Is Coca Cola a little too late with being transparent?

Yesterday morning several British newspapers reported about Coca-Cola which has spent millions of pounds on healthy-eating initiatives and research to counter claims that its fizzy drinks can cause obesity.

Coca-Cola is said to have financial links to more than a dozen British scientist, including health advisers, who cast doubt on the link between sugary drinks and obesity. The company has spent  £4.86 million setting up the European Hydration Institute (EHI) — a research foundation promoting hydration -which has recommended that people consume sports and soft drinks. The newspapers claimed that Ron Maughan, chairman of the EHI's scientific advisory board, was a professor of sport science at Loughborough University which received almost £1 million from Coca-Cola while he provided nutritional advice to leading sports bodies. It was also claimed that Coca-Cola has provided financial support, sponsorship or research funding to organizations such as the British Nutrition Foundation, the University of Hull, Homerton University Hospital, the National Obesity Forum and the UK Association for the Study of Obesity.

A board member of the Faculty of public health said that Coca-Cola is trying to manipulate not just public opinion but policy and political decisions as well. According to Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, no scientist should accept funding from Coca-Cola. She said: “It's totally compromising. Period. End of discussion."

Coca-Cola Great Britain responded to the claims with the following statement:  "We want to be open about our funding of academic research and support of third party organizations. We rely on scientific research to make decisions about our products and ingredients and commission independent third parties to carry out this work. We also believe we have a role to play in helping tackle obesity and have made public commitments to do so. All of this work involves meetings and partnerships with a range of third parties, including academics, healthcare professionals, NGOs, charities and Government.”

Coca-Cola stated that in the US, they recently published a list of health and wellbeing partnerships and research activities, which they fund, dating back to 2010. The company is currently compiling a similar list in Great Britain, and will make it available in a way that is easy to access and understand for anyone who wishes to see it.

After the reporting of the claims in British newspapers, Coca-Cola Great Brittain immediately published a blog on their website in which they explain why they fund research. 

Prof Maughan of the Loughborough University recognizes the need to be cautious with industry funding but says that much good research couldn’t have taken place whithout those funding. Loughborough says its research studies were subject to a strict code of conduct.

I think it’s good that Coca-Cola responded openly to the claims and didn’t deny any of the claims. It is wise that Coca-Cola will be more open about their research funding and sponsorships. But I think that when Coca-Cola was being open and transparent about the funding from the moment they started with the funding, it would have led to much less controversy. 

What do you think of Coca-Cola’s response to the claims? Do you think that Coca-Cola could have done anything to prevent claims like these? And what do you think, as a scientist, about universities and researcher receiving funds from a company such as Coca-Cola?

 By Iris Kromwijk