I spend lots of time on playgrounds and at soccer games with grandkids. I notice always that the parents are providing water for the youngest kids, teenagers drink sports drinks, and older adults drink the sodas. They practically give the sodas away at the grocery store. Just an observation.
I work at Wal-Mart as a cashier. Every single day I see "parents" buying toddlers sodas and "bug juice" ie. non-carbonated soda with either cash or food stamps. Every Single Day! Tax artificial sweeteners & high fructose corn syrup instead. This way the soda industry will be forced to either switch back to real sugar - which is processed by the body differently - or to take a loss when their most profitable products become less popular because they're more expensive. It won't stop "parents" from buying less junk for their kids though...only the restriction to milk/juice/water for beverages on food stamps will help with that aspect - at least for those funding their child-rearing with tax dollars.
What I would like to see the Coca-Cola and Pepsi companies do is to reduce the level of sweetness in their drinks, both regular and diet. They are too sweet. A 140 calorie can of Coca-Cola soda contains 35 grams of sugar and almost 9 teaspoons of sugar. When most people order iced tea that is unsweetened, how many put in 8-9 teaspoons of sugar? Very few. It is ridiculous. Soda companies, please cut the amount of sweetener in your products in half!
I currently dilute soda, regular or diet, with water to make them less sweet. I am going to start buying plain soda water so I can retain the fizz when I dilute my sodas.
I currently dilute soda, regular or diet, with water to make them less sweet. I am going to start buying plain soda water so I can retain the fizz when I dilute my sodas.
2
Why drink soda at all? I switched to V8 Energy juice. I drink 8oz per day (4oz for breakfast and 4oz for lunch) with only natural fruit sugar and green tea for caffeine. The rest of the day I drink water. If my husband has soda, he will have one glass. If you reduce the sugar in real sugar products, they won't be the same anymore. If I drink a sip of his soda, I want it to taste sweet - that's the whole point - sweet. Why should everyone else have to have even more foods taste like junk (McDonalds baked instead of fried pies, for example) because some people just aren't willing to practice portion control?
It is a sad state of cultural and social affairs when ethical and moral standards have become blatant corruption, transparent conflicts of interest, and corporate America buying remedies to excuse them from the liability of imperiling the health of the very people these two-faced "health" entities are supposed to be protecting. Big Sugar is no different than Bog Tobacco, Big Pharma, - literally licensed drug traffickers whose cigarettes and opioids kill more than 500,000 Americans each year with various form of cancers and drug overdoses (in addition to their supporting the heroin trade) - and others who OWN members of Congress to aid and abet them in their monstrous deceptions, outright lies, comprehensive misdirection and cumulative death statistics. Then again, this is America, land of the complacent, indifferent, and apathetic who voted these political frauds into office thus proving no one cares. Pass me a tissue.
5
"Privatize profit, socialize cost and risk” has always been the corporate motto." This has always been the guiding principle of corporations-- Coke and Pepsi, Tobacco, etc. In light of this, the life, health, and wellbeing of the society is secondary-- even for the Phama industry.
Makes you wonder where society can find a reprieve. No more high grounds, our congress are lobbied to the hilts, the non-profit organizations created to advocate and work for the greater good/cause of their community are now mostly focused on objectifying their programs, hence they're forced to sleep with the devil who stands to counteract the very mission they propagate--imagine Save the Children and NAACP--disgraceful!
What all this points to is the urgent need for society to be better educated, intellectually curious, and continuously enact their democratic rights.
Makes you wonder where society can find a reprieve. No more high grounds, our congress are lobbied to the hilts, the non-profit organizations created to advocate and work for the greater good/cause of their community are now mostly focused on objectifying their programs, hence they're forced to sleep with the devil who stands to counteract the very mission they propagate--imagine Save the Children and NAACP--disgraceful!
What all this points to is the urgent need for society to be better educated, intellectually curious, and continuously enact their democratic rights.
2
Here we go again. Regressive soda taxes are rooted in an erroneous presumption that low income or minority people are incapable of making sound nutritional choices for themselves and therefore have no right to control their own lives, especially their own dietary choices. It's no accident that Mayor Bloomberg's proposed soda ban conveniently avoided taxing the types of sugary libations so popular at places like Starbucks. So, where is the outrage about cronuts, cruffins, or macarons? To be equitable, let's tax those, too!
3
Soda is purely empty calories. There is no nutritional value to soda. Besides, a soda tax is focused predominantly on artificial sweeteners and high fructose corn syrup not sugar-based beverages. Yes, there are real sugar sodas. They're not as popular. My husband only drinks real sugar soda, so I know how hard it is to find when he does want some. High fructose corn syrup in liquid form has been proven to have higher calorie-retaining effects than regular sugar. If anything, tax artificial sweeteners - which have recently been proven to actually increase weight gain and high fructose corn syrup. BTW - your assumption that only low income and minority people drink soda so this must be a socioeconomic tax is both hypocritical and misguided. I've seen plenty of rich teenagers walking around with a can of soda. I've also seen food stamp recipients walking around with a Starbucks beverage. Overall, the point is to encourage healthy eating.
How about we start by offering food stamps for only water, soda, coffee beans, tea, and 100% fruit juice beverages. If someone on food stamps would like to purchase beverages with zero nutritional value, they can buy it themselves with their earnings. After all, if they're feeding their children junk - and I'm paying to educate them, feed them, and treat their medical conditions, then I want them to receive the options which allow them to stay healthy and best nurture their growth.
How about we start by offering food stamps for only water, soda, coffee beans, tea, and 100% fruit juice beverages. If someone on food stamps would like to purchase beverages with zero nutritional value, they can buy it themselves with their earnings. After all, if they're feeding their children junk - and I'm paying to educate them, feed them, and treat their medical conditions, then I want them to receive the options which allow them to stay healthy and best nurture their growth.
1
Sure, why not? It's all tax-deductible, that's probably what they care about. Give to public health for the sake of the brand; lobby against it for the sake of the bucks.
4
I have no doubt that we'll soon look at Big Sugar in the exact same way we now look at Big Tobacco. History certainly is repeating itself perfectly. The difference, and it's an important one, is that this cover up is affecting humans at a much younger age. Why wait till 12 or 13 (tobacco) when we can get them hooked 10 years sooner?
We've been bribed, rewarded, and punished with various forms and quantities of sugar since birth. As a non-participant in the sugar addiction (4+ years clean!), it's very hard to watch he insane amount of damage caused by people killing themselves by consuming sugary beverages.
Industry supported studies have influenced the dietary patterns and beliefs of us long enough. The lies are unraveling and it's time for Big Sugar to step into the bright light of accountability.
Warning labels. Taxes. Infographics that show how much sugar is in the bottle. YES. YES. YES.
Health Groups, associations, organizations, etc are there to serve us. They should be ashamed of every single dollar they've taken from Big Sugar. It's a short-sighted practice and the lie is about to explode.
We've been bribed, rewarded, and punished with various forms and quantities of sugar since birth. As a non-participant in the sugar addiction (4+ years clean!), it's very hard to watch he insane amount of damage caused by people killing themselves by consuming sugary beverages.
Industry supported studies have influenced the dietary patterns and beliefs of us long enough. The lies are unraveling and it's time for Big Sugar to step into the bright light of accountability.
Warning labels. Taxes. Infographics that show how much sugar is in the bottle. YES. YES. YES.
Health Groups, associations, organizations, etc are there to serve us. They should be ashamed of every single dollar they've taken from Big Sugar. It's a short-sighted practice and the lie is about to explode.
7
agreed - in the future people will look back on this time like we regard the ancient Romans with their lead pipes - what a pity those people didn't know it was killing them!
3
Not only are they foul in taste, sugary drinks are distributed on taxpayers backs. Whether you like them or not, every little box containing more little boxes or containers are carted day after day over taxpayer's roads, into cities clogging traffic, blocking sidewalks and spaces for parking, all in the name of free trade of something useless to a healthy diet resulting in long term afflictions such as diabetes and obesity, not to mention the piles of solid waste piling up all over the world. Since the refilling of bottles became extinct, taxpayers have had to become the harbingers of responsibility for recycling sugary drink containers and the packaging that house those containers. It took years to eliminate the plastic rings that held cans together that were trapping animals inside, regulated by government *gasp* because sugary drink companies wouldn't listen to a peep about animal torture caused by the plastic rings. All the time spent, all the effort to help animals against these companies who make soda fell on deaf ears for decades, and now we'd like to see the same consideration to some other animals who are paying the price for what they think is brightly colored fun in a bottle is nothing but air pollution, water pollution as well as a direct health hazard to the human body.
These companies need more babysitting than gun manufactures.
These companies need more babysitting than gun manufactures.
5
I would add their misuse of water to your list of maladies. When some societies suffer droughts and shortness of water supply, these companies shouldn't even exist!
1
The fact is that Pepsi and Coke, (both delicious), have about the same amount of sugar in them as juices like orange juice or pineapple juice. Are we going to break chops as to the real-juice producers too or just the soda people?
It appears that society has gotten used to a certain level of sweetness in our drinks regardless of what the drink is.
I know that when I make drinks, like genuine iced tea, people complain about a lack of sweetness when I cut back on the sugar, in particular as to drinks served with ice which waters them down.
It appears that society has gotten used to a certain level of sweetness in our drinks regardless of what the drink is.
I know that when I make drinks, like genuine iced tea, people complain about a lack of sweetness when I cut back on the sugar, in particular as to drinks served with ice which waters them down.
2
Some of it is the US's taste for sugar. I've learned to enjoy much less sugar and sweet foods since marrying an English gentleman. Their diet leans more towards savory so even sweet foods aren't as sugary sweet as in the US. When I make an American recipe these days not only do i use 3/4 less sodium but I also tend to halve the sugar if it won't affect the cooking process as it's just not necessary.
As for focusing on soda - the focus is on natural nutritional food products verses artificial junk. Yes, fruit juice has quite a bit of sugar in it; however, generally people will drink a glass of juice verses drinking can or bottle after bottle of soda - especially if it's "diet" as they feel it's fine because it doesn't have any calories.
Focusing on something which has zero nutritional value, contributes to obesity because of the way HFCS and artificial sweeteners affect the body, and which is generally consumed in much greater quantities than fruit juice is the right thing to do.
As for focusing on soda - the focus is on natural nutritional food products verses artificial junk. Yes, fruit juice has quite a bit of sugar in it; however, generally people will drink a glass of juice verses drinking can or bottle after bottle of soda - especially if it's "diet" as they feel it's fine because it doesn't have any calories.
Focusing on something which has zero nutritional value, contributes to obesity because of the way HFCS and artificial sweeteners affect the body, and which is generally consumed in much greater quantities than fruit juice is the right thing to do.
Sugar has been around for 200 years without major harm. Then in the 70's HFCS was invented and it offered big savings to industry. The obesity and diabetes both started with the introduction of HFCS. So what do we do. We vilify sugar and never mention HFCS. We also never mention that the artificial sweeteners can cause far more harm then cane sugar. We leave them in all our gum and other foods.
If we really want to improve public health we need to begin by telling the truth. What we are doing is not improving anyones health. It is misleading and deceptive.
If we really want to improve public health we need to begin by telling the truth. What we are doing is not improving anyones health. It is misleading and deceptive.
2
True enough that sugar has been around a while. But the amount of sugar that the average person ingests has gone up. If we ate the amount of sugar that people were allowed during WW2 due to rationing, at least two things would happen: people would be healthier and profits for these companies would be lower.
1
True. But one of the characteristics of HFCS is that it represses our feelings of fullness. Thus it's consumption leads us to consume more food as well as more soda.
see:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25988134
see:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25988134
@Allan Rydberg:
Large doses of fructose produce less satiety and more insulin resistance, regardless of whether they come from sugar or HFCS.
Large doses of fructose produce less satiety and more insulin resistance, regardless of whether they come from sugar or HFCS.
2
The soda/obesity issue so closely parallels the smoking/death issue that we can see soda's whole train wreck already. For decades, the cigarette companies sponsored research and talked about the "complexity" of cancer and heart disease, and harped on the fact that any given case of lung cancer could not be traced to smoking (cf. climate change and catastrophic weather events). And Americans believe in FREEDOM so we should be able to choose to kill ourselves and our children with soda and other sugar drinks. The drinks companies obfuscate as long as they possibly can to put off the inevitable so that they can make as much money as possible before the endgame. In the meantime, they condemn literally millions of children too young to know better to lives of poor health and suffering. We just recently learned that FIFTY years ago research connecting sugary drinks to obesity was covered up by the drinks companies-think of all the people who have suffered in the interim. (Similarly, EXXON covered up their own scientific conclusions connecting fossil fuel consumption and climate change-look how well that has turned out for us.) It is a sad state of affairs-when I look around now I see lots of overweight children everywhere. It is very unfortunate. Not to mention the effect of Coke et al. using scarce water in places like India to make soda, depriving local inhabitants of drinkable water, which is what they actually need.
10
This election is not about who is going to be president, but who is going to grease the multinationals for their own profit. The Republican party should not be surprised at Trump, for he is not their messenger, he is their Message.
Pence, a Punitive, Right Wing Christian, now worshiping the multi adulterer Trump w the wife whose naked body was for sale (our lady, the Modeling Melania) & in whose state women are prosecuted & jailed for falling down stairs & having miscarriages.
The story of Paul Ryan is that while Trump is a nut who shouldn't be near the nuke codes, but Hillary is worse bc of their PRINCIPLES? Who is this guy kidding?
This soda story IS the election. This election is about how the multi nationals will take control, as our lawmakers, & the entire Republican Party, enslaved by the money of these rich corporations, relinquish their duties, and perform as the most corrupt money junkies ever seen.
They are all for sale, just like the Harvard "researchers" who took the money of the sugar industry to promote low fat processed foods & diabetes. How many of us lost legs, kidneys, our sight and our lives to the unthinkable corruption of these greedy Harvard men?
Hey, I would stop worrying about the Govt. telling me what to do, bc regulation is our only salvation from these corrupt & greedy entities, and worry about WHO IS TELLING OUR GOVT what to do. Because they listen so well to those who put lots of money in their pockets.
Pence, a Punitive, Right Wing Christian, now worshiping the multi adulterer Trump w the wife whose naked body was for sale (our lady, the Modeling Melania) & in whose state women are prosecuted & jailed for falling down stairs & having miscarriages.
The story of Paul Ryan is that while Trump is a nut who shouldn't be near the nuke codes, but Hillary is worse bc of their PRINCIPLES? Who is this guy kidding?
This soda story IS the election. This election is about how the multi nationals will take control, as our lawmakers, & the entire Republican Party, enslaved by the money of these rich corporations, relinquish their duties, and perform as the most corrupt money junkies ever seen.
They are all for sale, just like the Harvard "researchers" who took the money of the sugar industry to promote low fat processed foods & diabetes. How many of us lost legs, kidneys, our sight and our lives to the unthinkable corruption of these greedy Harvard men?
Hey, I would stop worrying about the Govt. telling me what to do, bc regulation is our only salvation from these corrupt & greedy entities, and worry about WHO IS TELLING OUR GOVT what to do. Because they listen so well to those who put lots of money in their pockets.
6
And you know, when the government comes out against anything, it must be based on huge amount of evidence. Most of which will never know about.
Again - another misuse of corporate affiliations that uses financial incentives to benefit a select group that can leverage its community base in their favor. The free market has many flaws and this is one of them. Lobbying, greed, need and graft is alive and well in the USA.
1
A 20 oz vending machine bottle of Coke per day amounts to 52 lbs (about ten 5 lb bags) of sugar equivalent per year.
The Bloomberg Foundation should be credited with funding advertising supporting the tax measures in Berkeley, Mexico and most recently Philadelphia.
Under Mayor Bloomberg, three different initiatives were tried to limit soda consumption. While legally unsuccessful in all three cases, ultimately the advertising in the press about the conflict with the beverage manufactures ultimately lead to a lowered consumption, according to former Health Commissioner Dr. Tom Farley's book, "Saving Gotham: A Billionaire Mayor, Activist Doctors, and the Fight for Eight Million Lives"
I hope that Mayor de Blasio and current Health Commissioner Dr. Bassett will follow Philadelphia's lead and impose a sugar-added beverage tax.
Although Coke doesn't publicize it, it was Coke that donated the land for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta.
The Bloomberg Foundation should be credited with funding advertising supporting the tax measures in Berkeley, Mexico and most recently Philadelphia.
Under Mayor Bloomberg, three different initiatives were tried to limit soda consumption. While legally unsuccessful in all three cases, ultimately the advertising in the press about the conflict with the beverage manufactures ultimately lead to a lowered consumption, according to former Health Commissioner Dr. Tom Farley's book, "Saving Gotham: A Billionaire Mayor, Activist Doctors, and the Fight for Eight Million Lives"
I hope that Mayor de Blasio and current Health Commissioner Dr. Bassett will follow Philadelphia's lead and impose a sugar-added beverage tax.
Although Coke doesn't publicize it, it was Coke that donated the land for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta.
5
I don't think taxing soda will do much to reduce consumption, so why are Coke and Pepsi even fighting it? And since I don't drink soda myself, I could care less if other people bankrupt themselves drinking fructose. (I do think there's a difference between fructose and cane sugar BTW)
It's still a major hypocrisy. Even the NAACP? Shame! We need you to fight the good fight, not be a lapdog for corporate America.
It's still a major hypocrisy. Even the NAACP? Shame! We need you to fight the good fight, not be a lapdog for corporate America.
3
Big Food/Big Pharma. Drug dealers both.
Big lobbies, big campaign contributions, big funding of "scientific" research.
Big health problems for all the world.
On a trekking trip three years ago in the Himalayan foothills in Nepal, there were Coke signs in every little town. Cooking over wood fires (no safe chimneys even), with Coke signs on the walls. I wish I could attach photos.
Disgusting American corporations. Murderers really.
Big lobbies, big campaign contributions, big funding of "scientific" research.
Big health problems for all the world.
On a trekking trip three years ago in the Himalayan foothills in Nepal, there were Coke signs in every little town. Cooking over wood fires (no safe chimneys even), with Coke signs on the walls. I wish I could attach photos.
Disgusting American corporations. Murderers really.
5
Protection money. Duh.
2
Big to do about nothing. Nothing will change until we eliminate the spending allowed by lobbyists - and ONLY the government can do that; but won't.
I'd rather see coke and pepsi contributing to healthcare than not. Pretty basic premise. Yet readers that the NYTimes want to blast them. Yes, they have lobbyists because it's in their best interest, and the best interest of their employees and investors. Many here are likely to be invested in one of these companies and they don't even know it.
If you don't like soda, don't buy it. But please, do not deny donations to healthcare, do not blast soda companies, and DO write your Congressmen to petition for black and white laws (<10 pages) that prohibit lobbyist dollars from flowing in to DC.
I'd rather see coke and pepsi contributing to healthcare than not. Pretty basic premise. Yet readers that the NYTimes want to blast them. Yes, they have lobbyists because it's in their best interest, and the best interest of their employees and investors. Many here are likely to be invested in one of these companies and they don't even know it.
If you don't like soda, don't buy it. But please, do not deny donations to healthcare, do not blast soda companies, and DO write your Congressmen to petition for black and white laws (<10 pages) that prohibit lobbyist dollars from flowing in to DC.
Coke and Pepsi Give Millions to Public Health, Then Lobby Against It
___
More and more email are being released be Wikileaks about similar campaign practices, no?
___
More and more email are being released be Wikileaks about similar campaign practices, no?
1
I attended an international nutrition conference some years ago and the same line was repeated: that soft drinks are really just a small part of our business. If that's the case why is so much spent defending them? What's worse is that these companies are making inroads into Africa and the Middle East where their future growth and profits are. It's easier for poorer Africans to buy a Coke or Pepsi than to actually get clean water to drink. Think about that. Meanwhile development groups gush on about using supply chains of multinational food corporations to reach the poor! While we might get a smattering of public health CSR here and there, the continued aggressive marketing of unhealthy foods is unchecked. Public health organizations need to figure out a new way to try and partner with the private sector to improve nutrition globally. This current model simply isn't working and as long as public health organizations are desperate for dollars I don't see this changing very much given the deep pockets of the industry. The trouble too, is that development organizations are myopic in their vision. As long as they get their pet programs funded, they'll turn a blind eye towards the downstream negative health impacts of these companies. There is also a lot of competition for resources but development organizations would do better to band together and develop a more unified approach to public health and nutrition. After all, peoples's very health is at stake.
3
Many years ago during the height of the Vietnam war I remember a photograph of exhausted troops staggering down a remote jungle road. Parked prominently in the foreground was a large Coca-Cola truck. The juxtaposition of normalcy and oddness of the setting was striking. How and why were we able to deliver such a huge worthless symbol of western culture into such a setting? I can only imagine the logistics, money and power it took place that truck and possibly thousands more into a remote indigenous culture. Remarkable.
3
Sometimes things really are exactly as they seem. If your financial survival depended on being promoted by the slimiest human being you have ever known, you'd be unlikely to go around telling colleagues and competitors about Mr. Slime's most outrageous misdeeds. Health organizations are in exactly the same position when they tie their own financial bottom lines to huge donations from businesses dedicated to making money by damaging people's health.
2
Even worse than this was that for years the American Medical Association publicly endorsed tighter controls on smoking and guns yet its political arm gave most of its money to candidates who opposed these controls.
1
A fine example of how opinion is represented as fact.
Fact: Beverage companies are good citizens and donate millions to charities, many worthy charities, many involved in public health.
Opinion: "simultaneously spending millions to defeat public health legislation ". Characterizing anti-soda/anti-soft drink legislation as public health legislation is opinion. Of course they are "against soda regulations."
There is little to no medical evidence that consumption of carbonated soft drinks is a public health issue or causes harm to the public.
Obesity is a health issue -- any if we knew its true causes, we could take public health action.
The fact is that we do not know the causes of obesity -- but the vilifying of a single food/drink item or attempting to regulate away the public's preference for sweet drinks is not proper public health action.
Neither Coke or Pepsi cares if the public buys sugared soda or diet soda or plain or enhanced water, as long as it keeps buying their brand.
The paper discussed is part of a wide-ranging anti-corporate and [unscientific] anti-sugar movement -- one of the many easy-bandwagon routes to getting a paper published in an important journal.
Fact: Beverage companies are good citizens and donate millions to charities, many worthy charities, many involved in public health.
Opinion: "simultaneously spending millions to defeat public health legislation ". Characterizing anti-soda/anti-soft drink legislation as public health legislation is opinion. Of course they are "against soda regulations."
There is little to no medical evidence that consumption of carbonated soft drinks is a public health issue or causes harm to the public.
Obesity is a health issue -- any if we knew its true causes, we could take public health action.
The fact is that we do not know the causes of obesity -- but the vilifying of a single food/drink item or attempting to regulate away the public's preference for sweet drinks is not proper public health action.
Neither Coke or Pepsi cares if the public buys sugared soda or diet soda or plain or enhanced water, as long as it keeps buying their brand.
The paper discussed is part of a wide-ranging anti-corporate and [unscientific] anti-sugar movement -- one of the many easy-bandwagon routes to getting a paper published in an important journal.
Dieticians who took money from Coca-Cola and then went on to promote Coca-Cola products as "part of a healthy diet:"
https://medium.com/ninjas-for-health/the-new-faces-of-coke-62314047160f#...
Coca-Cola co-sponsors "Exercise is Medicine" initiative w/ the American College of Sports Medicine. Under this plan, licensed coaches/trainers are weirdly _not allowed_ to give any advice to clients about sugar nutrition in general, and the program teaches that obesity is merely a problem of "energy balance":
https://therussells.crossfit.com/2016/03/24/inside-the-acsms-exercise-is...
BTW, it's the sugar, not the carbonation. But if you think that eating/drinking 100+lbs of added sugar a year is benign, then by all means drink away.
https://medium.com/ninjas-for-health/the-new-faces-of-coke-62314047160f#...
Coca-Cola co-sponsors "Exercise is Medicine" initiative w/ the American College of Sports Medicine. Under this plan, licensed coaches/trainers are weirdly _not allowed_ to give any advice to clients about sugar nutrition in general, and the program teaches that obesity is merely a problem of "energy balance":
https://therussells.crossfit.com/2016/03/24/inside-the-acsms-exercise-is...
BTW, it's the sugar, not the carbonation. But if you think that eating/drinking 100+lbs of added sugar a year is benign, then by all means drink away.
3
I guess if you work for big Cola and there's a campaign against your product, you just simply ask how much does it cost to drown this issue?
5
For-profit hospital chains play the same game. Here in Florida, Stand Up for Students, a proponent of charter schools and school vouchers, suddenly jumped into the fray in the battle over expanding Class I trauma centers. They require a critical mass of cases to keep the staff up to handling the worst of the trauma centers. To this end, the state of Florida limited the number of Class I trauma centers. Many, if not most, of them were run by non-profit hospitals. For-profit hospitals wanted in, and had no qualms about opening so many new Class I trauma centers that it would dilute their effectiveness.
Why? Federal rules allowed them to charge a huge fee just to walk in the door, up to $20,000 or even $30,000 per patient. And charge they did. Patients with minor injuries wound up in for-profit trauma centers, and got hit with massive bills. A big political battle ensued.
All of a sudden, Stand Up for Students comes out of nowhere and throws its support to the for-profit hospitals in their effort to open Class I trauma centers all over the state. Why? Turns out that Stand Up for Students accepted donations from--drum roll, please--for-profit hospital chains!
Why? Federal rules allowed them to charge a huge fee just to walk in the door, up to $20,000 or even $30,000 per patient. And charge they did. Patients with minor injuries wound up in for-profit trauma centers, and got hit with massive bills. A big political battle ensued.
All of a sudden, Stand Up for Students comes out of nowhere and throws its support to the for-profit hospitals in their effort to open Class I trauma centers all over the state. Why? Turns out that Stand Up for Students accepted donations from--drum roll, please--for-profit hospital chains!
7
There's no 'conflicting evidence', sugar is the prime cause of obesity.
Pepsi and Coke are the climate change deniers of the sugar biz.
Pepsi and Coke are the climate change deniers of the sugar biz.
8
GOOD for Marion Nestle's comment! NIH donations are a surprise, though on other hand, indicative on how shady our governmental orgs are....on t he surface they're the imprimatur of "good" and protective health issues...and when you scratch the dark paint... look what Coke and Pepsi provides.....!!
No big surprise! Consider the CDC and Lyme disease, but don't get me started...
You can exercise and run all you want but if you live in New Jersey things are working against you. Have a Coke and a donut and enjoy life.
3
Yes, apparently that's what your governor does
The height of hypocrisy for these Brands. Stop advocating health when your products are not healthy in the first place.
1
I drink diet soda in moderation, but even if I drank sugary drinks - like expensive, supposedly healthful orange juice - why should I be penalized because other people can't control their intake? The nanny state says we think this is no good for some people, so nobody can have it. And they're quick to come up with some bogus argument about it driving up the cost of health care. I've paid a heavy price for my fun, and I intend to have it.
So, just like Hilary Clinton, Coke and Pepsi have a "public" position and a "private" position.
1
Sugary drinks, like alcohol and tobacco, should be illegal for children.
5
When will people wake up and realize sugary sodas and soft drinks are a health risk? The fact they are food stamp eligible is a crime. I work as a caregiver to the needy and I see the harm sipping soda all day does. It is an addiction and takes education and willpower to quit. Taxing Soda through the roof isn't the answer either. Maybe some celebrities will come forward against the bad habit as they seem to have sway with the younger generation.
How is it possible for a private corporation to make a donation to the "National Institute of Health"? The NIH isn't a non-profit or charity, it's an arm of the federal government! "Donating" money to the NIH is like the auto-industry "donating" to the NTSB!
4
One could take the view that soda taxes, limits on drink sizes and the like are not the only, or even the preferable, approach to public health issues. Personally, I think that disclosure and education are the right approach. If that doesn't work for some people, so be it; individual liberty includes the right to make stupid decisions.
2
Can you smell Hypocrisy, anybody?
This is why public funding, disconnected from any corporate subsidies, is necessary to support public health studies and improvement. Instead public monies are used to subsidize the very sources of unhealthy habits, such as high fructose corn syrup - win win for corporations, lose lose for the public
5
In SF, a tax on sugary drinks won a majority of votes in 2014 but not the super majority needed. We will again vote on a sugar tax this November, this time worded so only a numeric majority is needed.
Ever tricky and dishonest, the American Beverage Association is flooding our mailboxes with scary fliers warning of the "Grocery Tax" and pictures foods as sandwiches. I've gotten about ten of these flyers and only two from proponents of the measure. Clearly, the proponents are outgunned.
I work long clinic hours with my multiple obese, diabetic patients, many of whom warrant referral to cardiology. One of these patients has been scheduled for cardiac bypass surgery. I tell all my obese, diabetic patients that sugary drinks have been identified as a primary cause of obesity and my first recommendation is to eliminate this product.
I believe Californians, at least, are catching on to the tremendous power of corporations to destroy health as well as make patients pay ever more for meds; we will also be voting on limiting the tobacco and pharmaceutical companies. May we prevail over these three industries and lead the way for the nation.
I hope my fellow physicians are equally outraged and also educate their patients on sugary drinks as well as on tobacco and only listen to drug reps showing up to turn their clinics into sales rooms if there is another speaker with another point of view, Some of these industry vs patient battles are on our work sites very day.
Ever tricky and dishonest, the American Beverage Association is flooding our mailboxes with scary fliers warning of the "Grocery Tax" and pictures foods as sandwiches. I've gotten about ten of these flyers and only two from proponents of the measure. Clearly, the proponents are outgunned.
I work long clinic hours with my multiple obese, diabetic patients, many of whom warrant referral to cardiology. One of these patients has been scheduled for cardiac bypass surgery. I tell all my obese, diabetic patients that sugary drinks have been identified as a primary cause of obesity and my first recommendation is to eliminate this product.
I believe Californians, at least, are catching on to the tremendous power of corporations to destroy health as well as make patients pay ever more for meds; we will also be voting on limiting the tobacco and pharmaceutical companies. May we prevail over these three industries and lead the way for the nation.
I hope my fellow physicians are equally outraged and also educate their patients on sugary drinks as well as on tobacco and only listen to drug reps showing up to turn their clinics into sales rooms if there is another speaker with another point of view, Some of these industry vs patient battles are on our work sites very day.
6
“We believe our actions in communities and the marketplace are contributing to addressing the complex challenge of obesity,” is the disingenuous defense offered by Coke's lobbying arm. The challenge is not complex at all: Our children's health and lives are being destroyed by sugar, and consumption of sugary soft drinks like Coke and Pepsi are a big part of this. The very simple public health message for parents and children is that this stuff might as well be poison. The only "complex challenge" is that Coke and Pepsi are bribing all the health care providers. So who will deliver the message?
1
Ugh, consumerism is so last century
1
Would that Coke be the same Coke industry that the "Honest Warren Buffett"
owns? That gives so much to charity? That Loves Wall Street?
Things go better with Coke, if you are a Billionaire!
owns? That gives so much to charity? That Loves Wall Street?
Things go better with Coke, if you are a Billionaire!
3
As a life scientist I am more and more leaning towards disbelieving every agency or association and rely more on my nutritional instincts. Shame.
2
Anyone who believes that multinational corporations, in whatever sector, will prioritize public welfare over the "fiduciary responsibility" they owe to their shareholders (a la Donald Trump) also believes in " the tooth fairy."
Maybe years ago "Corporate Responsibility " used to mean something-now it's just an oxymoron.
Maybe years ago "Corporate Responsibility " used to mean something-now it's just an oxymoron.
6
There is only one true counter to faux "corporate responsibility", and that is not regulation, but true unlimited and unfettered COMPETITION.
1
Have you already forgotten? Over the years, along with other food industry brands, Coke and Pepsi bought out most of their competition!
1
Duplicity is the new philanthropy.
1
Just think what that money could do by raising the wages of their workers.
1
Another excellent example of Marketplace Morality, American style. (Just after the close of the Second World War, Arthur Miller wrote a play, which later spawned two film versions: "All My Sons" (1948), which tells another story of greed and coverup.)
Big to-do about nothing. Very simple response to Coca-Cola and Pepsi -- just don't drink their products. It's really quite easy, really . . .
7
Last sentence of article says it all "...soda companies “want to have it both ways — appear as socially responsible corporate citizens and lobby against public health measures every chance they get.”
3
Warren Buffett, the man of the hour.
I stopped with carbonation almost 10 years ago.
Had a diet pepsi @ an event awhile ago and the amount of salt in that beverage was like a bomb!
Like cigarettes and fast food, these companies had better realize their days are numbered.
Water, out of the tape and filtered is free - of cost to your wallet and your health.
Had a diet pepsi @ an event awhile ago and the amount of salt in that beverage was like a bomb!
Like cigarettes and fast food, these companies had better realize their days are numbered.
Water, out of the tape and filtered is free - of cost to your wallet and your health.
1
This is just good old corruption. It is incredible how dysfunctional our democracy has become due to money=free speech rulings by our courts.
3
Reprehensible, shabby, hypocritical, shameful though it may be, it's the way of the free-market world, in which commercial organizations, reflecting the greed of their principals and the willingness of the populace to acquiesce as "bread and circus" audiences/consumers, do whatever is necessary to protect profits and promote sales. Lest we forget, every one of those organizations is owned, operated, staffed and defended by individual human beings, each of whom at some point can say yes or no, acquiesce or not, expose or keep silent. Individual human beings, just like you and me.
Huge story, huge death toll. These are drugs. They are not foods.
1
Stop buying the product. That means everyone. Thats all you have to do.
1
No one should be outraged to learn the soda pop companies pay money to influence people and policy. Never mind they're new to the game and their money is mere pennies compared to oil, banking, big pharm, guns and tobacco. What they do is ugly and bad for Americans, but Pepsi and others see need to to ensure their interests are protected even at the expense of obese kids and adults.
There is evidence they have been doing it for at least 50 years now so what part of that is new?
Schools sell soda pop! And they pay for big ads on the school walls encouraging kids to drink soda. Even the schools that serve milk...have vending machines available to the kids...in the schools. Zoos, amusement parks, all sell the stuff at every concession stand.
1
This is just part of a long-standing pattern: a corporate sector with a deadly product banding together to prevent any efforts to curb usage of their product, wielding lobbying and financial might. First they buy the politicians' loyalty, then they target whatever regulatory or advocacy groups stand in their way.
It's appalling behavior, which surely meets any reasonable definition of institutional corruption, but really it's just one of many ugly aspects of the US variant of capitalism, a system that's regularly lauded by the media - a media owned and operated by the very class that benefits from the system.
The sinister ability of capitalism to concentrate huge amounts of wealth in the hands of a few has led many intellectuals to question whether capitalism and democracy can coexist. The "no" side of this argument is pretty solid, but you won't read it in a media that thrives from the system that's on the wrong side of the argument.
http://tech.mit.edu/V129/N55/goranov.html
It's appalling behavior, which surely meets any reasonable definition of institutional corruption, but really it's just one of many ugly aspects of the US variant of capitalism, a system that's regularly lauded by the media - a media owned and operated by the very class that benefits from the system.
The sinister ability of capitalism to concentrate huge amounts of wealth in the hands of a few has led many intellectuals to question whether capitalism and democracy can coexist. The "no" side of this argument is pretty solid, but you won't read it in a media that thrives from the system that's on the wrong side of the argument.
http://tech.mit.edu/V129/N55/goranov.html
PepsiCo said it is "incorrectly painted as a soda company, when only a quarter of our global revenue comes rom carbonated soft drinks".
Another half comes from the sale of fried salty snacks high in calories, fat, and devoid of all nutrition (fritolay). Then there is the quaker snack division, specializing in candy bars named granola bars, and other over processed snacks. Did I mention Gatorade, the sugar drink with added salt?
Coca-Cola is no better and as a former Coke manager, I can tell you we didn't care if your kids teeth rotted out of their heads while they shot insulin into their thigh on the way to see the obesity specialist. We would blame the television, the internet, or some other factor that distracts from the danger of sucking a half gallon of corn syrup at one sitting.
Now let's turn our attention to candy manufacturers and their seasonal push for sugar and fat. Why does every holiday include eating 5 pounds of snickers, kisses, m&m's?
Another half comes from the sale of fried salty snacks high in calories, fat, and devoid of all nutrition (fritolay). Then there is the quaker snack division, specializing in candy bars named granola bars, and other over processed snacks. Did I mention Gatorade, the sugar drink with added salt?
Coca-Cola is no better and as a former Coke manager, I can tell you we didn't care if your kids teeth rotted out of their heads while they shot insulin into their thigh on the way to see the obesity specialist. We would blame the television, the internet, or some other factor that distracts from the danger of sucking a half gallon of corn syrup at one sitting.
Now let's turn our attention to candy manufacturers and their seasonal push for sugar and fat. Why does every holiday include eating 5 pounds of snickers, kisses, m&m's?
6
So much corruption.
I hate those companies for what they do.
I hate those companies for what they do.
I think it's phony that cities try to tax soda companies such as Pepsi and Coke under the guise of public health. Philadelphia needs money now, and soda taxes are just one way to get it. City councils around the country only care about the size of their wallets, not their citizens.
1
And folks, do you realize that our insurance premiums are increase by the folks who "indulge" in the consumption of "soda", sugar drinks and their adverse medical effects. Time to step in and alleviate soft drinks!
1
Big soda entered the school building in vending machines.
Then on sports team score boards. And now is found 'inside' of young children's required and graded classwork assignments.
I have seen Pepsi Co. sponsored homework in my home.
Pay attention parents.
Tell your Board of Education and Superintendent that this is not o.k.
I have also seen homework including KFC, Mars Candy (m&ms), Miracle Gro and Alka Seltzer.
I am the only parent in a large school district who objected or even noticed.
Then on sports team score boards. And now is found 'inside' of young children's required and graded classwork assignments.
I have seen Pepsi Co. sponsored homework in my home.
Pay attention parents.
Tell your Board of Education and Superintendent that this is not o.k.
I have also seen homework including KFC, Mars Candy (m&ms), Miracle Gro and Alka Seltzer.
I am the only parent in a large school district who objected or even noticed.
6
Hilarious though that the splash ad at the top of this page is for Coca-Cola, "sweetened from natural sources"
It's all about the money. They give money to organizations to promote good health so that they look like good citizens. Their lobbying against those organizations is done to protect their bottoms lines. Typical two faced corporations.
This should not surprise anyone; corporations have one goal. Caveat Emptor.
1
And then there was the time (about 10 years ago) when Coca-Cola approached the company where I was working at the time and said it wanted to create a certified medical education (CME) program for Diet Coke. The aim? Teach pediatricians how Diet Coke was an ideal way to help their young overweight patients. Yeah, um, uh, we actually talked to a number of peds in the course of trying to develop something palatable, but they would not be fooled (nor would they put their names on the efforts). Coke kept trying to throw money at the idea, but it was a lost cause before it even started. So integrity does work.
3
The enormous economic incentive to Coke and Pepsi, selling food products despite disconcerting effects on health (unproven of course), support organizations like the AHA. I imagine that big pharma likes this state of affairs because they are incentivized to develop drugs that treat the diseases created by foods like sugary sodas. Nice arrangement for insuring success among a broad range of industries.
25
Absolutely shameful.
The soda companies and their COLLABORATORS!
The soda companies and their COLLABORATORS!
9
Corporations give to charity for the PR and the deductions. They hire lobbyists to get Congress and the White House and the agencies to let them do whatever they want whether it's pollute the air or the water or taint our food. Charities who get too dependent on corporate donations will find their donors subtly trying to massage their message to be less harzardous to profits. Luckily for corproations once Obama pushes TPP through they won't have to worry about that! Corporations use charities to clean their images and to have a "good corporate citizen defense" available when they get sued. It's disgusting but it's true. It's dirty money no matter how you look at it.
12
No question that Pepsi and Coke are trying to rig the public debate about their ultra-fructose sugary drinks. Pepsi claims that these drinks, the flagships of the company, are only 25% of their business. Please tell us what their other products are, so that we can avoid them. My guess is, that if they're food, they're probably loaded with chemicals anyway.
A law saying that the smallest size of these drinks sold in restaurants and vending machines must be the lowest price per ounce might go a long way to solving this problem. Also offering healthy drinks side by side at a reasonable price as an alternative. Water fountains set up to fill reusable water bottles may be the best strategy.
A law saying that the smallest size of these drinks sold in restaurants and vending machines must be the lowest price per ounce might go a long way to solving this problem. Also offering healthy drinks side by side at a reasonable price as an alternative. Water fountains set up to fill reusable water bottles may be the best strategy.
19
Pepsi is YUM. Fast food, Frito Lays and Doritos.
Sugar will kill us, if we don't reform our eating habits. Sure as shootin'. I haven't ingested a sugary "soft drink" in 20 years.
10
Actually protein is also linked to increased cancer , I hope you are avoiding meat also.
2
Djames--If you mean animal protein, yes, as a matter of fact, I do. I try not to comment if I don't know enough about the issue.
10
@Djames:
Purified casein is linked to cancer in lab rats that have been bred to be genetically cancer prone.
Nobody eats purified casein, and we are not lab rats. Protein is an essential nutrient, and good quality meats and seafoods are nutrient dense and satiating to the appetite. Humans are adapted to eat an omnivorous diet, since before we were even human.
Purified casein is linked to cancer in lab rats that have been bred to be genetically cancer prone.
Nobody eats purified casein, and we are not lab rats. Protein is an essential nutrient, and good quality meats and seafoods are nutrient dense and satiating to the appetite. Humans are adapted to eat an omnivorous diet, since before we were even human.
Tackle the Citizen's United decision which made people out of corporations, with corrected legislation, and heavily regulate spending by such corporations, and make sure they cannot write off the billions sent to fight health legislation. The gifts are bribes: surely someone could write legislation to ban this form of influence? I would be inclined to add taxes to sodas, or sugar taxes as as added corporate tax category reflecting the impact consumption has on community health.
18
This is the way it works. Private and public companies have the money to buy research and advocacy and they do so, regularly, again and again. I wonder if there is a single, serious major study in America that can really be trusted. Offer the average scientist or professor getting by on less than 150K a nice "research grant" and, in most cases, you've bought the results, too.
These practices are one big reason that we can't count on the not for profit private sector to correct problems in America. They constantly need to bed for money to survive and move forward, so they are constantly at risk of being fatally compromised. Corporate America has all the money and they can generally buy anything they want.
These practices are one big reason that we can't count on the not for profit private sector to correct problems in America. They constantly need to bed for money to survive and move forward, so they are constantly at risk of being fatally compromised. Corporate America has all the money and they can generally buy anything they want.
17
Yes. Making money is certainly evil. All who make money should be
euthanized. This would be a great first step in making America Great Again for sure.The first to go would be the Donald. Only the unemployed would be
spared. This is a wonderful vision for the future of the country
euthanized. This would be a great first step in making America Great Again for sure.The first to go would be the Donald. Only the unemployed would be
spared. This is a wonderful vision for the future of the country
Welcome to America. It's all about the money.
32
Money isn't everything - it's the only thing.
The money “donated” to non-profits sound like lobbying money, but complete with tax deductions:
— When the mayor of Philadelphia proposed a soda tax in 2010, the beverage industry offered $10 million to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia if the tax proposal was dropped. —
Is this even legal?
And I disagree with — Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, [who] said the paper shows that soda companies “want to have it both ways — appear as socially responsible corporate citizens and lobby against public health measures every chance they get.” -- Soda companies only want to have it one way: No limits, regulations, or taxes on sugar sales or consumption. And lobbying is just a cost of doing business.
Another cost: the health of their customers. And another: the amount that society pays for the ills associated with excess consumption of added sugar.
— When the mayor of Philadelphia proposed a soda tax in 2010, the beverage industry offered $10 million to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia if the tax proposal was dropped. —
Is this even legal?
And I disagree with — Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, [who] said the paper shows that soda companies “want to have it both ways — appear as socially responsible corporate citizens and lobby against public health measures every chance they get.” -- Soda companies only want to have it one way: No limits, regulations, or taxes on sugar sales or consumption. And lobbying is just a cost of doing business.
Another cost: the health of their customers. And another: the amount that society pays for the ills associated with excess consumption of added sugar.
28
Those are 'tax-deductible' donations. Gotta love all of these "NON-profits".
A lot of them are tax swindles and give wealthy people jobs that make them look respectable.
My eyes often roll when someone tells me about their non-profit organization.
A lot of them are tax swindles and give wealthy people jobs that make them look respectable.
My eyes often roll when someone tells me about their non-profit organization.
Americans' health is for sale to the highest corporate bidder. It's not a Republican or Democratic thing, it's a money thing. Our state and federal legislatures along with successive governors and mayors are bought and paid for by Corporate America.
Quite impressive that the price of the Philadelphia City Council's integrity was $10 million. Sounds like a good deal for Philly but when you consider the billions of dollars at stake for sugary beverage companies I think their palms could have received much more grease.
This is really the same game tobacco companies played when it was their turn. We should expect the beverage executives to show up at Congressional hearings sometime soon to promise that Coke and Pepsi are actually good for our children's health, and then we can watch members of Congress knocking each other over to genuflect to the corporate powers.
Instructive to note, that to this day sugar is the ONLY ingredient with an exemption from being included in the Recommended Daily Allowance chart that's required to appear on all food packaging. The sugar industry has great lobbyists who know how to manipulate the system and keep America attached to its sugar fix!
Especially notable that the states in the South (where obesity is epidemic) keep voting for corporate robber barons like Donald Trump, who never miss an opportunity to take advantage of ill informed and naive voters by stoking their fears about gays, immigrants, and people of color. Why? Because it works!
Quite impressive that the price of the Philadelphia City Council's integrity was $10 million. Sounds like a good deal for Philly but when you consider the billions of dollars at stake for sugary beverage companies I think their palms could have received much more grease.
This is really the same game tobacco companies played when it was their turn. We should expect the beverage executives to show up at Congressional hearings sometime soon to promise that Coke and Pepsi are actually good for our children's health, and then we can watch members of Congress knocking each other over to genuflect to the corporate powers.
Instructive to note, that to this day sugar is the ONLY ingredient with an exemption from being included in the Recommended Daily Allowance chart that's required to appear on all food packaging. The sugar industry has great lobbyists who know how to manipulate the system and keep America attached to its sugar fix!
Especially notable that the states in the South (where obesity is epidemic) keep voting for corporate robber barons like Donald Trump, who never miss an opportunity to take advantage of ill informed and naive voters by stoking their fears about gays, immigrants, and people of color. Why? Because it works!
24
My favorite is the corporate sponsorship by Coca Cola of the American Academy of Pediatrics national conference.
Some attendees were stunned to see the banners, tote bags and other typical tchotchkes emblazoned with the Coke logo.
Others blithely dragged the oversized tote bags around the conference, effectively advertising and endorsing a company responsible for children's largest health problem today.
When finally confronted with massive negative media attention, most health organizations scurried away from these sponsors.
Pretty sad.
Some attendees were stunned to see the banners, tote bags and other typical tchotchkes emblazoned with the Coke logo.
Others blithely dragged the oversized tote bags around the conference, effectively advertising and endorsing a company responsible for children's largest health problem today.
When finally confronted with massive negative media attention, most health organizations scurried away from these sponsors.
Pretty sad.
40
Here in California we have a proposition on the ballot to raise the tobacco tax. The group formed to fight it lists many civic, legal and health organizations as sponsors but in tiny print mentions that the Tobacco companies provide "some support." In fact the tobacco companies are spending million of dollars fighting the Proposition. One has to wonder how much money the Tobacco Industry paid these groups to sign on.
7
Jeff--Raise the tax on all the substances that cause avoidable, premature death. We can't outlaw them, but we can make people think twice.
9
Does that include risky sex and extreme sports?
1
Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.
A person is known by the company they keep.
I live in "northern" California.
My 'Ballot B" has over 2 dozen 'Propositions".
My 'voters information guide' lists groups who support it or want it rejected.
Given the fine print at the bottom of the tv ads that flashes by in a heartbeat, there are some strange bedfellow out there.
Trust me, I'll be reading all fine-print on all measures in my guide.
If I find "X" , a group I deplore, in bed with "Z", a group I've always supported, then I will be voting AGAINST the bill.
Sorry, "Z", but you need to watch who you crawl in bed with.
Go slumming on your OWN time, and not with MY dime.
A person is known by the company they keep.
I live in "northern" California.
My 'Ballot B" has over 2 dozen 'Propositions".
My 'voters information guide' lists groups who support it or want it rejected.
Given the fine print at the bottom of the tv ads that flashes by in a heartbeat, there are some strange bedfellow out there.
Trust me, I'll be reading all fine-print on all measures in my guide.
If I find "X" , a group I deplore, in bed with "Z", a group I've always supported, then I will be voting AGAINST the bill.
Sorry, "Z", but you need to watch who you crawl in bed with.
Go slumming on your OWN time, and not with MY dime.
7
It's like this. If you're attacked and you don't shoot back, they keep attacking you and taking what you have. It's even worse when the attack is based on fear-mongering. HFCS is not worse than table sugar: it's almost identical once it reaches the stomach. Selling two-liter bottles isn't harmful: it's drinking them that is harmful, and that goes for two-liters of practically anything. And to assume that people are slaves to advertising is to insult the population and basically to say that we don't need no stinking democracy because people are too stupid to live anyway.
2
@Daedalus:
If people were perfectly rational, well-informed decision making machines, then there would be no such thing as advertising.
I agree that HFCS and table sugar are equally harmful doses of sugar.
If people were perfectly rational, well-informed decision making machines, then there would be no such thing as advertising.
I agree that HFCS and table sugar are equally harmful doses of sugar.
6
Why do Pepsi and Coca-Cola offer millions to public health agencies? It's paying ransom, and only encourages other public entities to stick their hands out, too. P.S. Let's ban sour cream and bacon and chocolate while we're at it.
1
I guess there is a price for "black lives matter" if the NAACP is willing to take 1 million and claim that sugary drinks are not contributing to high obesity rates among blacks.
10
I was sitting in an examining room waiting for the doctor when I saw a sheet of paper listing medical guidelines for kids. In the "up to six year-old" range it said that one can of soda a day was OK. More cans were OK for older age ranges.
Here are some facts:
The average body has 4 grams of blood sugar. Blood sugar is tightly regulated in a narrow range because it is critical - you will quickly die if it stays out of balance.
One can of Coke has 44 grams of sugar. When you drink one can your pancreas goes into emergency overdrive and spikes your insulin to pull the massive excess of sugar out of your blood before it kills you. The sugar is then stored as glycogen in your fat tissues.
Carbs cause a similar reaction. They quickly break down into glucose, which is stored as fat by the same mechanism.
Eventually, over the years, your pancreas cannot continue keeping up with this onslaught, so you become insulin resistant. Now you're part of the pre-diabetes and metabolic syndrome epidemics.
But there is a bright side to this. Doctors will prescribe insulin which has the benefit of boosting pharmaceutical industry profits. Note that Big Pharma knows every doctor's prescription volume and they need to be kept happy.
You might think a doctor would simply tell you to cut out carbs and sugar, because your life depends on it. But they never do this because 1) they are programmed with a studied ignorance, and 2) they really work for the pharmaceuticals, not you.
Here are some facts:
The average body has 4 grams of blood sugar. Blood sugar is tightly regulated in a narrow range because it is critical - you will quickly die if it stays out of balance.
One can of Coke has 44 grams of sugar. When you drink one can your pancreas goes into emergency overdrive and spikes your insulin to pull the massive excess of sugar out of your blood before it kills you. The sugar is then stored as glycogen in your fat tissues.
Carbs cause a similar reaction. They quickly break down into glucose, which is stored as fat by the same mechanism.
Eventually, over the years, your pancreas cannot continue keeping up with this onslaught, so you become insulin resistant. Now you're part of the pre-diabetes and metabolic syndrome epidemics.
But there is a bright side to this. Doctors will prescribe insulin which has the benefit of boosting pharmaceutical industry profits. Note that Big Pharma knows every doctor's prescription volume and they need to be kept happy.
You might think a doctor would simply tell you to cut out carbs and sugar, because your life depends on it. But they never do this because 1) they are programmed with a studied ignorance, and 2) they really work for the pharmaceuticals, not you.
68
Your points about soda are good ones, but to be fair, your body can handle small amounts of complex carbohydrates. Also, those carbs will not be stored as fat if you use them immediately. For example, I just ate around 150 calories worth of brown rice (along with beans and vegetables), which I will easily burn off during the course of my afternoon, especially since I move around physically a lot and will take a 20-minute walk. Whole grains, which I also eat a small amount of at breakfast, help to provide me with energy to get through the day. Plus I LIKE them, as do many people who might be daunted by the idea of giving carbs up entirely. I don't drink soda or eat processed stuff, though. All I'm saying is that you don't have to 100% eliminate (complex) carbohydrates from your diet, if you don't want to.
I am glad that I never really go into soft drink.
Soft drinks are garbage, pure and simple.
Our only hope of winning against China is...that its people become as addicted to soft drink and as obese as Americans.
I feel lucky that I am happy to limit my daily consumption of beverages to:
1-2 glasses of rosé wine from France, Italy, Portugal or Spain, one before and sometimes one after dinner; moderate wine consumption is healthy;
3 cups of fair-traded, organic coffee spread out between 7 am and 3 pm; people have been consuming coffee for centuries, and no one has found anything terribly bad about coffee for most people;
1 cup of tomato juice with breakfast (for vitamins); and
the rest is water from the tap and 2-3 cups of unflavored, unsweetened club soda.
Soft drinks are garbage, pure and simple.
Our only hope of winning against China is...that its people become as addicted to soft drink and as obese as Americans.
I feel lucky that I am happy to limit my daily consumption of beverages to:
1-2 glasses of rosé wine from France, Italy, Portugal or Spain, one before and sometimes one after dinner; moderate wine consumption is healthy;
3 cups of fair-traded, organic coffee spread out between 7 am and 3 pm; people have been consuming coffee for centuries, and no one has found anything terribly bad about coffee for most people;
1 cup of tomato juice with breakfast (for vitamins); and
the rest is water from the tap and 2-3 cups of unflavored, unsweetened club soda.
6
I hope you're joking.
Just wait until a similar report about the coffee industry comes to light. People will be howling about the right be be caffeine addicts.
1
Caffeine usage does not lead to obesity, diabetes, kidney dialysis or transplantation, blindness or limb amputation. In fact, people have been consuming coffee for centuries, so we know a lot about it. For the vast majority of people coffee has few or minor side effects.
On the other hand, massive consumption of sugary soft drinks and sugary coffee drinks has no real purpose other than to enrich the sugar industry while rotting out people's teeth, which enriches dentists.
On the other hand, massive consumption of sugary soft drinks and sugary coffee drinks has no real purpose other than to enrich the sugar industry while rotting out people's teeth, which enriches dentists.
8
Caffeine is generally considered safe according to its many studies: neuroprotective and with many other benefits. The coffee bean (not caffeine) is loaded with antioxidants as are most teas. I've read that coffee is the primary source of most people's antioxidants.
But biochemistry varies as much as nose size and some people are hyper-responders to caffeine. Your liver enzymes may not work as well to clear the caffeine. Have also read that 90+% of coffee is loaded with fungus, although I'm not so sure of that.
Caffeine per cup varies quite a bit. 6 oz is about 100 mg but a Starbucks 16 oz tips the scales at up to 400 mg. Dunkins is about 100 mg less than Starbucks. And Black tea is about 50 mg for 6 oz. Hot seems to push caffeine in faster than cold brew. 30 mg in a can of Coke.
http://www.caffeineinformer.com/caffeine-content/coffee-brewed
Caffeine has a half-life of 6 hours. A small cup of coffee at 9 am is down to 50 mg at 3 pm, and down further to 25 mg at 9 pm.
So there will still be some stimulation when you go to sleep.
People say they can easily get to sleep but they don't realize that the small amount of leftover caffeine will most likely (and here I speculate) interfere with their deep sleep, which has recently been found to be extremely important to health span - not something to take lightly.
But biochemistry varies as much as nose size and some people are hyper-responders to caffeine. Your liver enzymes may not work as well to clear the caffeine. Have also read that 90+% of coffee is loaded with fungus, although I'm not so sure of that.
Caffeine per cup varies quite a bit. 6 oz is about 100 mg but a Starbucks 16 oz tips the scales at up to 400 mg. Dunkins is about 100 mg less than Starbucks. And Black tea is about 50 mg for 6 oz. Hot seems to push caffeine in faster than cold brew. 30 mg in a can of Coke.
http://www.caffeineinformer.com/caffeine-content/coffee-brewed
Caffeine has a half-life of 6 hours. A small cup of coffee at 9 am is down to 50 mg at 3 pm, and down further to 25 mg at 9 pm.
So there will still be some stimulation when you go to sleep.
People say they can easily get to sleep but they don't realize that the small amount of leftover caffeine will most likely (and here I speculate) interfere with their deep sleep, which has recently been found to be extremely important to health span - not something to take lightly.
3
Spoken like a true coffee drinker. Maybe you don't add all the goodies that companies like Dunkin' Donuts put into their coffee drinks but the nutritional information is available on line. Check out the amount of calories and sugar in the average DD coffee then review your comments about obesity, diabetes, etc. And that does not include the junk food that gets consumed with coffee.
1
Whenever this sort of topic comes up, some people start talking about how they "don't want the government telling them what to drink." No one is suggesting that. It is quite the opposite. People can drink (or eat) whatever they like.
But if they are going to make choices that are well-established to damage their health which in many cases adds to the public health-care bill, then they should make a contribution to the costs. This is most efficiently accomplished through associated taxes.
For instance, people can smoke if they want to (except if it directly affects others). But tobacco taxes help pay for the associated costs (medical treatment and less contribution to the national tax base).
But if they are going to make choices that are well-established to damage their health which in many cases adds to the public health-care bill, then they should make a contribution to the costs. This is most efficiently accomplished through associated taxes.
For instance, people can smoke if they want to (except if it directly affects others). But tobacco taxes help pay for the associated costs (medical treatment and less contribution to the national tax base).
56
Sorta, except, I think the taxes are cigarettes are well above the justifiable extra healthcare costs; smokers die early. I've heard they are actually rather cheap. Think the same reasons incorporates second hand smoke impacts. Don't get my wrong, I am all for taxing smoking and sugary beverages, but maybe QALYs is a better justification than pure costs.
2
John, you believe that tobacco taxes help pay for associated costs of smoking?!!! Realize you live outside the US, but just so you know - tobacco costs do NOT go towards paying for healthcare or other related items. Just as the big tobacco suit that the states brought in the 90s (hundreds of billions) did not go to caring for tobacco smokers, their families, or related illnesses. The money went to the state's funds and shored up pensions for the public service unions.
Corn-syrup addicts of the world, unite. You've nothing to lose but your gains.
10
Theses are the corporations that Republicans insist can regulate themselves, when all evidence is that they act exclusively (and very deviously) in their own interest even when it is blatantly against the public interest. This is why we need a large government regulatory system, not because we want one, but because we need one to protect ourselves from predatory corporations. Are we really supposed to believe that the Republican position on government regulation is some sort of genuine interest in 'freedom', and not the machinations of the corporations themselves? I don't.
108
Hillary thinks the banks can regulate themselves! I wonder why that is? Donations, perhaps?
2
I find it interesting that Hillary Clinton, the next President of the United States, has told her corporate elite benefactors, that politicians must have two positions, private and public. The public position is just short-term cover and propaganda to advance their political power, the private position is her true commitment, only to be disclosed behind the public's back for the secret benefit of her true constituents: her wealthy patrons. Clearly, after serving on, for example, the Wal-Mart board of directors and later raising funds across the planet from powerful global business and state actors as part of the Clinton Foundation, Hillary has long mastered the art of private service via calculated public deception. But the marketing operations of corporate strategists are precisely this. And Coke and Pepsi are arguably the global exemplars of corporate marketing/branding strategy:
3
@Kevin Kresse, give the political trolling a rest -- we're getting more than enough this month! Take it to one of the million and six stories about the election.
Coke and Pepsi: it's no accident that they are buying up many water beverage companies. They know that soda sales will continue to fall as people learn about the detrimental effects of too much sugar. We do not have to buy what they are selling!
Coke and Pepsi: it's no accident that they are buying up many water beverage companies. They know that soda sales will continue to fall as people learn about the detrimental effects of too much sugar. We do not have to buy what they are selling!
32
Meanwhile the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine is insisting we stop worrying our pretty little heads about industry funding of health research, in spite of all the evidence for how it skews data and policy recommendations.
52
Yes, the so-called "prestigious" medical journals are organs of Big Pharma.
Studies show a direct relationship between pharmaceutical advertising dollars and positive articles and studies for their pharmaceutical products.
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.00...
“Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry”, wrote Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, in March 2004. In the same year, Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, lambasted the industry for becoming “primarily a marketing machine” and co-opting “every institution that might stand in its way”.
Doctors are dupes of their conventional medicine echo-chamber and patients are victims. They're programmed to believe that there are no cures, just pharmaceutical treatments. Wrong.
Medicine is health care for the pharmaceutical industry (Wall Street's most profitable industry), and MDs are shills for Big Pharma.
Anyone - and any smug doctor - who doubts a word of this must answer the question: "Why is the American health care system ranked last in the industrialized world?"
Ranked number 37 - in spite of being the most expensive:
http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-healt...
The American health care that the MDs (Malpractice Doctors) brag about is at the same level as Costa Rica, but much much more expensive.
Studies show a direct relationship between pharmaceutical advertising dollars and positive articles and studies for their pharmaceutical products.
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.00...
“Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry”, wrote Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, in March 2004. In the same year, Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, lambasted the industry for becoming “primarily a marketing machine” and co-opting “every institution that might stand in its way”.
Doctors are dupes of their conventional medicine echo-chamber and patients are victims. They're programmed to believe that there are no cures, just pharmaceutical treatments. Wrong.
Medicine is health care for the pharmaceutical industry (Wall Street's most profitable industry), and MDs are shills for Big Pharma.
Anyone - and any smug doctor - who doubts a word of this must answer the question: "Why is the American health care system ranked last in the industrialized world?"
Ranked number 37 - in spite of being the most expensive:
http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-healt...
The American health care that the MDs (Malpractice Doctors) brag about is at the same level as Costa Rica, but much much more expensive.
10
Most doctors at this point have sold their souls. Guess to who?
Coke and Pepsi. The new tobacco.
99
Clearly, the overwhelming majority is for the poor to middle class black/Hispanics...we ALL know that the "';tobacco" related terms are increasingly for immigrants and aforementioned segments, but to think upscale whites will have the majority on soda is dumb thinking....just saying..;)
1
Don Kendall, the past long-time Chairman of Pepsico once said that anyone that touches soft drinks makes money. The profit margins are like candy, just fantastic and when you add that to the volume of sales it is one profitable business.
We can add the health organizations to those who 'touch' soft drinks.
If you think about it what is the difference between a drunk cracking open a beer at 10 am and a obese person ordering the super size cola drink? (I am assuming the drunk needs a few beers to put him in the DUI category).
Both are killing themselves at society's expense.
We can add the health organizations to those who 'touch' soft drinks.
If you think about it what is the difference between a drunk cracking open a beer at 10 am and a obese person ordering the super size cola drink? (I am assuming the drunk needs a few beers to put him in the DUI category).
Both are killing themselves at society's expense.
18
I am not a soda drinker save for the occasional one if no other option exists, but
soda is not poison. It is all about moderation!
I do not want the government to tell me how to live and I believe passionately in personal accountability. So if you over indulge in soda or any other product with adverse consequences, I do not want to be financially responsible for you, but that is another issue.
soda is not poison. It is all about moderation!
I do not want the government to tell me how to live and I believe passionately in personal accountability. So if you over indulge in soda or any other product with adverse consequences, I do not want to be financially responsible for you, but that is another issue.
5
But the rationale behind the types of laws that add taxes to these sugar water confections is that society overall DOES pay a price in terms of public health. One may think that a tax to limit use is a good idea or a poor one, but this is not in any way about government telling anyone what to drink. As a public health issue, your taxes are ultimately dealing with the health consequences. You may now suggest that no state should mandate seat belt use. If drivers want to take the risk, that's their decision. But car accidents and injuries resulting from them affect emergency rooms and long term care, which impacts government expenses.
19
I also don't like the government telling me what to do, but let's just all recognize that the government is currently providing incentives for people to make these unhealthy choices. And let's also be clear that everyone is going to pay for it, even those of us who don't consumer sugar.
If you believe that the high-sugar american diet is resulting in a health epidemic (which there is plenty of evidence for), you will pay for this through higher health insurance premiums and higher drug costs.
A lot of these sugar ladened foods are attractive to people because they are also made artificially cheap through government corn subsidies. Basic economics: price goes down, then demand goes up. Again, you the tax payer are paying for this subsidy.
Also, some scientists would disagree with you and say that soda is a poison because of the sugar it contains. And there are also studies that show sugar is more addictive than heroin or crack (easy to google all of this).
Lastly, for people who are thinking, 'but come on! it's just sugar'! Just remember, 50 years ago people would have said the same thing about tobacco.
If you believe that the high-sugar american diet is resulting in a health epidemic (which there is plenty of evidence for), you will pay for this through higher health insurance premiums and higher drug costs.
A lot of these sugar ladened foods are attractive to people because they are also made artificially cheap through government corn subsidies. Basic economics: price goes down, then demand goes up. Again, you the tax payer are paying for this subsidy.
Also, some scientists would disagree with you and say that soda is a poison because of the sugar it contains. And there are also studies that show sugar is more addictive than heroin or crack (easy to google all of this).
Lastly, for people who are thinking, 'but come on! it's just sugar'! Just remember, 50 years ago people would have said the same thing about tobacco.
9
Do believe that the consumption of soda plays a role in the rising obesity in children. When i grew up there were very few heavy kids - maybe 5 or so in a class of 45? We didn't grow up drinking soda regularly. In fact, in my family we ONLY had soda when we had pizza. Otherwise, it was milk whether I liked it or not. But aside from government intervention, parents are really the problem here. The parents are overweight and their poor eating habits are translated to their children.
31
It is a generational problem -- poorly educated kids became poorly educated parents. But there is hope for change. I am heartened that soda sales are flat and falling -- so clearly the word is getting out, despite bribes to health organizations by soda companies who are trying to silence them. Let's hope the truth continues to make inroads against a completely unnecessary and nutritionally damaging product.
If you care about your health and the health of your children, there's no reason to buy soda. Retrain yourself and drink waterr -- save the money and buy real food instead! Have soda once in a while, as a special treat. A 12-oz can, not one of those Big Gulp monstrosities. Be kind to your insides.
If you care about your health and the health of your children, there's no reason to buy soda. Retrain yourself and drink waterr -- save the money and buy real food instead! Have soda once in a while, as a special treat. A 12-oz can, not one of those Big Gulp monstrosities. Be kind to your insides.
40
Do you also remember gym at school, playing outside after school? Perhaps, just perhaps, it's tied to the sedentary lifestyle of kids today as they stare passively into their pads/phones and play inane games.
I find it fatiguing this constant, media fueled, focus on everything being a conspiracy. Perhaps some of the efforts were to strong arm influence. But the reality is that having government dictate what you can drink or not, should be something that beverage companies are entitled to fight. Getting health organizations to do more studies on whether or not sugar, fat (the other conspiracy), carbs, gluten etc are really as bad as other studies have reported - makes sense to me that they'd want further research.
4
" But the reality is that having government dictate what you can drink or not, should be something that beverage companies are entitled to fight."
That's right--it's a "free country". I'm currently working to unite drug cartels nationwide in an effort to fight enforcement of drug laws.
That's right--it's a "free country". I'm currently working to unite drug cartels nationwide in an effort to fight enforcement of drug laws.
33
Powerful lobbies are hardly a conspiracy. Health organizations have done study after study on sugars. When it became nationally known that sugar was as addictive as cocaine and heroin in 2008, the next year the American Beverage Association lobby's spending shot up from about $700,000 to almost $19 MILLION dollars. It's time to stop calling an increase of 2400% spending a "media fueled conspiracy".
You're absolutely right: these beverage companies have every right to fight: and fight they have. But the fact still remains that these companies have been unable to assert evidence to the contrary and have only thrown money at lawmakers to turn the other way and plug their ears.
Another study won't help when no one is listening.
You're absolutely right: these beverage companies have every right to fight: and fight they have. But the fact still remains that these companies have been unable to assert evidence to the contrary and have only thrown money at lawmakers to turn the other way and plug their ears.
Another study won't help when no one is listening.
38
I find it fatiguing many people make blanket assertions about an issue without researching it or checking:
1) you and your friends may drink as many sodas as you please (while smoking two pack of cigarettes a day if you please). But if you consume products detrimental to your health they should be taxed at a higher rate to cover the health issues that inevitably result because of your poor or careless judgment. Stop expecting a free ride for bad choices.
2) journalism is about reporting the facts surrounding issues. Is it really possible you are so incurious or naive that you don't believe there is a quid pro quo when the manufacturer's of sugared water donate tens of millions of dollars to health organizations? Did they do so before? Don't you want to know? I do.
Finally, none of this is a conspiracy: it a very brazen attempt to buy influence, and it's disgusting.
1) you and your friends may drink as many sodas as you please (while smoking two pack of cigarettes a day if you please). But if you consume products detrimental to your health they should be taxed at a higher rate to cover the health issues that inevitably result because of your poor or careless judgment. Stop expecting a free ride for bad choices.
2) journalism is about reporting the facts surrounding issues. Is it really possible you are so incurious or naive that you don't believe there is a quid pro quo when the manufacturer's of sugared water donate tens of millions of dollars to health organizations? Did they do so before? Don't you want to know? I do.
Finally, none of this is a conspiracy: it a very brazen attempt to buy influence, and it's disgusting.
86