Thursday, 12 September 2013

Don't Feed Them

Another perfect example of why attempting to appease health campaigners is a disastrously inept policy comes, once again, from Australia.

As a response to the never-ending misery from self-enriching public health nagbags, Coca-Cola has embarked on a genial publicity campaign which involves:

- Clearly labelling their products with dietary information
- Committing to not advertising to anyone under 12
- Removing their products from schools
- Sponsoring healthy initiatives like bike-riding
- Encouraging, via adverts, healthy activities.

You'd think the health lobby would be happy, right? Nah, course not. It just gives them a chance for more publicity and more demonisation of a hugely popular product by following the tobacco control template.
Leading Australian health groups have launched an offensive against Coca-Cola's latest advertising campaign. 
Twelve health groups, including Diabetes Australia and Nutrition Australia, have written a joint letter to Coca-Cola calling on it to scrap its campaign for sugary drinks and pull out of children's sport sponsorship. 
Jane Martin from the Obesity Policy Coalition says the groups wanted to voice their concerns directly to Coca-Cola. 
"We think we are best placed to talk about the implications and the solutions as far as sugary drinks are concerned," she says. 
"I don't think the public should be taking dietary advice from Coca-Cola. 
"They were the people that said it was a myth that Coke made you fat, a myth that it rotted your teeth and a myth that it was packed with caffeine." 
She says those claims were found to be potentially misleading and deceptive.
It's simply impossible to appease these people. It is a lobby that can - due to the way it is funded worldwide -  never, ever be satisfied.  It is hideously manipulative, bullying and anti-social and will never stop as long as idiot politicians continue to dole out free cash to people like Ms Martin. No amount of do-gooding from 'Big Fizz' will ever get her onside, especially not appeasement which only serves to feed such precautionary parasites.

Do watch this six minute interview where she stutters and obfuscates to avoid genuinely congratulating Coca-Cola on a cycling initiative which no-one but the insane could criticise.



Junican said...

O/T, regarding Williams MP's blather, I thought that it might amuse you to know that a certain commenter with the name Julia W.... was myself. I wrote a perfectly polite comment which was not published, so I decided to do a bit of devil's advocating.
Just thought that it might amuse you to know .....

westcoast2 said...

Just a thought....

1 Set the trap.
We welcome the changes.
We welcome the changes but they do not go far enough.

2 Begin to close the trap.
Changes made have not been effective.
Changes proposed by you are not welcome.
Changes need legislation.

3 Spring the trap.
We [think we] are best placed to talk about the implications and the solutions.

At this point what do you?
Back off? See they are not supportive.
Disagree? Too late.
Be reasonable? lol.

This is an abridged version :)

BenPal said...

Jane Martin's blabla is hilarious!
I wish the presenters had challenged her even more.

Henry Crun said...

For once, just once, I'd like to see the CEOs of Coca Cola. Schweppes, Locozade etc issue the following response to these nannying wankers:

"We, the makers of Coca Cola make no apologies for our products, our marketing, our sponsorships, or our advertising campaigns.If these so-called public health lobby groups don't like it, the can fuck off!"

Ivan D said...

Excellent analysis Dick. When it comes to not feeding these people, rather closer scrutiny of who and what is funded from the public purse would be very welcome. The socially divisive dishonest drivel is likely to continue as long as we are forced to pay for people to produce it.

Radical Rodent has a point in that another reason why these people continue to be paid is because their shortcomings are not exposed by the sycophantic mainstream media. If your core business is propaganda then having the BBC as an unquestioning ally is more than a little helpful.

prog said...

The greater the number of consumers/industries targeted, the greater the chances that politicians will HAVE to rein in the zealots. It's got to happen sometime - western societies, economies and welfare largely depend on consumerism. And governments totally rely on citizens and businesses to generate taxes.

JonathanBagley said...

There is a problem with this. Fruit smoothie drinks often contain more sugar than does coca cola. How will the anti obesity issue tackle this? To further muddy the waters, Innocent is now under the control of Coca Cola.

Bucko TheMoose said...

"She says those claims were found to be potentially misleading and deceptive."

Potentially? The claims are either right or they are wrong. It's black and white. Potentially must mean 'we disagree but can't prove it'.

Michael J. McFadden said...

"Leading Australian health groups have launched an offensive against Coca-Cola's latest advertising campaign. "

Incredible. And I think we've all seen Dr. Lustig's video by this point -- the one where he leads off by declaring "We are in the midst of the greatest public health crisis in the HISTORY OF THE WORLD!" And yep, he's talking about fizzy drinks etc.

"Stop the world! I want to get off!" has never been more true.


JonathanBagley said...

More on smoothies and cola. A comment I made in the DT

It's misleading to pick on fizzy drinks. The sugar is the problem and there is generally more sugar in smoothies, which tend to be regarded as middle class and healthy - like home-made buns (now apparently known as cup-cakes). This quote
Nearly four out of five smoothies contained more sugar than a 250ml bottle of Coca-Cola (26.5g) with the worst smoothie per 100ml for sugar was The Co-operative Pineapple, Mango and Passionfruit smoothie with 14.7g of sugar.Scientists say that while the sugar in smoothies is from the fruit and not added, it is just as damaging to teeth and weight as the sugar in fizzy drinks.All the smoothies were also found to have surprisingly high calories - all 52 tested contained more calories than a 250ml bottle of Coca-Cola (105 calories).is from the Daily Mail

Dick_Puddlecote said...

Absolutely. Good to watch them give her a bit of toughing up.

westcoast2 said...

As you can see from the comment at targeting smoothies, for the health lobby, isn't a way forward.

A better way is to target Coca-Cola which is world wide, high profile and has also managed to get itself associated with junk food (I wonder how that happened?).

So better to target them and drag the other things in as needed or to tailor what you are saying to a local audience.

Also discussing 'Sugar' rather than types of sugar (Glucose, Sucrose. Fructose) muddies the water. Glucose, in particular, is used by the Brain. Coca-Cola contains caramelised sugar, which itself, adds to the complexity.

Bringing sense and science into this isn't useful as this is not about health. They will get to smoothies in good time.