Latest / Common Sense Health / Coca-Cola vs. Obesity: The Scientific Fraud Exposed
Transcript
- Stephen Thomas BSc. Hons: Hello. Today I want to tell you about how one of the world's biggest companies hijacked nutrition science by setting up what looked like an independent science network, but in fact kept tight control on its output. Between 2010 and 2015, Coca-Cola, they weren't just selling fizzy drinks. They were spending $118 million shaping the science that tells you what to believe about obesity. And the message they wanted baked. into the public mind was quite simple. It's all about energy balance, not sugar. It wanted to be about calories in, calories out, move more. Stop blaming drinks. Start blaming yourself. Now let me be completely clear about the theme running through this entire story, because it's the thread that ties every part of it together. The overall theme was to steer scientists and the message towards one conclusion. Like I say, It's all about energy balance, not sugar. They didn't even include things like exercise matters too, not ⁓ diet and movement both matter, but a deliberate emphasis that pushes sugar into the background and drags physical inactivity right front and centre in the spotlight. And then in twenty fifteen the curtain got yanked open, and this was because some journalists started digging, and there was a lot of freedom of information requests, and they weren't met with just paying. Polite PR they actually managed to get lot of receipts. 18,000 and thirty six pages of Coca-Cola emails with public health academics, internal correspondence that showed how close the relationship really was. 18,000 pages. Not a misunderstanding, by the way, not a single awkward email, a whole system. And at the center of this was the thing that they funded, the Global Energy Balance Network. It was a public facing entity. It looked like an independent scientific initiative to tackle obesity. Behind the scenes, the criticism was that it functioned like a narrative engine, a credible sounding group built to broadcast one message over and over. Obesity is about inactivity, not what you eat, and definitely not sugary drinks. But I'm going to name some names because this isn't a video about some researchers somewhere. The Global Energy Balance Network leadership was James Hill, Stephen Blair, and Gregory Hand. And before the network even launched, those three had already drawn around four million US dollars in industry linked funding alongside pre-existing food industry ties. Now, on the side of Coca-Cola, there was the executive that was tied most to the scandal, and that was Dr. Rona Appleborn. That was Coca Cola's chief science and health officer at the time. After the backlash she left the company in twenty fifteen and it was reported as a simple case of retirement, nothing to do with intense scrutiny of the operations. But here's where it gets a little bit more hard hitting because when people do hear it's an industry funded research, they might think it just means a big fat check in the post, and but it still carries out a proper scientific study. Nope. The problem is what it does to outcomes. Independent analysis have found industry funded and industry linked sugary drink research is dramatically more likely to conclude nothing to see here. One widely cited set of finding goes like this Of twenty six studies with industry ties, none found a link between sugar sweetened beverages and obesity, while thirty three out of thirty four independent funded studies found. did find a link, read that again. Industry ties, zero, zero problems. Independent research, almost unanimous concern. So that's not a debate. That's a very clear pattern. And another analysis summarized it even more bluntly. Twenty-five out of twenty-six industry-tied studies were negative, meaning they downplayed or failed to support the harm story, the harm of sugar. So when you say every single study funded by Coca-Cola concluded exactly what the company needed it to, that's absolutely true. The wider literature suggests that's not hyperbole. It's what systematically happens when the funding and the incentives point in the same direction. Now back to the emails, because this is the part that turns a bad look into an outright scandal. Those emails didn't read like distant sponsorship messages. They were coordination. They were planning. It was messaging. It was how do we win this argument rather than how do we discover the truth? And when the public caught on the network didn't evolve, it just collapsed. And one moment that speaks absolute volumes, Stephen Blair, the Global Energy Balance Network Vice President, later asked to have his video removed from the network's website and even released a public statement saying My dismissal of diet as a cause of obesity did a disservice to top nutrition experts work. Now that is not a small clarification, that is a public walk back with career weight behind it. And then there's the money trail, of course. A lot of this money was going to universities. In late twenty fifteen, the University of Colorado said it would actually return one million dollars. The Coca-Cola grant linked ⁓ money was to help launch the Global Energy Balance Network. So here's the story in plain English. Coca Cotta spent $118 million and helped build a scientific looking platform that pushed this one message. Don't worry about sugar, just go and jog more. Researchers with existing industry ties were elevated and amplified. A mounting of emails showed the relationship was far closer than just ⁓ hands off funding. We just given you money. That wasn't the case. And when it all came out, the network disbanded A top Coca-Cola science executive left, and even the network's own leadership started to distance themselves from what they'd been saying. Now, if you want the real takeaway, it this isn't just about soda. It's about how corporate money can distort obesity science by changing what's being emphasized and also what's being minimized. And what the public thinks is settled science. ⁓ and if you think you're sat there thinking, right, so what can I actually do with this information, Stephen? Well here's a practical starting point. When you see a confident nutrition headline, ask three questions. Who funded it? Who benefits from this? And what's being quietly moved off stage? Because sometimes the biggest lie isn't in what's said, it's in what's keeping getting left out. Anyway. If you want help applying common sense to your own health, you could always consider booking a consultation. I'm always available for concerts. And if you want to be part of a like-minded group of people cutting through the noise without the corporate scripts, you could always look at my Common Sense Carnival group online where we all meet up and discuss these sort of things. And we have three meetings a week on a Sunday, Monday, and a Wednesday, and we talk through the latest nutrition science. So until next time, remember When a fizzy drinks company tells you obesity is mostly about exercise, you might want to check who paid for that article. And if you've got to the end of this and you've liked it, please consider liking, sharing and subscribing. And if you think you've subscribed, just double check that you are, because YouTube isn't as great as I'd like it to be. And if you've got to the end of this and you've hated it, well just drop a comment on what you didn't like about the presentation, and I'll try and do better on the next one. Anyway, thank you very much for listening. I hope to see you on the next one.