During the December 19 broadcast of his Newsradio 850 KOA show, Mike Rosen interviewed Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) senior analyst Justin Wilson about the New York City Board of Health's recent ban of trans fats in restaurant cooking. Rosen described CCF as “a nonprofit organization that is funded by restaurants, food companies, consumers,” and noted that "[t]hey, like I, are opposed to runaway nannyism" -- a term used by conservatives to describe what they consider unnecessary government interference in lifestyle choices. Rosen added that, on the part of CCF, “there is an element of self-interest here to be sure, because this will cause dislocations and perhaps added expenses for restaurants,” but he failed to mention CCF's controversial history.

When Rosen asked Wilson to “give us a little more background on the Center for Consumer Freedom,” Wilson responded that CCF “take[s] up a lot of issues related to kind of Big Brotherism in the country, especially when it comes to food and drink.” He continued, “And so, the people who are out to, you know, get your french fries are the same people who are out to take away alcohol and slap your wrist if you eat something that might be a little bit unhealthy for you.” Wilson also asserted, "[C]onsumers should be able to make the decisions about whether it's ethical to eat meat, or whether it's healthier not to eat trans fats for themselves. And that kind of big-government regulators are not the appropriate people to be making that decision."

But as numerous sources have shown, CCF and its founder -- conservative lobbyist Richard Berman -- have a history of engaging in controversial practices.

As The Washington Post reported on February 14, Berman founded CCF over a decade ago “with tobacco company and restaurant money to fight smoking curbs in restaurants.” According to the group's website, CCF's purpose is “to push back” against "[t]he growing cabal of 'food cops,' health care enforcers, militant activists, meddling bureaucrats, and violent radicals who think they know 'what's best for you.' "

When Rosen asked Wilson about CCF's funding, Wilson claimed that funding sources include “certainly restaurants and food companies, but also a lot of consumers who may occasionally enjoy a cheeseburger and kind of see freedom to eat that eroding.” Wilson further claimed that CCF is “out there kind of protecting consumers' right[s].”

However, the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) obtained from a whistleblower a lengthy list of CCF's 2001 and 2002 corporate contributors, many in the food and beverage industries. CMD also states that CCF has been criticized for listing anonymous funding sources on its IRS form 990. According to the CCF website:

Many of the companies and individuals who support the Center financially have indicated that they want anonymity as contributors. They are reasonably apprehensive about privacy and safety in light of the violence some activist groups have adopted as a “game plan” to impose their views.

In 2003, the National Arbitration Forum, an “alternative dispute resolution” service, found that CCF had registered two Internet domain names in bad faith in order “to divert internet users” away from sites run by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a nonprofit food-safety education and advocacy group. The domain names registered by CCF were cspinot.com and smartmouth.org -- approximations of CSPI's home page, cspinet.org; and its website for kids, smart-mouth.org. CSPI issued a press release after the National Arbitration Forum's decision describing CCF's tactics:

[T]he Center for Consumer Freedom ... had registered cspinot.com, where it attacked CSPI and it's web site, cspinet.org. CCF had also purchased smartmouth.org, a domain name almost identical to that of Smart-Mouth.org, where CSPI provides information for children about nutrition and food marketing.

As Media Matters for America has noted, CCF's Berman is a federally registered lobbyist who wholly owns and directs the public relations firm Berman and Company, which has strong ties to the Republican Party. Berman and Company also runs the American Beverage Institute, a coalition of restaurant owners and alcoholic beverage makers that claims to, among other things, “expose and vigorously counter the campaigns of modern-day prohibitionists”; the Employment Policies Institute (EPI), a Republican-linked think tank that receives funding specifically from the fast-food and low-wage hospitality industry; the anti-union media-campaign organization Center for Union Facts; and a host of websites that attempt to debunk scientific and medical studies and to expose public health advocacy campaigns as scams. One of CCF's websites, ActivistCash.com, according to the public relations industry watchdog The Center for Media and Democracy, “attempts to discredit activists by suggesting that there is something disreputable about the money they have received from foundations.”

A February 14 New York Times article, reporting on a controversial and expensive anti-union ad campaign launched by the Center for Union Facts, said of Berman:

He has faced criticism in recent years for arguing on behalf of his clients that drinking a lot of soda does not contribute to diabetes and that Americans have been “force-fed a steady diet of obesity myths by the 'food police,' trial lawyers, and even our own government.” Mr. Berman was also criticized for fighting a push by Mothers Against Drunk Driving to tighten rules on alcohol limits for drivers.

Berman contributed $5,500 to Republican political candidates and $1,000 to the Republican National Committee between 2000 and 2004, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The CMD has published an overview of Berman's activities.

From the December 19 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA's The Mike Rosen Show:

ROSEN: Well, on December 5th, the New York City Board of Health voted to adopt the nation's first major municipal ban on the use of all but tiny amounts of artificial trans fats in restaurant cooking. This is a move that can radically transform the way food is prepared in thousands of restaurants, from McDonald's to fashionable bistros to Chinese take-outs. Trans fats are chemically modified food ingredients that raise levels of a particular form of cholesterol. They've been linked to heart disease. They've long been used as a substitute for saturated fats in baked goods and fried foods and salad dressings, margarine, other foods. Trans fats have the benefit of having a longer shelf life than other alternatives.

Also, the New York City Board of Health approved a separate measure -- the first of its kind in the country -- requiring some restaurants, mostly fast-food outlets, to prominently display the caloric content of each menu item on menu boards or near cash registers.

Now, New York's mayor, Michael Bloomberg, is an outspoken health advocate. And he's got an activist health commissioner, Dr. Thomas Frieden. So, for them this was something of a crusade. And cities like Chicago are planning to follow in short order. As a matter of fact, there was one comment from somebody in Chicago, some alderman, expressing disappointment that New York stole Chicago's thunder. They were hoping to be the first in the nation to do this.

We've got on the line with us Justin Wilson, who's a senior analyst at the Center for Consumer Freedom. The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit organization that is funded by restaurants, food companies, consumers. We've had people from the Center for Consumer Freedom with us before. They, like I, am opposed to runaway nannyism. Now, there's an element of self-interest here to be sure, because this will create dislocations and perhaps added expenses for restaurants. And it will deny some consumers what they might believe is better tasting food than the healthier alternative, and there are those of us who believe that that ought to be a personal choice. When we talk about things like smoking bans, the people who advocate smoking bans at least make the argument that there's a third-party effect, that it doesn't just affect the smoker, that somebody in proximity to the smoker could be affected by the smoker's second-hand smoke. The extent of that, of course, is debatable, but at least there's another party involved who might be hurt. In this case, if you're consuming trans fats, you are voluntarily consuming them and, if you're willing to take the consequences, that ought to be your business.

All right, we've got Justin Wilson on the line. He's going to tell us more about this New York regulation. I'd like to know also from Justin how it comes that the New York City Board of Health has the authority to do this. It's one thing for a board of health to ban some poisonous substance; it's another thing for a city's board of health to ban something that it doesn't think you should eat, like colas with a lot of sugar in it. We've got Justin on the line with us right now. Justin, thanks for joining us this morning.

WILSON: It's my pleasure.

ROSEN: Give us a little more background on the Center for Consumer Freedom. I kind of gave an indication as to where your money comes from and where you stand. What other issues have you gotten involved in, and what's your stake in this one?

WILSON: You know, I like to say that we're supported by anyone who likes to eat good food. You know, certainly restaurants and food companies, but also a lot of consumers who may occasionally enjoy a cheeseburger and kind of see freedom to eat that eroding. That being said, we take up a lot of issues related to kind of Big Brotherism in the country, especially when it comes to food and drink. And so, the people who are out to, you know, get your french fries are the same people who are out to take away alcohol and slap your wrist if you eat something that might be a little bit unhealthy for you. We also have a -- also take on kind of the radical animal-rights people who are abhorred at the idea of eating meat altogether. So, we're out there kind of protecting consumers' right from a kind of libertarian perspective. That is, that consumers should be able to make the decisions about whether it's ethical to eat meat, or whether it's healthier not to eat trans fats for themselves. And that kind of big-government regulators are not the appropriate people to be making that decision.