Pepsico YUM

===

primary 9/16 on 2 face denial

SEE COC FTC PRICE GOUG

---

AN 12 25

On Friday, a nonprofit forced the Trump administration to unseal a damning complaint lodged by the Biden-era Federal Trade Commission against Pepsi for colluding with Walmart to raise food prices across the nation. New un-redacted information claims FTC Chair Ferguson and his colleague Mark Meador (both Trump appointees) were hiding the mechanics of Pepsi’s and Wal-Mart’s price fixing.

Pepsi is a “must-have” product for grocery stores, and Walmart is also massively powerful,” reports BIG Newsletter writer Matt Stoller. Critics say Pepsi allegedly engages in price discrimination to maintain the approval of Walmart, its biggest buyer — even going so far as to police prices at smaller rival stores. And it prepares reports for Walmart showing them their pricing advantages on Pepsi products.

When the “price gap” between Wal-Mart and its tiny rivals narrow too much, Pepsi tracks where consumers were buying Pepsi products outside of Walmart. It keeps logs on stores who would “self-fund” Pepsi product discounts, nicknaming them “offenders” and then raise their stock price, forcing them to carry those costs down to their customers.

“This dynamic is why independent grocery stores are dying,” said Stoller. “… It’s led to less competition, fewer local grocery stores, and higher prices. … To the end consumer, it creates an optimal illusion. Walmart appears to be a low-cost retailer, but that’s because it induces its suppliers to push prices up at rivals.”

Much of this information was redacted by Trump officials, however, including Ferguson and Meador. Normally, when the government files an antitrust case, the complaint gets redacted to protect confidential business information. Then the corporate defendant and the government haggle over what is genuinely confidential business information and complaints are eventually unsealed with some minor blacked out phrases, and the case goes on.

“In this case, however, … Ferguson abruptly dropped the case in February after Pepsi hired well-connected lobbyists,” said Stoller. “… Ferguson ended it the day before the government was supposed to go before the judge to manage the unsealing process. And that kept the complaint redacted. With the complaint kept secret, Ferguson, and … Meador, then publicly went on the attack.”

Ferguson released a “bitter and personal” statement against Biden-era FTC Chair Lina Khan — who had brought the complaint against Pepsi — implying that she was lawless and partisan, that there was “no evidence” to support key contentions, and that Ferguson had to “clean up the Biden-Harris FTC’s mess.” Fellow commissioner Mark Meador later echoed his comments on on X.

“And that was where it was supposed to stay, secret, with mean-spirited name-calling and invective camouflaging the real secret Ferguson was trying to conceal,” said Stoller. “That secret is something we all know, but this complaint helped prove that the center of the affordability crisis in food is market power. If that got out, then Ferguson would have to litigate this case or risk deep embarrassment. So, the strategy was to handwave about that mean Lina Khan to lobbyists, while keeping the evidence secret.”

But anti-monopoly group The Institute for Local Self-Reliance filed to make the full complaint public, and Judge Jesse Matthew Furman agreed to hear ILSR’s case, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Pepsi bitterly opposed.

“Last week, Furman directed the FTC unseal the complaint. So we finally got to see what Ferguson and Meador were trying to hide,” Stoller said.

Read the full BIG report at this link

---

520

:{We’re one step closer to saving the last orangutans from palm oil destruction, and that’s thanks to you.

}:After more than 5 years of campaigning, PepsiCo has changed its palm oil sourcing policy, and agreed to use its influence with other companies to end rainforest destruction and human rights abuses.

:{This is a MASSIVE VICTORY. And Pat, it’s thanks to SumOfUs members like you.

}:PepsiCo is the world’s second-largest food and beverage company. By moving this snack food giant, you moved an entire sector!

Last year, during the company’s shareholder meeting, we presented more than a million signatures gathered over 5 years asking PepsiCo to cut ties with conflict palm oil. In response to your efforts and continued pressure, this year PepsiCo announced an industry-leading policy and a series of actions to tackle rainforest destruction, worker abuse, and exploitation of communities for cheap palm oil.

defect ew 719

Beverage behemoths Coca-Cola and Pepsicohave taken a stand against a trade association that actively works to restrict plastic bag bans. The two soft drink giants have announced that they will leave thePlastics Industry Association as a response to concerns that their membership in the group contradicted their commitment to reducing plastic waste and packaging, as Newsweek reported.

The exit from the trade group follows pressure from Greenpeace, which has urged all companies to reduce their plastic use. Last year, Greenpeace named Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Nestle as the world's biggest producers of plastic trash, according to CNBC.

The Plastics Industry Association has spent millions in state legislatures fighting plastic bag bans and working to draft preemptive restrictions on plastic bag bans so local municipalities are not allowed to implement their own bans on plastics, as the Intercept reported.

"We withdrew earlier this year as a result of positions the organization was taking that were not fully consistent with our commitments and goals," said a Coca-Cola spokesperson to CNBC.

...

2016

Companies like Pepsi, DuPont, and Google might say that they support climate action, but in reality, they are funding lawmakers opposed to President Obama’s climate agenda, according to a Reuters report released Tuesday morning.

Over the last year, more than 150 companies have signed on to the “American Business Act on Climate Pledge,” a commitment created by Obama to encourage businesses to adopt sustainable practices and show their support for the Paris climate agreement. But in looking at the 25 largest donations made during the 2016 election cycle by the political action committees of the 30 largest publicly traded companies involved in the pledge, Reuters found a discrepancy between the businesses’ outward support for climate action and their private political spending.

13 Giant Companies Just Made Big Climate Pledges]

**Twenty-five of the thirty companies funded campaigns of lawmakers considered climate deniers** by Organizing for Action, a nonprofit created by former Obama staffers. According to a Center for American Progress Action Fund report released in March, 182 members of Congress do not accept the mainstream scientific consensus on man-made climate change.

Pepsi and DuPont are the biggest funders of climate deniers out of the companies that have signed the president’s pledge, according to Reuters. Both companies gave more than half of their largest donations in support of lawmakers that qualify as climate deniers. In the 2016 election cycle, Pepsi PAC gave $56,500 to climate deniers, while DuPont’s PAC gave $40,000.

Lawmakers that received funds from some companies on the list include legislators like Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) who infamously brought a onto the Senate floor in February of 2014 to disprove global warming, and Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Donald Trump’s energy adviser and self-declared “climate skeptic.”

Reuters noted that it’s not uncommon for companies to spread their donations across the political spectrum, but quoted Jon Lukomnik, head of the Investor Responsibility Research Center Institute, in saying that companies which support climate action but fund those opposed to it might need to have a better oversight and “a process that looks at these issues.”

Environmental groups have long cautioned against the concept of greenwashing, where a company uses public pledges to obfuscate their questionable environmental record. Greenwashing was a major issue at the Paris climate talks last December, which were funded in large part by companies like Engie, a massive energy company that, as an entity, emitted as much greenhouse gases in 2014 as the entire country of Belgium.

Companies in the United States have also been trying to bolster their green image by leaving the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a Koch-funded organization that has worked to oppose pro-renewable legislation across the country. In 2014, a handful of tech companies like Google, Facebook, and Microsoft all left ALEC due to its opposition to climate action — and last summer, oil and gas giant Shell followed suit, refusing to renew its membership with the council over the council’s climate policy. Dropping ALEC did not stop Shell, however, from pursuing its highly-controversial bid to drill for oil in the Arctic — exploration that eventually ceased in September of last year.

we’ve just released a report that ties the snack food giant to massive-scale deforestation in Indonesia.

PepsiCo has knowingly persisted in conducting business with the Salim Group, a company tied to reckless palm oil producers responsible for the destruction of nearly 10,000 hectares of Borneo’s pristine peat forests––an area bigger than Manhattan!

Meanwhile, PepsiCo kept on promising that it’s working towards a truly sustainable palm oil policy, making commitments to human rights and zero deforestation. But this new report leaves no doubt: this whole time, PepsiCo’s palm oil promises have been nothing but smoke and mirrors.

As PepsiCo rolls out its “Pepsi Generation” campaign to celebrate 120 years of doing business, we need your help to put an end to generations of deforestation at the hands of PepsiCo’s irresponsible palm oil sourcing and partnerships.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/business/kendall-jenner-pepsi-ad.html?_r=0

Pepsi has apologized for a controversial advertisement that borrowed imagery from the Black Lives Matter movement, after a day of intense criticism from people who said it trivialized the widespread protests against the killings of black people by the police.

“Pepsi was trying to project a global message of unity, peace and understanding. Clearly, we missed the mark and apologize,” the company said in a statement on Wednesday. “We did not intend to make light of any serious issue. We are pulling the content and halting any further rollout.”

The ad, posted to YouTube on Tuesday, shows attractive young people holding milquetoast signs with nonspecific pleas like “Join the conversation.” The protesters are uniformly smiling, laughing, clapping, hugging and high-fiving.

In the ad’s climactic scene, a police officer accepts a can of Pepsi from Kendall Jenner, a white woman, setting off raucous approval from the protesters and an appreciative grin from the officer.

It was, current activists say, precisely the opposite of their real-world experience of protesting police brutality.

In torrid criticism after the ad was posted, commentators on social media accused Pepsi of appropriating imagery from serious protests to sell its product, while minimizing the danger protesters encounter and the frustration they feel.

...

Pepsi Pulls Ad Accused of Trivializing Black Lives Matter

Image

An image from a Pepsi ad posted on YouTube, starring Kendall Jenner and featuring the song “Lions” by Skip Marley.CreditCreditPepsi Global, via YouTube

By Daniel Victor

April 5, 2017

The ad, posted to YouTube on Tuesday, shows attractive young people holding milquetoast signs with nonspecific pleas like “Join the conversation.” The protesters are uniformly smiling, laughing, clapping, hugging and high-fiving.

In the ad’s climactic scene, a police officer accepts a can of Pepsi from Kendall Jenner, a white woman, setting off raucous approval from the protesters and an appreciative grin from the officer.

It was, current activists say, precisely the opposite of their real-world experience of protesting police brutality.

Elle Hearns, the executive director of the Marsha P. Johnson Institute and formerly an organizer for Black Lives Matter, said the ad “plays down the sacrifices people have historically taken in utilizing protests.”

“No one is finding joy from Pepsi at a protest,” she said. “That’s just not the reality of our lives. That’s not what it looks like to take bold action.”

In a statement on Tuesday, Pepsi at first said the ad, which was produced by an in-house studio, “captures the spirit and actions of those people that jump in to every moment.”

To many who saw the ad, it was a tone-deaf note. Bernice King, the daughter of Martin Luther King Jr. and Coretta Scott King, was among those who drew the connection to past protests.

The image of Ms. Jenner approaching a line of police officers was compared to a widely shared photo of Ieshia Evans, a black woman who stood firm while being charged by riot police during a protest against police brutality in Baton Rouge, La., in July.

“It has no relationship to the courage that that woman showed,” Ms. Hearns said, referring to Ms. Evans. “That woman standing in the middle of the street was not trying to be a peacemaker with the police. She was being defiant. She was actually resisting.”

Image

Ieshia Evans protesting in Baton Rouge in 2016.CreditJonathan Bachman/Reuters

Pepsi also apologized on Wednesday to Ms. Jenner, a daughter of the television personalities Kris and Caitlyn Jenner, and a half sister to Kim, Khloé and Kourtney Kardashian.

Ms. Jenner has in recent years harnessed her fame as a reality television star and social media eminence (she has more than 77 million followers on Instagram) to become a top model.

This is not the first time Ms. Jenner, who has been photographed for the cover of Vogue and is a mainstay on the runways during fashion weeks, has appeared in a high-profile advertising campaign. She has been featured in print and television ads for Estée Lauder, Marc Jacobs, Calvin Klein and Fendi. The Pepsi ad plays up the point by having Ms. Jenner’s character arrive at the protest straight from what appears to be a fashion photo shoot. In so doing, the company is positioning Ms. Jenner as a successor to the supermodel Cindy Crawford, who appeared in a famous Pepsi ad in 1992. (“Goals,” Ms. Jenner tweeted last week, with a picture of Ms. Crawford in Pepsi regalia.)

Nor is it the first time Ms. Jenner has, intentionally or not, courted controversy. In 2015, some observers accused her of cultural appropriation for wearing her hair in cornrows, a historically black style.

Correction: April 5, 2017

Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this article misspelled Caitlyn Jenner’s first name.

Matthew Schneier contributed reporting.

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page B7 of the New York edition with the headline: Pepsi Drops Ad Accused of Trivializing Protesters

https://www.wired.com/2017/04/pepsi-ad-internet-response/

case you've just awakened from a brief coma, Pepsi is taking a lot of heat for its latest ad. The broad strokes: Its official title is the word salad "Live for Now Moments Anthem"; it features reality star/model Kendall Jenner (if your coma was not-so-brief, that's a whole other thing, which we don't have time to get into right now); its gist is that we should all unite and "join the conversation." In that way, the soft drink ad succeeded. It did indeed provoke conversation—about Pepsi's tone-deafness.

In the 2-minute-39-second "short film," Jenner throws off the chains of the modeling industry by taking off her wig, then leaving a photoshoot to join a protest. After sharing some knowing nods and #woke-ass fist bumps with her fellow protesters, the Keeping Up With the Kardashians star manages to bring everyone together by ... handing a cop a Pepsi. The message is clear: All those women's marches, Black Lives Matter protests, and demonstrations outside Trump Tower would be much more effervescent—and effective!—if someone had just brought some soda.

ISSIE LAPOWSKY

The Women’s March Defines Protest in the Facebook Age

ANGELA WATERCUTTER

The Best Super Bowl Commercials, From Avocados to Zelda

BIJAN STEPHEN

How Black Lives Matter Uses Social Media to Fight the Power

The internet, as you might suspect, disagreed. Within 48 hours the video got nearly 1.6 million views on YouTube (five times as many downvotes as upvotes), and Twitter and Facebook lit up with people pointing out just how gauche the whole thing was. Activist DeRay Mckesson called it "trash," adding "If I had carried Pepsi I guess I never would've gotten arrested. Who knew?" People made memes (some even reaching back and evoking Pepper Spray Cop). And, rightfully, many folks pointed out that using protest imagery in order to peddle soda—particularly images that evoked the photo of Ieshia Evans facing down police in Baton Rouge, Louisiana last year—was pretty tasteless. It was one of the few times the internet ever agreed on anything.

And that, in and of itself, is noteworthy. For years, conversation online has brought out the best and worst in everyone. But this ad, with its effortlessly cool politically aware millennials in color-coordinated denim outfits, was the one thing everyone agreed to oppose. A Twitter search for "Pepsi" reveals that virtually no one is coming to the commercial’s defense. In fact, not even Pepsi is defending it anymore. Earlier today, the company pulled the ad. “Pepsi was trying to project a global message of unity, peace and understanding. Clearly, we missed the mark and apologize,” Pepsi said in a statement. “We did not intend to make light of any serious issue.”

Soda companies sell harder to young consumers than to anyone else, and they've been pitching that coveted demographic messages of global unity for years. The most well-known of these attempts is Coca-Cola's peace-for-all 1971 "I'd like to buy the world a Coke" spot. (The one Don Draper dreamed up in the series finale of Mad Men.) But even before that, Pepsi was targeting youth culture with slogans like "Pepsi Generation" and "For those who think young"—both of which launched in the 1960s. Soda companies continued to aim for hip kids throughout the ensuing decades with celeb-packed ads featuring everyone from Michael Jackson to Drake to. Now Pepsi has tried to cross the streams, pairing a millennial mega-celebrity with what the company clearly thought was a fun spin on young people's ability to change the world. Between 1971 and now, though, people got the tools to respond to the misguided mashup on a mass scale—in 140 characters or less.

From Black Lives Matter to the Women's Marches, politically active people are already effecting change all over the world, and they’re not doing it with soda and supermodels. Now, they've used the same tools that organized those movements t

kfc antibiotics win nrdc

http://www.azcentral.com/story/entertainment/movies/billgoodykoontz/2017/04/04/kendall-jenner-pepsi-ad-pops-open-controversy/100046942/

Since Republicans have spent so long telling their constituents that climate change is not a serious threat, they are in no position to do anything about it in government.

This leaves the Democrats with the responsibility to pass as much legislation to lessen the impact of climate change and deal with its consequences. Since Republicans insist on vetoing nearly all legislation concerning the threat, it is likely that if Hillary Clinton is elected, she will have to follow Obama's footsteps and implement policy through executive actions.

Conservative media and politicians may not be the only reasons why Americans are so divided about the climate: Corporate groups are also hedging their bets and throwing investment behind both sides, an investigation by Reuters found.

Some of the country's most vocal corporate supporters of Obama's environmental programs have been found to be funding some of the most ardent anti-climate change politicians in Washington. Among these companies are PepsiCo, Dupont and Google, Reuters said on Tuesday.

Though companies often split their campaign donations to both parties, arguing for both sides of a particular issue may be a problem, the head of the Investor Responsibility Research Center Institute Jon Kukomnik told Reuters.

"There really needs to be a process that looks at these issues … at C-suite and board levels on a periodic basis," he said.

Of the 35 biggest U.S. companies which signed on to Obama's American Business Act on Climate Change Pledge last year, 25 of these companies are supporting Congressional climate deniers by helping to fund their campaigns.

These climate deniers include North Dakota Republican Congressman Kevin Cramer, who once argued the Earth was getting cooler and not warmer, and Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe, who once held up a snowball in the Senate to prove that global warming is not occurring.

Other companies which signed the environmental pact and then gave political donations to climate deniers are Mondelez, Google,AT&T, Verizon and GE.

Only GE responded to Reuters' requests for comment, saying it supports "elected officials based on a wide range of issues." The company insists it has been "outspoken about the need to address climate change."

Sen. Inhofe said businesses might have signed the environmental pact because it appeared politically expedient to do so at that moment.

"These are competitive companies, and the board might have said, 'Look, right now it might be a popular thing to join this, and there's no downside since we're not really committing to anything,'" he said.

However, investors may want companies to be more committed to environmental sustainability, Lauren Compere of Boston Common Asset Management said.

"No company wants to be perceived as espousing progressive climate policies on the one hand, while funding climate deniers on the other," she said.

http://www.ecowatch.com/companies-drive-climate-denial-1998224867.html

http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/08/brazil-fines-nestle-pepsi-gmos/

huffpo

Most people just think of soda when they hear the name "Pepsi." But in fact, PepsiCo is the nation's largest food company and second largest in the world. Its annual earnings top $60 billion, from a dizzying array of brands. Walk down almost any supermarket aisle (soda, snacks, cereal, juice) and you're likely to bump into a PepsiCo-owned product.

This explains why the company is the top contributor among food makers to the "No on 37" campaign in California-- a ballot initiative that would require labeling of foods containing GMO ingredients. Also, as I wrote about recently, PepsiCo is a member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a powerful trade group that has so far contributed $375,000 to the No on 37 campaign.

Why would PepsiCo pony up more than $90,000 just to keep Californians in the dark about what they are eating? A closer look at its "portfolio of products" (in corporate speak) reveals exactly what's at stake for the food giant.

PepsiCo brands span five divisions: Pepsi-Cola, Frito-Lay, Gatorade, Tropicana, and Quaker. While most consumers probably think of processed snacks and cereal-type products when trying to avoid foods containing GMOs, beverages are also a major culprit (which explains why Coca-Cola has donated more than $61,000 to the No on 37 campaign).

Estimates are that up to 85 percent of corn grown in the U.S. in genetically engineered, and a significant number of PepsiCo brands contain some form of corn. For example, among PepsiCo beverages sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup are brands such as Pepsi and Mountain Dew, as well as the AMP Energy and Lipton iced tea lines, each of which contain numerous flavor varieties. Even some products within the company's Tropicana line of "juice drinks" contain HFCS. Then there's Naked Juice, which last year became the target of a consumer deception lawsuit over the brand's "non-GMO" claim on the label, among other issues. (Gatorade reformulated its products to replace HFCS in 2010, but is not exactly a health drink either, as recent research has revealed.)

Speaking of GMO-related lawsuits against PepsiCo, I wrote last December about how the company is being sued over several Frito-Lay snack products labeled "natural," despite containing genetically-modified corn and vegetable oils, including corn, soybean, and canola oils. (That case was re-filed earlier this year.) In 2010, Frito-Lay announced that half of its products would be made of "all-natural ingredients," but of course non-GMO isn't part of the company's definition of natural. As I have explained, the Food and Drug Administration unfortunately has so far refused to create a workable definition, which is why companies like PepsiCo are able to deceive customers so easily.

The scope of Frito-Lay products potentially impacted by GMO labeling is vast. Among the brands under this $13 billion division that contain corn include Fritos, Doritos, Tostitos, and Cheetos. And that's not counting the vegetable oils, which are almost all made with GMO ingredients. Even allegedly healthier brands like SunChips contain GMO corn, which is why that product is named in the deceptive labeling lawsuit against Frito-Lay.

Even PepsiCo's relatively healthy division Quaker would be impacted if GMO foods must be labeled. In addition to plain old oats, the Quaker brand makes heavily processed granola bars. I counted six sources of corn -- including HFCS and "corn syrup solids" -- in this new "yogurt" variety (which contains no actual yogurt, but rather "yogurt flavored powder" -- don't even ask). It's one thing for junk foods to bear a GMO label; I can't imagine hard-core Cheetos fans caring too much about GMOs, but Quaker consumers probably would.

Another PepsiCo brand sure to make HQ nervous over GMO labeling is Mother's, which claims its products are "all natural." The Cornucopia Institute tested Mother's cereal andfound that it contains GMO ingredients, which is expected since some of the varietiescontain corn. Imagine how many mothers would be upset to learn that the cereal named after them is genetically engineered.

PepsiCo's official policy regarding using GMO ingredients is rather bland:

Approval of genetically-modified foods differs from country to country regarding both use and labeling. For this reason, PepsiCo adheres to all relevant regulatory requirements regarding the use of genetically-modified food crops and food ingredients within the countries it operates.

Translation: We follow the law, very impressive. But the statement also points to how the company has different standards around the world depending on what the law requires. More than 40 other nations -- including the entire European Union -- require some form of disclosure for foods made with GMOs.

What a shame that here in its home country, PepsiCo wants to ignore what 90 percent of American consumers say they want: to know which foods contain GMOs. PepsiCo would rather fight to maintain the status quo because it means a continued cheap supply of ingredients for its highly-processed, unhealthy beverages and junk food.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140329004213/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michele-simon/pepsi-gmo-food_b_1749575.html

coca-Cola and PepsiCo Agree to Curb Animal Tests

By BRENDA GOODMAN

Published: May 31, 2007

ATLANTA, May 30 — Under pressure from animal rights advocates, two soft drink giants, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, have agreed to stop directly financing research that uses animals to test or develop their products, except where such testing is required by law.

Researchers at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sought the assurances after discovering studies financed by the companies that used animals like rats and chimpanzees to test taste perception and, in some cases, to bolster support for promotional health claims.

PepsiCo said that it would stop directly financing animal experiments, including some it had financed through grants given to graduate students through its Gatorade Sports Science Institute.

Elaine Palmer, a spokeswoman for PepsiCo, said that while the company had never supported the idea of animal testing, “We had not been policing it, so that part is new.”

Coca-Cola and PepsiCo are the largest largest manufacturers to agree to the ban.

Coca-Cola also said that it would discontinue a grant given to a researcher at Virginia Commonwealth University who has been studying taste perception in rats, which share certain taste pathways with humans.

Representatives of Coca-Cola and the university declined to say how much financing the company was providing or to elaborate on what the ultimate application of the research might be.

A research associate at PETA, Shalin G. Gala, said, “We see these statements from Coke and Pepsi, massive global conglomerates, as the beginning of the end of all animal tests on food.”

Scientists conducting basic research in animal models have cautioned against PETA’s hard line, saying their work, which may have medical benefits, would not be possible in many cases without help from corporate sponsors.

“It’s very easy to characterize scientific research like this in a bad light,” said Dr. John A. DeSimone, a professor at Virginia Commonwealth University who had been working under the Coca-Cola grant. “To do medical research, you sometimes need an animal model.”

Not everyone agrees with Dr. DeSimone’s thinking, particularly when it involves tests on highly intelligent animals, as did a study involving a Coca-Cola scientist, financed by Nutrasweet, that cut open the faces of chimpanzees to study nerve impulses used in the perception of sweet tastes.

“I have never found chimpanzee work justifiable,” said Dr. Alan Goldberg, director of the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing at Johns Hopkins University.

Dr. Goldberg said that over the last 30 years, advances in alternatives to animal models, many of which are usually more scientifically precise, have already reduced the number of lab animals in use by 50 percent.

“The bottom line for me is that I’d love to see animal studies disappear entirely,” Dr. Goldberg said. “In vitro models are cleaner.”

The two soft drink giants are the latest companies to respond to scrutiny by PETA, which has mounted a campaign to denounce animal testing practices in the beverage industry, an industry that, unlike cosmetics or pharmaceuticals, had largely been unpublicized in the animal testing arena.

In January, Roll International, the company that makes Pom Wonderful pomegranate juice, agreed to cease tests on animals after PETA disclosed a 2005 study financed by the company that tested the juice to see if it might relieve artificially induced erectile dysfunction in rabbits.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/business/31testing.html?_r=0

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2015/02/isis_isn_t_medieval_its_revisionist_history_only_claims_to_be_rooted_in.single.html

Until a few weeks ago, Joel Leftwich was a senior lobbyist for the largest food and beverage company in the United States. During his tenure at PepsiCo—maker of Cheetos, Lay’s potato chips and, of course, Pepsi-Cola—the company had played a leading role in efforts to beat back local soda taxes and ensure that junk food remained available in schools. But PepsiCo also faced new challenges at the federal level. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, championed by Michelle Obama, had placed new nutrition standards on school lunches. PepsiCo sent teams of lobbyists to Capitol Hill, deluged political candidates with donations, and fired off letters to regulators asking them to weaken the new rules. One such PepsiCo letter requested the redefinition of a “school day” so the company could continue to sell its sugary sports drinks at “early morning sports practices.” Leftwich, a former congressional liaison for the Department of Agriculture, was well positioned to help PepsiCo shore up its allies in the House and Senate.

Last April, Leftwich paid a visit to one such friend, Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, then chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, to thank her for opposing nutrition guidelines for food stamp purchases.

Now Leftwich will have far more access to such friends. As the newly appointed staff director of the Senate Agriculture Committee, now under GOP control, Leftwich will have wide sway over the law that funds school lunches, which is up for reauthorization this year. PepsiCo can rest easier, confident that the guidelines already in place are unlikely to be strengthened—and may be weakened instead. Leftwich’s new boss, Republican Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, who took over the Agriculture Committee gavel in January, has set his sights on dialing back school lunch nutrition requirements, which he has called “Big Brother government that’s out of control.”

While all eyes were on the changing of the guard in Congress as Republicans seized control of the US Senate in January, there was an equally profound change taking place among Capitol Hill staff, as many GOP lawmakers handed over the keys to corporate lobbyists like Leftwich.

“We’ve seen a dramatic uptick in K Street moving into congressional staff positions since the Citizens United decision,” says Craig Holman, Public Citizen’s expert on lobbying and ethics. House Speaker John Boehner, he notes, has “encouraged new members to employ lobbyists on their personal and committee staff.”

On almost any big issue coming up for debate during the final two years of the Obama administration—surveillance, trade, healthcare, entitlements, tax reform, climate change—corporate lobbyists will now be attempting to influence their own former colleagues, whose salaries are now covered by US taxpayers.

http://www.alternet.org/print/food/watch-out-these-buzzwords-food-companies-use-hype-their-products-are-healthy-they-dont-mean

Legal but lethal: lays, doritos, biggest selers 16 of 22 billion $ brands are "fun for youZ' w/ no nutrition

David Novak: Fast-Food Glutton

At first glance, corporate CEO David Novak doesn’t need a subsidy from anybody. The fast-food empire Novak oversees, Yum! Brands, amassed [45] $1.59 billion in profits last year.

And Yum — think Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, and KFC— is doing pretty well by Novak, too. He pocketed $94 million worth of “performance pay,”notes [46] an Institute for Policy Studies analysis, in just 2011 and 2012 alone.

But Novak and Yum are collecting subsidies anyway — and plenty of them. One comes directly from the U.S. tax code. Current tax law lets corporations deduct executive “performance” pay off their taxable income. This sweet subsidy saved Yum $33 million the last two years on Novak’s ample compensation.

Average Americans are actually subsidizing Novak and Yum at much higher levels than this single tax break suggests. In fact, taxpayers are subsidizing Yum’s entire fast-food business.

Workers at fast food giants like Yum simply don’t make enough to make ends meet for their families. So how do these workers get by? They depend on taxpayer-financed social safety net programs, from food stamps to Medicaid.

Overall, researchers noted [47] in 2013, American taxpayers “are spending nearly $7 billion a year to supplement the wages of fast-food workers.”

And how are fast-food executives like David Novak spending the profits this generous taxpayer support makes possible? They’re having their companies, for starters, buy back shares of company stock off the open market, a strategy designed solely to bump up their share prices.

Higher share prices, in the meantime, produce higher “performance pay” awards for execs like Novak.

If Novak had plowed the vast millions [45] that Yum spent last year on share buybacks into worker pay,**estim**ate [48] researchers from Demos, worker wages at Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, and KFC would have jumped by as much as $3 per hour.

Center for Food Safety[1] / By Michele Simon [2]

Junk Food Lobby Forced to Disclose Secret Donors in Campaign to Stop GMO Labeling

October 23, 2013 |

Just a few weeks ago, attorneys for the No on 522 campaign were feeling rather smug when a lawsuit filed against them by a group called “Moms for Labeling” was dismissed. As I wrote last week [3], consumer class action attorney Knoll Lowney sued the No on 522 and the Washington DC-based Grocery Manufactures Association (lobbyists for major food corporations) for not disclosing the donors behind GMA’s $7 million-plus donation to stop I-522, which would require genetically-engineered foods to be labeled. The judge threw out that case on a technicality.

But then, Big Food’s arrogance got the best of them.

Last Wednesday, Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson picked up where the Moms for Labeling lawyer left off by filing his own complaint [4], which adds stunning detail to the allegations in the original suit. In case you’re not familiar with what the attorney general does, he or she is the state’s top law enforcer, but often has limited resources to act. So when the AG’s office decides to come after you, it’s a very big deal, far bigger than a private attorney doing so.

The new lawsuit also accuses GMA of violating the state’s campaign disclosure laws, and alleges that the trade group secretly gathered more than $7 million from its members. Not content to just collect food industry money illegally, or even discreetly, GMA had the chutzpah to a designate a special account dubbed the “Defense of Brand Strategic Account,” for a strategic, “multi-pronged approach” to fight labeling laws, including Washington’s I-522.

And this scheme didn’t just pop up recently either; rather the shady deal-making was in the works for months, soon after the narrow loss of Proposition 37 in California. The plan was hatched at a GMA board meeting this past January to fund future anti-labeling efforts with “a preference for GMA to be the funder of such efforts, rather than individual companies.” That’s because brand names like PepsiCo and General Mills took a lot of heat from upset consumers. So, as GMA CEO Pamela G. Bailey explained in a February memorandum, a plan to “better shield individual companies from attack” was quickly approved; GMA sent its first round of invoices to members by March and the second round went out in August.

The dollar figures are staggering: GMA earmarked ten million dollars to oppose I-522, meaning that when the trade group made its first contribution to No on 522 in May—a paltry $472,500—it knew it was only getting started, something the public would learn by August when it donated another $1,750,000. In September, GMA dropped $5 million in one load, which now makes sense considering how long they had been taking collections. But if the two lawsuits hadn’t stopped GMA, chances are it would have spent even more. As of October 7, GMA collected almost $13.5 million dollars but had only spent $7.2 million, meaning it still has more than $6 million left in its arsenal. That can buy a lot of TV ads.

In fact, Attorney General Ferguson said [5] this case represents “the largest amount of money ever concealed in an election.” Way to go team.

Barely 48 hours after the attorney general filed suit, GMA waved a white flag [6], disclosing the list of donors [7] it had so adamantly refused to give Moms for Labeling. Topping the list were old favorites likePepsiCo ($1.6+ million), Nestlé ($1+ million), Coca-Cola ($1+ million), and General Mills (almost $600K). But all the major food groups are also represented. Not only soda companies, but also Sunny Delight and the juice bottler Clement Pappas & Company are named. For canned foods, GMA hit up Del Monte and Hormel Foods, maker of Spam. And who knew that the Clorox Company owns Soy Vay marinades [8], which explains its $12K donation to the Defense of Brand Strategic Account.

Before releasing its list of donors, though, GMA put out a statement [9] saying it was “surprised to learn that the Washington State authorities viewed the association’s actions as improper.” Maybe GMA’s lawyers (aren’t they all lawyers?) were too busy making a paper trail of its wrongdoing to read up on the state campaign finance laws they were so sloppily trying to circumvent.

Then, when GMA released the donor data (on Friday at 3pm, wonder why?), the lobbyists had the nerve to claim [10] to be doing so “in the spirit of continuing cooperation and in an effort to provide Washington voters with full transparency.” That’s the spirit. But even more impressive was GMA’s decision to “voluntarily establish a Washington State political committee and to file reports disclosing the source of all funds used in connection with Washington State elections.” Let’s unpack that: GMA is volunteering to follow the law after the state’s top law enforcer sued them to stop violating it.

Meanwhile, Lowney and Moms for Labeling aren’t done yet. Yesterday, Lowney filed another suit [11], incorporating the attorney general’s allegations, and asking the judge to “sequester” the same amount No on 522 illegally concealed – more than $7 million – to pay future penalties.

In the new complaint [12], No on 522 is not only accused of concealing the source of its donations, but also intentionally misleading Washington voters by falsely reporting the source of the $7.2 million. Not satisfied with the disclosures made last week, this suit wants the court to order No on 522 to: 1) stop running advertisements that don’t reflect the accurate top five contributors; 2) admit that earlier disclosures were false and disseminate corrected information; 3) file corrected campaign finance reports; 4) discontinue receipt of contributions from GMA; and (my personal favorite) 5) pay a penalty in the amount of the contributions it concealed – more than $7.2 million.

GMA hasn’t responded to that suit yet, but in the meantime, Ferguson’s office isn’t backing down [13] after the initial disclosures either. Janelle Guthrie, communications director for the Washington State attorney general’s office told me that the state’s “lawsuit continues with regard to setting penalties.”

The Moms for Labeling lawsuit highlights the important role that private litigation has in getting state officials to force Big Food’s compliance with the law and big kudos to the attorney general for doing so. Let’s hope we see more of it.

And if you’re keeping score, that makes three lawsuits filed so far against an industry that will stop at nothing to keep consumers in the dark. Washington State voters should really be asking, when they see the next ad opposing 522: if this campaign is willing to break the law, how can we trust anything they say?

Meanwhile, it’s not too late to help the Yes on 522 campaign [14].

See more stories tagged with:

gmo [15],

labeling [16],

food [17],

right to know [18]

Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/food/junk-food-lobby-forced-disclose-secret-donors-campaign-stop-gmo-labeling

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/10/beyonce-pepsi-criticism-choices_n_3572582.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

http://grist.org/list/taco-bell-is-making-its-meat-healthier-by-refusing-to-call-it-meat/

YUM! Brands is the largest fast-food operator in the world in terms of number of locations, with over than 37,000 outlets in approximately 110 countries. It is second to McDonald's in sales. The company's flagship chains include Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) with over 16,200 locations; Pizza Hut, with over 13,200 locations; and Taco Bell, with over 5,800 locations. YUM! also operates the Long John Silver's seafood chain as well as several hundred A&W root beer and burger outlets. Approximately 80% of the company's outlets are run by franchisees, affiliates and licensed operators.^[1]

In the fiscal year ending in December of 2009, the company reported sales of approximately $10.836 billion dollars and had 350,000 employees.^[2]

Roger Eaton - COO

Labor issues

McJobs

"There's good reason such service-sector positions are called 'McJobs'," wrote Fast Food Nation author Eric Schlosser.

His Los Angeles Times piece described California State Proposition 72 as:

"an initiative that would require large and medium-sized business owners to give health benefits to their workers. ... The fast-food industry is the nation's largest employer of minimum-wage labor. ... Led by McDonald's, the industry has pioneered a workforce that earns low wages, gets little training, receives few benefits and has one of the highest turnover rates of any trade."

Other opponents of Proposition 72 included Burger King, Wendy's, Walgreen, Best Buy, Target, Sears, YUM! Brands, the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Restaurant Association. The state legislature had already passed a bill in 2003, signed into law by then-Governor Gray Davis, that required larger businesses to offer health care benefits. But fast-food companies, big box retail chains and their allies spent millions of dollars to rescind the law through the initiative process. In their campaign to defeat the initiative, the same groups ran television ads relying on "scare tactics, distortions and ... fundamental misrepresentation(s) of Proposition 72." ^[3] Proposition 72 failed.

Ties to ALEC

YUM! Brands is a corporate member of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Matt Lathrop, YUM! Brands' director of government and community affairs, co-chairs the Labor and Business Regulation Subcommittee of ALEC's Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force. At ALEC's annual 2011 meeting in August, this subcommittee focused solely on the topic of "Paid Family Medical Leave." At the meeting, attendees were given model bills to override paid sick leave legislation in the states. Wisconsin's 2011 Senate Bill 23, which Republican governor Scott Walker used to overturn paid sick leave legislation in Milwaukee, was the basis for the model legislation. ^[4]

About ALEC
ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve “model” bills. Learn more at the Center for Media and Democracy's ALECexposed.org, and check out breaking news on our PRWatch.org site.

About ALEC

ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve “model” bills. Learn more at the Center for Media and Democracy's ALECexposed.org, and check out breaking news on our PRWatch.org site.

Animal welfare issues

Animal experts quit over KFC's confidentiality pact

In May of 2005, two animal welfare experts resigned after being asked to sign an agreement barring them from speaking publicly on such issues as animal slaughter. Dr. Temple Grandin and Dr. Ian Duncan stepped down from YUM! Brands animal welfare committee after being sent an agreement requiring them to refer all media inquiries to KFC corporate headquarters:

"I resigned because there is a document that I can't sign. I feel very strongly that I can talk freely to the press about how the program's working, what's been going on with the program."

Dr. Grandin has also worked with McDonald's, Wendy's and Burger King. She said that she respects confidentiality pertaining to suppliers and pricing information. However, no other company, including KFC, has ever required her to sign an agreement which barred her from speaking to the press:

"Certain things are confidential ... I will not give out pricing information or information about who is supplying chicken where. That type of confidentiality agreement I sign all the time."

According to KFC spokeswoman Bonnie Warschauer:

"It's just the same confidentiality agreement they've always had. We're just asking everybody to re-sign it."

She did not specify why committee members were being asked to re-sign the agreement. According to Ms. Warschauer, Dr. Grandin, Dr. Duncan and another committee member had given KFC a list of recommendations the previous March and added that the company had a "plan of action." Both Dr. Grandin and Dr. Duncan had served on the committee for about three years. According to Dr. Duncan:

"The way that I read it, it wouldn't allow me to talk in general terms about animal welfare. ...If someone phoned me up and said 'You are on the KFC animal welfare committee,' I was bound to say 'No comment."'

KFC had been criticized by animal advocates over welfare issues and inhumane slaughter of chickens. In 2004, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), released a video taken from inside a West Virginia chicken processing plant which supplies KFC. Workers were ripping off birds' beaks, spitting tobacco into their mouths and eyes, stomping and kicking them. According to Dr. Duncan, the company:

"has some way to go. ...I've not been happy with the progress that's been made in setting standards."

Dr. Grandin agreed that KFC:

"needs to be strengthening some things. ...Change happens slowly and they have been making some improvements." ^[5]

Hopefully, requiring that suppliers refrain from "ripping off birds' beaks, spitting tobacco into their mouths and eyes, stomping and kicking them", were included in the "recommendations" and "improvements". It is also not clear why information about "who is supplying chicken where" should be "confidential". In 2004/05, PETA conducted an undercover investigation in a Tyson Foods slaughterhouse in Heflin, Alabama.^[6]

"Kentucky Fried Cruelty" campaign

Rev. Al Sharpton on KFC's animal abuse. - PETA - March 2006

A campaign sponsored by PETA called "Kentucky Fried Cruelty", has pressured KFC to drop Tyson Foods as its supplier, due to it's abusive animal practices and resistance to reforms.^[7], ^[8]

Tyson Foods

In separate investigations in 2007, PETA documented Tyson Foods workers urinating in the "live hang" area and on the conveyor belt that carried birds to slaughter. Other abuses included breaking legs and wings, throwing birds against shackles, breaking a chickens back by beating it on a rail, stabbing birds in the neck and shackling birds by the neck instead of the legs. The investigation also documented supervisors who were either directly involved or refused to enforce animal welfare policies. For example, a supervisor was recorded telling the investigator that ripping the heads off live birds was acceptable. Another refused to intervene when after birds became trapped at the end of the conveyor belt and when birds were cut at the body (instead of the throat). Abuse was was documented at both the Georgia and Tennessee plants. ^[9]

Tyson is also a major supplier of restaurant chains, which also includes McDonalds. ^[10] Tyson also has a history of human rights abuses which include safety violations, workplace fatalities, substandard wages and benefits and harassment and physical assaults on striking workers.

See also Tyson Foods & animals raised & hunted for food on birds.

Menu Labeling

In October 2008, Yum! announced that it would begin posting calorie information beside the product name and price on menu boards at its company-owned restaurants across the country by 2011. Exceptions include drive-thrus, where space is limited, and independently-owned franchise locations, though Yum! said they would be encouraged to follow suit. According to Sr. VP Jonathan Blum:

"We're a leader. We hope all restaurants, supermarkets and convenience stores follow our lead."^[11]

The action comes at a time when more states and cities are putting in place or are considering requirements for restaurant chains to post consumer nutritional information. McDonald's, Burger King and Wendy's said they had no immediate plans to follow Yum! Brands' lead and expand nutritional labeling to menu boards.

Packaging

Greenpeace's campaign against Sinar Mas has revealed that the packaging of Pizza Hut and KFC takeaway brands is made from a Sinar Mas paper mill fed by illegal logging in Sumatra. Greenpeace is about to call for a boycott of these brands.

Political contributions

YUM! Brands gave $146,194 to federal candidates in the 2010 election through its political action committee - 32% to Democrats, 67% to Republicans, and 1% to other parties.^[12]

Lobbying

YUM! Brands spent $870,000 for lobbying in 2010. $320,000 went to three lobbying firms with the remainder being spent using in-house lobbyists. ^[13]

Personnel & board

Key executives & pay

David C. Novak (58) - Executive Chairman, CEO - 4.39 M & 66.3 M in exercised options

Jing-Shyh Samuel Su (58) - Chairman & Executive Officer - YUM! China Division - 2.53 M & 5.84 M in exercised options

Richard T. Carucci (54) - CFO - 1.62M & 2.52M in exercised options

Graham Allen (55) - President, YUM! Restaurants International - 1.84 M & 7.04 M in exercised options

Greg Creed (53) - President, Taco Bell - 1.64 M & 908K in options^[14]

Board of directors

David W. Dorman - Non-Executive Chairman - Motorola, Inc.
Kenneth G. Langone - Chairman, CEO & President, Invemed Associates, LLC
Massimo Ferragamo - Chairman, Ferragamo USA, Inc.
Jonathan S. Linen - American Express
J. David Grissom - Chairman, Mayfair Capital; Chairman, Glenview Trust
Thomas C. Nelson - Chairman, President & CEO National Gypsum Company
Bonnie G. Hill - B. Hill Enterprises LLC
Thomas R. Ryan - Chairman, President & CEO - CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
Robert Holland - Former Owner & CEO, WorkPlace Integrators
Robert D. Walter - Retired Chairman & CEO, Cardinal Health, Inc.

^[15]

Contact

YUM! Brands 1441 Gardiner Lane

Louisville, KY 40213

Phone: 502-874-8300

Fax: 502-874-8790

Web address: http://www.yum.com

Articles & sources

PRWatch Articles

Rebekah Wilce, Flu with that Burger? ALEC Wants Sick People Serving You Food, PRWatch.org, October 19, 2011.

References

↑ Profile: YUM! Brands, Hoovers, accessed January 2011
↑ Key YUM! Brands, Inc. Financials, Hoovers, accessed January 2011
↑ Eric Schlosser Super-Sized Deception From Fast-Food Giants, Los Angeles Times, October 2004
↑ http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/10/11079/flu-burger-alec-wants-sick-people-serving-you-food Flu with that Burger? ALEC Wants Sick People Serving You Food] PR Watch, October 19, 2011, accessed October 21, 2011
↑ Nichola Groom Animal Experts Quit KFC Over Confidentiality Pact", Reuters/CorpWatch, May 5, 2005
↑ Tyson Workers Torturing Birds, Urinating on Slaughter Line, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, accessed January 2011
↑ Kentucky Fried Cruelty: Cruelty USA, PETA.org, accessed January 2011
↑ Tyson Workers Torturing Birds, Urinating on Slaughter Line, PETA.org, accessed January 2011
↑ Tyson Workers Caught Torturing Birds, Urinating on Slaughter Line, PETA.org, accessed February 2009
↑ Steve Hannaford Oligopoly profile: Tyson Foods, Oligopoly Watch, updated September 2007
↑ Bruce Horovitz "Taco Bell, KFC, Pizza Hut add new menu item: Calories" USA Today, October 2, 2008
↑ 2010 PAC Summary Data, Open Secrets, accessed January 2011
↑ YUM! Brands lobbying expenses, Open Secrets, accessed January 2011
↑ YUM! Brands Key Executives, Yahoo Finance, accessed January 2011
↑ Yum! Corporate Governance, YUM! Brands, accessed January 2011

Yum! Brands, Inc. (NYSE: YUM) or Yum! is a United States-based Fortune 500 corporation. Yum! operates or licenses Taco Bell, KFC, Pizza Hut, and WingStreet restaurants worldwide.

Based in Louisville, Kentucky, it is the world's largest fast food restaurant company in terms of system units—nearly 38,000 restaurants around the world in more than 110 countries and territories.^[1] In 2010, Yum!'s global sales totaled more than US$11 billion.

Contents

History

Tricon Global

Yum! was created on October 7, 1997, as Tricon Global Restaurants, Inc. an independent company, as a result of a spin-out from PepsiCo, which owned and franchised the KFC, Pizza Hut, and Taco Bell brands worldwide. Because of the company's previous relationship with Pepsi, Yum! Brands has a lifetime contract with PepsiCo, with notable exceptions being the contract of A&W Restaurants with Dr Pepper Snapple Group to be the exclusive restaurant provider of A&W Root Beer, and the contracts of franchisees such as HMSHost and college-operated locations with Coca-Cola which override Yum's lifetime PepsiCo contract, along with some scattered KFC franchises across the United States which continue to maintain Coke fountain rights.

Expansion

In March 2002, Tricon announced the acquisition of Lexington, Kentucky-based Yorkshire Global Restaurants, owner of the Long John Silver's and A&W All-American Food chains and its intention to change the company's name to Yum! Brands, Inc. On May 16, 2002, the name change became effective after a vote during the company's annual shareholders meeting, and on June 17, 2002, Yum! executed a two-for-one stock split. Shortly afterwards, due to Yum!'s lifetime contract with Pepsi, Long John Silver's and A&W Restaurants (both of which previously served Coca-Cola) switched to Pepsi products once their franchise contracts expired, with A&W retaining A&W Root Beer from a separate deal with Dr Pepper Snapple Group.

In 2003, Yum! launched WingStreet as a hybrid combo unit with an existing Pizza Hut franchise.^[2] The Pasta Bravo concept was acquired in 2003 from Pasta Bravo, Inc. of Aliso Viejo, Calif for $5 million to pair with Pizza Hut.^[3] An East Dawning test cafeteria-style restaurant was opened in Shanghai in 2004. After failing, Yum! Brands chose the KFC business model (KFC is the most successful Western chain in China) and found greater success.^[4]

As of year-end 2010, more than 20 East Dawning restaurants were in operation.^[5] In 2007 and 2008, a thousand WingStreet stores a year were opened. On October 19, 2009, Company president Scott Bergren publicized WingStreet's national launch.^[2]

International growth

In January 2011, Yum! announced its intentions to divest itself of its Long John Silver's and A&W brands to focus on its core brands of KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell. For the decade leading up to the company's announcement, major growth had relied on international expansion. With little presence outside the US and Canada, the two chains no longer fit in the company's long-term growth plans.^[6] The foreign expansion—particularly that of Taco Bell, KFC and Pizza Hut—was cited in the firm's January 18, 2011 announcement of its intention to sell the A&W and Long John Silver's chains. Both of those chains also suffered from poor sales, and had fewer locations compared to the other chains in the Yum! Brands portfolio. In September 2011, Yum! announced they had found buyers for the A&W and LJS chains. A Great American Brand LLC will buy A&W, and LJS will be acquired by LJS Partners LLC.^[7] Yum! Brands had originally purchased the parent company of Long John Silver's and A&W brands in 2003 for $320 million.^[7]

In May 2011, Yum! agreed to purchase mainland Chinese hot pot chain Little Sheep for HK$4.56 billion.^[8] The deal spent more than 4 months in anti-trust review by the Chinese Ministry of Commerce, to determine whether or not the transaction would result in a monopolistic positioning of Yum! in the country's restaurant industry. The Ministry approved the deal in November 2011, according to Little Sheep representatives.^[9] By the 2011, Yum! was winding down Pizza Hut locations in Dollard-des-Ormeaux, Quebec, Canada with Kirkland, Quebec following suit the following year.

In 2012, a KFC was the first American fast food restaurant to operate in the West Bank; it opened in Ramallah; a Pizza Hut is also planned.^[10]

A single Yum! restaurant facility co-branded as Taco Bell and KFC in San Francisco, California

Corporate

The current chairman and chief executive officer of Yum! Brands is David C. Novak. Novak is a director of J.P. Morgan Chase and became CEO of predecessor firm Tricon Global on January 1, 2000, and chairman of the board on January 1, 2001. He is also a member of the Yum! executive/finance committee.

Since 2006, Yum! Brands has served as the corporate sponsor of the Kentucky Derby.^[11]

Brands

Current

KFC (global)
Pizza Hut (global)
Taco Bell (global)
WingStreet (Malta, United States, Canada, Germany and Cyprus)
East Dawning (People's Republic of China)
Wing Works^[2]
Pasta Bravo^[3]
China Wok (Latin America)

Former

Acquisitions Pending Shareholder Approval

Little Sheep (People's Republic of China),^[12] Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan and also the United States, Japan and Canada