Coca-Cola Paid $1,000,000 to Make Sure You Don’t Know This

Coca-Cola Paid $1,000,000 to Make Sure You Don’t Know This

Coca-Cola Paid $1,000,000 to Make Sure You Don’t Know This



Coca-Cola has been having a rough time. The company owns Honest Tea, Odwalla, Powerade, Vitamin Water, Simply Orange, and other products marketed to health-conscious consumers. But it is best known for making Coke, a product that is utterly devoid of nutritional value and is often blamed for contributing to the obesity epidemic — an epidemic that is costing hundreds of billions of dollars and causing hundreds of thousands of deaths each year.

With demand for the company’s carbonated and artificially flavored sugar water declining, hope for Coca-Cola’s profitability has been increasingly resting on the brands it markets as healthier alternatives. Bloomberg.com reports that sales of Coca-Cola-owned brands like Honest Tea, Powerade, and Simply Orange are the company’s new profit center.

But there’s a problem.

In October, campaign finance reports revealed that Coca-Cola had secretly contributed more than a million dollars to the fight against GMO labeling in Washington. It took the state’s Attorney General suing the Grocery Manufacturers’ Association (GMA) for what turned out to be an $11 million violation of the state’s campaign finance laws to reveal these secret contributions. But now that the truth has been exposed, some healthy food activists are fighting back.

1

Andrew Kimbrell, founder of the Center for Food Safety, comments:

Consumers of healthy beverages want to know what’s in their food. By using money from sales of natural brands to secretly fund an anti-choice agenda that deprives consumers of the right to know what they’re eating, Coca-Cola has been betraying the public interest and standing on the wrong side of history.
We at the Food Revolution Network agree. And we have launched a petition on Change.org that calls for Coca-Cola to stop funding anti GMO labeling campaigns. Check out and sign the petition here.

Coca-Cola’s CEO, Muhtar Kent, says, “We have… provided a tremendous amount of choice to people.” But when it comes to the right to know if your food was genetically engineered, Coca-Cola would apparently like to keep you in the dark. According to reports, Honest Tea co-founder Seth Goldman said as recently as September that “after internal discussions,” Coca-Cola wouldn’t be “directly” funding efforts to defeat I-522. Apparently Coca-Cola thought that allegedly illegally laundering money through the Grocery Manufacturers’ Association would keep their involvement a secret.

Honest Tea doesn’t look quite so honest when it’s being used to put an organic face on an alleged money laundering scheme whose goal is keeping you from knowing if your food is genetically engineered.

And what makes matters worse, Honest Tea proudly proclaims throughout their website that they are GMO free — while their parent company is actively working to prevent GMO labeling.

I wrote Coca-Cola asking if they intended to continue funding anti GMO labeling campaigns. The company’s response was to repeat the anti-labeling lobby’s talking points. They told me that Washington’s labeling initiative, I-522, would: “Require tens of thousands of common food and beverage products to be relabeled exclusively for Washington State unless they are remade with higher-priced, specially developed ingredients. The measure will increase grocery costs for a typical Washington family by hundreds of dollars per year.”

These are charges that the nine-time Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper The Seattle Times called “mostly false” and that Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, flatly rejected.

In short, Coca-Cola not only tried to hide their contributions to the anti-labeling efforts in Washington, but they continue to try to deceive people about the actual realities of GMO labeling.

And they’re using sales of Honest Tea, Odwalla, Powerade, Vitamin Water, Simply Orange, and all their other brands, to finance their agenda.

Fortunately, you don’t have to fall for it.

Comments

  1. says

    I don't see the problem with Coca-cola standing up against anti-science activists that are pushing pseudo-scientific nonsense in the face of the international scientific consensus regarding the safety of GMOs.

  2. says

    "the obesity epidemic " ? What a ma-roon! You can't have an obesity epidemic for two reasons: 1) It's NOT a disease, and 2) Even if it were, it's NOT CONTAGIOUS!!

  3. says

    Stephen Zerest Mclaughlin It's still wrong. It's adjective definition is: "of, relating to, or of the nature of an epidemic." If the author wanted to say "widespread" without using that, they should have used "endemic."

  4. says

    My favorite – "campaign finance reports revealed that Coca-Cola had secretly contributed…" How is something a secret if it is on a publicly available report? Just because Coke didn't personally contact every anti-GMO, anti-science moron in the world, doesn't make it a secret. The stupid – it burns!!!!

  5. says

    Jason Urial Widespread would imply that obesity is remaining stagnant but spanning far across the country not gaining or losing any ground. In metaphorical reference towards the Noun, it's implying that it's getting worse at a rate similar to a sickness.

  6. says

    Jason Urial Widespread would imply that obesity is remaining stagnant but spanning far across the country not gaining or losing any ground. In metaphorical reference towards the Noun, it's implying that it's getting worse at a rate similar to a sickness.

  7. says

    Jason Urial Widespread would imply that obesity is remaining stagnant but spanning far across the country not gaining or losing any ground. In metaphorical reference towards the Noun, it's implying that it's getting worse at a rate similar to a sickness.

  8. says

    Stephen Zerest Mclaughlin Yet is isn't. BMI is a terrible thing to attempt to indicate what health is.

    Many reasons why this is so: #1) Obesity is ill defined because it comes from a scale not meant to dictate, nor be an indicator of, health. 2) A person who is 5'6" a weighed in at 200 lbs with 3% body fat is obese according to that scale, and she might be in perfect health. 3) A person who is 5'7" and weighs 100lbs would be called underweight, and unhealthy even though he's a marathon runner with a very high metabolism, and everything else is fine. 4) Yet another person stands at 6'0 and weighing in at 178 lbs with 10% body fat would be called healthy even though his bp is 200/89.

  9. says

    Stephen Zerest Mclaughlin Yet is isn't. BMI is a terrible thing to attempt to indicate what health is.

    Many reasons why this is so: #1) Obesity is ill defined because it comes from a scale not meant to dictate, nor be an indicator of, health. 2) A person who is 5'6" a weighed in at 200 lbs with 3% body fat is obese according to that scale, and she might be in perfect health. 3) A person who is 5'7" and weighs 100lbs would be called underweight, and unhealthy even though he's a marathon runner with a very high metabolism, and everything else is fine. 4) Yet another person stands at 6'0 and weighing in at 178 lbs with 10% body fat would be called healthy even though his bp is 200/89.

  10. says

    Stephen Zerest Mclaughlin Yet is isn't. BMI is a terrible thing to attempt to indicate what health is.

    Many reasons why this is so: #1) Obesity is ill defined because it comes from a scale not meant to dictate, nor be an indicator of, health. 2) A person who is 5'6" a weighed in at 200 lbs with 3% body fat is obese according to that scale, and she might be in perfect health. 3) A person who is 5'7" and weighs 100lbs would be called underweight, and unhealthy even though he's a marathon runner with a very high metabolism, and everything else is fine. 4) Yet another person stands at 6'0 and weighing in at 178 lbs with 10% body fat would be called healthy even though his bp is 200/89.

  11. says

    Jason Urial That's why I said implying. I wasn't refuting whether or not that accusation is accurate, just within context. It would have been more effective to disclose that instead rather than attempt to battle the author's choice of wording.

  12. Michael Tillman says

    "International scientific consensus"…? Might want to do a little research. A large percentage of the "international" community rejects GMOs, either by law, by desire, or both. So, hardly "an opinion shared by all" or "arrived at by most of those concerned". Nor can "science" and "consensus" be used logically in the same context. It is either systematic knowledge or it is not. These days, in your context anyway, "science" is definitively and demonstrably not. Your "science" is the new catch word for "agenda" or "lie" (same thing in this case). And, if "consensus", you should not be able to find a plethora of dissension, but you do. And rightfully so. If you are of goodwill, and you open your eyes…

  13. says

    Michael Tillman Every single major scientific organization in the world has stated that GMOs are safe, as 25 years of research has shown. The consensus on their safety is just as strong, if not stronger (since this would be direct science rather than trend prediction science) than the scientific consensus regarding the danger of anthropogenic climate change.

  14. Michael Tillman says

    Sterling Ericsson This is simply not true, sir. Nor does the relevant research (that done by parties not prone to direct benefit) support. the claim. I could point to more than ample evidence of the contrary. At some point, one must distance himself from only mainstream sources. They are inherently corrupt. But I respectfully appreciate your "clean" response. Rare.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>