• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Legislation Prohibits Taxpayer-Funded Attack Ads on Soda

    New legislation introduced in the U.S. House yesterday would prohibit the use of federal money for advertisements attacking products like Coke and Pepsi.

    Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-TN) introduced the bill to counter a growing trend of anti-obesity ads that are funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Scribe reported in October the money was included in President Obama’s economic stimulus law.

    The federal government has provided $230 million in funding to at least 25 communities for a variety of anti-obesity measures, including advertisements.

    In New York City, the money supported the “Pouring on the Pounds” campaign, which used grotesque pictures and misleading information that the city’s chief nutritionist called into question.

    The city came under fire again last week after the New York Times reported the Bloomberg administration doctored a photo of man with an amputated leg. The person pictured in the $500,000 ad campaign has both of his legs; the city’s health department confirmed the advertising agency removed one of them to more effectively show a possible consequence of type 2 diabetes.

    New York City received $15.5 million in federal funding for its anti-obesity efforts. While it has generated most of the attention for its eye-catching ads, other cities are engaging in similar practices. In Philadelphia, the city spent $2.4 million on ads attacking soda. Campaigns have also popped up in Boston, Los Angeles, Seattle and even Topeka, KS.

    The 2009 stimulus, of course, was sold to Congress as a plan to revive the economy by creating or saving millions of jobs. According to Smart Taxpayers Exposing Waste, a campaign launched by the American Beverage Association, Philadelphia could have used the money it spent on ads to hire 52 police officers, 54 firemen, 57 paramedics, 58 teachers or 88 EMTs.

    While not all of the $230 million provided by the CDC funded anti-obesity advertisements, critics like DesJarlais have taken aim at the money because it attacked American-made products.

    “Our top priority should be restarting the economy and creating jobs – not funding scare campaigns against perfectly safe and legal products,” DesJarlais said. “At a time when our nation faces high unemployment, it makes absolutely no sense that federal and city agencies would aggressively advertise against American products made by American workers.”

    Posted in Featured, Ongoing Priorities, Scribe [slideshow_deploy]

    4 Responses to Legislation Prohibits Taxpayer-Funded Attack Ads on Soda

    1. mdmandklm says:

      Why do we act as though this is a surprise. Whatever Lola wants Lola gets and guess who he wants. It is discouraging for us oldies to see these things happening and realizing that a large bunch of folks don't care; because they don't see the outcome. I guess we get what we deserve.

    2. Lloyd Scallan says:

      It' makes perfect sense when we realize there true intentions. Take away, little by little, our freedom, in this case freedom of choice. Wake up America and understand that every time something like this is passed by Washington bureaucrats, that one more step toward total government domination.

    3. Bobbie says:

      Thank goodness! Attacks on private businesses are not acceptable and rightfully the responsibility of the consumers if it comes to be. Resources are available to the public and advice is good but not through unconstitutional government . I personally love pop and will discipline if the price is warranted (committed not to buy a case over $5.00.) quit cold turkey.

      People are given minds capable of setting their own limits using self discipline without the disrespects of government tax paid controlled influence to manipulate and why people would be more apt to discipline themselves if they were paying their own costs of their personal health expenses.
      Personal health care is not the role of constitutional government!

    4. Ken Marx says:

      Whether these products are "perfectly safe" or not, the government has no business spending money to try to convince people not to use them. This is just one more case of a relatively inconsequential expenditure by the government. Not to worry, we'll wait until a real expense comes along, then deal with it. Unfortunately, the real expense never seems to be enough to be dealt with. And the beat goes on!

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.