A conflict of interest: Coca-Cola and AAFP

[Comment Below]

By Hannah Catchings

About a month ago the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) announced a new corporate partnership program with its very first alliance partner, the Coca-Cola Company. While a nice, hefty grant tends to be good news, this undisclosed, six-figure sum has many health experts worried.

The money goes directly toward increasing consumers' educational awareness about the role of beverages and sweeteners in a healthy diet. Talk about a conflict of interest.

Almost two weeks after the news was released, the academy's executive vice president, Dr. Douglas Henley, received a disgruntled letter from a group of 22 health and nutrition experts, including Dr. George Bray from LSU's Pennington Biomedical Research Center.

The letter urged the AAFP to refuse funding from the beverage giant, writing, "Coca-Cola Co. is desperate to burnish its soiled reputation...which is why it is paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to have a relationship with your organization."

Although the group asked that the money be rejected altogether, one alternative was provided:

"If the AAFP declines to do that, we urge your organization to reassert its support for the public health - and its own independence - by supporting a warning label on caloric sugar-sweetened beverages and a federal tax on soft drinks to support health promotion or health insurance programs," the letter stated.

Considering both the ethical implications and the unavoidable conflict of interest surrounding this situation, the AAFP should not accept Coca-Cola's funding if they plan to maintain a credible reputation as well as a clear conscience.

The letter called for a response from the academy to Michael Jacobson, the executive director from the advocacy group Center for Science in the Public Interest.

According to a personal statement from Jacobson, this isn't the first time that Coca-Cola has partnered with a health organization. He explained that the American Academy of Pediatric Dentists received $1 million from Coca-Cola.

"Before the payment, the dentists' group acknowledged the connection between sugary drinks and dental disease," Jacobson recalled. "But after the payment, the president of the AAPD told reporters that the 'scientific evidence is certainly not clear' on the role soft drinks play."

Because the academy is a health-related organization, the public's well being should remain first priority at all times. History already shows how unrealistic it is to believe that the grant won't affect the medical integrity of the AAFP.

If funding isn't declined, the given alternative seems more than fair. Taxes on alcohol and cigarettes already exist. If the idea is to tax things that are bad for us, soda definitely fits into that category.

As Jacobson's letter pointed out, soda is "the only food or beverage that has been demonstrated to promote overweight and obesity." Consumers would still have every freedom to buy soda, but maybe that one extra reason would push individuals to drink something nutritional.

With all the media attention focused around health care reform, why make the fight only about funding? Placing a warning label on sugar-sweetened beverage certainly won't stop anyone from drinking an ice-cold soda; however, it could deter people from having so many.

After all, there's nothing wrong with providing a little incentive - even Coca-Cola can agree to that.

Originally Published: Issue 822 - November 4, 2009

Share on Facebook

Back to the top