Public Meets Private: Conversations Between Coca-Cola and the CDC.


Journal

The Milbank quarterly
ISSN: 1468-0009
Titre abrégé: Milbank Q
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8607003

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
03 2019
Historique:
pubmed: 30 1 2019
medline: 13 4 2019
entrez: 30 1 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30693564
doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12368
pmc: PMC6422605
doi:

Substances chimiques

Dietary Sugars 0

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

74-90

Informations de copyright

© 2019 The Authors The Milbank Quarterly published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of The Millbank Memorial Fund.

Références

Ann Fam Med. 2008 Jul-Aug;6(4):331-9
pubmed: 18626033
Am J Public Health. 2011 Mar;101(3):411-8
pubmed: 20466961
Lancet. 2011 Apr 23;377(9775):1438-47
pubmed: 21474174
PLoS Med. 2011 Aug;8(8):e1001076
pubmed: 21886485
Am J Public Health. 2012 Nov;102(11):2018-25
pubmed: 22994187
Lancet. 2013 Feb 23;381(9867):670-9
pubmed: 23410611
J Bus Ethics. 2013 Jan;112(2):283-299
pubmed: 23997379
Can J Public Health. 2013 May 14;104(4):e327-9
pubmed: 24044474
PLoS One. 2013 Nov 27;8(11):e80864
pubmed: 24312249
PLoS One. 2014 Feb 05;9(2):e87389
pubmed: 24505286
Health Policy. 2014 Apr;115(2-3):138-40
pubmed: 24581699
Obes Rev. 2015 Jul;16(7):519-30
pubmed: 25988272
BMC Public Health. 2016 Mar 22;16:283
pubmed: 27004957
Lancet Psychiatry. 2017 May;4(5):357
pubmed: 28456293
PLoS Med. 2017 Jun 6;14(6):e1002311
pubmed: 28586351
Nutr Today. 2017 May;52(3):143-150
pubmed: 28649143
Ann Intern Med. 2017 Jul 4;167(1):71-72
pubmed: 28672383
Drug Alcohol Rev. 2018 Mar;37(3):293-303
pubmed: 28881410
BMC Med. 2017 Nov 27;15(1):208
pubmed: 29178869
J Public Health Policy. 2018 Feb;39(1):49-56
pubmed: 29180754
Public Health Nutr. 2018 Jun;21(9):1594-1607
pubmed: 29560842

Auteurs

Nason Maani Hessari (N)

London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

Gary Ruskin (G)

U.S. Right to Know.

Martin McKEE (M)

London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

David Stuckler (D)

Dondena Research Center, Bocconi University.

Articles similaires

Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
Humans Emergency Service, Hospital Child Child, Preschool Infant
Humans Mobile Applications Hepatitis C Male Female

How Certification Exams Reflect Current Practice.

Tara L Myers, Sean DeGarmo, Marianne Horahan
1.00
Humans Certification Clinical Competence Education, Nursing, Continuing Adult

Classifications MeSH