November 9, 2024 • 16 mins
In this eye-opening episode, hosts Kai and Sarai explore the recently uncovered correspondence between Coca-Cola and public health academics involved in the Global Energy Balance Network (GEBN).
They discuss how Coca-Cola employed strategic methods to manipulate research outcomes, including concealing their financial contributions and building a network of researchers who promoted industry-friendly messages.
What tactics did Coca-Cola use to minimize public perception of their influence? How did their funding decisions shape the narratives within public health research?
Join Kai and Sarai as they unpack the implications of these revelations and the urgent need for stricter conflict-of-interest management in research.
This episode sheds light on the often-hidden dynamics between industry funding and academic integrity, highlighting the broader impact on public health policies.
Don't miss this critical discussion that challenges our understanding of corporate influence in health research!
For more in-depth insights, check out the original article here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10200649/pdf/S1368980020002098a.pdf
They discuss how Coca-Cola employed strategic methods to manipulate research outcomes, including concealing their financial contributions and building a network of researchers who promoted industry-friendly messages.
What tactics did Coca-Cola use to minimize public perception of their influence? How did their funding decisions shape the narratives within public health research?
Join Kai and Sarai as they unpack the implications of these revelations and the urgent need for stricter conflict-of-interest management in research.
This episode sheds light on the often-hidden dynamics between industry funding and academic integrity, highlighting the broader impact on public health policies.
Don't miss this critical discussion that challenges our understanding of corporate influence in health research!
For more in-depth insights, check out the original article here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10200649/pdf/S1368980020002098a.pdf
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the deep dive. Today. We're going down the
rabbit hole of how Coca Cola has interacted with researchers
and those public health institutions, you know, like the ones
that are supposed to be looking out for us. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
It's a really, really fascinating area of study. And just
to be clear, we're not here to put Coca Cola
or any company for that matter, on trial, right right.
The point is to kind of understand like the subtle
ways the industries can you know, influence research and even
shape public opinion.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
Okay, So think of this deep dive as our little
detective mission, right hm. And the magnifying glass. We're using
a twenty twenty research paper from Public Health Nutrition.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Oh I've heard of this one.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
Get this. They actually got their hands on thousands of pages,
thousands of internal Coca Cola emails.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
The way how they swing that.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
Freedom of information actor questions. Oh that's gold, right, talk
about a treasure truck years.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
It's like a crash course in how these corporations, especially
when it comes to health, think about their how they
want the public to see them.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
It's all about perception, right, Okay, So this study it
dug up two main strategies that Coca Cola is using.
The first one revolves around funding, but it's more nuanced
than just hey, we're giving money to research. This is
about control, right.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Oh. Absolutely. They knew like the public perception, the optics
of being seen as this big corporate puppeteer, it wouldn't
go over well, right, right, So they took steps to
kind of downplay their role as this major major funder
of you know, all this research on diet and health.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
Hmm, interesting, So how did they do that? I mean,
the money's got to come from somewhere.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Right, So one tactic was actually bringing in additional funders, oh,
I see, to try and create this like illusion of
you know, diversified support, like it's a whole bunch of
people all agreeing.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
So it's like they wanted to seem like just one voice,
you know, in this big chorus of voices, even though
they were the ones, like you said, writing the.
Speaker 2 (01:53):
Biggest checks exactly exactly. And it gets even wilder. They
even like debated, you know, what words to use. They
talked about using specific language very calculated like gift or
unrestricted grant.
Speaker 1 (02:05):
Oh, instead of just calling it funding.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
Yeah, like to describe their funding. And they're doing this
to minimize any perception that they're, you know, trying to
control the research.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
It just shows how much thought goes into every single word.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Right.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
Yeah, it wasn't just about the money. It was about
how that money would be perceived. Clearly they were aware
of how the public might interpret their involvement for sure. Okay,
so that strategy number one, control the funding, control the message.
What about the second strategy?
Speaker 2 (02:34):
All right, So the second one is all about relationships.
They really focused on building up this network of researchers,
you know, people they had these close ties with.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
Oh so it wasn't just about the money. It was
about building these connections, you know, cultivating influence over time.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
You got it? And get this. They called this group
of academics their like email family, you know, that's.
Speaker 1 (02:57):
What they call them, email family. Wow.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
Yeah. And they didn't stop there. They also tried to
connect these researchers with you know, people making.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Policy decisions, policy makers.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
Yeah, policy makers exactly. And they even talked about how
to like help advance these researchers careers, provide support for
their institutions.
Speaker 1 (03:17):
They were really in it for the long haul, weren't
they it wasn't just about funding one study and helping
for the best. It was about cultivating this whole network
that could potentially promote a certain viewpoint over time.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
That's exactly it. They were playing the long game here,
and it's a great example of how like corporate influence
can operate on all these different levels. It's not just
about the funding decisions. It's also about shaping what research
gets done. You know, what questions get asked, right, right,
And it's about building those relationships with like the key
(03:50):
opinion leaders in a field.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
The people that everyone else listens to.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
Yeah, and all of this is happening behind the scenes,
which makes it so much harder to spot from the outside.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
It's subtle, but it can be very very effective.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
But they didn't stop there, did they. I mean, they
took this a step further by actually trying to emphasize
certain types of research over others.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
That's right. Like, for example, the emails show how interested
Coca Cola was in research that highlighted the importance of
you know, energy balance, Oh way, yeah, calories in calories
out right right.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
The idea that if you eat more calories than you burn, well,
guess what you're going to gain weight, right, Okay, so
that makes sense on the surface. But what's the advantage
for Coca Cola in emphasizing this energy balance concept.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
Well, think about it. If they shift the focus to
energy balance, then they can kind of sidestep the issue
of sugar drinks themselves, like suddenly, it's not about the soda,
it's about you not exercising enough or making other lifestyle choices.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
So the way of deflecting attention away from the potential
negative impacts of their products clever, right, very clever. Exactly.
It's all about framing the issue in a way that
benefits them, right. And speaking of framing this energy balance thing,
it wasn't just like a general philosophy for them. They
actually put it into practice.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Oh really, how so?
Speaker 1 (05:08):
Okay, so remember that whole Global Energy Balance Network thing. Yeah,
I think I've heard that GEBN.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
Right, Yeah, GEBN. So they presented this group, you know,
to the public as like this independent, you know, scientific organization, right, right,
But those emails they tell very very different story.
Speaker 1 (05:27):
Oh.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
Really, turns out Coca Cola they were like super involved
in creating GEBN, funding it the whole nine yards. They
saw this as their chance to like really push that
energy balance message, you know, to counter what they called
like biased information about sugary drinks.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
Oh so they were trying to shape the narrative, like
we were talking about before. It's like setting up your
own think tank, you know, to promote a certain point
of view. But did it work? I mean did people
buy it?
Speaker 2 (05:54):
Well that's the million dollar question, isn't it. And it's
where things get even juicier. Actually, so people started asking
questions right like who's funding GBN? Well, where's all this
money coming from? And you know what, Coca Cola they
got like really hesitant about, you know, coming clean about
their like massive financial support.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
Well yeah, I mean wouldn't you If you're trying to
create this image of independence.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
The last thing you want is for people to find
out that you're the puppet master behind the scenes.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
Exactly. It's all about controlling the message, right, maintaining that
like you know, facade of oh this is totally independent,
objective science.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
So what happened? Did they actually manage to exert any
real influence through this network or did it all just
kind of blow up in their faces?
Speaker 1 (06:39):
You know, they tried, they really did, And there's some
like evidence that suggests they wanted to use GEBN to
connect with, you know, policymakers and other big wigs in
the health world, like we were talking about before, to
really try and sway those opinions get to get their
message out there exactly. But ultimately GBN they faced a
(07:00):
ton of scrutiny, especially you know when those emails came out,
and in the end they had to disband, like shut
it down completely.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
Wow, talk about backfiring. It seems like their attempt to
like control the narrative actually had the opposite effect. But
I can't imagine this was an isolated incident, right, I mean,
we're talking about Coca Cola here. Oh, you are absolutely right.
This was not a one time thing. The emails they
also show how they interacted with like individual researchers, and
it went way beyond just you know, handing them a
(07:29):
check and saying do some research for us.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
Oh, like what kind of stuff were we talking about here?
Speaker 2 (07:34):
So there's documentation of them like offering to connect these
academics with you know, policymakers for example. They even like
suggested research topics really oh yeah, ones that just happened
to you know, align very nicely with Coca Cola's interest.
Speaker 1 (07:51):
Of course, of course, what a coincidence, right, Yeah, So
it wasn't enough to just fund research. They wanted to
be involved, you know, to shape the questions that were
being asked, the connections that were being made. Did they
offer anything else to these researchers, Like what's in it
for the researchers besides maybe getting their research funded?
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Well, there were these discussions about potentially funding like entire
academic institutions.
Speaker 1 (08:13):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
Really yeah, which I mean, let's be real, that creates
a huge sense of like obligation.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
Right, Yeah, for sure. It's hard to say no to
someone who's paying your bills, even if it's indirectly. It's
amazing what you can find out from these internal emails, right,
It's like we're getting this like behind the scenes, look
at how the sausage gets made, you know. But what
stands out to you is the most like revealing thing
in all.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
Of this, you know, for me, it's the lengths to
which they went to like really really managed the message,
you know. Yeah, like remember that email chain where they
were discussing how to respond if someone asked about gbn's funding.
Oh yeah, yeah, I mean talk about a masterclass in pr.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
They were ready, weren't they.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
Oh yeah, like they wanted to have all these other
funders lined up, you know, to trot out before they
even breathed a word about Coca Cola's involvement. It just
shows how aware they were of how that would look.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
Yeah, it makes you wonder what they were so afraid of.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
Right, And don't even get me started on that whole
debate over whether to use the word gift or grant
for their contributions.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
Oh yeah, yeah, that was a whole thing, wasn't it, Like.
Speaker 2 (09:18):
They actually thought that gift sounded like less agenda driven.
It just goes to show how much they understood the
power of language.
Speaker 1 (09:26):
Yeah, it's incredible how much those little choices in warding
can really shape how we perceive something. And wasn't there
also that whole thing about the spokesperson Q and A.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
Oh yes, yes, it's the document right, Like they literally
had pre written responses to questions that they thought people
might ask about Jay Avian.
Speaker 1 (09:43):
Oh so they were ready for anything.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
Oh yeah, prepared for every possible scenario.
Speaker 1 (09:47):
Smart. Yeah, what were some of the like pre written answers?
Speaker 2 (09:51):
So, for example, one of them said that, like, for
legal reasons, they couldn't actually reveal, you know, who was
funding them without getting permission like from the donors.
Speaker 1 (10:00):
Oh interesting.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
Yeah, they even cited like Colorado state law.
Speaker 1 (10:04):
But didn't the paper like call them out on that.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
Oh yeah, they did their homework. Turns out the researchers
couldn't find any law in Colorado that would have actually
prevented them from disclosing that Coca Cola was a funder.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
So they were using the law, or at least the
appearance of it, as a shield to avoid being transparent.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
It definitely makes you wonder and it's a good reminder that, like,
we're not talking about a couple of people sending numbls here.
We're talking about a whole operation, right, Like corporations, they
have entire teams of lawyers and pr people whose entire
job it is to protect the company's image.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
Right right, It's their job to make sure that the
company looks good no matter what. And they're good at
their jobs. I mean, you got to give them that.
Were there any other instances where like they were trying
to control the narrative?
Speaker 2 (10:50):
Oh yeah, tons, Like there's this one exchange that's really
telling Rona Applebaum. She was a big deal at Coke
at the time. She freaked out about a study that
challenged that whole energy balance idea. Oh really, Oh yeah,
she was like, we need to get ahead of this,
you know, like full on damage control mode.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
Wow. It sounds like they were terrified of anything that
might contradict the message they were trying to promote. But
I mean, isn't the science you know, on sugary drinks
kind of clear at this point?
Speaker 2 (11:18):
Oh yeah, Like there's a very strong scientific consensus that
sugary drinks contribute to a whole slew of health problems.
But this shows that they were still very much aware
of research that could, you know, potentially threaten their bottom
line right right. And it's interesting they even use the
phrase some intentionally when they talked about those who question
(11:39):
the idea of energy.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
Balance some intentionally.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
Yeah, almost like they thought there was this like deliberate
campaign to undermine them.
Speaker 1 (11:46):
It's like they were trying to paint themselves as the
victim here, even though I mean, come on, they're Coca
Cola exactly.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
But that's how it works though, right, Like if you
can create doubt, if you can muddy the waters, enough,
it's harder for people to like see clearly to figure
out what's true and what's you know, spin.
Speaker 1 (12:02):
Absolutely, it's classic misdirection. But you know, I want to
circle back to those relationships that Coke was building with
researchers because I think that's such a crucial piece of
this puzzle and we only really scratch the surface.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
Totally agree. It's something that often gets overlooked. You know.
People focus on the funding, which is important, don't get
me wrong, But these relationships, these are the invisible threads
that really tie everything together.
Speaker 1 (12:26):
It all comes back to that phrase that email family.
It just sounds so, I don't know, so innocent, you know.
Speaker 2 (12:32):
Right, like a Hallmark movie or something.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
Yeah, but I'm guessing those relationships weren't all like holiday
cards and potlucks, right, There had to be some strings attached,
oh for sure.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
I mean the fact that they even use that phrase
email family, it's telling, right. It suggests this level of
closeness that you just don't get and like a purely
transactional relationship, you know, like you were saying before, here's
some money, do some research. This is deeper than that,
and those kinds of relationships they create the sense of loyalty,
of reciprocity, even if it's never explicitly stated, it's.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
Like an unspoken agreement. We're all friends here, we take
care of each other exactly.
Speaker 2 (13:10):
And Coke, they weren't shy about using those relationships to
their advantage.
Speaker 1 (13:15):
Right, Like that whole thing with a Physical Activity council.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
Right, yes, remember that, they were like, oh, hey, you're
a researcher who's interested in physical activity. Well, we just
happen to know some people at the Physical Activity Council.
Let us make an introduction.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
And what's the strategy there? What are they hoping to
gain by playing matchmaker?
Speaker 2 (13:33):
It's all about access and influence, right Like, by connecting
these researchers with these big organizations, Coca Cola is getting
their foot in the door. They're able to at least
indirectly influence the conversation around you know, physical activity and health.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
So it's it's kind of like they're playing three dimensional chess. Well,
everyone else is still stuck on checkers. They're thinking several moves.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
Ahare exactly, they're playing the long game and they're playing
it well. And remember it wasn't just introductions. They offered
other kinds of support too, right, right.
Speaker 1 (14:03):
Like for the researchers' careers and even their institutions, Like
they were really invested in.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
These people totally. Remember when they offered to help develop
a whole communications plan for the West Virginia University School
of Public Health.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
Wow, I mean that's a lot of work.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
That's not something you'd normally associate with a beverage company,
is it?
Speaker 1 (14:20):
Not at all? It's like they're trying to be this
silent partner shaping the direction of research and public health
messaging in these very subtle but very significant ways. And
most people probably have no idea that this is going on.
And that's the point, right exactly, And that's what's kind
of unsettling about all of this. It makes you wonder,
like what else is out there? What other unseen forces
(14:44):
are shaping the information we're consuming every day.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
It's a good question, and it's a good reminder that
we can't just passively absorb information, right. We have to
be critical thinkers, We have to be skeptical, especially when
it comes to know something as important as our health.
Always always question the source.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
Right, consider the motives, who's benefiting from this information exactly?
Follow the money, right don't just take things at face value.
Dig a little deeper now before we wrap things up.
I do want to be fair and mention that this
study we've been discussing it did point out some limitations
in their research.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
Oh yeah, for sure, Like every study, there are always
going to be those little caveats.
Speaker 1 (15:23):
Right, right, right, So what should we keep in mind?
Speaker 2 (15:28):
Well, as juicy as those emails are, they're really just
a glimpse into a much bigger, more complicated story. We
have to remember this research, it was focused on Coca
Cola's interactions with just two public institutions. Okay, so there's
a whole lot that we don't see here. Who knows
what kind of similar activity might be happening with other institutions, right.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
Yeah, It's like we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg.
There's a whole lot more going on beneath.
Speaker 2 (15:54):
The surface, exactly. And remember we're talking about emails specifically.
There could be other communications like internal memos, discussions, you know,
phone calls even who knows that weren't included in this.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
Analysis, right because they weren't accessible.
Speaker 2 (16:08):
Right exactly. So as insightful as this research is and
it is, we're only getting a partial view, you know.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
Right right, a snapshot in time. But even with those limitations,
I think this study raises some really important questions about
you know, where our information comes from, how it's shaped,
and who's trying to influence our choices.
Speaker 2 (16:27):
I totally agree it's anything it should make us even
more curious, more determined to find out the truth.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
Well said, well, thank you so much for taking this
deep dive with us. Always a pleasure to chat.
Speaker 2 (16:38):
With you, always great to be here, and.
Speaker 1 (16:40):
To our listeners, we hope this episode has given you
plenty to think about and maybe even sparked some healthy skepticism.
Remember there's always more beneath the surface. Until next time,
stay curious,
Welcome to the deep dive. Today. We're going down the
rabbit hole of how Coca Cola has interacted with researchers
and those public health institutions, you know, like the ones
that are supposed to be looking out for us. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
It's a really, really fascinating area of study. And just
to be clear, we're not here to put Coca Cola
or any company for that matter, on trial, right right.
The point is to kind of understand like the subtle
ways the industries can you know, influence research and even
shape public opinion.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
Okay, So think of this deep dive as our little
detective mission, right hm. And the magnifying glass. We're using
a twenty twenty research paper from Public Health Nutrition.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Oh I've heard of this one.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
Get this. They actually got their hands on thousands of pages,
thousands of internal Coca Cola emails.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
The way how they swing that.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
Freedom of information actor questions. Oh that's gold, right, talk
about a treasure truck years.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
It's like a crash course in how these corporations, especially
when it comes to health, think about their how they
want the public to see them.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
It's all about perception, right, Okay, So this study it
dug up two main strategies that Coca Cola is using.
The first one revolves around funding, but it's more nuanced
than just hey, we're giving money to research. This is
about control, right.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Oh. Absolutely. They knew like the public perception, the optics
of being seen as this big corporate puppeteer, it wouldn't
go over well, right, right, So they took steps to
kind of downplay their role as this major major funder
of you know, all this research on diet and health.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
Hmm, interesting, So how did they do that? I mean,
the money's got to come from somewhere.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Right, So one tactic was actually bringing in additional funders, oh,
I see, to try and create this like illusion of
you know, diversified support, like it's a whole bunch of
people all agreeing.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
So it's like they wanted to seem like just one voice,
you know, in this big chorus of voices, even though
they were the ones, like you said, writing the.
Speaker 2 (01:53):
Biggest checks exactly exactly. And it gets even wilder. They
even like debated, you know, what words to use. They
talked about using specific language very calculated like gift or
unrestricted grant.
Speaker 1 (02:05):
Oh, instead of just calling it funding.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
Yeah, like to describe their funding. And they're doing this
to minimize any perception that they're, you know, trying to
control the research.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
It just shows how much thought goes into every single word.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Right.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
Yeah, it wasn't just about the money. It was about
how that money would be perceived. Clearly they were aware
of how the public might interpret their involvement for sure. Okay,
so that strategy number one, control the funding, control the message.
What about the second strategy?
Speaker 2 (02:34):
All right, So the second one is all about relationships.
They really focused on building up this network of researchers,
you know, people they had these close ties with.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
Oh so it wasn't just about the money. It was
about building these connections, you know, cultivating influence over time.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
You got it? And get this. They called this group
of academics their like email family, you know, that's.
Speaker 1 (02:57):
What they call them, email family. Wow.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
Yeah. And they didn't stop there. They also tried to
connect these researchers with you know, people making.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Policy decisions, policy makers.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
Yeah, policy makers exactly. And they even talked about how
to like help advance these researchers careers, provide support for
their institutions.
Speaker 1 (03:17):
They were really in it for the long haul, weren't
they it wasn't just about funding one study and helping
for the best. It was about cultivating this whole network
that could potentially promote a certain viewpoint over time.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
That's exactly it. They were playing the long game here,
and it's a great example of how like corporate influence
can operate on all these different levels. It's not just
about the funding decisions. It's also about shaping what research
gets done. You know, what questions get asked, right, right,
And it's about building those relationships with like the key
(03:50):
opinion leaders in a field.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
The people that everyone else listens to.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
Yeah, and all of this is happening behind the scenes,
which makes it so much harder to spot from the outside.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
It's subtle, but it can be very very effective.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
But they didn't stop there, did they. I mean, they
took this a step further by actually trying to emphasize
certain types of research over others.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
That's right. Like, for example, the emails show how interested
Coca Cola was in research that highlighted the importance of
you know, energy balance, Oh way, yeah, calories in calories
out right right.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
The idea that if you eat more calories than you burn, well,
guess what you're going to gain weight, right, Okay, so
that makes sense on the surface. But what's the advantage
for Coca Cola in emphasizing this energy balance concept.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
Well, think about it. If they shift the focus to
energy balance, then they can kind of sidestep the issue
of sugar drinks themselves, like suddenly, it's not about the soda,
it's about you not exercising enough or making other lifestyle choices.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
So the way of deflecting attention away from the potential
negative impacts of their products clever, right, very clever. Exactly.
It's all about framing the issue in a way that
benefits them, right. And speaking of framing this energy balance thing,
it wasn't just like a general philosophy for them. They
actually put it into practice.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Oh really, how so?
Speaker 1 (05:08):
Okay, so remember that whole Global Energy Balance Network thing. Yeah,
I think I've heard that GEBN.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
Right, Yeah, GEBN. So they presented this group, you know,
to the public as like this independent, you know, scientific organization, right, right,
But those emails they tell very very different story.
Speaker 1 (05:27):
Oh.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
Really, turns out Coca Cola they were like super involved
in creating GEBN, funding it the whole nine yards. They
saw this as their chance to like really push that
energy balance message, you know, to counter what they called
like biased information about sugary drinks.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
Oh so they were trying to shape the narrative, like
we were talking about before. It's like setting up your
own think tank, you know, to promote a certain point
of view. But did it work? I mean did people
buy it?
Speaker 2 (05:54):
Well that's the million dollar question, isn't it. And it's
where things get even juicier. Actually, so people started asking
questions right like who's funding GBN? Well, where's all this
money coming from? And you know what, Coca Cola they
got like really hesitant about, you know, coming clean about
their like massive financial support.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
Well yeah, I mean wouldn't you If you're trying to
create this image of independence.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
The last thing you want is for people to find
out that you're the puppet master behind the scenes.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
Exactly. It's all about controlling the message, right, maintaining that
like you know, facade of oh this is totally independent,
objective science.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
So what happened? Did they actually manage to exert any
real influence through this network or did it all just
kind of blow up in their faces?
Speaker 1 (06:39):
You know, they tried, they really did, And there's some
like evidence that suggests they wanted to use GEBN to
connect with, you know, policymakers and other big wigs in
the health world, like we were talking about before, to
really try and sway those opinions get to get their
message out there exactly. But ultimately GBN they faced a
(07:00):
ton of scrutiny, especially you know when those emails came out,
and in the end they had to disband, like shut
it down completely.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
Wow, talk about backfiring. It seems like their attempt to
like control the narrative actually had the opposite effect. But
I can't imagine this was an isolated incident, right, I mean,
we're talking about Coca Cola here. Oh, you are absolutely right.
This was not a one time thing. The emails they
also show how they interacted with like individual researchers, and
it went way beyond just you know, handing them a
(07:29):
check and saying do some research for us.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
Oh, like what kind of stuff were we talking about here?
Speaker 2 (07:34):
So there's documentation of them like offering to connect these
academics with you know, policymakers for example. They even like
suggested research topics really oh yeah, ones that just happened
to you know, align very nicely with Coca Cola's interest.
Speaker 1 (07:51):
Of course, of course, what a coincidence, right, Yeah, So
it wasn't enough to just fund research. They wanted to
be involved, you know, to shape the questions that were
being asked, the connections that were being made. Did they
offer anything else to these researchers, Like what's in it
for the researchers besides maybe getting their research funded?
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Well, there were these discussions about potentially funding like entire
academic institutions.
Speaker 1 (08:13):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
Really yeah, which I mean, let's be real, that creates
a huge sense of like obligation.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
Right, Yeah, for sure. It's hard to say no to
someone who's paying your bills, even if it's indirectly. It's
amazing what you can find out from these internal emails, right,
It's like we're getting this like behind the scenes, look
at how the sausage gets made, you know. But what
stands out to you is the most like revealing thing
in all.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
Of this, you know, for me, it's the lengths to
which they went to like really really managed the message,
you know. Yeah, like remember that email chain where they
were discussing how to respond if someone asked about gbn's funding.
Oh yeah, yeah, I mean talk about a masterclass in pr.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
They were ready, weren't they.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
Oh yeah, like they wanted to have all these other
funders lined up, you know, to trot out before they
even breathed a word about Coca Cola's involvement. It just
shows how aware they were of how that would look.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
Yeah, it makes you wonder what they were so afraid of.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
Right, And don't even get me started on that whole
debate over whether to use the word gift or grant
for their contributions.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
Oh yeah, yeah, that was a whole thing, wasn't it, Like.
Speaker 2 (09:18):
They actually thought that gift sounded like less agenda driven.
It just goes to show how much they understood the
power of language.
Speaker 1 (09:26):
Yeah, it's incredible how much those little choices in warding
can really shape how we perceive something. And wasn't there
also that whole thing about the spokesperson Q and A.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
Oh yes, yes, it's the document right, Like they literally
had pre written responses to questions that they thought people
might ask about Jay Avian.
Speaker 1 (09:43):
Oh so they were ready for anything.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
Oh yeah, prepared for every possible scenario.
Speaker 1 (09:47):
Smart. Yeah, what were some of the like pre written answers?
Speaker 2 (09:51):
So, for example, one of them said that, like, for
legal reasons, they couldn't actually reveal, you know, who was
funding them without getting permission like from the donors.
Speaker 1 (10:00):
Oh interesting.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
Yeah, they even cited like Colorado state law.
Speaker 1 (10:04):
But didn't the paper like call them out on that.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
Oh yeah, they did their homework. Turns out the researchers
couldn't find any law in Colorado that would have actually
prevented them from disclosing that Coca Cola was a funder.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
So they were using the law, or at least the
appearance of it, as a shield to avoid being transparent.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
It definitely makes you wonder and it's a good reminder that, like,
we're not talking about a couple of people sending numbls here.
We're talking about a whole operation, right, Like corporations, they
have entire teams of lawyers and pr people whose entire
job it is to protect the company's image.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
Right right, It's their job to make sure that the
company looks good no matter what. And they're good at
their jobs. I mean, you got to give them that.
Were there any other instances where like they were trying
to control the narrative?
Speaker 2 (10:50):
Oh yeah, tons, Like there's this one exchange that's really
telling Rona Applebaum. She was a big deal at Coke
at the time. She freaked out about a study that
challenged that whole energy balance idea. Oh really, Oh yeah,
she was like, we need to get ahead of this,
you know, like full on damage control mode.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
Wow. It sounds like they were terrified of anything that
might contradict the message they were trying to promote. But
I mean, isn't the science you know, on sugary drinks
kind of clear at this point?
Speaker 2 (11:18):
Oh yeah, Like there's a very strong scientific consensus that
sugary drinks contribute to a whole slew of health problems.
But this shows that they were still very much aware
of research that could, you know, potentially threaten their bottom
line right right. And it's interesting they even use the
phrase some intentionally when they talked about those who question
(11:39):
the idea of energy.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
Balance some intentionally.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
Yeah, almost like they thought there was this like deliberate
campaign to undermine them.
Speaker 1 (11:46):
It's like they were trying to paint themselves as the
victim here, even though I mean, come on, they're Coca
Cola exactly.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
But that's how it works though, right, Like if you
can create doubt, if you can muddy the waters, enough,
it's harder for people to like see clearly to figure
out what's true and what's you know, spin.
Speaker 1 (12:02):
Absolutely, it's classic misdirection. But you know, I want to
circle back to those relationships that Coke was building with
researchers because I think that's such a crucial piece of
this puzzle and we only really scratch the surface.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
Totally agree. It's something that often gets overlooked. You know.
People focus on the funding, which is important, don't get
me wrong, But these relationships, these are the invisible threads
that really tie everything together.
Speaker 1 (12:26):
It all comes back to that phrase that email family.
It just sounds so, I don't know, so innocent, you know.
Speaker 2 (12:32):
Right, like a Hallmark movie or something.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
Yeah, but I'm guessing those relationships weren't all like holiday
cards and potlucks, right, There had to be some strings attached,
oh for sure.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
I mean the fact that they even use that phrase
email family, it's telling, right. It suggests this level of
closeness that you just don't get and like a purely
transactional relationship, you know, like you were saying before, here's
some money, do some research. This is deeper than that,
and those kinds of relationships they create the sense of loyalty,
of reciprocity, even if it's never explicitly stated, it's.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
Like an unspoken agreement. We're all friends here, we take
care of each other exactly.
Speaker 2 (13:10):
And Coke, they weren't shy about using those relationships to
their advantage.
Speaker 1 (13:15):
Right, Like that whole thing with a Physical Activity council.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
Right, yes, remember that, they were like, oh, hey, you're
a researcher who's interested in physical activity. Well, we just
happen to know some people at the Physical Activity Council.
Let us make an introduction.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
And what's the strategy there? What are they hoping to
gain by playing matchmaker?
Speaker 2 (13:33):
It's all about access and influence, right Like, by connecting
these researchers with these big organizations, Coca Cola is getting
their foot in the door. They're able to at least
indirectly influence the conversation around you know, physical activity and health.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
So it's it's kind of like they're playing three dimensional chess. Well,
everyone else is still stuck on checkers. They're thinking several moves.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
Ahare exactly, they're playing the long game and they're playing
it well. And remember it wasn't just introductions. They offered
other kinds of support too, right, right.
Speaker 1 (14:03):
Like for the researchers' careers and even their institutions, Like
they were really invested in.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
These people totally. Remember when they offered to help develop
a whole communications plan for the West Virginia University School
of Public Health.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
Wow, I mean that's a lot of work.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
That's not something you'd normally associate with a beverage company,
is it?
Speaker 1 (14:20):
Not at all? It's like they're trying to be this
silent partner shaping the direction of research and public health
messaging in these very subtle but very significant ways. And
most people probably have no idea that this is going on.
And that's the point, right exactly, And that's what's kind
of unsettling about all of this. It makes you wonder,
like what else is out there? What other unseen forces
(14:44):
are shaping the information we're consuming every day.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
It's a good question, and it's a good reminder that
we can't just passively absorb information, right. We have to
be critical thinkers, We have to be skeptical, especially when
it comes to know something as important as our health.
Always always question the source.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
Right, consider the motives, who's benefiting from this information exactly?
Follow the money, right don't just take things at face value.
Dig a little deeper now before we wrap things up.
I do want to be fair and mention that this
study we've been discussing it did point out some limitations
in their research.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
Oh yeah, for sure, Like every study, there are always
going to be those little caveats.
Speaker 1 (15:23):
Right, right, right, So what should we keep in mind?
Speaker 2 (15:28):
Well, as juicy as those emails are, they're really just
a glimpse into a much bigger, more complicated story. We
have to remember this research, it was focused on Coca
Cola's interactions with just two public institutions. Okay, so there's
a whole lot that we don't see here. Who knows
what kind of similar activity might be happening with other institutions, right.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
Yeah, It's like we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg.
There's a whole lot more going on beneath.
Speaker 2 (15:54):
The surface, exactly. And remember we're talking about emails specifically.
There could be other communications like internal memos, discussions, you know,
phone calls even who knows that weren't included in this.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
Analysis, right because they weren't accessible.
Speaker 2 (16:08):
Right exactly. So as insightful as this research is and
it is, we're only getting a partial view, you know.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
Right right, a snapshot in time. But even with those limitations,
I think this study raises some really important questions about
you know, where our information comes from, how it's shaped,
and who's trying to influence our choices.
Speaker 2 (16:27):
I totally agree it's anything it should make us even
more curious, more determined to find out the truth.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
Well said, well, thank you so much for taking this
deep dive with us. Always a pleasure to chat.
Speaker 2 (16:38):
With you, always great to be here, and.
Speaker 1 (16:40):
To our listeners, we hope this episode has given you
plenty to think about and maybe even sparked some healthy skepticism.
Remember there's always more beneath the surface. Until next time,
stay curious,
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!