
Coca-Cola paid scientists to downplay how sweet drinks fueled the obesity crisis - alkhidr
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-8589497/Coca-Colas-work-scientists-low-point-history-public-health.html
======
Spooky23
Coca Cola has one of the most incredible branding and marketing operations on
earth.

I’d suggest doing the tourist trap in Atlanta if you find yourself there.
You’ll learn than if you have ever experienced a moment of happiness, it was
due to Coke. The idea that the company would find a way to convince people
that guzzling corn syrup was not that bad is completely unsurprising.

~~~
zachrose
Alternative perspective: World of Coke sucks. It’s one of those one-way guided
museums like the creationist museum in Kentucky, and contains nothing you
couldn’t get out of a Wikipedia article or two.

------
lma21
Apologies if this sounds like an ignorant question. Why isn't this common
knowledge? How hard is it to convince people that sugar is bad?

~~~
smileypete
Refined sugar is fine when used in part to fuel physical activity. Though it's
a complete disaster when consumed in excess when sedentary.

140 calories for a can of Coke is pretty modest; I just ate a third of a lemon
meringue containing 500 calories - most supermarket food is calorific muck,
cheap to manufacture yet tasty enough.

~~~
Nomentatus
This is absolutely contrary to the evidence. Sucrose is rare in plants in
nature (save in tiny quantities.) We aren't evolved to absorb it gradually, it
just floods in to the bloodstream; it behaves very differently than either of
it's components, or fructose or other vegetable and fruit sugars. It's so
evolutionarily weird that even bacteria and fungi generally aren't able to eat
it. Therefore, if you're on a FODMAP diet you are allowed to drink Mexican
Coca-Cola (has sucrose) but not American Coca-Cola (has liquid invert sugar.)
Sucrose won't cause SIBO yeast and bacteria growth because yeast and bacteria
haven't evolved to cope with it either.

Tests on athletes (some now decades old) show even moderate sucrose
consumption reduces athletic performance and health.

------
gazzini
I wonder if stuff like this has an outsized effect on the anti-maskers, anti-
vaxxers, or the general “anti-science” crowd.

I know many of these people, and they’re not actually against science at all —
they just believe that the “science” being preached at them is simply
political fodder or, at the very least, is intentionally biased to fit a
narrative.

Ideally, they’d be able to mentally allow for different authorities /
scientific foundations to exist, and 1 bad Apple shouldn’t ruin the whole
bunch. Unfortunately, “scientists == corrupt” is an easier (and more
provocative) conclusion when stuff like this happens.

~~~
tcbawo
Someone I know sent me a link to a 'peer-reviewed' paper 'proving' that
hydroxycloroquine cut mortality rate 'in half' from the Henry Ford Health
System in Detroit. However, a cursory look at the data shows a large median
age discrepancy between the populations receiving treatment -- the no HCQ
group was significantly younger. The vast majority of people have outsourced
their opinions to 'trusted sources'. And a sizable fraction suffer from
massive confirmation bias.

------
bfabio
I find easy to believe this actually happened, but why are we treating the
Daily Mail as a legitimate source?

~~~
atian
I like to think that our standards drop as productivity fizzles out. We have
the luxury of entertaining more without being penalized for it.

------
Feolkin
You know, I feel like there's a connection between companies paying off
scientists and growing anti-science sentiment. Am I wrong?

~~~
arvinsim
There used to be a weight behind statements that are scientific. Most people
would trust them without going into debates.

I agree that corporate lobbying and academic corruption has certainly eroded
that trust.

~~~
throwaway8941
When was that? I don't live in the US, but just the other day I finished 'The
Emperor of All Maladies' that someone recommended here. If I understood the
book correctly, the link between tobacco usage and lung cancer was established
pretty rapidly, but it took a very long time (and decisive political action
resulting in massive propaganda campaign) to convince the public.

------
foxyv
The worst part is, once it does it's damage, it takes years of hard work to
undo the lasting insulin resistance.

------
mytailorisrich
In fairness, if people drink this everyday, as some do, it's hardly Coca
Cola's fault.

It's quite obvious that obesity is caused by a bad diet. People should watch
their diet. The rest is just politics: politicians don't want to blame people
and companies don't want to be used as scapegoats.

We also need to accept that the vast majority of people are neither victims
nor stupid. People do make choices knowing that they are not good for their
health. I think that at least some of the anti-experts trend we see is a
reaction against being told what to do on the ground that people cannot decide
for themselves.

~~~
tiew9Vii
It's Coca-Cola's fault paying scientists to downplay how sweet drinks are
related to obesity.

It's Coca-Cola's fault not using morbidly obese people in their marketing
campaigns and instead choosing physically fit, attractive people, those who
realistically will not be drinking much Coca-Cola to get their gym bods
because of the sugar it has.

A 375ml can of coke is 161 calories / 40g of sugar. Two 375ml cans a day is
the equivalent of a small meal calorie wise with no nutritional benefit, only
80g of sugar.

People are essentially having multiple meals a day on top of their solid food
by drinking soft drinks and unknowingly or through ignorance are in massive
calorie surplus.

Anyone who goes to a gym and in good shape knows it's 80% food 20% time
working out. Your food is more important than the workout.

It's not in Coca-Cola's interest to educate people advertising CocalCola as a
very poor liquid meal consisting of only sugar.

~~~
mytailorisrich
People know that their diet is what make them obese. People know how much
sugar there is in Coke and soft drinks.

It is frankly ridiculous to claim that in 2020 people are ignorant or misled.

~~~
ageitgey
There's a big difference between what you know as an abstract fact vs. what
seems normal in your society. By definition, normal people do what is normal
in their society.

I've lived in the southeastern US, various places in California, China and
Europe. The type of consumption that is considered normal is so vastly
different in all those places.

In the southeastern US, your whole environment is telling you that eating
enormous meals, drinking sugary drinks, etc, is totally normal. If you are
responsible, maybe you could cut back a little to "watch your health". But you
are starting from an unhealthy default setting and you have to dig yourself
out of a pit to get back to 'healthy'. This includes Atlanta, the home of Coke
(where I went to college and lived several years).

In southern California or even more so in Europe, the norms are vastly
different. Meals are much smaller and sugary drinks aren't assumed. Healthier
options are available nearly everywhere.

But in Europe, things go much further than even the healthiest parts of the
US. The very composition of basic foods is different - brand name foods are
less sugary and contain less preservatives than the same brands in the US,
staple foods like bread are less shelf stable but contain less additives, and
so on. Things like Kraft Mac & Cheese, Snickers bars and Doritos chips are
literally illegal in Europe with their original US formulations and are
produced with tweaked ingredients. It's in the very DNA of society to default
to a more healthy lifestyle. Sure, it's possible to be unhealthy but the
default setting of your environment is much healthier so more people are
healthy.

The point is that people operate at a default setting that seems normal for
their society. Some will be healthy minded and will outperform the norm for
their area, but not everyone will. If you want a healthy population, you need
a healthy norm and no amount of telling people to take responsibility is going
to fix a society if literally every food easily available is bad for you.
There is just a mountain of public health evidence that shows this to be true.

