[MUST READ] Coca-Cola’s secret influence on medical and science journalists

Please read this article from the British Medical Journal: http://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j1638


This is a very important argument, and it is essential for healthcare professionals, journalists and politicians alike to make a concerted and aggressive effort to kick these sugar-peddling companies out of the sphere of academic influence.

The more overt “More Doctors smoke…” advertisements of yesteryear are thankfully a thing of the past, but the covert influence of sugar-saturated food companies is no less a threat to our health. Aaron and Siegel (1) report that from 2011 to 2015, the Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo were found to sponsor 95 national health organizations, many medical and public health institutions amongst them. They also lobbied against 29 public health bills intended to reduce soda consumption or improve nutrition.

The British Nutrition Foundation, for example, lists amongst “Sustaining Members” Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Kellogg, Nestle, Tate & Lyle and has “Corporate Members” British Sugar plc, Mars UK, KP Snacks, McDonalds, United Biscuits, Weetabix, Ocean Spray and many more. Although it is open to companies and corporations from a variety of backgrounds including healthcare and fitness, the actual members who have provided support read as a Who’s Who of Sugar Salesmen (2), making their promise of a “a focus on objective nutrition science interpretation and delivery” open to scrutiny. The American Society for Nutrition is no different, with an almost-identical list of names cropping up (3) for this group, which publishes the Journal of Nutrition.

Indeed, the editorial boards of top nutrition journals are littered by corporate affiliations with sweetie companies – The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, for example, lists the likes of Mars, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Nestle, McDonald’s  and Ferrero amongst companies who have a relationship with members of their board (4). The ambassador’s reception may also be overflowing with hazelnut-and-wafer spherical treats at many other nutrition journals, who often  home of the Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, who have eight “corporate patron friends” and four “corporate sustaining friends.  (5)

It would be interesting to note how these journals consider submissions which report a detriment to health from these companies’ products, but when some of the largest nutrition journals display such a conflict of interest it must become clear to all that the Honey Pot relationship between “Big Food” and academia is poisonous and needs to be dealt with.


(1) Sponsorship of National Health Organizations by Two Major Soda Companies. Aaron, Daniel G. et al. American Journal of Preventive Medicine , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , 20 – 30

(2) “Member Organisations – British Nutrition Foundation”. Nutrition.org.uk. N.p., 2017. Web. 10 Apr. 2017.

(3) “American Society For Nutrition – Our Sustaining Partners”. Nutrition.org. N.p., 2017. Web. 10 Apr. 2017.

(4) AJCN Editor Conflict of Interest Statement. (2017). Ajcn.nutrition.org. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/site/misc/EditorCOI.xhtml Web, 10 April. 2017.

(5) Nestle, Marion. Food Politics. 1st ed. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 2013. P112. Print.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *