The collapse and fire in that Cambodian factory last week makes me feel like I'm stuck in some sort of unending loop. Like we're all somehow doomed to play out the same scenario over and over like in the movie Groundhog Day. I mean we're still finding bodies in the Bangladesh factory collapse. And it's not like we had even come to grips with suicides and unsafe conditions in the Foxconn factories that make the iPhone. Before that, weren't we still getting over learning about lead paint in toys from China? Oh, And not long before that we had the tragic news that our running shoes were being made by little kids.
Each time we were assured that this was an anomaly and that it would all be cleaned up so we could go back to feeling good about our $5 t-shirts. Well, after ten years of trying to manage factories that are half a world away, it's safe to say it's not working. Now the big brands are scrambling to come to some policy or accord that can ease our minds. Walmart, Target, GAP, and more are all considering some label that will allow us to stop being such worrywarts and get back to shopping.
So what's the app?
Somewhere between lead-painted toys and the nets being installed under the windows at Foxconn to catch suicidal workers, I started to think about this app. Some way that I could scan to find out if children were put to work to make my pants. Maybe take a picture and make sure that nobody was exploited to make my running shoes. Search to know that some river wasn't treated like an open sewer to make my iPhone case. That a dirty coal power plant didn't rain down mercury into the rivers and ocean and the tuna fish my kids eat. That excessive CO2 wasn't used to ship something around the world three times to produce it.
When I figured out this already existed, and I'd been ignoring it, I felt like a fool.
Made In America. That's the brand that guarantees the stuff we buy is made to the standards in safe and clean manufacturing that we believe in. And actually, you don't need a fancy app. You don't even need to scan anything. Just remember to check the label. Oh, and it has this additional benefit of creating middle class jobs. The kind we need more of right now.
Me and most of my generation was sold on and fully bought into the outsourcing idea. And the campaign to buy American fell on deaf ears. Keep your money in the economy, they said. "How about I buy something cheaper and imported, and I keep the money in my pocket?" I said back. It breaks my heart to realize how wrong we got it. And how far down this road we had to get to realize that making things is bigger than just finding the cheapest labor on the face of the earth.
Many people say it is too late. It's never too late. It's hard to even give this sort of fatalistic whining the justification of a response but here goes: Let me take on the arguments one by one.
1) "American-made stuff is too expensive."
It's certainly true that American-made goods are often more expensive. But in some cases there is actually no difference. That being said, even in cases when it is more expensive, isn't it worth looking a little closer at the real "costs"? I've been on this kick long enough to realize there is a reason that American-made goods are so coveted in other countries. We make solid, long-lasting products. We've gotten used to disposable goods, but if something last three times as long and costs twice as much it's actually a better value. That may not appeal to everybody, but as my friends father used to tell him, "We're too poor to by crap."
Additionally, what are the hidden cost of buying that 5 dollar t-shirt? One hidden cost is that we send more jobs overseas. You might not know anybody that works in manufacturing but maybe you know a barber. Manufacturing jobs that leave take with them the jobs that would have supported that worker. The barber, the insurance salesman, the car dealer, the clerk at the shoe store, etc. You lose half of an additional job for every factory job that goes abroad. That's one and a half jobs. Because of this, bringing those factory jobs back provides a bigger boost to the economy than any other kind of job.
If we forget the quality and the American jobs, we are still left with the question of exploitation. Essentially, how much would you pay to know that the goods you buy were not created in unsafe conditions by workers unfairly compensated? For many, the answer is that we would prefer to pay more. And the dirty truth is that by the time the factories and wages in Bangledesh, Cambodia, and even China are up to our standards it won't be any cheaper to make things abroad. The system only works if people are exploited. The system only works if we accept the idea that as long as it's cheap we really don't care who pays.
Finally, there's the hidden cost to the environment that overseas production creates. There is no environmental oversight and so factories can and do pour toxins straight into the rivers and the air. Pretty soon those pollutants are everybody's problem because they don't stay where they're dumped. Coal power has fouled the air quality in China but it has an effect on all of us. As emissions pour into the atmosphere untreated and unscrubbed it not only carries CO2 that warms our entire planet but it's also the reason you don't want to eat too much fish anymore. Yep, that mercury in fish is predominately from coal and those emissions are predominately from China. It goes up and comes back down as rain into the rivers and oceans where fish can't help but ingest it.
2) "It's a global marketplace and labor shifts to the cheapest place it can be found."
The argument goes on to say that this is good news, too, because America doesn't want to be part of making things anymore. We will think of things and other people will make them. This certainly is the path we've been on and if you can get one of those "thinking up things" jobs then this might work out, at least to a point. I'd be more confident in this plan if America led the world in high school math and science scores. Or really in any scores. But based on our education system and all those people moving into the job world, I think we're going to need some "making" jobs, too.
We can look around right now and see that this plan makes money for the top 1% and it produces McJobs for the rest. Literally. It's now estimated that 1 in 8 Americans has worked at McDonald's.
The wealthiest Americans can certainly survive the shift of all the middle class jobs to other countries so they've been selling this idea hard for a long time. But back here on planet reality, the loss of the making jobs has stripped out the middle class and created an America where the gap between the classes is the largest it's been since 1929. So even if you're rich and you have a great "thinking up" job you would be wise to remember we all rely on the middle class to keep the economy humming. Otherwise, you might find yourself poor overnight and leaping out of a Wall street window.
We can also look at an example of what happens when you DON'T treat labor as a commodity. Germany has protected, and invested in their domestic manufacturing during the same period we embraced NAFTA and shifted manufacturing to the lowest bidder. Today, Germany is the world's second largest exporter behind China with a population less than 1/3 of the US. Providing lots of good "thinking up" jobs as well as good middle class jobs. They've proven that manufacturing has an important and vibrant place in a first world economy.
3) "We've lost the know how."
This argument states we've gone so long down this road we can't go back. This one is hardly worth the time, but it's also easy to just cite some examples. Many consumer goods are no longer made here. But the idea that these are too complicated is silly. The truth is that if you want something really complicated made you make it here. Need a Jet engine or some aerospace components? Chances are you'll be shopping for a manufacturer in the US. With less complicated consumer electronics much of it is made in China. But in 2002, every Apple product was still made here and Google just announced they will be making their Google glasses here. Need an example in the more mundane world of cut and sew? American Apparel should suffice.
My wife is used to my going on about some issue or another, but she's rock solid and hard to rattle. She listened to me but in her heart of hearts she believed that most of the things she bought were made here. Then one day she went into her closet to look through the tags on her clothes just to make double sure. At first she was surprised to find that a lot of the tags she first turned over were from exotic locations. Her money had gone, almost exclusively, to support labor practices and environmental policies that were either lax or non-existent. Angry that this fashion industry she loves and is built on being cute was anything but cute in reality. She wasn't willing to give up on the idea of cuteness without a fight. So she did something completely out of character for this incredibly shy person. She started a style blog dedicated to finding American-made fashion and showing how you can rock it every day. It's called Mrs. American Made and the kids and I have been recruited as photographers. We gripe a bit about it when it's picture time and there's a foot of snow on the ground, but the truth is we are super proud and a year later her closet is proof we can all make a difference.
Top reason to use the Made in America "app"
A. To be patriotic.
B. To rebuild the American economy and create jobs.
C. To keep toxins and pollutants out of our water and air.
D. To guarantee nobody died making my stuff.
E. All of the above.
Oh, And if you absolutley need an app to do anything. You know who you are. Try this.
We humans are prone to odd behaviors. But there are few as absurd as flicking cigarette butts onto the ground, right where we live, work and play. What the butt?
Fact is, cigarette butts aren't disposed of properly 65 percent of the time, which makes them the most frequently littered item on the planet. And they hold the title for #1 littered item on our beaches and waterways here in the US.
But the worst part is we've all become so used to this visual stain on our environment that we almost accept it. How did tossing these plastic pieces of litter on the ground become such acceptable behavior?
Working with Legacy and Leave No Trace we set out to ignite a cultural shift. A shift that begins with a new brand for cigarette butts. A brand that's poisonous, invasive and has no business being flicked into our public spaces.
Turns out rebranding butts was as simple as telling the rest of their story. According to Tohmas E. Novotny, aprofessor of global health at San Diego State University, littered butts leach measurable amounts of cadmium, arsenic, lead, nicotine and other toxic chemicals. They’re literally toxic waste.
In fact a single cigarette butt in a liter of water containing minnows is toxic enough to kill half of the fish within 96 hours, according to an experiment Professor Novotny helped conduct. Dead fish don’t lie, they float.
So please share this PSA and help us rebrand cigarette butts as the tiny toxic waste sites that they are. It’s time to rethink butts folks – what they are and where they go. If you don't think it's a problem just dare to look under your feet tomorrow.
- Contributed by Adam Butler & Ronny Northrop
The chairs did it. It makes such perfect sense, but it has been so hard to see. We are all suddenly sitting too much because chairs are everywhere. And it's obviously some sort of chair conspiracy to make us fat.
So, stay safe and have a Coke, but for God's sake don't sit down. Because if you do, that chair you're in will probably magically grow your butt. Chairs have been commonplace since the 1500s so this ability to make us rotund must be a recent development in the chair arsenal. Chairs are so sneaky! For over five hundred years the chair has silently waited for the perfect time to strike. Luring us in with new variations. The couch. The La-Z-boy. The Love-seat. And the dreaded Chair-and-half. We lived in harmony for half of a millenium. No obesity epidemic in site. But the chairs were patient in their plan to make us round.
When our diets became swollen with processed sugars the chairs knew the time was right. They could make us fat and everybody would blame totally innocent things like sugary drinks just because they were contributing the largest portion of calories to the average American diet. It was genius on the part of the chairs. But, unfortunately, for those sinister stools, sofas and thrones, the super-sleuths at Coke sniffed out their diabolical plan and cast the unflinching light of truth on it for all the world to see. This recent Coke documentary is an important piece of film-making that anybody who cares about real answers to health needs to see.
In all seriousness, as I sit here I have a great idea for a chair. Coke should take a seat. Take a seat on the whole obesity issue and let society work it out without the corporate meddling and confusion. They are understanably incapable of having an unbiased opinion so they should stop standing up for the overconsumption of sugar. Dear Coke, sit this one out.
Corporations have an incredible influence on the world we live in, and that's given them free reign to pollute, collude and mislead us, but advances in technology are rapidly making them accountable not just to shareholders, but to everyone. We have constant access to the truth about the products we use and the ethics of the companies behind them, and big brands are realizing that looking great isn't enough. It's time to actually be great. The Naked Brand is a story about how corporations can help save the planet one small step at a time. It's an introduction to a bright new future where companies tell the truth and work hard to create better products and a better planet. That’s how I met Alex Bogusky. As the founder of Common, one of his chief initiatives is to implement a comprehensive sense of corporate transparency. In fact, his team at Common broadcasts their board meetings live online, so their customers can follow their discussions point by point, and hopefully turn complaints and customer suggestions into a conversation. Alex was an inspiration throughout the entire production process, and you can find out more about the film and Alex’s goal at Common by visiting www.thenakedbrand.com.
One of my favorite examples of transparency in The Naked Brand is Patagonia. They’ve taken a completely innovative approach to transparency, and it’s paying off big-time. On their homepage, they advocate their beloved Common Threads Initiative, a campaign that strongly urges consumers to buy less and reuse their clothing, promoting responsible, sustainable business. In addition, they’ve introduced The Footprint Chronicles, which itemizes the production process of every Patagonia item, providing customers with a clear view of their product and the effect its production has on the environment. In 2011 they even ran an ad in the New York Times that said “Don’t Buy This Jacket”, demonstrating their passionate commitment to environmental sustainability.
The Naked Brand emphasizes three benefits of running a sustainable, transparent business like Patagonia. First, it offers an immense benefit to the health of our planet, the one all of us share and love so dearly. Second, it provides customers with a more honest representation of corporate America and thus creates an opportunity to make better products that accurately reflect the customer. Third, and most importantly, sustainable and transparent business is hugely profitable. Consumers today have access to tons of information, and corporations are no exception. Customers cannot be fooled anymore, so it’s time to be great. The best businesses – those that are honest to consumers, responsible for the planet and relentlessly transparent – will be rewarded with happy customers and tons and tons of money. And ultimately, businesses like that will most certainly make the world a much better place.
Jeff Rosenblum, www.thenakedbrand.com follow me on twitter @JRQuestus / www.questus.com
It seems like a lot of companies want you to believe their products are made in the USA, without all the fuss of actually making anything here. These attempts are elevating the lowly tag from basic information to high comedy. SNL writers couldn't have done any better. So snap a photo of a lame American-made label. they're not hard to find. The funniest, most outlandish, entries will be rewarded with quality Made In USA products, courtesy of Made Collection.
Fearless Brands is a column dedicated to identifying and celebrating brands that are taking a stand, challenging the status quo, and working to build a better future. In other words, brands acting fearlessly. This is not a sponsored column, and brands do not pay to appear here. Do you know a fearless brand? Send submissions to firstname.lastname@example.org.
When it comes to socially responsible brands, Vermont-based Ben & Jerry’s has long been a poster-child. They strive for a sustainable supply chain and have found a way to convert dairy waste into energy. In October 2012, they officially became a certified B-corp. During the recent election season, they spoke out for transparency in corporate political donations.
Now, they’re joining the GMO fray, with a recent news release stating the company’s support for GMO labeling.
Who They Are
Founded in 1978 by a couple of hippies in Vermont, Ben & Jerry’s sells premium ice cream with milk and cream sourced from family farmers. Due to their progressive corporate mission and emphasis on using business as a force for peace, sustainability, and social good, the company been held up many times as a model for corporate social responsibility.
Why They’re Fearless
Ben & Jerry’s mission is ambitious and far-reaching. It’s so impressive, in fact, that it’s worth publishing in full:
We have a progressive, nonpartisan social mission that seeks to meet human needs and eliminate injustices in our local, national and international communities by integrating these concerns into our day-to-day business activities. Our focus is on children and families, the environment and sustainable agriculture on family farms.
- Capitalism and the wealth it produces do not create opportunity for everyone equally. We recognize that the gap between the rich and the poor is wider than at any time since the 1920’s. We strive to create economic opportunities for those who have been denied them and to advance new models of economic justice that are sustainable and replicable.
- By definition, the manufacturing of products creates waste. We strive to minimize our negative impact on the environment.
- The growing of food is overly reliant on the use of toxic chemicals and other methods that are unsustainable. We support sustainable and safe methods of food production that reduce environmental degradation, maintain the productivity of the land over time, and support the economic viability of family farms and rural communities.
- We seek and support nonviolent ways to achieve peace and justice. We believe government resources are more productively used in meeting human needs than in building and maintaining weapons systems.
- We strive to show a deep respect for human beings inside and outside our company and for the communities in which they live.
The Lesson for Brands
It’s one thing to write a mission statement connecting your business to something greater than itself. Mission statements make employees and customers feel good and are great for brand perception. It’s another thing entirely, however, to take a stand in the name of that mission, especially when it means investing in things (like reducing waste) with no immediate payout, standing up for consumer rights and transparency (even when you benefit from an unfair status quo) or anything else that might affect short-term profits.
Ben & Jerry’s understands that in the 21st-century, we can no longer treat business as a self-enclosed entity, operating according to rules and frameworks that are somehow separate from the rest of society.
Much has been made of corporate America’s propensity for internalizing the fruits of doing business while socializing the costs. Ben & Jerry’s, by contrast, is dedicated to what they call “linked prosperity”, which essentially recognizes the possibility that business can and should be a powerful force for the betterment of society.
On top of it all, they make pretty good ice cream, too.
Mike Jacobson is a long time food activist. He's pretty much the Ralph Nader of food. If you've ever read the side of a food package or used the term "junk food" you have Mike to thank. He coined the phrase and has been instrumental in food labeling.
Last week Mike and his Center for Science in the Public Interest released a funny yet scathing film that translates the Coca-Cola company's recent attempt to address obesity. You can check out the film above or on Youtube here.
He's also offered comments and translations of Coke's recent answers to our round of 20 questions.
Is it true a metal nail disappears in a Coke bottle? If so, what does that mean for your body?
Dr. Applebaum: Stories regarding the disappearance of a metal nail are just that —stories. Such legends continue to spring up and get recycled because they’re just too hard to ignore. You may be interested to know that the acids secreted in your stomach to digest foods are stronger than those found in most foods—including a Coca-Cola. In fact, acids in most foods are neutralized to a large degree by the saliva in the mouth long before they reach the stomach.
Dr. Jacobson: Agreed. Last year we tested Coke’s power to dissolve. We put extracted teeth into Coke, water, Sprite, etc. The one in Coke discolored, but never dissolved.
Are there really 500 + recipes for Coke based on ingredient availability and pricing?
Dr. Applebaum: No. Coca-Cola has the same unique secret recipe everywhere in the world. In some countries the sweetener is table sugar. In others, it’s another type of sugar called high fructose corn syrup. Want to know more about Coca-Cola? Check out: http://www.coca-colacompany.com/brands/product-descriptions#coca-cola
Dr. Jacobson: Judging from tests we conducted last year, except in California, Coca-Cola was made with caramel coloring that had high levels of the carcinogen 4-methylimidazole.
Do you foresee Coca-Cola labeling their products in North America the same way they are required to in the EU?
Dr. Applebaum: The Coca-Cola Company is committed to providing factual, meaningful and understandable nutrition information about all our products. We believe in the importance and power of informed choice and we label our products in line with government regulations in the countries where they are sold, often going beyond what is required by regulation.
In September 2009, we were the first beverage company to make a global commitment to place front-of-pack calorie information on nearly all of our packages by the end of 2011. And we met that target! Front-of-pack calorie labeling makes it easier for consumers to identify the amount of calories in our products. http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/ourcompany/hal_policy_nutritional_labeling.html.
Dr. Jacobson: The label on a can of British Coke is quite similar to the U.S. label, except that it has those pretty-useless GDA graphics. “Informed choice”? Coke spends billions of dollars a year promoting its sugary drinks, but never reminds consumers that drinking too much of them promotes obesity, diabetes, heart disease, gout, and tooth decay.
Coke gets knocked a lot for being unhealthy. Any unheard of benefits to drinking it? Would make pleasure less guilty.
Dr. Applebaum: My personal point of view, there are no unhealthy foods or beverages—only unhealthy diets. I realize not all agree. To that end, my personal view is there’s nothing “unhealthy” about a Coke. A Coke is refreshing, it hydrates and it tastes good. Yes it has calories—clearly labeled—and all of us need to make sure we are mindful about managing our calories. As with the diet in total—it’s about the how, how much and how often. The calories in a Coke come from carbs (sugars), which are essential for life. But carbs as we know are a source of calories, so it is important to remember that all calories count when it comes to a healthy weight.
As far as ‘pleasure with less guilt’ do not hesitate to try our diet beverages—Coke Zero has a great Coca-Cola taste, but no calories. You can also enjoy a smaller portion of Coke—our 7.5 oz. can is only 90 calories. As for me, no guilt—but I also am mindful of my total caloric intake. To that end (and to borrow from a favorite Coca-Cola tagline, the “pause that refreshes”)—I have a ‘refreshing pause’ every afternoon around 3 or 4 pm.
Dr. Jacobson: She forgot to mention that a Coke also has about 16 teaspoons of sugars from high-fructose corn syrup in every 20-oz. bottle.
In NYC Coke says that consumers should have the right to decide for themselves on portion. In California you fought consumer labeling of GMO. Why?
Dr. Applebaum: I refer the tweeter to the response to GMO and Prop 37 in the first question. Prop 37 was not a referendum on the right to decide or choose GMO-free products—they already can choose to purchase such foods/beverages by looking for organic or GMO-free labels. Since this is an attribute some consumers actively look for, companies readily proclaim/label same when they can meet the criteria for organic and/or GMO-free. To that end, it’s a good bet that products that are not labeled GMO-free, contain an ingredient that is derived via biotechnology (although frequently in a very distant way). Regardless of whether the product contain or does not contain GMO—all are safe—and that needs to emphasized at every opportunity so the public does not needlessly worry about consuming products that contain a GMO ingredient—especially moms, dads and care givers who may not be able to buy organic or GMO-free. In short, we believe in consumer choice and thus GMO-free products are labeled to make this clear to consumers and to guide their decisions if they so choose.
Dr. Jacobson: One amusing thing about her defensiveness is that the high-fructose corn syrup and sugar used in Coke products are such pure carbohydrates that they don’t contain any genetically engineered DNA or protein. Coke could honestly say that their products are GMO-free.
Why is Coke in a glass bottle so darn good?
Dr. Applebaum: Coffee in a china cup, a frosty mug for beer, ice cream in a cone, Coke in a glass bottle. Some things simply have no explanation as to why they “belong” together. They just do! “Check out this survey on our website to see if others agree with you ϑ http://www.coca-colacompany.com/debates/fountain-vs-bottle-best-way-to-order-a-soft-drink
Dr. Jacobson: Speaking of websites - people would learn more by checking out our website that provides some honest information about the health impact of soft drinks.
Do soft drink companies have a responsibility re: U.S. obesity epidemic or is it just a matter of personal individual responsibility?
Dr. Applebaum: It’s both.
Obesity is a serious and complex issue and there are no simple answers. Effective solutions need to come from everyone working together – you, me, governments, businesses, health professionals and individuals.
Coca-Cola takes its responsibility in this area very seriously. From our broad portfolio of beverages that offer consumers options to meet individual needs, to our innovations in the use of low- and no-calories sweeteners, the introductions of smaller portion-size packaging, our transparent ingredient and nutrition information, our Global Responsible Marketing Policy and our support for physical activity and nutrition education programs all over the world, we are constantly striving to do our part to help stem the tide of obesity.
But consumers also have a responsibility to make the right choices for themselves and their families and to do that they need the necessary information, a firm understanding of what it takes to achieve active, healthy lifestyles, and the opportunities to make these choices. This includes things such as understanding the concept of calories, energy balance, the importance and benefits of regular physical activity and the basics for assembling a sensible balanced diet.
Dr. Jacobson: She says there are no simple answers but actually, there are some simple answers, such as not drinking regular soft drinks, energy drinks, fruit drinks, and sports drinks, all of which are loaded with calories, along with a flock of questionable food additives (caffeine, artificial caramel coloring, food dyes, and phosphoric acid).
When they speak of responsibility it's good to remember that Coke’s primary responsibility is to its stockholders, and it certainly takes that very seriously.
And the money they put into "nutrition education" is dwafed by the billions of dollars behind the marketing of sugar drinks.
How does the Coca-Cola Company (and Dr. Applebaum personally) align, express and transmit values & #ethics to its staff and the public?
Dr. Applebaum: We are focused on positively impacting all of the communities we serve. Because of this, we demand integrity in every aspect of our business. Transparency, authenticity and accountability are our most closely held values. Our Company’s Code of Business Conduct guides our expectation of accountability, honesty and integrity from our business and from our employees. All Company associates are required to follow the Code in the workplace and in the community. Read about our Code of Business Conduct in our 2011/2012 Sustainability Report: http://www.coca-colacompany.com/sustainabilityreport/downloads/2012-sustainability-report.pdf
For me personally, my values, my beliefs and faith guide what I do. My integrity, my credibility, my reputation are very important to me and I would never do anything to jeopardize them. To that end, I strive to ‘walk the talk’, ‘practice what I preach’ and avoid, at all cost, being a hypocrite and compromising my values and ethics. Lord knows I’m not perfect, and I make that clear, but I do my best to be honest and real—in everything I do—both at work and in my personal life.
Dr. Jacobson: "impacting communities they serve" ...including giving money to nonprofit civic and health groups, which has the benefit of discouraging them from criticizing Coca-Cola Co. (witness the NY State NAACP’s recent attack on New York City’s regulation to limit the size of Cokes and other soft drinks sold at restaurants, stadiums, and other venues.
What role can Coke play in moving people to smaller portion sizes?
Dr. Applebaum: We know people want a wide variety of beverages and packages to meet their needs for refreshment, enjoyment, nutrition and hydration. In certain markets, we are offering more variety in our packaging to help consumers manage their calorie intake and energy balance. In 2011, we began offering more beverages in the U.S. in our 7.5-fl. oz. mini-cans, which provide 0-100 calories depending on the beverage. Coke, Diet Coke, Coke Zero, Sprite, Fanta, Barq’s and Seagram’s Ginger Ale are now all available in mini-cans. Some products are also available in mini-cans in Australia, Canada, Korea and Thailand. In more than 125 countries, we also offer glass bottles of many of our sparkling beverages in bottles that are 250 ml (8 oz.) or less. For more info-- http://www.coca-colacompany.com/sustainabilityreport/downloads/2012-sustainability-report.pdf
Dr. Jacobson: It's worth noting that cans of Coke are already seven percent smaller in Europe and the Middle East (and some other countries) than the United States.
Given the obesity issue, why hasn't Coke publicly set goals for increasing sales of water and low calorie bevs and reducing sales of high cal drinks?
Dr. Applebaum: In the U.S. and around the world, Coca-Cola is at the forefront of efforts to help reduce the incidence of obesity. We believe to achieve successful outcomes, not one sector can do it alone. To succeed we need to work across the ‘Golden Triangle’—business, government and civil society. Collaborations and partnerships—engagement and working together—are the key, the catalysts for positive change. Just a few of our actions -
- The Healthy Weight Commitment in the U.S., where we’ve joined a broad coalition of stakeholders, focused on bringing a common-sense approach to helping reduce obesity by 2015. A key goal for its members is to collectively reduce 1.5 trillion calories from America’s diet. Read more at http://www.healthyweightcommit.org/
- Our policy and commitment to place calories on the front of nearly all of our packages, globally, providing consumers with fact-based information from which they can make beverages choice to meet individual need: http://www.coca-colacompany.com/brands/policy-on-nutrition-labeling-and-nutrition-information
- Exercise is MedicineTM,, where we are a founding partner of this program of the American College of Sports Medicine. EIM calls upon physicians to record physical activity as a vital sign during patient visits and to advise able patients to participate in at least 30 minutes of physical activity and 10 minutes of stretching and light muscle training five days a week.
- Also the founding member of EPODE Int’l Network—its mission--to reduce childhood obesity prevalence through sustainable strategies based on Community Based Programs (CBPs). http://www.epode-international-network.com/
- Our support of more than 280 physical activity and nutrition education programs in over 115 countries around the world.
When it comes to low- and no-calorie beverages, we work very hard to bring consumers choices in beverages that can help manage calories. So thank you for that important call out, because beverages are the only food (except for gum) that can give you great taste, with and without calories. Read more about our efforts in Our Position on Obesity and Well-being Facts: http://d1lwft0f0qzya1.cloudfront.net/9b/62/c661da674cc690db3ccad9195639/obesity-position-statement.pdf
Dr. Jacobson: Actually, that’s not quite true. A company like Coke could reduce the incidence of Coke by not advertising its high-calorie drinks or by charging more for them.
Even the FDA has admitted that dyes trigger hyperactivity and other problems in children. Why won't Coke eliminate dyes from all its products?
Dr. Applebaum: The FDA has not stated that dyes trigger hyperactivity. Here’s what they said, “Although this hypothesis was popularized in the 1970's, results from studies on this issue either have been inconclusive, inconsistent, or difficult to interpret due to inadequacies in study design.” In addition, FDA evaluated recent European research that alleges a link between food colors and hyperactivity and found “that the study does not substantiate a link between the color additives that were tested and behavioral effects.” For more information: http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodIngredientsPackaging/ucm094211.htm#qahyper
Dr. Jacobson: This, actually, is not true. In March 2011 the FDA acknowledged that dyes trigger hyperactivity in some children: "Based on our review of the data from the published literature, FDA concludes that a causal relationship between exposure to color additives and hyperactivity in children in the general population has not been established. For certain susceptible children with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and other problem behaviors, however, the data suggest that their condition may be exacerbated by exposure to a number of substances in food, including, but not limited to, synthetic color additives. Findings from relevant clinical trials indicate that the effects on their behavior appear to be due to a unique intolerance to these substances and not to any inherent neurotoxic properties."”
The study was convincing enough to persuade the British government to urge food manufacturers to stop using the half-dozen dyes used in the study. Also, the study was done on average kids, not ones with hyperactivity or ADHD. Ms. Applebaum shouldn’t pretend that the study disproved the link between dyes and behavioral problems in children with hyperactivity.
How much coke a day should a teenager drink…if we want to prevent overweight in view of sedentarism?
Dr. Applebaum: When it comes to teens, energy balance – the balance between calories in from foods and beverages and calories out from physical activity - is what is most important along with a balanced, sensible and varied diet to support normal growth and development. According to USDA food patterns, active teenagers, particularly males, have the highest energy needs. Thus, an active teenager may be able to meet nutrient needs and have several hundred calories that can come from other foods and beverages –what are called “discretionary” calories—to meet total energy/calorie needs. If a teen is sedentary, overall food choices, along with recommendations to increase physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviors (screen time, television, etc.), will most benefit overall health and development and promote weight management. This also will help establish life-long healthful lifestyle habits. For more information, see Appendices 6 and 7 of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, pages 78-79. Discretionary calories from solid fats and added sugars for active teen boys can be about 600 calories. That’s room enough for two, 20 fl. oz. bottles of Coca-Cola, and maybe a cookie. http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/dietaryguidelines.htm
And yes, I let my 16-year-old son—soon to be 17--drink Coke and our other beverages (another of his favorites is Honest Tea)—but as part of a healthy diet. And I also make sure he gets plenty of physical activity and sleep—for his health—body, mind and spirit—and my sanity ϑ
Dr. Jacobson: 600 calories is supposed to include all the extra fats and sugars that that active male would consume. Assuming that half of those calories are allotted to sugar, an active boy could drink one 20-oz. bottle. But most boys are not active; assuming even that they are “moderately active,” that would permit only 400 calories for fat/sugar, or 200 calories for sugar, or one can of Coke plus “maybe a cookie”—but no more added sugars all day from ice cream, breakfast cereals, baked goods, and all the rest.
Caramel coloring contains cancer-causing 4-MEI and California forced a change. When will the less contaminated product be available everywhere?
Dr. Applebaum: There is no evidence from studies involving humans that 4-MEI causes cancer. Scientific experts, like the European Food Safety Authority, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and Health Canada, who have looked at the totality of the evidence have said that consumers are not at risk from the small amounts of 4-MEI in caramel coloring. The change in California was caused by a “right to know” law where the merits for listing 4-MEI were not reviewed by independent scientists as requested by the beverage industry.
The safety of our beverages is demonstrated by the fact that no regulatory agency around the world has either taken them off the market or has requested that we change the caramel we use. Nevertheless in order to avoid putting an unwarranted warning label on our products in California, we asked our caramel color suppliers to determine how to reduce the levels of 4-MEI in the caramel color while maintaining the characteristics of caramel.
Products currently available in California are made with the new process caramel. In order to ensure that consumers continue to be able to enjoy the same great taste of our products everywhere, products with the new caramel color will be rolled out nationally as the supply of new process caramel becomes more available.
But to be perfectly clear—if our beverages were unsafe—they wouldn’t be able to be sold—not in CA or anywhere. To repeat the CA law (Prop 65) is about labeling—not about safety.
Dr. Jacobson: This answer is total malarkey. There’s general agreement among cancer scientists at the U.S. National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer, that 4-MEI is a carcinogen. The state of California’s scientists, who are independent of Coke’s dollars, concluded that it causes an excessive cancer risk in humans. The FDA, as usual, has been asleep at the wheel. True…and shame on those agencies. California required a warning label, but Coke (and Pepsi) switched to a safer caramel coloring. I hope that Coca-Cola makes that change for the rest of the world (more Coke is sold outside than inside the United States).
Soda is the #1 source of calories in the US diet. Caffeine is an addictive stimulant added to bevs that millions of children consume. Why not just eliminate caffeine?
Dr. Applebaum: Let me take each in order, beginning first with calories. Actually, NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) data 2001-2002 to 2009-2010 show that grain-mixtures (p)izza, tacos, burritos, and other foods that combine numerous ingredients, but are predominantly grains are the number one source of calories in the U.S. diet and have remained so over the last 10 years.
Based on analyses of usual dietary intakes conducted by the U.S. National Cancer Institute, sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks, sweetened water beverages (including those with added nutrients), and fruit drinks combined comprise on average nearly 7% of all calories consumed by Americans – which means that 93% of our calories come from other sources. (USDA and DHHS, 2010) However, there are age, gender and ethnic groups in the population that have higher or lower intakes of calories from beverages.
Regardless, it is important to remember that all foods and beverages have the potential of contributing excess calories to the diet—thus consumers must be mindful of the total amount of calories they consume.
And now the 2nd part of your question-- caffeine. The Coca-Cola Company has used caffeine as a safe ingredient for more than 126 years. And as it relates to addiction…foods and beverages aren’t drugs. The term “addiction” is often used loosely in the press, online and in everyday conversations in relationship to good tasting foods and beverages that people like to consume on a frequent basis. “Substance dependence” is the term used by many experts in the field to describe true addictions.
While caffeine is known to be a mild stimulant, both Health Canada and the U.S. FDA have found levels up to 400 mg per day to be safe for healthy adults. Many health professionals consider 300-400 mg per day to be a moderate level of consumption for an adult (the approximate amount in three or four cups of coffee or seven to nine cans of caffeinated sparkling beverage).
Lastly, we label caffeine levels on our products (in the U.S. and where permitted elsewhere in the world) and we also have a wide variety of caffeine-free beverages for those who do not want to consume caffeine or give to their children. Why? Because we believe in consumer choice—some folks want caffeine, some don’t. Choice.
Dr. Jacobson: To be “perfectly clear,” the law concerns the labeling of unsafe products. People can decide whether it’s fair to lump pizzas, tacos, and all those other foods together. The fact is, Americans (and Mexicans and others) consume such huge amounts of sugary drinks that they suffer a range of health consequences (not that pizza and tacos are health foods).
What are the human health benefits of HFCS over cane sugar?
Dr. Applebaum: In short, there is no difference from a benefit perspective between HFCS vs. cane sugar—they’re essentially the same. Both are carbohydrates, providing 4 calories per gram with similar proportions of glucose and fructose. When it comes to satisfying your appetite, HFCS is equivalent to cane sugar. In fact, two 2007 studies comparing sparkling beverages sweetened with HFCS or sugar showed no difference in hunger, satiety or short-term energy intake (Melanson 2007; Monsivais 2007). For more information, check The Coca-Cola Company Beverage Institute for Health and Wellness: http://www.beverageinstitute.org/en_US/pages/article-science-hfcs.html, or the Corn Refiners Association: http://sweetsurprise.com/hfcs-faqs?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=what%20is%20high%20fructose%20corn%20syrup&utm_campaign=Facts&gclid=CPvQ__6J_7MCFQSqnQodNWYAHA
Dr. Jacobson: No different…but beverages do not promote satiety (are not as filling) as foods, which is one major reason why soft drinks promote obesity.