April 25, 2024

Campaign Spotlight: This Effort Opens a New Window, Every Month

Usually, this article is devoted to a campaign. Today, it is being devoted to almost a hundred.

Since 2003, a health care company named EHE International has donated the space in a window below its office at 10 Rockefeller Plaza — between 48th and 49th Streets in Midtown Manhattan, next to the Nintendo World store — to nonprofit organizations, mostly in the realm of health and wellness. Each organization gets the window for a month, setting up displays featuring elements like signs, posters and photographs, along with video clips that run on a monitor.

EHE, which specializes in annual health examinations and other preventive health care, estimates the value of the donated space each year at $600,000 to $1.2 million. Several dozen organizations have been selected to use the space, some more than once.

Among those that have appeared in the window are the American Cancer Society, the American Diabetes Association, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation of America, the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, the Hartford Institute for Geriatric Nursing, the Histiocytosis Association of America and the Light of Life Foundation.

Also making appearances have been Lighthouse International, the Muscular Dystrophy Association, the National Ovarian Cancer Coalition, the National Tourette Syndrome Association, the Prevent Blindness Foundation, the Shade Foundation, Stand Up to Cancer and the Tuberous Sclerosis Alliance.

One campaign that gets the window regularly — the Heart Truth initiative for women’s heart health, known for its red dress symbol and sponsored by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute — appears there because EHE has been supporting the campaign for many years.

The organization selected for the window in December — when foot traffic is multiplied as visitors come to see the Christmas tree at Rockefeller Center — is typically related to children and children’s health; they include the National Partnership for Immunization and Toys for Tots.

This month, the window has been turned over to the Arms Wide Open Childhood Cancer Foundation. The window carries entreaties like “Give the gift of hope” and “Pediatric cancer: Help us find a cure.”

EHE has had the window since the early 1990s, says Deborah McKeever, president of EHE, when the company moved to Rockefeller Center from an office at Madison Avenue and 50th Street.

The landlord “threw the window in with the lease,” she adds, adding that EHE recently renewed the lease for 25 years.

Initially, EHE “had our own messaging” in the window, Ms. McKeever says, related to the company’s status as “the largest physical exam provider in the nation.”

After a while came the realization that “we can talk about physical exams all day,” she adds, “and then what are you going to say?” From that came the idea of “giving a gift” of the window display space to organizations that “could otherwise not afford it,” Ms. McKeever says.

EHE works with a public relations agency in New York, Danielides Communications, on the applications from the organizations to use the window. The organizations can have professional assistance to decorate the window or take care of it themselves.

For instance, says Joan Shey, president at the Light of Life Foundation in Monroe Township, N.J., which had the window last month, she worked with Barb Salzman of the Hatch Creative Studio in New York.

The window for the Light of Life Foundation, which is devoted to helping those with thyroid cancer, brought to life its long-running public service campaign, which carries the theme “Check your neck.”

The window included a clock with the legend “Time to check your neck for thyroid cancer” and, in a Dali-esque touch, rows of mannequin heads with clock hands attached to the upper parts of their necks.

Ms. Shey started the foundation in 1997 when she was being treated for thyroid cancer.

“After two years of feeling alone and isolated, I woke up one night and said that if I save one person from this, I will have made a difference,” she says.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/business/media/this-effort-opens-a-new-window-every-month.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

What’s Between The Bun?

Don’t count on the label to help much. Those pricey “natural” and “organic” hot dogs often contain just as much or more of the cancer-linked preservatives nitrate and nitrite as that old-fashioned Oscar Mayer wiener.

And almost no one knows it because of arcane federal rules that make the labels on natural and organic hot dogs, luncheon meats and bacon virtually impossible to decipher when it comes to preservatives. That includes products made from beef, pork, turkey and chicken.

“If you actually surveyed consumers going out of their way to buy no-nitrate products, they’d be very surprised to learn that there’s plenty of nitrates in there,” said Bruce Aidells, a chef and cookbook author. “It’s very misleading.” In a role reversal, food manufacturers are now pushing the federal government for more truthful labeling that would allow them to tell consumers clearly that some products contain nitrate and nitrite, just from natural rather than synthetic sources. The current rules bizarrely require products that derive the preservatives from natural sources to prominently place the words “Uncured” and “No nitrates or nitrites added” on the label even though they are cured and do contain the chemicals.

“Nitrite is nitrite and consumers should be aware of what they’re eating,” said Marji McCullough, director of nutritional epidemiology for the American Cancer Society, which recommends that people reduce consumption of processed meats because of studies that link them to colon cancer.

The United States Department of Agriculture says it is aware of the labeling problem and may take a fresh look. “We feel strongly that labels should help consumers make informed decisions and we are open to reviewing additional information to enhance accuracy in labeling,” said a spokesman for the department. Nitrate and nitrite have been used for centuries to cure meat, giving products like hot dogs, bacon and ham their characteristic flavor and color and killing the bacteria that causes botulism. Today, conventional meat packers typically use a synthesized version known as sodium nitrite.

But companies that label their products natural or organic must use natural sources of the preservatives. They usually employ celery powder or celery juice, which are high in nitrate. A bacterial culture is used to convert that to nitrite. The resulting chemicals are virtually identical to their synthetic cousins. When the products are packaged, both conventional and natural products contain residual amounts.

A study published earlier this year in The Journal of Food Protection found that natural hot dogs had anywhere from one-half to 10 times the amount of nitrite that conventional hot dogs contained. Natural bacon had from about a third as much nitrite as a conventional brand to more than twice as much.

The current U.S.D.A. labeling rules require natural products to indicate there may be naturally occurring nitrate or nitrite, but it often appears in small print. When combined with the more prominently displayed “No nitrates or nitrites added” banner, many consumers are left scratching their heads.

“The most consistent feedback we get is, ‘I don’t understand what that means,’ “ said Linda Boardman, president of Applegate Farms, the leading brand of natural and organic processed meats. “It’s confusing and it’s not adding anything to the consumer decision-making process.”

Applegate and other natural companies have proposed alternate wording to the U.S.D.A. in the past without success. They say they are confident their products offer enough other benefits — all natural ingredients, meeting the standards for the humane treatment of animals, for example — that it is best to be upfront with consumers about the preservatives. Ms. Boardman said tests showed the amount of nitrite and nitrate in Applegate products was similar to conventional brands.

Consumer advocates agree the problem does not lie with the meat companies. “We see the problem lying squarely with U.S.D.A.,” said Urvashi Rangan, technical policy director of Consumers Union.

Since the 1970s, concerns about the health effects of nitrate and nitrite have focused on the potential for nitrite to combine with meat protein to form carcinogenic substances called nitrosamines.

The U.S.D.A. responded by limiting the amount of nitrate and nitrite that goes into processed meats, and today they contain far less than they did 40 years ago.

But since the health concerns first emerged, scientists have gained more understanding of the role of nitrate and nitrite in human health and discovered they have benefits, for example, in the healthy functioning of the cardiovascular and immune systems.

Some in the meat industry have seized on these discoveries to dismiss as outdated the link between nitrite in processed meat and cancer. They insist processed meats are safe.

But many scientists say the evidence of health risks remains convincing. While the occasional hot dog or bacon is probably O.K., they point out that high levels of salt and saturated fat in processed meats also contribute to health problems.

“What’s very clear is that consuming processed meats is related to higher risk of diabetes, heart attacks and colon cancer,” said Dr. Walter C. Willet, chairman of the nutrition department of the Harvard School of Public Health. “If you tweak the cured meat a little bit like some of these new products, that’s no guarantee that’s going to make it any better.”

And that weekend weenie roast? George L. Siemon , the chief executive of Organic Prairie, an organic meat processor, said that when he tried selling meats with no nitrates from any source, they didn’t taste the same and no one wanted them.

“We tried the non-anything,” he said. “It just didn’t work for the customer.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=a71ece639767c650bd2bad7361545ed6

Charitable Giving Rose Last Year for First Time Since 2007

Individuals, companies and philanthropic institutions made gifts and pledges totaling an estimated $290.89 billion in 2010, an increase of 2.1 percent on an inflation-adjusted basis over a revised estimate of $284.85 billion the year before.

The increase was the first since 2007, when the recession started and led to the biggest decline in giving in more than 40 years.

“I was greatly encouraged that giving showed this slight uptick in 2010,” said Edith H. Falk, chief executive of Campbell Company, a fund-raising advisory firm, and chairwoman of the foundation, an arm of the Giving Institute. “We all know how difficult the prior two years had been because we experienced it personally in the work we do.”

Still, if giving were to continue to grow at the same pace it did last year, it would be five to six years before it reached its 2007 peak of $326.57 billion. “One of the challenges charities face is whether this represents the new normal or whether, if the economy starts growing more robustly again, giving also will grow more vigorously,” said Patrick M. Rooney, executive director of the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, which does the research and analysis that goes into the report.

Philanthromax, a fund-raising consulting firm, estimates that total charitable donations will increase 4.3 percent this year on a nominal basis.

Rob Mitchell, chief executive of the firm and formerly chief of the American Cancer Society Foundation, said although giving rose 8.3 percent through April, it most likely would start slowing and begin to decline in October, November and December, typically the strongest fund-raising season. “We’re looking at 2011 as the tale of two halves, with the first half of the year being quite strong and declining giving in the second half,” Mr. Mitchell said.

Neal Litvack, chief development officer at the American Red Cross, said its core fund-raising over the last six months, which excludes disaster-related giving, was up roughly 10 percent, a much faster pace than it experienced in the first half of its fiscal year, which ends June 30. The organization expects to raise a total of $839 million this year, compared to $1.06 billion in the previous fiscal year, which includes the outpouring of gifts to support relief work after the Haitian earthquake.

“We’re expecting fund-raising revenue to be up at least 5 percent year over year in fiscal 2012,” Mr. Litvack said. “It’s bold, but we’ve gotten some great television coverage this spring” — of Red Cross work to address tornado– and flood-related disasters — “and are using some new technologies internally that should help us make that goal.”

This year, Giving USA made adjustments to the methodology it used to estimate charitable donations, which had been criticized in the last two years for producing overly rosy estimates. The changes decreased its original estimates of total giving in 2008 and 2009 to an inflation-adjusted $303.76 billion and $284.85 billion, respectively, from $307.65 billion and $303.75 billion.

“The economic literature suggest that in what is a period of greater uncertainty and economic volatility it made more sense to take a look at the model and make some adjustments,” Mr. Rooney said.

Giving by individuals, which accounts for the bulk of total charitable giving, rose just 1.1 percent to $211.77 billion, compared with corporate giving, which rose 8.8 percent to $15.29 billion. Corporate giving figures include values placed by companies on non-cash gifts like drugs.

KaBOOM!, an organization that builds playgrounds to help increase physical activity among children, benefited from that increase, raising about the same amount in 2010 as it did in 2009, when it took in $19.1 million, according to its chief financial officer, Gerry Megas.

This year, donations are up in part because of the publication of “KaBOOM! How One Man Built a Movement to Save Play,” a memoir by Darrell Hammond, the organization’s founder, which has raised awareness of the charity. “Darrell’s book has opened up some more attention to the cause, and that’s been good for us,” Mr. Megas said.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=8dfd43eeb956e2f140f62922e1468c71