What do Big Pharma ads on TV and Diet Coke have in common? Both are targets of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the new head of the Health and Human Services department.
In his early efforts to press the “Make America Healthy Again,” Kennedy has singled out two seemingly different issues: those ubiquitous television ads for pharmaceuticals, and whether people on federal food assistance programs should be able to buy soda and junk food on the taxpayer dime.
Popping open a can of Diet Coke to open the latest episode of The Drill Down, host Peter Schweizer savors the taste of crony capitalism.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s campaign to swiftly bar the use of food stamps to buy soda is fueling tensions between his team and the Agriculture Department. Of course, the American Beverage Association, a trade group that lobbies on behalf of “Big Soda,” is firing back, too.
HHS wants the Trump administration to approve petitions from the governors of Kentucky and West Virginia to ban soda purchases from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP) program for the first time. But the USDA controls the program, not HHS. So that sets up a conflict, and for the beverage industry the stakes are very high.
The SNAP program costs $100 billion per year and serves about 42 million Americans.
Co-host Eric Eggers says that Coca-Cola would see a 2.5 percent decline in worldwide sales if sugary sodas were no longer covered by SNAP nationwide. Coca-Cola is just one of many makers of soda. Moreover, about 25 percent of all SNAP program spending is done at the cash registers at Walmart, so its influence will be felt as well.
The show also takes on another perennial issue and MAHA target — pharmaceutical advertising on television.
Every American is used to hearing and seeing ads for miracle drugs when watching television, especially news programs and sports. They often show bright, happy old people whirling around in golf carts or briskly walking while a voiceover speed-reads a cocktail of terrifying potential side effects.
“I’m generally a free-speech guy, but what is the purpose of these ads? They are meant to create demand for new, expensive drugs,” Schweizer points out.
Here also is the brewing conflict with those who make money based on those ads — media companies that sell those ad spaces to Big Pharma. About 30 percent of the ads sold for any news show on TV are for pharmaceuticals. Many people have noticed how generally easy the news media at those networks go on pharmaceutical companies.
Among western nations, only the U.S. and New Zealand even allow pharmaceutical ads on TV. And any effort to ban them from the air would certainly raise First Amendment questions, as well as TV network ad revenue concerns.
Eggers notes that it was a change to the law in the 1990s that has led to the pharma ad boom. The government used to require that every potential side effect had to be disclosed in an ad touting a drug’s benefit. In 1997, the law was changed so that only the most serious potential side effects have to be mentioned.
For investigative journalists like Schweizer and Eggers, who follow the money, the problem with both sugary drinks and pharmaceutical sales pitches is that the money they are pursuing will come from third parties. Having the taxpayer subsidize the purchase of obesity-linked treats such as soda and snack foods discourages low-income SNAP beneficiaries from making better choices at the store. In the same way, the “talk to your doctor” messaging of the pharmaceutical ads is based on the knowledge that prescription drug costs are borne less by individuals than by their healthcare insurers. Yet, the thrust of the ads, as Eggers says, encourages people to self-diagnose.
“It’s exploiting the third-party payer system,” he says. “If they leave soda in the SNAP program, should they allow cigarette purchases, too?” asks Schweizer.
For more from Peter Schweizer, subscribe to The DrillDown podcast.
