• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Dietitians for Professional Integrity

  • Home
  • Our Team
  • Resources
    • Advocacy & Action Toolkit
    • Conflict-Free CEUs
    • Distinguished Dietitians
    • Ethical Sponsorship
    • FNCE Guides & Reports
    • Like-Minded Organizations
    • RD Resource Toolkit
    • Statements of Concern
    • Understand The Issues
  • Contact
  • FAQ
  • Blog
  • Donate
  • Search

Feb 08, 2016 Leave a Comment

Coca-Cola’s “Transparency” Numbers Don’t Seem to Add Up

UPDATE: Russell Greene contacted with this update: “A helpful reader brought it to my attention that the current Coke database does list one $10k donation to the CDC in 2015. So over $2 million of CDC funding disappeared, but the CDC is technically still on the list once.”

Original Post:

Hmmm. Remember Coca-Cola’s “commitment to transparency” last year, which resulted in the soda giant revealing what companies and scientists it had funded between 2010 and 2015?

It now appears that lens of transparency may be murkier than originally thought, as “The Russells” (Russ Greene and Russell Berger) report on their blog.

Highlights:

  • “The soda company has dramatically increased the amounts declared to some organizations while lowering or entirely removing other payments and organizations. These changes affected payments from 2010-2015. And Coca-Cola made these changes without a single explanatory note on the site.”
  • “One significant difference is in Coca-Cola’s reporting of its donations to the National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control. The current Coca-Cola database has entirely removed Coca-Cola’s relationship with the CDC. The initial disclosure admitted to paying them $2,144,862. The CDC is now completely and conspicuously absent from the Coca-Cola database.”
  • “In contrast, the new Coca-Cola figures nearly double the amount of money the soda company admits to giving the American College of Sports Medicine, raising the total figure from $865,000 to $1,526,000. Again, we are inclined to believe the higher figure, but the ACSM changes raise questions as well. For example, Coca-Cola lowered its claimed funding for ACSM’s “Exercise is Medicine” program in 2013 from $80,000 to $26,000. Was the initial $80,000 figure a mere mistake?”
  • “Coca-Cola confined its Transparency to North-America-based entities that consented to the disclosures. So the list excludes scientists or institutions that were too embarrassed to be listed next to the American College of Sports Medicine, or who happen to live in other parts of the world.”
  • “Given the massive scale of these changes, both sets of Coca-Cola revelations cannot be correct. Therefore, Coca-Cola unveiled false and misleading funding statistics in its Transparency database at least once. Until Coca-Cola explains its wavering Transparency database, however, we are left to speculate as to its motivation.”

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

Related

Categories: Problematic Sponsorship Tags: American College of Sports Medicine, Centers for Disease Control, Coca-Cola, conflicts of interest, Exercise is Medicine, Russell Berger, Russell Greene

Reader Interactions

Leave a Comment Cancel

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

sidebar

Blog Sidebar

Social Media

FacebookTwitter

Subscribe to receive our quarterly newsletter and other breaking news!

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Browse by Topic

  • Academic Research
  • Advocacy
  • Distinguished Dietitians
  • Ethical Sponsorship
  • Industry Spin
  • Industry-Funded Research
  • Interviews
  • Photos
  • Problematic Sponsorship
  • Recommended Reads
  • Reports
  • Statements of Concern
  • Uncategorized

Tags

Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics American Beverage Association Andy Bellatti Big Tobacco California Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Center for Science in the Public Interest CEUs Civil Eats Coca-Cola ConAgra conflicts of interest Corn Refiners Association FNCE front groups General Mills Global Energy Balance Network Hershey's industry-funded research junk food Kellogg Kids Eat Right Kraft Kraft Singles lobbying Marion Nestle marketing marketing to children Mars McDonald's meat industry Michele Simon moderation National Dairy Council Nestlé New York Times PepsiCo policy soda soda tax soda taxes sugar The Sugar Association Unilever World Health Organization Yoni Freedhoff

Footer

Subscribe to receive our quarterly newsletter and other breaking news!

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Recent Posts

Farewell to Our Supporters

Dear DFPI Supporters, Since February of 2013, we at Dietitians For Professional Integrity have been a voice for uplifting the registered dietitian credential at a time when corporate influences - both overt and covert Read More

Highly Processed Foods Can Negatively Impact Health

Good read from New York Times on how highly processed foods (and the ingredients in many of them) can negatively impact health by creating an imbalance in the gut microbiome. This is the future of nutrition. The fact Read More

Social Media

FacebookTwitter

RSS

  • RSS - Posts

© 2021 Dietitians for Professional Integrity