frisky wrote:
Under the leadership of Schroeder, the foundation played a major role in curbing tobacco use in the US, spending $446 million from 1991 to 2003 toward that goal, and it plans to use those experiences to shape its attack on childhood obesity.
Let's see, now, the tobacco industry spends $27 million every day on marketing within the US.
That industry's efforts built on decades of PR and marketing research done by the best that could be bought on Madison Avenue before the government slapped their patties for focusing on "recruiting" children.
So, during a given 17-day period the industry's marketing budget exceeds the entire expenditure of RWJF over the course of 13 years.
RWJF was trying to work out how best to address the problems of opposing an addiction-driven juggernaut and identify the best partners they could find in that effort.
If you are suggesting that the playing field wasn't level, I believe I can agree with you.
If you are suggesting that there is something wrong because a foundation whose purpose is to promote public health would fund efforts to reduce the damage done by what is globally recognized as among the most significant threats to public health, I think you are blatantly wrong.
If you are suggesting that there is something wrong when such a foundation uses what it has learned in fighting one such threat to public health to guide its approach to battling another threat to public health, I have to wonder why you are so opposed to the improvement of public health and/or why you think a philanthropic organization should have to disregard anything they learn along the way and start from scratch every time they decide to address a problem.
RWJF was not the only player involved in bringing down the smoking rate during the period mentioned.