Happy corporate holidays from Coca-Cola
BMJ 2017; 356 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6833 (Published 10 January 2017) Cite this as: BMJ 2017;356:i6833
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
There is increasing evidence, mentioned in the article, that artificial sweeteners are probably no healthier than sugar and may be worse. There is increasing research to support this and it needs to be disseminated urgently. Next year the sugar tax will mean that low sugar soft drinks will be cheaper than the alternatives and manufacturers will make the most of the opportunity to market them. We don't need "experts" quoted as saying that reducing sugar is the only thing that matters.
We had this with trans fats which have been replaced by palm oil, causing massive environmental damage and no clear heath gain. We're having it again with "e-cigarettes", which admittedly are healthier than burning tobacco, but should be used to stop smoking and not marketed to adolescents.Can we please get our research and evidence in place in time for the next debate?
Competing interests: No competing interests
Perhaps rather than complaining about the indifference of the press and public, the authors should reflect on why their campaign failed. There may be lessons to learn for future public health campaigns.
Here are ten possible reasons:
1. It was a killjoy abstinence message at a time of traditional indulgence - so the timing was wrong.
2. It was indiscriminate and judgemental - many people harmlessly enjoy soft drinks in moderation, so the targeting was wrong.
3. It was based on a strident anti-capitalist perspective most people don't share - the framing context was wrong.
4. Coca-Cola may have a more trusted brand than public health - recent quack science and debates about fat vs sugar may have eroded trust in the messenger.
6. Obesity is caused by the totality of diet and lifestyle, not one food or beverage - so the underlying proposition was wrong.
7. Evidence that soft drink marketing is a cause of obesity is purely speculative - the insight into marketing was weak.
8. No useful result from any proposed action was likely - it looked like an isolated empty gesture.
9. Would anyone believe the activists would deny their own families soft drinks? It showed no plausible empathy with the public.
10. It was based on a stale advocacy technique - an open letter from predictable do-gooders saying predictable things - it simply wasn't newsworthy.
Hope this helps!
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Happy corporate holidays from Coca-Cola
The cause of the world-wide epidemic of obesity based on medical research
I would like to refer Dr Michael Peel and all those who think that the world-wide epidemic of obesity is caused by excessive sugar consumption via sweetened soft drinks to my Rapid Response of 12 January 2009 in which I quote a number of medical research papers demonstrating that it is not the hypothesised high sugar consumption via sweetened soft drinks but a deranged sugar metabolism linked to hyperinsulinaemia which starts in early infancy and has its roots in childhood vaccines. Little babies do not drink Coca Cola
Competing interests: No competing interests