E274: Sweet and Deadly - Coca-Cola in the spotlight

Recently I was asked to review a forthcoming book for American Scientist magazine. The book was entitled, Sweet and Deadly: How Coca-Cola Spreads Disinformation and Makes us Sick. I did the review, and now that the book has been published, I'm delighted that its author, Murray Carpenter, has agreed to join us. Mr. Carpenter is a journalist and author whose work has appeared in publications such as the New York Times, and the Washington Post, and has been featured in places like NPR's All Things Considered and Morning Edition.

Interview Summary

So, let's start with your career overall. Your journalism has covered a wide range of topics. But a major focus has been on what people consume. First, with your book Caffeinated and now with Sweet and Deadly. What brought you to this interest?

My interest in caffeine is longstanding. Like many of us, I consume caffeine daily in the form of coffee. And I just felt like with caffeine, many of us don't really discuss the fact that it is a drug, and it is at least a mildly addictive drug. And so, I became fascinated with that enough to write a book. And that really led me directly in an organic fashion to this project. Because when I would discuss caffeine with people, mostly they just kind of wanted the cliff notes. Is my habit healthy? You know, how much caffeine should I take? And, and in short, I would tell them, you know, if you don't suffer from anxiety or insomnia and you're consuming your caffeine in a healthy beverage, well, that's fine. But, what I realized, of course, is that by volume, the caffeinated beverage people consume most of is sodas. And so that led me to thinking more about sodas because I got a lot of questions about the caffeine in sodas. And that led me to realize just the degree to which they are unhealthful. We've all known sodas not to be a health food, but I think that the degree to which they are not healthy surprised me. And that's what led me to this book.

Yes, there's some very interesting themes aren't there with addiction and manipulation of ingredients in order to get people hooked on things. So let's talk about Coca-Cola a bit. Your book focuses on Coca-Cola. It's right there in the title. And certainly, they're giants in the beverage field. But are there other reasons that led you to focus on them? Other than that, the fact that they're the biggest?

They're the biggest and really almost synonymous with sodas worldwide. I mean, many people don't say ‘I want a pop, I want a soda.’ They say, ‘I want a Coke.’ I quote a source as saying that. You know, what that means is you want a sugar sweetened beverage. And it's not just that they're the most successful at this game, and the biggest. But as I started doing this research, I realized that they have also been the most aggressive and the most successful at this sort of disinformation that's the focus of the book. At generating these health campaigns, these science disinformation campaigns, we should say. This is not to say Pepsi and Dr. Pepper have not been at this game as well, and often through the American Beverage Association. But it is to say that I think Coca-Cola has been the most sophisticated. The most invested in these campaigns. And I would argue the most successful. And so, I really think it's a league apart and that's why I wanted to focus on Coca-Cola.

That makes good sense. So, in reading your book, I was struck by the sheer number of ways Coca-Cola protected their business interest at the expense of public health and also the degree to which it was coordinated and calculated. Let's take several examples of such activities and discuss exactly what the company has done. And I'd love your opinion on this. One thing you noted that Coke acted partly through other organizations, one of which you just mentioned, the American Beverage Association. There were others where there was sort of a false sense of scientific credibility. Can you explain more about what Coke did in this area?

Yes, and one of the organizations that I think is perhaps the exemplar of this behavior is the International Life Sciences Institute. It's a very successful, very well-funded group that purports to you know, improve the health of people, worldwide. It was founded by a Coca-Cola staffer and has, you know, essentially carried water for Coke for years through a variety of direct and indirect ways. But so front groups, the successful use of front groups: and this is to say groups that don't immediately appear to be associated, say with Coca-Cola. If you hear the International Life Sciences Institute, no one immediately thinks Coca-Cola, except for people who study this a lot. The International Food Information Council, another very closely related front group. This is one of the ways that Coke has done its work is through the use of front groups. And some of them are sort of these more temporary front groups that they'll establish for specific campaigns. For example, to fight soda taxes in specific areas. And they often have very anodyne names, and names again that don't directly link them to Coca-Cola or a beverage, the beverage industry. And the reason that this is so important and the reason this is so effective is journalists know if they were saying, Coca-Cola says soda isn't bad for you, of course that raises red flags. If they say, the International Life Sciences Institute says it's not bad for you, if they say the International Food Information Council says it's not bad for you. The use of front groups has been one of the very effective and persistent, strategies.

It almost sounds like the word deception could be written the charter of these organizations, couldn't it? Because it was really meant to disguise Coca-Cola's role in these things from the very get go.

That's right. Yes. And the deception runs very deep. One of the things that I happened onto in the course of reporting this book, Sweet and Deadly, is Coca-Cola two different times, organized three-day seminars on obesity in Colorado. These two attendees appeared to be sponsored by a press organization and the University of Colorado. They were funded and structured entirely at the behest of Coca-Cola. And it wasn't until after people had attended these seminars and reported stories based on the findings that they'd learned there. Much, much later did people find out that yes, actually these were Coca-Cola initiatives. So yes, deception, runs deep and it's a huge part of their public relations strategy.

It's like reputation laundering, almost.

Well, it is, and, you know, I make frequent analogies to the tobacco industry in the book. And I think one of the things that's important to remember when we're looking at tobacco and when we're looking at Coca-Cola, at the soda industry writ large, is that these are industries that are producing products that science now shows unequivocally are unhelpful. Even at moderate levels of consumption. So, in order for the industry to continue selling this product, to continue leading, they really have to fight back. It's imperative. It's a risk to their business model if they don't do something to fight the emerging health science. And so, yes, it's very important to them.

You know, it's easy, I guess, to ascribe this kind of behavior to ill meaning people within these organizations. But it's almost written into the DNA of these organizations. I mean, you said they have to do this. So, it’s pretty much be expected, isn't.

It is. I think young people when they hear something like this, they often shrug and say capitalism. And, yes, there's something to that. But capitalism thrives also in a regulated environment. I think that's maybe a little bit too simplistic. But the aspect of it that does apply here is that Coca-Cola is in the business of selling sugar water. That's what they're there to do. Granted, they've diversified into other products, but they are in the business of selling sugar water. Anything that threatens that business model is a threat to their bottom line. And so, they are going to fight it tooth and nail.

So how did Coca-Cola influence big health organizations like the World Health Organization and any equivalent bodies in the US?

Well, so a few different ways. One of the ways that Coca-Cola has really extended its influence is again, through the use of the front groups to carry messages such as, you know, a calorie is a calorie. Calories and calories out. That's, that's one of the strategies. Another is by having allies in high places politically. And sometimes these are political appointees that happen to be associated with Coca-Cola. Other times these are politicians who are getting funding from Coca-Cola. But, yes, they have worked hard. I mean, the WHO is an interesting one because the WHO really has been out a little bit ahead of the more national bodies in terms of wanting soda taxes, et cetera. But there's a subtler way too, I think, that it influences any of these political entities and these science groups, is that Coca-Cola it's such an all-American beverage. I don't think we can overstate this. It's almost more American than apple pie. And I think we still have not sort of made that shift to then seeing it as something that's unhealthful. And I do think that that has, sort of, put the brakes slightly on regulatory actions here in the US.

Let's talk about the Global Energy Balance Network, because this was an especially pernicious part of the overall Coca-Cola strategy. Would you tell us about that and how particular scientists, people of note in our field, by the way, were being paid large sums of money and then delivering things that supported industries positions.

Yes. This was a Coca-Cola initiative. And we have to be clear on this. This was designed and created at the behest of Coca-Cola staffers. This was an initiative that was really an effort to shift the balance to the calories outside of the equation. So energy balance is one of these, sort of, themes that Coca-Cola and other people have, sort of, made great hay with. And this idea would be just calories and calories out. That's all that matters. If you're just balanced there, everything else is to be okay. We can talk about that later. I think most of your listeners probably understand that, you know, a calorie of Coca-Cola is not nutritionally equivalent to a calorie of kale. But that's what the Global Energy Balance Network was really trying to focus on. And yes, luminaries in the field of obesity science, you know, Stephen Blair at the University of South Carolina, Jim Hill, then at the University of Colorado's Anschutz Center, the Global Energy Balance Network funded their labs with more than a million dollars to specifically focus on this issue of energy balance. Now, what was deceptive here, and I think it's really worth noting, is that Coca-Cola developed this project. But once it developed the project and gave the funding, it did not want to be associated with it. It wasn't the Global Energy Balance Network 'brought to you by Coca-Cola.' It appeared to be a freestanding nonprofit. And it looked like it was going to be a very effective strategy for Coca-Cola, but it didn't turn out that way.

So, we'll talk about that in a minute. How much impact did this have? Did it matter that Coke gave money to these several scientists you mentioned?

Well, I think yes. I think in the broader scheme of things that every increment of scientific funding towards this side matters. You know, people talk about the science of industrial distraction or industrial selection. And, you know, partly this is this idea that even if you're funding legitimate science, right, but it's focused on this ‘calories outside of the equation,’ it's sucking up some of the oxygen in the room. Some of the public conversation is going to be shifted from the harmful effects of a product, say Coca-Cola, to the benefits of exercise. And so, yes, I think all of this kind of funding can make a difference. And it influences public opinion.

So how close were the relationships between the Coca-Cola executives and the scientist? I mean, did they just write them a check and say, go do your science and we will let you come up with whatever you will, or were they colluding more than that?

And they were colluding much more than that. And I've got a shout out here to the Industry Documents Library at the University of California at San Francisco, which is meticulously archived. A lot of the emails that show all of the interrelationships here. Yes, they were not just chatting cordially - scientists to Coca-Cola Corporation. They were mutually developing strategies. They were often ready at a moment's notice to appear at a press conference on Coca-Cola's behalf. So, yes, it was a very direct, very close relationship that certainly now that we see the conversations, it's unseemly at best.

How did this all come to light? Because you said these documents are in this archive at UCSF. How did they come to light in the first place and how did shining light on this, you know, sort of pseudo-organization take place?

Well, here we have to credit, New York Times reporter, now at the Washington Post, Anahad O'Connor, who did yeoman's work to investigate the Global Energy Balance Network. And it was his original FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests that got a lot of these emails that are now in the industry document library. He requested these documents and then he built his story in large part off of these documents. And it was a front-page New York Times expose and, Coke had a lot of egg on its face. It's then CEO, even apologized, you know, in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. And you know, the sort of a secondary aspect of this is after this funding was exposed, Coca-Cola was pressured to reveal other health funding that it had been spending money on. And that was, I think over a few years like $133 million. They spread their money around to a lot of different organizations and in some cases the organizations, it was just good will. In other cases, you had organizations that changed their position on key policy initiatives after receiving the funding. But it was a lot of money. So, the Global Energy Balance Network, it is sort of opened a chink in their armor and gave people a view inside the machine. And there's something else that I'd love to mention that I think is really important about the Global Energy Balance Network and about that initiative. As Coca-Cola seems, and this became clear in the reporting of the book over and over again, they seem always to be three moves ahead on the chess board. They're not just putting out a brush fires. They're looking way down the road. How do we head off the challenge that we're facing in public opinion? How do we head off the challenge we're facing in terms of soda science? And in many cases, they've been very, very effective at this.

Were Coca-Cola's efforts mainly to influence policies and things in the US or did they have their eyes outside the US as well?

I focused the book, the reporting of the book, really on Coca-Cola in the US. And also, and I just want to mention this tangentially, it's also focused not on non-nutritive sweetened beverages, but the sugary beverages. It's pretty tightly focused. But yes, Coca-Cola, through other organizations, particularly the International Life Sciences Institute, has very much tried to influence policy say in China, for example, which is a huge market. So yes, they've exported this very successful PR strategy globally.

So, the corporate activities, like the ones you describe in your book, can be pretty clearly damaging to the public's health. What in the heck can be done? I mean, who will the change agents be? And do you think there's any hope of curtailing this kind of dreadful activity?

Well, this is something I thought about a lot. One of the themes of the book is that the balance of public opinion has never tipped against Coca-Cola. And we talked about this earlier, that it's still seen as this all American product. And we see with other industries and other products. So, you know, Philip Morris, smoking, Marlboro. Eventually the balance of public opinion tips against them and people accept that they're unhealthful and that they've been misleading the public. The same thing happened for Exxon and climate change, Purdue pharma and Oxycontin. It's a pattern we see over and over again. With Coca-Cola, it hasn't tipped yet. And I think once it does, it will be easier for public health advocates to make their case. In terms of who the change agents might be, here we have a really interesting conversation, right? Because the foremost change agent right now looks like it's RFK Jr. (Robert F. Kennedy), which is pretty remarkable and generates an awful lot of shall we say, cognitive dissonance, right? Because both the spending of SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funds for sodas, he's opposed to that. He has just as recently as the week before last called sugar poison. He said sugar is poison. These are the kinds of very direct, very forceful, high level, initiatives that we really haven't seen at a federal level yet. So, it's possible that he will be nudging the balance. And it puts, of course, everybody who's involved, every public health advocate, I think, who is involved with this issue in a slightly uncomfortable or very uncomfortable position.

Yes. You know, as I think about the kind of settings where I've worked and this conflict-of-interest problem with scientists taking money and doing things in favor of industry. And I wonder who the change agents are going to be. It's a pretty interesting picture comes with that. Because if you ask scientists whether money taints research, they'll say yes. But if you ask, would it taint your research, they'll say no. Because of course I am so unbiased and I'm so pure that it really wouldn't affect what I do. So, that's how scientists justify it. Some scientists don't take money from industry and there are no problems with conflicts of interest. But the ones who do can pretty easily justify it along with saying things like, well, I can help change the industry from within if I'm in the door, and things like that. The universities can't really police it because universities are getting corporate funding. Maybe not from that particular company, but overall. Their solution to this is the same as the scientific journals, that you just have to disclose. The kind of problem with disclosure as I see it, is that it - sort of editorializing here and you're the guest, so I apologize for intruding on that - but the problem with disclosure is that why do you need to disclose something in the first place because there's something potentially wrong? Well, the solution then isn't disclose it, it's not to do it. And disclosing is like if I come up and kick you in the leg, it's okay if I disclose it? I mean, it's just, there's something sort of perverse about that whole system. Journals there, you know, they want disclosure. The big scientific association, many of them are getting money from industry as well. So, industry has so permeated the system that it's hard to think about who can have any impact. And I think the press, I think it's journalists like you who can make a difference. You know, it wasn't the scientific organizations or anything else that got in the way of the Global Energy Balance Network. It was Anahad O'Connor writing in the New York Times, and all the people who were involved in exposing that. And you with your book. So that's sort of long-winded way of saying thank you. What you've done is really important and there are precious few change agents out there. And so, we have to rely on talented and passionate people like you to get that work done. So, thank you so much for sharing it with us. Let me just end with one final question. Do you see any reason to be optimistic about where this is all going?

I do. And I've got to say maybe you're giving scientists a little bit of short shrift here. Because, as the science develops, as it becomes more compelling and a theme of the book is that soda science really, over the past 15, 20 years has become more compelling. More unequivocal. We know the harms and, you know, you can quantify them and identify them more specifically than say, 15 years ago. So, I think that's one thing that can change. And I think slowly you're seeing, greater public awareness. I think the real challenge, in terms of getting the message out about the health risks, is that you really see like a bifurcated consumption of Coca-Cola. There are many people who are not consuming any Coca-Cola. And then you have a lot of people who are consuming, you know, say 20 ounces regularly. So, there is a big question of how you reach this other group of people who are still high consumers of Coca-Cola. And we know and you know this well from your work, that soda labeling is one thing that works and that soda taxes are another. I think those are things to look out for coming down the pike. I mean, obviously other countries are ahead of us in terms of both of these initiatives.

One of the things occurred to me as you were speaking earlier, you mentioned that your book was focused on the sugared beverages. Do you think there's a similar story to be told about deception and deceit with respect to the artificial sweeteners?

I suspect so, you know. I haven't done the work, but I don't know why there wouldn't be. And I think artificial sweeteners are in the position that sugary beverages were 10 to 15 years ago. There's a lag time in terms of the research. There is increasing research showing the health risks of these beverages. I think people who are public health advocates have been loath to highlight these because they're also a very effective bridge from sugar sweetened beverages to no sugar sweetened beverages. And I think, a lot of people see them as a good strategy. I do think there probably is a story to tell about the risks of non-nutritive sweeteners. So, yes.

I can remind our listeners that we've done a series of podcasts, a cluster of them really, on the impact of the artificial sweeteners. And it's pretty scary when you talk to people who really understand how they're metabolized and what effects they have on the brain, the microbiome, and the rest of the body.

Bio

Murray Carpenter is a journalist and author whose stories have appeared in the New York Times, Wired, National Geographic, NPR, and PRI’s The World. He has also written for the Boston Globe, the Christian Science Monitor, and other media outlets. He holds a degree in psychology from the University of Colorado and a Master of Science in environmental studies from the University of Montana, and has worked as a medical lab assistant in Ohio, a cowboy in Colombia, a farmhand in Virginia, and an oil-exploring “juggie” in Wyoming. He lives in Belfast, Maine. He is the author of Caffeinated: How Our Daily Habit Helps, Hurts, and Hooks Us and Sweet and Deadly: How Coca-Cola Spread