6 ms·

Early in my career, I consulted for Coke to ensure sugar taxes failed and soda was included in food stamp funding. I say Coke's policies are evil because I saw

Early in my career, I consulted for Coke to ensure sugar taxes failed and soda was included in food stamp funding. I say Coke's policies are evil because I saw inside the room. The first step in playbook was paying the NAACP + other civil rights groups to call opponents racist Coke gave millions to the NAACP and the Hispanic Federation - both directly and through front groups like the American Beverage Association. This picked up in 2011-2013 - when the Farm Bill and soda taxes were under consideration. https://nutritioninsight.com/news/cspi-report-criticizes-big-soda-philanthropy.html https://nutritioninsight.com/news/cspi-report-criticizes-big... The conversations inside these rooms was depressingly transactional: "We (Coke) will give you money. You need to paint opponents of us as racist." The effort was successful, and the message was carried in thousands of articles between 2011-2013. Coke's position was clear: soda is one of the cheapest ways to get calories - a flagrantly inaccurate statement when factoring in the health consequences. I watched as the FDA funneled money to professors at leading universities - as well as think tanks on the left and right - to create studies showing soda taxes hurt the poor. They also paid for studies that say drinking soda DIDN'T cause obesity. https://reuters.com/article/us-usa-drinks-tax/soda-tax-war-taking-shape-in-two-california-cities-idUSBRE88507M20120906 https://reuters.com/article/us-usa-drinks-tax/soda-tax-war-t... Soda companies are deeply embedded in the USDA - so much so that the agency carries discredited talking points like "there are no bad food, only bad diets." This ignores fact that sugar is highly addictive and has negative nutritional value. In the end: racial tensions flared, soda spending was kept in SNAP funding, and many of the soda taxes were defeated... https://twitter.com/calleymeans/status/1609929026889711617 https://twitter.com/calleymeans/status/1609929026889711617

umvi 4y ago
If this is true, shouldn't there be consequences for NAACP? Surely accepting cash to weaponize racism is (or should be) illegal?
- tantalor 4y ago
  See: 1st Amendment to US Constitution
  - brewdad 4y ago
    If the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Where does the road paved with evil intentions go?
    - WarOnPrivacy 4y ago
      The judges consulted; this internet win stands.
    - MikeTheGreat 4y ago
      To the bank, apparently
    - iinnPP 4y ago
      Same road but with shortcuts. I think we have an accepted fallacy in logic where we apply: Assume ignorance before malice. I do agree ignorance is far more probable than malice, but malicious people are incredibly skilled at exploitation of ignorance and they use that skill without missing a beat.
    - idontpost 4y ago
      [dead]
- themitigating 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - saurik 4y ago
    1) The user you are trying so hard to catch in some contradiction seems to be arguing against the control large platforms have to effectively police speech into a box more narrow than the law, and (looking only at the provided snippets) does not seem to claim that the law can't or shouldn't provide some boundaries itself. Like, I don't know this user's opinion on whether truth in advertising laws are legitimate, only about whether it makes sense for Twitter / Facebook to be the ones who get to make the decision. In this case, they are asking why it isn't illegal, not why it isn't randomly being self-limited by the Internet-age speech carriers. 2) Even if the user quoted were "inconsistent" in that way--and because of #1 I don't think it is, but I want to note why I think your comment isn't as smart as you are hoping it is in more detail--one could easily take the comment to be born out of frustration at a world that decides lots of things should be forbidden but somehow not this one, whether coming from a place of sincerity or simply sarcasm: in a world where somehow there are a ton of things people can't say, why can they say this? A lot of times, I see people try to point out hypocrisy in online communication and in fact the two parties are just talking past each other, using the other's attempt to call out hypocrisy as a way to judge their position, ignoring that there are easier explanations.
- WarOnPrivacy 4y ago
  > If this is true, shouldn't there be consequences for NAACP? It depends on what the goal is. If one seeks an opportunity to punish the NAACP or to chill discussion of racism, focusing just on the NAACP might be a way to do that. Otherwise, if one seeks to end harmful astroturfing[1], then directing punishment (eg: press+fines) at the companies/lobbyists that craft those campaigns seems more effective. As for the non-profits that get duped by bad-faith corporate campaigns, being held up as a hapless corporate stooge should provide all the aversion anyone could want. [1] ref: https://www.techdirt.com/tag/astroturfing/ https://www.techdirt.com/tag/astroturfing/
notinfuriated 4y ago
> "We (Coke) will give you money. You need to paint opponents of us as racist." It's funny, I heard my father-in-law parroting this when complaining about soda taxes. I also don't care for the taxes, but I don't see them as inherently racist. In fact, hearing him say this made me think that the characterization of the tax being racist is, itself, racist, as it bears the presumption that various minorities more regularly make the irresponsible personal choice of drinking soda, and this is without any data to prove it.
- lghh 4y ago
  I think it's more of a blending of what's racist vs what's classist in America. The argument should be that regressive taxes like soda taxes, much like speeding tickets, affects the poor at a much greater clip. Who cares about a soda tax or a speeding ticket when you make 500k a year? If you make that much and you want soda or you want to speed, you're going to do it. However, if you make 28k a year, the calculation is much different. In America, poverty and race are strongly correlated (and there's causation, but I digress). Because of that, it's easy, although inaccurate, to use classism and racism interchangeably. Calling someone racist creates a larger emotional response and is more damaging to social equity than calling someone classist. Hence calling soda taxes racist.
  - notafraudster 4y ago
    I agree, but isn't it necessary to reckon with the fact that historically, explicitly and intentionally racist policies (for example, Jim Crow voting laws) often laundered themselves, when convenient, through classism in order to escape scrutiny? Put differently, would you contend that poll taxes were not racist? Also, wouldn't we expect that organizations that are explicitly anti-racist would conclude that because classist policies or laws have racially disparate impacts, addressing them still increases racial equity even if they are ostensibly motivated by race-neutral class concerns?
    - lghh 4y ago
      > would you contend that poll taxes were not racist I would not contend that they were not racist. I wasn't implying that every classist action is actually racist or vice-versa. Just that some are incorrectly labeled for rhetorical effect. > addressing them still increases racial equity even if they are ostensibly motivated by race-neutral class concerns Yep, nearly anything that effects class equity in the US will also effect racial equity.
JimiofEden 4y ago
I personally remember when Soda taxes were being proposed in Philadelphia. I did and do see soda as a luxury, so it sounded reasonable enough to me compared to alternatives A lot of otherwise reasonable people that I had known at the time told me that I shouldn't be racist by voicing my support for these policies I asked them to explain, but they would not, (do your own research, etc.) so I never really got a hold of their logic since the research that I pulled up always seemed so tenuous at best. I don't really recall if the taxes went through or not This sort of shines a light on all of it though. Shows how susceptible we all are to this kind of manipulation =\
- idunno246 4y ago
  they went through, its like $3-4 for a 2 liter. even diet so its not even about sugar, though diet soda isnt really much better. and i think the latest study is less than half the money went where it was supposed to. at the least, tax at sales tends to be regressive, affecting poor people more than not poor, which maybe you could claim is racist. but pa constitution doesnt allow anything but flat taxes, so unfortunately theres basically no progressive taxing here. sin taxes in general i find somewhat troubling, sure its a luxury but why is this luxury deserve more tax than that.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Washington State, to its credit, does not have sales tax on food.
    - frosted-flakes 4y ago
      Do any US states charge sales tax on (non-restaurant) food? Canada certainly doesn't, and I would be surprised if any European states do either.
      - dgoldstein0 4y ago
        It depends on the food item. Ready to eat things like premade sandwiches or frozen food may have some taxes. Raw ingredients - produce, meat, eggs, bread, rice, oils, milk, cheese, etc- tend not to.
ar_lan 4y ago
> Coke's position was clear: soda is one of the cheapest ways to get calories - a flagrantly inaccurate statement when factoring in the health consequences. I'm always amazed at how many people flat out get angry with me when I say fast food is simply not cheaper than cooking yourself, provided you have a kitchen. I'm consistently told that that level of thinking is necessarily classist (and therefore racist), because it's more time, effort, and in the short-term, money, that needs to be involved. I do not understand how making stir fry with chicken breast/thighs, frozen veggies, and rice is somehow the most expensive, time-consuming task in the world, but apparently that's a high-class dinner to many folks on the internet, and I'm 100% convinced it's because of the lie they are told (and then perpetuate) that the dollar amount you see in front of you is the dollar amount in totality. Don't do Reddit, folks.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  I've heard the same thing, and I usually respond with prices of decent, filling food at the grocery store - like potatoes, a can of beans, a bag of apples, etc. As for cooking, you can buy a used microwave at the thrift store for about what a soft taco costs at Taco Time.
  - legerdemain 4y ago
    Apples don't contribute much to a healthy diet: they're sweet, acidic enough to damage tooth enamel, and packed with fructose. You'd be much better off leaving fruit out of your diet and occasionally treating yourself to a little bit of brown rice or raw broccoli in between your meals of beans and potatoes.
    - dgoldstein0 4y ago
      Apples are a lot healthier than the same amount of fructose in isolation. they have a huge amount of fiber, which is both filling and good for your microbiome. And I'd bet on some good vitamin content though I'm not sure which off the top of my head. Some fruits may be not much better than candy in that the sugar can metabolize quickly, but apples aren't one of those despite their fructose content.
jackattackx 4y ago
I guess they're doing the same mud-slinging with gas-stoves today.

umvi 4y ago

If this is true, shouldn't there be consequences for NAACP? Surely accepting cash to weaponize racism is (or should be) illegal?

tantalor 4y ago
See: 1st Amendment to US Constitution
- brewdad 4y ago
  If the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Where does the road paved with evil intentions go?
  - WarOnPrivacy 4y ago
    The judges consulted; this internet win stands.
  - MikeTheGreat 4y ago
    To the bank, apparently
  - iinnPP 4y ago
    Same road but with shortcuts. I think we have an accepted fallacy in logic where we apply: Assume ignorance before malice. I do agree ignorance is far more probable than malice, but malicious people are incredibly skilled at exploitation of ignorance and they use that skill without missing a beat.
  - idontpost 4y ago
    [dead]
themitigating 4y ago
[flagged]
- saurik 4y ago
  1) The user you are trying so hard to catch in some contradiction seems to be arguing against the control large platforms have to effectively police speech into a box more narrow than the law, and (looking only at the provided snippets) does not seem to claim that the law can't or shouldn't provide some boundaries itself. Like, I don't know this user's opinion on whether truth in advertising laws are legitimate, only about whether it makes sense for Twitter / Facebook to be the ones who get to make the decision. In this case, they are asking why it isn't illegal, not why it isn't randomly being self-limited by the Internet-age speech carriers. 2) Even if the user quoted were "inconsistent" in that way--and because of #1 I don't think it is, but I want to note why I think your comment isn't as smart as you are hoping it is in more detail--one could easily take the comment to be born out of frustration at a world that decides lots of things should be forbidden but somehow not this one, whether coming from a place of sincerity or simply sarcasm: in a world where somehow there are a ton of things people can't say, why can they say this? A lot of times, I see people try to point out hypocrisy in online communication and in fact the two parties are just talking past each other, using the other's attempt to call out hypocrisy as a way to judge their position, ignoring that there are easier explanations.
WarOnPrivacy 4y ago
> If this is true, shouldn't there be consequences for NAACP? It depends on what the goal is. If one seeks an opportunity to punish the NAACP or to chill discussion of racism, focusing just on the NAACP might be a way to do that. Otherwise, if one seeks to end harmful astroturfing[1], then directing punishment (eg: press+fines) at the companies/lobbyists that craft those campaigns seems more effective. As for the non-profits that get duped by bad-faith corporate campaigns, being held up as a hapless corporate stooge should provide all the aversion anyone could want. [1] ref: https://www.techdirt.com/tag/astroturfing/ https://www.techdirt.com/tag/astroturfing/

notinfuriated 4y ago

> "We (Coke) will give you money. You need to paint opponents of us as racist." It's funny, I heard my father-in-law parroting this when complaining about soda taxes. I also don't care for the taxes, but I don't see them as inherently racist. In fact, hearing him say this made me think that the characterization of the tax being racist is, itself, racist, as it bears the presumption that various minorities more regularly make the irresponsible personal choice of drinking soda, and this is without any data to prove it.

lghh 4y ago
I think it's more of a blending of what's racist vs what's classist in America. The argument should be that regressive taxes like soda taxes, much like speeding tickets, affects the poor at a much greater clip. Who cares about a soda tax or a speeding ticket when you make 500k a year? If you make that much and you want soda or you want to speed, you're going to do it. However, if you make 28k a year, the calculation is much different. In America, poverty and race are strongly correlated (and there's causation, but I digress). Because of that, it's easy, although inaccurate, to use classism and racism interchangeably. Calling someone racist creates a larger emotional response and is more damaging to social equity than calling someone classist. Hence calling soda taxes racist.
- notafraudster 4y ago
  I agree, but isn't it necessary to reckon with the fact that historically, explicitly and intentionally racist policies (for example, Jim Crow voting laws) often laundered themselves, when convenient, through classism in order to escape scrutiny? Put differently, would you contend that poll taxes were not racist? Also, wouldn't we expect that organizations that are explicitly anti-racist would conclude that because classist policies or laws have racially disparate impacts, addressing them still increases racial equity even if they are ostensibly motivated by race-neutral class concerns?
  - lghh 4y ago
    > would you contend that poll taxes were not racist I would not contend that they were not racist. I wasn't implying that every classist action is actually racist or vice-versa. Just that some are incorrectly labeled for rhetorical effect. > addressing them still increases racial equity even if they are ostensibly motivated by race-neutral class concerns Yep, nearly anything that effects class equity in the US will also effect racial equity.

JimiofEden 4y ago

I personally remember when Soda taxes were being proposed in Philadelphia. I did and do see soda as a luxury, so it sounded reasonable enough to me compared to alternatives A lot of otherwise reasonable people that I had known at the time told me that I shouldn't be racist by voicing my support for these policies I asked them to explain, but they would not, (do your own research, etc.) so I never really got a hold of their logic since the research that I pulled up always seemed so tenuous at best. I don't really recall if the taxes went through or not This sort of shines a light on all of it though. Shows how susceptible we all are to this kind of manipulation =\

idunno246 4y ago
they went through, its like $3-4 for a 2 liter. even diet so its not even about sugar, though diet soda isnt really much better. and i think the latest study is less than half the money went where it was supposed to. at the least, tax at sales tends to be regressive, affecting poor people more than not poor, which maybe you could claim is racist. but pa constitution doesnt allow anything but flat taxes, so unfortunately theres basically no progressive taxing here. sin taxes in general i find somewhat troubling, sure its a luxury but why is this luxury deserve more tax than that.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Washington State, to its credit, does not have sales tax on food.
  - frosted-flakes 4y ago
    Do any US states charge sales tax on (non-restaurant) food? Canada certainly doesn't, and I would be surprised if any European states do either.
    - dgoldstein0 4y ago
      It depends on the food item. Ready to eat things like premade sandwiches or frozen food may have some taxes. Raw ingredients - produce, meat, eggs, bread, rice, oils, milk, cheese, etc- tend not to.

ar_lan 4y ago

> Coke's position was clear: soda is one of the cheapest ways to get calories - a flagrantly inaccurate statement when factoring in the health consequences. I'm always amazed at how many people flat out get angry with me when I say fast food is simply not cheaper than cooking yourself, provided you have a kitchen. I'm consistently told that that level of thinking is necessarily classist (and therefore racist), because it's more time, effort, and in the short-term, money, that needs to be involved. I do not understand how making stir fry with chicken breast/thighs, frozen veggies, and rice is somehow the most expensive, time-consuming task in the world, but apparently that's a high-class dinner to many folks on the internet, and I'm 100% convinced it's because of the lie they are told (and then perpetuate) that the dollar amount you see in front of you is the dollar amount in totality. Don't do Reddit, folks.

WalterBright 4y ago
I've heard the same thing, and I usually respond with prices of decent, filling food at the grocery store - like potatoes, a can of beans, a bag of apples, etc. As for cooking, you can buy a used microwave at the thrift store for about what a soft taco costs at Taco Time.
- legerdemain 4y ago
  Apples don't contribute much to a healthy diet: they're sweet, acidic enough to damage tooth enamel, and packed with fructose. You'd be much better off leaving fruit out of your diet and occasionally treating yourself to a little bit of brown rice or raw broccoli in between your meals of beans and potatoes.
  - dgoldstein0 4y ago
    Apples are a lot healthier than the same amount of fructose in isolation. they have a huge amount of fiber, which is both filling and good for your microbiome. And I'd bet on some good vitamin content though I'm not sure which off the top of my head. Some fruits may be not much better than candy in that the sugar can metabolize quickly, but apples aren't one of those despite their fructose content.

jackattackx 4y ago

I guess they're doing the same mud-slinging with gas-stoves today.