am beverage inst

there also is a trade assoc, but this is BERMAN

obesitymyths.org?!

see soda (tax/ label)

---

an 10 25

Major U.S. food and beverage companies are orchestrating a campaign to pit President Donald Trump’s MAGA base against Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement. The effort aims to derail initiatives that seek to limit soda and ultra-processed food consumption,*the Guardian*reported Sunday.

The strategy involves a network of Republican-aligned operatives and influencers to influence state-level legislation aimed at reducing soda consumption and restricting ultra-processed foods in public programs.

The American Beverage Association (ABA) and the Consumer Brands Association, representing giants like Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Nestlé, are leading the charge, per the report.

These trade groups have identified MAHA-backed policies, such as banning petroleum-based food dyes in schools and restricting SNAP benefits for sugary drinks, as significant threats to their profits. They have mobilized a mix of lobbyists, conservative media, and paid influencers to oppose these measures.

The report noted that in Arizona, lobbyist Michael Gardner contacted lawmakers to argue against a SNAP restriction bill, citing a poll suggesting Trump voters opposed such measures.

---

://www.exposedbycmd.org/2018/10/16/reporters-memo-coke-and-pepsi-play-hardball-in-attempt-to-prevent-the-spread-of-soda-taxes

Faced with a rising tide of data from the United States and around the world showing that soda taxes work to reduce consumption and improve public health, the soda industry is battling back hard with big-dollar bully tactics geared toward crushing local soda tax campaigns before they even get off the ground.

New tactics being deployed by the soda industry include state bills banning local soda taxes, broad statewide initiatives to ban all grocery taxes or require a supermajority before raising any taxes, and political spending geared toward bending state politicians to their will.

Soda, Like Tobacco, Has Serious Health Effects

The public health community — pediatricians, dentists, the American Heart Association, and more — is energized to take action as never before on soda and other sugary drinks because new data is showing that consuming sugar in liquid formi ncreases risks of serious health conditions, such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and obesity in a much more significant way than was previously known.

One Harvard study found that consuming just one to two sugary drinks a day increases your risk of developing diabetes by a whopping 26 percent.Another Harvard analysis showed that men averaging one can a day of a sugary drink had a 20 percent increased risk of heart attack. Further, more than three-quarters of American adults are considered overweight or obese, as are 30 percent of children, according to an international study published in The Lancet.

Soda Taxes, Like Tobacco Taxes, Work

Multiple studies, including a recent analysis by researchers at Drexel University, show that soda taxes work. Drexel surveyed consumers before and after the implementation of Philadelphia’s tax and found that daily consumption of soda decreased by 40 percent and energy drink by 64 percent, while consumption of bottled water increased by 58 percent. Researchers at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health found that sugary beverage consumption fell 21 percent in Berkeley after that city’s tax was implemented, while water consumption increased by 63 percent over comparison cities.

Many U.S. localities have implemented a soda tax to reduce obesity and related public health problems: Berkeley, CA; Philadelphia, PA; San Francisco, CA; Oakland, CA; Albany, CA; Boulder, CO; Santa Fe, NM (defeated 2017); Cook County, IL (repealed 2017); and Seattle, WA. In each locality, the American Beverage Association (ABA) has bankrolled a big-dollar PR campaign against the tax.

States with soda taxes include West Virginia (1951), Arkansas, Virginia, and Tennessee. And there are more than 30 countries with soda taxes, including France, Hungary, Ireland, Mexico, Norway, Philippines, South Africa, and the UK. Many other countries are pursuing such taxes.

Leading the Opposition: Coke, Pepsi, and the ABA

As cities and counties in the United States use the tools of local democracy to introduce modest soda taxes, they are facing sophisticated opposition spearheaded by the ABA, the blandly named trade association representing Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, and other sugary drink manufacturers. The use of the ABA name on websites and in anti-soda tax commercials effectively shields the brand-name companies from accountability and culpability for the harms caused by sugary beverages.

The ABA is a $125 million powerhouse bankrolled by the largest players in the soft drink industry. Coke brands include Fanta, Sprite, Fresca, Dasani, Honest Tea, and Minute Maid. PepsiCo brands include Gatorade, 7Up, Tropicana, and Mountain Dew.

In city after city, the ABA has fought grassroots campaigners seeking to implement a soda tax using front groups or big-dollar PR campaigns that spin the tax as a “grocery tax” and a burden on working families. You won’t see the CEOs of Coke and Pepsi making the case against a soda tax. Instead we see sympathetic front men and women, like the African American “single mom” in Chicago who told the camera “We’re being taxed out of Cook County. I’m a single mom. I can’t afford this tax!” The ABA has consistently worked to deflect the conversation away from public health and to frame the tax as an unfair, unnecessary “grocery tax.”

Preemption Strategy to Defeat Soda Taxes Borrowed from Big Tobacco

Municipalities have long played a valuable role as “laboratories of democracy” for important public policy innovations, including in public health. When U.S. cities began to regulate tobacco and create “tobacco free” work environments in the 1980s, the industry jumped into action.

“We could never win at the local level…. So the Tobacco Institute and tobacco companies’ first priority has always been to preempt the field,” said a tobacco lobbyist. Today, the majority of states have some type of tobacco preemption, and the soda industry is borrowing the same technique.

According to Grassroots Change, 12 states have enacted laws preempting local ordinances related to nutrition, including measures rammed through in Michigan, Arizona, and California over the past year.

In Michigan, House Bill 4999 was introduced Sept. 20, 2017, rushed through the legislature, and signed into law on Oct. 31. The bill bans an excise tax “on the manufacture, distribution, wholesale sale, or retail sale of food for immediate consumption or nonimmediate consumption.” Beverage and soda taxes are not mentioned, but included, according to legislative counsel analysis.

A host of agricultural interests were activated to register in favor of the bill, making it a “farm interests” bill. These groups testified in a very vague manner that they make and export many food products and are responsible for a lot of jobs in the state, but did not address any specifics nor mention a beverage tax.

The powerful $100 million National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) also testified in favor of the bill,specifically citing the beverage tax passing in other states. The NFIB has also worked to preempt paid sick days and local minimum wage hikes in other states and was cited by the media as a key player in Michigan.

In Arizona, HB 2484 received its first reading on January 30, 2018, rushed through the legislature, and was signed into law on March 16. This bill also broadly discusses food taxation, not just a beverage tax or a soda tax. The groups registered to lobby for the bill include the Arizona Retailers Association, Arizona Restaurant Association, Arizona Beverage Association, Arizona Food Marketing Alliance, and Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, as well as the Arizona Association of Food Banks. CMD has submitted an open records request to the bill authors for more information.

A bill has been introduced in Illinois (HB 4082) and another is scheduled for a vote in Pennsylvania (HB 2241).

Broad Anti-Grocery Tax Measures on the Ballot in Washington and Oregon

But the strong-arm tactics don’t stop there. The industry is rolling out statewide ballot measures in referendum and initiative states to ban all grocery taxes, including soda taxes.

Seattle’s soda tax took effect in January 2018. Since then, more kids and adults are drinking water, and it brought in more than $10 million in revenue for use on educational and health programs in its first six months. But in February 2018, a committee with the name “Yes! To Affordable Groceries” was launched to make sure the public health measure would not be adopted by any other local governments in Washington. Initiative 1634 is a deceptively simple anti-grocery tax measure that has been run through the corporate spin machine; it opens with the line “Whereas access to food is a basic human need of every Washingtonian.” The soda industry has raised over $20 million for the effort so far, with little organized opposition on the other side.

Heavy-handed industry tactics are also on display in Oregonthis year, where grocers and the ABA have raised $6.5 million on an overly broad constitutional amendment that would not just impact soda taxes but can be read as prohibiting taxes at all stages in the chain of commerce, permanently preventing the state and its cities and counties from levying any taxes related to distribution or sale of groceries. The ABA recently kicked in two enormous cash contributions of $500,000 each.

Opponents of the measures on the ballot in Oregon and Washington appear unlikely to be able to muster the kind of big money wielded by the soda industry. But health groups like the American Heart Association are doing their best to educate the media and voters.

One headline in the Seattle Times summarized what’s on the line for local democracy campaigns well: “Vote for this initiative and you may as well bow down to your corporate overlords.”

Supermajority Strategies and High-Stakes “Hostage Taking” in California

Early in 2018, California had the most soda tax measures under consideration of any state. Cathedral City, Palo Alto, Santa Cruz, and Richmond all seemed poised to join Berkeley, San Francisco, Oakland, and Albany as cities with soda taxes on the books.

That changed in April when the ABA spent millions on a campaign to get an explosively controversial measure on the November ballot that would have required a two-thirds supermajority vote by either voters or an elected body before any tax hike at the local level could be implemented. The move prompted an outcry by mayors across the state and was characterized as an “abomination” by Governor Jerry Brown.

After meeting with the soda industry, the governor cut a deal that resulted in legislators in Sacramento passing a preemption bill to ban local soda taxes until 2030 in exchange for taking the measure off the ballot. The whole incident was called a “shakedown,” “extortion,” and “high-stakes hostage taking” by the media.

Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) said, “Industry is aiming basically a nuclear weapon at governing in California and saying if you don’t do what we want, we’re going to pull the trigger and you are not going to be able to fund basic government services.”

This supermajority tactic, popularized by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which has peddled a “Super-Majority Act” for decades, is now spreading. Following last year’s repeal of a short-lived soda tax in Cook County, Illinois, a group of county commissioners introduced legislation last month that would require a two-thirds supermajority vote by commissioners to enact any new taxes.

Public health groups campaigning for soda taxes did score one big win this year, when the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the City of Philadelphia’s 2017 soda tax after an industry challenge.

Consumers can anticipate more deep-pocket PR campaigns and tactics in 2019 to bully localities into abandoning the soda tax idea.

tool on health effects

https://grassrootschange.net/preemption-watch/

https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2018/03/28/bills-ban-local-soda-taxes-moving-states-coke-pepsi-borrow-tobacco-playbook

Watch out public health advocates – as soda tax campaigns are bubbling up in cities across the nation to combat obesity, diabetes and other serious health conditions – the beverage industry is working to choke off this expression of local democracy.

A state bill banning localities from taxing food and beverages came out of nowhere in Michigan and was signed into law by Governor Rick Snyder within weeks. Last week, Governor Doug Ducey in Arizona signed a similarly fast tracked bill. These are clear instances of corporate special interests convincing legislators to block local laws that would hurt their profitability.

In Washington State, the soda industry is going a step further. After watching Seattle’s soda tax take effect last month, industry started a state wide ballot initiative campaign that would prevent other cities in the state from implementing a similar tax.

The name of the campaign is not “Coke and Pepsi For Obesity and Diabetes,” it’s “Yes! To Affordable Groceries.” The discrepancy is not just laughable it reveals a key industry tactic in the soda wars – change the topic and talk about anything except the devastating public health impact of sugary beverages.

NEW DATA SHOWS PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS OF SUGARY DRINKS

The public health community – pediatricians, dentists, the American Heart Association and more – are energized to take action as never before on soda and other sugary drinks because new data is showing that consuming sugar in liquid form increases risks of serious health conditions, such as heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and obesity in a much more significant way than was previously known.

If you are a Mountain Dew addict, get ready for this statistic. One study found that consuming just one to two sugary drinks a day increases your risk of developing diabetes a whopping 26 percent. Another study showed that men averaging one can a day of a sugary drink had a 20 percent increased risk of heart attack. Further, more than three-quarters of American adults are considered overweight or obese, and 30 percent of children.

Statistics like these and skyrocketing rates of obesity in Mexico City inspired public health advocates there to champion a soda tax in 2012 that has led to a significant fall in consumption – a 6% drop in the first year after the tax was introduced was followed by a 12% decline the second year.

Berkeley, California was the first U.S. city to follow Mexico’s lead uniting physicians, dentists, school board members, Latino leaders, the NAACP, black churches, teachers unions, farm and food advocates, moms and dads behind a grassroots effort to crack down on “big soda” in 2014. They won a landslide victory, and early data shows that consumption of sugary drinks is down 21% and healthy water consumption is way up.

But as cities and counties in the United States utilize the tools of local democracy to introduce modest tax increases on soda, they are facing sophisticated opposition spearheaded by the American Beverage Association (ABA) the blandly named trade association representing Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper Snapple Group and other producers of sugary drinks.

BIG DOLLAR AD BUYS IN LOCAL INITIATIVE CAMPAIGNS

When they are up to no good, brand name companies like to hide behind their trade association. The American Beverage Association is a 501(c)(6) trade association and a $79 million lobbying powerhouse bankrolled by the largest players in the soft drink industry. Coke brands including, Fanta, Sprite, Fresca, Desani, Honest Tea and Minute Maid represent a $32 billion market. PepsiCo brands including, Gatorade, 7Up, Tropicana, and Mountain Dew represent an $18 billion market.

In every locality that has introduced a soda tax in recent years, the beverage industry has responded with the techniques of a industry that knows it has a big public relations problem. The ABA has set up grassroots-sounding front groups and has blanketed the neighborhood with flyers and messaging. In Richmond in 2012, for instance, the ABA group fighting a soda tax referendum on the ballot was called “Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes.” In El Monte, the front group was called “El Monte Citizens Against Beverage Taxes.”

The ABA has worked to rebrand the issue and shift the terms of the debate. It doesn’t want to debate a soda tax, so it spins it as a “grocery tax” that harms everyone not just those who drink soda. It doesn’t want to talk about the rising rates of obesity, it would rather talk about the “high cost of living.” Recent campaign names have included “Enough is Enough: Don’t Tax Our Groceries” in San Francisco to “Keep Seattle Livable for All.”

In TV and internet ads produced by the trade association, you don’t see the CEOs of Coke and Pepsi making the case against the soda tax. Rather, the ABA puts up a diversity of spokespeople to carry its preferred messaging. San Francisco grocery store owner Abdul Taleb tells the camera “politicians say it is a soda tax, they are lying. This is a tax on groceries.” In Chicago, a professional-looking African American woman tells the camera “we’re being taxed out of Cook County, I’m a single mom. I can’t afford this tax.” In Philadelphia, a hoagie shop owner says “we try to offer the best food at the best price…with that tax the working man can’t afford it anymore.”

The soda industry spent $48.9 million on recent soda tax opposition campaigns in Cook County, IL; Philadelphia, PA; Boulder, CO; San Francisco, CA; Oakland, CA; Seattle, WA, Santa Fe, NM; and Albany, California, according to a November 2017 report by the watchdog group Center for Science in the Public Interest. The ABA does not engage in absolute concealment of their sponsorship, but it does work to shield its brand name companies from responsibility and culpability.

The ABA has won some of these battles, rolling back a soda tax in Chicago and defeating one in Sante Fe, but it has lost more than it has won, so it is shifting the battle ground to state legislatures. In doing so it is following a timeworn path utilized by other industries that are hazardous to public health.

FOLLOWING IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF THE NRA AND BIG TOBACCO

Cities and counties have long played a valuable role as “laboratories of democracy” for important public policy innovations, including public health policies. When U.S. cities led the way regulating guns in the 1970s, the NRA responded with a raft of bills that prohibit localities from adopting reasonable gun laws tailored to local conditions. Faced with local ordinances to regulate tobacco products or create “tobacco free” work environments in the 1980s, the industry jumped into action.

“We could never win at the local level… So the Tobacco Institute and tobacco companies’ first priority has always been to preempt the field,” said a tobacco lobbyist. Today, the majority of states have some type of tobacco preemption, twelve states preempt local smoke-free ordinances and eight states have recently moved to ban local regulation of E-cigarettes.

“In 1988, it was Phillip Morris’ Smokers’ Alliance. In 2018, it’s Big Soda’s YES! TO AFFORDABLE GROCERIES. Both are front groups, then the tobacco industry’s and today the American Beverage Association’s,” said Mark Pertschuk. Pertschuk is the Director of a small advocacy organization called Grassroots Change. He is the former President of American for Nonsmokers’ Rights, which battled the tobacco industry for smoke-free workplaces.

Today, Pertschuk’s “Preemption Watch” project tracks effortsthat step on local democracy. There has already been preemption of local ordinances related to nutrition in 11 states, this applies not just to a soda tax, but to menu labelling and other policies. More preemption bills (or statewide referendums) are likely to be introduced in 2018.

In working to “preempt the field” the ABA is getting help from many of the usual suspects. Affiliates of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have been active in local fights along with restaurant and grocers associations. Front group propagator and master propagandist Richard Berman cut ads in Sante Fe for a State Policy Network “think tank,” prompting an ethics complaint. Other State Policy Network groups have been producing and promoting questionable research saying that the soda tax harms the economy. An ALEC legislator successfully preempted local food and nutrition policies with an ALEC “model bill” in Kansas. And the National Federation of Independent Businesses, which has been battling paid sick leave ordinances, lobbied in favor of soda tax preemption in Michigan.

Grassroots activists know they are up against big institutions and big money, but they also know they have the people on their side. While Congress is universally reviled, local government is almost universally supported. In a recent pollin Pennsylvania conducted by the American Heart Association, 71% of likely voters agreed that “…government closest to the people governs best” and a preemption law that takes away the ability of local governments to solve their own problems is a bad idea.

“The reason we got to 76% of the popular vote in Berkeley is because people believed in this policy. It came from the ground up,” said Sara Soka who was the campaign manager for the Berkeley Healthy Child Coalition.

And that’s why grassroots public health campaigners can still win on this issue and many more.

reiters

BIG TOBACCO'S PLAYBOOK

Although food and beverage companies say they are making dramatic strides in self-regulation, their critics say they are moving too slowly and trying to influence public opinion by using some of the same approaches that tobacco companies used to defend their products.

Kraft Foods, the nation's largest food company, was owned by Philip Morris, the nation's largest tobacco company, from 1988-2007. Philip Morris makes Marlboro cigarettes.

Brownell and Kenneth E. Warner, a professor and former dean of the University of Michigan School of Public Health, have written papers comparing Big Food to Big Tobacco.

Both industries dispute links between their products and ill health, Brownell said -- tobacco companies claiming cigarettes don't cause cancer and food companies saying there is no proof that sugar causes obesity. Both have rewritten product labels without making major changes, he said. And both emphasize self-regulation -- to Brownell, an effort to preempt government standards.

"I can't think of a single thing the food industry is doing that the tobacco industry hasn't done," Brownell said.

Both industries also have relied on marketing to kids, he said, and both use what Brownell called "front groups" with consumer-oriented names that would not show their industry connections.

The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit group led by Washington lawyer and public relations executive Rick Berman.Formerly known as Guest Choice Network, it was founded in 1995 with a $600,000 pledge from tobacco giant Philip Morris. Today, the center attacks "food radicals" and runs websites including obesitymyths.com. The group says it is funded by food and restaurant companies but declines to name specific benefactors.

American Beverage Institute

The American Beverage Institute (ABI) states that its mission is to "promote responsible alcohol consumption."^[1] Actually, its primary focus is opposing any lowering of the legal blood alcohol limit for drivers, and fighting smoking bans in bars. The organization is run by lobbyist Rick Berman, whose company, Berman & Co., represents the restaurant, alcoholic beverage and tobacco industries. Berman is quoted in numerous articles as the legislative counsel for the group. He consistently defends "social drinkers" and speaks out against any laws or media coverage that negatively affects the industry. In this capacity he has been a longtime foe of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD).

The American Beverage Institute's recent propaganda includes their "Drink Responsibly: Drive Responsibly" campaign. The group refuses to accept the fact that "responsible" means different things to different people. They call MADD and others who work to reform alcohol policies "Neo-prohibitionists" to suggest that they want to infringe upon the average American's right to enjoy the alcoholic beverage of their choice, and to paint them as "Carrie Nations" to be feared. Working to link public health efforts to control a dangerous substance to Prohibition in the public mind is a PR strategy first carried out on a scale by the R.J. Reynolds tobacco company in its Project Breakthrough.

[hide]

Berman's Non-Profits

A November 1, 2012 article in Bloomberg shows CCF in the following chart of non-profits created by Berman & Co. at the center of an IRS complaint filed in 2012 (used with permission):

ABI and the tobacco industry

The American Beverage Institute and Rick Berman are listed in a May 4, 2000 Philip Morris presentation as "hospitality allies" who were mobilized to help defeat smoking restrictions in a number of locations around the U.S.^[2]

The American Beverage Institute has also served as a tobacco industry front group and a mouthpiece organization for the tobacco industry.

In 1999, the American Beverage Institute published a study performed by KPMG Peat Marwick titled "The Impact of 1998 California Smoking Ban on Bars, Taverns and Night Clubs: A Survey of Owners and Managers." The study surveyed bar owners and managers, asking whether business increased or decreased after January 1, 1998, the date the California bar ban went into effect. It claimed to find that business declined an average of 26.2%, but no hard numbers were used to arrive at this percentage. Rather than look at objective data like actual sales receipts, the ABI survey merely surveyed the opinions of bar owners. Numerous other studies have examined the effect of smoking bans on the hospitality industry, and studies that actually look at taxable sales receipts show no significant impact.^[3]

Rick Berman, general cousel for ABI, also serves as a consultant to Philip Morris (PM). 1999 tax Form 990 showed Rick Berman as Executive Director of the Guest Choice Network. Guest Choice Network, the American Beverage Institute (ABI), the Employment Policies Institute, and (Rick) Berman and Company in March, 2001 all shared the same address: 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, #1200, Washington, DC 20006. Richard "Rick" Berman, general counsel for ABI, is also the creator of the Guest Choice Network. Berman and Company and the Employment Policies Institute also share a fax number.

An internal PM document shows that PM sought Rick Berman's help to implement its Accommodation Program in hospitality venues, a strategy designed to stave off clean indoor air laws nationally.^[4]

In January 2009, the ABI opposed new laws that became effective in six states that required the installation of ignition interlock devices in vehicles belonging to people convicted of their first drunk driving offense. ABI Managing Director Sarah Longwell argued, "We foresee is a country in which you're no longer able to have a glass of wine, drink a beer at a ball game or enjoy a champagne toast at a wedding." She added, "There will be a de facto zero tolerance policy imposed on people by their cars." Longwell argued that Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), who supported passage of the laws, put too much emphasis on alcohol as a cause of traffic deaths, and disregarded the roles excessive speed and driver cell-phone use in deadly accidents.^[5] Shifting the focus of the debate away from the embattled substance/product is a public relations strategy first practiced by the tobacco industry.

Contact Information

Like other Berman & Co. organizations, ABI is headquartered at the following address:

Berman & Co.

1775 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20006

Phone: (202) 463-7110

FAX: (202) 463-7107

Email: rberman AT new-reality.com

Website: http://www.abionline.org

Articles & Resources

External Resources

Humane Society of the United States, Richard Berman's Apparent Tax Scam, organizational IRS complaint website, launched November 2012.
American Beverage Institute, "The New Killer on the Road: Distracted Drivers", PR Newswire, March 6, 2007.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)'s web site, www.BermanExposed.org

External Articles

Mark Drajem & Brian Wingfield, Union Busting by Profiting From Non-Profit May Breach IRS, Bloomberg, November 1, 2012.

References

:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ American Beverage Institute, American Beverage Institute, accessed March 2008.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ Legislative & Regulatory update Philip Morris, USA. May 4, 2000. Report/presentation. 22 pp. Bates No. 2085580138/0159
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ The Impact of 1998 California Smoking Ban on Bars, Taverns and Night Clubs: A Survey of Owners and Managers. American Beverage Institute/KPMG Peat Marwick. August, 1998. Philip Morris Bates No. 2072048017/8033
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ B. Trach, "Background for Meeting 951020 Re: Industry Leaders and the Accommodation Program", Philip Morris USA, October 19, 1995. Bates Number 2072148763.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ Michael Tarm, Associate Press New ignition lock laws aim to foil drunk drivers January 2, 2009

resource_id=34701 resource_code=am_bev_inst search_term=American Beverage Institute

This article is a stub. You can help by expanding it.

Categories: