Search results: Coca Cola

Michele Simon’s latest investigative report deals with sponsorship by food corporations of the Australian Dietetics Association.

BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal) has just released an editorial and four papers on ties between the sugar industry and public health scientists who advise the government on health policy.  Some health policies involve recommendations about intake of sugars.

The BMJ press release explains

Recipients of research funding from sugar and other related industries include members of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN), which is currently updating official advice on carbohydrates consumption, and researchers working for the Medical Research Council’s Human Nutrition Research unit (HNR).  HNR scientists have received research funding and funding in kinds from companies including Coca-Cola, Mars, Nestlé, Sainsbury’s, the Institute of Brewing and Distilling, Weight Watchers International and others…Of the 40 scientists affiliated with SACN between 2001 and 2012, only 13 have had no interests to declare.

This, of course, is no different than what we see here.  Food and beverage companies support food and nutrition research as well as professional societies, and conflicts of interest are rampant.

Even so, these well documented studies are alarming and worth serious attention.  And be sure to look at the map.

• Sugar: spinning a web of influence
• Sugar’s web of influence 2: Biasing the science
• Sugar’s web of influence 3: Why the responsibility deal is a “dead duck” for sugar reduction
• Sugar’s web of influence 4: Mars and company: sweet heroes or villains?
• Map showing links between public health scientists and the sugar industry ​

MedPage has a nice summary (I’m quoted).

The furor over these articles

• UK scientists object to the accusations
• Responses to the BMJ
• BBC commentary on the dispute
• Susan Jebb responds
• The Obesity Society’s Position Opposing Ad Hominem Attacks (its term for articles like those in the BMJ)

That Coca-Cola is cutting between 1600 and 1800 jobs in the next few months, 500 of them in Atlanta (Coke’s home town), is big news.

Why is Coke doing this?  According to the New York Times, the company says:

• “to streamline our business”
• “to help fund the stepped-up marketing it believes is needed to drive up beverage sales”  (oh, great)

IBTimes offers another reason:

• “Americans just aren’t guzzling carbonated drinks as much as they used to.”

And as the Wall Street Journal explains, “Austerity is the new flavor at Coca-Cola”:

Atlanta-based Coke plans to ax at least 1,000 to 2,000 jobs globally in the coming weeks, the biggest thinning of its ranks in 15 years. It is also introducing stricter budgeting, telling executives to swap limousines for taxis, and dropped its lavish Christmas party for Wall Street analysts.  The moves are part of a $3 billion cost-cutting plan Coke announced in October after warning it would miss profit targets this year and next as consumers drink less soda, for decades its cash cow. The austerity push is a culture shock for a company that traditionally has grown, not shrunk, its way to prosperity.

The business press is much less interested in the health benefits that will accrue as a result.  These don’t count on Wall Street.

They should.

Rebecca Berner of Mexico’s food advocacy coalition, Alianza por la Salud Alimentaria (Nutritional Health Alliance) sends this press release announcing her group’s new video ads to encourage you to take sodas off your holiday tables.

The “Make Someone Happy” counter-commercial:  This ad satirizes Coca-Cola’s Christmas marketing campaign with global statistics on the burden of disease and death associated with sugary drink consumption.

Santa Claus resigns: This counter-ad shows Santa acknowledging his “karmic debt” for a lifetime of promoting soda.

Cheers for the holiday season!

I had to laugh when I read Andy Bellatti’s blog post on the latest food industry front group, the Back to Balance Coalition.

A few years ago, Andy started a group called Dietitians for Professional Integrity to advocate for greater financial transparency and ethical sponsorships within the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

Dietitians for Professional Integrity does not believe that it’s a good idea for the country’s largest organization of nutrition professionals to be sponsored by Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Kellogg’s, and other Big Food giants.

I could not agree more.  And the same could be said of the American Society for Nutrition.  See, for example, one of its recent sponsored sessions.

Friday, December 5, 7:00 am – 8:45 am

Sponsored Satellite Program and Breakfast:

Defining Moderation: Should There Be Dietary Guidance for Chocolate?

Sponsored and organized by the National Confectioners Association

As I keep pointing out, you can’t make this stuff up.

But to return to the Back to Balance Coalition.

The Back to Balance Coalition brings together food and beverage organizations, health advocacy groups, and nutrition professionals who are supporters of balance, variety and moderation in dietary guidelines. The group aims to bring forward common sense, practicality, economic, and cultural relevance into dietary guidance.

As Andy puts it, “Leave it to the food industry to appoint itself as the sole definer of what constitutes balance, variety, and moderation.”

The beleaguered 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, as I explained yesterday, is under pressure from Congress to avoid saying anything about how food production and consumption might affect the environment, despite estimates that agriculture accounts for 15% to 20% of greenhouse gas emissions.

The Back to Balance Coalition has a different agenda.  It does not want the Dietary Guidelines to say a word about eating less of any foods its members sell.

Instead, it wants the Guidelines to talk about choice [my translations follow]:

• Empowering choice is more effective than restricting it [so you will keep choosing our highly profitable junk foods].
• All foods can fit within a healthful, overall dietary pattern if consumed in moderation with appropriate portion size and combined with physical activity [please ignore the amounts of money we spend to market our unhealthiest products].
• Restricting food choices by classifying specific foods as “good” or “bad” is often overly simplistic and may foster unhealthy eating behaviors [you might not buy our products!].
• Guiding Americans on which nutrient rich food choices to make versus not to make, and focusing on portion guidance to provide “how to” practical advice, can help people make wise food choices within the context of the total diet [never mind the fortunes we sink into promoting supersize junk foods].

To the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee: Courage!

The creatively active Mexican advocacy group, El Poder del Consumidor, launched a new video take-off on Coca-Cola ads—“Haz feliz a alguien” (“Make someone happy”)—with a demonstration on Mexico City’s Zocalo in front of the National Cathedral.

They sent along a translation of the video:

What would make you happy this Christmas?

That my dad were here with us.

PLAY SPORTS/EXERCISE (posted at the bottom of the screen to mimic Coke ads here)

That my mom could see her grandson.

PLAY SPORTS/EXERCISE

That my dad could play soccer with me.

PLAY SPORTS/EXERCISE

Make someone happy this Christmas.

50,000 people in Mexico are blind because of diabetes.

Someone’s limb is amputated every 7 minutes because of diabetes.

In Mexico, 66 people die each day from drinking sugary drinks.

Make someone happy.

Share this video and remove soda from your table.

Bartow J. Elmore.  Citizen Coke: The Making of Coca-Cola Capitalism.  Norton, 2015.

Elmore is an historian at the University of Alabama, whose book takes a fresh look at how soda companies managed to make fortunes selling cheap sugar water.   Advertising, he says, is only a minor factor in generating soda profits.

The real profits came from a business strategy that offloads the costs and risks onto suppliers, bottlers, and taxpayers.  Soda companies depend on taxpayers for the cost of city water supplies, the recycling discarded cans and bottles, the cleanup of containers that are not recycled, the transportation of sodas to the military,  and the health care of overweight consumers.

The public, he says, should be setting and collecting the price for use of public resources, rather than “accepting the bill for corporate waste.”

The Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity has just released its 2014 Sugary Drink FACTS report.

Some of the findings:

• Beverage companies spent $866 million to advertise unhealthy drinks in 2013, and increase since the previous year.
• Children and teens remain key target audiences for that advertising.
• Much marketing is done through Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and advergame apps.
• Pepsi spent $16 million on Spanish TV advertising in 2013, up from none in 2010.
• Dr Pepper Snapple spent $20 million (up from $7 million in 2010) to support its regular sodas.
• African-American teens watch more than three times as many ads for Coca-Cola as do white kids.

Useful Rudd Center resources:

• 4-page summary 
• Full Report
• A  video
• Tools for consumers
• Tools for researchers