Over the last few decades, consumption of soda has plummeted, as Americans have become aware of the impacts of intaking these sugared beverages. Coca-Cola’s response to these developments have often proved to be questionable, raising the issue of the American consumer’s freedom to honest business practices. As sugar in sodas continue to be labelled as dangerous, and linked to health problems, sales of soda in the United States have decreased by more than 25 percent in the last 20 years. As Mary Agne ’18 states, “I generally didn’t drink that much soda to begin with, but once I discovered the negative health effects I was extra careful to stay away because of the excessive amounts of sugar and caffeine.” Numerous workplaces, government offices and school cafeterias have prohibited the sale of soda; as a result, from 2004 to 2012, American children on average consumed 79 fewer sugar-sweetened beverage calories a day.
However, Coca-Cola has also started more morally dubious endeavors. In late September, the company released a list of nearly $120 million in grants given to health and community organizations since 2010. Coke’s generous donations may serve a dual purpose; studies show that beverage studies funded by Coca-Cola and its competitors were five times more likely to find no link between sugary drinks and weight gain than studies whose authors reported no financial conflicts. Results from a large Coke-funded study performed by the Louisiana State University’s Pennington Biomedical Research Center determined that the major lifestyle factors for childhood obesity around the world were a lack of exercise, not enough sleep and too much television. Behind the scenes, L.S.U. is the single largest recipient of Coke money, with more than $7.5 million from Coke in the past 5 years. In another telling case, Dr. Steve Blair received more than $3.5 million in funding from Coke for research projects since 2008. The outcome was articles arguing that physical inactivity is largely overlooked as a cause of obesity, and proposing to raise awareness “about both sides of the energy balance equation.” Serena Gutsche ’18 observes, “Health organizations are doing the opposite of what they’re supposed to. They’re doing something that will eventually harm the people.” Along the same lines, Chicago’s City Council proposed a soda tax in 2012 to help address the city’s obesity problem. After Coca-Cola donated $3 million to establish fitness programs in more than 60 of the city’s community centers, the tax was dropped.
Coca Cola’s attempts to prop up Coke sales through hidden manipulations are revealing of how much it fears the shift in how consumers are responding to sugary beverages. Coke’s actions also bring attention to the issue of the freedom the American consumer should arguably have to be receiving information uninfluenced by powerful corporations like Coca-Cola. Katie Zucca ’16 states, “I think that their manipulation in public health information isn’t right… it makes me wonder how many other companies have done that.” Scientists and economists are in agreement: health and wellness is a major enduring trend in the USA, and soda brands will have to learn how to compete in this changed environment if they wish to succeed.