Wed, Oct-19-16, 11:30
|
 |
Senior Member
Posts: 4,044
|
|
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
|
|
mudgie - thanks for the link to the article describing this study. It is an important study that people should read in order to understand the dynamic environment in which potential legislation to improve health must survive in order to change policy and laws. Here is the link for the full study:
http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S...(16)30331-2/pdf
One of the largest issues here is human nature and how it applies to the health debate when funding from a soda company has been provided to a health or human services organization. Here's an excerpt from the study, the sentence in bold is my emphasis:
Quote:
Over the past 5 years, 28 of 29 public health bills lobbied by the Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo were opposed, not supported, by these companies. Further, the only bill they supported has exceptions and loopholes. It is possible that the Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo predicted these measures would be established soon and decided to ally with them to appear beneficent. Regardless of this instance, the opposition by the Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo of 28 of 29 bills demonstrates their primary interest of improving profit at the expense of public health.
The Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo together sponsor, at minimum, 96 health organizations, each with a national impact. These soda companies use relationships with health organizations to develop positive associations for their brand, which is important for their bottom line. Soda companies also can neutralize potential legislative opposition by invoking reciprocity and financial dependence on the part of national health organizations. Rather than supporting public health, organizations may become unwitting partners that contribute to corporate marketing strategy. Indeed, sponsorship is considered as a marketing tool by both the Federal Trade Commission and soda companies themselves. Former PepsiCo marketing officer Shiv Singh admitted that the Pepsi Refresh Project was funded not with “corporate philanthropy dollars,” but with “brand marketing dollars, because we believed fundamentally and still do that, you know, by doing good in a way that’s aligned with our Pepsi brand values, you know, we can help the bottom line.” It is probable that corporate philanthropy is increasing consumption of soda throughout the country.
|
|