Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Wed, Oct-19-16, 04:25
mudgie mudgie is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 87
 
Plan: LCHF
Stats: 206.5/167/160 Male 69.5"
BF:20%
Progress: 85%
Location: Chicago-ish
Default Coca-Cola, PepsiCo funded almost 100 health organizations over 5 years

Excerpt:

Diabetes organizations accepted funding from Coca-Cola, PepsiCo

"Lead author Daniel Aaron and co-author Dr. Michael Siegel, of the Boston University School of Medicine, publish their findings in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Aaron and Dr. Siegel reached their findings by investigating data on which health organizations received funding from Coca-Cola between 2011-2015, as well as what health bills the two soda giants lobbied against.

Over the 5-year period, the team identified a total of 96 national health organizations that accepted money from the companies. Of these, 83 accepted money from Coca-Cola, one accepted money from PepsiCo, and 12 accepted money from both companies"

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/313363.php
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Wed, Oct-19-16, 11:30
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is online now
Posts: 1,775
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Thu, Oct-20-16, 03:46
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,315
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

Also leaked, Coca-cola's strategy to kill Soda taxes around the world.

Quote:
We already knew the huge amounts of money spent by Coca-Cola and the American Beverage Association to lobby against health policies, but these new leaked emails illuminate the inner-workings of the soda industry’s coordinated political strategy. They confirm many health advocates’ deepest suspicions: the soda industry is a united force against public health.


https://www.dietdoctor.com/leaked-c...kill-soda-taxes
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Sat, Oct-22-16, 12:24
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,877
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/162/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 83%
Location: USA
Default

I don't doubt that soda is both dangerous and addicting. Yet totally legal and much too influential.

We live in weird times
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Tue, Nov-22-16, 07:37
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,315
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

And their friends in the Cereal industry too.

Kellogg Paid 'Independent Experts' to Promote Its Cereal

https://apnews.com/b27ab32337104317...-to-tout-cereal

Quote:
How Kellogg worked with "independent experts" to tout cereal

By CANDICE CHOI
Today
NEW YORK (AP) — On its website, Kellogg touted a distinguished-sounding "Breakfast Council" of "independent experts" who helped guide its nutritional efforts.

Nowhere did it say this: The maker of Froot Loops and Frosted Flakes paid the experts and fed them talking points, according to a copy of a contract and emails obtained by The Associated Press.

The company paid the experts an average of $13,000 a year, prohibited them from offering media services for products "competitive or negative to cereal" and required them to engage in "nutrition influencer outreach" on social media or with colleagues, and report back on their efforts.

"I'm still feeling great from my bowl of cereal & milk this morning! Mini-Wheats are my fave," a council member posted during a Twitter chat with Kellogg about the benefits of cereal. Kellogg introduced the dietitian as a "Breakfast Council Member."

Without noting her relationship with Kellogg, another council member and dietitian chimed in to say Mini-Wheats were her favorite, too. She included a photo of Frosted Mini-Wheats.

For Kellogg, the breakfast council — in existence between 2011 and this year — deftly blurred the lines between cereal promotion and impartial nutrition guidance. The company used the council to teach a continuing education class for dietitians, publish an academic paper on breakfast, and try to influence the government's dietary guidelines.

The Kellogg's Breakfast Council included a professor of nutrition, a pediatrician and dietitians. Kellogg said the council's activities were clearly sponsored.

Yoni Freedhoff, an obesity expert at the University of Ottawa who writes about industry influence in nutrition, said he did not believe it was clear to the public that the council members were compensated, especially since Kellogg described them as "independent."

"It's not an automatic leap. I don't think people think about these conflicts that deeply," he said.

Dayle Hayes, a dietitian who participated in the Twitter chat in 2014, said in an email that she prides herself on her ethics and transparency, and that her disclosure practices have changed with evolving standards. Based on current standards, she said she would include the word "ad" in tweets referencing Kellogg products. She said she did not share any information without appropriate disclosures.

Sylvia Klinger, the dietitian who shared the photo of Mini-Wheats, did not respond to requests for comment.

Kellogg Co. said it used the council for academic insight and guidance. It said the experts contributed to most the materials they shared, and that they disclosed their affiliation in public engagements.

Still, the company said it could see how its description of the experts as "independent" could create confusion. It later told the AP it had been reviewing its nutrition work, and decided not to continue the council. The breakfast council page is no longer online.

"ARE THOSE REGULAR FRITOS?"

Kellogg said on its website that the breakfast council helped guide the company. But it wasn't always clear who was providing the guidance.

When Kellogg sent the council research it commissioned, Hayes and Klinger expressed enthusiasm and requested language to share the information.

"Would love Tweets with URLS," Hayes wrote. Hayes and Klinger posted the lines Kellogg provided verbatim. Hayes included the word "advisor," while Klinger included the word "client."

Kellogg also supplied the experts with a "toolkit" of tweets for a promotional event in New York, where a costumed Tony the Tiger character mingled with guests. When the council members received an email from someone they did not know criticizing their work with Kellogg, the company suggested a response for that, too.

"I appreciate and share you(r) interest in the health of our children," the suggestion read. "It's for this very reason that I work with Kellogg." The experts decided not to respond.

The breakfast council was also a way to patrol for naysayers. After an advocacy group issued a report criticizing sugary cereals, Sarah Woodside, a Kellogg employee, sent the council an email explaining why it was unfair and asked them to alert her if they noticed any discussions about it.

Disclosures by the council could be confusing. When two of the experts taught a class for dietitians on the "science behind breakfast," an introduction said they were members of Kellogg's Breakfast Council, then said they had no conflicts of interest. It said Kellogg funded the class, but had no input into its content.

Critics also say words such as "advisor" can leave the impression that a health professional simply provides expertise to the company, rather than communicates publicly as part of a financial arrangement.

Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition at New York University, said health experts usually have good intentions when working with companies, and may not realize they're being used for their credibility.

It isn't unusual for companies to enlist dietitians.

Coca-Cola has paid health experts who wrote columns that casually mention a mini-soda as a snack idea. Disclosures at the bottom said the author is a "consultant" for food and beverage companies, "including Coca-Cola." Last year, the Atlanta-based beverage maker said it was halting such work as it reassessed its health efforts.

Jessica Levinson, a dietitian who has appeared in TV news segments for Coke and PepsiCo's Frito-Lay, told the AP that producers were told if her healthy eating tips were sponsored. Yet the disclosures weren't always shared with viewers.

In a segment on NBC Baltimore on "dos and don'ts" for holiday parties in 2009, Levinson presented bags of Fritos with dip — as an example of a "do."

"Are those regular Fritos?" asked the reporter, indicating her surprise.

"KEY MESSAGES"

One of the breakfast council's most notable achievements was publishing a paper defining a "quality breakfast" in a nutrition journal. Kellogg touted the paper in its newsletter as being written by "our independent nutrition experts." Dietitians could earn continuing education credits from the publisher for taking a quiz about the paper.

Kellogg didn't describe its own role in overseeing editing and providing feedback, such as asking for the removal of a line saying a recommendation that added sugar be limited to 25 percent of calories might be "too high."

The company said in a statement that its involvement should have been clear since the paper was a supplement. It noted an acknowledgement at the end of the paper that said the initial draft was written by an agency that represents Kellogg.

A funding disclosure said the paper was supported by an "unrestricted educational grant" from Kellogg.

The Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics said editorial standards for supplements are the same as for regular articles. As with those articles, the paper underwent peer review, and an editor suggested reducing or eliminating the detailed discussion of cereal, especially since the sponsor was a cereal company.

To amplify the paper, Kellogg planned to reference it in comments submitted to the government for its updated dietary guidelines, according to emails obtained through a records request with Louisiana State University, where one of the breakfast council members is a professor.

Kellogg also sent the council a plan with "Key Messages" to promote the paper. One of them: "A variety of Kellogg's products and tools make it easier to enjoy a quality breakfast."

___

Follow Candice Choi at www.twitter.com/candicechoi
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Tue, Nov-22-16, 08:00
Just Jo's Avatar
Just Jo Just Jo is offline
A'72 Lifer Hard Core
Posts: 13,307
 
Plan: A'72 Induction Lifer + IF
Stats: 265/114/130 Female 5'4"
BF:Not so much now!
Progress: 112%
Location: South Central New Mexico
Default

Gees, I wonder why I see conspiracies everywhere...

Thanks for the article and information, Janet!
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Tue, Nov-22-16, 08:53
khrussva's Avatar
khrussva khrussva is online now
Posts: 5,603
 
Plan: My own - < 30 net carbs
Stats: 440/211/210 Male 5' 11"
BF:Energy Unleashed
Progress: 100%
Location: Central Virginia - USA
Default

My 'art student' daughter sent me this photo a few months back. She took this picture at an art gallery while on a university required field trip to NYC. I'm am an unsophisticated man and not very astute. I can't figure out what the artist was trying to say. Any ideas?
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Tue, Nov-22-16, 09:39
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,877
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/162/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 83%
Location: USA
Default

Cereal will make you fat.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Mon, Jul-10-17, 08:24
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,315
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

Moderators, you may decide this post is political, but it is news that highlights the impact of the food industry on the health information received in the US.

https://theintercept.com/2017/07/08...ldhood-obesity/

Trumps New CDC Chief Championed partnership with Coco-Cola to Solve Childhood Obesity
Quote:
THE NEW CHIEF of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which monitors significant public health concerns, including the impact of sugary beverages on obesity and heart disease, will be led by Brenda Fitzgerald, a Georgia physician whose signature childhood obesity project was underwritten by Coca-Cola.

The announcement to appoint Fitzgerald as the CDC director was made on Friday by Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price.

Fitzgerald, a former Republican candidate for Congress and adviser to Newt Gingrich, most recently served as the Georgia Public Health Commissioner. Price and Gingrich both previously represented the 6th Congressional District in Georgia, now held by Republican Karen Handel.

During her tenure as Georgia’s public health watchdog, in a state that has one of the highest obesity rates in the nation, Fitzgerald and Gov. Nathan Deal launched SHAPE, a statewide effort to address childhood obesity through “physical activity before class, physical activity during class, and more structured recess.”

Muhtar Kent, the chief executive and chairman of Coca-Cola Company, appeared with the governor and Fitzgerald to promote the initiative, along with a pledge of $1 million from his company to fund it. Clyde Tuggle, a Coca-Cola executive responsible for the company’s lobbying strategy, was initially appointed to the board overseeing the state anti-obesity strategy, including Fitzgerald’s SHAPE initiative. (Tuggle announced his retirement from Coca-Cola in March of this year.)

“This generous award will have a significant impact on the lives of our children today and well into the future,” Fitzgerald said at the news conference. “Unless we address this obesity epidemic facing our children right now, they will likely suffer life-long consequences of obesity — diabetes, hypertension and heart disease. With this money we can make a real difference.”

Coca-Cola was so fond of Fitzgerald’s approach to obesity issues that an opinion column authored by Fitzgerald is featured prominently on Coca-Cola’s website.

Public health officials around the country have made obesity a top issue of concern. The United States has the distinction of having the highest rate of childhood obesity in the world, according to a recent report from the New England Journal of Medicine. And multiple reports have found that regular consumption of sugary beverages is a leading driver of obesity, which is linked to heart disease, diabetes, kidney diseases, cancers and hypertension.

More exercise, of course, is a good thing, but the Georgia SHAPE program notably eschewed another well-known step toward healthier living: curbing sugary beverage consumption. Touting Coca-Cola’s support of her program on local news station WXIA-TV, Fitzgerald explained her approach. “We’re going to concentrate on what you should eat,” she said, before simply suggesting that children eat more fruits and vegetables. Fitzgerald did not recommend the approach adopted by public officials around the country, namely that children should cut sweetened soda and junk foods from their diet.

The contrast was laid out explicitly in a presentation in 2015. In explaining SHAPE, officials from the Georgia Department of Public Health overtly contrasted the “Georgia vs. California” model on the obesity epidemic. Cities in California, the slide noted, passed the first tax on sugary drinks. Georgia, on the other hand, proposed the largest exemption to new federal rules curbing the sale of junk food in public schools.

Coca-Cola, along with PepsiCo and other sugar industry interests, has worked obsessively to defeat attempts to regulate sugary beverages. Sugar industry interests, including Coca-Cola, have spent at least $67 million on campaign efforts to defeat sugar taxes and related labeling ballot measures. Emails hacked from Democratic officials during the 2016 presidential campaign revealed that executives from Coca-Cola, including Clyde Tuggle, the Coca-Cola vice president overseeing SHAPE, attempted to pressure the Hillary Clinton campaign to back down from voicing support for a soda tax. The company was also caught setting up a front group, called the Global Energy Balance Network, designed to downplay the health risks associated with sugary drinks.

The CDC in particular has also been targeted by Coca-Cola, which has long disclosed attempts to lobby the agency to influence public health policy.

Emails obtained by U.S. Right to Know revealed that executives from Coca-Cola and the International Life Sciences Institute — an organization founded with support from Coca-Cola — had pressured the agency to partner with the soda giant and allow it to weigh in on debates over sugary soft drinks. In one particular email chain with a CDC official, a former Coca-Cola executive discussed strategies for influencing the World Health Organization’s call for greater regulation of soft drinks. The former Coca-Cola executive called the WHO’s efforts a “threat to our business,” and invited the CDC official out for dinner to further discuss ways to sway decisions at the international body. Clyde Tuggle, the former Coca-Cola executive, was included in the email chain.

While voters have continued to approve new limits on sugary drinks, Coca-Cola may have a new ally at the nation’s premiere public health agency.

Shortly after news of Fitzgerald’s appointment to lead the CDC, Rhona Applebaum, Coca-Cola’s former chief health and science officer, celebrated the pick on social media, tweeting: “An excellent choice!”


Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Mon, Jul-10-17, 10:26
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is online now
Posts: 1,775
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

We'll see whether this is an excellent choice. If this sets up more control of our health system by having a strong presence of soda manufacturers weighing in on policy, this is an epic fail. Regardless of political affiliation or the party currently in power, these types of moves have been going on for many years. It's going to require strong opposition voices if food manufacturers continue to have a say in policy.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:27.


Copyright © 2000-2017 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.