9 comments

  1. chuck
    too bad it wasn't replaced by something healthy. i fear that smartphones and tablets may have just as negative effect on our health as coca cola.
  2. Steve
    So Coke was surpassed by an Apple, who knew? It has to be better than be passed by a Kit Kat bar, right?
  3. Mike
    Spreading deceit & disease is a pretty short-term business strategy for a company that has been around 127 years and is working hard at ways to meet consumer demand for more nutritional information, low/no-calorie beverage options, all natural categories and smaller serving sizes of its soft drinks.

    While it is worthwhile to provide nutrition & ingredient information so your readers (patients?) may make informed choices ... I doubt you do them a service by identifying products or companies as 'deceitful & disease spreading'...as this takes the focus away from personal responsibility.

    Replies: #6, #9
  4. Irene Geerts
    The other day we saw at this blog how Coca Cola would have us believe that we become fat by sitting for some time during the day. However, we have research to show that exercise does almost nothing for weightloss. Standing up all day will probably do next to nothing either.

    I would call such attention-rerouting ads quite deceitful. Not te mention sponsorship of a conference about child obesity. Are they not ashamed?

  5. Howard
    @mike Then exactly what do you call a company that lies about the effects of its products? I certainly hope that the 127-year-old company achieves the status of "who remembers Coke?" in this decade. Just because they have been around for a long time doesn't mean they will be here forever, especially if they are making products that damage people.
    .
    OTOH, maybe they will change. After all, they no longer add cocaine to their drinks.
  6. FrankG
    Mike -- Do you think that their claim of: for the past 50 years, not directly marketing to children under 12 years old is being completely honest about the reality of the situation?

    Sure personal responsibility is all well and good.. so long as the advice of the expert sources we rely on to make our own choices, is sound and trustworthy.

    The ONLY interest they have in meeting consumer demands is if it helps increase the profits for their shareholders' bottom line.

    And why does your comment sound so much like an advert for Coke?

  7. Howard
    What @FrankG said.
    .
    I'm all for personal responsibility. Which is why I now consider the badly-deranged USDA to be irrelevant. A goodly percentage of my health problems are due to really bad advice I have gotten from sources that I should have been able to trust.
    .
    The reason Mike's comment sounds so much like an advert for Coke is the high probability that it is exactly that. High-profile companies being called out for their bad behavior are increasingly hiring "reputation management" firms who then recruit folks to post comments like that in an effort to deflect the richly-deserved condemnation they are getting.
    .
    The next step is for "Mike" to deny that he works for such a firm, and is merely stating his own opinion. Wait for it....
  8. bill
    Mike:

    Reynolds Tobacco has been around 138 years.

    What's your point?

  9. murray
    yes, Coke is indeed following the same "short-term" strategy of the tobacco companies--it was highly profitable for the tobacco companies and it is highly profitable for Coke. Coke is the new tobacco. They will endure, as have cigarettes and tobacco profits.

    Yes, the focus should be personal responsibility. Take responsibility and ditch the addiction. No more Coke. Someone should come out with "Coke patches" or "e-drinks" to help addicts kick the habit. "Diabetes--It's a Real Thing."

Leave a reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts