Slashdot Mirror
Coke Discloses Millions in Grants for Health Research and Programs
New submitter erinrivers11 writes: Following criticism that Coke has supported research that plays down the role of soft drinks in the spread of obesity, the company released a list showing nearly $120 million in grants to medical, research and community organizations. The Times reports: "The list, published Tuesday on the company’s website, details hundreds of Coke grants, large and small, to a variety of organizations since 2010, including physician groups, university researchers, cancer and diabetes organizations and public parks, and even a foundation for the National Institutes of Health."
Specifically, it's the reaction the body has to the carbohydrates (sugar): spiking insulin levels, blocking the release of fat as a fuel source, and encouraging the body to store energy as fat.
Sodium benzoate causes cancer. They knew about it for years. When it looked like the whole story was about to break, they *silently* pull it and replace it with potassium benzoate.
Does that cause cancer? The jury's still out, but the signs aren't good.
Bottom line is, there's little doubt that KO pumped Americans full of carcinogens for decades. And the "new" alternative is highly suspect.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
It's the calories stupid.
In a Coke sponsored study, Coke Scientists concluded that calories don't make people fat. Marriage makes people fat. The Coke Scientists simply measured the waistlines of married and single people, and came to this obvious conclusion.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Of course Coca Cola is the personification of "evil big food" and they will do whatever it takes to keep making money as water running from the tap. Its amazing how much money one can make from selling flavoured sugar water plus some advertising.
But the negative effects of increased sugar intake is nothing new. For several years the anti-fructose movement has been making noise and has been showing increasing insight is the underlying mechanisms. Famous example spokesperson of this movement is Dr Lustig, and googling his name alone gives a boatload of references.
But where is the response from society (not from some smart commercial brands), where is the education in schools, in children's TV programs, in popular scientific programs, in journals being read by large percentages of the population. And when will we start listening to this??!!
We still buy all this processed junk, with the bright coloured labels promising everything and being "fat free". We as a society have to immediately start buying other food products. More "real" unprocessed foods, and please leave those products with added sugar packaged in plastic in the store. Spend more time buying, cooking, eating and ENJOYING this food.
The industry will make whatever we buy. Self regulation from their side is an illusion.
So WE need to change.
Why are other peoples sig's always more witty ???
I wonder if someone will do a study on whether or not there are any people left who don't know that soda is bad for you, or what it is that forces people to drink it...
I'm alarmed at the growing tendency for people to jump to conclusions on topics/conspiracy theories with popular support. Coke making donations to and providing grants for medical research companies, or even directly funding research into sugared beverages and obesity is not in and of itself evidence that they're trying to manipulate the research. If it is, you put Coke in an impossible damned if you do, damned if you don't position. If they do make the donations, you criticize them for trying to manipulate research results in their favor. If they don't make the donations, you criticize them for being greedy corporate bastards who won't even donate to scientific research relevant to their product.
The donations themselves are not evidence that Coke has been trying to manipulate research results. If you want to support that hypothesis, you need to come up with specific incidents where Coke made the donations conditional on withholding or changing research results unfavorable to their product.
Just because a majority of people want to believe this theory doesn't free you from the logical and ethical obligation to actually prove the claim. The person advocating the hypothesis always has the burden of proof.