Search results: Coca Cola

On the eve of the Olympics, The Lancet has published a special issue on physical activity.

Since this is too small to read:

Physical activity:

Worldwide, we estimated that physical inactivity causes 6-10% of the major non-communicable diseases…physical inactivity seems to have an effect similar to that of smoking or obesity.

The issue is packed with carefully researched commentaries and papers on the benefits of physical activity.

But it starts out with a tough editorial,  Chariots of Fries:

The Games should encourage physical activity, promote healthy living, and inspire the next generation to exercise. However, marring this healthy vision has been the choice of junk food and drink giants—McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, and Cadbury’s—as major sponsors of the event

Health campaigners have rightly been dismayed. On June 20, the London Assembly (an elected body that scrutinises the work of the Mayor of London) passed a motion urging the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to adopt strict sponsorship criteria that exclude food and drinks companies strongly associated with high calorie brands and products linked to childhood obesity.

Meanwhile, the UK’s Academy of Medical Royal Colleges has said that the presence of McDonald’s and Coca-Cola at the 2012 Games sends out the wrong message to children.

This morning, I received an e-mail from the Coca-Cola Civic Action Network (CAN), described on its website as

a non-partisan group whose purpose is to provide information to the Coca-Cola family about national, state, and local issues that could affect us.  Whenever an issue comes up that could change our day-to-day lives, CAN goes to work getting important information to its members.

The message lists Coca-Cola’s Olympic actions:

• Olympic Torch Relay
  Integrated Marketing Campaign, Move to the Beat
• Global Anthem, Documentary & Global TV Commercial
• Coca-Cola Presents, Beat TV
• Digital & Mobile Application
• Games-time Refreshment
• Powerade Sports Academy
• Physical Activity Programs
• Legacy in sustainability

The e-mail says:

Coca-Cola will be refreshing and hydrating the 14,000 athletes, 7,000 officials, 20,000 workers and volunteers and more than 6 million spectators that are expected to flock to the Olympic Park. From one product in one size offered at the 1948 Olympic Games, to today’s more than 500 brands at the London 2012 Games, Coca-Cola will provide the widest range of drinks and sizes ever offered at an Olympic or Paralympic Games, to suit every lifestyle and hydration need.

Should soda and fast-food companies be sponsoring the Olympics?  Is this the message we want sent to kids?  I don’t think so.  You?

The hearing on Bloomberg’s soda volume limit takes place today.  I’m traveling and sorry to miss it (I filed comments).

I shouldn’t be surprised but I am stunned by the intensity and depth of soda industry pushback on this, most of it going on and on about the virtues of personal choice, as if container size has nothing to do with the amount people eat.  It does (see below).

In addition to what reporters have been reporting, here’s what I’ve seen personally:

• A phony “grassroots”petition campaign paid for by the soda industry with campaigners paid $30 per hour to collect signatures
• A mailing to my home asking me to protest
• Handout cards
• Subway posters
• Tee shirts
• And highly visible ads on trucks.

And then there’s yesterday’s op-ed in the Wall Street Journal from Seth Goldman, the “TEA-EO” of Honest Tea:

I challenge the mayor and the New York City Board of Health to seriously consider the impediments that entrepreneurs already face in our efforts to offer lower-calorie drinks. Starting a business and building a challenger brand with modest resources is already a daunting task. The proposed ban would create additional barriers to beverage innovation.

Only one thing wrong with this.  Mr. Goldman must have forgotten to mention that since March 2011, Honest Tea has been a wholly owned subsidiary of Coca-Cola.

Yes, I know the petition has gathered 75,000 signatures or so.  The campaigners and signers should all know better.  See this, for example:

I’ve just learned that I’m missing a Focus on Obesity conference in Washington DC today, organized by The Root as part of its Black, Fit & Healthy initiative.

Black Americans have the highest rates of obesity, and a conference devoted to promoting healthy diets in this population seems like a good idea.  This one has an impressive list of speakers.  Sam Kass, Michele Obama’s chef and food policy adviser, is giving the keynote, and many of the speakers are associated with government or private groups devoted to improving the diets, physical activity, and overall health of Black Americans.

The sponsors got my attention.  Two are the Office of Minority Health in the Department of Health and Human Services, and HBO, which produced the Weight of the Nation obesity documentary I discussed a few weeks ago.

But the third is the American Beverage Association (ABA), the trade association for Coke, Pepsi, and other sugary drinks linked to poor diets and overweight among children and adults.

This is the group that so opposes Mayor Bloomberg’s proposed bad on soft drinks larger than 16 ounces.

Not only that, but as documented by the Rudd Center at Yale, ABA members devote special efforts to marketing their products to Black Americans.  Advertising Age notes that the soft drink industry makes no apologies for targeting minorities and considers it “smart marketing.”

The Rudd study’s findings:

The irony: soft drink companies are sponsoring a conference to solve a health problem that their products helped cause in the first place.

Want to take bets on whether any of the speakers suggests cutting down on sodas or “don’t drink your calories”?

Rumors, as yet unverified, are flying:

• The American Beverage Association dreamed this conference up as a public relations move to position sodas as a solution to minority obesity, not its cause.
• Several of the speakers are former employees of, or have ties to, Coca-Cola.
• The Washington Post will be running a special section on the conference next week, flanked with American Beverage Association advertisements

If this last one is true, please save me a copy.

In the meantime, think about who is likely to derive the greatest benefit from this co-sponsorship alliance: the Office of Minority Health, Black Americans, or corporate members of the American Beverage Association.

I’ve been away for the last couple of weeks, and am just getting to accumulated mail.  I was surprised to find a letter dated June 18 from Angela Wilson, an attorney at Parks IP Law, a limited liability firm specializing in intellectual property rights.

In her letter, which you can read here in its entirety, Ms. Wilson writes:

We represent Energy Brands Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Coca-Cola company.  Recently, we noticed that Food Politics used the term “vitamin Water” in the article, “New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks,” which appeared in the June 4, 2012 edition of your publication (see attached).

I’m confused.  The article attached to the letter is my post, “Weight of the Nation: the new “Hunger in America”?, a June 4 reprint of a column I wrote for the San Francisco Chronicle.  It does not refer to “vitamin Water.”

Foodpolitics.com contains an excellent search engine.  I searched my posts for “New York Plans to Ban….”   No post with that title exists.   I looked at posts about Mayor Bloomberg’s proposed ban on large sodas.  My post about the soda initiative contains plenty of references to Coca-Cola, but says nothing about “vitamin Water.”

A search for “vitamin water” turns up 17 posts, the most recent in 2011.  The most relevant is an account of a class-action suit filed against Coca-Cola by the Center for Science in the Public Interest arguing that “Vitamin Water makes sugary drinks that promote obesity but positions these products as healthful because they contain added vitamins and herbs.”

Never mind.  Let’s focus on the matter at hand.  Attorney Wilson’s letter continues:

It appears that the article may have been referring to our client’s VITAMINWATER® brand, but because Food Politics used the phrase “Vitamin Water,” that may not be clear to your readers.  Accordingly, we write to request that your writers [sic] refer to our client’s trademark properly in future stories. [I used sic because I’m the only writer on this site.]

Her letter suggests that I follow some simple guidelines when referring to her client’s trademark.  You might enjoy reading the entire list for yourself, but here’s a short summary:

• DO distinguish our client’s VITAMINWATER® trademark as one word (without a space in the middle) and in all capitals or italics
• DO add the registration symbol (“®”)
• DO follow all references to our client’s trademark with the words “enhanced water”
• DON’T use terms such as “vitaminwater,” “vitamin water,” or “vitamin waters”

Ms. Wilson’s letter concludes: “When you use our client’s name correctly, you help protect the integrity of their [sic] innovative enhanced water product.”

[Why sic?  I’m a professor and can’t help this sort of thing.  “Client” is singular; “their” is plural.  Nouns and pronouns should agree.]

I can only imagine the enormous fees that Parks IP Law and Angela Wilson must be getting from Coca-Cola to get me to refer more precisely to its trademarks.

I’ll try.  I promise.

My once-a-month (first Sunday) Q and A column in the San Francisco Chronicle deals with recent city initiatives.

Q:Why do municipalities continue to try to tell us what to eat or drink through taxes (the 1-cent soda tax on the Richmond ballot in November) or outright bans (eliminating super-size soft drinks, proposed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg in New York)?  Richmond residents could just buy their sodas in neighboring towns, and 1 cent seems hardly enough to influence anyone. New Yorkers could just buy two drinks if they want more. Isn’t this all rather silly?

A: Silly? On the contrary. These are dead-serious attempts to address the health problems caused by obesity through “environmental” change – changing the context in which we make food choices.

By now, health officials are well aware that asking individuals to take responsibility for making their own healthy food choices hasn’t got a prayer of success in the face of a marketing environment that encourages people to eat everywhere, all day long, in very large portions and at relatively low cost.

This is the default food environment, where it’s useless to tell people they need to eat less and expect them to do it. They can’t. Instead, it makes sense to try to change the food environment to make healthy choices the easy choices.

Healthy by design?

Suppose, for example, that all kids’ meals at fast-food restaurants were healthy by design and automatically provided milk or water.

You could still order a soda for your kid, but you would have to ask for it – and pay extra. If you are like most people, you won’t bother. That’s why the default matters.

Cities are trying to change the default. One change may or may not make a difference – we don’t know that yet. But changing the default might well make healthy choices easier in schools, fast-food restaurants and other institutions.

Bloomberg’s proposal in New York, to ban sodas larger than 16 ounces, is one such step. From my standpoint, 16 ounces is generous. It’s two full servings and provides about 50 grams of sugars, 200 calories and 10 percent of daily calories for someone who consumes 2,000 calories a day.

Portion sizes used to be a lot smaller. Decades ago, Coca-Cola advertised 16-ounce bottles as “big” and enough to serve three over ice.

If we could recognize that larger portions have more calories – and act on this knowledge – we might have an easier time maintaining weight. But we can’t, at least not easily.

The Richmond soda tax proposal recognizes that more than half of Richmond schoolchildren are overweight or obese. This percentage is higher than in other areas of Contra Costa County.

Even more striking, city officials estimate that two-thirds of Richmond adolescents consume more than 400 calories a day from soft drinks.

Kids who habitually drink sugary sodas tend to have worse diets, to be fatter and to display more risk factors for chronic diseases than kids who don’t.

This makes sugar-sweetened beverages an obvious target for environmental approaches to obesity prevention. Sugary sodas have calories but no nutrients. They are consumed in large amounts. They are highly correlated with obesity and health risks. They are “liquid candy.”

Sugary drinks should be once-in-a-while treats, not daily fare.

Richmond officials hope that the tax will encourage healthier choices. They deliberately set the proposed tax small so it would not unduly burden low-income residents.

One penny per ounce – 16 cents on a 16-ounce soda – may not be enough to change behavior, but it sends a clear message: It’s less expensive to drink water, and it’s healthier to reduce soda intake.

Funding programs

The Richmond proposal has one other critically important feature. It specifies that soda tax revenue will be used to fund city programs to address and reduce childhood obesity, especially in low-income areas where obesity rates are high.

These experiments are worth national attention. They may well do some good for individuals, and I can’t see how they would cause harm in any way except, perhaps, to the economic interests of soda companies.

Soda companies are taking these initiatives seriously. They are pouring millions of dollars into lobbying and community campaigns against both proposals.

Both have elicited plenty of public discussion, much of it focused on the rights of individuals versus the public health interests of government.

What I like about these initiatives is that they do not infringe on individual rights – people can buy as much soda as they want. The proposals simply try to make the default food environment slightly more conducive to healthy choices.

I’m hoping both proposals go forward. I can’t wait to see how they play out.

While Congress is fussing over the farm bill, Michele Simon’s new report, Food Stamps: Follow the Money, identifies the businesses that most stand to gain from the $72 billion spent last year on SNAP.  This program, formerly known as food stamps, gave 46 million Americans an average of  $134 per month to spend on food in late 2011.

Just as health and anti-obesity advocates are working to bring agricultural policy in line with health policy by getting the farm bill to promote production of healthier foods, they also are looking at ways to encourage SNAP recipients to make healthier food choices.  At present, SNAP recipients have few restrictions on what they can buy with their benefit cards.

In contrast, participants in the Women, Infants, and Children program (WIC), which is not a farm bill program, can only use their benefits to buy foods of high nutritional value.  The idea of requiring SNAP recipients to do the same has split the advocacy community.

Anti-hunger advocates fear that any move to restrict benefits to healthier foods, or even to evaluate the current food choices of SNAP recipients, will make the program vulnerable to attacks and budget cuts.  They strongly oppose such suggestions.

Follow the Money explains some of the politics behind efforts to maintain the status quo:

• Food industry groups such as the American Beverage Association and the Snack Food Association teamed up with anti-hunger groups to oppose health-oriented improvements to SNAP.
• Companies such as Cargill, PepsiCo, and Kroger lobbied Congress on SNAP, while also donating money to America’s top anti- hunger organizations.
• At least 9 states have proposed bills  to make health-oriented improvements to SNAP, but  none have passed, in part  due to opposition from the food industry.
• Coca-Cola, the Corn Refiners of America, and Kraft Foods  all lobbied against a Florida bill that aimed  to disallow SNAP purchases for soda and junk food.
• Nine Walmart Supercenters in Massachusetts received more than $33 million in SNAP dollars in one year.
• Walmart received about half of the billion dollars in SNAP expenditures in Oklahoma over a 2-year period.
• J.P. Morgan Chase holds contracts in 24 states to administer SNAP benefits.
• Banks and other private contractors are reaping significant windfalls from the economic downturn and increasing SNAP participation.

The point here is that banks that administer SNAP have a vested interest in keeping SNAP enrollments high and makers of junk foods have a vested interest in making sure that there are no restrictions on use of benefits.

Another point: data on use of SNAP benefits exist but are either proprietary or not made available.

The report concludes with these recommendations:

• Congress should maintain SNAP funding in this time of need for millions of Americans;
• Congress should require collection and disclosure of SNAP product purchase data, retailer redemptions, and national data on bank fees;
• USDA should evaluate state EBT contracts to determine if banks are taking undue advantage of taxpayer funds.

I’ve not seen this kind of analysis before and this report deserves attention.  At the very least I hope that it will encourage Congress to make sure that the poor get their fair share of SNAP benefits.

Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal to limit sugary soft drinks to 16 ounces has elicited an industry counter attack as well as much attention to the role of sugary drinks in obesity.

The soda industry established a new organization, “Let’s Clear It Up,” with a website to spin the science.

Soda is a hot topic. And the conversation is full of opinions and myths, but not enough facts. America’s beverage companies created this site to clear a few things up about the products we make. So read on. Learn. And share the clarity.

Myth: The obesity epidemic can be reversed if people stop drinking soda. [I’m not aware that anyone is claiming this.  Bloomberg’s proposal is aimed at making it easier for soda drinkers to reduce calorie intake.]

Fact: Sugar-sweetened beverages account for only 7% of the calories in the average American’s diet, according to government data. [The figure applies to everyone over the age of 2—to those who do and do not drink sodas.  The percentage is much higher for soda drinkers.]

Coca-Cola is using a second strategy: divert attention.  Its full-page ad in Sunday’s New York Times said:

Everything in moderation.  Except fun, try to have lots of that.

Our nation is facing an obesity problem and we’re taking steps to be part of the solution.  By promoting balanced diets and active lifestyles, we can make a positive difference.

By “balanced diets” Coke means varying package sizes.  By “active lifestyles” Coke means partnerships with Boys & Girls Clubs of America and gifts to national parks.  This approach merits its own website: livepositively.com.

And then we have USA Today’s not-to-be-missed interview with Katie Bayne, Coke’s president of sparkling beverages in North America:

Q: Is there any merit to limits being placed on the size of sugary drinks folks can buy?

A: Sugary drinks can be a part of any diet as long as your calories in balance with the calories out. Our responsibility is to provide drink in all the sizes that consumers might need. [Need?]

Q: But critics call soft drinks “empty” calories.

A: A calorie is a calorie. What our drinks offer is hydration. That’s essential to the human body. We offer great taste and benefits whether it’s an uplift or carbohydrates or energy. We don’t believe in empty calories. We believe in hydration. [Water, anyone?]

Finally, there’s the Washington Post interview with Todd Putman, a former Coke marketing executive now in recovery.

Putman, whose positions at Coca-Cola included U.S. head of marketing for carbonated drinks, said in the interview that among his achievements was tailoring the company’s national advertising campaigns to specific groups. The approach helped Coca-Cola intensify marketing to target audiences such as African Americans and Hispanics.

“It was just a fact that Hispanics and African Americans have higher per capita consumption of sugar-based soft drinks than white Americans,” he said. “We knew that if we got more products into those environments those segments would drink more.”

Is the soda industry behind the Center for Consumer Freedom’s Nanny Bloomberg ad?  I’ve yet to hear denials.

On Tuesdays, I answer questions about nutrition in NYU’s student newspaper, the Washington Square News.   These appear intermittently on the newspaper’s website.  Today’s is about caffeine.

Question: What kind of effect does caffeine have on our metabolism and general health? What is an appropriate amount of caffeine to have? And are certain sources of caffeine better than others? 

Answer: Caffeine is a mild upper. It perks up your central nervous system and makes you feel more alert, energetic and cheery. Caffeine is common in plants, but coffee, chocolate and tea have the most. The amount of caffeine depends on the type, amount used and brewing time, from 30 milligrams for a small cup of weak tea to more than 300 milligrams for some of the larger and stronger Starbucks drinks. When caffeine appears on the labels, you know exactly how much you are getting.

Energy drinks made for adults, like Red Bull, contain about 80 milligrams in an eight-ounce can. Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola and other soft drinks marketed to children have much less — 30 to 40 milligrams in 12 ounces.

People react to caffeine in different ways and, by this stage in your life, you undoubtedly know how much of it you can handle and at what time of the day you can handle it. If you take in more than your personal limit, you may feel nervous, shaky and sleepless. The more caffeine you drink, the more you become accustomed to it and the harder it is to give up. Some researchers think that the mix of sugar with caffeine is what makes some people feel addicted to soft drinks.

Perhaps it’s the caffeine in coffee that makes researchers want to find something wrong with it. I have a thick file of papers claiming that coffee raises the risk for heartburn, cancer, heart disease, infertility, ulcers and many other health problems, but the observed effects are small, inconsistent and unconvincing. When given as a drug, caffeine stimulates urine production and suppresses appetite, but the amounts in all but the strongest coffees are too low to produce such effects. If you get shaky when you drink caffeinated beverages, it’s time to stop.

—A version of this article appeared in the Tuesday, April 10 print edition. Marion Nestle is a contributing columnist. Email her questions at dining@nyunews.com.

Additional note on the food politics of caffeine:  SenatorDick Durbin (Dem-IL) has just asked the FDA to enforce its own rules on drink labeling.  Some makers of high-caffeine “sports” drinks are marketing them as dietary supplements to avoid having to adhere to FDA rules on how much can go into soft drinks.