Coca-Cola part of the solution to obesity? Yeah right!

Coca-Cola made headlines this week with a new television advertising campaign. It begins with a voice-over: “We’d like people to come together on something that concerns all of us – obesity”. The ad then lists all the ways Coca-Cola is playing “an important role” in preventing obesity. This Coca-Cola…

Stk5g6bv-1358468777
Coca-Cola’s business strategy is to build brand loyality and trust. Flickr/orangeacid

Coca-Cola made headlines this week with a new television advertising campaign. It begins with a voice-over: “We’d like people to come together on something that concerns all of us – obesity”. The ad then lists all the ways Coca-Cola is playing “an important role” in preventing obesity.

This Coca-Cola marketing strategy is not, as the New York Times reported, “novel” or new. For a number of years, teachers and principals have opened their doors to Coca-Cola. The company’s message is simple: Coca-Cola is not part of the problem of obesity, but “part of the solution”.

Coke has helped create, fund and implement a variety of school-based nutrition education and physical activity programs across the globe. These programs include Step With It®, Singapore!, Live Positively fitness centres in American schools, Happy Playtime in China, and “Zafo no jugar” in Mexico.

But far from being part of the solution, Coca-Cola’s campaigns are taking advantage of the growing fears about obesity and exploiting children’s education for the company’s financial gain.

The new Coca-Cola ad claims the company can be part of the solution to obesity.

A Trojan horse

At a time when there is a moral panic about childhood obesity, Coke’s “free” gifts of obesity-fighting, educational resources, websites, lesson plans, and events are welcomed by many schools. The lack of funding, confidence, resources and knowledge (or time) to teach health and physical education are also contributing factors.

These programs are part of the company’s global “corporate social responsibility” strategy and act as a type of reputation insurance. They divert attention away from controversial subjects, such as the impact of marketing food and beverages to children, while profiting from the “halo effect” of helping teachers teach and children avoid getting fat.

The programs also provide social branding opportunities. Although Coke’s recently published official “obesity position” states: “We believe in commercial-free classrooms for children”, some programs, such as Step With It®, Singapore!, brand the children’s workbooks, teacher resources on hydration and even the teachers and children themselves with the famous Coca-Cola logo.

Clearly, part of Coca-Cola’s business strategy is to build brand loyalty and trust in a highly publicised and philanthropic manner – and to a captive audience.

Coke’s objective remains the same. SeeMidTN com aka Brent.

The company also develops goodwill with another important group – policymakers – and continues to successfully avoid stricter regulatory controls in areas such as fat taxes, food labelling systems, legislation and restricted marketing to children.

Self regulation remains the modus operandi of the food and drink industry. This is assisted by a proliferation of “partnerships” in Coke’s school-based anti-obesity programs, between Coke, government public health and education organisations, charities, voluntary groups and other private sector companies.

So what’s the problem?

Schools are sites for critical, democratic citizenship, not for the indoctrination of a multinational corporation’s view of what it means to be healthy and what a healthy body should look like.

Health and obesity are influenced by a wide range of historical, environmental, social, cultural, genetic, political, and economic factors. Coca-Cola “officially” acknowledges this complexity, yet its proposed “commonsense” school solutions are oversimplified. It tends to focus on the same old “burn more calories, eat fewer calories” mantra.

By and large these Coke programs promote a narrow view of what health is (to be a healthy body weight), how it may be achieved (individual healthy lifestyle choices) and at the same time ignores the wider determinants of children’s health, such as poverty, government policy, and corporate advertising.

Flickr/woodleywonderworks

A child’s fatness is treated as a consequence of simply making the “wrong” (greedy and lazy) choices. The message from Coke (and the teachers who uncritically teach the Coke programs) is loud and clear: if you’re fat or unhealthy, it’s your own – or your parents' – fault.

The unhealthy consequence is that fat children are excessively monitored, and blamed, stigmatised, even bullied for being fat “on purpose”.

While Coca-Cola continues to market itself as socially responsible around obesity, it is transferring the responsibility for the politics of health and obesity onto children themselves. And, understandably, there’s some confusion among children and teachers about why one of the largest food and drink corporations in the world are teaching them about food and drink.

What can be done?

It’s unclear whether we’ll see the Coca-Cola ads on our screens. The company is reportedly evaluating the impact of the ad campaign in the US and “its relevance for the local market”.

What is clear is that Coca-Cola will continue to use schools to “teach” children that Coca-Cola is a health-promoting company, with healthy products, and that being healthy is as simple as making the right energy balance choices – and not being fat.

Pushing for regulations to restrict marketing in schools is one way to stem the tide of school commercialism. However, as corporations such as Coca-Cola continue to use stealthy marketing strategies to capture children’s attention, loyalty and identities, I propose a counter strategy.

Coca-Cola’s new ad ends with the line: “we know that when people come together, we can make a real difference”. I agree. Teachers can come together with students, principals with teachers, parents with their children, and challenge Coke’s solutions and intentions.

Through discussions and debates we can question Coke’s views on obesity, challenge the assumption that “fat=lazy=unhealthy”, learn how others view health, and even take action to improve those wider influences on children’s health.

This is one way school communities could make a real difference to children’s health, rather than doing exactly what Coke wants us to do: buy their products and blame ourselves.

Articles also by This Author

Sign in to Favourite

Want to follow The Conversation?

Sign up to our free newsletter to get the day's top stories in your inbox each morning, with a special wrap on Saturday.

✔
Donate and become a friend of The Conversation

Join the conversation

35 Comments sorted by

  1. Mike Swinbourne

    logged in via Facebook

    The NRA is 'part of the solution' to gun violence; and the coal industry is 'part of the solution' to climate change.

    report

  2. Sue Ieraci

    Public hospital clinician

    One good way for the Coca Cola company to contribute to a reduction in obesity might be for them to cease production of all "diet" lines (artificially sweetened).

    While this seems counter-intuitive, the popularity of diet and "zero" calorie drinks only serves to maintain a sweet palate and ongoing cravings for sweetness.

    Here is an extract from a relevant paper:
    "Gain weight by “going diet?” Artificial sweeteners and the neurobiology of sugar cravings" Neuroscience 2010

    "Lastly, artificial…

    Read more

    1. Darren Powell

      Doctoral candidate in Health and Physical Education at Charles Sturt University

      In reply to Sue Ieraci

      Thanks for your comment Sue. Unfortunately I think the way coke is going is the opposite way. More 'healthy' options is proving to be an excellent money and publicity spinner. A recent 'defector' from Coke said something along the lines of 'the aim of the company is not to gain the greatest market share of beverage sales, but be the as much part of the consumers diet as possible'. Promoting the energy balance side of things means an ideal Coke consumer would get all their calories purely from Coke products. Scary.

      report

    2. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to Darren Powell

      Darren - if you have children young enough you may have seen the film Wall*E where a central theme is the intrusiveness of the corporate Buy-N-Large company into everyday life.

      In the film all nutrition was delivered from the company drinks - reminded me much of Coke's approach.

      report

    3. Mark Amey

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Sue Ieraci

      I agree, Sue, I stopped using any sweetening (artificial or natural) a couple of months back. I was surprised that, as a person with 'sweet tooth', my craving for sweetness was downregulated almost immediately. Thereafter, nuts, fruits, etc all taste quite sweet. There is no craving.

      The bonus is that five Kgs disappeared in a couple of weeks, whilst maintaining my normal kilojoule input.

      report

    5. Colin MacGillivray

      Retired architect

      In reply to Sue Ieraci

      Cravings for sweetness is the problem. Ask anyone who used to have 2 or 3 spoons of sugar in their tea who now has none. Even a half spoon now is awfully sweet.
      Soda or fizzy drinks have no function except profits for producers. Time to tax them out of existence.

      report

    6. Sue Ieraci

      Public hospital clinician

      In reply to Colin MacGillivray

      Agreed, Colin, but it's worse than that.

      In a counter-intuitive way, sucrose-sweetened drinks are preferable if the sugar makes people moderate their intake.

      Artificially-sweetened drinks can be seen as "free" sweetness (no calories), leading to excessive consumption of highly-sweet taste, without thinking about the sweetness habituation. There is no doubt that one can "wean off" sweet tea and coffee, eventually finding the sweetened product quite sickly.

      report

  4. Brian Byrnes

    Retired

    Darren, could you provide some links to studies which demonstrate the causal link between sugary drinks and obesity ? I would be very grateful.

    report

  5. Tim Scanlon

    Debunker

    If Coke really wanted to help with obesity they'd put their namesake ingredient back in the mix.

    report

  6. Rob Bramley

    Pr. Res. Scientist

    What makes Coke's position here totally disingenuous is the fact that it persists in selling its products in 600 ml bottles on the basis that this is a normal one person portion. Clearly this is absurd. Then there is the 'super size me' issue. The other day at the local cinema I bought a "small" coke. I don't know how big it was but would guess at 750 ml; a "large" would be well over 1 litre. Both are served in Coke-branded cups, so even if the sizing was up to the cinema (which I don't believe to be so), coke are complicit in delivering these absurdly large portions. To at the same time claim to be promoting the countering of obesity is laughable.

    report

  7. James Jenkin

    EFL Teacher Trainer

    The article suggests 'health and obesity are influenced by a wide range of historical, environmental, social, cultural, genetic, political, and economic factors' - much more profound than the 'burn more calories, eat fewer calories mantra'.

    I'm therefore wondering what public health organisations aim to do. Do they propose reshaping our physical environment, society, culture, politics and economy?

    report

    1. Mike Hansen

      Mr

      In reply to James Jenkin

      Like you James, Australian Beverages Council chief executive Geoff Parker does not like profound thoughts.
      "Consuming more kilojoules than what is burnt through physical activity is what leads to weight gain."
      http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1727786/Debate-over-tax-on-soft-drinks

      But you are hiding your light under a bushel - here you are Brendan O'Neill like rubbishing health experts from "The Conversation" (damn their elitist souls) concerned about obesity.
      http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3038070.html

      That article is a few years old now - I see you are still waiting for the call up from Rupert.

      report

  8. Theo Pertsinidis

    Theo Pertsinidis is a Friend of The Conversation.

    ALP voter

    I liken Cokes or Macdonalds or KFCs or Subways or Hungary Jacks corporate social responsibility approach to the carbon price... trying to pay for damage whilst damaging and staying in business. The consumer must take responsibility as well but how much?

    Do razor blade or hair removal product businesses try to find an end to permanent hair removal. Who wants to shave and tweeze? No they do not because if they did they would not have repeat business.

    Gambling is no different. I would like to…

    Read more

  9. Stephen S Holden

    Associate Professor, Marketing at Bond University

    Darren, what do you think that Coca Cola should do? Be silent and ignore the issue? Make an effort and be part of the solution? Close their doors - will that solve the problem?

    report

    1. Judith Olney

      Ms

      In reply to Stephen S Holden

      Stephen, I wish Coca Cola would close their doors, I wish they were silent on this issue, their products are part of the problem, and I don't believe they actually give a fat rat's about the problem of obesity. They are interested in getting more of their product sold, that's it. If they can fool people into thinking that pushing the concerned corporation line is a way to help with the problem, they will push it.

      report

    2. Jason Thompson

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Stephen S Holden

      Come on Stephen - Surely you're not saying they are in it for the good of humanity.You're an Assoc Professor of Marketing - no-one needs to tell you the value of 'educational' campaigns in protecting companies from future legislation.

      They are about as genuine on the issue of nutrition and obesity as they are on environmental issues. They sprout their environmental credentials (e.g., http://www.coca-cola.co.uk/environment), while simultaneously challenging recycling legislation across the country…

      Read more

    3. Stephen S Holden

      Associate Professor, Marketing at Bond University

      In reply to Stephen S Holden

      Darren, my question still stands.

      Judith, you have chosen a moral high ground, but one that is difficult to defend. Coca Cola have no right to market anything because their products are "a part of the problem." So by this stand, we would ban all marketers of tobacco, alcohol (both easy), junk food, fast foods (hmmm), and by extension, sugars, flour, processed foods, etc which are all "a part of the problem.". Who draws the line? And where?

      Jason, you haven't chosen! :) But I suspect you would choose that they should be silent. Fair enough. Personally I think that organisations can contribute socially - and indeed, ought to. Those organisations (and individuals for that matter) who do think about their contribution to society (good and bad) are more realistic and more favoured by me than those that simply follow one goal (e.g., the profit line).

      report

    4. Judith Olney

      Ms

      In reply to Stephen S Holden

      Stephen, you have chosen the slippery slope argument, in this case I think you are wrong. How is my position difficult to defend? I have no problem with companies that are not hypocritical in the way they operate.

      Coca cola can, and do market their products globally, without any interference what so ever, and have much political power, so banning them marketing anything would be near on impossible, much like the other damaging products you give as examples, all of them products that have been…

      Read more

    5. Jason Thompson

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Stephen S Holden

      Yep - I agree, Stephen.

      Companies can and do contribute often and they do so very effectively. Unfortunately, Coke isn't a good example of one that does.

      Their efforts might better be viewed under a banner of 'How companies use marketing to dilute criticism', which is an interesting subject in itself rather than anything else.

      Sadly, it will probably work!

      report

    6. Stephen S Holden

      Associate Professor, Marketing at Bond University

      In reply to Judith Olney

      Hey Judith, your response kind of reflects exactly the problem I'm identifying. It is less the 'slippery slope', more the presumption that 'for-profit' is a synonym for 'immoral' and there's no room for a corporate having any social objectives. As an extension of this presumption, you appear to have identified me in your response as a bad guy because of my role as a teacher of marketing. One of my special interests is social marketing - anti-tobacco, anti-obesity, anti-consumption, and stuff like that. I note that there's a Judith Olney (lives in Palm Beach, FL so probably not you) who you presumably would happily dismiss as a bad person because she has published a cookbook (among others) called The Joy of Chocolate. Therefore, she's a 'part of the problem.' This is indeed a moral argument, and as such, it is definitely worthy of attention. The solution however is more about getting a good outcome (eg, tackling obesity) than being right (Coca Cola is bad).

      report

    7. Judith Olney

      Ms

      In reply to Stephen S Holden

      Stephan, my view isn't that all profit is bad, this is your own assumption, not my intended message. If you read my post, I have mentioned that profit, before people, is the problem, not profit itself.

      I have no problem with companies marketing their products honestly, and with the view to improving the lives of those they market too, not to the detriment of those people, in the desire for more money.

      In my post I did not identify you as being bad, as such, just conned like the rest of us…

      Read more

  10. Judith Olney

    Ms

    Our whole consumerist culture is the problem, and the coca-cola company is just another corporation that wants us to consume more of their product so their shareholders become richer. This sop to the problem of obesity is just a cynical way of getting their product into schools, as having their product in every part of a persons life is their aim. Does anyone really think that these corporations care about the health of those that consume their products?

    As a society we have fallen hook, line…

    Read more

    1. Sue Ieraci

      Public hospital clinician

      In reply to Judith Olney

      I agree, Judith.

      There was also a time when vanilla icecream was a treat. Now it needs added flavour and texture and "no boring bits" to be attractive.

      You'll be pleased to know, however, that orange wedges still appear at kids' weekend soccer matches.

      report

    2. Judith Olney

      Ms

      In reply to Sue Ieraci

      At my Grandson's soccer matches, one of their sponsors, (guess who?), was supplying free gatorade to the teams, all under 10 years old. Yep, they had their orange quarters, but the insidious pushing of sugary drinks goes on, and its killing our children.

      report

  11. rory robertson

    rory robertson is a Friend of The Conversation.

    former fattie

    Good on you, Darren. I share your scepticism - and that of other readers - that Coca-Cola's heart now is set on becoming a key part of the solution to global obesity, after being a key driver of the problem for over a century.

    Nevertheless, the intellectual tide is turning against sugary drinks in particular and sugar consumption in general, offering the prospect of an eventual downsizing of sugar's massive damage to global health. As an example of the intellectual shift, the British Medical…

    Read more

    1. Sue Ieraci

      Public hospital clinician

      In reply to rory robertson

      "Closer to home, Sue Leraci (above/below?) now is sounding like David Gillespie's parrot, enthusiastically citing the view that "Unsweetening the world’s diet may be the key to reversing the obesity epidemic"."

      Mr Robertson - that is a load of nonsense. I cited the paper that provided evidence for habituation to sweetness (habituation, NOT physiological addiction). I cited that paper rationally, not "enthusiastically"), in a discussion about artificially-sweetened products.

      My comments had nothing to do with fructose, and I most certainly do not agree with David Gillespie, let alone his parrot.

      Please restrain yourself in expressing both your obsession and misrepresentations of my opinion.

      report

  12. Gary Cassidy

    A multi-national profit focused company selling an inherently unhealthy product educating kids to eat healthy and exercise. Oxymoron!

    report

    1. Michael O'Keeffe

      Ecologist

      In reply to Gary Cassidy

      Yes Gary, it's a little like an arms manufacturer promoting the use of high quality prosthetic devices at the local school, then claiming they are socially responsible. Creating a problem, then selling the solution. Sounds just like something I reds in Orwell's 1984.

      report

  13. rory robertson

    rory robertson is a Friend of The Conversation.

    former fattie

    From the cover story "Mixing his Drinks" in "the deal" liftout magazine of The Australian, 15 February 2013:

    "Cognisant of the role played by sugary drinks in the poor diet of many remote [Northern Territory and Queensland] communities, CCA has modified its marketing in those areas to focus on water and diet drinks. Also soft drinks with sugar in them are no longer being refrigerated, which makes the healthier options in the fridge more appealing in the Top End climate: 'In these hot areas, people are going to drink commercial beverages and our job is to provide some education, so they think about alternatives, whether it's water or Coke Zero or Diet Coke' [says Terry Davis, CEO of Coca-Cola Amital] "

    Readers, would it be correct to assume that sugary softdrinks are a health hazard - a key driver of obesity, diabetes and heart disease, etc - because of the added sugar, not the added water or the added bubbles?

    report