Better Luck Next Time, Coke

Earlier this year, we talked about  The Global Energy Balance Network, a group organized to praise the benefits of exercise, and to assure us that sugary drinks such as Coke have nothing to do with the world's growing obesity problems. This group denied it had any connection to Coca-Cola. 

An investigation by the Associated Press proved otherwise:

The emails obtained by the AP through a records request showed Coke executives and the group's leaders held meetings and conference calls to develop the group's mission. A proposal circulated via email at Coke laid out a vision for a group that would "quickly establish itself as the place the media goes to for comment on any obesity issue." It said the group would run a political-style campaign to counter the "shrill rhetoric" of "public health extremists."

"Public health extremists?" Ouch. Wonder how that worked out for them?

(Following revelations about Coke's involvement with the group), The Global Energy Balance Network said on its website Monday night that it is "discontinuing operations due to resource limitations." The decision was effective immediately.

As much as I'd like to think that this would be the end of this particular tactic, if history has taught us anything, it's that there is no bad idea that won't be used again. I'm sure it won't be long before Coke thinks they've perfected a new strategy to spread their not-calories-exercise gospel.

How's that for "shrill rhetoric", Coke?

The Best "Science" Money Can Buy

Just when you think science has made a definitive statement, it seems like they switch it up on you. First, it's low-fats, then it's no fat, then it's some fats are good, then it's fats are okay, it's sugar that's the problem. Sometimes, these switch-ups are a natural progression of scientific inquiry; as more and better data becomes available, science will, as it must, change its consensus. Confusing for the rest of us, unfortunately, but, at least, it's the result of honest science.

And then there's the other kind. The kind of switch-up that's not made by scientists, and honesty has nothing to do with it. I'm speaking now about a new nonprofit organization called the Global Energy Balance Network, dedicated to creating "balance" in the way we think about diet, disease prevention, and exercise.

The group's vice president, Steven N. Blair, has this to say about its goals:

“Most of the focus in the popular media and in the scientific press is, ‘Oh, they’re eating too much, eating too much, eating too much’ — blaming fast food, blaming sugary drinks and so on, and there’s really virtually no compelling evidence that that, in fact, is the cause.” 

Uh … No compelling evidence? Doesn't he know that we know exactly how many calories are burned by exercising, and that the damage caused by bad food habits (heart disease, liver disease, etc.) can't be exercised away? Maybe not! Here's a tweet he made recently:

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for fitness, I'm all for exercise. But to claim it's more important than eating healthy is just plain mind-boggling in this day and age. Where did this Global Energy Balance Network and it's cockamamie ideas come from, anyway?

Maybe the following quotes from a piece in The New York Times can shed a little light on that:

"Coca-Cola, the world’s largest producer of sugary beverages, is backing a new “science-based” solution to the obesity crisis: To maintain a healthy weight, get more exercise and worry less about cutting calories … Coke has made a substantial investment in the new nonprofit [Global Energy Balance Network]. [Coke] had donated $1.5 million last year to start the organization … Since 2008, the company has also provided close to $4 million in funding for various projects to two of the organization’s founding members: Dr. Blair, a professor at the University of South Carolina whose research over the past 25 years has formed much of the basis of federal guidelines on physical activity, and Gregory A. Hand, dean of the West Virginia University School of Public Health."

So an organization supposedly dedicated to improving public health is, in fact, merely a prop, and the professors involved, merely puppets, for a soda giant.

Why the creepy clandestine approach, Coke?

"Health experts say [it is] part of an effort by Coke to deflect criticism about the role sugary drinks have played in the spread of obesity and Type 2 diabetes. They contend that the company is using the new group to convince the public that physical activity can offset a bad diet despite evidence that exercise has only minimal impact on weight compared with what people consume."

This sort of behavior by corporations is nothing new, of course. In marketing parlance, it's called having a "front" organization--that's right, just like the mob. Tobacco companies are probably the most notorious for the tactic, frequently using front organizations and doctors to advocate their arguments about tobacco use. One less-than-subtle example:

Click on the image to marvel at the fine print.

It'll be interesting, won't it, to see who comes out of the woodwork to parrot the Global Energy Balance Network's new fitness-over-diet mantra. When you see them, you'll know whose money is in their pocket, and whose best interest they really have at heart.

As for the rest of us, we should feel pretty proud of ourselves. We've been so good at avoiding their products that they've resorted to crazy puppet show theater to lure us back. 

Shame on you, Coca-Cola. Shame on you.

Thanks to Friend of the Blog, Michael, for sending along the NYT article.

Stop the Pop! Part lll

Full disclosure: I used to drink a lot of Coca-Cola. A LOT. I didn't grow up drinking it; soft drinks were strictly off limits on our house. Not only was our mom a health fanatic, she was a thrifty health fanatic. Whenever one of us might hint that perhaps having pop around would be kind of awesome, she'd say: "I'm not paying good money for sugar water!" So, naturally, the first thing I did when I moved away was to start drinking Coke, which had grabbed my customer loyalty in my formative years. If there ever was a kid who wanted to be a hippie on a hillside, it was me.

This ad captured not just my imagination, but was an advertising smash; what in today's marketing parlance would be referred to as "Lifestyle Branding." That is, the ad wasn't about the product--fizzy brown sugar water--as much as it was about the experience that the customer could associate with it; it provided consumers with an emotional attachment to a particular lifestyle.

And that was me. Every time I had a Coke, I felt I became all the things the commercial had imprinted on me at a very young age: beautiful, peaceful, independent. Laterally, it also tapped into my always-appealing rebellion against my mom and her rules, and her generation's (in my view) missteps and misdeeds. Pretty silly, isn't it? That all those things could be contained in a bottle of fizzy brown sugar water, straight out of Atlanta, Georgia.

That's where they make it.

Mindfulness means thinking about why we do the things we do. What influences the decisions we make about what we eat and drink? Are they based on emotion? rebelliousness? conformity? economics? politics? Are our children learning to make their own choices, or are their choices being made for them by the bombardment of advertising they see every day?

Our house, where even the toys were vegetables.

Stop the Pop! Part ll

Previously, Big Sister Marsha, RN, MSN, talked about the health hazards of drinking sugary drinks, and not just soda pop, either. Juice, and sports drinks, as she noted, are also full of sugar. Too often, we assume that these are healthy alternatives to soft drinks. In a recent study, which I read about here, Harvard researchers found links between consumption of sugary drinks and various health issues for young girls. Like BSM, the study didn't differentiate between these beverage options, and its findings ranged from the obvious result of too much sugar consumption (obesity) and the not so obvious:

Among nearly 5,600 girls aged 9 to 14 who were followed between 1996 and 2001, the researchers found that those who drank more than 1.5 servings of sugary drinks a day had their first period 2.7 months earlier than those who drank two or fewer of these drinks a week.

Starting your period two to three months earlier than average doesn't sound like that big a deal, does it? However, study author Jenny Carwile, a postdoctoral associate at the Harvard School of Public Health, in Boston, goes on to say:

"Starting periods early is a risk factor for depression during adolescence and breast cancer during adulthood. Thus, our findings have implications beyond just starting menstruation early." 

I highly recommend reading the whole article, but in case you are pressed for time, it closes with excellent observations and solid advice (emphasis mine):

Samantha Heller, a senior clinical nutritionist at New York University Langone Medical Center in New York City, said, "Sugar-sweetened drinks, such as sodas, have no nutritional value. One may wonder what nutrients -- such as vitamins, minerals and protein -- are being replaced by these drinks that can lead to this metabolic problem," she added.

"Whatever the reasons for the earlier start of periods, there is no good reason for anyone to be drinking sugar-sweetened drinks or sodas regularly, at any age," Heller said.

Stop the Pop!

When not using her powers to keep me from death's door, my Big Sister Marsha, RN, MSN, works to improve the health of kids who are lucky enough to have her as their school nurse. One of the ways she does this is to write small articles for her school's newsletter, and I've asked her to share some of these with us. Below is her January article, and it features great advice for starting a new year off right.  I'll be adding my two cents as well (natch), but first, take it away, Marsha:

It's the New Year and we all make resolutions, many of which have to do with improving our health.  Even one change for the better can make a big difference.  For example, we can all benefit from reducing the sugar in our diets.  The easiest way to accomplish this is to remove sugared beverages from your house: soda, juice, sports drinks, all of it!  

BUT, I only drink diet pop, you say? Unfortunately, there's still a lot that is unknown regarding how the artificial sweeteners in diet soda affect the body and metabolism, and the safety of them is continuously debated. Something that isn't up for debate? That diet drinks are basically water with a whole lot of chemicals added.  What could be good for you in that? It's important to stay hydrated, so do it efficiently, by drinking only plain water and low-fat milk. Make 2015 your healthiest year yet! Stop the pop!

Thanks, Marsha! So much truth in there. Whether it's the sugar in regular pop or the questionable chemicals in diet versions, soft drinks aren't something your body derives any benefit from.