Research ArticleSponsorship of National Health Organizations by Two Major Soda Companies
Introduction
The U.S. has one of the highest rates of obesity in the world.1, 2 In 2008, obesity overtook smoking as the largest preventable cause of the loss of quality-adjusted life years.3 In 2012, 35% of American adults were obese and 69% were overweight or obese.4, 5 In the same year, the U.S. spent an estimated $190 billion treating conditions tied to obesity, or 20.6% of health expenditures.6 One factor behind the American obesity epidemic is soda consumption. The average American consumed 46 gallons of soda in 2009, giving the U.S. one of the highest rates of per capita soda consumption of any country.7, 8 About half of Americans drink sugary drinks every day.9, 10 Recently, it has been estimated that soda consumption caused one fifth of weight gain in the U.S. between 1977 and 2007.11 Therefore, finding ways to reduce soda consumption is important for improving public health and stemming chronic illnesses associated with soda consumption, such as obesity.
Health and medical organizations would naturally be expected to promote policies that reduce soda consumption. However, it has been documented that a number of health organizations have retreated from this responsibility by withdrawing from public debate on policies to reduce soda consumption, opposing soda legislation, or actually collaborating with soda companies to produce joint educational materials.12, 13, 14, 15 It has been suggested that the reason many health organizations support corporate goals, even at the expense of public health, is that they derive funding from these corporations.16 It is believed these sponsorships can affect the actions and voices of health organizations.12, 13 Further, organizations may feel pressured to grant sponsors conference spots, which allow soda companies to present and speak at important health conferences and develop positive associations.17 As to why companies choose to sponsor national health initiatives, this has been explored by Rosenberg and Siegel18 in 2001: possibilities include brand awareness, positive brand associations, enhanced corporate image, and influence over social attitudes about the health impacts of a product.
The use of corporate sponsorship of health organizations by tobacco and alcohol companies to quell potential support for tobacco or alcohol control policies has been well documented.18, 19, 20 Although the extent of sponsorship of health organizations by alcohol and tobacco companies has been well characterized, there has not been a systematic attempt to do so for soda companies. Several articles and one book have provided examples of such sponsorships,12, 13, 15, 21, 22 but a comprehensive analysis that identifies the nature and extent of these sponsorships is needed.
This study systematically identifies, describes, and analyzes the nature and extent of soda company sponsorship of health and medical organizations in the U.S. during the 5-year period from 2011 to 2015. It also examines the lobbying efforts of these companies to influence legislation designed to prevent obesity, in order to determine whether acceptance of funding from these companies is consistent with the mission of the sponsored organizations.
Section snippets
Identification of Sponsorships
This study used a systematic approach to identify sponsorships of health organizations by the Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo, or both between 2011 and 2015. A “health organization” was defined as a group, entity, or program involved in the public’s health. Internet searches were conducted on Google for the terms Coca-Cola and Pepsi along with the terms health, physicians, doctors, nurses, sponsorship, funding, corporate partner, nonprofit, organization, and philanthropy. These search terms were
Results
In total, 95 national health organizations were found to have accepted money from the Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo, or both (Table 1). A total of 12 organizations accepted money from both companies (13%), one accepted money from just PepsiCo (1%), and 82 accepted money from the Coca-Cola Company only (86%). Interestingly, whereas PepsiCo sponsored 14% of these health organizations, the Coca-Cola Company sponsored 99%. However, this discrepancy may be an artifact due to Coca-Cola’s recent
Discussion
This is the first study to systematically catalog sponsorship of national health organizations by soda companies. Because health organizations have strong voices in lawmaking and politics, it is important to understand the extent and nature of sponsorships by soda companies. This study found that the Coca-Cola Company sponsored 94 and PepsiCo sponsored 13 national health organizations. Although it seems the Coca-Cola Company may invest more than PepsiCo in sponsorships, this result is likely
Conclusions
This study has found extensive sponsorship of national health organizations by soda companies. Such sponsorships are likely to serve marketing functions, such as to dampen health groups’ support of legislation that would reduce soda consumption and improve soda companies’ public image. It is recommended that organizations find alternative sources of revenue in order to stop indirectly and inadvertently increasing soda consumption and causing substantial harm to Americans.
Note From the Authors
A previous version of this article, available online ahead of print October 10, 2016, noted that a May 2013 article published on the Coca-Cola corporate website suggests the American Medical Association (AMA) received sponsorship funding from the Coca-Cola Company for the Exercise is Medicine initiative, a program that the AMA jointly launched with the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) in November 2007. This information was incorrect. The AMA cut ties with the Exercise is Medicine
Acknowledgments
Many thanks to the Medical Student Summer Research Project program for funding this work by way of the Babur K. Zhalique Scholarship in Non-Traditional Medicine.
DGA conducted the searches, organized and analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript. MBS advised the research, analyzed the data, and helped write the manuscript.
No financial disclosures were reported by the authors of this paper.
References (119)
- et al.
Global, regional, and national prevalence of overweight and obesity in children and adults during 1980–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013
Lancet
(2014) - et al.
Trends in quality-adjusted life-years lost contributed by smoking and obesity
Am J Prev Med
(2010) - et al.
The medical care costs of obesity: an instrumental variables approach
J Health Econ
(2012) Infecting academic conferences: brands linked to ill health
Lancet Glob Health
(2015)- Obesity update June 2014. www.oecd.org/health/Obesity-Update-2014.pdf. Accessed July 21,...
- et al.
Prevalence of obesity among adults: United States, 2011–2012
NCHS Data Brief
(2013) - et al.
Prevalence of childhood and adult obesity in the United States, 2011–2012
JAMA
(2014) Special issue: Top-10 CSD results for 2009
Bev Dig
(2010)- Silver M. Guess which country has the biggest increase in soda drinking. NPR.org....
- et al.
Consumption of sugar drinks in the United States, 2005–2008
NCHS Data Brief
(2011)