Search results: Coca Cola

Susan Greenhalgh. Soda Science: Making the World Safe for Coca-Cola.  University of Chicago Press, 2024.

This terrific book picks up where I left off with Soda Politics: Taking on Big Soda (and Winning) (2015) and Unsavory Truth: How the Food Industry Skews the Science of What We Eat (2018).

Susan Greenhalgh’s focus, however, is on ILSI, the International Life Sciences Institute (now renamed the Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences).  ILSI is a classic industry front group,  It was created originally by Coca-Cola to make sure science promoted corporate interests.  It is funded by big food companies.  It positions itself as an independent think tank.  Hence: front group.

Soda Science documents how ILSI, working through personal connections (guanxi) at the Chinese Ministry of Health, convinced the Chinese government to target obesity prevention measures at physical activity (“move more”), rather than diet (“eat less,” or “eat better”).

The first half of the book tells the story of ILSI’s role in the Global Energy Balance Network, a group outed as funded by Coca-Cola (I wrote about this in 2015, particularly here, here, and here in The Guardian).

The second half gives an intimate, first-hand account of how science politics works in China.

Greenhalgh is a distinguished anthropologist.  She retired from Harvard as as the John King and Wilma Cannon Fairbank Research Professor of Chinese Society (she is an expert on China).  She uses social science methods—interviews and qualitative research as well as document review—to study this particular example of soda politics.

• The International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI): true colors revealed (October 3, 2019)
• ILSI tracked media responses to my book, Unsavory Truth (February 22, 2023)

The story she tells here is fascinating in its own right and a great read.

It also makes one other point: social science methods are really useful in getting information unavailable any other way.

I say this because bench scientists tend to look down on qualitative research and consider it non-research.  I disagree.  I think qualitative research is essential, and has plenty to contribute.  This book is a great example of why.

While I’m on the topic of AI—a hot issue in the food business—here are a few items I’ve collected recently.

• AI watch: The latest on artificial intelligence in food: While some fear artificial intelligence spells the end of humanity, others back its potential for positive disruption. How’s this playing out in food and drink? We bring you the latest…… Read more
• Study: AI-assisted personalized diet program supports weight loss and gut microbiome health: A dietary and lifestyle program tailored to individuals’ genetics and gut microbiome, as well as self-reported and wearables data, had a positive effect on the gut microbiome and showed significant associations between the gut microbiome and weight loss, according to a study by Digbi Health in the USA, reported in Frontiers…. Read more
• AI Drives New Era in Food and Beverage: Experts at Monday’s IFT FIRST keynote panel agreed that artificial intelligence is and will continue to be a transformative force reshaping the science of food industry.
• Coca-Cola leverages AI, technology to drive sales, volume in difficult economic climate: The Coca-Cola Co. is “leveraging digital and tech-enabled innovations” in marketing and price-pack architecture to drive incremental sales and volumes of new products in the critical second year after launch – helping the CPG giant beat expectations in its second quarter despite price hikes and ongoing financial pressure on some consumers, according to company executives…. Read more
• Danone partners with Microsoft on AI project: Danone has partnered with tech giant Microsoft on a multi-year collaboration to integrate artificial intelligence (AI) throughout the manufacturer’s operations…. Read more

Here’s what started all this:

P&G, Coca-Cola make Olympics promotional push: Procter & Gamble and Coca-Cola are among the companies making a promotional push around the 2024 Olympic Games in Paris. P&G is planning to focus its efforts on specific brands such as Pampers diapers and Gillette razors, and Coca-Cola has plans for over 70 markets. Sponsors of the International Olympic Committee have spent 18% more than they did for the Tokyo Games in 2021, Comcast reports.

And here’s the response:

TODAY, the global digital campaign, “Hey Big Soda!”  was launched demanding an end to Big Soda’s sponsorship of sport…Please share the campaign with the hashtag #KickBigSodaOutofSport!

Sign the petition from Kick Big Soda Out urging the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to terminate the Coca-Cola Company’s sponsorship.

For more information: info@kickbigsodaout.org.

In its Week #2 report, Kick Big Soda Out says:

Over 34,000 people have signed the petition, and 60 organizations from 21 countries have endorsed the campaign as Campaign Partner Organizations!

Partner materials are here.

Examples from the Mexico team:

• A demonstration, featuring the campaign and organized by El Poder del Consumidor and other Mexico partners, was held in front of Mexican Olympic Committee Headquarters on July 23. Multiple publications covered the event including Greenpeace Mexico, Aristegui Noticias, Cronica and 24 Morelos, among others.
• Simón Barquera, took to Instagram and Twitter to urge his followers to sign and share the “Kick Big Soda Out of Sport” petition. https://x.com/SBarquera/status/1815410422490825089

Food Politics in action!  Join the campaign.

Thanks to everyone who flooded my mailbox with this piece from The Guardian: She was fired after not endorsing Splenda-filled salads to people with diabetes. Why?

According to a lawsuit {Elizabeth] Hanna recently filed against the ADA, the organization – which endorses recipes and food plans on its websiteand on the websites of “partner” food brands – tried to get her to greenlight recipes that she believedflew in the face of the ADA’s mission. These included recipes like a “cucumber and onion salad” made with a third of a cup of Splenda granulated artificial sweetener, “autumnal sheet-pan veggies” with a quarter cup of Splenda monk fruit sweetener and a “cranberry almond spinach salad” with a quarter cup of Splenda monkfruit sweetener.

Guess which company gave more than $1m to the ADA in 2022? Splenda.

I also was sent an email from Georgia Warren, the  Guardian’s Interim membership editor: The link between investigative reporting, some nightmarish recipes and the diabetes epidemic.

Why would a public health charity promote a product that its own science shows contributes to the disease it is fighting? Well, as Neil Barsky reported for us this week, the ADA took more than $1m from Splenda in 2022 – and then fired their chief nutritionist when, according to a lawsuit she recently filed, she refused to sign-off on the Splenda-based recipes that her bosses wanted the ADA to publicly endorse.

Neil – creator of our new series ‘Death by diabetes: America’s preventable epidemic’ – told me…“The ADA has bought into a system that requires them to raise money from corporations to fund their research. I don’t for a second doubt that every single person who works there cares about people with diabetes and wants to do the right thing, but being beholden to these groups distorts your judgment.”

..And what else is pharma funding? The ADA. The organization – whose guidance doctors rely on when treating their diabetes patients – boasts a $100m annual budget. Between 2017 and 2024, pharmaceutical and device manufacturers contributed over $134m to the organization – or roughly 20% of its total funding.

Comment: The ADA has long appeared to be in thrall the the drug industry.  I well remember the talk I gave at one of its annual conventions years ago.  I was one of two speakers about diet and diabetes (the other was a session on the role of sugar in diabetes sponsored by Coca-Cola—truly you can’t make this stuff up).  The other talks, hundreds of them, were about drugs.  At that time, the ADA said virtually nothing about diet on its website.

It’s gotten much better.  Here’s what it says about carbohydrates:

• Try to eat less of these: refined, highly processed carbohydrate foods and those with added sugar. These include sugary drinks like soda, sweet tea and juice, refined grains like white bread, white rice and sugary cereal, and sweets and snack foods like cake, cookies, candy and chips.

And here’s what the ADA says about artificial sweeteners:

It’s also important to know that at this time, there is no clear evidence to suggest that using sugar substitutes will help with managing blood sugar or weight or improving cardiometabolic health in the long run. So here’s the bottom line:

• Sugar substitutes are effective alternatives to sugar for some people, but not a perfect fit for all—it’s a personal choice.
• If you’re looking to reduce your intake of sugar or sugar substitutes, start slowly. For example, start by replacing one soda or juice with water or a no-calorie drink at a time.
• Water will always be a great choice! If you start feeling yourself get bored with just water, you can always spruce it up with fruits or herbs like this sparkling strawberry mint infused water.

And, finally for now, here are the ADA’s corporate sponsors, and its national sponsors.

Conflicted?  Sure looks like it.

Since it’s Monday when I post industry-funded studies anyway, I will add one more of these to last week’s collection.

This one comes from an articles in The Conversation: Big companies, like Nestlé, are funding health research in South Africa – why this is wrong.

At the time a group of more than 200 senior academics wrote an open letter, about conflicts of interest. Nestlé’s portfolio of foods, by its own admission, includes more than 60% that don’t meet the definition of healthy products.

In December last year, the same centre announced it had signed a memorandum of understanding with Nestlé. It signalled their intent to “forge a transformative partnership” to shape “the future of food and nutrition research and education” and transform “Africa’s food systems”.

I saw this posted on X (the site formerl known as Twtter, which I still find to be a useful source of information I would not otherwise know about).

Terrible news. @PepsiIndia @CocaColaCo @Unilever @KelloggsUS
Sponsor the Annual Conference of Nutrition Society of India . What a shame and conflicts of interest! @ICMRNIN @ICMRDELHI @mygovindia @TimothyWSchwab please note Gates Foundation. @RemaNagarajan @chetanecostani pic.twitter.com/iSRhaUVNOb

— Dr Arun Gupta MD FIAP (@Moveribfan) November 25, 2023

I also saw a post from Joes Spicer, head of Nutrition International, announcing its withdrawal of funding for the conference  because of the food industry sponsors.

And then Tim Schwab, whose book, “The Bill Gates Problem,” I cannot wait to get to, sent this:

In India last week, a minor furor erupted over the Nutrition Society of India’s annual conference being so brazenly sponsored by companies like Coca-Cola.  But Coke is only a “gold” sponsor.  The “platinum” sponsor? The Gates Foundation.

For two decades, Gates has partnered closely with corporate interests—from Coca-Cola to Pfizer—and presented them to the world as humanitarian partners. Because the foundation is such an admired and celebrated charitable body, Gates has had a powerful effect on normalizing, institutionalizing and legitimizing corporate partnerships and conflicts of interest throughout science and policy making.

Food and drug companies love to sponsor nutrition conferences.  What better way to convince influential professional researchers and teachers that your products are good for health and nothing should be said about restricting or regulating them.

The role of the Gates Foundation is much less obvious and much more important because of its money and interntional power.  Schwab’s book promises to address such matters.  I will have more to say about it when I’ve had a chance to read it.

In the meantime, nutriton societies oin the U.S. and India too would be more credible if they avoided taking food industry sponsorship.  If they take Gates Foundation money, it had best come with no strings and no implied endorsements.

If F0undatios were really altruistic, they would provide donations anonymously and not expect a quid pro quo.  When they expect a quid pro quo, it’s best to find out exactly what it is.

I can hardly believe this, and had to laugh when I read all the articles last week about how worried the food industry is about the new obesity drugs.

Imagine: if the drugs really do reduce appetite and interest in food—horror of horrors—people might eat less.

Eating less, as I have pointed out repeatedly, is very bad for the food business.

In Food Politics, I explained how the fundamental purpose of  food companies is to get you to eat more food, not less.

Beginning in the early 1980s, food companies did a better job of creating an “eat more” food environment.

People responded to this environment by eating more calories—lots more—and way more than enough to account for the rising prevalence of overweight and obesity.  Evidence?   See my book with Mal Nesheim, Why Calories Count: From Science to Politics.

When I am at my most cynical, I ask this question: What industry might benefit if people ate more healthfully?

I am hard pressed to think of any—certainly not the food, diet, or diet-drug industries (Novo Nordisk, maker of the semaglutide drug, Wegovy, now makes more than the gross domestic product of Denmark).

The only exception I can think of is not-for-profit HMO’s like Kaiser Permanente, which do better if their patients are healthier (and have no excuse for not paying their workers better).

Anything that helps people eat less and more healthfully is bad news for the food industry, and especially for companies making ultra-processed junk food.

No wonder companies are worried.

Here’s my collection from last week (with thanks to Lisa Young and Michele Simon for making sure I saw these articles):

• Wall Street Journal: America’s Food Giants Confront the Ozempic Era
• Yahoo Finance: Ozempic Is Making People Buy Less Food, Walmart Says
• Bloomberg News: If Ozempic Leads People to Eat Less, Maker of Cheez-It Will Be Ready
• Yahoo Finance: Snack-maker Conagra may tweak portions as weight-loss drugs alter appetites
• Washington Post:  Food, clothing, airlines: Ozempic is coming for these industries and more
• Yahoo Finance: Surge in obesity drugs like Ozempic has pummeled big food stocks. Is it time to eat them up?
• Food Fix:  Why Ozempic makes Wall Street woozy
• PepsiCo: PepsiCo monitoring impact of weight loss drugs, but says early impact on sales is ‘negligible’

The Examination, a brand-new news outlet, and the Washington Post jointly published a jaw-dropping article last week about dietitians paid by food and supplement companies to defend and promote their products on Instagram and TikTok.

Why jaw-dropping?  Two reasons: the media—videos, posts—embedded in the article (these are amazing to see), and the non-disclosure of payment.

As the World Health Organization raised questions this summer about the risks of a popular artificial sweetener, a new hashtag began spreading on the social media accounts of health professionals: #safetyofaspartame….What these dietitians didn’t make clear was that they were paid to post the videos by American Beverage, a trade and lobbying group representing Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and other companies….The food, beverage, and dietary supplement industries are paying dozens of registered dietitians that collectively have millions of social media followers to help sell products and deliver industry-friendly messages on Instagram and TikTok, according to an analysis by The Examination and The Washington Post.

Here’s just one example:

Registered dietitian Lindsay Pleskot, of Vancouver, British Columbia, has posted videos of herself eating ice cream and peanut butter cups while telling people that denying themselves sugary food will only make cravings worse….These and other posts were paid for by the Canadian Sugar Institute.