FEATURE

Coca-Capi tul ati on

Coca-Col a Confr onts the Pol i ti cs of Obesi ty
JUNE03, 2013 by WENDYMCELROY
IsCoca-Colabeing aconsciouscapitalist or isthe company capitulating?
Aheadline on the advertising and technology blog Ad:Tech prompted the question for me. Why Coca-Colawill voluntarily stop
marketing to kids, it read.
In an entirely voluntary move, Coca-Colaannounced that it would cease all worldwide marketing effortsto children under 12, put
calorie countson all packaging and labeling and ensure that low-calorie and no-calorie ... beveragesare available in every nation on
earth where Coca-Colaissold.
How voluntary are decisionsmade in an environment that isdefined asmuch by politicsand legal penaltiesasit isby market
forces?The evolution of Coca-Cola'srelationship to obesity politicsisinstructive.
Obesi t y: The Publ i c Heal t h Obsessi on
In 1952, Dr. Lester Breslow advised ameeting of the American Public Health Association that obesity wasAmericasNo. 1 health
problem. America'sofficial obesity rate wasthen estimated at 10 percent. By 2008, The Journal of the American Medical Association
(JAMA) found the adult obesity rate to be 32.2 percent for U.S. men and 35.5 percent for U.S. women.
Expertsdisagree about why obesity rateshave increased. Some argue that greater prosperity encouragesconsumerism. Otherspoint
to an expanded definition that subsumesmore people, and often arbitrarily so. The dominant explanation today, however, isthat the
prevalence of high-calorie and unhealthy convenience food causesobesity.
Take McDonalds. In 1952, there wasonly one McDonald'sin the world, according to the McDonald'swebsite. By 2012, however,
there were more than 14,000 spread acrossthe country. To consumer and public-health advocates, thisisproof positive of junk food's
guilt. The solution?They want government to control food production and distribution in order to achieve better health outcomes.
Asthe world'sleading source of sugary drinks, the Atlanta-based Coca-Colacompany hasreceived much of the criticism over the
years. Over the last decade, abarrage of studieshave claimed that productslike Cokesare responsible for both obesity and asurge
in health problemssuch aschildhood diabetes. For example, in 2005, aTuftsUniversity paper titled Preliminary DataSuggest That
Sodaand Sweet DrinksAre the Main Source of Caloriesin American Diet got widespread coverage. And asJack Winkler, professor
emeritusof nutrition policy at London Metropolitan University, commented to The Wall Street Journal, "Soft drinksare the devil
product at the moment.
Coca-Col as Cl ash wi t h Obesi t y Pol i t i cs
Coca-Colaisapolitically active corporation. In 2010, it reportedly spent $4,890,000 on lobbying effortsin the United States, largely to
fight the imposition of increased taxeson sugary drinks. In late 2012, when New York City waspoised to ban the sale of sodaslarger
than 16 ounces, Coca-Colawasone of the partiesin asuccessful lawsuit to block the regulation.
The Obamaadministration isfar from the first White House to crack down on health risks. But the Obamayearshave been agame-
changer for the issue of obesity. The sodadevil hasloomed large in the First Lady'ssignature organization Let'sMove, agovernment-
funded drive to promote health among American children. "[Childhood obesity] isnt just apolicy issue for me. Thisisapassion. Thisis
my mission, declared Michelle Obama. I am determined to ... change the way ageneration of kidsthinksabout food and nutrition."
Apart of her mission hasbeen to use monetary rewardsto encourage statesand public schoolsto remove sugary drinksfrom
school menusand vending machines. In 2011, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced an allocation of $5.5 million for
such motivating grants.
The soda-removal campaign isjust one facet of amuch broader attack by government upon the producersof certain foodstuffs.
Acommon maneuver in the attack isto establish tax-funded studiesthat document apublic health risk. (Note: Tax funding doesnot
invalidate results, but it should raise the same concernsabout biasascorporate funding does.) Then, once health risksare
established, the discussion turnsquickly to targeting the risk and controlling the problem through regulation. For example, The New
England Journal of Medicine conducted apoll on whether sugar-sweetened beveragesshould be regulated by government. Results
from the studiesare also used to promote tax-funded awareness campaignsto alert the public.
Thislaysthe groundwork for the health problem to be addressed by lawsor regulationson the federal, state, and local levels. Typical
solutionsinclude raising the cost of agood through additional taxesand/or restricting accessto it. At the same time, "healthy"
alternativescan be encouraged through subsidiesor favorable regulation.
The specter of lawsuitsalso helpsobtain voluntary compliance by corporationslike Coca-Cola. Often the lawsuitsrevolve around a
violation of regulationsrather than the health risk itself. ABloomberg headline (March 1, 2013) reported on arecent example: Coca-
ColaMust Face Lawsuit over Orange Juice Labeling. Thisgrowing legal trend hascreated anew field of experts: namely, obesity and
junk food lawyerswho compare sugar to tobacco.
Thus, many corporationsare pre-emptively conforming to threatsof government control in order to avoid expensive lawsuitsand bad
publicity.
Obama Ups t he Ant e
Companieslike Coca-Colaand McDonaldsare wildly popular. So how are politiciansand pressure groupsable to whip up support for
pushing them around?
For decades, companieslike Coca-Colahave been accused of driving up the cost of medical care for Americans. The accusation has
political teeth because the taxpayer hasassumed more and more of thiscost through programssuch asMedicare.
The universal health care program known asObamacare hasmade highly personal decisions, such asdiet, into apolitical concern of
the public. More health care than ever ispaid for by government and it isthuslikely to become scarce. Thismakesthe public more
favorable to policiesthat purport to drive down costsand ease access. Food politicsfit the bill nicely.
The Obamaadministration hascommended Coca-Colafor itsrecent adoption of health-promoting policies, but there isreason to
believe that itsvoluntary embrace ismore accurately viewed asreluctant compliance.
Consider Coca-Cola'sintroduction of vending machinesthat prominently list calorie counts. The move hasbeen described asa
voluntary response to consumer demand for fewer caloriesin soda. And, certainly, if people shift their money toward alternatives,
businesseswill respond. But the timing of the new vending machinesishighly suspicious.
USAToday observesthat the installation comesahead of anew regulation that would require ... vending machinesto post calorie
information and in the wake of the Supreme Court'sdecision ... to uphold President Obama'shealth care ... regulation that would
require ... vending machinesto post calorie information.
The government isin the uncomfortable position of trying to back companiesinto voluntary compliance. The position is
uncomfortable because if Coca-Cola'sactionsare avoluntary response to customer demand, then government regulation is
unnecessary. Why waste the tax money?Why restrict the personal choicesof the one person who ismost impacted by food politics
the consumer?
Consumers: Lost i n t he Shuffl e
The political assault on Coca-Colaisusually described in termsof health paladinsusing power to restrain an unscrupulouscorporation.
Whatever the truth of that narrative, food politicsisalso abrutal attack upon consumerswho end up forcibly being protected from
their own choices. Attemptsby municipal authoritieslike Michael Bloomberg to limit salt intake and the size of sodasare but a
glimpse of ananny state writ large. Such movesinspire resistance from adult Americanswho have retained enough rugged
individualism to believe that consuming sugar istheir own business.
It isno coincidence that government'sgreatest regulatory successwith food hasbeen with children, especially in the schools. Unlike
adults, children are not viewed ascapable of making informed decisions. Such aview facilitatesregulation. After all, if children's
decisionswere treated with respect, it would be difficult to dismissreportsfrom schoolswhere children are throwing the mandated
healthy lunchesinto garbage cans.
But even admitting (for the sake of argument) that children are incapable of informed consent, the notion of government taking over
their choicesisodd. That isthe role of aparent. Government seemsto be saying that parentsare also incapable of informed decisions
or, at least, of decisionswith which the government agrees.
Concl usi on
There may be valid reasonsto criticize the businesspracticesof Coca-Colaand companieslike it. But they cant be accused of failing
to produce agood that people want to consume. In the presence of more health information than ever, and despite the risks, some
consumersstill choose sugary drinksbecause they are tasty and affordable. Delivering those drinksinto customers' handsin a
convenient and inexpensive manner shouldnt invite opprobrium. Coca-Colascurrent policy to not deliver those drinksto customers
isasmuch or more aresponse to gathering government power than to the marketplace.
SHARETHIS
ASSOCIATEDISSUE
July/August 2013
RELATED
Does Obesi ty Justi fy Bi g Gover nment?
Health-CareSocialism ReducesIncentivesfor Individualsto Behave
Responsibly
OCTOBER01, 2005 by RADLEYBALKO
For Your Own Good: The Anti -Smoki ng Cr usade and
the Tyr anny of Publ i c Heal th by Jacob Sul l um
AWelcomeVoiceof Reason and Truth about Cigarettes
MARCH01, 1999 by JOHNATTARIAN
Your Money and Your Li fe: The Pr i ce of Uni ver sal
Heal th Car e
DECEMBER01, 2006 by JANEM. ORIENTM.D.
ABOUT
WENDY MCELROY
Contributing editor Wendy McElroy isan author and the editor of ifeminists.com.
Copyright 2013 Foundation for Economic
Education. All RightsReserved.