwise apply to other products such as pharmaceutical drugs, processed foods, pesticides, cosmetics and chemical additives.    However, during the past decade a flurry of research has shown that the “substantial equivalence” hypothesis is patently false. Alexandria University in Egypt, the Permaculture Research Institute and the Norwegian Center for Biosafety each found genetically modified crops to be fundamentally different. In addition, studies have confirmed that nutrient levels in traditional, organically raised grown crops are substantially higher than GM varieties. New technological methods to create concise profiles of a food's molecular composition, notably “omics,” were not available in the early 1990s when Clinton wore the mantle as America's first biotech president. Omic technology destroyed the Big Ag's industry's arguments to support the lie about substantial equivalence. For example, Kings College London published a study in Scientific Reports of Nature revealing unquestionable genetic consequences between GMO Roundup and non-GMO corn. The differences include changes in 117 proteins and 91 metabolites.[1]   Despite “substantial equivalence” having been debunked, the erroneous hypothesis continues to linger in pro-GMO propaganda. However, in Kahn's recent essay, she attempts to shift attention away from the early generation of GMOs, which were engineered solely to sell more toxic pesticides, and emphasize GMO's potential for increasing nutritional health and to advance medicine. In order to add a bit of balance, Kahn quotes James Madison University professor Alan Levinovitz who accurately described one fundamental criticism, among many others, against GMOs. “With genetic engineering there's a feeling that we're mucking about with the essential building blocks of reality,” Levinovitz stated. “We may feel OK about rearranging genes, the way nature does, but we're not comfortable mixing them up between creatures.”     But most disturbing is Kahn's failure to make any mention o the trail of environmental disasters and disease risks due to consuming genetically modified foods. She completely whitewashes the matter; she prefers we may forget that Monsanto's soy and corn, which now represent the majority of these crops grown in the US, was developed solely to allow farmers to spray highly toxic pesticides without injuring the crops. These crops contain notable concentrations of the pesticides that then find their way into numerous consumer food products including baby foods. Nor should we forget that Round-Up grown foods may be destroying people's microbiome.  Last year, researchers at the University of Turku in Finland reported a “conservative estimate that approximately 54% of organisms in our microbiome are “potentially sensitive” to glyphosate. Despite her pro-GMO advocacy, if Kahn's conscience had led her to take a moral high road, she could have at least apologized on Monsanto's behalf for the trail of death and disease the company's glyphosate has left in its wake. The company has yet to atone despite losing three trials with $2.4 billion fines, repeated appeal losses, and being ordered to pay $10.5 billion in settlements. To date Monsanto's glyphosate poisoning has been identified with the suppression of essential gut enzymes and amino acid synthesis, gluten intolerance, disruption of manganese pathways, neurological disease, cancer, amyloidosis and autoimmune disease. Her New York Times article would have better served the improvement of public health as a warning rather than an applause to appease companies such as Bayer/Monsanto and Syngenta. And shame on the New York Times' editors for permitting such biased misinformation to find its way into print.    Kahn is eager to cite findings showing GMO benefits without indicating her sources. She tells us that environmental groups have “quietly walked back their opposition as evidence has mounted that GMOs are both safe to eat and not inherently bad for the environment.” Kahn doesn't mention who these groups might be. She reframes the Philippine story of the destruction of genetically engineered Golden Rice; yet around that time even the pro-industry magazine Forbes published an article questioning Golden Rice's viability and noting that its benefits are only based upon unfounded hypotheses. As for its risks to health, GM Watch in the UK points out the work conducted by David Schubert at the Salk Institute that the rice might potentially generate Vitamin A derivatives that could “damage human fetuses and cause birth defects.”   Kahn, who should be acknowledged as a highly respected science journalist and teaches journalism at the University of California's Berkeley campus, happens to be a contributing author for the Genetic Literacy Project (GLP) at the University of California at Davis, a public relations operation sponsored by the agro-chemical industry.  Monsanto/Bayer, Syngenta and DuPont are among GLP's industry partners.  It is one of the most frequently quoted sources of cherry-picked information by pro-GMO advocates and journalists. In our opinion, it is perhaps one of the most financially compromised and scientifically illiterate organizations, founded and funded to disseminate pro-GMO propaganda in order to prop up public support for GMOs and genetic engineering in general. In effect, some universities now act as private industry's lobbyists. This becomes a greater scandal when the university is a public institution receiving public funding.  GLP and its east coast partner, Cornell University's Alliance for Science, largely funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, serve as the GMO industry's clearing houses for public relations to spin science into advertising, propaganda and character assassination of GM opponents.   The Genetic Literacy Project is a key collaborator with another food industry front organization, the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH). ACSH has nothing to do with actual health science. It has been described by the independent corporate financial watchdog organization Sourcewatch as a thinly veiled corporate front that holds “a generally apologetic stance regarding virtually every other health and environmental hazard produced by modern industry, accepting corporate funding from Coca-Cola, Syngenta, Proctor Gamble, Kellogg, General Mills, Pepsico, and the American Beverage Association, among others.” ACSH also favors toxic pesticides, the use of biphenol A in products, cigarettes and hydrofracking.  It is closely aligned with pseudo-medical front organizations that criticize alternative and natural health modalities, such as Quackwatch and the Science Based Medicine network.    GLP sources a couple thousand corporate-friendly studies favoring GMO safety.  One review of over 1,700 studies, known as the Nicolia Review, for a time was the most cited source making the broadest claims for GMO safety.  However subsequent independent and unbiased reviews of Nicolia's analysis concluded that many of these studies were tangential at best and barely took notice of anything related to crop genetic engineering or GMOs. Many studies are completely irrelevant from a value-added perspective because they have nothing to do with GMO safety. Furthermore, other studies in Nicolia's collection conclude the exact opposite of their intention and give further credibility to GMOs environmental and animal and human health risks. When Nicolia published his review, he intentionally omitted and ignored scientifically sound research that directly investigated GMO safety and found convincing evidence to issue warnings.  For example, one peer-reviewed publication by over 300 independent scientists declared that there is no scientific consensus that GM crops and food are safe.  Not surprisingly, there is no mention of this study in the Nicolia Review.   It is no secret that Monsanto and Big Ag have significant influence over UC-Davis's agricultural department and divisions.  The bogus economic studies trumped up by the Big Ag cartel to defeat California's GMO labeling bill Prop 37 were performed at UC-Davis and then publicized through the GLP. Gary Ruskin, who has been filing Freedom of Information Act requests, has publicly expressed deep concerns that UC Davis is acting as a financial conduit for private corporations and interests to develop and launch PR attacks against academics, professors, activists and other institutions who oppose those same corporate interests.     For GMO opponents, the name Mark Lynas, may send shivers down the spine. As soon as any journalist or researcher mentions Lynas' name approvingly, one can be certain which camp the author represents.  You can be assured you will be reading words on dirty laundry washed in even dirtier water. Therefore when Kahn quotes Lynas as if he were an unbiased authority about GMOs, we know we have boarded the wrong train and will reach a destination of distorted scientific facts and self-righteous corporate praise.    The public watchdog group US Right to Know describes Lynas as “a former journalist turned promotional advocate for genetically engineered foods and pesticides who makes inaccurate claims about those products from his perch at the Gates Foundation-funded Cornell Alliance for Science (CAS).” Lynas has accused those who would inform the public about Round-Up's carcinogenic properties as conducting a “witch hunt” by “anti-Monsanto activists” who “abused science.”  Lynas has denied his role as a shill for Big Ag. However, a decade ago, The Guardian acquired a private memo from the pro-biotechnology organization EuropaBio about its initiative to recruit “ambassadors” to preach the GMO gospel. Mark Lynas was specifically named in the document alongside then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan as a prime candidate to pressure European agencies who were skeptical about GMO claims, promises and health and environmental risks. In short, Lynas has been one of Big Ag's most invaluable foot soldiers for over a dozen years.    Similar to the Genetic Literacy Project, the Cornell Alliance for Science does not conduct any agricultural research; yet its tentacles to attack GMO opponents are far reaching in the media. CAS was launched in 2014 after the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation granted the alliance $5.6 million in start-up monies. The public relations Alliance makes the unfounded claim to represent “balanced” research about genetic engineered products.  One of its missions is to influence the next generation of agricultural scientists to embrace GMO science. For CAS, as for Bill Gates, GMOs are the only food solution for Africa's future. Five years ago, organic New York farmers mobilized to pressure the Trustees of Cornell University to evict CAS from the campus and halt its influence over the school's prestigious College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.   One argument Kahn wants us to buy into is that there were mistakes made during the early roll out of GMOs in the 1990s. But, somehow, mysteriously and without any solid evidence, we are supposed to believe that these same companies now engineering new generations of crops have learned their lessons. All that has really changed has been the genetic technology for altering plant genomes. The same mind-set that only technology and the quest for food dominance remain. After hundreds of thousands of dollars were flushed away during a genetically modified wheat project, a retired professor of plant agriculture at the University of Guelph in Canada remarked:   "We – scientists and the public – are so malleable and gullible (or is it because researchers and research administrators are just desperate for money?), that we swallow and become promoters of the mantra that GM is somehow going to feed the world: by resolving the monumental threat of burnt toast? Or browning in cut apples? Or flower color in carnations? Really? For shame. Let's be honest. The one and only reason these people, corporations, and governments are funding this sorry use of [lab] bench space is because it may yield a proprietary product."   Following Lynas' lead, Kahn wants us to believe that genes exchanged between different plants is common in nature and therefore manipulating genes between species with genetic engineering tools, such as CRISPR, should not worry us. Yes, plants have acquired genes from other organisms in the past – the far distant past – according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. However, it is so exceedingly rare that these should be regarded as anomalies without any correlation whatsoever to the millions of different genes available to bio-engineer new plant organisms. This has been one of Lynas' pet arguments on his bully pulpit since turning traitor on his former Greenpeace activists and joining Monsanto's legions.    It may also be noted that Jennifer Kahn is an active participant in CRISPRcon, a forum dedicated to “the future of CRISPR and gene editing technology applications in agriculture, health, conservation and more.” Among the organization's supporters are Bayer, the Innovative Genomics Institute, Cornell Alliance for Science, Corteva Agriscience and the United Soybean Board.  A mission noted on its website is expressed in one of its mottos, “The public doesn't trust GMOs. Will it trust CRISPR?” This is a public relations pitch that permeates her Times article.    It is important for independent investigators and researchers to identify and publicize the background of cloaked public relations shills posing as unbiased journalists in mainstream news sources. Kahn's New York Times piece is an example of a propaganda effort without credibility; it is an attempt to disingenuously manipulate the narrative so more Americans will love GMOs. In the wake of the agrichemical industry's efforts to bolster favorable images of GMOs and more recently CRISPR editing technologies, the mainstream media willingly rolls out a red carpet. No equal publishing space is awarded to the scientific critics of genetic engineering who uncover the flaws in the industry's public research. Consequently, journalists such as Mark Lynas and Jennifer Kahn are the norm rather than exception. Today the lesson is clear that money, power and influence sustain the lies and deceit of private industry.  Take on any cause critical of GMOs and agro-chemical agriculture, and Big Ag will come after you. Kahn is seemingly just one of many other journalists the GLP and Cornell Alliance can turn towards to advance genetic engineering's mythologies.    Seven years ago, 70 percent of Americans, according to a Consumer Reports National Research Center survey, did not want genetically modified organisms in their food. In 2018, the Pew Research Center reported that only five percent of Americans said GM foods were better for one's health – which about makes up the number of people who are in one way or another invested in the agrichemical industry. Still over half believe they endanger health. Yet too much has been invested into agro-biotechnology to expect GMOS to disappear at any time. As the public increasingly turns away from genetically modified organisms in their produce, we will expect new volleys of industry propaganda like that penned by Jennifer Kahn to dangle new carrots. For Kahn, one of these rotten carrots is to improve nutritional content. Yet, similar to the Golden Rice, this will need to be proven beyond being an infomercial. We can also expect to hear ever wilder and more irrational claims about how GMO-based agriculture might reduce CO2 greenhouse pollution and save humanity. And we expect much of this PR campaign to be backed by the World Economic Forum's full-throttle Great Reset invasion. In other words, out of desperation to reach global food dominance, the agro-chemical industry backed by western governments will be declaring a full food war against the peoples of the world.  It is time for us to unlearn any illusory attachment we might have to Big Agriculture and learn to loath GMOs.

It wasn't that long ago that there was a nutrition free-for-all in schools where sugary beverages, high calorie snack foods, and even things like pizzas and cheeseburgers direct from fast food chains were part of the food landscape in schools. What do you think the situation is today? Has it deteriorated even further? Has it improved or stayed about the same? Today's guest, Dr. Marlene Schwartz, is a champion for improved nutrition and physical activity in schools and one of the leading experts in the field. Schwartz is director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity and professor of human development and family studies at the University of Connecticut. She's an expert on nutrition and physical activity policies in schools and preschools nationwide, and has collaborated in particular with the Connecticut Department of Education on their policies.   Interview Summary   Let me ask you about the food landscape in schools. When people generally think of this, they think of school breakfast, school lunch, but there's actually a lot more of the picture of food in schools than just this. And you've talked about this a lot. Can you help explain?   Sure. So the school meals are definitely the most visible aspect of school food. And when I first got into this work, I thought that was pretty much all there was. But once you go into the school, what you realize is that food is available from a lot of different sources. In the cafeteria, there is often food sold outside of the meal program that's called competitive foods. So those are snacks or other beverages. High schools often have schools stores where they can sell a whole variety of snacks and beverages. Schools also have vending machines that sell food. And then there are fundraisers that are often done during the school day where children can buy food. And then in addition to all the food that's sold, there's food that's simply given out in schools quite commonly, particularly at the elementary school level. There is a lot of food available during parties, birthday parties, holiday parties, as well as teachers who use food as a reward in the classroom. So once you go in and try to start changing school food, you realize that there are many, many different places that you have to try to influence.   So when you mention birthday parties and things, every child just has one once a year, and you wouldn't think it really adds up to a lot, but you've made a different argument. Tell us about that.   Well, I think that yes, parents think, "Well, my child only has one birthday a year." But of course your child is one out of 25 children in the classroom. And so my argument was really that you have to look at what's happening in the classroom overall over the course of a year. And I actually made a slide that showed all of the different holidays, all of the birthday parties that take place during the year, so that people could really see that when you started to count, there were parties happening pretty much every single week in elementary schools.   So returning to school meals, and the competitive foods, and things served a la carte and things in bending machines, how the heck did things get to be this way? I mean, were there federal, state, or local policies that permitted or even encouraged this? Were people making money? What made this happen?   It's really interesting to look into the history of competitive foods in schools. What I learned is that there are actually multiple layers of policies. And historically, the main policy was the federal policy, because the school meal programs are federal programs. But in the 1980s, the National Soft Drink Association, which is now known as the American Beverage Association, actually sued the federal government to make the case that they should not be allowed to regulate what was sold in schools outside of the school meals. And that was really the beginning of a very sort of troubled era, I would say, in the school food environment, because a lot of vending machines started going into the schools at that point, selling soft drinks. Companies even had something called pouring right contracts, which were essentially contracts with a particular brand, so Coke or Pepsi, where they would give the school money, they would provide the vending machines, and they would sell their products, and they would let the school have a cut of the profits. On the one hand, it helped the soft drink companies sell their product. They made some money from that. But I think what was probably more important to them is they got their brand in front of the students in that school. And the deal was you couldn't sell other brands of beverages.   I remember when we first started doing this work, I went to a high school in Connecticut, and I remember counting 13 vending machines as I was walking through the halls. So that was 13 times during the day, you know, children would be passing by that huge machine with the logo for that beverage company. There were really limited regulations during that era of what could be sold outside of the school meals. There was something called foods of minimal nutritional value, which was a pretty short list of things you couldn't sell. So it was things like cotton candy and lollipops. And there were also rules about not selling unhealthy foods for 30 minutes before the lunch period or 30 minutes after the lunch period. So you had a situation where sometimes there would be a vending machine in the hallway and they would unplug it for 30 minutes before lunch and then 30 minutes after lunch. But people could go plug in the machine, buy their soda, and then unplug it again. Those are the sorts of stories that you would hear.   So the good news is that things started changing in the early 2000s. People started to realize that it had gotten out of control, and States started passing regulations to get rid of some of these unhealthy competitive foods. And at the time, there really wasn't much promise of making a change at the federal level. So you had dates that were progressive passing laws that you couldn't sell soda or you couldn't sell certain unhealthy snacks in the schools. And then something interesting happened in 2006, which was the federal regulation was updated, basically saying that school districts needed to set their own policies. So it was somewhat of a political compromise. I think that the advocates had hoped that time that the federal regulation would actually say what the nutrition standards would be for competitive foods. But instead of that, they at least got this idea that, okay, you need to set your own policy. You can't just ignore this problem. And so it sort of forced the hand of school districts to at least put down on paper what their rules were for the snacks that they were selling outside of school meals. And so there was this period of time where schools really were responding to three levels of regulation, often. The federal regulation, if they lived in a state that had state regulations, they had those. And then also their own district regulation. It was quite confusing. And I think schools sort of struggled to figure out what they were doing and which regulations they were following. But things have definitely improved.   There are lots of interesting examples of individual parents making a difference in this problem by what they've done within their own school systems. So you don't necessarily just have to think about top-down things, and you're one such person. I remember that as a parent, when you had children in the Connecticut schools, that you made a big difference in the way the school system looked at things. So I'd love to hear just a little bit about how you approached that. What was the situation when you began working on it? And then what happened?   I was one of those parents and have a reputation that continues to follow me to this day. I had, you know, young children in the schools and was not happy with what was being sold in the schools. I wasn't happy with the number of times, as I mentioned, there were parties or teachers were handing out candy or coupons for donuts in the classroom. And so I got involved in my own elementary school with the principal, and we formed what was sort of ahead of its time, but it was essentially a school wellness committee. And we invited the school nurse, the PE teacher, some other parents joined. And we really tried to think about what could we do in our own school to make changes. And given that, you know, my training as a researcher taught me that you want to collect data, you want to keep track of what changes are occurring.   We began with a survey of parents in my school district that the district helped orchestrate. And I was able to document that parents overall really didn't want these unhealthy foods in schools. They didn't really like the snacks being sold in the elementary schools. They didn't like teachers handing out candy. And so I was able to then go back to the board of education with the data and convince them that we should have a stronger policy in our district. Now I will say that it turned out there was mixed feelings about it. Even though the majority of parents felt that way, there certainly were parents that didn't feel that way. And I got a lot of really great research ideas from going to different PTO meetings presenting the research on this topic and really hearing the way parents talk about it.   One of the things I learned pretty early on is that it really seemed like it wasn't so much about cupcakes in the classroom, but the arguments were more about what is the role of government? What is the role of policy? And when do you sort of let parents do whatever they want and when does the school or the school district have the right to say, "No, this is how we want things done in our district."   Well, what you've just said is a great example of how much difference a single parent can make. So let's talk about the federal government and what it's been doing. So a lot happened during the Obama administration on school food nutrition standards, and the Trump administration as well. But there's quite a contrast in the way these two administrations have been addressing this issue. Can you paint us a picture of this?   The Obama administration: I think of it now as the golden age of improvements in school food. You had a situation where States were passing policies. The federal government didn't do too much other than require these local policies. But because of all of that, it became evident that change really could happen. So you had whole States that got rid of all of the sugary drinks in schools like Connecticut. In 2006, K through 12, no sugary drinks could be sold in any of our schools. And essentially we proved as a state that this change could happen, that there wasn't a disaster. People didn't lose so much money, you know, that it was a huge problem. And so all of the arguments that have been made as to why you couldn't make these changes were kind of shown to be false because we were able to demonstrate that it could be done. I think those stories started accumulating. And then of course, Michelle Obama was a tremendous champion for children's health, for nutrition. And a piece of legislation called the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 went through and I think completely transformed the school food environment. So that acted lots of things that really hadn't been done before. First of all, it revamped the nutrition standards so that they were in line with the dietary guidelines. So we saw things like increases in whole grains, increases in low-fat dairy, also more fruits and vegetables. And in addition to more in terms of larger quantities, also more variety in fruits and vegetables. So those changes were all really important. The other thing they did that was very new is they started setting calorie maximums for school meals instead of just calorie minimums. Those minimums had always been there because the concern was that kids weren't getting enough to eat. Now we had knowledge that we also needed to be careful about kids eating too many calories at school.   And then the other really major change that came with the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act is that lawsuit I mentioned from the National Soft Drink Association in the 1980s that prevented the federal government from regulating foods outside of the school meal programs finally was changed. And now the federal government started to set standards for the first time for all foods sold on school campus during the school day. And they developed something called Smart Snacks, which is a set of nutrition standards that went into effect that essentially regulates everything that's sold. So those were all wonderful changes.   I think the USDA did a great job developing the regulations, implementing them over time. It wasn't like everything happened overnight. There were several years where each year different levels of the changes would get implemented. Another important one was sodium levels. There had been very clear research documenting too much sodium consumption and that school meals had too much sodium. So there was a progressive series of three levels of sodium reduction that were scheduled. So then came the Trump administration. And I think there were a lot of concerns about whether things would go backwards because one of the priorities, it seemed, from the Trump administration was deregulation and taking away things like federal regulations. And in the end, some changes have taken place. So there've been a couple of rollbacks. One is the original Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act regulation for milk said that all milk had to be 1% or fat-free, and there could be flavored milk, but it had to be fat-free flavored milk. And the reason was because that was a way to keep the calories below a certain level. So one of the roll backs was saying, no, you can have 1% flavored milk. So that was a change. Another had to do with whole grains. The regulation that had been implemented over time was that items needed to be what they call whole grain rich. And whole grain rich means more than 50% of the grains in the product are whole grains. And originally 50% of your grains had to be whole grain rich. And then it went up to 100% had to be whole grain rich. And essentially Sonny Perdue, about a year ago, rolled that back so that only 50% needed to be whole grain rich. So that was a step backwards. But I would say probably the biggest problem were the sodium changes. So as I said, there was this progression that had been scheduled pretty slowly to allow the industry time to reformulate to decrease the amount of sodium in schools. And essentially, Sonny Perdue announced last year that they were going to get rid of that third, most progressive level, and they were going to give more time to reach the second level. So it rolled back and then essentially stopped the progression in terms of improving the amount of sodium in schools.   So where do you think the most important advances in policy will be?   You know, I think that it goes up and down, if that makes sense. I think that things begin at the local level, because you have districts that really get out in front and have community that, you know, sort of taking this on as a priority. And then I think when you have districts showing that something can be done, it's more likely to happen at the state level. And then when things are done at the state level, oftentimes when you have a handful of states around the country that have demonstrated that something could be done, it's much easier for the federal government to make the changes. So if you're in a progressive state, the changes come earlier, because they are at those local and state levels. If you're in a less progressive state that doesn't tend to be out front on these issues, you really have to wait for the federal government to step in. That's what we've seen. And I wouldn't be surprised if it continued with that pattern.   So what do you think are the top priorities for what can be done in schools as we look forward?   The nutrition standards where they are, those rollbacks notwithstanding, I think are great. And I think it would be fine to keep them where they are now. I don't necessarily think that there need to be big changes there. What I think is more important now is to work on the culinary skill of people who are preparing school meals and find ways to help everyone make meals that follow those standards, but are also highly palatable and really attractive to the students. Overall, there have been a lot of success stories in terms of students liking the new school meals. I mean, we collected data in New Haven and documented very clearly that there had been no increase in plate waste, that children were eating the meals, they were eating more fruit than they were eating before. And I think that's the story in a lot of the cities and particularly districts that have 100% free lunch, so universal free meals. Those are the students who are used to eating school meals. They've been eating school meals since they came into schools. It's free, it's available for everyone, and that I think is often where you're going to see the most success. I think what's harder are the school districts that have a smaller proportion of students who qualify for free meals and therefore their rates of participation tend to be lower. They're faced with more challenges because they don't have the volume of participation that financially helps them invest in, let's say, new equipment or staff or training. And so they're the ones that I think have been struggling. And so I would love to see efforts to really help those districts learn from the districts that have seen a lot of success and kind of get the training, get the equipment, to really be able to provide meals that all of the students are going to want to eat.     Bio Dr. Marlene Schwartz is Director for the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity and Professor of Human Development and Family Sciences. Dr. Schwartz's research and community service address how home environments, school landscapes, neighborhoods, and the media shape the eating attitudes and behaviors of children. Schwartz earned her PhD in Psychology from Yale University in 1996. Prior to joining the Rudd Center, she served as Co-Director of the Yale Center for Eating and Weight Disorders from 1996 to 2006. She has collaborated with the Connecticut State Department of Education to evaluate nutrition and physical activity policies in schools and preschools throughout the state. She co-chaired the Connecticut Obesity Task Force and has provided expert testimony on obesity-related state policies. She also serves on the Board of Directors of the Connecticut Food Bank.  

Host Mary Kate Cunningham, CAE, ASAE’s SVP of Public Policy welcomes co-host Nate Fisher of ASAE’s Public Policy team for a series of conversations about advocacy amid the COVID-19 pandemic and the beginning of a new Administration. Guests include Scott Wiley, FASAE, CAE, President & CEO, Ohio Society of CPAs, Franklin Davis, Senior Director, Federal Affairs, for the American Beverage Association, and Kevin Serafino Vice President, Federal Government Relations & Public Policy and Internal Counsel, Household & Commercial Products Association. Discussions include association community 2021 priorities, issues, and making 2021 as successful as possible for associations and society at large.  

This is the first time we are speaking in 2021 and I am hoping you are all hanging in there. So much has happened since the last time we spoke but I am so excited you decided to join me today for season 2 of the Tech Chef. Those of you joining for the first time, please go ahead and hit the SUBSCRIBE button right now so you don’t miss a single episode.  The Tech Chef Podcast has become the best and hottest new place to get all of your restaurant and hospitality technology information and has been doing so since early last year Looking at this year’s production schedule, I have so many amazing guests lined up for you including some celebrity appearances.  Once again, unless you hit the subscribe button, you have a chance of missing some pretty awesome subjects and great giveaways…. That’s right! Anybody listening to this show knows that I love to give things away! So let’s start of season two with a heavy hitter, shall we? Tom Bené, President and CEO of the National Restaurant AssociationTom Bené is President & CEO of the National Restaurant Association—the Washington, D.C.-based trade association representing the nation’s restaurant and foodservice industry—and CEO of the National Restaurant Association Educational Foundation. Prior to assuming this role in June 2020, Tom served as Chairman, President & CEO of Sysco Corp., the world’s largest foodservice distributor, where he had previously served as COO, President of Foodservice Operations, and Chief Commercial Officer. Prior to Sysco, Tom served as President of Pepsi-Cola Foodservice and held a variety of senior leadership roles over his 23-year career with the company, including President of PepsiCo North America and SVP of Sales & Franchise Development. Tom earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration from the University of Kansas and currently serves as a member of the University of Kansas’ Business School Advisory Board. He is Past Chair of the American Beverage Association and has served on the Executive Committee of the Women’s Foodservice Forum. Today he is going to give us the status of the state of the industry and what we can expect in 2021, especially from an advocacy point of view.  What Tom has to say affects all of us so this is a show you don’t want to skip through.  How To Contact MeComment hotline: 954-302-0851 Website: https://skipkimpel.com/ (https://SkipKimpel.com) (show notes will be posted here) Instagram: https://instagram.com/skipkimpel (https://instagram.com/skipkimpel) Twitter: https://twitter.com/skipkimpel (https://twitter.com/skipkimpel) Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/skipkimpel1/ (https://www.facebook.com/skipkimpel1/) LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/skipkimpel/ (https://www.linkedin.com/in/skipkimpel/) Next Week’s Show…Next week, we have yet another great guest lined up for you, so you must toon in to find out more but in the meantime, stay safe, stay healthy and stay hungry my friends.

We have a new year but not much has changed for many. The last year has taken a toll on the personal health routines of many people. The external factors are out of our control but how we respond is our choice. We decide when and what we eat, when we go to bed and how much we move. When you take control of your health you will be more empowered to take control of other areas of your life as well. Don't rely on the public health authorities. Our dietary guidelines are influenced by food industry sponsorships and food contracts from companies like PepsiCo, General Mills and ConAgra and the influence of the American Beverage Association.   Make actionable goals like getting 7-9 hours of sleep, eating 2-3 meals a day with no snacking and exercising 2 or 3 times a week.   Set up boundaries and reminders to make the changes part of your schedule.   Prioritize protein in your meals. Limit carbs to less than 100g a day if weight loss is the goal. Use unsweetened electrolytes to prevent dehydration when limiting carbs.   Get your diet and sleep in place first, then add exercise 2-3 times a week, prioritizing strength training. Don't let a desire for a perfect situation keep you from making progress. Put a few new things in place and move forward.   CONNECT WITH ZANE: If you would like a greater understanding of the lifestyle concepts I've mentioned please take a look at the Metabolic Makeover program. Metabolic Makeover: Click here   Questions? You can email your questions to zane@zanegriggs.com. Connect with me at zanegriggs.com or on Instagram @zanegriggsfitness   QUICK EPISODE SUMMARY You choose how to respond Managing important areas of your life You can’t wait for it to be “over” It’s time to move forward Americans new recommend nutrition  Clever ways to keep you in a healthy routine Practical ways to set yourself up for success Meal planning and leveraging protein  Losing water weight still counts No one can do this for you How to learn more about this process  Start now

Seth Goldman joined Beyond Meat, a plant-based protein company based in El Segundo, CA, as Executive Chair and as a member of the board of directors in 2013. He is also currently the Tea EO Emeritus and Innovation Catalyst for Coca-Cola Company’s Venturing and Emerging Brands. He co-founded Honest Tea Inc., a bottled organic tea company, in 1998, which was later sold to The Coca-Cola Company, and he previously served as Honest Tea’s President and Tea EO.   In 2015, Seth was named the #1 Disruptor by Beverage World, and Beverage Executive of the Year by Beverage Industry magazine. He has also been recognized as an Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year and the Washington DC Business Hall of Fame and he is a Henry Crown Fellow of the Aspen Institute. In 2018, Partnership for a Healthier America recognized Seth with its Visionary CEO award. He serves on the advisory boards of Ripple Foods, a dairy-free plant-based milk company, the Yale School of Management, the American Beverage Association, and Bethesda Green, a local sustainability non-profit he co-founded. Visit www.beyondmeat.com. Get the new Your Inner World – Guided Meditations by Sister Jenna. Visit www.americameditating.org.  

The American Planning Association’s Chicago Metro Section and Ancel Glink’s Quorum Forum podcast were live at the Haymarket Pub & Brewery for the Fifth Annual Bar Exam Planning Law Session! Muse Community + Design’s Nina Idemudia and Ancel Glink’s Dan Bolin, Greg Jones, and Christy Michaelson joined planning professionals for a realistic law school simulation covering the year’s noteworthy land use cases on zoning, cannabis, short-term rentals and more. What do you think will be the biggest issues for planners this year? Email us at podcast@ancelglink.com! --- Resources --- APA Chicago Metro Section https://www.ilapa.org/chicago-metro-section APA, People Behind the Plans podcast, Nina Idemudia https://www.planning.org/podcast/people-behind-the-plans-nina-idemudia-aicp/ Inclusionary Zoning, Cherk v. County of Marin https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10556282075372991775&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr Cannabis Use and Possession http://municipalminute.ancelglink.com/2019/12/cannabis-act-amendments-signed-by.html Homelessness, Martin v. Boise http://municipalminute.ancelglink.com/2020/01/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-homeless.html Signs, American Beverage Association v. California State Outdoor Advertising Association http://municipalminute.ancelglink.com/2019/03/federal-court-limits-size-of-required.html Short-Term Rentals, Rosenblatt v. City of Santa Monica http://municipalminute.ancelglink.com/2019/10/ninth-circuit-upholds-citys-short-term.html Annexation Agreements, United City of Yorkville v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland http://municipalminute.ancelglink.com/2019/04/subsequent-lot-owners-responsible-for.html Takings, Knick v. Township of Scott http://municipalminute.ancelglink.com/2019/07/supreme-court-strikes-down-30-plus.html Telecommunications, Labell v. City of Chicago http://municipalminute.ancelglink.com/2019/10/court-upholds-citys-amusement-tax-on.html --- Credits --- Producer: Dan Bolin Assistant Producers: Christy Michaelson, Michael Halpin, Rain Montero, Matt DiCianni Executive Producers: Julie Tappendorf, Keri-Lyn Krafthefer Chair: Dan Bolin Engineers: Ricardo Perez, Matt Smith This podcast is provided as a service to our public and private sector clients and friends. It is intended to provide timely general information of interest, but should not be considered a substitute for legal advice. Read our full disclaimer: ancelglink.com/disclaimers

Seth Goldman joined Beyond Meat, a plant-based protein company based in El Segundo, CA, as Executive Chair and as a member of the board of directors in 2013. He is also currently the Tea EO Emeritus and Innovation Catalyst for Coca-Cola Company’s Venturing and Emerging Brands. He co-founded Honest Tea Inc., a bottled organic tea company, in 1998, which was later sold to The Coca-Cola Company, and he previously served as Honest Tea’s President and Tea EO.   In 2015, Seth was named the #1 Disruptor by Beverage World, and Beverage Executive of the Year by Beverage Industry magazine. He has also been recognized as an Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year and the Washington DC Business Hall of Fame and he is a Henry Crown Fellow of the Aspen Institute. In 2018, Partnership for a Healthier America recognized Seth with its Visionary CEO award. He serves on the advisory boards of Ripple Foods, a dairy-free plant-based milk company, the Yale School of Management, the American Beverage Association, and Bethesda Green, a local sustainability non-profit he co-founded. Visit www.beyondmeat.com. Get the new Your Inner World – Guided Meditations by Sister Jenna. Visit www.americameditating.org. Download our free Pause for Peace App for Apple or Android.

How can we reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages? There are efforts globally around the world looking at soda taxes as a solution for bringing down the consumption of foods that we know cause obesity and chronic disease. When those taxes are paired with incentives for eating healthy food, it's a win-win for everybody. Consuming more healthy food and less soda creates more productivity, lower healthcare costs, and less chronic disease. Yet we see organizations such as the American Beverage Association spending millions of dollars fighting soda taxes. It’s obvious that they wouldn't spend that kind of money if they didn't think they would lose profits from a soda tax. Dr. Hyman talks about all this and more in this mini-episode. Learn more about these topics and the actions we can take for more transparency from the government and corporations in Dr. Hyman's new book, Food Fix. FoodFixBook.com See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Impeachment is a hot topic in the news right now. We'll be talking about it more on Tuesday's episode, but today we're covering the history, purpose, and process of impeachment. Resources About Impeachment: High Crimes and Misdemeanors House of Representatives: Impeachment 1993: Senate Impeachment Trial Powers Upheld Is Obstruction an Impeachable Offense? History Says YesCan't get enough Pantsuit Politics? Come see us at Florence Christian Church in Florence, KY on April 27 for a discussion about how churches can lead and facilitate grace-filled political conversations. You can also buy Pantsuit Politics merch!We are so thankful to our wonderful patrons who support the show. If you'd like to join the ranks of our faithful supports and get access to bonus content, visit our Patreon page.Thanks to our sponsors: the American Beverage Association and Pact.Our book, I Think You're Wrong (But I'm Listening), is available! You can purchase it now - for yourself, for friends, for your representative, for your senator, for everyone! We appreciate all of you who are spreading the word about the book to your local bookstores, libraries, and social circles. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Today, we're featuring two incredible women who are running for Senate in 2020. MJ Hegar is running against incumbent John Cornyn in Texas. Stephany Rose Spaulding, who spoke to us during her 2018 campaign for Congress, is running for the Democratic nomination in Colorado. Can't get enough Pantsuit Politics? Come see us speak this fall at Podcast Movement, Evolving Faith, and Blissdom.Thanks to our sponsors: the American Beverage Association, Quip, and Silk Therapeutics.Thank you for being a part of our community! We couldn't do what we do without you. To become a tangible supporter of the show, please visit our Patreon page, purchase a copy of our book, I Think You're Wrong (But I'm Listening), or share the word about our work in your own circles. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

We discuss the "deal" the administration made with Mexico over tariffs and Hong Kong protests about extradition legislation. Beth compliments Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and Sarah compliments states working to overturn the death penalty. In our main segment, we return to our conversation about Brexit and share what we think will happen. Outside of politics, we talk accents and celebrate Nicholas Holland's 40th birthday. Can't get enough Pantsuit Politics? Come see us speak this fall at Podcast Movement, Evolving Faith, and Blissdom.Thanks to our sponsors: the American Beverage Association, Rothy's, and Betabrand.Thank you for being a part of our community! We couldn't do what we do without you. To become a tangible supporter of the show, please visit our Patreon page, purchase a copy of our book, I Think You're Wrong (But I'm Listening), or share the word about our work in your own circles. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Despite the fact that Brexit has been a thing for years now, things are still a mess over in the United Kingdom as they attempt to decide exactly how this is going to go down. Today, we're breaking down what you need to know about Brexit before we discuss our opinions about it on Tuesday's episode. We'll be answering all these questions and more:How did Britain get to be in the European Union in the first place?How did Bexit became a thing?What's in the divorce deal?What is the Irish backstop and why is it complicating things?What happens after Theresa May leaves office?Brexit Resources:Financial Times Brexit Coverage What's the difference between the withdrawal agreement and political declaration?What's in the political declaration?BBC correspondents on the draft dealYour simple guide to the UK leaving the EUThanks to our sponsors: the American Beverage Association and HelloFresh.Thank you for being a part of our community! We couldn't do what we do without you. To become a tangible supporter of the show, please visit our Patreon page, purchase a copy of our book, I Think You're Wrong (But I'm Listening), or share the word about our work in your own circles. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

It's the last day of our annual Patreon drive! We're so close to our big goal of 1000 patrons! Visit our Patreon page to become part of the incredible community that supports our work and get access to exciting bonus content and perks. We talk through the news of the week, including that nine minute press conference that Robert Mueller gave urging us all to read his report. We also discuss the Israeli election, the potential boycotts of red states, and the absurd reason the USS John McCain is in the news. Thanks to our sponsors: the American Beverage Association and Quip.Our book, I Think You're Wrong (But I'm Listening), is available! You can purchase it now - for yourself, for friends, for your representative, for your senator, for everyone! We appreciate all of you who are spreading the word about the book to your local bookstores, libraries, and social circles.Can't get enough Pantsuit Politics? Check out our recent appearance on The Politics Guys and Something from Nothing. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The news to know for Friday, May 24th, 2019! Today, what to know about billions of dollars going to farmers, and the multimillion dollar deal Harvey Weinstein just made. Plus: Memorial Day, a mile-wide asteroid, 3D body scans and a new feature on Rotten Tomatoes. Those stories and many more in less than 10 minutes! Award-winning broadcast journalist and former TV news reporter Erica Mandy breaks it all down for you.  Head to www.theNewsWorthy.com to read more about any of the stories mentioned under the section titled 'Episodes' or see sources below... Today's episode is brought to you by the American Beverage Association. Become a NewsWorthy Insider! Click here:  https://www.theNewsWorthy.com/insider             Sources: Farmers Bailout: NYT, NPR Disaster Funding Bill: CNN, NBC News, Politico Harvey Weinstein Deal: Page Six, ABC News, WSJ Last Slave Ship Found: USA Today, Washington Post, Live Science Weekend Weather: Accuweather, Missouri Tornado: The Weather Channel, NYT Asteroid Flyby: NBC News Memorial Day: History Beef Recall: USDA (list of recalled items), FOX News, CBS News Facebook's Record Removal: Axios, Bloomberg, Engadget AT&T & Bitcoin: Engadget, CNET 3D Body Scans: Business Insider, CNET Mood Device: Bloomberg, CNBC Rotten Tomatoes Revamp: Variety, Deadline

We're halfway through our annual Patreon drive! Visit our Patreon page to become part of the incredible community that supports our work and get access to exciting bonus content and perks. After two heavy episodes diving into the weeds of abortion law, we're lightening things up today. We share our great conversation with Willie Geist about journalism, the politics of the 2020 presidential race, and what's in his Netflix queue. Thanks to our sponsors: the American Beverage Association and Betabrand.Our book, I Think You're Wrong (But I'm Listening), is available! You can purchase it now - for yourself, for friends, for your representative, for your senator, for everyone! We appreciate all of you who are spreading the word about the book to your local bookstores, libraries, and social circles. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The news to know for Thursday, May 23rd, 2019! Today, we're talking about why President Trump stormed out of a meeting and says he'll refuse to work with Democrats, and what to watch for in the world's largest election. Plus: what to know about changes to the $20 bill, a new way to bury loved ones, and how NASA plans to take people's names to Mars. Those stories and many more in less than 10 minutes! Then, hang out after the news for Thing to Know Thursday's bonus interview about a growing number of e-scooter injuries, and what's being done about it. Hear from Dr. Tarak Trivedi about his own research and how e-scooter companies are coming to him to improve safety. Award-winning broadcast journalist and former TV news reporter Erica Mandy helps break it all down for you.  Head to www.theNewsWorthy.com to read more about any of the stories mentioned under the section titled 'Episodes' or see sources below... Today's episode is brought to you by the American Beverage Association. Learn more at www.BalanceUS.org. Become a NewsWorthy Insider! Click here:  https://www.theNewsWorthy.com/insider       Sources: Trump-Pelosi Battle: AP, NYT, The Hill, CNN Trump's Financial Records: WSJ, The Hill, Bloomberg, NBC News “American Taliban” Released: NYT, FOX News, Washington Post India's Election: CNN, BBC, The Guardian, NYT Harriet Tubman Bill: CNBC, The Hill, MarketWatch NASA Boarding Pass: CNN, NASA ? 23andMe & Airbnb: Vox, Quartz   Human Composting: Seattle Times, USA Today, CNN Delivery Robot: Reuters, Business Insider, TechCrunch World's First “Vertical” Theme Park: Daily Mail, AP  

The news to know for Tuesday, May 21st, 2019! Today, we're talking about the White House winning one subpoena fight today but losing another. Plus: a ban on a major Chinese company, how AI could help fight cancer, and yes, another mistake on the most popular HBO show ever... Those stories and many more in less than 10 minutes! Award-winning broadcast journalist and former TV news reporter Erica Mandy breaks it all down for you.  Head to www.theNewsWorthy.com to read more about any of the stories mentioned under the section titled 'Episodes' or see sources below... Today's episode is brought to you by the American Beverage Association. Go to www.balanceUS.org to learn more. Become a NewsWorthy Insider! Click here:  https://www.theNewsWorthy.com/insider       Sources: McGahn Testimony: ABC News, CNN, AP Financial Records: CNBC, Washington Post, The Hill, WSJ Google & Huawei: AP, CNN, Bloomberg T-Mobile/Sprint Merger: CNBC, WSJ, The Verge AI Spots Lung Cancer: Engadget, NYT Ford Job Cuts: NBC News, WSJ Little Caesars Impossible Pizza: The Verge, Fox Business Game of Thrones Water Bottles: Gizmodo, USA Today, Variety, Business Insider

This week kicked off our annual Patreon drive! Visit our Patreon page to become part of the incredible community that supports our work and get access to exciting bonus content and perks. Today, we're sharing five things you need to know about abortion law in advance of a deeper conversation about recent events on Tuesday's episode. Abortion has a long emotional history in the US that Roe vs. Wade didn't stop.Ohio, Mississippi, Kentucky, and Georgia have passed "heart beat bills".Heartbeat bills and outright bans on abortion in all circumstances are surging in popularity, despite the fact that public opinion is largely more nuanced about abortion.Stare decisions recently took a hit on the Supreme Court. Kentucky's law has already been struck down in court. Mississippi and Ohio's are already being challenged. Georgia and Alabama laws are also expected to be challenged.Resources on Abortion Law New poll finds "dramatic shift" on abortion attitudesGallup polls on abortion Abortion would automatically be illegal in these states if Roe v. Wade is overturned Abortion Opponents Think They’re Winning. Have They Set Themselves Up to Fail?‘The Time Is Now’: States Are Rushing to Restrict Abortion, or to Protect ItThanks to our sponsors: the American Beverage Association and Rothy's.Our book, I Think You're Wrong (But I'm Listening), is available! You can purchase it now - for yourself, for friends, for your representative, for your senator, for everyone! We appreciate all of you who are spreading the word about the book to your local bookstores, libraries, and social circles. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

It's been a diverse news week and our conversation in this episode reflects that. We talk about Congress holding Attorney General Bill Barr in contempt and where things may be going next on the investigation/impeachment front. We also talk about the multitude of countries this with which this administration seems interested in going to war. We share our heartbreak over the school shootings this week and the hero students who sacrificed themselves for their classmates.Finally, we have a conversation about drugs. Denver has decided to decriminalize psychedelics and Sarah is here for it. Beth, not so much. What we are both here for is a serious conversation about pharmaceutical advertising, something President Trump has been tweeting about lately.We want to hear your opinions! Please take a couple minutes and fill out our 2019 listener survey. We are thinking big about the future of the podcast and and we can't possibly continue down that road without your guidance. We are so thankful to our wonderful patrons who support the show. If you'd like to join the ranks of our faithful supports and get access to bonus content, visit our Patreon page.Thanks to our sponsors: the American Beverage Association and Express VPN. Our book, I Think You're Wrong (But I'm Listening), is available! You can purchase it now - for yourself, for friends, for your representative, for your senator, for everyone! We appreciate all of you who are spreading the word about the book to your local bookstores, libraries, and social circles. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The news to know for Friday, May 10th, 2019! What to know about trade talks with China and how new tariffs could impact what you buy, and the Pope's groundbreaking new law. Plus: Uber's IPO, a new way to get to the moon, and free babysitters for Mother's Day. Those stories and many more in less than 10 minutes! Award-winning broadcast journalist and former TV news reporter Erica Mandy breaks it all down for you.  Head to www.theNewsWorthy.com to read more about any of the stories mentioned under the section titled 'Episodes' or see sources below... Today's episode is brought to you by the American Beverage Association. Go to www.BalanceUS.org to learn more. Become a NewsWorthy Insider! Click here:  https://www.theNewsWorthy.com/insider                   Sources: Trade Talks & Tariffs: NYT, WSJ, AP, CNBC, Reuters Defense Secretary Nominee: Washington Post, AP Abortion Laws: Washington Post, CBS News Pope Francis New Rule: NPR, NBC News, AP Kids Tech Privacy: NYT, Vox, Business Insider Uber IPO: CNBC, WSJ, Techcrunch Facebook Too Big?: NYT, CNBC, The Verge Moon Mission: CNN, Reuters, CNBC, Space.com Delta Free Wifi: The Verge Nike AR App: Engadget, USA Today Mother's Day: Today, CBS News  

The news to know for Thursday, May 9th, 2019! We're talking about why the president's son was just subpoenaed, the new thing drug companies will have to tell you on TV, and the first U.S. city to give the OK to so-called magic mushrooms. Plus: a big Bitcoin hack, the royal baby name, and Tyra Banks makes a comeback. Those stories and many more in less than 10 minutes! Then hang out after the news for Thing to Know Thursday's bonus interview about a new CDC report on pregnancy-related medical issues, the new drug for postpartum depression and the advice to new moms everywhere. You'll hear from Dr. Alison Stuebe as well as postpartum care practitioner Natalie Telyatnikov. Award-winning broadcast journalist and former TV news reporter Erica Mandy helps breaks it all down for you.  You can also go to www.theNewsWorthy.com to see story sources and links in the section titled 'Episodes' or see below... Today's episode is brought to you by the American Beverage Association. Go to www.BalanceUS.org to learn more. Become a NewsWorthy Insider! Click here:  https://www.theNewsWorthy.com/insider          Sources: Trump Jr. Subpoena: CNBC, NPR Executive Privilege: NYT, AP Contempt Vote: The Hill, CNN Pregnancy-Related Deaths: CBS News, Axios Magic Mushrooms OK: Forbes, Denver Post Drug Prices on TV: ABC News, Bloomberg, NYT Tobacco Age: CNBC, Reuters Bitcoin Hackers: CNN, Wired, Binance Buy a Bird: Tech Crunch, The Verge Tyra Banks SI Cover: CBS News, People Royal Baby Name: BBC, USA Today, People  

Our recap of and conversation about the Barr hearing leads us into a deeper conversation about elections, past and future. How should we be talking about 2016? Should we care what Hillary Clinton has to say? Who should we trust? We talk about all that and more. Then, we share Sarah's conversation with Lauren Leader, author of Crossing the Thinnest Line and CEO of All In Together, about the variety of ways women can be politically engaged. We want to hear your opinions! Please take a couple minutes and fill out our 2019 listener survey. We are thinking big about the future of the podcast and and we can't possibly continue down that road without your guidance. We are so thankful to our wonderful patrons who support the show. If you'd like to join the ranks of our faithful supports and get access to bonus content, visit our Patreon page.Thanks to our sponsors: the American Beverage Association and Lola.Our book, I Think You're Wrong (But I'm Listening), is available! You can purchase it now - for yourself, for friends, for your representative, for your senator, for everyone! We appreciate all of you who are spreading the word about the book to your local bookstores, libraries, and social circles. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The news to know for Friday, April 26th, 2019! We're talking about why the 2020 race to the White House is already historic, why hundreds of college students and staff members are quarantined, and when you can expect Uber and Lyft drivers to go on strike. Plus: what to know about Amazon's new one-day shipping goals, and Avengers: Endgame sets a new one-day record (will it reach $1 billion in its opening weekend?). Those stories and many more in less than 10 minutes! Award-winning broadcast journalist and former TV news reporter Erica Mandy breaks it all down for you.  Head to www.theNewsWorthy.com to read more about any of the stories mentioned under the section titled 'Episodes' or see sources below... Today's episode is brought to you by the American Beverage Association. Go to www.BalanceUS.org to learn more. Become a NewsWorthy Insider! Click here:  https://www.theNewsWorthy.com/insider                   Sources: Biden 2020: AP, Fox News, NBC News, NYT Measles Quarantine: NBC News, LA Times Uber Strike: CBS News, Salon, Bloomberg Cannabis Industry Jobs: NYT Microsoft $1 Trillion: WSJ, The Verge Amazon's One-Day Shipping: Reuters, TechCrunch Walmart's IRL: TechCrunch, Engadget, AP CVS SmileShops: CNBC, USA Today Avengers: Endgame: AP, Deadline, NBC News  

The news to know for Thursday, April 25th, 2019! We're talking about a first of its kind meeting between two world leaders, and the well-known name launching a presidential campaign today.  Plus: Facebook could face a record-breaking fine, the NFL draft, and updated rules for the Oscars... Those stories and many more in less than 10 minutes! Then hang out after the news for Thing to Know Thursday's bonus interview about factory workers' safety -- six years after the largest tragedy in the fashion industry. Award-winning broadcast journalist and former TV news reporter Erica Mandy breaks it all down for you.  You can also go to www.theNewsWorthy.com to see story sources and links in the section titled 'Episodes' or see below... Today's episode is brought to you by the American Beverage Association. Go to www.BalanceUS.org to learn more. Become a NewsWorthy Insider! Click here:  https://www.theNewsWorthy.com/insider          Sources: Trump Pushback: The Hill, NYT Clinton Op-Ed: The Washington Post Kim, Putin Meeting: CBS News, AP, BBC, WSJ Biden 2020: NYT, CBS News Measles Record: Washington Post, AP, LA Times Facebook Fine: Market Watch, CNN Kids & Screen Time: USA Today, TIME, BBC NFL Draft: USA Today, ESPN Buzzer-Beater: Bleacher Report “Marsquake”: Space.com, NBC News Oscars Rules: Bloomberg, The Verge Netflix Popular Shows: WSJ, Fast Company    

The news to know for Wednesday, April 24th, 2019! We're talking about a lot of firsts today, including the first company of its kind to face criminal charges in the opioid crisis, the world's first vaccine for malaria, and the first drone company approved to deliver packages in the U.S. Those stories and more in less than 10 minutes! Award-winning broadcast journalist and former TV news reporter Erica Mandy breaks it all down for you.  Head to www.theNewsWorthy.com to read more about any of the stories mentioned under the section titled 'Episodes' or see below... Today's episode is brought to you by the American Beverage Association. Go to www.BalanceUS.org to learn more. Become a NewsWorthy Insider! Click here:  https://www.theNewsWorthy.com/insider           Sources: Company Charged in Opioid Crisis: NYT, NBC News, AP ISIS Claims: TIME, Washington Post First Malaria Vaccine: NPR, CNN Trump's Tax Returns: CNN, WSJ White House Boycotts Press Dinner: AP, The Hill Stocks at Record High: WSJ, Fox Business Tobacco-Buying Age: CNBC, Fox Business Google Drone Deliveries: Bloomberg, Gizmodo Kohl's + Amazon: The Verge, CNBC Avengers: Endgame: THR, The Verge  

The news to know for Tuesday, April 23rd, 2019! Today, we're talking about some big deal Supreme Court cases that could impact you, and who President Trump is now suing. Plus: a version of Uber but with no human drivers (as soon as next year?), and how Prince is speaking out years after he died. Those stories and many more in less than 10 minutes! Award-winning broadcast journalist and former TV news reporter Erica Mandy breaks it all down for you.  Head to www.theNewsWorthy.com to read more about any of the stories mentioned under the section titled 'Episodes' or see sources below... Today's episode is brought to you by the American Beverage Association. Go to www.BalanceUS.org to learn more. Become a NewsWorthy Insider! Click here:  https://www.theNewsWorthy.com/insider               Sources: Sri Lanka Warnings: CNN, NYT, WSJ, CBS News Trump Sues: CNN, CBS News, Vox LGBTQ at Work: NYT, Vox, ABC News Census Question:  The Washington Post, The Hill Tesla Robotaxis: Reuters, CNBC Tesla Autonomy “Chip”: Business Insider, TechCrunch Teens & Driving: WSJ Galaxy Fold Delayed: WSJ, The Verge Prince Memoir: Variety  

We share our compelling conversation with Marianne Williamson, teacher, speaker, author, and, now, presidential candidate. We were honored to speak with her about a variety of issues facing America today. She shared her vision for the future of the country and how she envisions her part in that future. Can't get enough Pantsuit Politics? Listen to our appearance on Chatologie or come see us at Florence Christian Church in Florence, KY on April 27 for a discussion about how churches can lead and facilitate grace-filled political conversations. You can also buy Pantsuit Politics merch!We are so thankful to our wonderful patrons who support the show. If you'd like to join the ranks of our faithful supports and get access to bonus content, visit our Patreon page.Thanks to our sponsors: the American Beverage Association and Bombas. Our book, I Think You're Wrong (But I'm Listening), is available! You can purchase it now - for yourself, for friends, for your representative, for your senator, for everyone! We appreciate all of you who are spreading the word about the book to your local bookstores, libraries, and social circles. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

We talk with Kansas House of Representatives member Stephanie Clayton, who switched political parties last year. Stephanie shares with us what that process looked like for her and her motivations behind it. Plus, the response of her constituents might surprise you. You can follow Rep. Clayton on Twitter @SSCJoCoKs.Can't get enough Pantsuit Politics? Come see us at the Pasta & Politics dinner in Fort Myers, Florida tonight, April 12 or at Florence Christian Church in Florence, KY on April 27 for a discussion about how churches can lead and facilitate grace-filled political conversations. You can also buy Pantsuit Politics merch!We are so thankful to our wonderful patrons who support the show. If you'd like to join the ranks of our faithful supports and get access to bonus content, visit our Patreon page.Thanks to our sponsors: the American Beverage Association and Express VPN. Our book, I Think You're Wrong (But I'm Listening), is available! You can purchase it now - for yourself, for friends, for your representative, for your senator, for everyone! We appreciate all of you who are spreading the word about the book to your local bookstores, libraries, and social circles. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The conversation around Joe Biden's potential presidential campaign is getting contentious. We have some disagreements about it as well. We talk about all the distinct questions we believe we should be asking about a Biden candidacy. Plus, we talk about Kathy Griffin and how that picture has impacted her life and career.Can't get enough Pantsuit Politics? Come see us interview Senator Maggie Hassan at South Church in Portsmouth, NH tonight or attend the Pasta & Politics dinner in Fort Myers, Florida on April 12. You can also buy Pantsuit Politics merch!We are so thankful to our wonderful patrons who support the show. If you'd like to join the ranks of our faithful supports and get access to bonus content, visit our Patreon page.Thanks to our sponsors: the American Beverage Association and Quip.Our book, I Think You're Wrong (But I'm Listening), is available! You can purchase it now - for yourself, for friends, for your representative, for your senator, for everyone! We appreciate all of you who are spreading the word about the book to your local bookstores, libraries, and social circles. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Craft Brew News - 3/29/19(brought to you via Brewbound.com)Beer Institute: Aluminum Tariffs are Hurting US Beer IndustryAround this time last year, the Beer Institute (BI), a national trade association representing the American brewing industry, warned that President Donald Trump’s aluminum and steel tariffs would cost the beer industry $347 million annually and potentially lead to the loss of 20,000 jobs.Well, as it turns out, the BI’s worst fears are coming true.The Washington, D.C., lobbying group tapped Austin, Texas-based Harbor Aluminum — a research firm that specializes in the global aluminum industry –According to the firm — the U.S. beverage industry paid about $250 million for aluminum cansheet between March and December of last year.During that same period, however, the United States Department of the Treasury collected just $50 million, while U.S. smelters and rolling mills pocketed the rest.Here’s the rub: The U.S. cansheet used to produce beverage cans contains 70 percent domestic scrap metal, which is exempt from tariffs. The other 30 percent comes from imported primary aluminum.But according to the BI, domestic beverage manufacturers paid a tariff on 100 percent of the cansheet used to make beverage cans.In other words, rolling mills and smelters are effectively stealing from beverage manufacturers by overcharging for cansheet as if it was made entirely from imported primary aluminum.“Brewers are paying a tariff price even on domestic aluminum,” McGreevy said via a press release. “I have heard from brewers large and small from across the country who are seeing their aluminum costs drastically increase, even when they are using American aluminum.”Approximately 60 percent of the beer produced and sold in the U.S. is packed in aluminum cans and bottles, the BI estimates.In addition to the BI and the Brewers Association, the American Beverage Association and the CMI oppose tariffs on steel and aluminum.These Are the Fastest-Growing Breweries in America, According to the Brewers AssociationAn Iowa craft brewery topped the Brewers Association’s (BA) list of the 50 fastest-growing breweries of 2018, but it wasn’t Toppling Goliath.No, the distinction of being the fastest-growing U.S. brewery in 2018 belongs to Lake Time Brewery.The 7-year-old Lake Time — located in Clear Lake, Iowa, a vacation haunt for Midwesterners about 30 minutes from the Minnesota border — produced 1,300 barrels of beer in 2018, according to co-founder Bob Rolling. That’s up from an estimated 220 barrels in 2017, which Rolling attributed to opening a new production facility and installing a canning line.This is the second year that the BA has released the list of fastest-growing breweries. Last year’s top honor went to Milford, Massachusetts-based Craftroots Brewing, which produced 308 barrels of beer in 2017, up from 20 barrels the year prior. Craftroots didn’t make a repeat appearance on this year’s list, however.Although official production figures were not disclosed, it is believed that the largest brewery on the 2018 list was popular hazy IPA maker Tree House Brewery. The Massachusetts-based craft brewery produced 19,250 barrels of beer in 2017, and likely sold more than 40,000 barrels last year. Tree House did not immediately respond to an inquiry regarding 2018 production figures.On the other end of the spectrum, a handful of companies on the list produced fewer than 100 barrels in 2017, including Long Beach, California-based Dutch’s BrewHouse, which made just five barrels of beer that year.Stone v. MillerCoors: Court Denies Craft Brewery’s Attempt to Block Sales of Rebranded Keystone Light PackagingStone Brewing’s initial attempt to prevent MillerCoors from selling rebranded Keystone Light products has come up short.On Tuesday, a federal judge denied Stone’s motion for a preliminary injunction as well as the San Diego-based craft brewery’s attempt to dismiss MillerCoors’ counterclaims.Although U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez denied Stone’s motions, he wrote that the craft brewery’s trademark infringement claim is “moderately strong” and said the “Stone” trademark is “indisputable” with “protectable ownership.”Still, Benitez found that Stone was “hard-pressed” to prove it would suffer irreparable harm by not receiving a preliminary injunction. He added that MillerCoors “has not been found liable of trademark infringement,” and should not be forced to stop using the refreshed Keystone Light packaging until the matter is decided in a courtroom.Stone filed the lawsuit against MillerCoors nearly 14 months ago, alleging that the mainstream beer manufacturer’s rebranded Keystone Light packaging and advertisements infringed upon its “Stone” trademark.The case — which was first cited by attorney Brendan Palfreyman, who runs the TrademarkYourBeer.com website — will now advance to the discovery phase and potentially a trial. Stone is seeking monetary damages and a permanent injunction against the rebranded Keystone Light packages.Stone Brewing co-founder Greg Koch said via the release. “All along this has been a clear-cut infringement case, and now we can focus our resources on proving the significant damages done to the good name of Stone Brewing,” Stone CEO Dominic Engels added. “MillerCoors has made hundreds of millions of dollars from rebranding Keystone in a way that infringes on our trademark,” “It also has hurt Stone and our brand. We look forward to presenting this evidence to the Court at trial.”Boston Beer Names New CMOAfter an eight-month search, the Boston Beer Company (NYSE: SAM) has identified its next chief marketing officer.The country’s second-largest craft brewery today named Lesya Lysyj, who is currently the U.S. president of Welch’s Foods Inc., as its new CMO.At Welch’s, Lysyj was “responsible for $600 million in revenue leading marketing, sales, innovation and licensing” for the company’s food and beverage products in the U.S., according to her LinkedIn. Prior to joining Welch’s, Lysyj spent 1.5 years as the president of Weight Watchers North America and three years as CMO of Heineken USA.Lysyj fills a vacancy left by Jon Potter, Boston Beer’s first-ever CMO, who departed the company last July.In an SEC filing, Boston Beer said Lysyj’s would earn $475,000 annually, not including performance bonuses totaling as much as 50 percent of her base salary. She will also have an option to purchase shares of the company’s Class A Common Stock valued at approximately $1.5 million.Lysyj’s hiring is the second notable appointment for Boston Beer this month. Last week, the company named Uber, Inc. general manager Meghan Joyce to its board of directors.Boston Beer — which makes the Samuel Adams, Angry Orchard, Twisted Tea, and Truly Hard Seltzer brands, among other offerings — posted double-digit growth in depletions, shipments, and sales last year.On its way to shipping nearly 4.3 million barrels of product in 2018, the company increased net revenue by 15.4 percent, to $995.7 million.According to the release, Lysyj, 56, will oversee the “planning, development, and execution” of Boston’s “brand development, marketing, and advertising initiatives.”Subscribe to Craft Beer Storm Podcast iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/craft-beer-storm/id1438117278?mt=2Michael Potorti is the Host of Craft Beer Storm and Founder/Brewer at Beara Brewing Co. in Portsmouth, NHMichael PotortiFounder/BrewerHost of "Craft Beer Storm" Podcastmichael@craftbeerstorm.commichael@bearairishbrew.com*** Come visit our brewery for some delicious local craft brew! ***Beara Brewing Co.2800 Lafayette RoadPortsmouth, NH 03801Tel. (857) 342-3272 www.bearairishbrew.com Like us onInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/bearairishbrew/?hl=enFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/BearaIrishBrewingCo Twitter: https://twitter.com/BearaIrishBrew Linked In: https://www.linkedin.com/in/beara-brewing-co-30776075/**LISTEN to our Craft Beer Storm Podcast and share with a friend**Craft Beer Storm Podcast iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/craft-beer-storm/id1438117278?mt=2Craft Beer Storm You Tube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCp3PVuCGmywNWlGFh0N0ukg?view_as=subscriberCraft Beer Storm Podcast Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/podcast-center-la-2/craft-beer-stormCraft Beer Storm Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/craftbeerstorm/Craft Beer Storm Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/michaelpotorti/

The response to the Barr letter continues and the fight to have the full Mueller report released continues to escalate. We discuss that and why President Trump seems intent on wasting this positive news cycle. Then, we're joined by Kelly Werder to discuss 50/50 by 2020, a bipartisan political action committee determined to see gender parity in our elected officials. They are sponsoring the Courage to Run 5K across the country on April 13. We're extra fond of them because our book is their first pick for their book club!Can't get enough Pantsuit Politics? Listen to our interview on the Mind Love podcast or come see us interview Senator Maggie Hassan at South Church in Portsmouth, NH on April 6th at 6:30pm. You can also buy Pantsuit Politics merch!We are so thankful to our wonderful patrons who support the show. If you'd like to join the ranks of our faithful supports and get access to bonus content, visit our Patreon page.Thanks to our sponsors: the American Beverage Association and Amenity Health. Our book, I Think You're Wrong (But I'm Listening), is available! You can purchase it now - for yourself, for friends, for your representative, for your senator, for everyone! We appreciate all of you who are spreading the word about the book to your local bookstores, libraries, and social circles. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

https://keywebco.com/blogs/news/plastic-bottle-ban-in-san-francisco San Francisco has become the first city in America to ban the sale of plastic water bottles, a move that is building on a global movement to reduce the huge amount of waste from the billion-dollar plastic bottle industry. Nowadays, plastic pollution is one of the biggest environmental burdens... We've all been told that we should recycle plastic bottles and containers. But what actually happens to the plastic if we just throw it away? Emma Bryce traces the life cycles of three different plastic bottles, shedding light on the dangers these disposables present to our world. Over the next four years, the ban in San Francisco will phase out the sales of plastic water bottles that hold 21 ounces or less in public places. Waivers are permissible if an adequate alternative water source is not available. One of the largest supporters of the proposal was the Think Outside the Bottle campaign, a national effort that encourages restrictions of the “eco-unfriendly product.” San Francisco's ban is less strict than the full prohibitions passed in 14 national parks, a number of universities and Concord, Mass. Violators of the ban would face fines of up to $1,000. Joshua Arce, chairman of the Commission on the Environment, said the ban is “another step forward on our zero-waste goal.” The City wants to have no waste going to its landfill by 2020. Its diversion rate now stands at 80 percent. Past efforts toward the goal included banning plastic bags and plastic-foam containers. “We had big public events for decades without plastic bottles and we'll do fine without them again,” Arce said. The American Beverage Association, which includes Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo, said in a statement that the ban was “nothing more than a solution in search of a problem. This is a misguided attempt by city supervisors to decrease waste in a city of avid recyclers.” Source: Global Flare According to the EPA, the national recycling rate in the U.S. is only about 34%. That means most of our solid waste goes to landfills and incinerators - including recyclable items like paper, glass, metal, and plastic. Massive amounts of food waste that can be composted is clogging landfills, creating dangerous greenhouse gases. Many cities are starting to tackle this problem by implementing policies to help curb waste by recycling and composting more. It's known as the "zero waste" movement, and San Francisco is on the forefront. Other cities that have zero waste goals include Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, Austin, and Oakland. But San Francisco has been the most aggressive. In 2009 the board of supervisors passed an ordinance requiring all residents and business to recycle and compost their waste, making it the first American city to make composting mandatory. Its goal is to achieve zero waste by 2020, and it has diverted 80% of its waste from landfills so far. Now the city is getting attention from all around the world. Government officials from China, Italy, France, Denmark, India, and many other countries have visited San Francisco's state of the art recycling and composting facilities in hopes of learning how to replicate its success. For more on San Francisco's Zero Waste plan: http://sfenvironment.org/zero-waste Here are ways to reduce your plastic waste: Stop using plastic straws, even in restaurants. If a straw is a must, purchase a reusable stainless steel or glass straw Use a reusable produce bag. A single plastic bag can take 1,000 years to degrade. Purchase or make your own reusable produce bag and be sure to wash them often! Give up gum. Gum is made of synthetic rubber, aka plastic. Buy boxes instead of bottles. Often, products like laundry detergent come in cardboard which is more easily recycled than plastic. Purchase food, like cereal, pasta, and rice from bulk bins and fill a reusable bag or container. You save money and unnecessary packaging. Reuse containers for storing leftove --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/roger-keyserling/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/roger-keyserling/support

In today's episode, we're joined by Professor Deborah Lipstadt, an expert in Holocaust studies. Professor Lipstadt helps us understand the controversies surrounding the Women's March and Representative Omar, and she advises us on how to thoughtfully discuss and critique America's relationship with Israel. But first, we dive into the week's news. Paul Manafort received 43 additional months in prison from Judge Amy Berman Jackson, and he's been indicted by Manhattan's District Attorney on state charges. After great anticipation, Beto O'Rourke has announced his candidacy for the Democratic Party's nomination. We're a little confused by his splashy Vanity Fair rollout and campaign announcement video. We also talk about Operation Varsity Blues and the state of college admissions, wealth, and parenting in America. Sarah recommended these three episodes of Revisionist History: Carlos Doesn't Remember, Food Fight, and My Little Hundred Million.Thanks again to Professor Lipstadt for joining us in conversation. She is the Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish History and Holocaust Studies at Emory University. Her books include The Eichmann Trial, Denial; Holocaust History on Trial (a National Jewish Book Award-winner); Denying the Holocaust: the Growing Assault on Truth and Memory; and Beyond Belief: the American Press and the Coming of the Holocaust. She lives in Atlanta. Her latest book is Antisemitism: Here and Now. Rachel Weisz portrayed Professor Lipstadt in the 2016 film Denial. We are so thankful to our wonderful patrons who support the show. If you'd like to join the ranks of our faithful supports and get access to bonus content, visit our Patreon page.Thanks to our sponsors: the American Beverage Association and Amenity Health.Our book, I Think You're Wrong (But I'm Listening), is available! You can purchase it now - for yourself, for friends, for your... See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Twenty years ago, communications was a sub-category in PR. In the 1980s and 1990s, PR professionals spent their working hours on crisis communications, employee communications, shareholder communications, marketing communications, etc. These were targeted, specialized forms of PR. ----more----Today the profession has evolved to the point that communications/PR is now part of integrated marketing communications. Or is it integrated communications marketing? This episode is hosted by Matthew Cummings and he welcomes his guest, Marty Machowsky. About our guest: Marty Machowsky is a communications and marketing professional with expertise in technology, health care, corporate affairs, financial services, and crisis communications. Marty has supported a broad range of clients including major brands such as GE, Logitech, Microsoft, Pfizer, AT&T, Samsung, Verizon, S&P, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and startups. He has handled a range of corporate, thought leadership, marketing, and public policy issues. He has worked extensively with CEOs, marketing and communications teams, investor relations groups, government relations offices, and corporate counsels. Marty led a corporate affairs initiative for a major pharmaceutical company focusing on direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines. He managed a program to promote the parental control feature of Microsoft’s Xbox 360. Marty served as communications director and spokesperson for the musicFIRST Coalition, a coalition of the music community. And he helped Bonneville Communications reposition its flagship media property (WTOP) from the AM dial to the FM dial in Washington, DC, while shifting its classical music library to a local public radio station. Several projects Marty directed and supported won public relations awards. This includes the Mercury Awards Edelman received for a project on high-definition television he managed for the National Association of Broadcasters and a Sabre Award for a project he supported for the American Beverage Association. Inova Health System won a Thoth Award from the National Capital Chapter of the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) for a project Marty directed. And McGuireWoods Consulting was awarded Best in Show at the PRSA’s 65th Annual Virginia Public Relations Awards. Marty is president of 90Degree Communications. He has held positions at Finn Partners, Widmeyer Communications, McGuireWoods Consulting, Edelman, and Issue Dynamics. He served as Legislative Director to Rep. Rick Boucher (VA), and Chief of Staff to Audrey Moore, former chair of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors. Marty was also Press Secretary and Legislative Assistant to former representatives John LaFalce (NY) and Andy Maguire (NJ). Marty earned a Masters of Arts degree in political science from The Pennsylvania State University and pursued doctoral studies at Washington University in St Louis. He began his career in Washington when he was selected to participate in the American Political Science Association’s Congressional Fellowship Program.

In July, California's legislature and governor faced an elegant — and legal — extortion threat. The American Beverage Association, funded by Coke and Pepsi, demanded immediate passage of legislation that preempts any soda taxes imposed by county or local governments for the next 12 years. If Gov. Jerry Brown (D) and the Democratic-controlled legislature refused, Big Soda would go forward with a ballot initiative this November that would severely limit any future tax increases at local and county levels. Brown blinked and signed the preemption law, averting what he saw as a larger, long-term danger. But the governor's action opened the door to other extortion schemes cooked up by well-funded corporate interests; Silicon Valley tech firms successfully used similar tactics to press for the removal of an initiative to protect online privacy rights. Our guest, Mark Pertschuk, is the founder and executive director of Grassrootschange.net, which advocates for healthier communities through grassroots action. He also manages Preemption Watch, which tracks legislation that prevents or invalidates local measures aimed at improving civil rights, health and safety. As president and executive director of Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, he was instrumental in the passage of many laws regulating tobacco use. Pertschuk explains how preemption works, and details the California soda tax case. We also discuss the 13 states that ban most or all regulation of factory farms and agribusiness, and a similar number of states that undermine smoking bans in public places. And we talk about “good preemption” that sets a floor for regulations, compared to “bad preemption” that puts a ceiling on local laws and regulations.

Seth Goldman co-founded Honest® Tea in 1998 with Professor Barry Nalebuff of the Yale School of Management. Over the past eighteen years the company has thrived as consumers have shifted toward healthier and more sustainable diets. In March 2011, Honest Tea was acquired by The Coca-Cola Company, helping to further the reach and impact of Honest Tea’s mission by becoming the first organic and Fair Trade brand in the world's largest beverage distribution system. Today, Honest Tea is the nation’s top selling ready-to-drink organic bottled tea and Honest Kids® is the nation’s top-selling organic children/youth beverage. The brands are carried in more than 100,000 outlets in the United States, including all Wendy’s and Chik-fil-A restaurants. In 2016 Honest Tea’s distribution will be expanding to Europe.In 2016, Seth transitioned to a new role at Honest Tea as TeaEO Emeritus and Innovation Catalyst for Coca-Cola’s Venturing & Emerging Brands business unit. This transition allows him to take on an additional role as Executive Chairman of Beyond Meat, a privately held California-based enterprise where Seth has served as a board member since 2012. Beyond Meat is a company on the cutting edge of plant protein research and development, with a goal of providing plant-based protein foods - without sacrificing the taste, chew or satisfaction of animal meat.In addition to offering a range of lower-calorie beverages, Honest Tea has been recognized as the first company to launch an organic bottled tea (1999) and a Fair Trade Certified bottled tea (2003). Today every Honest Tea variety is certified organic and Fair Trade. The company has initiated community-based partnerships with suppliers in India, China, Paraguay and South Africa. In 2015 Seth was named the #1 Disruptor by Beverage World, and Beverage Executive of the Year by Beverage Industry magazine; he was also inducted into the Washington DC Business Hall of Fame. Seth has also been recognized by the United States Healthful Food Council with a REAL Food Innovator Award for helping change the food landscape by providing options that are healthier for both the body and the planet.Seth serves on the advisory boards of Ripple Foods, the Yale School of Management, the American Beverage Association, and Bethesda Green (a local sustainability non-profit he co-founded). He graduated from Harvard College (1987) and the Yale School of Management (1995), and is a Henry Crown Fellow of the Aspen Institute. Seth and Barry are the authors, along with graphic artist Soongyun Choi, of The New York Times bestseller Mission in a Bottle, which was published by the Crown Business division of Random House in September, 2013. The book, told in comic book form, captures their efforts to create a mission-driven business in a profit-driven world. Seth lives with his wife and three sons near Honest Tea’s Bethesda, MD headquarters in an eco-friendly house.

Seth Goldman co-founded Honest® Tea in 1998 with Professor Barry Nalebuff of the Yale School of Management. Over the past eighteen years the company has thrived as consumers have shifted toward healthier and more sustainable diets. In March 2011, Honest Tea was acquired by The Coca-Cola Company, helping to further the reach and impact of Honest Tea’s mission by becoming the first organic and Fair Trade brand in the world's largest beverage distribution system. Today, Honest Tea is the nation’s top selling ready-to-drink organic bottled tea and Honest Kids® is the nation’s top-selling organic children/youth beverage. The brands are carried in more than 100,000 outlets in the United States, including all Wendy’s and Chik-fil-A restaurants. In 2016 Honest Tea’s distribution will be expanding to Europe. In 2016, Seth transitioned to a new role at Honest Tea as TeaEO Emeritus and Innovation Catalyst for Coca-Cola’s Venturing & Emerging Brands business unit. This transition allows him to take on an additional role as Executive Chairman of Beyond Meat, a privately held California-based enterprise where Seth has served as a board member since 2012. Beyond Meat is a company on the cutting edge of plant protein research and development, with a goal of providing plant-based protein foods - without sacrificing the taste, chew or satisfaction of animal meat. In addition to offering a range of lower-calorie beverages, Honest Tea has been recognized as the first company to launch an organic bottled tea (1999) and a Fair Trade Certified bottled tea (2003). Today every Honest Tea variety is certified organic and Fair Trade. The company has initiated community-based partnerships with suppliers in India, China, Paraguay and South Africa. In 2015 Seth was named the #1 Disruptor by Beverage World, and Beverage Executive of the Year by Beverage Industry magazine; he was also inducted into the Washington DC Business Hall of Fame. Seth has also been recognized by the United States Healthful Food Council with a REAL Food Innovator Award for helping change the food landscape by providing options that are healthier for both the body and the planet. Seth serves on the advisory boards of Ripple Foods, the Yale School of Management, the American Beverage Association, and Bethesda Green (a local sustainability non-profit he co-founded). He graduated from Harvard College (1987) and the Yale School of Management (1995), and is a Henry Crown Fellow of the Aspen Institute. Seth and Barry are the authors, along with graphic artist Soongyun Choi, of The New York Times bestseller Mission in a Bottle, which was published by the Crown Business division of Random House in September, 2013. The book, told in comic book form, captures their efforts to create a mission-driven business in a profit-driven world. Seth lives with his wife and three sons near Honest Tea’s Bethesda, MD headquarters in an eco-friendly house.

Environmentally sustainable water use practices result in considerable operational efficiencies and are a source of strategic advantage for businesses in water distressed regions. In this audio interview, part of a Stanford Center for Social Innovation series on water around the world, Pepsico’s Dan Bena talks with Stanford MBA student Ashish Jhina about Pepsico’s efforts to reduce its water footprint. He outlines Pepsico’s public commitment to promote more efficient water use and talks about the role of specific, measurable targets in driving the organization to achieve its ambitious goals. In addition to making its production processes more water efficient, Pepsico is working with farmers to modify their agricultural practices to use less water. Dan talks about the progress made on these fronts and the company’s CSR efforts in partnerships with NGOs to provide improved access to clean drinking to millions of people around the world. Dan Bena is currently the Director of Sustainable Development for PepsiCo, serving as liaison between technical functions, government affairs, public policy, and field operations to develop key strategies and messaging to internal and external stakeholder groups. In 2009, Dan was appointed to the Steering Committee of the United Nations CEO Water Mandate, and also serves on the Mandate’s working groups for Water as a Human Right and Water Policy Engagement.  He was inaugural Chair of the Water Resources Committee of the Washington-based American Beverage Association for Sustainable Development.  Bena also serves on the Board-sponsored Public Health Committee of the Safe Water Network.  He is a contributing member to the Water Core Working Group of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and serves on the Global Agenda Council for Water Security of the World Economic Forum. In 2009, he was invited by the mayor of his city to serve on a new Sustainability Advisory Board; the city is one of only three nationwide selected to pilot a new sustainability planning tool kit. https://ssir.org/podcasts/entry/sustainable_water_practices_for_a_global_corporation

Communications strategy and grassroots campaigns are key to the beverage industry's ability to influence consumer attitudes says Susan Neely, President of the American Beverage Association (ABA). Susan will be part of a panel discussion at the PRSA International Conference in Washington D.C. called “Shaping the Debate: Public Affairs Strategies and the Health Care Reform Bill,”… The post American Beverage Association President Susan Neely appeared first on Eric Schwartzman.