Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32744984›Full record

ArticlePublic health nutrition2020

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.

Paulo Serodio, Gary Ruskin, Martin McKee, David Stuckler

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public health nutrition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Interactions Between Nutrition Professionals and Industry: A Scoping Review.International journal of health policy and management · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Three Growth Spurts in Global Physical Activity Policies between 2000 and 2019: A Policy Document Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. "Part of the Solution": Food Corporation Strategies for Regulatory Capture and Legitimacy.International journal of health policy and management · 2021
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Paulo SerodioDepartment of Sociology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Gary RuskinU.S. Right to Know, Oakland, CA, USA.
Martin McKeeDepartment of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
David StucklerDepartment of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe 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.

designUS 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.

resultsEmails 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.

conclusionsCoca-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.

Indexed as

Carbonated BeveragesElectronic MailFood IndustryPublic HealthHumansCoca-ColaObesityVested interest

Identifiers

PMID32744984
PMCPMC10200649
OpenAlexW3047280434

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.