Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Saturday, September 24, 2016

At Atlanta’s Coca-Cola headquarters, the public relations team has rolled out action reports, contingency plans and lobbying proposals to combat the latest threat to corporate profits: the communists coming after your soda cans. Here’s wishing those so-called communists, including New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the best of luck.

To combat the growing obesity epidemic, Bloomberg has proposed banning the sale of super-sized sweetened beverages — those larger than 16 ounces — at restaurants, theaters and street-side stands. Predictably, the mayor has been swamped with criticism from free-market lobbyists and anti-government activists, who have denounced the proposal as emblematic of an overweening “nanny” state.

In 2009, as first lady Michelle Obama was beginning to think about tackling childhood obesity, Coca-Cola chairman and CEO Muhtar Kent readied his rhetorical arsenal, calling the suggestion of a federal tax on soft drinks “outrageous.”

“I have never seen it work where a government tells people what to eat and what to drink. If it worked, the Soviet Union would still be around,” he told an Atlanta Rotary Club gathering.

The crisis of our growing corpulence has become enmeshed in partisan warfare, just another victim of our insanely warped political culture. That’s dangerous.

This is a genuine public health emergency, as devastating in its own way as the polio epidemic of the 1940s and ’50s. For the first time, national public health experts are warning that children of this generation may not live as long as their parents, largely due to diseases brought on prematurely by excess weight. That would be a stunning reversal in a nation where each generation has claimed a slightly longer life span.

But as soon as the first lady decided to make a campaign against childhood obesity her signature project, conservatives lined up against it. The right wing rebelled even though Obama was not naive enough to follow through with a proposal for a soda tax.

  • William Deutschlander

    By golly isn’t it a big surprise, Coca Cola a very large and profitable Corporation is going all out to discredit the truth and PROTECT their BOTTOM LINE PROFIT!

    They will stupe to any low for the almighty dollar!

  • rustacus21

    I’m going to go out on a limb here, but I’d be willing to bet a considerable sum that the very highest paid executives of CocaCola, KFC, McDonalds, Taco Bell, etc., don’t – let me repeat that – DO NOT consume those very products – with the regularity of the average American consumer – if AT ALL. I’m sure they’re more than aware of the health ‘consequences’ of HFCS (HighFructoseCornSyrup – see> http://wwwdotglobalhealingcenterdotcom/natural-health/high-fructose-corn-syrup-dangers/ http://wwwdotpbsdotorg/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/safe/overviewdothtml http://wwwdotactionbiosciencedotorg/biotech/pusztaidothtml <) & the sodium content of fast food, all of which contribute to the 'explosions' of various diseases & afflictions mentioned in this very timely, crucial article. B/c when the Pentagon speaks, U know something is serious. Funny thing tho, the nation didn't seem to hear them "speak out" against Global Climate Change. MayB this topic will include some room for consideration on mandating 'organic' fair, across the board, if only for the sake of optimum health & more environmentally 'affirmative' production practices…

    • ralphkr

      The true danger of High Fructose Corn Syrup is that it is cheap compared to Sugar Cane sugar so that adding great quantities of HFCS adds little to the cost of a product but makes it much more desirable to the human palate. As far as the human body is concerned glucose is glucose whether from corn or sugar cane.

      • rustacus21

        The tru hazard is the fact that it’s a “genetically” modified form of ‘glucose’. As most humans ARE NOT AWARE, the ‘modification’ itself is what makes it thoroughly dangerous, as the body doesn’t know how to process HFCS. Human knowledge of tampering w/DNA is so elementary, there’s no way we should be consuming these sorts of products. B/c, it simply collects in the body (see > http://wwwdottruthistreasondotnet/high-fructose-corn-syrup-isnt-sugar-the-lawsuits-and-health-effects <). It accumulates in the body. After years of just 'sitting there', other impurities, toxins & pollutants, which we intake on a daily basis as well, attach to the HFCS, leading to… who knows what? But what we know is that since its introduction into the food chain, the "EXPLOSION" of conditions noted above, have increased exponentially (as a child of the '70's & '80's, I remember 1 in maybe 500 had peanut allergies; now, its 1 in 50- draw U'r own conclusions). We could remain oblivious to the obvious, or consider the obvious & respond. My own response is to read all labels & those products containing HFCS don't get purchased. For those who consider their long-term health & the health of their CHILDREN as crucial, should do likewise…

        • ralphkr

          Apparently, rustacus21, you get your trusted medical information from lawyers involved in lawsuits while I get my medical information from doctors and nutrition experts. By the way, HFCS itself is modified (actually a byproduct) but it is not a genetic modification. Using your definition of genetic modification I would have to term any food that was cooked as being genetically modified. If there is “genetically modified” HFCS it would be because it was made from GM corn and not because it is HFCS per se.

          • rustacus21

            It would really, REALLY be nice if we could get some xpert, unbiased & “REAL” scientific studies, done ‘OFFICIALLY’, which could be verified by independent labs in an academic setting; but in an age of sabotaged, underfunded & shrunken government, we can’t get to the truth, actually, of any relevant aspects of the whole enterprise of “genetically modified” organisms in the food chain – whether consumed by animals or people. The studies that ARE being done are done by the corporations manufacturing GMO products. Any wonder for the confusion?! We can debate symantics, but the bottom line is, whatever “IT” is, it’s not good for human consumption, given the drastic consequences on the quality of health of consumers during the duration of their presence in the food chain. I’m no geneticist. Don’t take my word for it, but I won’t trust the word of a corporate spokesperson getting paid to hype ‘safety’ when it’s clearly not certain the opinion is unbiased or if ‘safety’ is independently confirmed – by others than those w/a clear or covert financial interest. Spicing & merging aside, ‘physically altering’ the DNA is what’s @issue. The ‘scientific’ research perspective that has no financial interests bearing down on it, is what is missing from this debate. I for 1, recommend we don’t leave it to corporations to decide that for consumers, when the bottom line is all corporations are really concerned w/in the end…

  • joyscarbo

    Just because someone is concerned about the health of the greater good, they’re a “communist?” REALLY??!! This country needs an enema!

  • howa4x

    Forget government regulations! There is an army of lawyers waiting for corporate America, and just like they did with tobacco and asbestos, connvince states that the way to recoup medical costs for treating obesity is in a court room with huge awards. Companies like Coke will be made to set aside billions to cover claims. Companies like Johns-Manville almost went bankrupt for hiding the dangers of asbestos from workers. Look at what the tobacco companies had to pay out and are still paying, and not all the states joined the suit. Soon it will be the chairman of coke’s turn to be in the jury box trying to defend their product. When the lawyers get started on them they will wish that they sat down with Michelle Obama and tried to find a way to make their product safer.Once the suits are settled there will be a warning put on every soda: This product is dangerous to children. It is a major factor in the obesity epidemic, use with caution when giving it to children, or consuming yourself..
    The only hope that the makers of liquid candy will have is if the house controlled by Republicans will sheild them from damages, but it didn’t happen with tobacco or asbestos.
    Their day is coming! It will make what Bloomberg is doing look like childs play