On October 6, the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) announced its new partnership with Coca-Cola. What does AAFP get from this? A grant "to develop consumer education content on beverages and sweeteners for FamilyDoctor.org."
The AAFP, says its president, looks forward to
working with The Coca-Cola Company, and other companies in the future, on the development of educational materials to teach consumers how to make the right choices and incorporate the products they love into a balanced diet and a healthy lifestyle.
Full article here:
http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/medi … acola.html
It makes me think Coca Cola thinks it better to join them then fight against them, and hopefully not get trashed or sued. Side with the Diet Folks, pushing a healthy life style.
Their lawyers are just giving way to the social engineers, to reach a happy medium. Set a social behavior president in case of a suit. They got the money, the Health Organizations need a donation, a happy association for time being. A pay off, or a delay.
Coke is world wide, people will drink what they will.
It could not be Proven that coke alone caused Diabetes. There are to many factors in that. Diet, Personal Neglegance, Inheritance, gene facts etc... thats prob. why no suits as yet.
Give a Lawyer time however!
This is awful. Now they are misusing doctors to play with the health concers of innocents. Majority of medical professionals are against the coca cola type of things but now they started buying them as well.
Sorry I have not been able to connect CC with ethics since they started telling kids that they needed it to be popular and accepted.
Totally bizarre. I think the key word here is 'incorporate'. Coca Cola can't fight the rising tide of information about healthy lifestyles, but it probably has plenty of suggestions for 'incorporating' it's products in people's diets.
I was not aware Coca Cola had any ethics. Any more than the AAFP or FDA does.
No worse than a pet food manufacturer sponsoring the nutrition classes for veterinary students in Australian Universities.
You have two heads Eric. I'm having difficulty taking you seriously. Not that this is a Tasmanian thing mind.
Personally I applaud the effort. As a coca cola fan over pepsi I use the soda in some of my best recipes. I don't know if cooking with the cola helps take out any of the offending ingredients but I know it adds a great taste to some of my basting and cooking recipes.
Really! I'm seeing a huge conflict of interest to be honest.
This is the first time I've heard someone baste with cola. Tell me what you baste it on to? Fascinated.
Cooking concentrates things like flouride. Not good.
I love my Diet Decaf Coke.
Coke is not evil. Coke is not evil. Coke is not evil.
Coke rules the world. Mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!
i can't see the attraction of "decaf", surely thats the best part. well 4 me, i wouldnt wake up with anything less than xtra strong full caffinated
Honestly why can't this be ok? Shocks me much more when i see macdonalds ads that almost make believe that their food is the healthy choice for all.
Same thing. McDonalds is unhealthy without doubt and anyone who is sucked into believing otherwise is a gullible consumer. Honestly, how can a health organization who knows without a shadow of a doubt that sugar and caffeine filled sodas cause obesity an diabetes, then align itself to the very company that produces the unhealthy product?
I will have to be counted a one who thinks it's a good thing that coke is bringing it brand power to this effort. Coca cola brands manufactures a lot of products that are a healther choice. I removed corn syrup and artificial sweeteners from my diet years ago.
Don't some cigarrette companies have affiliations with some societies who promote 'giving up smoking' - it's simply a way to avoid lawsuits - if Coca Cola can say that they are promoting 'health organizations' that talk about the dangers of Coke, then they are providing themselves protection from law suits as they can say they are actively promoting the dangers of Coke...
Of course. Has anyone ever tried to sue Coke for their diabetes? I think that's overdue.
capitalism works that way, it is always the demand that is creating market. if we stop buying the stuff that are destroying our health, they will just need to adapt to that and stop producing so sweeeeeetttttt......colas,,,,,they will always say we have a choice, the diet ones........come on, we have a choice.....let that choice be heard....I for one dont drink colas anymore, yay.....
I used to work in the warehouses for Coke loading trucks, and the better half of the office staff were on the hefty side. I myself drink tons of water, and almost only drink Coke if it's got a healthy dose of Captain in it.
I used to drink Rum and Coke and it was the one thing that made me put on weight. As well as it being bad for health, I don't drink it on principle now. I can do without the rum.
Coke (and diet coke) contain aspartame, which is addictive (surprize!) and does all sorts of bad stuff to you. Donald Rumsfeld said he "called in every chit he had" to get aspartame approved by the FDA - such a nice guy . . .
In Mexico, Coca Cola and Pepsi are shipped versions of those products without the aspartame (not sure why) or maybe they're just bottled there without it. Anyway, whenever I want a coke I go to a Mexican grocery (there are lots of them here in CA!) and get it there. All sugar, no aspartame!
Maybe I'm missing something (and it isn't that Coca Cola soda is not healthy); but companies give money to this kind of stuff all the time; and - yes - they get to say how they've given money and are working on the problem of unhealthy eating/drinking habits. Still, in fairness to them, they do bottle other beverages besides soda.
Here's what I picture: The AAFP (or someone else associated with them) approaches Coke and says, "We want grant money. Here's what you get if you give us the money. If you don't we, of course, will let the public know you refused to participate in this wonderful health program." (or something along those lines). Coke has the money, and hands it over to this "good cause". Everyone shakes hands and says, "win/win". Someone mentions that the public also wins, because of these efforts toward encouraging healthier diets.
I don't blame any company for wanting to make a good business move. Regardless of who approached whom, I don't see it as a measure of anyone's ethics. For that matter, I don't see the company as being "horrible" for selling sugary soda (which nobody has to drink on a daily basis). I don't think the doctors are allowing themselves to be "misused", and I don't anyone over 7 years old is an "innocent" when it comes to knowing that soda isn't something to be drinking all the time.
Agreed, Lisa HW. When Coke was first invented, there wasn't much of an obesity problem. People didn't eat and drink sugar 24/7. In moderation (and they seem to have been more moderate about it in the past), a little fizz and sugar is OK.
And you are absolutely right. This is how a nonprofit or research entity approaches a big sponsor. OR, proposals are requested by the company itself, looking for nonprofit/research partners. This is just how it is done.
This is where the line between individual responsibility and business ethics gets a little murky for me. I really don't think you can equate Coke to cigarette/tobacco companies. It isn't the same thing...although high fructose corn syrup perhaps makes it a borderline case.
High fructose and caffeine and it's effects on depression in teenagers, together with higher obesity rates worldwide puts soda related drinks in a similar category as cigarettes. In the earlier days of cigarettes they were advertised as being cool. There was no mention of them being bad for your health. Once there was a direct relationship found between cigarette smoking and cancer it opened the door for litigation. Even though you may think it's common sense and smokers should know of the dangers, advertising is very powerful. Until the last few years it was never questioned that soda drinks could have an adverse effect on health. I personally can't see how soda drinks and their health risks should be treated differently to cigarettes.
I smell a big rat. There is a major conflict of interest here. Regardless of whether coke is a money pit, fact remains that Coke is not a healthy product, it is a very unhealthy product. I tend to agree that it is covering it's own ass in the event that they are "seen to be doing the right thing" and therefore avoid being sued in the future.
Cigarettes are a classic example of how a product is advertized as a cool thing to do. People believed it was cool and stupid as it may seem - even if you are over 7, people brought the add and had no idea it would give them cancer. Coke certainly is advertized in many cases advocating a healthy and active life. Where in fact the opposite happens when you drink this product in abundance. As well as being a caffeinated drink, this also makes it addictive. And sugar is also addictive, so while one would say - don't drink it in abundance, unfortunately people do.
If you advertize one thing, and it does another - you are asking to be sued. In the case of a lawsuit, coke will win brownie points for being seen to be doing the right thing by giving money to health organizations. It's unethical and if that particular health organization was serious about the health of the population, it would be cutting off at the knees the company that creates a product that causes the illness in the first place.
Additionally coke is one of those products that need to be taxed more and those funds put toward the American health fund to assist with lessening the cost of health insurance.
I'm with Fightkeeper--I love my Diet Coke. I'll stand back and let the rest of you be outraged on this one.
To answer the title question - no it does not. I am pretty much sure for a while already they don't have what you call "ethics" here. More interesting question is though - why are you questioning only Coca Cola, and not the other side of the deal? Is it an ethical deal from the other side?
Good point Misha. And I have to say that to put all medical practitioners in the same boat here is not ethical either. So while one organization is aligning with a company who produces a product that is not healthy, doesn't mean all doctors agree with this alignment.
I was told by my physician to avoid carbonated beverages, beverages with caffiene and beverages with sugar. I'm good most of the time. I missed my Diet Coke, though, even more than my coffee with caffeine. This change in diet has a very positive effect on hot flashes and other menopausal symptoms.
My brother, who is overweight, was also told by HIS doctor to cut out the soda beverages altogether.
So I really can't think these products are healthy.
It's so much a media circus, trying to improve their image to the public as caring about our health. I'm surprised that organization allowed themselves to be used by Coca Cola in that way, and it reflects sadly on the medical organization's lack of ethics, more than Coca Cola's.
I prefer Mexican coke much better than the American coke for sure..... All coke seems to taste different dpending on which country you are in
I've always felt virtuous because I thought I have pretty good health habits - no smoking, diet filled with fruits and veggies, reasonable weight (most of the time), exercise every day.
hmmmm.... my doctor sat me down last month and gave me the whatfor for drinking soda pop several times a day. She doesn't care if it's diet or not. She isn't a holistic type at all. But boy did she read me the riot act. Bad for my bones especially. But lots else. I've sworn off the stuff - which is hard because I really love it.
Since the last of the "old timers" (the son of one of the original board members) died about 10/12 years ago CocaCola hasn't had much in the way of scruples but really this isn't a new concept and every product manufacturer out there does the same thing so why not CocaCola?
The bigger problem is Washington(Congress) is going to let them do it.
And, the terminology is ridiculous. If it wasn't such a blantant misrepresentation of the truth and you are NOT outraged? Then you're missing the point.
YOU are the consumer. The price on coke is going to go up because of this deal and your can or bottle will now have advertising on from another source, other than simply saying coke.
And, the fact that a health organization has of any affliation with a company that produces a product that isn't healthy in any way, shape or form is in poor taste.
It shows COKE is trying make a claim which is UNTRUE. The appearnce of them trying to do something in the best interest of the consumer is appalling, but it is expect to be acceptable.
The Health organization can put their message on COKE, and in essence telling people about other products or healthy choices to select from. It won't be giving you FACTS about the COKE product you are buying.
The "incorporate" only means the two companies are going to make a separate company, which distributes health choices or facts.
This simple 'spin' away from the truth is being allowed because BUSINESS has a strangle-hold on Congress.
And has for years.
This entire partnership seems off and very fishy to me..health and soda pop ( even though I drink a 2 liter of soda a day 0 ...I have found no health benefits...hhhmmmm
by Ginger Meow 9 years ago
How much Coca Cola do you drink in a week?Do you drink 1 or more cans of Coca Cola, or is it litres or gallons of Coca Cola.
by AussieTreeChange 5 years ago
Coca Cola or Pepsi? which do you prefer? or do you drink neither?Are you a coke drinker or pepsi drinker, or neither? If you do, do you drink the diet variety? has the flavor changed over the years? How about the vanilla flavored coke!
by Jenn 7 years ago
I can't imagine how anyone can drink 2 gallons of Coke per DAY! But this woman also had a very poor diet nutrition-wise and was a heavy smoker, so it probably just wasn't the soda alone that caused her death. I just don't understand how she didn't see all of this as a formula for disaster, or if...
by Zia Ahmed 7 years ago
Should Cancer Warning Label be Made on Pepsi and Coca Cola?Pepsi and Coca cola are avoiding their legal obligation to put warning on the label in visible form that drinking may cause cancer. They are playing with content and process to avoid this, shouldn't the law be applied on them and must be...
by Kelly Kline Burnett 9 years ago
One of my upcoming Hubs is on Coca Cola and the history.I found it interesting that they changed the name from Coca Kola to Coca Cola.I know that "Alliteration is the repetition of initial sounds in neighboring words." but is there a term for the name being changed to simply match...
by Sara Psychedelic 6 years ago
Pepsi vs. Coca-Cola?I've always been a Pepsi person, myself.
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|