Coca-Cola has ‘misled’ consumers for years, according to the CSPI

A lawsuit has been brought against Coca-Cola for allegedly misleading consumers in relation to the health risks that consuming sugary drinks can pose.

According to the suit, filed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), it’s alleged that Coca-Cola, together with the industry group the American Beverage Association (ABA), have misled customers regarding the health risks of drinking sugary drinks.

Though there are multiple issues that the CSPI has raised against Coca-Cola, the suit specifically highlights Coca-Cola and ABA’s strategy for good health, namely through “calories in, calories out” and through exercise. The phrase has allegedly always been something of a myth in the dieting world. The CSPI highlights that this strategy reportedly ignores scientific evidence that sugary fizzy drinks are a direct cause of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.

The CSPI alleges that Coca-Cola, through their funding of non-profit organisation Global Energy Balance Network (GEBN), purposely misled Americans on the health risk of drinking fizzy drinks. The U.S. non-profit organisation claimed to be funding research into the causes of obesity, but instead the organisation was better known for promoting the idea that the lack of exercise was a main cause of obesity in the U.S., and not bad dieting. Their view was that weight loss could be achieved by exercising more while eating the same amount.

Many health experts criticised this line of thought, emphasising that:

“…evidence for eating less as a weight-loss strategy is much, much stronger than the evidence for moving more.”

Coca-Cola has also been criticised for funding an ‘astroturfing’ organisation. The GEBN ceased to exist following their announcement of ‘resource limitations’, also the same time Coca-Cola withdrew funding for the organisation.

Coca-Cola: “lawsuit is legally and factually meritless”

Both Coca-Cola and ABA state that: “this lawsuit is legally and factually meritless”, and “unfounded accusations like these won’t do anything to address health concerns, but the actions we’re taking, particularly in areas where obesity rates are among the highest, can make a difference”.

The ABA state that they’ve not dismissed the obesity epidemic, saying that it’s a “complex condition”. They continue to note that obesity and diabetes has increased, but doesn’t admit that fizzy drinks consumption could be a main cause.

Coca-Cola has claimed that fizzy drinks can be a part of a balanced diet, gearing towards the same line of thought as GEBN. They claim that exercise and smaller bottles can be a resolution.

Disclosure

As part of the suit, the CSPI is asking Coca-Cola and ABA to disclose files on potential health implications of consuming fizzy drinks; fund a health education campaign; and divert their advertising target market away from children, as well as to stop marketing that suggests fizzy drinks doesn’t correlate to health issues.

“Brainwashed consumers”

The suit alleges that Coca-Cola has “brainwashed consumers” to believe that their fizzy drinks can be part of a balanced diet. Maia Kats, litigation director at CSPI, states that:

“…the notion that Coke’s products can be part of a healthy diet is imprinted on the minds of millions if not billions of people, and requires corrective action.”

Sugar tax

Following the rise in obesity and fizzy drinks-related diseases, many countries including the U.K have pushed forward with the ‘sugar tax’ (which will come into force from April 2018). The tax is predominantly aimed at fizzy drinks producers and importers according to the volume of sugary drinks they produce or import.

There is a growing recognition that sugary drinks are a direct cause of obesity and other diseases. Governments worldwide are supporting this by imposing sugar taxes and funding health campaigns. Is it time for Coca-Cola to stop “brainwashing” their customers to believing that obesity isn’t linked to the consumption of fizzy drinks? Or are they doing nothing wrong?