top of page

Industry influence: Coca-Cola truck

500 word summary of 'Happy corporate holidays from Coca-Cola' written by Robin Ireland and John Ashton (BMJ 2017; 356: i6833)

The tobacco industry used a range of marketing tactics to increase sales of cigarettes leading to increased smoking and increased associated health conditions such as cancer and emphysema. Fast food and soft drinks industries use similar tactics. Although fast food and soft drinks have not been directly associated with health conditions, increased regular consumption of high fat and high sugar food and drink have been associated with an increased risk of overweight and obesity as well as with comorbidities such as diabetes.

In recognition, in 2015, Public Health England (PHE) published a report stating that consuming high sugar drinks is high in school children and those from the most disadvantaged groups. PHE suggested that a tax on soft drinks could reduce consumption. In 2016, the UK government announced a soft drinks industry levy (SDIL), which will come into play in 2018, as part of the UK childhood obesity strategy.

To reduce the perceived impact of products on health, industries frame media debates. They also shape research, sponsor mega events and fund community sports activities . Such seemingly socially responsible behaviours are conducted in order to promote business interests and to shape public opinion. Therefore, PHE reported that the UK SDIL would only be successful if it substantially reduced opportunities for these activities. The Committee of Advertising Practice announced restrictions on food and drinks high in fat, salt and sugar to act as new protections to children.

Coca-Cola’s Christmas marketing efforts go into overdrive. Newspapers publish press releases about the Coca-Cola Christmas truck tour and TV channels and radio stations broadcast adverts that state how the truck tour is a Christmas tradition. Coca-Cola’s truck has become a well-recognised Christmas holiday brand.

In 2016, the Coca-Cola truck visited cities across England. Stops in the north-west of England, took place in the first week of December and included Greater Manchester, Lancaster, Liverpool and St Helens. Local newspapers covered the visits, with blog posts and images of the Christmassy truck scenes. Newspapers stated how you could get a free can of Coca-Cola if you visited.

Although the Coca-Cola truck visits sound harmless, the free cans given to the public contained at least 15.9g of sugar or 4 teaspoons- almost ¾ of the recommended daily allowance for adults. Such promotion is particularly concerning in NW England, because over 1/3 of 10 and 11 year olds are overweight or obese, and a similar percentage of 5 year olds have tooth decay, both factors associated with high sugar intake.

A balanced argument should be published in the media- free of oppressive corporate marketing and financial biases. In NW England, local public health departments tried to help reduce sugar consumption. However, tight budgets make widespread intervention efforts difficult. The Coca-Cola truck visits only worsened the problem, and so public health departments were not welcoming.

Ireland and Ashton reported that Food Active, wrote a letter of concern and got over 108 signatories to support their claims that Coca-Cola was not needed in the area as it highjacked Christmas and brought false gifts of bad teeth. Despite the highly concerning letter and the signatories, the letter was not covered in local media. Concerning since the Coca-Cola trucks visit was published so widely and suggests that the corporate voice is more important than that of public health directors.

Ireland and Ashton finish by stating that they think such marketing should be banned, and prompt readers to consider whether this form of marketing be banned given the growing evidence of the effect of unhealthy food and drink on children?

References included in the original article for further reading:

  • Nestle M. Soda politics: taking on big soda (and winning).Oxford University Press, 2015. Google Scholar

  • Public Health England. Sugar reduction: the evidence for action. Public Health England, 2015. Google Scholar

  • HM Revenue & Customs. Soft drinks industry levy. 2016. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/soft-drinks-industry-levy. Google Scholar

  • Committee of Advertising Practice. CAP Consultation: food and soft drink advertising to children. Regulatory statement. Committee of Advertising Practice, 2016. Google Scholar

  • Obesity Health Alliance. “It’s absolutely right to protect children from junk food marketing.” Our response to new CAP rules. 2016. http://www.obesityhealthalliance.org.uk/2016/12/08/absolutely-right-protect-children-junk-food-marketing-response-new-cap-rules/ Google Scholar

  • Kearns CE, Schmidt LA, Glantz SA. Sugar industry and coronary heart disease research: a historical analysis of internal industry documents. JAMA Intern Med2016; 356:1680-5. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.5394. pmid: 27617709. Google Scholar

  • Garde A, Rigby N. Going for gold—should responsible governments raise the bar on sponsorship of the Olympic Games and other sporting events by food and beverage companies? Common Law2012; 356:42-9. Google Scholar

  • Birmingham Food Council. Coca-Cola & its effects on us & the city. Birmingham Food Council, 2015. Google Scholar

  • Fareshare. Coca-Cola campaign gives festive boost to FareShare, 1 Nov 2016. http://www.fareshare.org.uk/coca-cola-christmas-campaign/ Google Scholar

  • Howard S. Selling Christmas—Coca Cola’s Christmas legacy, 2 Dec 2014. http://www.brightfive.com/pages/selling-christmas-coca-cola-s-christmas-legacy. Google Scholar

  • Public Health England. Public health outcomes framework. 2016.http://www.phoutcomes.info/search/obesity#pat/b/ati/102/par/E12000002. Google Scholar

  • Food Active. Our letter about “happy holidays.” 2016. http://foodactive.org.uk/happy-holidays-letter/ Google Scholar

  • Cairns G, Angus K, Hastings G, Caraher M. Systematic reviews of the evidence on the nature, extent and effects of food marketing to children. A retrospective summary. Appetite. 2013; 356:209-15.doi:10.1016/j.appet.2012.04.017 pmid:22561190. Google Scholar

bottom of page