We know that sugar-laden soda
can cause cavities. So why is
the American Academy of
Pediatric Dentistry accepting
financial support from
Coca-Cola?
BY ALLEN D. KANNER AND JOSHUA
GOLIN
John Ruby was
angry.
So outraged, in fact, that
the associate professor of
pediatric dentistry from the
University of Alabama at
Birmingham found himself hanging
a provocative poster on the
general bulletin board at the
American Academy of Pediatric
Dentistry’s annual meeting in
May 2003. The poster
disappeared, and when Ruby put
up another, he was told by the
executive director of AAPD to
take it down or be thrown out of
the conference. The poster
featured the familiar Coca-Cola
logo in a black circle with a
thick diagonal line across it,
Ghostbusters style. Across the
top Ruby had written “Coca-Cola,
Nutritional Trash” and had
provided information about the
high sugar content of the soda
and its high acidity, which can
rot teeth.1 Ruby was
protesting the $1 million grant
from Coca-Cola that AAPD, the
nation’s leading pediatric
dental association, had accepted
in March 2003.2
Along with many other
dentists, Ruby was concerned
about the spectacular jump in
soda intake among children and
adolescents that has occurred
over the past five decades.
Since 1950, per-capita soda
consumption in children has
increased by a factor of nearly
five.3 Many doctors
believe this rise in soda
consumption is contributing to
the rapid increase in obesity
and type 2 diabetes that has
been observed in American
children over the past two
decades.4 Recent
research suggests that soda
consumption is also contributing
to high blood pressure in
adolescents, especially
teenagers of color.5
Dentists, of course, are
concerned about soft drinks and
cavities, or caries.6
We first met Dr. Ruby when
our group, the Campaign for a
Commercial-Free Childhood, was
collecting signatures from
dentists for a letter asking
AAPD to return the grant from
Coca-Cola. In our letter to AAPD,
we noted that it was difficult
“to imagine a research funder
less appropriate for AAPD than
Coca-Cola, the world’s most
popular brand of soda.”7
We went on to say that the AAPD–Coca-Cola
partnership sends a message to
the American public that soda
drinks are not harmful; if they
were, surely pediatric dentists
wouldn’t team up with Coke. We
wondered if this message did not
fly in the face of recent policy
statements by the American
Dental Association (ADA) and
AAPD itself recommending that
soda intake be limited, because
drinking sugared beverages, as
AAPD put it, “contributes to the
initiation and progression of
dental caries.”8,
9
In short, we believed AAPD
was selling out. Despite its
protests to the contrary—AAPD
insisted it was not endorsing
any of Coca-Cola’s products—the
fact remained that Coke could
use the grant to counter claims
that it did not care about
children’s health. AAPD knew
Coke was likely to do this when
it signed on. But still, we were
curious: Did the rest of the
dental world share our opinion?
While gathering signatures
for our letter, we learned that
although many dentists were
appalled by the grant, a good
number of them were unwilling to
challenge AAPD publicly because
they feared retaliation. Dr.
Oliver Campbell, a 76-year-old
dentist in New Jersey who has
been in practice since 1959 and
who was at the same conference
attended by Dr. Ruby, e-mailed
us that “I got the feeling that
the dentists with university
affiliations did not want to
speak out. They were afraid that
their part-time university
teaching or research job would
be in jeopardy. . . . How sad.”
Dentists in private practice
told us they were worried about
losing referrals if they
publicly criticized the Coke
deal.
We also obtained a copy of a
letter, dated March 17, 2003, to
Dr. David Curtis, then president
of AAPD, from Dr. Robert Shaw,
then president of the Washington
State Dental Association, which
said, “Congratulations! In a
moment of bad judgment and/or
pure greed, you have managed to
undermine the efforts of the
state [dental] associations to
get soft drinks out of schools
by legislation or negotiation. .
. . The really sad thing about
this is that severe damage has
been done, and it is permanent.
Even if you backed out of the
deal today, you have forever
undermined the credibility of
the dental profession with
regard to soft drinks.”10
Dr. Shaw’s letter was
referring to Coca-Cola’s and
PepsiCo’s practice of signing
“pouring contracts” that give
beverage companies exclusive
rights to sell and market their
products in schools. Recently,
the Minnesota Dental Association
(MDA) vigorously supported a
bill to ban soda drinks from
schools, only to have the bill
killed at the last minute as the
result of successful maneuvering
by professional lobbyists from
Coke and Pepsi.11 As
MDA fought Coke, AAPD was taking
money from the company.
While AAPD was negotiating the
Coke deal, it issued a policy
statement on vending machines in
schools.12 We have
scrutinized this policy
statement, and we’re still not
clear if AAPD opposes pouring
contracts. In contrast, the ADA
takes a clear stand against
pouring contracts, and the
American Academy of Pediatrics
flat-out recommends that
“Pediatricians work to eliminate
sweetened drinks in school.”13,
14
AAPD has also adamantly
reassured its members and the
public that the Coke grant will
not scientifically or
professionally compromise the
association. Yet just after the
announcement of the grant, Dr.
John Rutkauskas, executive
director of AAPD, was quoted as
saying the role of soft drinks
in the development of caries is
“certainly not clear.”15
In October 2003, Dr. Joel Berg,
president of the AAPD
Foundation—which officially
accepted the Coke grant for AAPD—noted
on the National Public Radio
program Marketplace that “all
foods can cause decay. To blame
a product for the problem is
somewhat inappropriate, given
that it’s how the product is
used that can cause the
problem.”16 These
statements sound more like
public-relations spin from a
beverage company than the words
of highly visible dentists whose
priority is children’s oral
health.
It seems clear to us that
Coca-Cola’s funding of AAPD has
already negatively influenced
the organization, from silencing
dentists who oppose the deal to
lessening dentists’ credibility
with the public (according to
state dental organizations) to
spokespeople for AAPD spinning
scientific evidence so as to
cast doubt on whether soda
causes cavities. All of this
occurred before AAPD distributed
any of the research funds.
Further, we have been told by
dentists who wish to remain
anonymous that millions more in
grants might be forthcoming from
Coca-Cola in the years ahead.
Even the rumor of such pending
funding could subtly steer
researchers away from studying
the role of soda consumption in
the development of caries, and
toward other topics more likely
to be funded with Coca-Cola’s
money.
It was painful for us to
watch the turmoil that the Coke
deal had set off within AAPD, an
organization that typically is
on the side of children. It was
also difficult to witness the
convoluted rationalizations and
self-serving excuses that AAPD
leaders put forward to justify
their position, when basically
they just wanted the money. We
have seen the same process at
work when cash-strapped school
administrators and teachers deny
the harm of selling soda in
schools.
AAPD leaders and school
administrators are not bad
people; rather, we believe, they
are well-intentioned individuals
trying to support organizations
that are strapped for funds.
Moreover, Coca-Cola is fully
aware of the financial struggles
of such organizations. As we
have discovered, Coke is
continually hunting for
opportunities to sink its
financial talons into any
organization that might even
indirectly influence its ability
to sell soda at schools. It has
successfully pounced on a number
of occasions.
COKE ON THE HUNT
Last fall, Coke announced its
voluntary “Model Guidelines for
School Beverage Partnerships,” a
collection of woefully
inadequate suggestions that on
the surface make it appear as if
Coke is limiting its access to
children at school, but in
reality do nothing to restrict
soda sales to middle and high
school students, and permit
sugar-laden “sports drinks” to
be sold to younger students.17
Coke can also use these
voluntary guidelines to
forestall the implementation of
tough, legally binding
guidelines that would in fact
reduce or eliminate Coke’s
presence in schools.
Consider, for example, that
the first recommendation found
in the guidelines is that
schools continue to sell
soda—or, as they state it, that
schools “retain the ability to
generate needed revenues through
partnerships with beverage
providers.” Coca-Cola then
offers a list of venues it deems
appropriate for company logos in
schools: “scoreboards, menu
boards, coolers, student
publications, and materials to
promote educational activities,
health, wellness and nutritional
education, extracurricular
activities, physical activity,
and athletic events.” In other
words, Coke is suggesting that
its logo belongs on materials
about nutrition given to
children.
We should not be surprised
that Coca-Cola would produce
such self-serving and
ineffective guidelines. It is
surprising, however, that the
guidelines carry the endorsement
of several prominent educational
organizations, including the
American Association of School
Administrators, the National
Association of State Boards of
Education, the National
Association of Secondary School
Principals, and the National
Alliance of Black School
Educators.18
Surprising, that is, until one
realizes that over the past
several years, Coke has
sponsored, contributed to, or
funded programs for each of
these organizations.
Coke has also used its
considerable financial clout to
enlist prestigious children’s
organizations as allies. It not
only routinely contributes to
the National PTA, but until
recently also had one of its
senior vice presidents on the
NPTA’s board of directors.
Coca-Cola also collaborated with
the Boys and Girls Clubs of
America (BGCA) to produce a
videotape in which Coca-Cola is
prominently featured. This is a
curious collaboration, in light
of BGCA’s “Cavity-Free Zone”
program of oral-health
education.19
Coke’s affiliation with
national children’s groups gives
its products a veneer of
respectability far beyond what
most of its other marketing
efforts could accomplish. It
also defangs possible opponents:
If dentists, educators, the PTA,
and national children’s groups
are neutralized, who’s left?
THE BIGGER PICTURE
How do companies such as
Coca-Cola become so ruthless in
promoting their products—and
what can be done about it? To
answer these questions, we will
need to take a brief look at the
structure of the modern
corporation and the surprising
history of corporations in the
US. We anticipate that the
structural problems we will
mention will become of great
concern in the near future as
people come to realize their
enormous impact.
Joel Bakan, a professor of
law at the University of British
Columbia and an internationally
recognized legal authority on
corporations, notes in his
recent book, The Corporation
(now an excellent documentary
film), that, by law, CEOs are
mandated to put increasing the
company’s bottom line above all
other goals, and that “the
corporation can neither
recognize nor act upon moral
reasons to refrain from harming
others. Nothing in its legal
make-up limits what it can do to
others in pursuit of its selfish
ends, and it is compelled to
cause harm when the benefits of
doing so outweigh the costs.”20
Dr. Bakan is describing a
fundamental flaw in the deep
structure of modern
corporations—that they are
legally bound to pursue profit
regardless of the damage they
perpetrate. Taking this legal
mandate into account, we can say
that Coca-Cola is simply acting
the way it was designed to act.
Movements are growing, in the
US and elsewhere, to address the
structure of corporations. These
movements are building on
little-known facts about
corporate history. Corporations
in the US have always been
chartered (created) by state
governments, and always with the
mandate that they serve the
public interest. Fearing the
potential abusive power of
corporations, in the late 1700s
and into the 1800s, legislatures
set strict limits on corporate
activity, making it illegal for
corporations to own stock in
other corporations (no mergers
or acquisitions) or to
contribute to political
campaigns. In addition,
businesses could incorporate for
only limited periods of time,
perhaps 20 years, and could not
operate outside particular
locations or beyond narrowly
defined purposes. If a
corporation broke these laws or
any others, the state could
revoke its charter and shut it
down.21
Over the years, all of these
limitations except those
regarding state charters were
eliminated. In addition, in the
late 19th century, a California
court determined that
corporations were legal
“persons,” a bizarre ruling that
became the foundation for vastly
expanded corporate powers and
protections.22
To correct the deep
structural flaws that
characterize modern
corporations, many of the
historical limits described
above need to be reinstated and
corporate personhood revoked.
For example, had corporate
political activity been
prohibited, the Minnesota Dental
Association would probably have
succeeded in winning passage of
its bill limiting soda sales in
schools. And without legal
personhood, corporations could
no longer claim that when they
manipulate children through
marketing, they are exercising
their First Amendment “right” to
free speech.23 Thus,
one of the most effective ways
for parents to protect their
children from Coca-Cola’s
wide-ranging marketing ploys,
and from many other forms of
corporate abuse, is to work with
groups that are addressing these
larger structural issues (see
“For More Information” for a
list of such groups).
Parents can also take local
action. As members of the PTA,
they can work with their local
chapters to pressure the
National PTA to reject funding
from Coke. They can also
organize resistance to pouring
contracts at their children’s
schools, either through the PTA
or simply as concerned parents.
Writing letters to AAPD (we’ve
included the contact information
in “For More Information”)
protesting its acceptance of
funding from Coca-Cola, and
insisting it not accept future
funding, is a quick, easy, and
valuable action. So is educating
one’s dentist about the Coke
grant.
Sending children to school
with healthy drinks (not sodas
or sugar-laden fruit drinks) is
also helpful. So is limiting or
eliminating soda consumption at
home. But as worthwhile as these
actions are, the soda industry
would like parents to believe
that these individual steps are
the only proper ones for parents
to take, a stance that
conveniently relieves the
industry of any responsibility
for its role in promoting soda
consumption. Given what we have
just described—the subtle,
complex, and ubiquitous assault
on our schools engineered by
Coca-Cola—we hope it is clear
that collective as well as
individual action is necessary
to counter the far-flung
influence of the soda industry.
Our group, the Campaign for a
Commercial-Free Childhood, is
concerned about the vast amount
of marketing to which children
are exposed. Even as we write,
Coca-Cola and other corporations
are intensifying their marketing
to children, nationally and
internationally. Because of
children’s emotional and
cognitive immaturity, they are
far more vulnerable than adults
to the manipulative messages of
advertising. They are likely to
actually believe that “Things go
better with Coke,” or at least
not question the slogan, until
childhood obesity, diabetes,
high blood pressure, cavities,
and other soda-related health
problems have left their bitter
aftertaste.
NOTES
1. John Ruby, phone interview
with Allen Kanner (4 June 2004).
2. American Academy of Pediatric
Dentists, Partnership to Promote
Pediatric Dental Health (3 March
2003): www.aapd.org/hottopics/news.asp?NEWS_ID=210
3. American Dental Association,
“ADA Weighs
In on Vending Machines”
(February 2002):
www.ada.org/public/media/releases/0202_release02.asp
4. Ibid.
5. Margaret R. Savoca et al.,
“The Association of Caffeinated
Beverages with Blood Pressure in
Adolescents,” Archives of
Pediatrics and Adolescent
Medicine 158, no. 5 (May 2004):
473–477.
6. J. R. Pinkhan, “Soda Pop
Controversy/Conspir-acy,”
Journal of Dentistry for
Children 69, no. 3 (Sep–Dec
2002): 232.
7.
www.commercialexploitation.com/saynoto
coke/letter.htm
8. See Note 3.
9. American Academy of Pediatric
Dentists, “Policy Statement on
Beverage Vending Machines in
Schools” (May 2002).
10. Robert Shaw, letter to Allen
Kanner (17 March 2003).
11. Healthy Vending Coalition
press release, “Broad, Diverse
Coalition Formed to Support
Legislation Promoting Healthy
Choices in Minnesota School
Vending Machines” (3 March
2004); www.mmaonline.net/media/04.03.04HealthyVending.cfm
12. See Note 9.
13. See Note 3.
14. “Soft Drinks in Schools,”
Pediatrics 113, no. 1 (January
2004): 152–154.
15. Marian Burros, “Dental Group
Is Under Fire for Deal,” New
York Times (4 March 2003): A-16.
16. “Coke and Dentists,”
Marketplace, National Public
Radio (22 October 2003).
17. Coca-Cola, “Model Guidelines
for School Beverage Partnership”
(17 November 2003):
www2.coca-cola.com/ourcompany/hal_school_beverage_guidelines.pdf
18. Ben Feller, “Coca-Cola,
Education Groups Agree on
Guidelines for Drink Sales,”
Ledger-Enquirer (14 November
2003): www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/7264726.htm
19. www.bgca.org/programs/healthlife.asp
20. Joel Bakan, The Corporation:
The Pathological Pursuit of
Profit and Power (New York: Free
Press, 2004): 60.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid.
23. Thom Hartmann, Unequal
Protection: The Rise of
Corporate Dominance and the
Theft of Human Rights (Emmaus,
PA: Rodale Books, 2002).
FOR MORE INFORMATION
American Academy of Pediatric
Dentistry
Parents with concerns about
AAPD’s partnership with Coke may
contact AAPD president Neophytos
Savide and executive director
John Rutkauskas at American
Academy of Pediatric Dentistry,
211 East Chicago Avenue, Suite
700, Chicago, IL 60611-2663;
312.337.2169; www.aapd.org
Coca-Cola’s Business Practices
Corporate Accountability
International is leading a
campaign to stop Coca-Cola from
depleting groundwater supplies
in India and thus turning water
into an unaffordable luxury for
many communities (www.stopcorporateabuse.org).
The Campaign to Stop Killer Coke
has organized several successful
boycotts of Coke to protest the
treatment—including alleged
kidnappings and murders—of union
organizers at Coca-Cola bottling
plants in Colombia (www.corporatecam
paign.org/killer-coke).
Marketing to Children
The Campaign for a
Commercial-Free Childhood
(formerly Stop Commercial
Exploitation of Children) is a
national coalition of healthcare
professionals, educators,
advocacy groups, and concerned
parents who counter the harmful
effects of marketing to children
through action, advocacy,
education, research, and
collaboration among
organizations and individuals
who care about children. We
support the rights of children
to grow up—and the rights of
parents to raise them—without
being undermined by rampant
consumerism (www.commercialexploitation.com).
The Bigger Picture
CorpWatch counters corporate-led
globalization through education
and activism. It works to foster
democratic control over
corporations by building
grassroots globalization—a
diverse movement for human
rights, labor rights, and
environmental justice (www.corpwatch.org).
The International Forum on
Globalization is an alliance of
60 leading activists, scholars,
economists, researchers, and
writers. The IFG provides
analysis, joint activity, and
public education in response to
economic globalization
(www.ifg.org).
POCLAD (Program On Corporations,
Law, And Democracy) instigates
democratic conversations and
actions that contest the
authority of corporations to
govern (www.poclad.org).
Allen D. Kanner, PhD, is a
child,
family, and adult therapist in
Berkeley, California, and a
cofounder of the Campaign for a
Commercial-Free Childhood. He is
coeditor of Psychology and
Consumer Culture: The Struggle
for a Good Life in a
Materialistic World and
Ecopsychology: Restoring the
Earth, Healing the Mind. Along
with
his wife, Mary Gomes, PhD, he is
raising Cassidy, their newborn
daughter.
Joshua Golin, MA, is the action
coordinator for the Campaign for
a Commercial-Free Childhood and
is a graduate student in child
development and urban and
environmental policy
at Tufts University.