Chris Phelan

PHL 309
11/1/2015
Essay 2

"Is It Ethical for Coke to Sponsor Conflicted Research on Weight

Loss?"
Coke recently donated $1.5 million to create the Global Energy Balance
Network, a research facility focused on the effects of sugary drinks and the
health of its consumers. As one of the leaders in the sugary beverage market
is it ethical for Coca-cola to be funding research about these very same
sugary beverages and their effect on the population? Radcliffe says, no it is
not. One of the main reasons he stated in the article from The Huffington
Post, based on an original article from The New York Times, is that the
scientists that work within GEBN share a conflict of interest with Coke
because they are funded through grants sponsored by the Coca-cola
company(1). Therefore these scientists will support Coke's claims that "To
maintain a healthy weight, get more exercise and worry less about cutting
calories" (2). However even the CDC says that Sugary drinks have been
linked to poor diet quality, weight gain, obesity, and, in adults, type 2
diabetes (3).
So, is it ethical? This "paid" research makes Coke look like a good guy
in the fight against diabetes and obesity; they are "finding" new research

that suggests they had nothing to do with it which increases their likability
within the public. Especially their prime market, those of us with lower
incomes and young adults(3). However, in our society about 8% of our daily
calories are wasted on sugary beverages that have no nutritional value; this
is roughly 200 calories a day when the American Heart Association suggests
no more than 450 calories per week (3). Is this socially responsible? If Apple
said, "Our devices are not linked to any form of cancer as proof, take a look
at this report from Apple Research Lab." Would anyone really believe that?
No, but since Coke helped fund a research foundation that doesn't bear their
name, is it still understood to be a third party facility... This is the problem, to
the uninformed, yes; which typically are the lower income individuals and
families. So the people that are most effected by this are the people within
the prime market(3), the money makers.
According to Friedman, they are finding new ways to legally increase
their profits so it doesn't matter. In my opinion, this is wrong. If you are going
to state "third party" research it should be someone without any affiliation
personally or financially, in Coke's case they claim the researchers are not
influenced and support the researchers sharing their own opinion(1). It is
arguable that they are subconsciously influenced because there is no valid
way to prove this, however it is reasonable to assume this, given the human
condition to satisfy their superiors and continue funding through the grants.
Coke is effectively operating in the grey area here, not legally wrong, but not
in the right either.

References
1. Radcliffe, Dana. "Is It Ethical for Coke to Sponsor Conflicted Research on
Weight Loss?" The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 19 Aug.
2015. Web. 06 Nov. 2015. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danaradcliffe/is-it-ethical-for-coke-to_b_8009304.html>.

2. O'Conner, Anahad. "CocaCola Funds Scientists Who Shift Blame for

Obesity Away From Bad Diets." Well. The New York Times, 09 Aug.
2015. Web. 06 Nov. 2015.

3. CDC. "Consumption of Sugar Drinks in the United States, 20052008."

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 31 Aug. 2011. Web. 07 Nov. 2015.

<http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db71.htm>.