Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Businesses Medicine The Almighty Buck

Coke Discloses Millions in Grants for Health Research and Programs 133

New submitter erinrivers11 writes: Following criticism that Coke has supported research that plays down the role of soft drinks in the spread of obesity, the company released a list showing nearly $120 million in grants to medical, research and community organizations. The Times reports: "The list, published Tuesday on the company’s website, details hundreds of Coke grants, large and small, to a variety of organizations since 2010, including physician groups, university researchers, cancer and diabetes organizations and public parks, and even a foundation for the National Institutes of Health."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Coke Discloses Millions in Grants for Health Research and Programs

Comments Filter:
  • This is how you manipulate people opinions by let others people tell that everything is ok or everything is an hoax.
    • Yeah, I'm guessing 120m is a drop in the ocean for a corporation that large. They probably paid 5 times that to be sponsors of the Fifa football world cup...

    • Its the same thing that is happening with ecigs right now, you ask for the data to replicate their "findings" and often you will get back nothing but silence and when you follow the money? "These papers paid for by RJ Reynolds and your friends in big tobacco", same is true for those government officials pushing for banning or labeling them as drugs, bought and paid for by your local coffin nail pushers.

      My personal favorite was the "study" that said ecigs had 20 times the formaldehyde as actual cigarettes,

      • This leaves them with only bottled water which just isn't gonna generate the $$$ that Coke has over the years.

        http://smile.amazon.com/s/ref=... [amazon.com]

        http://smile.amazon.com/Coca-C... [amazon.com]

        I think Coca Cola Bottling company does quite well on bottled water. It looks like they cost about the same amount, and bottled water has one ingredient which requires no mixing.

      • by Reziac ( 43301 ) *

        I don't have studies immediately to hand (and am too lazy to go hunt 'em down this instant) but the reason "diet soda makes you fatter" is because aspartame is a thyroid inhibitor, so slows down your metabolism, and considering that being overweight is frequently caused by being borderline hypothyroid in the first place... it's likely to add to the problem more than would just consuming a sugared drink (which at least would temporarily satisfy the sugar craving that's also caused by low thyroid, so you don'

    • It's also how you examine and repudiate the bull shit put out by so many people who want to control people's choices by telling everyone soda, corn syrup, and sugar are all evil and no one should every use them.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Those supposed health groups that try and tell all of us that sugar, soda, and corn syrup are all evil and shouldn't be consumed have been playing this same game. How dare Coke try and refute the lies those groups are spreading.

      Funny thing, I rarely drink soda anymore, and I'm still overweight. Could it possibly be that other factors are involved?? Like not having enough physical activity?? Or just simply eating too much??

      Everyone knows that too many calories and not enough physical activity causes weight

      • by Copid ( 137416 )
        I don't think that Coke is just pushing back against the idea that, say, corn syrup is particularly bad. They seem to be pushing back agains the idea that calorie intake is a big deal at all [nytimes.com]. Their groundbreaking scientific theory appears to be, "Sure, excess calories make you fat, but that doesn't mean it's your diet. Maybe you should just run a few extra miles a day so you can keep drinking your daily 3 liters of Coke!"
      • by Anonymous Coward
        'Let people decide' is something that some humans are ready for.
        The same can be said about live style choices other than sport and food. Drugs - we kill you or put you forever in prison because you wanted to smoke grass or what else. There are people that cannot be let alone - an colleague told me once over a beer that he cannot accept drugs being sold freely because then he would not know what to do, he even may be tempted. The same with prostitution or so called assisted suicide (UK just kept its ban on
      • "Parents who don't encourage their kids to get off their asses and play outside are causing our kids to get fat. "

        Actually no. The cause is too many calories. You can sit on your ass all day as long as you take in the necessary calories, anything more makes you fat.
        • Actually, no. The cause is not enough exercise/work. You can eat as many calories as you want as long as you expend enough energy to compensate, anything less makes you fat.

          See how easy it is too justify the exact opposite. I can actually say that my version is more accurate to real life because you eventually reach a point where you are spending so much time expending energy that you cannot consume more calories and the system can reach equilibrium. You cannot go the other direction and expend so little en

          • by hawkfish ( 8978 )

            Actually, no. The cause is not enough exercise/work. You can eat as many calories as you want as long as you expend enough energy to compensate, anything less makes you fat.

            See how easy it is too justify the exact opposite. I can actually say that my version is more accurate to real life because you eventually reach a point where you are spending so much time expending energy that you cannot consume more calories and the system can reach equilibrium. You cannot go the other direction and expend so little energy that you can eat nothing. Besides, sitting on your ass all day and eating almost nothing will have its own consequences (poor circulation, bed sores, atrophied muscles, etc) whereas leading an active lifestyle generally prevents those problems.

            While your rhetoric is impeccable, the reality is that it is difficult to burn enough calories through exercise. (The may have been your point, but it is hard to tell.) If you want to lose weight, you have to eat less than you burn (which is the point the GP was trying to make in an abbreviated fashion.) I have been training in tae-kwon-do for about 30 years now, and the caloric burn for my weight is about 800/hour, which is pretty high up on this [nutristrategy.com] list. In spite of this, I found it far more effective for we

  • Heard this before (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Virtucon ( 127420 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @06:48AM (#50581431)

    For years the tobacco industry did something along the same lines. [nih.gov]
    It's the calories stupid.

    • Re:Heard this before (Score:5, Informative)

      by Les Peters ( 3408365 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @06:53AM (#50581465)

      Specifically, it's the reaction the body has to the carbohydrates (sugar): spiking insulin levels, blocking the release of fat as a fuel source, and encouraging the body to store energy as fat.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Specifically, it's the reaction the body has to the carbohydrates (sugar): spiking insulin levels, blocking the release of fat as a fuel source, and encouraging the body to store energy as fat.

        Bingo!

        I find it interesting that since the 1970s the government has been parroting the research done by Ancel Keys in the 1950s that states that a high carbohydrate low fat diet is what is needed to avoid heart disease, despite:
        1- This advice being followed rarely results in weight loss, better handling of dislipidemia or the occurrence of type 2 diabetes.
        2- The emerg

        • by Anonymous Coward

          I think it is a cultural paradigm and the type 2 diabetes and obesity epidemic is a direct result of it.

          Like Coca Cola, it's one of the most stable parts of the economy so there's little incentive to really change anything related to the view that low-fat high carbohydrate (LFHC) is good. Health is not the concern of healthcare in the United States.

          • by Anonymous Coward

            Ding Ding Ding! When you place the responsibility of protecting the populations' health in the hands of a BUSINESS that is the outcome one would expect. As businesses exist to generate money for their owners, the last thing a healthcare business would want is a healthy population.

      • Specifically, it's the reaction the body has to the carbohydrates (sugar): spiking insulin levels, blocking the release of fat as a fuel source, and encouraging the body to store energy as fat.

        Or not [blogspot.ca]

        The carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis of obesity states that carbohydrates (particularly refined carbohydrates and sugar) are the primary cause of obesity due to their ability to increase circulating insulin, and that the solution to obesity is to restrict carbohydrate intake. Numerous studies have tested this hypothesis, more or less directly, in animals and humans. Despite the fact that many of these studies undermine the hypothesis, it remains extremely popular, both in the popular media and to a

    • by PolygamousRanchKid ( 1290638 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @07:22AM (#50581599)

      It's the calories stupid.

      In a Coke sponsored study, Coke Scientists concluded that calories don't make people fat. Marriage makes people fat. The Coke Scientists simply measured the waistlines of married and single people, and came to this obvious conclusion.

      • Marriage makes people fat. The Coke Scientists simply measured the waistlines of married and single people, and came to this obvious conclusion.

        What about fat people who aren't married?

    • by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @10:46AM (#50583159)
      I'm alarmed at the growing tendency for people to jump to conclusions on topics/conspiracy theories with popular support. Coke making donations to and providing grants for medical research companies, or even directly funding research into sugared beverages and obesity is not in and of itself evidence that they're trying to manipulate the research. If it is, you put Coke in an impossible damned if you do, damned if you don't position. If they do make the donations, you criticize them for trying to manipulate research results in their favor. If they don't make the donations, you criticize them for being greedy corporate bastards who won't even donate to scientific research relevant to their product.

      The donations themselves are not evidence that Coke has been trying to manipulate research results. If you want to support that hypothesis, you need to come up with specific incidents where Coke made the donations conditional on withholding or changing research results unfavorable to their product.

      Just because a majority of people want to believe this theory doesn't free you from the logical and ethical obligation to actually prove the claim. The person advocating the hypothesis always has the burden of proof.
      • Apparently you aren't familiar with the latest ad campaign by Coke that says you can drink as much choke as you want as long as you exercise and that exercise is more important than calories intake. I guess you missed that.
    • I wasn't born when the smoking controversy occurred.

      But I really wonder about the attitude of society in general towards such products.

      Does the average person know that coke is filled with calories that can make your fat? I'd adventure to say of course. This is doubly true for anyone bothering to read health studies.

      I'd love to venture back in time and see if people who were smoking actually thought it wasn't harmful. I'm not saying if they knew it caused a specific cancer or something, but that they were d

      • My father, who's 87, has smoked since he was 12. He started rolling his own and smoked Camels, sometimes two packs a day. Yeah he's one of those data points that contradict what we're being told and know but there he is still. There are things that are bad for us in the environment, it's just that the "evidence" points in different directions. Science is done, counter science or spin is done and in general the population is confused. I don't want to throw gasoline on a fire but look at climate change f

        • My father, who's 87, has smoked since he was 12. He started rolling his own and smoked Camels, sometimes two packs a day. Yeah he's one of those data points that contradict what we're being told and know but there he is still.

          A friend has done research on this. The latest indicates that your father likely has really, really good genes that have done a great job of protecting him from the ill effects... but that he'd still be better off if he hadn't smoked at all.

          And yeah, I'm waiting for the Cheeto Man ads. Pictures of attractive, skinny women eating big juicy burgers come close, though.

    • by HiThere ( 15173 )

      IIUC, while the calories are bad, fructose is specific in increasing the storage of fat and susceptibility to high blood pressure, diabetes, gout, etc. via several channels including degradation into uric acid. (See this month's Scientific American.)

      IOW, fructose is much worse at the same level of calories than sucrose. (To be honest, this last deduction is an extrapolation from the article, not something explicitly stated.)

      Experiments with rats have shown that a diet that would otherwise lead to high blo

  • And if you had found out: "Despite selling its products to literally billions of people across the globe (and making billions of dollars by doing so), Coca-Cola does not actively fund any analysis or research into the long-term health effects of its products or their ingredients, or assist in any community efforts to deal with potential negative consequences of using its products", would you be somehow less-alarmed? Personally, I'd find that to be a whole lot worse. Like, "reckless disregard for the well-be

    • Oh it's worse (Score:5, Interesting)

      by popo ( 107611 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @07:17AM (#50581577) Homepage

      Sodium benzoate causes cancer. They knew about it for years. When it looked like the whole story was about to break, they *silently* pull it and replace it with potassium benzoate.

      Does that cause cancer? The jury's still out, but the signs aren't good.

      Bottom line is, there's little doubt that KO pumped Americans full of carcinogens for decades. And the "new" alternative is highly suspect.

      • Bottom line is, there's little doubt that KO pumped Americans full of carcinogens for decades.

        Yet somehow, life expectancy continues to rise [google.com]...

      • by jo_ham ( 604554 )

        Sodium benzoate causes cancer. They knew about it for years. When it looked like the whole story was about to break, they *silently* pull it and replace it with potassium benzoate.

        Does that cause cancer? The jury's still out, but the signs aren't good.

        Bottom line is, there's little doubt that KO pumped Americans full of carcinogens for decades. And the "new" alternative is highly suspect.

        Sodium benzoate is not a carcinogen, either as the sodium salt or as the acid.

        It is possible for the benzoate ion to react with vitamin C to form benzene (which is a carcinogen), but which is present in such low concentrations that there's really no solid science to state that "coke is a carcinogen" (since many sodas also contain vitamin C). When beverages were tested, coke changed the recipe for anything that caused a positive test over a few ppb. Of course, this is a nefarious scheme because they didn't y

      • This is completely incorrect. Sodium Benzoate does NOT cause cancer. However, when mixed with Ascorbic acid (vitamin C), it can form benzene, which is a carcinogen. And Potassium Benzoate can also form benzene in the presence of Ascorbic acid.
      • Sodium Benzoate is NOT a carcinogen as claimed by popo, and as pointed out in several replies.
  • Oh, the irony!
  • Changes nothing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ramriot ( 1354111 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @07:05AM (#50581523)

    It does not matter how much they spend on neutral research for general healthcare, they spent money on 'targeted research' (I won't call it science) to the benefit of their own business interests.

    • by ledow ( 319597 )

      I'm sorry, but I blame the "scientists" that do this more than the companies that fund this.

      You're not a scientist if you answer only favours the highest bidder.

      • What if there are no other bidders other than financially interested parties?

        What then?

        See above for whether or not sodium benzoate causes cancer.

      • Public funding for science has been a low priority. University survival is dependent on keeping up with the Jones' on the publishing circuit. Your career is dependent on running around hat-in-hand looking for grants to keep the studies and papers going out the door, and to keep your grad students occupied.

        In this climate a scientist would be a fool to turn away funding from all but the shadiest benefactors.

  • by crunchy_one ( 1047426 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @07:10AM (#50581539)
    Keep in mind that the Coca-Cola company had a gross profit of $28,010,000,000.00 for fiscal year 2015 with a profit margin of 66%. $120,000,000.00 in grants amounts to .042% of their gross. For them, this is cheap window dressing. Do no mistake this for good corporate citizenship.
    • I'm not quite awake yet, I meant to type .042% of their gross profit.
      • by cdrudge ( 68377 )

        $28,010,000,000.00 for fiscal year 2015 with a profit margin of 66%. $120,000,000.00 in grants amounts to .042% of their gross.

        Keep trying. $120m/$28,010m = ~.00428 = .428%. Need to move that decimal place over one more position.

        • Yup. I got the fiscal year wrong, too. Should be 2014. Just had my first coffee of the day and now I see clearly...

          Factoring out my sleepy brain, the fact remains that Coca-cola Co. is sleazy.

          • by cdrudge ( 68377 )

            How does what Coke invests in "health research" compare to other major corporations? How much does Apple sponsor research into RF radiation concerns? How much does Dell or HP contribute to carpel tunnel or repetitive stress injury treatment? Does McDonalds or Taco Bell or as a apples-to-apples comparison, PepsiCo sponsor research?

      • Have a Coke.

        Even assuming the Coke grants come without any strings attached, I feel this is more like spreading deodorant to cover up the stink. If continues to market products known to be harmful to health, then all the good it does elsewhere comes to naught.

  • With public sponsorship of research dwindling, many governments are forcing researchers to seek industrial partnerships and to work towards commercialization rather than basic science only. Researchers in fields like food and diet must often partner with producers, so as long as they declare all funding sources I don't have a problem with it. The alternative is to increase public funding of research, but that would cut into leader's pet projects...

    • by Anonymous Coward

      > With public sponsorship of research dwindling, many governments are forcing researchers to seek industrial partnerships and to work towards commercialization rather than basic science only.

      So it's working as designed?

  • So, what is the cost of the public's consumption of Coca-Cola? I've got to believe that the cost in ulcers and diabetes alone is more than $120M/yr.

    • Remember too much white bread, wheat bread, cake, rice, oatmeal, and so forth will also cause diabeetus. So will generally getting fat.

      I've become more active lately, just slightly. I walk for 15-30 minutes per day to clear my head, while others are smoking. This has pushed my metabolism up so much that I eat 1000kcal Popeye's chicken dinners (the biscuit is diabeetus), 780kcal McDonalds breakfast, a fucking Whopper for dinner, and still had to add Sprite or Dr. Pepper back into my diet in 40oz quantit

  • by dr.Flake ( 601029 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @07:42AM (#50581679)

    Of course Coca Cola is the personification of "evil big food" and they will do whatever it takes to keep making money as water running from the tap. Its amazing how much money one can make from selling flavoured sugar water plus some advertising.

    But the negative effects of increased sugar intake is nothing new. For several years the anti-fructose movement has been making noise and has been showing increasing insight is the underlying mechanisms. Famous example spokesperson of this movement is Dr Lustig, and googling his name alone gives a boatload of references.

    But where is the response from society (not from some smart commercial brands), where is the education in schools, in children's TV programs, in popular scientific programs, in journals being read by large percentages of the population. And when will we start listening to this??!!

    We still buy all this processed junk, with the bright coloured labels promising everything and being "fat free". We as a society have to immediately start buying other food products. More "real" unprocessed foods, and please leave those products with added sugar packaged in plastic in the store. Spend more time buying, cooking, eating and ENJOYING this food.

    The industry will make whatever we buy. Self regulation from their side is an illusion.

    So WE need to change.

    • by JBMcB ( 73720 )

      For several years the anti-fructose movement has been making noise and has been showing increasing insight is the underlying mechanisms. Famous example spokesperson of this movement is Dr Lustig, and googling his name alone gives a boatload of references.

      An MD claiming a single chemical is mostly responsible for obesity? BS detector starts ticking up...

      https://www.sciencebasedmedici... [sciencebasedmedicine.org]
      http://blogs.scientificamerica... [scientificamerican.com]

      BS readings confirmed.

      • For several years the anti-fructose movement has been making noise and has been showing increasing insight is the underlying mechanisms. Famous example spokesperson of this movement is Dr Lustig, and googling his name alone gives a boatload of references.

        An MD claiming a single chemical is mostly responsible for obesity? BS detector starts ticking up...

        https://www.sciencebasedmedici... [sciencebasedmedicine.org]
        http://blogs.scientificamerica... [scientificamerican.com]

        BS readings confirmed.

        No,

        wrong way around.

        His idea:
        Fructose is causing metabolic syndrome and partly responsible for weight gain by sabotaging leptin response.
        He claims obesity isn't the problem. People don't die from fat, they die from metabolic syndrome.

        • by JBMcB ( 73720 )

          No,

          wrong way around.

          His idea:
          Fructose is causing metabolic syndrome and partly responsible for weight gain by sabotaging leptin response.

          Right - that's his idea. Hasn't been proven by any studies, though.

          There was one study that showed some correlation but, IIRC, it was poorly done and not replicable.

    • So WE need to change.

      And there's the rub. The average person will generally tend to be about as lazy as they can get away with and there are a lot of other problems on top of this. There are some people working multiple jobs and don't have the time to spend a lot of their day preparing their own meals in lieu of something else and the quick microwave dinner makes it easy for them to spend what time they do have on other pursuits. Then there are the people that live in the so-called food desserts where you can't easily acquire a

    • "We still buy all this processed junk, with the bright coloured labels promising everything and being "fat free". We as a society have to immediately start buying other food products" Good luck with that. Where do you go to buy it? My local grocery stores shelves are about 99% "processed junk" with high fructose corn syrup under 30 different names embedded in damn near everything. Sure, you can put a ton of effort into it and spend more to get 'organic' or whatever but selection is massively limited.
      • If you don't buy the other stuff, they will not make extra variants for you. Chicken Egg problem. Unfortunately the other party will never change unless you do.

        So, for tonight:
        Couscous, courgette, sun dried tomatoes, olives, feta, onion, paprika, small portion of ground meat, spices. 10 minutes tops.

        Tomorrow:
        Whole wheat pasta (penne), salmon (if necessary from tin, tastes worse) sweet anise, sour cream, onion, olive oil, peppers. The pasta takes 10 minutes, so i guess 15 min max.

        This sunday im making pumpk

    • A certain proportion of the population seems to be unable to control themselves. Whether it be tobacco, sugar, alcohol, fat or some other substance that isn't good for you in large quantities. This is where they make their money. The majority alcohol is bought by heavy drinkers [247wallst.com]. I would imagine that the same is true for products like Coke. I know some people who drink 6 cans a day of Coke. I'll buy a 12 pack and it will last me a couple months. You aren't going to convince the people who are consuming mas

    • by HiThere ( 15173 )

      You might read this month's Scientific American. There's an article in it about the evolution of the "lazy gene" which specifically points the finger at fructose, and points out a similar adaption in most primates, which suggests that the adaptation occurred quite awhile back. A few references to paleontology and suggestive fossils. A specific metabolic pathway. A suggestion that eating meat reinforces the effect of a diet high in fructose. Some associated effects (gout, high blood pressure, etc.). So

  • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @08:41AM (#50581983) Journal

    OK, I'm going to help you guys out. Give you something healthy, delicious and refreshing to drink that won't make you fat, ruin your teeth or cause you to grow a tumor the size of a pillbox hat on your head. Stay with me.

    1) Get a soda stream. They're cheap now, and I found mine at a garage sale. Staples, Target and others still sell the CO2 tanks, and if you're clever you can figure out how to get your own refilled on the cheap.

    2) When you make the soda, just leave it as plain carbonated water and stick it in the fridge. By the way, you can "overcharge" soda with a SodaStream so that the carbonation levels are much higher than regular pop. This is what I do because I like that carbonated "burn" you get. The SodaStream bottles have special caps so that the carbonation doesn't escape, so you can always have some good fizzy water at the ready when you want it.

    3) Brew up some green tea with a good amount of ginger. It can also be fruit-flavored for a little sweetness. When my wife makes jam, I save some of the fruit juice left over and put that in, too. Make the tea STRONG because it's gonna be your flavoring syrup for the drink you're making.

    4) Now this is the kicker: When the tea cools, shake some cayenne pepper on it and stir it in. This you have to do by taste because people tolerate different levels of hot. I know it sounds weird, but trust me. You gotta add the cayenne pepper to the flavoring mix (although one of my friends waits until after he's mixed the flavoring with the soda water to sprinkle the cayenne pepper, because he thinks he's a bad-ass, but really he ain't shit. I could totally kick his ass if I were 15 years younger. He also puts a little ginseng in the tea, but I don't do that because I don't have any trouble in that area, if you get my drift.

    5. When you're ready for a great drink, pour a nice glass of the soda water, and then pour a little of the tea/ginger/fruitjuice/cayenne pepper mix in and stir. It'll foam up a bit creating a nice little "head" in the glass. The flavoring mixture stores very well in the fridge, just shake it up when you're ready to add it to the soda water.

    I'm telling you, this stuff is like ginger ale with a hard-on. It's like Dr Pepper, if Dr Pepper were played by Peter Capaldi. You can drink it all day and it won't make you fat, and the ginger and cayenne pepper are healthy as hell. You'll doubt me, but hand-to-god, when I drink this stuff my sinus allergies get better. It's good for digestion and it will save you a ton of money over store-bought soda pop. I mean hundreds of dollars over the course of a year.

    Fuck Coke.

    • These days I drink maybe 10 soft drinks a year, but between it sounding a lot like ginger beer (real Aussie ginger beer, not the watery Jamaican stuff) and ESPECIALLY the bit about the sinuses (highly relevant to me today), you've just about sold me on it already.

      • Blenheim is like drinking fire and broken glass. It's brewed in South Carolina. It has an assload of sugar to make it palatable.
    • I'll take tap water anytime over Coke, although in some places, I'd pick the bottled variety.
    • nice story, bro
  • I am 53 and obese. Think Cartman from South Park large. I didn't get this way from drinking Coke and eating donuts. I got my excess weight from overeating and drinking lots of beer. I do enjoy a Coke now and then. While not a cure, it always helps a hangover. My point is, I don't care if Coke is good or bad for me because I only drink it once every couple of months when I feel like it. This obsession with demonizing anything that could possibly be bad for us is crazy. Do people abuse Coke, sure, just like I

    • I'm inclined to agree until coke/beer/doughnut/pie abusers get diabetes (or in fact any other weight/health related issue). Then on it does become my problem because I pay taxes which go in part to fund our national health service. Thus, if people could avoid abusing foods, they'd avoid the health issues and would thus avoid overburdening the NHS and thus save me some tax.

      Assuming you're an american, you're probably thinking this doesn't apply to you - but it does. There are no poor and impoverished health

  • The Romans used to say 'Where the teeth go, the bones follow'
  • I've used it to clean rust of metal. I thought it was a myth until I tried it and it work much better than I had expected. It's also a great grease remover! As for drinking it, blech - I can't understand how people can drink all this sugary shit and wonder why their health is slowly deteriorating.

    It's just another negative externality from the corporate pirates raiding society of all it's value.

    • by jo_ham ( 604554 )

      I've used it to clean rust of metal. I thought it was a myth until I tried it and it work much better than I had expected. It's also a great grease remover!
      As for drinking it, blech - I can't understand how people can drink all this sugary shit and wonder why their health is slowly deteriorating.

      It's just another negative externality from the corporate pirates raiding society of all it's value.

      Well of course - it's acidic.

      Other things that will clean rust off metal: freshly squeezed orange juice, vinegar, tomato ketchup.

      • by MrKaos ( 858439 )

        I've used it to clean rust of metal. I thought it was a myth until I tried it and it work much better than I had expected. It's also a great grease remover!

        Well of course - it's acidic.

        Other things that will clean rust off metal: freshly squeezed orange juice, vinegar, tomato ketchup.

        I soaked some pretty rusty suspension towers in coke and got great results. I have tried vinegar and it wasn't as effective. The pulp in the orange juice made the (smaller) sample part quite messy and it also wasn't as effective. I had high hopes for the tomato sauce (because I could smear it on and use less) however it evaporated too much and became gunk on the part.

        Coke however was pretty much perfect and it washed right off. It's phosphoric acid, from my understanding however I think it is the carbonated nature of the drink that keeps things moving perhaps creating a larger surface area. The rust turns into a black sludge.

        I noticed that ants did not go for the coke at all - which pretty much says it all.

  • The summary misrepresents the article. Coke disclosed the list to offset the idea that they were funding research to downplay obesity and Coke links.

    The list was released after the company’s chief executive, Muhtar Kent, promised to be transparent about its partnerships and support for scientific research related to obesity. The move was prompted by criticism that the company has used its vast resources to play down the role of Coke products in the spread of obesity ...

    Nowhere in the summary does it say that all the research it funded supported a specific conclusion. Rather, just it implies the opposite, that Coke funded everyone.

    “What I find most remarkable about this list is its length and comprehensiveness,” said Dr. Nestle, author of the book “Soda Politics.” “No organization, no matter how small, goes unfunded. Any scientist or dietitian who is willing to take Coca-Cola funding gets it.”

    The only problem with this list is the conflict of interest in taking funding from a beverage company to study the effects of the beverage in diets.

    Whoever wrote the summary, please read the articl

  • integrity of the scientific community is now.

Maybe you can't buy happiness, but these days you can certainly charge it.

Working...