Is the City of Ottawa Caught in an Unhealthy Conflict?

Last year on the blog, I wrote a post criticizing the City of Ottawa's plans to allow corporate sponsorship of recreation facilities. City Councillor Jan Harder said in one breath that the sponsorship approach would reflect "community values" and then, in the next breath said:

But I think if Pepsi or a high-tech company or Waste Management wants to have their names over the diving pool at the Nepean Sportsplex, that's A-OK with me.

I wrote that when I hear the term "community values", I think of people coming together to support each other in health, happiness and success. I think of people reaching across barriers and getting to know people who are different from them. I think of people being considerate of their neighbours and polite to each other. I don't think of sugary soft drinks. I added that while I'm not against corporate sponsorship altogether, but I do think that public recreation facilities should be a place where our children can be healthy and active and where parents don't have to worry about junk food being pushed on them. I asked Councillor Harder and others involved to reconsider and recognize that junk food and processed food are not compatible with "community values."

I never heard anything from them and I am not sure how their plans for corporate sponsorship have evolved since then.

This Spring, the City of Ottawa approved a Healthy Eating, Active Living Strategy (HEAL). The strategy, which recognizes the need to change the "daily habits, social norms and physical and social environments" of our children and families to address the fact that over 20% of youth and 52% of adults are either overweight or obese, has three main objectives:

1. To decrease consumption of energy dense, nutrient poor foods and beverages;


2. To increase physical activity through walking and active transportation;


3. To engage the ‘whole-of-community’ to change social and physical environments.

Last week, Coca-Cola executives sent letters to Mayor Jim Watson to complain about HEAL. According to the Ottawa Citizen:

In identical letters, they [four Coca Cola executives] wrote that the health department could “undermine efforts to find meaningful solutions” to the fact that too many people, especially children, are overweight. “Coca-Cola Refreshments Canada strongly opposes any program that uses taxpayer dollars to unfairly target our products and mislead consumers,” they wrote. “We expect Ottawa Public Health, as a public institution, to be a source of neutral and unbiased information for consumers.”

The mayor, councillors and Dr. Isra Levy, the city's top public health official, all indicated that there were no plans to step down or back away from HEAL and that its objective is to "promote healthier eating and physical activity in general, not demonize particular products."

The question of whether HEAL unfairly demonizes the products of Coca Cola or any other company is an interesting one. What is more interesting to me, however, is what I see as a conflict between Councillor Harder's comments on the sponsorship of recreation facilities and the objectives of HEAL. If the City of Ottawa truly wants to "decrease consumption of energy dense, nutrient poor foods and beverages" and "engage the 'whole-of-community' to change social and physical environments, shouldn't it start by not promoting those "energy dense, nutrient poor foods and beverages" in the "social and physical environments" that it controls?

Perhaps the City's thoughts on the sponsorship of recreation facilities has evolved since Councillor Harder made her remarks to the CBC last year. If not, I do think there is an ethical conflict that the city needs to address, especially if the city will be asking or telling schools to make changes while still cashing in on corporate junk food dollars from its own recreation facilities.

What do you think? Is there a conflict between the City of Ottawa's corporate sponsorship approach and its HEAL objectives?

Comments

[Leah Segedie]

If it was PepsiCo coming in w/ their Quaker brand I wouldn't see a problem with it but there is nothing nutritional whatsoever with soda. Governments should not be in the business of promoting soda ever.

[Fearless Formula Feeder]

I think this is a perfect example of the hypocrisy that is running rampant is most governments, small and large. How can we urge people to make healthier choices - or take the choices away - and then simultaneously promote them? It just seems like common sense. I mean, frankly, seeing a Pepsi banner or whatever doesn't make me want Pepsi personally, but the mixed message is pretty clear.

I agree with Leah too - I wouldn't take issue with a healthier product which is produced by Pepsi being promoted. But soda has been so vilified lately, it seems rather obtuse to allow it to be seen as a city sponsor, especially at a park....

[Juliette]

I think I just decided to boycott Coca Cola and their brands. A "a source of neutral and unbiased information for consumers" - are you kidding me?

['Becca]

I think it's hilariously hypocritical!