[Newsbot]

Title: Big soda is buying off big health orgs to keep profits and Americans fat
Category: Health
Posted By: DrCaleb
Date: 2016-10-13 07:29:37
Canadian

[DrCaleb]

if you look at documentaries like 'Sugar Coated', 'Climate of Doubt,'Gashole' or the work of Clair Patterson - you'll see the same people and the same PR firms that led the 'pro-tobacco' lobbies for so many years trying to deny the affect sugar has on people's health.

[DrCaleb]

Oh! Look!

Foods from subsidized commodities tied to obesity

[herbie]

In Canada Coke responded to these concerns. They reduced the bottle size from 593 to 500 ml and charge the same price.
There IS corporate concern and public responsibility. All the way to the effin' bank OINK OINK

[BartSimpson]

herbie herbie:

In Canada Coke responded to these concerns. They reduced the bottle size from 593 to 500 ml and charge the same price.
There IS corporate concern and public responsibility. All the way to the effin' bank OINK OINK

No kidding.

The 16oz (one pound) bag of Hershey's Kisses has been reduced over the years to where it's now 7oz and more expensive than it was when it was 16oz.

And you're right, they're laughing all the way to the bank.

Edit:

And there's this...

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/07/hilla ... e-problem/

$1:

When Hillary Clinton expressed her support back in April for a hefty soda tax proposed by Philadelphia’s mayor, Coca-Cola felt betrayed, and they let the Clinton campaign know it.

“Really??? After all we’ve done?” was one Coca-Cola bigwig’s response to Capricia Marshall, a longtime Clinton crony and major campaign fundraiser whose hacked emails were released on Thursday by the website DC Leaks.

But that initial bout of anger gave way to coordination between the world’s largest beverage manufacture and the Clinton campaign. Other emails released in the leak show that Coca-Cola executives developed an action plan to help ensure that the soda tax proposal “would not be pushed further” by Clinton.

The emails provide a rare look into a major company’s interactions with a political campaign. They also raise numerous questions about whether Coca-Cola’s lucrative financial relationship with Clinton and Marshall helped the company convince the campaign to back off the candidate’s support for the soda tax.

Coca-Cola, which booked $7.4 billion in profits last year, has given between $5 million and $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. Wendy Clark, a former Coca-Cola executive, took leave from the company last year to help lead up the Clinton campaign’s marketing and social media efforts.

And Coca-Cola’s CEO, Muhtar Kent, is a Clinton campaign donor.

It is unclear, however, if Kent’s financial support is motivated by his love of Clinton or his love of Coke. He gave a $2,700 contribution to the campaign on April 25, several days after Clinton made her comments supporting the Philly soda tax.

Marshall, who has worked in the Clinton orbit since 1992 and worked at the Clinton State Department, has a separate relationship with Coca-Cola. One section of emails released by DC Leaks is entitled “Conversations with Coca Cola VP Michael Goltzman.”



A review of those emails show that Marshall earns $7,000 a month as a consultant for the company.

Clinton’s “unnecessary” comment

Clinton offered her support of the Philadelphia soda tax proposal during a campaign event on April 20.

“I’m very supportive of the mayor’s proposal to tax soda to get universal pre-school for kids,” the former first lady said. “We need universal pre-school, and if that’s a way to do it, that’s how we should do it.”

Philadelphia mayor Jim Kenney had proposed a three-cent per ounce tax on soda and other sugary beverages. The tax was massive compared to previous proposals, the most infamous being New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg’s failed one-cent-per-ounce proposal.

The Philadelphia city council passed a 1.5-cent-per-ounce tax in June.

“WTF”

The internal uproar over Clinton’s remarks started with the sharing of a Daily Caller article reporting on the candidate’s statement. The article moved up the chain from the American Beverage Association to Coca-Cola to, finally, Marshall’s inbox. (RELATED: Hillary Endorses Soda Tax That Is Three Times Larger Than Mayor Bloomberg’s)

Emails show that Susan Neely, the CEO of the American Beverage Association, the beverage industry’s largest trade association, forwarded the article to Katherine Rumbaugh, Coca-Cola’s vice president for government affairs.

“Ouch. Our local team in Philly isn’t worried about the impact there but it makes me irritated. Seems totally unnecessary,” Neely wrote.

“WTF – this seems completely random,” Rumbaugh replied.

Neely wrote back: “Random and unnecessary.”

“It may be nothing more than candidate running hard on trail and responding without thinking to pitch from local mayor about universal pre-k. Or it’s an example of the Sanders effect on the race — all taxes are fine,” she added.

The email was then passed to Clyde Tuggle, Coca-Cola’s senior vice president and chief of public affairs. He forwarded the email chain to Marshall.

“Really??? After all we have done. I hope this has been falsely reported. Pls give me some talking points for Muhtar in the am,” he wrote, referring to Coca-Cola’s CEO.

[housewife]

Ssdd

[Public_Domain]

[BeaverFever]

Yeah but kill the subsidies and watch the righties scream about how "big government" is driving up prices with its "activist agenda" and "social engineering"

Yeah those arguments won't make sense but it'll be another tea party classic like "keep the government away from my medicare" and "when I was on foodstamps I never took a handout".

[herbie]

So my big question is, if they impose a sugar tax on soft drinks; is there anyone dumb enough to believe a can of Diet Pepsi will cost so much as a penny less than a can of regular Pepsi?
Or that 100% fruit juice will cost any less than fruit juice they add sugar to?

I'm one of those really annoyed at the added sugar in everything. Just tossed out a pack of Quacker's Instant Sugar with some oats in it. Why some of it was Maple & Brown Sugar added to the sugar....
walk into a store in Canada and there's a whole wall of soft drinks. You can get Diet Coke OR Diet Pepsi, no one drinks any other diet flavour. 99% of the time you can't even get a Perrier water.

[andyt]

herbie herbie:

So my big question is, if they impose a sugar tax on soft drinks; is there anyone dumb enough to believe a can of Diet Pepsi will cost so much as a penny less than a can of regular Pepsi?
Or that 100% fruit juice will cost any less than fruit juice they add sugar to?

I'm one of those really annoyed at the added sugar in everything. Just tossed out a pack of Quacker's Instant Sugar with some oats in it. Why some of it was Maple & Brown Sugar added to the sugar....
walk into a store in Canada and there's a whole wall of soft drinks. You can get Diet Coke OR Diet Pepsi, no one drinks any other diet flavour. 99% of the time you can't even get a Perrier water.

The only way instant oats are palatable is with all that sugar. Even then, stay away from the peaches and cream. I would only eat them when camping in the mountains - pretty hard to cook up whole oats over an MSR.

Lots of talk about putting the tax on fruit juice as well, since it contains so much sugar. I mix mine half and half with water because it's too sweet otherwise.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

Lots of talk about putting the tax on fruit juice as well, since it contains so much sugar. I mix mine half and half with water because it's too sweet otherwise.

I never understood why people would want to create another tax infrastructure for sugar. As the link above shows, it's the subsidized food that the major contributor to obesity. Just remove the subsidies, and eliminate the costs of an entire structure of government that over sees them. Or, move the subsidies to healthier food, so a head of broccoli costs less than a Big Whopper with Grease.

People want to eat better, but when a big bag of frozen fries costs less than the same weight bag of raw potatoes, the people on tight budgets have little choice.

[andyt]

Except we don't subsidize sugar, the US does. So if we want to do something about this, we have to go the tax route. And then put the money into subsidizing produce, homegrown produce. Not sure if that would fly under NAFTA.

[herbie]

$1:

Lots of talk about putting the tax on fruit juice as well, since it contains so much sugar. I mix mine half and half with water because it's too sweet otherwise.

So do a lot of my friends. I stick to the 100% without ADDED sugar, and don't drink it in 16 oz doses like pop. Nothing wakes you up or clears a hangover like 1/2 a cup of 100% grapefruit juice!
Plus - taxing pure apple juice? I don't agree with that. The harm to growers outweighs the benefits of taxing just added corn or white sugars. Tax honey and maple syrup too?

[andyt]

But does the harm to apple growers outweigh the harm to apple juice drinkers?

Honey and maple syrup are already expensive enough, they'll never be snarfed down the way sugar is - doubt if producers could make enough to replace sugar in the first place.

[BartSimpson]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Yeah but kill the subsidies and watch the righties scream about how "big government" is driving up prices with its "activist agenda" and "social engineering"

Yeah those arguments won't make sense but it'll be another tea party classic like "keep the government away from my medicare" and "when I was on foodstamps I never took a handout".

Not me. If it were up to me I'd end every last government subsidy in every sector of the economy and I'd start by ending the subsidies to tobacco farmers.