Soda companies targeting young people in low- and middle-income countries, says report


Soda sales are crashing in developed countries. So what should the soda industry do? Simple, according to a new report, they do as the tobacco industry.

With soda sales in a tailspin in the United States, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo are borrowing a page from the tobacco industry playbook and investing heavily to boost consumption in low- and middle-income countries.

At least now the developed world has a chance to turn the obesity and diabetes epidemics around. In low-income countries the worst is likely yet to come.


If Soda Commercials Were Honest

The Mexicans Dying for a Fizzy Drink

Soda Drinkers Get Fatter on the Inside


  1. RT
    Here's another article by CSPI. Any thoughts?
  2. RT
    And here is an article by Nina Teicholz, mentioned in the above-linked article, in which she addresses critics of her article in BMJ.
    (The 180 signatories -- "dinasours," I believe Dr. E. called them -- of a letter which CSPI originated are also mentioned.) This is just my two cents, but it should be noted that CSPI is an organization that is fundamentally against everything that the LCHF way of eating involves. They use cherry-picked "expert opinions" and cohort studies to demonize fat (while ignoring the 20 plus RCTs that support the healthfulness of natural fats), and accuse people like Teicholz of being shills for the meat and dairy industries. They are, therefore, an intellectually dishonest and inherently unreliable source. Even if they're right about sugar, that's not enough to get me to trust them. They were the ones who pushed for the adoption of trans fats in the 1980s through legal action (depite the existence of evidence that trans fats were dangerous, evidence which they dismissed), and have erased this from their official histories of their "activism" even as they criticize the use of trans fats now.
    It's your site, do what you want with it. But that's my view of the matter. Thank you for letting us freely express our views here.
    Reply: #4
  3. RT
    Here is a copy of CSPI's 1988 article titled "The Truth about Trans: Hydrogenated Oils aren't Guilty as Charged."'t+guilty+as+charged.-a06482599

    And here is CSPI's "Highlights from 40 Years of Accomplishments."

    It includes the following:
    "1994: CSPI calls on the FDA to require the labeling of cholesterol-raising trans fats in foods and leads the effort to require lower-fat school meals."
    "2003: After a ten-year CSPI-led drive, the FDA finalizes a rule requiring food manufacturers to list artery-clogging trans fats on Nutrition Facts labels. CSPI launches efforts in several states to require nutrition labeling on fast-food chain restaurant menu boards and menus."

    They're more than happy to blame the food industry for trans fats, but make it appear as if they have always been against their use (as opposed to pushing for their adoption in the face of evidence that they were dangerous).

    They are, in effect, a leading source of misinformation about the nature of natural fats in the human diet. The overwhelming message is that animal products are unhealthy.
    (I would postulate that jumping on the anti-sugar bandwagon - correct in itself - is a way to associate their psedoscientific anti-fat crusade with something that few people would disagree with; just read the "expert interviews" in their "healthletter" and you can see the linking of the two issues.)

    Given their record of intellectual dishonesty and pseudoscience, even if they say something an LCHF-er might agree with at first glance, it's better to take it with a grain of salt.

  4. RT
    Correction: as far as know CSPI never took legal action to push for the adoption of trans fats (though they did strongly advocate their use).
  5. RT

Leave a reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts