Although Coca-Cola and PepsiCo Inc. have donated millions of dollars to 96 health organizations, they have also spent millions opposing legislation designed to reduce Americans' soda intake, a study published last Monday by the American Journal of Preventive Medicine found. "They are not helping public health at all," co-author Daniel Aaron, a medical student at Boston University, said, according to an Oct. 10 New York Times article. Coke responded through the American Beverage Association, arguing that its actions "are contributing to addressing the complex challenge of obesity" and that its opposition to such legislation is in response to "discriminatory and regressive taxes and policies on [its] products." What do you think of the study's findings, and do you believe Coke and Pepsi have an obligation to help public health?

Prof. Trenery Dolbear Jr. (ECON)

Yes, the findings, particularly the drifting away from studying health effects by Coke/Pepsi grant recipients, are well-documented; and no, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo Inc. are not obliged to support public health — they aren’t in that “business.” As tobacco companies did in past years, the soft drink companies attempt to develop a reputation as supporters of public health while simultaneously opposing measures designed to ameliorate negative effects from heavy use of their products. What can done about this? We live in a free speech society. A corporation can attempt to burnish its image though they don’t have free rein (e.g., tobacco companies have constraints on their advertising). Legislatures can adopt taxes and labeling restrictions on products. Justice Brandeis famously wrote: “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” This study brings the actions of the relevant players into the court of public opinion; We can hope that good results will follow.

Prof. Trenery Dolbear Jr. (ECON) is the Senior Advisor to the Dean of Brandeis International Business School.

Jacqueline Baikovitz ’17

According to the recent journal article, “Sponsorship of National Health Organizations by Two Major Soda Companies,” Coca-Cola and PepsiCo Inc. have lobbied against legislation to impose taxes on the commercial purchasing of soft drinks. However, both companies have financially supported many national health organizations through their commitment to corporate social responsibility and they have implemented their own public health initiatives. For example, Coca-Cola’s website has a section called “Our commitments to fight obesity,” in which the company promotes exercise and discourages people from drinking too much soda. Additionally, Coca-Cola has made changes in nutritional labeling to make the contents of the drinks more apparent to consumers. The rise of obesity is definitely a challenge that this country needs to address. In my opinion, the Food and Drug Administration has the obligation to enforce more regulations on food and beverages with high sugar or fat content.

Jacqueline Baikovitz ’17 is the vice president of the Pre-Health Society and the director of events for United Against Inequities in Disease. She is also majoring in Biology and minoring in Health: Science, Society, and Policy.

Wenli Bao ’18

Coca-Cola and PepsiCo Inc. are soda companies after all. What they can do to help public health is limited since soda itself is not healthy. If people are looking for absolute healthy drink, then they shouldn't drink soda at all. This means, Coke and PepsiCo Inc. shouldn't even produce sodas, which is not realistic. I don't think they have an obligation to help public health. The public is responsible for their own health. As long as Coke and PepsiCo Inc. are not producing any product that can poison its customers, they should have the freedom to sell any kind of product. We can only encourage them to produce more products that are more health-friendly. Also, the two companies are already trying to do everything they can such as selling diet coke, coke zero, caffeine-free coke, cane sugar coke, etc. Thus, I don't think it is correct to say that it's Coke and PepsiCo Inc's obligation to help public health. It is our job to make sure what we eat or drink is healthy.

Wenli Bao ’18 is a Business Undergraduate Departmental Representative.

Roza Azene ’18

Despite the seemingly generous donations of these beverage companies to improving public health, there are numerous sources revealing that they spend much more money to oppose legislations and to manipulate medical research results in their favor. This contradiction clearly shows that they are not nearly as committed to the societal wellbeing as they are to their own business profits. Indeed, profits are very important to any business, but companies have to think twice when the products pose serious threats to the lives of many. What puzzles me here is why they are not as involved in spending/investing more in substitution and advertisement of their products with healthier ones, especially if they claim to be so concerned about the health of their customers. I agree with the recent study in that Coca-Cola and PepsiCo Inc. are contributing to the degradation of people’s health and should be held accountable for it, but so are other companies whose products include as much sugar, artificial sweeteners and harmful chemicals. Last but foremost, the companies and medical researchers should give truth to the public about the contents and harms of the products and work together to provide healthier options. I think this would be more effective and applicable than taxing or banning the products altogether.

Roza Azene ’18 is an Economics Undergraduate Departmental Representative and a Brandeis Undergraduate Group Study tutor for Economics 80a, 82b and 83a.

Jeremy Cohen ’17

While the actions of soda companies may be perceived as hypocritical, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo Inc. are acting within their own economic interests. The facts are clear: soda is unhealthy; yet the corporations are doing nothing illegal by manufacturing, selling and promoting their products. Consumers choose to drink soda, and legislation designed to reduce Americans’ consumption of the product would infringe on their inherent rights. And, of all the vices that exist, why should soda be targeted? Alcohol, prescription pills, cigarettes and firearms are some examples that cause far more damage to the self or the general population than the intake of soda ever could. With millions of Americans drinking soft drinks in moderation, those that abuse the beverage should not be held accountable as the rule but as the exception. If someone drinks soda in excess, they are harming themselves, not others.

Jeremy Cohen ’17 is a Business Undergraduate Departmental Representative.