
Coca-Cola pays nutritionists to suggest cola as healthy snack - mikenyc
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/296404461.html
======
MrJagil
There's a curious distinction in the uproar between scandals in tech and in
other sectors. One obvious thought is that I'm mostly finding myself in tech-
oriented crowds, thus I find them more exhilarating . I have to admit to
myself that when I read this headline I wasn't the least surprised. I mean "of
course they do that, they're old school! McDonalds, pepsi, tobacco, they're
all money grubbing and soulless!" Apparently I actually believe tech companies
are capable of changing and somewhat try to do good. Perhaps because I have an
actual (though imaginary) relationship to the people who run
google/apple/msft. The fact that a lot of you guys work there probably
enforces that; I do not and will never know anyone working for Coca Cola, for
whatever reason.

I wonder if that's two different, calculated strategies employed by the
different sectors respectively.

------
enraged_camel
Title is inaccurate: Coca-Cola isn't working with nutritionists, they are
working with _dietitians_. Literally anyone can call themselves the former,
but the latter requires a bachelor's degree with an accredited nutrition
curriculum, passing a registration exam and doing an internship at an approved
facility.

[http://eatrightdc.org/dietitian-vs-
nutritionist/](http://eatrightdc.org/dietitian-vs-nutritionist/)

~~~
mratzloff
I think you mean latter and former, respectively. You swapped them.

~~~
zzalpha
Err, no, they got it right.

"Dietitian" is a protected name in most places.

"Nutritrionist", not so much.

The article claims Coke is working with dietitians, while the post title
erroneously states they're working with the nutritionists.

It makes the article a lot more alarming considering dietitians are supposed
to be policed by a professional organization.

~~~
mratzloff
Oh, I learn something new every day. Thanks for the explanation.

------
forrestthewoods
Bah. What a clickbait title. If you consider blogger a "nutritionist" then you
deserve what you get. The Star Tribune is guilty of posting the exact same
level of crap as the nutritionist bloggers. Any service which generate revenue
primarily by generating clicks must be treated with an abundance of caution.

~~~
vdaniuk
>If you X then you deserve what you get.

This attitude is harmful, toxic and wrong. Humans are irrational and reactive,
their hehaviour is heavily dependent on the context and mind state. Please
reconsider.

~~~
gutnor
>> If you X then you deserve what you get.

> This attitude is harmful, toxic and wrong.

But that's how you learn. At some point you need to admit that you -yourself-
have lacked in judgment in order to learn something. Not everything can be
taught in school, not everything can be protected by law, at some point you
need to take some responsibility.

What level do you set the bar to ?

That the real question. Should we make the blogger be liable, require a
license to blog online or special qualification ? If I give the same advise to
a mate at the pub, should I be fined ?

Setting the bar too low is just creating a tyranny.

~~~
Already__Taken
I agree with you but there must be a bar there for a multinational company
knowingly lying. It's fine (great) to make something unhealthy. Just don't lie
about it being healthy.

There must be false advertising laws that can already catch them for this?

------
h43k3r
This has been a common practice by many of the big brands. For eg. You can
watch John Oliver's Last Night with John Oliver on Tobacco and on doctors.
Companies pays doctors to recommend medicines.

~~~
jsprogrammer
And their echo chamber reinforces the practice.

>"We have a network of dietitians we work with," said Sheidler [a "Coca-cola
spokesman"], who declined to say how much the company pays experts. "Every big
brand works with bloggers or has paid talent."

Every big brand does it, therefore it is acceptable and expected. Sure, we
might be dishonest, misleading, and hide behind self-proclaimed experts, but,
shit, how could we justify being a BIG BRAND if we didn't?

------
brusch64
I have a feeling every time something is called a "snack" in headlines like
this it's probably pretty bad for you.

My mother never allowed us to eat chips or other junkfood as snacks during the
day. We ate them on special occasions (e.g. watching TV on saturday night).

If we were hungry, we could eat apples or other fruit that was around.

In retrospect a good habit to have.

------
marban
Probably the same with the cereals, dairy, vitamins, fruits, etc. industry.

~~~
jensen123
Yup. Here's a "scientific paper" that shows that dairy does not cause heart
disease:

[http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/93/1/158.abstract](http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/93/1/158.abstract)

Paid for by the Dutch dairy industry...

~~~
zzalpha
Well, to be fair, modern studies seem to indicate that neither fat nor
cholesterol consumption lead to heart disease. So it's quite possible that
study is perfectly valid.

The sugars, on the other hand...

------
prostoalex
They should team up with these guys

[http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1841910,0...](http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1841910,00.html)

------
hurin
If you're dumb enough to believe a beverage containing phophoric acid
(commonly used in fertilizer) with a PH of ~2.8 is healthy, than you deserve
it.

------
kmfrk
I wonder how tha tip about drinking coke to alleviate stomach ache came about.

~~~
disillusioned
That's the literal genesis of Coca Cola. The syrup was originally developed by
a pharmacist for stomach ailments. Carbonation was added to help digestion.

