The National Park Service and its foundation should not be entering into partnerships with alcoholic beverage companies, as those agreements disregard "public health and puts youth at risk of dangerous drinking behavior," nearly 70 groups and organizations said in a letter to the agency's leadership.
Under draft revisions to "Director's Order 21," which outlines what is and isn't allowable when it comes to accepting donations and fundraising for the national parks, the National Park Foundation could continue to work with alcoholic beverage makers as sponsors. That provision should be removed before the document is finalized, a coalition of 66 health groups said in a letter (attached below) to the National Park Service.
“As organizations dedicated to protecting public health – especially the health of children and adolescents – we are deeply troubled by the stated plans of the National Park Service to allow permanent partnerships with alcohol companies,” the groups stated.
The groups urge the NPS to maintain its current policy, which states that corporate campaigns “must be conducted with high standards that maintain the integrity of the NPS and its partners” and does not allow partnerships with alcohol or tobacco companies.
“America’s families rely on our national parks as a refuge from harmful commercial messages,” said Diane Riibe, chair of the U.S. Alcohol Policy Alliance. “Our kids see enough alcohol marketing in their daily lives without the National Park Service piling on even more. They need to rethink this wrongheaded policy change.”
The groups maintain that as a public agency, the Park Service should act in the best interest of public health and safety. Ample research has found a significant and consistent connection between excessive underage drinking and the number of alcohol advertisements to which youth are exposed, the groups noted. Allowing alcohol brand logos within parks, as currently is being done with Anheuser-Busch, a sponsor of the National Park Service's centennial, could encourage underage drinking and damage the reputation of national parks as safe spaces for children and families, the groups said.
“It is dangerous and irresponsible for the National Park Service to ignore the volumes of research linking alcohol advertising to alcohol use. Moreover, it is contradictory for the NPS to propose this dramatic policy change when numerous federal agencies, states and local communities, and law enforcement are battling to prevent tragedies involving underage drinking and drunk driving,” said Bill Bronrott, former Maryland state legislator and past chair of the House Special Committee on Drug and Alcohol Abuse. “This proposal should be immediately abandoned.”
Andrew Pucher, president of the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence added, “Our member organizations across the U.S. deal every day with the ravages of addiction to alcohol and other drugs. We know that these problems most often start in childhood and adolescence. We do not want to expose our young people to more alcohol marketing, especially in our national parks.”
The letter sent Thursday is the latest salvo in a campaign to oppose the National Park Service’s broader plans under DO21. A petition drive led by CREDO Action, Public Citizen’s Commercial Alert and the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood has garnered 215,000 signatures demanding that the NPS abandon its plans under DO21 to permit corporate sponsorships, naming rights and branding in national parks. The groups analyzed the comments and found that 78 percent of people who filed public comments with the NPS oppose DO21. Commenters said they visit national parks to get away from the noise of marketing and consumerism, and many are concerned that corporate recognition in parks could result in corporate-influenced park policy.
Comments
As a great-grandmother who has been an ardent promoter of the benefits of our National Park System for more than two decades, I have never seen the level of decadence and corruption as is currently being promoted by the current leadership of the Park Service, specifically in DO21. Worse, the silence of many who are supposed to stand up for the protection and integrity of our park system "for the benefit of this and future generations" leaves the vast majority of Anericans unaware of the threat. All of us who know should use every means at our disposal to make the public know, why it's important and demand that the director releases the final document before the end of his troubled administration in January when it may be too late to affect it. Teddy Roosevelt warned that the time would come when we would have to prove whether we are worthy of our national parks and publicly-owned lands. I think that time is now.
I second Audrey's motion.
These park supporters are clamouring for more money for the parks yet they are willing to forego substantial funds to figuratively repeal the 21st Amendment. Removing the parks association with alchohol companies will have absolutely no impact on public health or youth drinking behavior. Cutting off their nose to spite their face. As useless as the plastic bottle bans.
The Congress refuses to adequately fund the NPS and the NPS spends a vast amount of the money that is appropriated on mandated planning, administration, and other bureaucratic nonsense. So those of us desperately trying to accomplish the mission took money where we could find it. Gratefully. Companies like Coca Cola, Morgan Stanley, and (most of all) Toyota, made possible a phenomenal amount of great work.
So entering into funding partnership with a company that sells alcohol is now tantamout to the NPS selling alcohol to minors in perpetuity? Sorry. That doesn't logically follow. Should we also then take umbrage that Coca Cola has been giving money to the NPF for the better part of 40 years and commence hand-wringing about childhood obesity? I also note that CREDO, who has been peddling this initiative, has provided exactly NO real alternatives to cover the funding shortfall should all commercial vendors not be permitted to help fund the NPS. This is a dumb fight to pick and stupid hill to die on.
We clearly don't need a Prohibiton National Park; we live with it every day.