Coca-Cola pays nutritionists to suggest cola as healthy snack | Hacker News Reader

Coca-Cola pays nutritionists to suggest cola as healthy snack

startribune.com

45 pointsmikenyc21 comments

There's a curious distinction in the uproar between scandals in tech and in other sectors. One obvious thought is that I'm mostly finding myself in tech-oriented crowds, thus I find them more exhilarating . I have to admit to myself that when I read this headline I wasn't the least surprised. I mean "of course they do that, they're old school! McDonalds, pepsi, tobacco, they're all money grubbing and soulless!" Apparently I actually believe tech companies are capable of changing and somewhat try to do good. Perhaps because I have an actual (though imaginary) relationship to the people who run google/apple/msft. The fact that a lot of you guys work there probably enforces that; I do not and will never know anyone working for Coca Cola, for whatever reason.

I wonder if that's two different, calculated strategies employed by the different sectors respectively.

Title is inaccurate: Coca-Cola isn't working with nutritionists, they are working with dietitians. Literally anyone can call themselves the former, but the latter requires a bachelor's degree with an accredited nutrition curriculum, passing a registration exam and doing an internship at an approved facility.

http://eatrightdc.org/dietitian-vs-nutritionist/

I think you mean latter and former, respectively. You swapped them.

Err, no, they got it right.

"Dietitian" is a protected name in most places.

"Nutritrionist", not so much.

The article claims Coke is working with dietitians, while the post title erroneously states they're working with the nutritionists.

It makes the article a lot more alarming considering dietitians are supposed to be policed by a professional organization.

Oh, I learn something new every day. Thanks for the explanation.

Bah. What a clickbait title. If you consider blogger a "nutritionist" then you deserve what you get. The Star Tribune is guilty of posting the exact same level of crap as the nutritionist bloggers. Any service which generate revenue primarily by generating clicks must be treated with an abundance of caution.

>If you X then you deserve what you get.

This attitude is harmful, toxic and wrong. Humans are irrational and reactive, their hehaviour is heavily dependent on the context and mind state. Please reconsider.

>> If you X then you deserve what you get.

> This attitude is harmful, toxic and wrong.

But that's how you learn. At some point you need to admit that you -yourself- have lacked in judgment in order to learn something. Not everything can be taught in school, not everything can be protected by law, at some point you need to take some responsibility.

What level do you set the bar to ?

That the real question. Should we make the blogger be liable, require a license to blog online or special qualification ? If I give the same advise to a mate at the pub, should I be fined ?

Setting the bar too low is just creating a tyranny.

You deserve truth. Everybody deserves truth.

I agree with you but there must be a bar there for a multinational company knowingly lying. It's fine (great) to make something unhealthy. Just don't lie about it being healthy.

There must be false advertising laws that can already catch them for this?

This seems like a non sequitor to me? Why would not blaming people for falling for scams* require that you make laws stopping people from scamming?

*Using scams here as catchall for various kinds of deceit.

This has been a common practice by many of the big brands. For eg. You can watch John Oliver's Last Night with John Oliver on Tobacco and on doctors. Companies pays doctors to recommend medicines.

And their echo chamber reinforces the practice.

>"We have a network of dietitians we work with," said Sheidler [a "Coca-cola spokesman"], who declined to say how much the company pays experts. "Every big brand works with bloggers or has paid talent."

Every big brand does it, therefore it is acceptable and expected. Sure, we might be dishonest, misleading, and hide behind self-proclaimed experts, but, shit, how could we justify being a BIG BRAND if we didn't?

I have a feeling every time something is called a "snack" in headlines like this it's probably pretty bad for you.

My mother never allowed us to eat chips or other junkfood as snacks during the day. We ate them on special occasions (e.g. watching TV on saturday night).

If we were hungry, we could eat apples or other fruit that was around.

In retrospect a good habit to have.

Probably the same with the cereals, dairy, vitamins, fruits, etc. industry.

Yup. Here's a "scientific paper" that shows that dairy does not cause heart disease:

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/93/1/158.abstract

Paid for by the Dutch dairy industry...

Well, to be fair, modern studies seem to indicate that neither fat nor cholesterol consumption lead to heart disease. So it's quite possible that study is perfectly valid.

The sugars, on the other hand...

They should team up with these guys

http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1841910,0...

If you're dumb enough to believe a beverage containing phophoric acid (commonly used in fertilizer) with a PH of ~2.8 is healthy, than you deserve it.

I wonder how tha tip about drinking coke to alleviate stomach ache came about.

That's the literal genesis of Coca Cola. The syrup was originally developed by a pharmacist for stomach ailments. Carbonation was added to help digestion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com