The Experts below are selected from a list of 52824 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
David Stuckler - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
evaluating coca Cola s attempts to influence public health in their own words analysis of coca Cola emails with public health academics leading the global energy balance network
Public Health Nutrition, 2020Co-Authors: Paulo Serodio, Gary Ruskin, Martin Mckee, David StucklerAbstract:Objective:We evaluate the extent to which Coca-Cola tried to influence research in the Global Energy Balance Network, as revealed by correspondence between the company and leading public health academics obtained through Freedom-of-Information (FOI) requests.Design:US state FOI requests were made in the years 2015–2016 by US Right to Know, a non-profit consumer and public health group, obtaining 18 030 pages of emails covering correspondence between The Coca-Cola Company and public health academics at West Virginia University and University of Colorado, leading institutions of the Global Energy Balance Network. We performed a narrative, thematic content analysis of 18 036 pages of Coca-Cola Company’s emails, coded between May and December 2016, against a taxonomy of political influence strategies.Results:Emails identified two main strategies, regarding information and messaging and constituency building, associated with a series of practices and mechanisms that could influence public health nutrition. Despite publications claiming independence, we found evidence that Coca-Cola made significant efforts to divert attention from its role as a funding source through diversifying funding partners and, in some cases, withholding information on the funding involved. We also found documentation that Coca-Cola supported a network of academics, as an ‘email family’ that promoted messages associated with its public relations strategy, and sought to support those academics in advancing their careers and building their affiliated public health and medical institutions.Conclusions:Coca-Cola sought to obscure its relationship with researchers, minimise the public perception of its role and use these researchers to promote industry-friendly messaging. More robust approaches for managing conflicts of interest are needed to address diffuse and obscured patterns of industry influence.
-
always read the small print a case study of commercial research funding disclosure and agreements with coca Cola
Journal of Public Health Policy, 2019Co-Authors: Sarah Steele, Gary Ruskin, Martin Mckee, David StucklerAbstract:Concerns about conflicts of interest in commercially funded research have generated increasing disclosure requirements, but are these enough to assess influence? Using the Coca-Cola Company as an example, we explore its research agreements to understand influence. Freedom of Information requests identified 87,013 pages of documents, including five agreements between Coca-Cola and public institutions in the United States, and Canada. We assess whether they allowed Coca-Cola to exercise control or influence. Provisions gave Coca-Cola the right to review research in advance of publication as well as control over (1) study data, (2) disclosure of results and (3) acknowledgement of Coca-Cola funding. Some agreements specified that Coca-Cola has the ultimate decision about any publication of peer-reviewed papers prior to its approval of the researchers' final report. If so desired, Coca-Cola can thus prevent publication of unfavourable research, but we found no evidence of this to date in the emails we received. The documents also reveal researchers can negotiate with funders successfully to remove restrictive clauses on their research. We recommend journals supplement funding disclosures and conflict-of-interest statements by requiring authors to attach funder agreements.
-
public meets private conversations between coca Cola and the cdc
Milbank Quarterly, 2019Co-Authors: Nason Maani Hessari, Gary Ruskin, Martin Mckee, David StucklerAbstract:Policy Points There is growing understanding of how manufacturers of harmful products influence health policy. The strategies, approaches, and influences from such manufacturers that are detrimental to health have been termed the "corporate" or "commercial" determinants of health. However, while partnerships with the tobacco industry are clearly unacceptable for public health organizations, ties to other industries continue to be pursued. Such partnerships may influence health organizations in a number of ways detrimental to population health. However, with the exception of tobacco industry tactics as revealed by internal documents, we know relatively little about how this influence operates. This article uses emails between the Coca-Cola Company and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which we obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, to explore the nature of corporate influence, conflicts of interest, and lobbying "in their own words," and highlights the need for greater transparency and clearer policies on engaging with such industries. Context There is a continuing debate about the appropriateness of contacts between manufacturers of some harmful products and health researchers, as well as practitioners and policymakers. Some argue that such contacts may be a means of exerting undue influence, while others present them as an opportunity to pursue shared health goals. This article examines interactions between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Coca-Cola Company (Coca-Cola) as revealed by communications obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Methods We sent 10 US FOIA requests in 2016/2017 for communications between employees at the CDC and Coca-Cola. We then performed a thematic content analysis of the documents provided. Findings Of our 10 FOIA requests, 3 requests are still pending (at the time of this publication); 5 were rejected as too broad or because no records were found; and 3 returned 295 pages from 86 emails. The CDC withheld 102 pages to "protect commercial or financial information which is privileged or confidential." The returned emails demonstrate three main themes in Coca-Cola's contact with CDC employees: to gain and expand access, to lobby, and to shift attention and blame away from sugar-sweetened beverages. Conclusions The emails we obtained using FOIA requests reveal efforts by Coca-Cola to lobby the CDC to advance corporate objectives rather than health, including to influence the World Health Organization. Our findings provide a rare example of the ways in which corporate interests attempt to influence public health practitioners "in their own words," and they demonstrate a need for clearer policies on avoiding partnerships with manufacturers of harmful products.
-
coca Cola a model of transparency in research partnerships a network analysis of coca Cola s research funding 2008 2016
Public Health Nutrition, 2018Co-Authors: Paulo Serodio, Martin Mckee, David StucklerAbstract:OBJECTIVE: To (i) evaluate the extent to which Coca-Cola's 'Transparency Lists' of 218 researchers that it funds are comprehensive; (ii) map all scientific research acknowledging funding from Coca-Cola; (iii) identify those institutions, authors and research topics funded by Coca-Cola; and (iv) use Coca-Cola's disclosure to gauge whether its funded researchers acknowledge the source of funding. DESIGN: Using Web of Science Core Collection database, we retrieved all studies declaring receipt of direct funding from the Coca-Cola brand, published between 2008 and 2016. Using conservative eligibility criteria, we iteratively removed studies and recreated Coca-Cola's transparency lists using our data. We used network analysis and structural topic modelling to assess the structure, organization and thematic focus of Coca-Cola's research enterprise, and string matching to evaluate the completeness of Coca-Cola's transparency lists. RESULTS: Three hundred and eighty-nine articles, published in 169 different journals, and authored by 907 researchers, cite funding from The Coca-Cola Company. Of these, Coca-Cola acknowledges funding forty-two authors (<5 %). We observed that the funded research focuses mostly on nutrition and emphasizes the importance of physical activity and the concept of 'energy balance'. CONCLUSIONS: The Coca-Cola Company appears to have failed to declare a comprehensive list of its research activities. Further, several funded authors appear to have failed to declare receipt of funding. Most of Coca-Cola's research support is directed towards physical activity and disregards the role of diet in obesity. Despite initiatives for greater transparency of research funding, the full scale of Coca-Cola's involvement is still not known.
-
op76 corporate funding of scientific research a case study of coca Cola
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2016Co-Authors: Matos P Serodio, David Stuckler, Martin Mckee, D CohenAbstract:Background Global corporations have come under sustained attack in recent years for their lack of transparency. In particular, concerns have been raised about their funding of research to support their advocacy campaigns, in some cases with concealment of the links between the funder and the researcher. Most attention has been focused on the tobacco industry, which has a long history of conducting research designed to create confusion and to reframe the agenda in ways that advance its interests. Similarly, the food industry has sought to reframe the debate on obesity as one driven primarily by too little physical activity rather than by high levels of intake of energy dense food. In this paper we report the findings of the case study of Coca-Cola. The Coca-Cola Corporation has been the subject of extensive criticism, in particular because of its support of academics at certain American universities who have been in the forefront of advancing the argument that the obesity epidemic should be tackled through greater physical activity rather than reductions in energy dense products. However, it has also claimed that it embraced transparency by publishing a list of researchers that it funds, although this was in response to widespread public criticism when it was realised that Coca-Cola had donated more than $4 million to the non-profit group “Global Energy Balance Network”, whose research framed obesity as determined by the lack of physical activity rather than by dietary habits. However, we challenge Coca-Cola’s commitment to transparency by demonstrating that its list of scientific experts that it collaborated with is selective and severely incomplete. Methods Using web scraping tools, we have collected information from the Web of Science Core Collection on every article published in a scientific journal that acknowledges the Coca-Cola Company or the Coca-Cola Foundation as a funding agency. From a total sample of 262 articles, involving approximately 2,100 authors, we impose further restrictions to the sampling procedure and end up with a total of 247 articles and 647 authors. Results 151 articles, published in roughly 100 different journals, and involving 468 authors, were funded by grants from the Coca-Cola Company or the Coca-Cola Foundation (its philanthropic arm), but were not listed on Coca-Cola’s press release of scientific experts it has funded since 2010. Discussion Many of these articles equate the obesity epidemic with lack of physical activity, which raises important questions about the role of industry funding in academic research.
Martin Mckee - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
evaluating coca Cola s attempts to influence public health in their own words analysis of coca Cola emails with public health academics leading the global energy balance network
Public Health Nutrition, 2020Co-Authors: Paulo Serodio, Gary Ruskin, Martin Mckee, David StucklerAbstract:Objective:We evaluate the extent to which Coca-Cola tried to influence research in the Global Energy Balance Network, as revealed by correspondence between the company and leading public health academics obtained through Freedom-of-Information (FOI) requests.Design:US state FOI requests were made in the years 2015–2016 by US Right to Know, a non-profit consumer and public health group, obtaining 18 030 pages of emails covering correspondence between The Coca-Cola Company and public health academics at West Virginia University and University of Colorado, leading institutions of the Global Energy Balance Network. We performed a narrative, thematic content analysis of 18 036 pages of Coca-Cola Company’s emails, coded between May and December 2016, against a taxonomy of political influence strategies.Results:Emails identified two main strategies, regarding information and messaging and constituency building, associated with a series of practices and mechanisms that could influence public health nutrition. Despite publications claiming independence, we found evidence that Coca-Cola made significant efforts to divert attention from its role as a funding source through diversifying funding partners and, in some cases, withholding information on the funding involved. We also found documentation that Coca-Cola supported a network of academics, as an ‘email family’ that promoted messages associated with its public relations strategy, and sought to support those academics in advancing their careers and building their affiliated public health and medical institutions.Conclusions:Coca-Cola sought to obscure its relationship with researchers, minimise the public perception of its role and use these researchers to promote industry-friendly messaging. More robust approaches for managing conflicts of interest are needed to address diffuse and obscured patterns of industry influence.
-
always read the small print a case study of commercial research funding disclosure and agreements with coca Cola
Journal of Public Health Policy, 2019Co-Authors: Sarah Steele, Gary Ruskin, Martin Mckee, David StucklerAbstract:Concerns about conflicts of interest in commercially funded research have generated increasing disclosure requirements, but are these enough to assess influence? Using the Coca-Cola Company as an example, we explore its research agreements to understand influence. Freedom of Information requests identified 87,013 pages of documents, including five agreements between Coca-Cola and public institutions in the United States, and Canada. We assess whether they allowed Coca-Cola to exercise control or influence. Provisions gave Coca-Cola the right to review research in advance of publication as well as control over (1) study data, (2) disclosure of results and (3) acknowledgement of Coca-Cola funding. Some agreements specified that Coca-Cola has the ultimate decision about any publication of peer-reviewed papers prior to its approval of the researchers' final report. If so desired, Coca-Cola can thus prevent publication of unfavourable research, but we found no evidence of this to date in the emails we received. The documents also reveal researchers can negotiate with funders successfully to remove restrictive clauses on their research. We recommend journals supplement funding disclosures and conflict-of-interest statements by requiring authors to attach funder agreements.
-
public meets private conversations between coca Cola and the cdc
Milbank Quarterly, 2019Co-Authors: Nason Maani Hessari, Gary Ruskin, Martin Mckee, David StucklerAbstract:Policy Points There is growing understanding of how manufacturers of harmful products influence health policy. The strategies, approaches, and influences from such manufacturers that are detrimental to health have been termed the "corporate" or "commercial" determinants of health. However, while partnerships with the tobacco industry are clearly unacceptable for public health organizations, ties to other industries continue to be pursued. Such partnerships may influence health organizations in a number of ways detrimental to population health. However, with the exception of tobacco industry tactics as revealed by internal documents, we know relatively little about how this influence operates. This article uses emails between the Coca-Cola Company and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which we obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, to explore the nature of corporate influence, conflicts of interest, and lobbying "in their own words," and highlights the need for greater transparency and clearer policies on engaging with such industries. Context There is a continuing debate about the appropriateness of contacts between manufacturers of some harmful products and health researchers, as well as practitioners and policymakers. Some argue that such contacts may be a means of exerting undue influence, while others present them as an opportunity to pursue shared health goals. This article examines interactions between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Coca-Cola Company (Coca-Cola) as revealed by communications obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Methods We sent 10 US FOIA requests in 2016/2017 for communications between employees at the CDC and Coca-Cola. We then performed a thematic content analysis of the documents provided. Findings Of our 10 FOIA requests, 3 requests are still pending (at the time of this publication); 5 were rejected as too broad or because no records were found; and 3 returned 295 pages from 86 emails. The CDC withheld 102 pages to "protect commercial or financial information which is privileged or confidential." The returned emails demonstrate three main themes in Coca-Cola's contact with CDC employees: to gain and expand access, to lobby, and to shift attention and blame away from sugar-sweetened beverages. Conclusions The emails we obtained using FOIA requests reveal efforts by Coca-Cola to lobby the CDC to advance corporate objectives rather than health, including to influence the World Health Organization. Our findings provide a rare example of the ways in which corporate interests attempt to influence public health practitioners "in their own words," and they demonstrate a need for clearer policies on avoiding partnerships with manufacturers of harmful products.
-
coca Cola a model of transparency in research partnerships a network analysis of coca Cola s research funding 2008 2016
Public Health Nutrition, 2018Co-Authors: Paulo Serodio, Martin Mckee, David StucklerAbstract:OBJECTIVE: To (i) evaluate the extent to which Coca-Cola's 'Transparency Lists' of 218 researchers that it funds are comprehensive; (ii) map all scientific research acknowledging funding from Coca-Cola; (iii) identify those institutions, authors and research topics funded by Coca-Cola; and (iv) use Coca-Cola's disclosure to gauge whether its funded researchers acknowledge the source of funding. DESIGN: Using Web of Science Core Collection database, we retrieved all studies declaring receipt of direct funding from the Coca-Cola brand, published between 2008 and 2016. Using conservative eligibility criteria, we iteratively removed studies and recreated Coca-Cola's transparency lists using our data. We used network analysis and structural topic modelling to assess the structure, organization and thematic focus of Coca-Cola's research enterprise, and string matching to evaluate the completeness of Coca-Cola's transparency lists. RESULTS: Three hundred and eighty-nine articles, published in 169 different journals, and authored by 907 researchers, cite funding from The Coca-Cola Company. Of these, Coca-Cola acknowledges funding forty-two authors (<5 %). We observed that the funded research focuses mostly on nutrition and emphasizes the importance of physical activity and the concept of 'energy balance'. CONCLUSIONS: The Coca-Cola Company appears to have failed to declare a comprehensive list of its research activities. Further, several funded authors appear to have failed to declare receipt of funding. Most of Coca-Cola's research support is directed towards physical activity and disregards the role of diet in obesity. Despite initiatives for greater transparency of research funding, the full scale of Coca-Cola's involvement is still not known.
-
op76 corporate funding of scientific research a case study of coca Cola
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2016Co-Authors: Matos P Serodio, David Stuckler, Martin Mckee, D CohenAbstract:Background Global corporations have come under sustained attack in recent years for their lack of transparency. In particular, concerns have been raised about their funding of research to support their advocacy campaigns, in some cases with concealment of the links between the funder and the researcher. Most attention has been focused on the tobacco industry, which has a long history of conducting research designed to create confusion and to reframe the agenda in ways that advance its interests. Similarly, the food industry has sought to reframe the debate on obesity as one driven primarily by too little physical activity rather than by high levels of intake of energy dense food. In this paper we report the findings of the case study of Coca-Cola. The Coca-Cola Corporation has been the subject of extensive criticism, in particular because of its support of academics at certain American universities who have been in the forefront of advancing the argument that the obesity epidemic should be tackled through greater physical activity rather than reductions in energy dense products. However, it has also claimed that it embraced transparency by publishing a list of researchers that it funds, although this was in response to widespread public criticism when it was realised that Coca-Cola had donated more than $4 million to the non-profit group “Global Energy Balance Network”, whose research framed obesity as determined by the lack of physical activity rather than by dietary habits. However, we challenge Coca-Cola’s commitment to transparency by demonstrating that its list of scientific experts that it collaborated with is selective and severely incomplete. Methods Using web scraping tools, we have collected information from the Web of Science Core Collection on every article published in a scientific journal that acknowledges the Coca-Cola Company or the Coca-Cola Foundation as a funding agency. From a total sample of 262 articles, involving approximately 2,100 authors, we impose further restrictions to the sampling procedure and end up with a total of 247 articles and 647 authors. Results 151 articles, published in roughly 100 different journals, and involving 468 authors, were funded by grants from the Coca-Cola Company or the Coca-Cola Foundation (its philanthropic arm), but were not listed on Coca-Cola’s press release of scientific experts it has funded since 2010. Discussion Many of these articles equate the obesity epidemic with lack of physical activity, which raises important questions about the role of industry funding in academic research.
David M. Burger - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
concomitant intake of coca Cola to manage the drug drug interaction between velpatasvir and omeprazole studied in healthy volunteers
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 2019Co-Authors: Minou Van Seyen, Angela Colbers, Evertine J Abbink, Joost P H Drenth, David M. BurgerAbstract:We aimed to evaluate the effect of the acid beverage Coca-Cola on the pharmacokinetics of velpatasvir (VEL) when given with omeprazole. This was an open-label, randomized, crossover trial in 11 healthy adults. A single dose of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL) 400/100 mg was administered alone (reference) or with omeprazole 40 mg once daily with water (intervention I); in the intervention II arm, omeprazole 40 mg was combined with 250 mL of Coca-Cola. Geometric mean ratios (GMRs) were calculated for VEL area under the concentration-time curve from zero to infinity (AUC0-inf ) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax ). VEL exposure was reduced by 26.7% when SOF/VEL was coadministered with omeprazole vs. reference: GMRs (90% confidence interval (CI)) were 73.3% (55.6-96.8) and 69.1% (52.3-91.2) for AUC0-inf and Cmax , respectively. Intake of SOF/VEL with Coca-Cola compensated for the interaction with omeprazole and resulted in a higher VEL exposure. GMRs (90% CI) were 161.6% (122.4-213.3) for AUC0-inf and 143.9% (109.0-190.0) for Cmax . Therefore, Coca-Cola can be used to overcome the drug-drug interaction between VEL and omeprazole.
-
concomitant intake of coca Cola to manage the drug drug interaction between velpatasvir and omeprazole studied in healthy volunteers
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 2019Co-Authors: Minou Van Seyen, Angela Colbers, Evertine J Abbink, Joost P H Drenth, David M. BurgerAbstract:We aimed to evaluate the effect of the acid beverage Coca-Cola on the pharmacokinetics of velpatasvir (VEL) when given with omeprazole. This was an open-label, randomized, crossover trial in 11 healthy adults. A single dose of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL) 400/100 mg was administered alone (reference) or with omeprazole 40 mg once daily with water (intervention I); in the intervention II arm, omeprazole 40 mg was combined with 250 mL of Coca-Cola. Geometric mean ratios (GMRs) were calculated for VEL area under the concentration-time curve from zero to infinity (AUC0-inf ) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax ). VEL exposure was reduced by 26.7% when SOF/VEL was coadministered with omeprazole vs. reference: GMRs (90% confidence interval (CI)) were 73.3% (55.6-96.8) and 69.1% (52.3-91.2) for AUC0-inf and Cmax , respectively. Intake of SOF/VEL with Coca-Cola compensated for the interaction with omeprazole and resulted in a higher VEL exposure. GMRs (90% CI) were 161.6% (122.4-213.3) for AUC0-inf and 143.9% (109.0-190.0) for Cmax . Therefore, Coca-Cola can be used to overcome the drug-drug interaction between VEL and omeprazole.
Paulo Serodio - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
evaluating coca Cola s attempts to influence public health in their own words analysis of coca Cola emails with public health academics leading the global energy balance network
Public Health Nutrition, 2020Co-Authors: Paulo Serodio, Gary Ruskin, Martin Mckee, David StucklerAbstract:Objective:We evaluate the extent to which Coca-Cola tried to influence research in the Global Energy Balance Network, as revealed by correspondence between the company and leading public health academics obtained through Freedom-of-Information (FOI) requests.Design:US state FOI requests were made in the years 2015–2016 by US Right to Know, a non-profit consumer and public health group, obtaining 18 030 pages of emails covering correspondence between The Coca-Cola Company and public health academics at West Virginia University and University of Colorado, leading institutions of the Global Energy Balance Network. We performed a narrative, thematic content analysis of 18 036 pages of Coca-Cola Company’s emails, coded between May and December 2016, against a taxonomy of political influence strategies.Results:Emails identified two main strategies, regarding information and messaging and constituency building, associated with a series of practices and mechanisms that could influence public health nutrition. Despite publications claiming independence, we found evidence that Coca-Cola made significant efforts to divert attention from its role as a funding source through diversifying funding partners and, in some cases, withholding information on the funding involved. We also found documentation that Coca-Cola supported a network of academics, as an ‘email family’ that promoted messages associated with its public relations strategy, and sought to support those academics in advancing their careers and building their affiliated public health and medical institutions.Conclusions:Coca-Cola sought to obscure its relationship with researchers, minimise the public perception of its role and use these researchers to promote industry-friendly messaging. More robust approaches for managing conflicts of interest are needed to address diffuse and obscured patterns of industry influence.
-
coca Cola a model of transparency in research partnerships a network analysis of coca Cola s research funding 2008 2016
Public Health Nutrition, 2018Co-Authors: Paulo Serodio, Martin Mckee, David StucklerAbstract:OBJECTIVE: To (i) evaluate the extent to which Coca-Cola's 'Transparency Lists' of 218 researchers that it funds are comprehensive; (ii) map all scientific research acknowledging funding from Coca-Cola; (iii) identify those institutions, authors and research topics funded by Coca-Cola; and (iv) use Coca-Cola's disclosure to gauge whether its funded researchers acknowledge the source of funding. DESIGN: Using Web of Science Core Collection database, we retrieved all studies declaring receipt of direct funding from the Coca-Cola brand, published between 2008 and 2016. Using conservative eligibility criteria, we iteratively removed studies and recreated Coca-Cola's transparency lists using our data. We used network analysis and structural topic modelling to assess the structure, organization and thematic focus of Coca-Cola's research enterprise, and string matching to evaluate the completeness of Coca-Cola's transparency lists. RESULTS: Three hundred and eighty-nine articles, published in 169 different journals, and authored by 907 researchers, cite funding from The Coca-Cola Company. Of these, Coca-Cola acknowledges funding forty-two authors (<5 %). We observed that the funded research focuses mostly on nutrition and emphasizes the importance of physical activity and the concept of 'energy balance'. CONCLUSIONS: The Coca-Cola Company appears to have failed to declare a comprehensive list of its research activities. Further, several funded authors appear to have failed to declare receipt of funding. Most of Coca-Cola's research support is directed towards physical activity and disregards the role of diet in obesity. Despite initiatives for greater transparency of research funding, the full scale of Coca-Cola's involvement is still not known.
Gary Ruskin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
evaluating coca Cola s attempts to influence public health in their own words analysis of coca Cola emails with public health academics leading the global energy balance network
Public Health Nutrition, 2020Co-Authors: Paulo Serodio, Gary Ruskin, Martin Mckee, David StucklerAbstract:Objective:We evaluate the extent to which Coca-Cola tried to influence research in the Global Energy Balance Network, as revealed by correspondence between the company and leading public health academics obtained through Freedom-of-Information (FOI) requests.Design:US state FOI requests were made in the years 2015–2016 by US Right to Know, a non-profit consumer and public health group, obtaining 18 030 pages of emails covering correspondence between The Coca-Cola Company and public health academics at West Virginia University and University of Colorado, leading institutions of the Global Energy Balance Network. We performed a narrative, thematic content analysis of 18 036 pages of Coca-Cola Company’s emails, coded between May and December 2016, against a taxonomy of political influence strategies.Results:Emails identified two main strategies, regarding information and messaging and constituency building, associated with a series of practices and mechanisms that could influence public health nutrition. Despite publications claiming independence, we found evidence that Coca-Cola made significant efforts to divert attention from its role as a funding source through diversifying funding partners and, in some cases, withholding information on the funding involved. We also found documentation that Coca-Cola supported a network of academics, as an ‘email family’ that promoted messages associated with its public relations strategy, and sought to support those academics in advancing their careers and building their affiliated public health and medical institutions.Conclusions:Coca-Cola sought to obscure its relationship with researchers, minimise the public perception of its role and use these researchers to promote industry-friendly messaging. More robust approaches for managing conflicts of interest are needed to address diffuse and obscured patterns of industry influence.
-
always read the small print a case study of commercial research funding disclosure and agreements with coca Cola
Journal of Public Health Policy, 2019Co-Authors: Sarah Steele, Gary Ruskin, Martin Mckee, David StucklerAbstract:Concerns about conflicts of interest in commercially funded research have generated increasing disclosure requirements, but are these enough to assess influence? Using the Coca-Cola Company as an example, we explore its research agreements to understand influence. Freedom of Information requests identified 87,013 pages of documents, including five agreements between Coca-Cola and public institutions in the United States, and Canada. We assess whether they allowed Coca-Cola to exercise control or influence. Provisions gave Coca-Cola the right to review research in advance of publication as well as control over (1) study data, (2) disclosure of results and (3) acknowledgement of Coca-Cola funding. Some agreements specified that Coca-Cola has the ultimate decision about any publication of peer-reviewed papers prior to its approval of the researchers' final report. If so desired, Coca-Cola can thus prevent publication of unfavourable research, but we found no evidence of this to date in the emails we received. The documents also reveal researchers can negotiate with funders successfully to remove restrictive clauses on their research. We recommend journals supplement funding disclosures and conflict-of-interest statements by requiring authors to attach funder agreements.
-
public meets private conversations between coca Cola and the cdc
Milbank Quarterly, 2019Co-Authors: Nason Maani Hessari, Gary Ruskin, Martin Mckee, David StucklerAbstract:Policy Points There is growing understanding of how manufacturers of harmful products influence health policy. The strategies, approaches, and influences from such manufacturers that are detrimental to health have been termed the "corporate" or "commercial" determinants of health. However, while partnerships with the tobacco industry are clearly unacceptable for public health organizations, ties to other industries continue to be pursued. Such partnerships may influence health organizations in a number of ways detrimental to population health. However, with the exception of tobacco industry tactics as revealed by internal documents, we know relatively little about how this influence operates. This article uses emails between the Coca-Cola Company and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which we obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, to explore the nature of corporate influence, conflicts of interest, and lobbying "in their own words," and highlights the need for greater transparency and clearer policies on engaging with such industries. Context There is a continuing debate about the appropriateness of contacts between manufacturers of some harmful products and health researchers, as well as practitioners and policymakers. Some argue that such contacts may be a means of exerting undue influence, while others present them as an opportunity to pursue shared health goals. This article examines interactions between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Coca-Cola Company (Coca-Cola) as revealed by communications obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Methods We sent 10 US FOIA requests in 2016/2017 for communications between employees at the CDC and Coca-Cola. We then performed a thematic content analysis of the documents provided. Findings Of our 10 FOIA requests, 3 requests are still pending (at the time of this publication); 5 were rejected as too broad or because no records were found; and 3 returned 295 pages from 86 emails. The CDC withheld 102 pages to "protect commercial or financial information which is privileged or confidential." The returned emails demonstrate three main themes in Coca-Cola's contact with CDC employees: to gain and expand access, to lobby, and to shift attention and blame away from sugar-sweetened beverages. Conclusions The emails we obtained using FOIA requests reveal efforts by Coca-Cola to lobby the CDC to advance corporate objectives rather than health, including to influence the World Health Organization. Our findings provide a rare example of the ways in which corporate interests attempt to influence public health practitioners "in their own words," and they demonstrate a need for clearer policies on avoiding partnerships with manufacturers of harmful products.
