Coca-Cola is one of the most consumed drinks in the world, but rarely we talk about the dangers it hides behind its effervescence and its sweet flavor. Behind each can, in fact, numerous ingredients are hidden which, if consumed frequently, can seriously damage our health. From phosphate sugar, passing through additives such as phosphoric acid and caffeine, Coca-Cola has very little harmless.
In recent years, scientific research and public health initiatives have clearly highlighted the dangers associated with the consumption of sweetened drinks, bringing a growing awareness between consumers and encouraging many to limit their intake.
Awareness that unfortunately it has not translated into a uniform behavioral change: the average American citizen continues to consume about 350 ml of these drinks daily. The paradox is evident when we consider that the population is divided into two extremes: for each individual who has completely eliminated the sugary drinks from his diet, there is another that consumes double quantities compared to the average.
The impact on global health is documented by recent and alarming research. A research that appeared on Nature Medicine in January 2024 quantified the devastating consequences of this consumption: analyzing the 2020 data, scholars established that sugary drinks contributed directly to 2.2 million new cases of diabetes and 1.2 million cardiovascular pathologies worldwide, representing a health and economic load of enormous proportions for international health systems.
But why then do we continue to consume products that damage our health?
The explanation lies in a complex network of manipulative strategies, advertising campaigns studied in the smallest details and strategic partnerships that Murray Carpenter documents in the book “Sweet and Deadly”. The author reconstructs decades of tactics developed by Coca Cola to undermine the credibility of scientific research that connects the consumption of sugars to serious pathologies such as type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.
The “Big Tobacco” method: disturbing precedents
In 2017, two American worship ministers-William H. Lamar IV and Delman L. Coates of the No-Profit Praxis Project Organization-intended a legal cause against Coca Cola and the American Beverage Association, accusing them of deceptive advertising practices. The accusation claimed that the company was perfectly aware of the causal link between sugars and chronic pathologies, but had systematically tried to disorient public opinion. As had happened previously with the Purdue Pharma case and OxyContin, it was hoped that this legal action could finally overturn the public debate. However, Coca Cola managed to neutralize every attack through a sophisticated network of relationships, sponsorships and public communications carefully orchestrated.
The comparison with the tobacco industry is not fortuitous: Coca Cola has adopted identical disinformation strategies and, in some cases, has even anticipated them.
The false myth of the “neutral calorie budget”
Among the most deceptive messages spread by Coca Cola, the concept stands out that “a calorie is equivalent to a calorie”, that is, claiming that the origin of calories is irrelevant and that the only significant parameter is the overall energy balance. This narrative has allowed the brand to move responsibility from its products to the individual physical activity of the consumer.
Scientific research, however, categorically denies this statement: calories do not all have the same biological value. Those deriving from sugars in liquid form, as in carbonated drinks, are processed by the body in a completely different way than those contained in whole grains, fresh fruit or dried fruit, which also bring essential fiber and micronutrients. I insist on the concept of “energy balance” is therefore scientifically misleading.
In 2014, Coca Cola financed the creation of the Global Energy Balance Network, a pseudo-scientific organization directed by academics of the Universities of Colorado and South Carolina. One of the main spokespersons, Steven Blair, supported in promotional materials that obesity was not caused by ultra-processed foods or sugary drinks, but exclusively by an imbalance between calories taken and consumed.
Subsequently, the New York Times I will unmask the deception: the association was a controlled facade and subsidized directly by Coca Cola, who wanted to give it an appearance of independence. The then CEO Muhtar Kent was forced to publish a letter of public excuses on the Wall Street Journal, entitled “We will do better”.
Deceptive communication and systematic disinformation
The manipulation of public opinion has not limited itself to commissioned research, but also included sophisticated advertising campaigns. In a 2013 post, subsequently eliminated, Coca-Cola boasting that he had “eliminated 1.5 trillion calories from the US market” through new formulations and reductions in portions.
The content showed photographs of former government officials and researchers during apparently neutral events, such as those organized by the Hudson Institute or by the Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation (HWCF). In reality, those events were financed by Coca Cola, who had donated millions of dollars to the same organizations.
A reality very different from the official version: Coca Cola, if truly intended, could instantly eliminate billions of calories from the market simply by withdrawing the high sugar versions of its products or ceasing to promote them. Instead adopts the opposite strategy: it continues to advertise and launch new variants, such as the recent Coca Cola Spiced, which in some cases contains more sugar of the original version.
Coca Cola, despite being always aware of the devastating effects of sugar on collective health, preferred to invest billions of dollars in misleading campaigns, academic sponsorships and marketing strategies, in an attempt to minimize the perception of risk. Just like the tobacco industry, he chose to protect profits at the expense of public health.
Coca Cola would have paid to “obscure” sugar damage
The discovery of documentary tests
An investigation conducted by British and Italian researchers in collaboration with the US investigative group Right to Know has brought to light over 18,000 email correspondence between Coca-Cola Company, West Virginia University and the University of Colorado. This documentation reveals in detail the strategies adopted by the company to minimize the perception of its role in the scientific debate on sugar damage.
The Global Energy Balance Network: a scientific facade
The universities involved were part of the Global Energy Balance Network (GEBN), defined by investigators as a “facade group” financed by Coca-Cola. This global network of scientists had been specifically created to minimize the connections between obesity and sugary drinks, however presenting itself as an independent scientific organization.
The revealed concealment strategies
The analysis of emails, published on Public Health Nutrition, identified two main strategies used by Coca-Cola:
Hide the role of main lender
Coca-Cola systematically committed to masking its presence as a source of financing of the Gebn. The emails document attempts to:
A particularly revealing email reads:
At one point we will have to disseminate this Coca-Cola funding. Would our preference be to have other financiers … Including universities as lenders/supporters passes the blushe with a blushered face?
Another internal communication shows the desire to keep the figures secret:
We are managing some requests from Gebn and while we reveal Coca-Cola as sponsor we do not want to reveal how much they poured.
Building a network of “faithful” academics
The second strategy involved systematic support for a network of academic, promoting the progress of their careers and financing public medical and health institutions. This approach made it possible to have apparently independent spokespersons who promote favorable messages to the sugary drinks industry.
The study concludes that
“Coca-Cola has tried to obscure his relationship with researchers, minimize the public perception of his role and use these researchers to promote messages in favor of the sector”.
Gary Ruskin, executive director of Right To Know, defined these results
A low point in the history of public health and a warning on the dangers deriving from the acceptance of corporate funding for public health work.
This 2020 investigation represents further confirmation of practices already emerged in previous investigations, showing that the use of “not exactly clean means” to mask the link between sugary drinks and obesity constitutes a systematic and documented strategy of Coca-Cola, not an isolated case.
Coca-Cola’s “email family” therefore highlights the worrying marketing of the university world and the public health work, raising fundamental ethical issues on conflicts of interest in scientific research.
And today, while millions of people develop chronic pathologies, the most symbolic multinational in the world continues to sell and persuade that the responsibility of all this is not his.
Don’t you want to lose our news?
