ArticleThe Milbank quarterly2019
Public Meets Private: Conversations Between Coca-Cola and the CDC.
Article in The Milbank quarterly, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
39 citing papers in PubMed.
- Commercial Determinants of Latinx Health: A Scoping Review of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages in the USA.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Logics of (dis)engagement: mapping variation in non-government norms and approaches to alcohol, ultra-processed food and related industries - a case study from Australia.Globalization and health · 2026Article
- Who funds the WHO Foundation? A transparency analysis of donation disclosures over the first 3 years of its operation.BMJ global health · 2025Article
- Alcohol industry involvement in the delayed South Africa Draft Liquor Amendment Bill 2016: a case study based on freedom of information requests.Globalization and health · 2025Article
- "Games being played": a US exploration of market strategies used by the beverage industry as experienced by food retailers.Globalization and health · 2024Article
- Corporate activities that influence population health: a scoping review and qualitative synthesis to develop the HEALTH-CORP typology.Globalization and health · 2024Article
- The Perils of Partnership: Interactions Between Public Health England, Drinkaware, and the Portman Group Surrounding the Drink Free Days Campaign.International journal of health policy and management · 2024Article
- Retailer Responses to Public Consultations on the Adoption of Takeaway Management Zones Around Schools: A Longitudinal Qualitative Analysis.International journal of health policy and management · 2024Article
- Characteristics of commercial determinants of health research on corporate activities: A scoping review.PloS one · 2024Article
- Lobbying by omission: what is known and unknown about harmful industry lobbyists in Australia.Health promotion international · 2023Article
- Aiding empirical research on the commercial determinants of health: a scoping review of datasets and methods about lobbying.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Big food and drink sponsorship of conferences and speakers: a case study of one multinational company's influence over knowledge dissemination and professional engagement.Public health nutrition · 2023Article
- Interactions Between Nutrition Professionals and Industry: A Scoping Review.International journal of health policy and management · 2023Article
- Electoral campaign contributions: an obstacle to sugary drink industry regulation in Brazil?Public health nutrition · 2022Article
- How independent is the international food information council from the food and beverage industry? A content analysis of internal industry documents.Globalization and health · 2022Article
- The 'sugar tax' in Bermuda: a mixed methods study of general population and key stakeholder perceptions.BMC public health · 2022Article
- A content analysis of the aims, strategies, and effects of food and nonalcoholic drink advertising based on advertising industry case studies.Obesity science & practice · 2022Review
- WHO's Attempt to Navigate Commercial Influence and Conflicts of Interest in Nutrition Programs While Engaging With Non-State Actors: Reflections on WHO Guidance for Nation States Comment on "Towards Preventing and Managing Conflict of Interest in Nutrition Policy? An Analysis of Submissions to a Consultation on a Draft WHO Tool".International journal of health policy and management · 2022Article
- Evaluating industry attempts to influence public health: Applying an ethical framework in understanding commercial determinants of health.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Sugary drinks taxation: industry's lobbying strategies, practices and arguments in the Brazilian Legislature.Public health nutrition · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
methodsWe 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.
findingsOf 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.
conclusionsThe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.