Has used to sort of convinced folks, their customers, to do things that arent good for them. And so the work of the investors at iccr and the challenge is that on the one hand we are investors. We have pension obligations and, in fact, when you think about investors theres always this tension about shortterm versus longterm. As faithbased investors i would argue we actually have the longest time horizon of eternity. So we take this stuff very, very seriously. And we are trying to not only encourage corporations across a number of mispriced externalities to change how they operate, but we are also absolutely convinced, and i think that the record bears this out, that by paying attention to these mispriced externalities, by sitting down with companies and talking about something that may not look like a profit oriented conversation, that we actually anticipate problems and opportunities in the marketplace. One of the reasons that Corporate America lets us into the boardroom, into the conference room, to raise some of these issues that can be uncomfortable, that can be challenging and that can be on the surface threatening to their business model, threatening to their ideas about profitability, one of the reasons they do that is we are investors who need good returns but we are also investors who represent organizations that are working for the social good. And we want them to do well and do good at the same time. So what does this all have to do with food politics . At iccr we have a group known as the access to nutrition group. We have the odd situation in modern society, of both wrestling with obesity and having lack of access to good, healthy food. We believe very strongly that Corporate America has a huge role in this. In the very same way that in the 70s, folks who made, manufactured and marketed breast milk substitutes in countries where breast milk was the clear best choice for infant morbidity and mortality, that by helping companies to see that their investors might have a different point of view on issues like how they report their political contributions. So the kind of lobbying that marion talked about, right now theres absolutely no requirements for corporations to report to the sec where they are spending their money to support political candidates. And all by the way, corporations are not a whole bunch of things, but one of the things they arent is people. So no matter what Citizens United had to say about the right of corporations to spend public dollars, the reality is shareholders see this regularly so we are Encouraging Companies to report their lobbying expenditures. It if you are a shareholder, if you either own individual shirt or if you have a Retirement Plan with tiaacref are you on mutual fund shares, we need to do one simple action to encourage the kinds of activism at iccr represents in this area. Write a letter to Mutual Fund Company and say, could you tell me how you voted on corporate lobbying disclosure . It will be annoying and troublesome for them, but the good ones will write back. They will give you the answer, let you know and they will say, we voted for disclosure. So first, corporate lobbying, political expenditure disclosure in the world of food politics is extraordinarily important because regulations are shut down time and time again because of this. Investors are looking to companies to improve the nutritional balance of their product portfolios. Whether you are an advocate of ofun foods are better for you food, or whatever, the reality is that in the marketplace, higher nutrition foods are more profitable. It can be shown by some unlikely suspects, and using that this is the case is very, very important as an investor, while youre also trying to accomplish the role of getting some of the less Healthy Options out of the marketplace. Strengthening commitment to responsible marketing. Companies are very, very clever about how the market unhealthy product for photos but again, around the idea of choice, and theyre trying to sell the product and make a buck. But there are practices and standards that are being developed. Marion works very hard on some of these things, and as consumers we can make our voices known by what we buy but we talk to and how we advocate. Expanding access to healthy choices. One of the things that a valuesbased investors do is not only look at the companies they buy in their stock portfolio, but also start to look at to whom they lend money. And so, for example, in many, many urban neighborhoods where there are food deserts, there are more and more companies, there are more and more investors particularly in the community in which i work that are aggregating money to fund high quality agribusiness, to find nutritional stores, to fund all kinds of development i think in detroit the city of detroit which is my hometown, you see particular emphasis their, and then finally, and this is something that is very familiar to the Public Health community, labeling. How our products labeled . How easy are they to decode . If youre going to make the argument that were in the business of Consumer Choice and someone wants to buy a soda and what did like 47,000 ounces of it in one cup, we should at least help them make the decision. So good front of package labeling, things like the Healthy Heart check, the american heart associations heart check labeling. These kinds of techniques Encouraging Companies to take them on is part of what iccr and its members do. So i will end with there are huge limitations as investors to engage a company, but what i will say is that if you have a pension plan, if you invest in mutual funds, if you have a bank account in any of those areas you have a second place to let your voice be known. And there are lots and lots of techniques that are available. I encourage you to look at a website to see some of them. There is a wonderful tension between investors, movement people, and the corporations in which they engage. And we can do a lot together by mobilizing capital, mobilizing investor voices and advocates. Thank you for your attention applaud that. [applause] thank you, laura. Thank you, mary and. And thank you all for coming. It such an honor to be with all of you tonight. In Public Health weve learned that every Society Faces a Health Threat that are distinct, political and economic range. The United States and increasing the whole world, that threat comes from chronic diseases and injuries. Just a few numbers tell the story. Chronic diseases cost seven out of every 10 deaths in the United States, and 49 of americans have want him or chronic diseases which account for three out of every 4 we spend on health care. Thats nearly 7900 a year for every american with chronic disease. By 2030, chronic diseases such as heart disease, cancer, stroke and diabetes will cause more than three quarters of all deaths in the world and their cause for the World Economy over the next two decades is estimated at 47 trillion. Injuries are the of the leading cause of death and visibly both in u. S. Globally and especially for young people. Global annual road traffic crash deaths are projected to increase from 1. 2 million in 2002 to 2. 1 million in 2030, primarily due to increased Motor Vehicle fatalities associate with Economic Growth and low and middle income countries. Road crashes injure up to 50 Million People a year and children are frequent victims. In the second half of the 20th century, violence and suicide became increasingly important causes of death in young people, contributing between a quarter and a third of deaths in young men aged 10 to 24 in all regions of the world. By the early 21st century injuries especially from cars and guns were the dominant cause of death among young women and men in most parts of the world. The conventional explanation for these increases is growing affluence, and changing lifestyles. And, of course, in part thats true. In epidemiology our task is to uncover the cause of the causes, to go a little deeper so we can find more effective prevention strategies. In lethal but legal i make the case that the fundamental cause of the rising burden of chronic disease and injury is the emergence of what i call the corporate consumption complex, borrowing from president eisenhowers 1961 warning that the militaryindustrial complex that emerged after world war ii posed a danger to our democracy and well being. I show in the beginning of the 1970s a network of consumer corporation, banks, trade associations, Public Relation firms and bought scientists and politicians coalesced to reassert authority over our politics and economy. The corporate consumption complex solidifies in response to changes in the Global Economy and the consumer and environmental movements of the 60s and 70s. In the next two decades the complex became the dominant voice in american society. Whats its relevance to health . To advance its agenda and ensure continued Economic Growth, a complex develop the ideology of what i call hyper consumption to buy this item in the promotion of lifestyles, health behaviors, social environments and policies that encourage consumption associate with premature death and preventable illness and injury. In the book i describe how the alcohol, automobile, firearms, food and beverage, pharmaceutical and Tobacco Industries developing marketing, Product Design, lobbying and other practices that have created our current burden of ill health. This analysis offers both bad news and good news. The obvious bad news, if this assessment is right thing in order to achieve the most basic national and Global Health goals, we are going to take on the worlds mightiest economic and political institutions. If we simply want to leave our children and grandchildren a world where they can expect to be as healthy as our generation, if you want to shrink the growing socioeconomic and racial ethnic inequalities in health that characterize our cities, our country and the world, were going to change how corporations design and market their products, how to use science, how the integer with democratic processes and how they damage the environment to sustain life. Heres the good news. Only a few thousand corporations produce most of the worlds goods and services. Shouldnt it be these your to change how not so Many Companies do business that helped the billionaire or so people are overweight to lose pounds or two of the 1. 3 billion smokers in the world to quit and to prevent more young people from taking up the habit, or to the 140 million alcoholics and the many more problem drinkers to cut down the drinking thats killing them . The conventional thinking says that if only people are educated and more responsible, our health would improve. But sadly the empirical evidence doesnt support that you could there are no data to suggest that global increases in tobacco, alcohol, and unhealthy Food Consumption results from growing ignorance and irresponsibility. No evidence that global increases in gun and auto deaths and injuries come from new generation less able to drive or shoot. No evidence that the growing rates of harm from inappropriately used prescription drugs, from more ignorant consumers. There is, however, ample evidence that the relentless marketing of these products, the ubiquity of the ability and their makers political manipulations have contributed significantly to the increased use and harm. In Lewis Carrolls through the looking glass, the white queen urges alice to imagine six impossible things before breakfast. Atlas response, theres no use trying. We cant believe impossible things. I daresay you havent had much practice, replies the queen. When i was your age i always did it have an hour a day. Building a movement that can successfully challenge the corporate consumption complex and its practice of hyper consumption will require imagining and then carrying out for tasks that many today would consider him possible. So for the next five minutes i want us to practice the impossible thinking. First, we need to provide what past successes in changing corporate practices and extract the lessons, the practical lessons that can guide the creation of a more powerful, cohesive, and successful movement. Our success in creating the food and Drug Administration in 1906, thank you, upton sinclair, for your expose in the jungle and cutting Pesticide Use in our food in the 1960s. Thank you, rachel carson, are two examples of how scientists, writers and social movements force government and corporations to act differently. From these and other successful campaigns we can extract lessons for picking up a successful movement. These lessons can guide practice for an emerging movement to engage peoples minds and emotions, to invite new partners and prepare leaders to take on the task of confronting Corporate Power. Impossible task and number two, we need to construct and popularize an ideology of health and democracy that can successfully compete with the corporate consumption ideology and its prescription of hyper consumption. For many people around the world, hyper consumption is the norm. The very definition of modern society. Alternatives are seen as primitive, undesirable or at best utopian and unattainable. In this view since few would choose to give up this lifestyle voluntarily, the only possible route to a different future is a dreaded nanny state in which governments, hectors its citizens and deprive them of lights publishers pledges but its a tribute to the corporate consumption complex that these beliefs are so common, to persuade people that they lifestyle that brings many of its inherent premature death, painful illness, horrible something, dependable entries, is highly desirable is really a remarkable achievement. Any movement that wants to mount a successful challenge to hyper consumption must offer attractive alternative patterns of consumption. Creating alternatives to hyper consumption requires two simultaneous processes. We need to reduce the demand for unhealthy products and reducing the supply and also reduces the support and promotion of these products. Movement organizers often debate which should be primary, working on the supply side or the demand side. But in my view the most effective approach is to pursue both, reducing the demand and the supply of unhealthy products. And to do those things simultaneously with successes on one front reenforcing advances on the other. Impossible task number three, we must weaken and then dismantle the corporate consumption complex. That powerful alliance of corporations and their supporters that dominate politics, the economy and society. This most impossible dream hits up against Maggie Thatchers famous dictum, that there is no alternative to corporate capitalism. Inevitable as the air we breathe. That is as long as corporations occupy our mind, our media, our shopping malls and our political processes, they will have an advantage in shaping patterns of consumption and discouraging healthier, more sustainable alternatives. Dusts depicting corporations from their privileged position is an essential task. And how can we serve eviction notices in place with the corporate consumption complex now exercises its power, our consciousness, our communities and our political processes . In the book i describe some of the ways that activists, Health Professionals, governments and movements have reduced the power of corporations to shape the environment, behaviors and lifestyles that influence our health. These responses are as varied as the Africanamerican Community group in philadelphia that forced Reynolds Tobacco Company to end test marketing of a new cigarette, uptown, marketed to black. They did it by organizing a coalition of civil rights, health, religious and Community Groups to say no, not in our community. We claim the right to say no for our community. Another example, the California AirResources Board standing up to the global Auto Industry to set more stringent standards for air pollution and fuel efficiency. To the recent apparent success of a coalition of labor and environmental and Health Groups to end fasttrack approval of a transpacific partnership, corporate written trade deal that would give me rights to the Tobacco Industry and drug companies, and a very important victory that they seem to be successful in stopping congress from giving fasttrack approval for the. Each of these campaigns led to one small victory. Woven together they can lead to a Tipping Point of change. The antidote to, there is alternative, is the message another world is possible. As Public Health professionals, as researchers, as public intellectuals we have to use every ounce of our imagination to bring that message to wider audiences, in practical, respectful, and maybe even entertaining ways. The final Impossible Task is to weave these strands of activism into a whole movement. To do so we need to forge in practice a policy agenda that offers a vision of a healthier, more democratic future and unites diverse individuals and organizations working to change the role of corporations in our society. And to provoke an ongoing dialogue on this, i suggest six possible planks for such an agenda come and, of course, go into more detail in the book. First, expand consumers right to know and corporations duty to disclose the Health Consequences of corporate practices and products. Second, require corporations to pay for the health and environmental consequences of their products and practices. Third, establish Global Standards for Product Design and marketing. Shame on us that our success in controlling the Tobacco Industry here in the United States is going to lead to a billion premature tobacco deaths, mostly in africa and asia and latin america in the 21st century. And lets make sure that when work on the Food Industry and we dont allow that to happen in the same way. Fourth, we need to restore Public Ownership of signs and technology. Fifth, we need to restore the visible hand of government and Public Health protection. And finally we need to prevent corporations from using their money and power to manipulate democratic processes your and in the book i provide a rationale and some samples for each of these planks to as the movement makes progress in achieving these goals, the lack of imagination that Maggie Thatcher prescribed may dissipate. As organizers learned how to broaden and deepen their appeals, the movement will create new opportunities with success. Movements never grow in linear predictable fashion. Cs lewis wrote, one moment there had been nothing but darkness. The next moment a thousand thousand points of light leap out there today, thousands of organizations around the world are lighting up the many paths that can lead to an end of corporate practices that promote hyper consumption, premature death in preventable illness and injury. We dont know yet which paths are dead ends and which will lead to transformative Tipping Points that will show another world is possible. But what we do know is that business as usual will ensure growing health burdens, increasing inequality, rising environmental damage, and degenerating democracy. Will our society grasp its opportunity to chart a different future . The choice is ours. Thank you. [applause] well, a riveting and challenging presentation to hopefully it will open the door for a lot of discussion tonight. I was in a car, and and came at me something that gave me such a physical reaction that i had to think about it. It was an ad for an ecigarette. It had been so long since ive heard on the radio and add for a cigarette of any color, nature, form, epc, or otherwise. And it reminded me that what nick is suggesting to us is an ongoing and continuous endeavor. There is no stop. There is no in point. This is something that we have to be vigilant about. We have to be sure said about. We have to be consistent about. The impact is greater today because of the Communications Industry that spreads messages very effectively amongst us and influences people in a very direct way. Thank you for being vigilant. Thank you for being consistent. Thank you for being forceful. These are the kinds of attitudes that we need. The floor is open to your questions, please. Please come up to the microphone. Please introduce yourself and we will try to find the right respond to your question. My name is natalie ferguson. I work for a citigroup and Capital Markets division so this is more directed toward you, laura. My question is how to make change with any company. We are issuing debt, issuing stocks but how do you make sure you do it for systemic companies . How to change the culture from within when youre talking about the risk framework or any of that . Oh, thats such a good question and i could give such a long answer. To honor the question would require a hold of the panel. But let me give you some quick ideas and then a little bit of followup. Theres a wonderful paper the that was done by behavioral economist at the London School of economics called understanding voice, and it talks about what the secret sauce is at iccr, how it is that we have found internal advocates within companies and how we have helped support them with facts and businesses instead. As a whole bunch of other organizations that can do that but i think the trick is, first of all, not forget what the corporation and its culture is about. So to come added, even if you as we are coming and many of these questions from kind of doing the right thing, if i may even use the and word, morality standpoint, it jus just a right, stop doing it, cut it out. Making the Business Case in a really thoughtful, pragmatic way is incredibly powerful. There are a lot of people that can help you with that. I think beyond that, having an inside outside game, having folks like advocates and folks like investors who will take the heat so that you can sort of say, we had it happen all the time in corporate dialogues where we will have this sort of tense conversation about changes we want a company to make, and then we will leave the meeting and someone from Senior Management will come up and say, thank heavens you said that. I cant say that but you can. So i think those are just two techniques that can really create a lot of Energy Around change, making good strong case and having an inside outside game to have your back. I hope that helps yo to look ate paper because its actually really good. Good evening. Thank you, i have my book on order and im ready to read. I am a registered dietitian and i know within the academy of nutrition and dietetics one of the issues is kind of some people feel like corporate sponsorship working together with corporations is kind of an immoral issue and some people feel like its okay that you have to work with you cant be like a separate entity. So even within that organization theres really a lot of debate that there are a lot of partnerships with corporations even when ive gone to some expos, you know, i kind of feel a certain way about it. But do you have dietitians that work also within the corporation as well and they also owned the good products and also the maybe not so good. So i dont know kind of one way really speak to kind of partnerships. I know that we have to have a multilevel approach but this is kind of a big issue especially within that organization. Thank you. I dont even know where to begin on that one. Im not a dietitian so im sticking assembly is outside the organization, but its an organization that is completely sold out to the Food Industry. What that is done to the credibility of dietitians is really difficult because they dont, although there are many dietitians within the organization who are extremely concerned about this they are greatly outnumbered. And also theres a long history of involvement with corporations. When i wrote my book trend well, one of my unstated goals food politics, one was to get the academy for institution of dietetics to stop issuing factions that were sponsored by food corporations. Because you could look at the fact sheet and just look at the topic and look at who this bond was and you would no exactly what it would say. So if monsanto sponsored is going to be about how genetically modified foods were terrific. If cocacola sponsored it it was going to be about how sodas were good for you, and so forth. And im not exaggerating either a much. It is an organization within the academy now called dietitians for professional integrity. They have a website, and what theyre trying to do is to organize items at least set some limits of what the Food Companies are allowed to do. And i hope they succeed. To my mind one of the questions for us as Health Professionals is what are the consequences of our interaction with corporations. And i think is often the case where we are being used to whitewash products. We are given a very defined set of questions. I talking about some about the Scientific Advisory board for pepsico, and they were asked a set of questions about redesigning products, about supporting physical activity, but not should we be making sugary beverages and that should be our main product. And it would seem to me we have some responsibility for the consequences of the device and i think the credibility question is also very important. We want to be a round to be trusted by the public for the next group. So many Family Physicians which their membership in the American Academy of Family Practice when you took a big grant from cocacola to promote the valley of the physical activity. I would have been one of those leaving. I really appreciate the panel and the book is extraordinary i have a cynical question. Its a question that always is pushed on me by my own students when i talk about the need for organizing. They always pick up on the difference between changing the world one person at a time versus trying to do something about the corporation, but they always point out that some of the companies that we are dealing with really can change their behaviors because theyre selling a deadly product. Its not that they can substitute a different kind of pain. Thats not toxic or the painter using on their cars. Its a question that they still lead for this oil or the cell sugar, and thats all they do. So im just wondering, if you could give me an answer for that . Basically something that can talk about how we can address the problem of toxic companies, companies that just are not going to be able, you can get in ecigarette as horrible as that is, ecigarette on the market. I guess the second question is how to address the of the big question which was a disgrace, he said not to stop, not to just change one person at a time, and you say do it by corporation, and in this unwelcome are going to change a thousand corporations to stop Global Warming . So i had these did, ma how to go about even addressing the kind of, that kind of problem that our students have embedded in them, citizens like us that doesnt allow us to give answers . At the risk of saying this to a historian, i think i would say look at history. Would have the improvements in Public Health in this country come from . When have we seen the most dramatic decline in death . And its one society is acting together to make clean water available, to make healthy food available. Those in the individual choices but those were collective choices. And to my mind, the question isnt should corporations be more responsible. I think the Corporate Responsibility efforts are one tactic among many to bring about changes. The ultimate question is whats the role of government and whats the role of the market . And i think almost everybody agrees theres some role for government and some role for market. And so the question is, where do we draw the line in specific circumstances . The case i make in the book is that at least since the 1970s theres been a really, a radical shift towards the market in making decisions around health. And i think thats the extent of healthy and vibrant democracies. It jeopardizes all of us and so your students who want to have a better world for their kids and grandkids will need to take action now to shift the balance into a more stable and sustainable one. Hi. I just want to follow on that last point i just had a thought about the recent vote on the farm bill. I think we were all talking about how, you know, we went from a period of hunger coming to talk about the dust storms in the 30s and became for me period of low or malnutrition to what you could say over nutrition. That was because larger because of the evolution of the agribusiness. So if we want to say back to more family farms and encourage local farmers to grow produce, but then we didnt get that in the farm bill. I guess my question is, would you say that we should all be trying to do more local advocacy around the farm bill . Ibeam, what can we as individuals just a Public Health professional but what can we safely and concisely to to influence the political process around these issues . Run for office. And in addition . Why not consider that . Yeah, no. Im not discounting that at all im guessing, starting tomorrow. Well, i think as, for example, around the farm bill, there are many organizations. I dont think its local or national. I think we do we need to both of those things can afford what theres not one thing we can do. What we learned from tobacco and tobacco some very important success stories, was doing five things for 50 years that helped us to cut smoking rates in this country in half. And it would be a shame if it took us another 50 years to save all those people are going to come down with diabetes as result of our current patterns around unhealthy highfat, high sugar, high salt foods. So i think around nutrition and around food there are people working at the local level to great alternative food systems. There are people pressuring cities to adopt healthier policies and weve seen a lot of changes in city policy. The child nutrition act is coming up for reauthorization in 2015. We will have the important provisions around school food, and there are several groups in new york including city harvest that are mobilizing people. So those are just a few of the opportunities. I find there are too many opportunities, ma we have to decide on the ones that are important to us can but everyone else could find something. And i think the relationship between the two questions as well. The earlier question, a marvelous resonance, and i think that there is a place that we all understand and instinctively. Not to paraphrase yogi berra, but the problem with globalization is that its global. And so as many, many barriers have fallen down, sadly the came to generate lots and lots of profits, just as nick describes how eloquently in his book, sort of shift the impact on vulnerable communities is almost instinct. So the trick in my view, the single most powerful thing and the reason is that although there are lots of technical approaches that investors can take that i focused on this idea of transparency around corporate lobbying and political expenditures, is that we all know instinctively somehow or other what we used to call Multinational Corporation have gotten to a level of power and influence in terms of determining the rules on which we all run our lives that exceeds their purview, that exceeds their sort of institutional obligation to do the right thing. And so i think that one of the most important things in the book is talking about how do we shine a light on that . And we talk a lot about where does the money from . Sort of watching where that flows, whether its as a consumer or whether its really being annoying about things, you know, saying i want to know where youre lobbying money goes. Or i want my government to force companies to say, what exactly are you paying for . One very quick example, during the health care, universal health care debate, we had a number of companies that are willing to publicly make a commitment to a universal right to health care, and then oh, darn, we discovered that they were funding the u. S. Chamber of commerce who was investing tons of money to defeat precisely this very same access question. You quote example after example after example of abuses in vulnerable communities across the wide front of sectors. And so i think its really saying how do we recognize this Corporate Power and influence and what can we as people do about it . If we dont run for office, can we at least ask better questions and get answers . Its kind of the business that i think were all in. Thank you. Seems to be universal agreement you need to run for office. [laughter] i will vote for your. I think we have time for one or two more questions, if any of you have a question, please come to the mic. I wanted to follow up on a couple of questions. Certainly agree with you, nick, the issue is how do we get government to be more effective in controlled some of these abuses. The professor was talking about quite a degree of skepticism. And we see an attack from the right clearly on government as an institution. You cite examples in the book of cases that can be used in that class, whatever, to say these are government actions that affect dramatic and positive health protective benefits, and people can look at those examples and see how government is used properly . I think the California AirResources Board, which i mentioned before, is a good example of that. A locally based state agency, you know, bureaucrats, who took seriously their mandate because people in california cared about the environment. Californias love affair with the automobile turned to a lot of people coughing in los angeles and not being able to breathe. So there was pressure on State Government to do something, and so the California AirResources Board took that seriously, took that mandate seriously and really set standards that are now Global Standards for emission control. And that seems to me an example of a government doing its job, having support from the committee, using Research Evidence and having fun and being willing to stand up to the industry that it pursued numerous times and theyve been victorious because they have science on their side. Lucky last question. A number of us of course in the audience have been looking at the cvs recent decision to stop selling cigarettes and thinking about it, is this a ploy, or is it an opportunity for us to maybe get in there and say, well, what else are they saying at ces thats not good for our health, like some of the awful food that they sell in cvs and other drugstores . So i wondered if nick or marion might have some thoughts about lessons from the cvs thing that can be drawn and maybe some cautions as well, what we should be on the look out for when we didnt with a Corporation Like that. I would just say since im on Public Record as saying that he thinks they ought to look at sodas, too, i dont know how the cvs thing came about. I dont know whether it was a result of anti does anybody here know . You do . How did it happen . Held us have happened. Father Michael Crosby has been an antismoking advocate since the early 70s. Has very diligently taken his share every year to the annual meeting of cvs corporation, talking to them about marketing tobacco but theres a lot of press out there right now that will follow the story if you do a little search on iccr and cvs. You will see that theres been a huge history of investor activism signing buy one share. Spent and that i think was reinforced and seconded by a powerful citizens of Public HealthTobacco Movement that make it realistic. Because shareholders have been doing this for 20, 30, 40 years. You know, which is part of building that momentum. I think we now need to look to the other pharmacy change, walgreens has more stores than cvs. And we need to be going after the highfat, high salt, high sugar foods that cvs sells. They have said that they believed that they were a healthy institution and was incompatible with their business strategy. If thats true then promoting diabetes is also incompatible with that business strategy. And so we ought to be doing th that. And i think it speaks, theres good Scientific Evidence that the ubiquity of unhealthy product contributes to overconsumption, more consumption. If youre fewer alcohol outlets, fewer tobacco outlets or fewer food outlets, that people consume less. And so i think it shows what a movement can do and its a good sign. And with that i think we need to end and maybe people can go back and consume a little more wine and cheese and we can maybe talk for a few more minutes. [applause] [inaudible conversations] is there a Nonfiction Author or book you would like to see featured on booktv . Sin doesnt email booktv cspan. Org, or tweet us at twitter. Com of tv. Steven watts talked about the life and Lasting Impact of dale carnegie, author of how to win friends and influence people and other book. How to win friends has sold over 39 copies since been published in 1937 and was named the seventh most influential book in the neck and history by the library of congress. This is about 45 minutes. So, tonight were really lucky to have steven watts back. Steven watts has been called i a another good biographer, a biographer of john dewey, the plutarch of modern america because of his books on walt disney, whose book on hugh hefner which he talked about here in the library, and henry ford, and now dale carnegie. He is a professor of history at the university of missouri, former chair of the History Department at the university, and dale carnegie, i have a lecture that make it periodically able to get have and people forget ive given it before and then i give it in which the title of it is missouri, the center of the literary universe. We talk about t. S. Eliot and mark twain, talk about things that people dont know, the best selling cookbook of all times, written in st. Louis. I was like to refer to the first sentence of the First Edition as the criticisms in american literature, stand facing the