Case 5: Let Them Drink Soda: Coca-Cola’s
Effort to Inflfluence Public Health Research
Roxanne Ross and Denis G. Arnold
A 16 ounce coke has 52 grams (equivalent to a quarter cup
or 13 teaspoons) of sugar and 201 calories. Approximately one
in four Americans drink over 200 calories a day from sugar
sweetened soda. The predominant source of calories in teen
diets are sugary beverages, averaging at 226 calories per
day. These calories quickly add up. For example, if a person
goes over their needed daily calories by a single 16 ounce
coke each day, he or she would gain approximately 20 pounds
a year or about an extra pound every 17 days. Women should
consume no more than 25 grams (6 teaspoons) of added sugar a
day, and men should consume no more than 36 grams (9
teaspoons). That means for a woman who drinks a 16 ounce coke
each day, she consumes over double the recommended maximum
amount of sugar. The health consequences of excess
consumption of added sugars are widely known and supported by
empirical evidence. Unlike sugars consumed in fruit and
dairy, excess consumption of any form of added sugar such as
corn syrup, cane sugar, or even honey, are linked with health
problems such as obesity, liver disease, type 2 diabetes,
heart disease, and gout. Each year, $190 billion is spent in
the United States alone treating obesity related health1360
conditions. If American obesity related healthcare were its
own company, it would be the 13th largest, based on revenue,
in the world. The amount spent in the United States on
obesity related treatments is equivalent to the GDP of
Greece.
Despite the well-established health consequences of
excess sugar consumption, one exercise scientist, Dr. Steven
Blair, famously announced “there’s virtually no compelling
evidence” that consumption of sugary drinks and junk foods
is the cause of the obesity epidemic. Rather, Dr. Blair says
that an inactive lifestyle should be targeted to fix the
obesity problem and that cutting calories hasn’t been a
successful way to fix obesity. Dr. Blair made this statement
in a promotional video for a non-profit research group called
Global Energy Balance Network. Soda fans might have rejoiced
if it wasn’t later discovered that the non-profit
organization received in total about $4 million in funding
from the beverage giant, Coca-Cola. In 2008, Coca-Cola gave
several health scientists $1.5 million each to start the
Global Energy Balance Network.
Recently, soda consumption is in decline. Over the last
20 years, soda consumption fell by over 25 percent. Schools
are banning soda and several cities flirted with imposing a
soda tax. Coca-Cola and other soda companies are fighting
back with lobbying, marketing tactics, and large donations to
health organization (e.g., the American Beverage Association
donated $10 million to the Children’s Hospital in1361
Philadelphia). Critics charge that Coca-Cola’s sponsorship
of the Global Energy Balance Network was a thinly veiled
effort to regain consumer interest in soda through pro-soda
rhetoric grounded in poor science.
Founders of the Global Energy Balance Network, Dr. Steven
Blair and Dr. James Hill, made no mention of their corporate
sponsorship until another researcher, Dr. Yoni Freedhoff,
asked them to disclose their funding source. Only after Dr.
Freedhoff’s request did the organization disclose that Coca
Cola was a major sponsor. Dr. Hill responded by saying their
objective as an organization was independent of its funders.
The Global Energy Balance Network later disbanded, and some
of the funds were returned to Coca-Cola. The University of
Colorado housed Dr. Hill and returned nearly $1 million to
Coca-Cola. The University of South Carolina housed Dr. Blair
and has not returned any money to the soda company.
The revelation of the relationship between Coca-Cola and
the non-profit resulted in significant criticism from the
scientific community and public health experts. Dr. Marion
Nestle, professor of public health at New York University,
commented, “The Global Energy Balance Network is nothing but
a front group for Coca-Cola. Coca-Cola’s agenda here is
clear: Get these researchers to confuse the science and
deflect attention from dietary intake.” Dr. Barry Popkin,
professor of global nutrition at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, likened the strategy to tactics used
by the tobacco industry. “Essentially, Coke is following the1362
strategy used by the tobacco industry as they tried to create
doubt among the general public and also politicians. It was
very effective in the fights to regulate cigarettes and we
have learned from this that it is essential to address these
attempts and uncover what they are very rapidly.”
Discussion Questions
1. Why do you believe Coca-Cola provided $4 million in
funding to the Global Energy Balance Network? Explain.
2. How would you assess Coca-Cola’s actions from an
ethical perspective? Explain.
3. How does the analysis by Kelly Brownell and Kenneth
Warner, in their article “The Perils of Ignoring
History,” apply to this case? Which points of their
analysis are most salient and why? Explain.
4. Doesn’t Coca-Cola have a right to provide funds to
whomever it likes? Are Coca-Cola’s critics being unfair
to the company? Why, or why not? Explain.
This case was written for classroom discussion and is
based on the following sources: “Added Sugars,” American
Heart Association (February 1, 2017). Retrieved July 17, 2017