Posted on 01/05/2017 6:11:13 AM PST by Red Badger
The Coca-Cola Company, with the help of the American Beverage Association, is deceiving consumers about the harms of consuming Coke and other sugar-sweetened beverages, according to a complaint filed in federal court in California. The suit contends that the beverage giant and its trade association are engaged in an unlawful campaign of deception to mislead and confuse the public about the science linking consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks to obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the nonprofit Praxis Project, charges that Coca-Cola and the ABA are misleading consumers about the health risks posed by sugar drinks, and claiming that there is no science linking sugar-sweetened beverages to obesity and related diseases. Coke and the ABA executed a strategy of shifting focus away from sugar-sweetened beverages to a lack of exercise as a principal cause of the obesity epidemic, according to the suit. The campaign also led consumers to believe that all calories are the same, when science indicates that sugar drinks play a distinct role in the obesity epidemic.
The suit was filed today in United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Praxis Project, the plaintiff, is a nonprofit that seeks to build healthier communities. Praxis is represented in court by Maia C. Kats, litigation director of the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest; Andrew Rainer of the Public Health Advocacy Institute; and Michael R. Reese of the law firm Reese LLP. Praxis devotes considerable resources to its advocacy on sugar-sweetened beverages—resources it could have spent elsewhere were it not for the defendants’ activities, according to the complaint.
“From the 1950s until the late 1990s, the tobacco industry engaged in an elaborate campaign of disinformation to cast doubt on the science connecting cigarettes to lung cancer and other diseases,” said Kats. “Today the soda industry is engaged in its own campaign of disinformation to cast doubt on the science connecting sugar-sweetened beverages to obesity, and obesity-related diseases like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Through this lawsuit, Praxis seeks to stop Coke and the ABA from deceiving the public on the science linking obesity and related diseases to regular consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages.”
The 40-page complaint alleges that Coke’s marketing plan was sophisticated and multi-faceted. The complaint alleges that Coke covertly funded and publicized biased scientific research, substantially orchestrated a drumbeat of deceptive ABA press releases on science and health, and ran false and misleading advertising campaigns. Citing a report in the New York Times, the complaint contends that between 2010 and 2015 alone, Coca-Cola spent $120 million on research and other projects aimed at confusing consumers about, or denying, the science linking health risks to soda and other sugar drinks.
The complaint also cites numerous examples of Coca-Cola and ABA officials making false and deceptive statements about sugar-sweetened drinks. For example:
Coca-Cola’s senior vice president, Katie Bayne, claims that “[t]here is no scientific evidence that connects sugary beverages to obesity.” “Coca-Cola is an excellent complement to the habits of a healthy life,” said former Coca-Cola chairman and CEO Douglas Ivester. “There is no unique link between soda consumption and obesity,” claims a post on the ABA’s website. “Simply put, it is wrong to say beverages cause disease,” the ABA stated in another release. Coke’s incoming CEO, James Quincey, equated sugar-sweetened beverages to any other calories, dismissing their unique contribution to the obesity epidemic by asserting such beverages contribute only two percent of calories overall.
The complaint also cites numerous deceptive statements by Coke-funded scientists, such as Dr. Steven Blair, who stated that “there is really virtually no compelling evidence” that sugar drinks are linked to the obesity epidemic.
Coke also paid health professionals to promote sugar-sweetened beverages, including one dietitian who suggested that an eight-ounce soda could be a healthy snack, like “packs of almonds.”
Coca-Cola’s advertising campaigns have also spread misinformation about the harms linked to sugar-sweetened beverages, including that exercise, even small amounts like laughing or bowling, can offset the harmful effects of drinking sodas. One multi-platform ABA campaign called Mixify encourages kids to consume sugar-sweetened beverages and then exercise more. Coca-Cola also spent $22 million in 2014 on “physical activity” programs internationally—programs that also advertised its products—further advancing the idea that modest amounts of exercise, or “balance,” is the key to avoiding soda-related diseases like obesity.
Coke and ABA also spread deceptive messages about hydration—giving the misimpression that many people suffer from dehydration, according to the complaint. “We don’t believe in empty calories. We believe in hydration,” said Coca-Cola executive Katie Bayne. “It’s safe, it hydrates, it’s enjoyable,” said former Coca-Cola chief science and health officer Rhona Applebaum.
“There’s no hydration crisis in the communities we work in,” said Praxis Project executive director Xavier Morales. “What we have is a crisis of diabetes, a crisis of obesity, and a crisis of soda marketing that increasingly targets communities of color and young people in particular.”
Another facet of the lawsuit is Coke’s advertising to minors, despite a pledge not to do so. “Like the tobacco industry, Coca-Cola needs to replenish the ranks of its customers, and it tries to recruit them young,” the filing states, citing cartoons, Coke-branded toys and other consumer products, apps, advertising, and other marketing that reaches young people.
The suit seeks declarative and injunctive relief that would, among other things, stop Coke and the ABA from engaging in the unfair and deceptive marketing of sugar-sweetened drinks—including any direct or implied claim that the drinks do not promote obesity, type 2 diabetes, or cardiovascular disease, and any marketing directed to children. The complaint also asks the court to require Coke and ABA to disclose all corporate documentation and communications relating to the health impacts of sugar drinks and obesity, and to fund a major corrective education campaign to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages in order to counteract the effects of their wrongdoing.
“Coca-Cola executives have known for years that their products undermine health,” said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. “Nevertheless, for years they have mounted a multi-million-dollar effort to persuade consumers that their products are benign—even healthful. We hope the end result of this litigation will be that consumers will be permanently protected from Big Soda’s fraudulent marketing.”
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where the suit was filed, has had soda-related litigation in front of it before. In May of 2016 the court upheld warning notices on certain soda advertisements in San Francisco which state “WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay.” That warning, the court found, is “factual and accurate.”
Sodas have been on the left’s target list for quite awhile, but I think they’re going to ratchet up the war on them now. The left goes after the deep pockets. Coke and Pepsi have very deep pockets. Follow the money as usual.
Perhaps MSNBC and CNN should have a disclaimer that consumption of their product can cause irreversible brain damage.
Gee!
Just like the government and AGW.
So...Drinking a 12 pack of Coke a day causes diabetes and other health related issues, good to know.
When are they going to go after spoon manufacturers for their role in this obesity epidemic?
The Praxis Project is a national organization that works in partnership with national, tribal, regional, state, and local partners to achieve health justice for all communities. Our mission is to build healthy communities by transforming the power relationships and structures that affect our lives and our communities. Praxis supports policy advocacy and local organizing as part of a comprehensive strategy for change. We emphasize developing fields of work in ways that encourage multi-level trans-disciplinary learning and collaboration across issues, across the country and across the globe. National, multi-site initiatives are a core part of our work as they operate as “laboratories” where we learn and share lessons for application in related fields to help us collectively move the work of health justice further, faster.
Pretty soon people will have to step outside of the restaurant to enjoy a soda. The stores will keep cokes behind locked doors and people will have to show ID and ask for them at the register.
Pizza joints will have drinking coke and non drinking coke sections, all non coke drinkers will look upon coke drinkers with disdain.
Insurance costs will skyrocket at a rapid pace for those who dare to threaten their health by drinking soda, and parents will not be able to enjoy a coke around their children.
People will run in fear when they see someone drinking a coke, lest they get a drop upon them.
Isn’t the nanny state grand?
Kinda surprised at this. Coke and Pepsi are big supporters of the homosexual agenda.
“Sugary drinks” are the number one threat to American security, right ‘RATS?
The government wants to do to soft drinks what it did to tobacco. It wants that sweet revenue under the guise of “public health”.
I don’t see how they can legitimately target Coke and Pepsi unless they go after everything with sugar in it. How about Hershey, Mars, Kellog’s, General Mills, and on and on?
I’m no fan of Coke or Pepsi and I rarely drink sodas of any kind. I think they are unhealthy in many ways, not just because of the sugar. (I think the chemicals in “diet” beverages are even worse.) But I am against excessive regulation and definitely against a lawsuit which tries to make a company responsible for how a consumer chooses to use its product.
Everyone knows that eating too much makes you fat. Everyone knows that too much sugar is bad for you. If a person chooses to ignore that, it’s not the fault of the company who makes food with sugar in it.
Here’s another interesting question: Why don’t they go after the root of the problem which is the corn industry that has pushed to get high fructose corn syrup into so many foods? Perhaps that is an industry favored by the government? Perhaps that is an agenda favored by the government?
Can we sue the FDA for the Food Pyramid with carbs forming the base?
The Tobacco Lawsuits worked because they proved addiction.
They cannot prove the same with sugar. But High Fructose Corn Sweetener (HFCS) they might............
Cannot prove intent to harm.........
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$...............
Those Sugary Drink bastards always trying to be sweet and and tasty.
First we had SJW’s. Now we have HJW’s....................
Yep, and I’ll be in the coke drinking section flipping the bird to the non drinking section while eating red meat and waving my concealed carry permit around. after dessert I plan on running with scissors.
CC
How about Hershey, Mars, Kellog’s, General Mills, Nabisco, Keebler, Nestle’s, Brachs, Domino sugar, and on and on.................
You lay down with snakes you get biten
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.