Germana Carillo If we knew that Coca Cola was among the most lethal products in our diet, would we continue to drink it in such large quantities? The Coca Cola Company has gone to great lengths to ensure that we never found out, as numerous lawsuits now make abundantly clear.
Table of contents
In the last decades, most public campaigns and scientific evidence highlighted the risk of sugary drinks, which most consumers cut down on their diet as a reaction. However, these alerts could not deter people from consuming them. The average American, for example, still consumes about 12 ounces of sugary drinks daily. For each person who stays away from them altogether, there is another who consumes double the amount.
According to a January 2024 paper in Nature Medicine, sweetened drinks accounted for 2.2 million new cases of diabetes and 1.2 million cardiovascular disease events worldwide in just 2020 alone.
And why are we still consuming something that is bad for our body?
The answer is in a history of manipulation, forceful marketing, and strategic alliances, as told in Sweet and Deadly by Murray Carpenter. The book is a decades-long chronicle of methods employed by Coca-Cola to discredit the science linking sugar consumption with serious diseases like type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
A big tobacco-style strategy
In 2017, American pastors William H. Lamar IV and Delman L. Coates of nonprofit organization Praxis Project sued American Beverage Association and Coca-Cola on charges of fraudulent advertising. They claimed that since ancient times the company had had complete knowledge that sugar was behind chronic diseases, but they deliberately tried to render the public obtuse. As Purdue Pharma did with OxyContin all those years ago, one had hoped this case would have turned the conversation around at last. But Coca-Cola anticipated each blow with an old-established network of associations, sponsorships, and nicely phrased public declarations.
The analogy to the tobacco sector is not coincidental: Coca-Cola used the same disinformation tactics, and in some cases, actually set new precedents.
“That a calorie is a calorie”? no, it’s not
Probably the most misleading message Coca-Cola has propagated is that “a calorie is a calorie,” or that whether or not a calorie is from a sugar drink does not matter: the only thing that matters is one’s overall calorie balance. This message allowed the company to redirect attention away from its high-sugar content foods and towards how much one is doing.
But science does no error: calories are not created equal. Those from liquid sugars, like sodas, are metabolized differently in the body than those from whole grains, fruit, or nuts, which also provide fiber and micronutrients. So demanding an “energy balance” is misleading.
Coca-Cola also in 2014 funded the creation of the Global Energy Balance Network, a pseudo-scientific organization led by academics from the Universities of South Carolina and Colorado. One of its main spokesmen, Steven Blair, claimed in promotional videos that junk food and sodas did not lead to obesity but merely an energy imbalance between calorie consumption and energy expenditure.
Soon afterward, The New York Times uncovered the entire deception: the group was a front group operated by and funded by Coca-Cola itself, masquerading as an independent organization. Former CEO Muhtar Kent was forced to apologize publicly in a letter to the Wall Street Journal, titled “We Will Do Better.”
Expertly crafted marketing campaigns and disinformation
Manipulation of public opinion did not only occur through commissioned studies but also through very tightly managed marketing campaigns. In a 2013 blog entry, now removed, Coca-Cola touted taking “1.5 trillion calories out of the U.S. market” through new formulations and smaller serving sizes.
The post featured images of past government officials and scholars at what seemed to be neutral events, such as those held by the Hudson Institute or the Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation (HWCF). But these were sponsored by Coca-Cola, who had donated millions of dollars to these same organizations.
An altogether different world from the one they encouraged: Coca-Cola, if it chose, could instantly strip the market of billions of calories simply by dropping the full-sugar versions of its brands or by stopping its advertising of them. Instead, it does the reverse: it continues to market and introduce new lines, such as the newly introduced Coca-Cola Spiced, which in several instances has even more sugar in it than the classic.
Despite knowing the devastation caused by sugar to public health for nearly as long as it has existed, Coca-Cola has chosen to invest billions of dollars in misleading advertising, academic endorsements, and promotion tactics to neutralize the risk perception. Just like the tobacco industry, it has chosen to protect profits ahead of public health.
And here today, when millions fall ill, the world’s greatest mythical multinational just keeps on selling — and convincing us — that it’s not to blame.
