Friday, 14 November 2014

Dietitians Association’s attack on Pete Evans’ backed Paleo diet fires up criticism

Dietitians Association’s attack on Pete Evans’ backed Paleo diet fires up criticism:



The Paleo diet

The Paleo diet
AN attack by the nation’s nutrition watchdog on one of the hottest diet trends has sparked a messy, months-long, social media food fight.
The Dietitians Association of Australia has enthusiastically warned Aussies off the popular Paleo diet which it has labelled “potentially dangerous”.
But wellness advocates — including celebrity chef Pete Evans — are biting back online, using social media to question the DAA’s agenda.
The DAA - “the country’s leading nutrition body” - released a press release in July saying the paleo diet — which advocates quitting grains, legumes and some dairy — is “not all it’s cracked up to be”.
But its statement sparked a social media backlash and baseless conspiracy theories that the DAA was influenced by its sponsors, which include the Grains & Legumes Nutrition CouncilDairy Australia, Kellogg’s, Nestle and Unilever (the maker of brands including Street’s Ice Cream and Flora margarine).
The Dietitians Association of Australia is sponsored by Arnotts, Nestle & Kelloggs. (Via @_sarahwilson_ I quit sugar for life book).Terrible
The press release, titled Don’t go the Paleo way, was issued within days of Evans wrapping up his seven-cityThe Paleo way Australian tour.
DAA CEO Claire Hewat said the scientific evidence to support eating like our Palaeolithic ancestors “just doesn’t stack up” and slated the studies.
“Some proponents of ‘paleo’ suggest we avoid all grains, legumes, certain dairy products, conventionally raised meats, non-organic produce, and genetically modified and processed foods. This simply isn’t practical for many Australians,” she said.
“Australians eat from a range of foods from the entire food supply and the reality is that includes many processed foods, so we can’t ignore this part of the food supply.
“We all eat, and so to a certain extent, we know what food makes us feel good. But rather than getting on the latest fad diet bandwagon, I urge Australians to become familiar with the Australian Dietary Guidelines (ADGs) and to seek expert nutrition advice from an Accredited Practising Dietitians.”
"The Dieticians Association of Australia’s recent conference was sponsored by Nestle, Coca-Cola and Pepsico." http://tinyurl.com/ny7hlqj 
A lamb burger ... On the menu at paleo Cafe in Townsville, Queensland. Picture: Fiona Har
A lamb burger ... On the menu at paleo Cafe in Townsville, Queensland. Picture: Fiona Harding / News Corp AustraliaSource: News Corp Australia
But Evans says the DAA’s arguments against Paleo eating are weak.
“They say it is expensive, which I can prove it isn’t. They also say it is hard, which I can prove it isn’t,” he said.
“I don’t believe that the DAA fully understand the paleo way of eating. They think it is high in protein and low in nutrients. This is just not true.
“They keep on hanging their hats on that it’s about what and how cavemen ate, which is not what the paleo way is about either. They keep on attacking it saying that this can never be the case — which is obvious, so it’s a moot point anyway, but they won’t let it go.”
My two cents on the Dieticians Association of Australia media release against the paleo diet: http://natashalutrov.com/blog/to-paleo-or-not-to-paleo 
The DAA this month published a three-part series on the diet’s merits, practicality and cost, as well as a position statement.
But it’s the DAA’s insistence that processed food can form part of a healthy diet that’s made Evans more than angry.
The 41-year-old, who gained a health coach qualification from New York’s Institute of Integrative Nutrition, has told his 320,000-plus Facebook fans that the DAA has ignited a “raging fire” in his belly.
“Why does the DAA and Heart Foundation have financial ties to multinational processed food corporations that litter the supermarket shelves with so-called ‘healthy foods’?” he wrote.
A DAA spokeswoman told News Corp Australia the organisation is committed to “being transparent and maintaining independent views”.
The DAA would not provide a breakdown of funds received from the food industry last financial year.
“This information is commercial in confidence,” she said.
“Revenue from DAA’s Corporate Partnerships makes up a small percentage of the Association’s overall annual income.”
According to its most recent annual report, it represents about 15 per cent of its income and is its third largest revenue source at $661,000 (after membership and conference/seminar fees).
Did you know that The Dieticians Association of Australia (DAA) is sponsored by Arnott’s, Nestle and Unilever? http://bit.ly/TkgN15 


Evans acknowledged these sponsorships may not affect the DAA’s nutritional advice.
“Whatever the case, it sits in the same category as research studies that are sponsored by the food that they’re claiming to have a benefit. You hope that there is no bias ” he said.
“DAA should be about real, whole food, in the true sense of the word and they should find other sponsors like cooking utensils, equipment and appliances.”
The membership body rejected claims its nutritional advice was influenced by commercial funding.
“DAA’s nutrition advice is based on the (ADGs) and also specific evidence for the nutritional management of medical conditions,” it said in a statement to News Corp Australia.
“DAA believes in working with all sectors — including the food industry — to achieve our mission. We can reach and influence more people in this way.
View image on Twitter
My latest letter to the editor - this time in the Herald Sun. Sticking up for @DAA_feed and @HeartAust
“DAA maintains its independence when working with Corporate Partners. We have a number of protections in place, such as binding legal contracts (which protect the independence of both organisations), robust and transparent policies and procedures ... and a risk assessment process before undertaking any partnership.”
The DAA said it did not endorse branded products and or participate in activities that may be perceived as an endorsement.
However, it allows food industry bodies such as the Egg Nutrition Council, to sponsor its national conferences.
Attack on Paleo diet backfired ... DAA’s CEO Claire Hewat.
DAA’s CEO Claire Hewat thinks the Paleo diet is not all its cracked up to be. Source: News Limited
Followed a Paleo diet for more than three years ... celebrity chef, Pete Evans. Picture:
Followed a Paleo diet for more than three years ... celebrity chef, Pete Evans. Picture: News Corp Australia Source:News Corp Australia
“Support from our partners allows us to better provide relevant and high quality Continuing Professional Development for our members.
“Our partners have opportunities to attend DAA conferences and some opportunities to communicate with our members.
“Dietitians are professionals who are able to assess information and make informed decisions. We do not wish to censor our members’ access to information. Such information can be a useful way for dietitians to stay up-to-date with companies and products.”
The DAA, which represents about 5000 Accredited Practising Dietitians, says the criticism is a storm in a tea cup.
It says there is no conflict of interest arising from these partnerships and it is not concerned about any false perception of a conflict. It also says it doesn’t need the sponsors to stay afloat.
“No, however as DAA is a not-for-profit membership organisation, the funds provide opportunities for all members, particularly where costs for conference venues would otherwise be preclusive.”
If you are, do... http://fb.me/JBIuyT4K 
But the DAA may possibly be regretting its stance on the Paleo diet and subsequent press release.
After being contacted by News Corp Australia about the Paleo diet the DAA posted this message to its members:
“ATTENTION MEMBERS: DAA members will be aware of criticism of the Association and our members through social media by high-profile advocates of the Paleo diet. We have developed a clear Position Statement in response. While we will continue to monitor this issue, we do not wish to add more ‘oxygen’ to this by continuing to respond. With this in mind, DAA cautions members against further engaging in this issue through social media. Please consider that posting or commenting through social media may actually be creating. And as with all interactions, as professionals, DAA members must be conscious of the DAA Code of Professional Conduct and Statement of Ethical Practice.”
View image on Twitter
Happy Friday - it's World Egg Day! @AustralianEggs

The DAA also issued a Position Statement saying “DAA is disappointed that our Association and our members are being attacked by vocal advocates of the Paleo diet. Our members work hard to make a real difference in people’s lives by helping and supporting them to eat better food and be healthier, and working on policy and product development to improve the food supply.
“Accredited Practising Dietitians (APDs) have years of university study behind them. In support of this, the APD credential is the only nutrition credential recognised by the Australian Government. As APDs, we base our decisions and advice on scientific fact. That means that in a world where ‘diets’ have become ‘trendy’ and may come and go, our advice is solid and dependable.

Thursday, 13 November 2014

Swisse Vitamins highlights the failure of industry self-regulation

Swisse Vitamins highlights the failure of industry self-regulation







Swisse Vitamins Pty Ltd has been in the news recently over their Federal Court action to suppress a determination of the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Complaint Resolution Panel (CRP) about a number of their products. And now a new marketing campaign by the company has highlighted the limitations of the complementary medicines industry’s self-regulation.
After investigating several complaints, the CRP found the promotion of a number of Swisse products was misleading, had not been verified or raised unwarranted expectations.
The CRP requested Swisse pull promotion that claimed certain products were “clinically proven” or “independently tested”, as well as its “Tired? Stressed? You’ll feel better on Swisse” tagline. The matter is currently awaiting judgement while the CRP determination remains suppressed.
Yesterday, Swisse caused more controversy by sending an e-mail to subscribers of an online GP educational service (ThinkGP) offering the Swisse Practitioner range of premium quality vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and herbs.
The e-mail noted, “Swisse Practitioner has been specifically created for, and is exclusive to practitioners. Incorporating Swisse’s high-quality formulas, the ingredients used have been carefully selected based on clinical, scientific and traditional evidence. Upon your recommendation, patients can only purchase Swisse Practitioner online or via your practice should you choose to on-sell.”
It went on to say, “For those who on-sell full sized Swisse Practitioner products, Swisse will sponsor the full cost for you or one of your staff members to complete an online course in Health and Complementary Medicine by the National Institute of Integrative Medicine (NIIM), valued at $675”.
Why the controversy? First of all, this offer contained a $675 financial inducement to encourage general practitioners to specifically recommend the products of a particular company. Second, encouraging GPs to “on-sell” products to patients (presumably at a lucrative mark-up) runs the risk of encouraging unnecessary or inappropriate prescribing. It also violates the traditional (read ethical) separation of prescribing from dispensing.
This promotion would clearly violate section 9.12: of Medicines Australia’s self-regulatory code of conduct, which says, “No gift, benefit in kind or pecuniary advantage shall be offered or given to healthcare professionals or to administrative staff as an inducement to recommend, prescribe, dispense or administer a Company’s product(s)”.
But Swisse is not a member of Medicines Australia, the industry body for pharmaceutical companies. They’re a member of the Complementary Health Care Council of Australia(CHC).
Neither the existing CHC code of practice for marketing nor their latest “consultation draft code” contains a clause resembling the one in Medicines Australia code.
This highlights the problem that the Australian government’s Working Group on Promotion of Therapeutic Products (of which I am a member) was set up to resolve.
The relationship between health-care professionals and therapeutic goods companies is governed by industry and professional codes of conduct or practice rather than by government regulation. Current codes vary in their definitions, member obligations, scope of application, enforcement and penalties.
The Working Group recommended that each therapeutic industry sector code include provisions addressing a number of common operational areas, such as gifts and offers like the one Swisse is making. We specifically noted that promotional activities should not offer inappropriate inducements.
It also raises interesting questions about why the consultation draft of CHC’s code, which is meant to take into account the Working Party’s recommendations, leaves out any mention of inappropriate inducements. And why Swisse is offering them.
The CHC code’s section 4.1.1 merely says: “Members should not engage in any unfair or unconscionable conduct or commercial practice”.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has a guideline on unconscionable conduct that states it can involve the use of “undue influence, pressure or unfair tactics”.
I have submitted a complaint to the CHC arguing that the Swisse offer of a $675 online course for practitioners who on-sell Swisse Practitioner products subjects practitioners to “undue influence, pressure or unfair tactics”. It’s especially significant because such conduct is not allowed by Medicines Australia’s code.
Encouraging GPs to “on-sell” products to patients is likely to produce unnecessary or inappropriate prescribing. And that it violates the ethical separation of prescribing from dispensing.
The Complaint Resolution Committee of the CHC should determine whether Swisse have breached section 4.1.1 of their code of practice. If the committee finds this is so, Swisse should be required to send an e-mail retracting their offer to all practitioners who received the original e-mail, explaining the retraction is because of a CHC code breach.
What’s more, Swisse should be fined the maximum amount applicable ($20,000) and the determination be published on the CHC website. The CHC should add a section to their code of practice forbidding inducements, reflecting Medicines Australia’s effort, and increase the maximum penalties available from $20,000 to at least $200,000.
News about companies offering inducements can erode consumer trust (and rightly so) in both the company and the practitioners who suggest their products. It’s only when industry bodies can make and police stricter rules that self-regulation can be said to be a success.

Wednesday, 12 November 2014

The Dark Side of Vitaminwater | John Robbins

The Dark Side of Vitaminwater | John Robbins:

Now here's something you wouldn't expect. Coca-Cola is being sued by a non-profit public interest group, on the grounds that the company's vitaminwater products make unwarranted health claims. No surprise there. But how do you think the company is defending itself?

In a staggering feat of twisted logic, lawyers for Coca-Cola are defending the lawsuit by asserting that "no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking vitaminwater was a healthy beverage."
Does this mean that you'd have to be an unreasonable person to think that a product named "vitaminwater," a product that has been heavily and aggressively marketed as a healthy beverage, actually had health benefits?
Or does it mean that it's okay for a corporation to lie about its products, as long as they can then turn around and claim that no one actually believes their lies?
In fact, the product is basically sugar-water, to which about a penny's worth of synthetic vitamins have been added. And the amount of sugar is not trivial. A bottle of vitaminwater contains 33 grams of sugar, making it more akin to a soft drink than to a healthy beverage.
Is any harm being done by this marketing ploy? After all, some might say consumers are at least getting some vitamins, and there isn't as much sugar in vitaminwater as there is in regular Coke.
True. But about 35 percent of Americans are now considered medically obese. Two-thirds of Americans are overweight. Health experts tend to disagree about almost everything, but they all concur that added sugars play a key role in the obesity epidemic, a problem that now leads to more medical costs than smoking.
How many people with weight problems have consumed products like vitaminwater in the mistaken belief that the product was nutritionally positive and carried no caloric consequences? How many have thought that consuming vitaminwater was a smart choice from a weight-loss perspective? The very name "vitaminwater" suggests that the product is simply water with added nutrients, disguising the fact that it's actually full of added sugar.
The truth is that when it comes to weight loss, what you drink may be even more important than what you eat. Americans now get nearly 25 percent of their calories from liquids. In 2009, researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health published a report in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, finding that the quickest and most reliable way to lose weight is to cut down on liquid calorie consumption. And the best way to do that is to reduce or eliminate beverages that contain added sugar.
Meanwhile, Coca-Cola has invested billions of dollars in its vitaminwater line, paying basketball stars, including Kobe Bryant and Lebron James, to appear in ads that emphatically state that these products are a healthy way for consumers to hydrate. When Lebron James held his much ballyhooed TV special to announce his decision to join the Miami Heat, many corporations paid millions in an attempt to capitalize on the event. But it was vitaminwater that had the most prominent role throughout the show.
The lawsuit, brought by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, alleges that vitaminwater labels and advertising are filled with "deceptive and unsubstantiated claims." In his recent 55-page ruling, Federal Judge John Gleeson (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York), wrote, "At oral arguments, defendants (Coca-Cola) suggested that no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking vitamin water was a healthy beverage." Noting that the soft drink giant wasn't claiming the lawsuit was wrong on factual grounds, the judge wrote that, "Accordingly, I must accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true."
I still can't get over the bizarre audacity of Coke's legal case. Forced to defend themselves in court, they are acknowledging that vitaminwater isn't a healthy product. But they are arguing that advertising it as such isn't false advertising, because no could possibly believe such a ridiculous claim.
I guess that's why they spend hundreds of millions of dollars advertising the product, saying it will keep you "healthy as a horse," and will bring about a "healthy state of physical and mental well-being."
Why do we allow companies like Coca-Cola to tell us that drinking a bottle of sugar water with a few added water-soluble vitamins is a legitimate way to meet our nutritional needs?
Here's what I suggest: If you're looking for a healthy and far less expensive way to hydrate, try drinking water. If you want to flavor the water you drink, try adding the juice of a lemon and a small amount of honey or maple syrup to a quart of water. Another alternative is to mix one part lemonade or fruit juice to three or four parts water. Or drink green tea, hot or chilled, adding lemon and a small amount of sweetener if you like. If you want to jazz it up, try one-half fruit juice, one-half carbonated water.
If your tap water tastes bad or you suspect it might contain lead or other contaminants, get a water filter that fits under the sink or attaches to the tap.
And it's probably not the best idea to rely on a soft drink company for your vitamins and other essential nutrients. A plant-strong diet with lots of vegetables and fruits will provide you with what you need far more reliably, far more consistently -- and far more honestly.

The Dark Side of Vitaminwater | John Robbins

The Dark Side of Vitaminwater | John Robbins:

Now here's something you wouldn't expect. Coca-Cola is being sued by a non-profit public interest group, on the grounds that the company's vitaminwater products make unwarranted health claims. No surprise there. But how do you think the company is defending itself?

In a staggering feat of twisted logic, lawyers for Coca-Cola are defending the lawsuit by asserting that "no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking vitaminwater was a healthy beverage."
Does this mean that you'd have to be an unreasonable person to think that a product named "vitaminwater," a product that has been heavily and aggressively marketed as a healthy beverage, actually had health benefits?
Or does it mean that it's okay for a corporation to lie about its products, as long as they can then turn around and claim that no one actually believes their lies?
In fact, the product is basically sugar-water, to which about a penny's worth of synthetic vitamins have been added. And the amount of sugar is not trivial. A bottle of vitaminwater contains 33 grams of sugar, making it more akin to a soft drink than to a healthy beverage.
Is any harm being done by this marketing ploy? After all, some might say consumers are at least getting some vitamins, and there isn't as much sugar in vitaminwater as there is in regular Coke.
True. But about 35 percent of Americans are now considered medically obese. Two-thirds of Americans are overweight. Health experts tend to disagree about almost everything, but they all concur that added sugars play a key role in the obesity epidemic, a problem that now leads to more medical costs than smoking.
How many people with weight problems have consumed products like vitaminwater in the mistaken belief that the product was nutritionally positive and carried no caloric consequences? How many have thought that consuming vitaminwater was a smart choice from a weight-loss perspective? The very name "vitaminwater" suggests that the product is simply water with added nutrients, disguising the fact that it's actually full of added sugar.
The truth is that when it comes to weight loss, what you drink may be even more important than what you eat. Americans now get nearly 25 percent of their calories from liquids. In 2009, researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health published a report in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, finding that the quickest and most reliable way to lose weight is to cut down on liquid calorie consumption. And the best way to do that is to reduce or eliminate beverages that contain added sugar.
Meanwhile, Coca-Cola has invested billions of dollars in its vitaminwater line, paying basketball stars, including Kobe Bryant and Lebron James, to appear in ads that emphatically state that these products are a healthy way for consumers to hydrate. When Lebron James held his much ballyhooed TV special to announce his decision to join the Miami Heat, many corporations paid millions in an attempt to capitalize on the event. But it was vitaminwater that had the most prominent role throughout the show.
The lawsuit, brought by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, alleges that vitaminwater labels and advertising are filled with "deceptive and unsubstantiated claims." In his recent 55-page ruling, Federal Judge John Gleeson (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York), wrote, "At oral arguments, defendants (Coca-Cola) suggested that no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking vitamin water was a healthy beverage." Noting that the soft drink giant wasn't claiming the lawsuit was wrong on factual grounds, the judge wrote that, "Accordingly, I must accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true."
I still can't get over the bizarre audacity of Coke's legal case. Forced to defend themselves in court, they are acknowledging that vitaminwater isn't a healthy product. But they are arguing that advertising it as such isn't false advertising, because no could possibly believe such a ridiculous claim.
I guess that's why they spend hundreds of millions of dollars advertising the product, saying it will keep you "healthy as a horse," and will bring about a "healthy state of physical and mental well-being."
Why do we allow companies like Coca-Cola to tell us that drinking a bottle of sugar water with a few added water-soluble vitamins is a legitimate way to meet our nutritional needs?
Here's what I suggest: If you're looking for a healthy and far less expensive way to hydrate, try drinking water. If you want to flavor the water you drink, try adding the juice of a lemon and a small amount of honey or maple syrup to a quart of water. Another alternative is to mix one part lemonade or fruit juice to three or four parts water. Or drink green tea, hot or chilled, adding lemon and a small amount of sweetener if you like. If you want to jazz it up, try one-half fruit juice, one-half carbonated water.
If your tap water tastes bad or you suspect it might contain lead or other contaminants, get a water filter that fits under the sink or attaches to the tap.
And it's probably not the best idea to rely on a soft drink company for your vitamins and other essential nutrients. A plant-strong diet with lots of vegetables and fruits will provide you with what you need far more reliably, far more consistently -- and far more honestly.

Lawsuit Over Deceptive Vitaminwater Claims to Proceed ~ Newsroom ~ News from CSPI ~ Center for Science in the Public Interest

Lawsuit Over Deceptive Vitaminwater Claims to Proceed ~ Newsroom ~ News from CSPI ~ Center for Science in the Public Interest:



Lawsuit Over Deceptive Vitaminwater Claims to Proceed


Court Finds Coke in Violation of Various FDA Regs and Denies Its Motion to Dismiss the Lawsuit
July 23, 2010
WASHINGTON—A federal judge has denied Coca-Cola’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit over what the Center for Science in the Public Interest says are deceptive and unsubstantiated claims on the company’s “vitaminwater” line of soft drinks. The company claims that vitaminwater variously reduces the risk of chronic disease, reduces the risk of eye disease, promotes healthy joints, and supports optimal immune function, and uses health buzz words such as “defense,” “rescue,” “energy,” and “endurance” on labels.

Photo Credit: Jeff Cronin
Vitaminwater is hardly a health drink with 33 grams of sugar in each 20-ounce bottle.
Besides denying Coca-Cola’s motion to dismiss, the ruling contains other bad omens for the company. Judge John Gleeson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York found that the company’s use of the word “healthy” violates the Food and Drug Administration’s regulations on vitamin-fortified foods. The FDA’s so-called “Jelly Bean” rule prohibits companies from making health claims on junk foods that only meet various nutrient thresholds via fortification. The judge also found that vitaminwater’s claim on the “focus” flavor of vitaminwater that it “may reduce the risk of age-related eye disease” runs afoul of FDA regulations.
The judge also took note of the fact that the FDA frowns upon names of products that mention some ingredients to the exclusion of more prominent ingredients such as, in the case of vitaminwater, added sugar. The names of the drinks, along with other statements on the label, “have the potential to reinforce a consumer’s mistaken belief that the product is comprised of only vitamins and water,” Gleeson wrote.
“In sum, plaintiffs’ allegations sufficiently state a claim that defendants have violated FDA regulations by making health claims about vitaminwater even though it does not meet required minimum nutritional thresholds, by using the word ‘healthy’ in implied nutrient content claims even though vitaminwater’s fortification does not comply with FDA policy, and by using a product name that references only two of vitaminwater’s ingredients, omitting the fact that there is a key, unnamed ingredient [sugar] in the product,” Gleeson continued.
“For too long, Coca-Cola has been exploiting Americans’ desire to eat and drink more healthfully by deceiving them into thinking that vitaminwater can actually prevent disease,” said CSPI litigation director Steve Gardner. “In fact, vitaminwater is no more than non-carbonated soda, providing unnecessary added sugar and contributing to weight gain, obesity, diabetes, and other diseases. We look forward to representing all Americans whom Coke has deceived.”
The judge also rejected Coke’s argument that disclosing sugar content on Nutrition Facts labels eliminates the possibility that consumers may be misled into thinking the product has only water and vitamins, and little or no sugar. Gleeson cited a similar case involving deceptive fruit imagery on packages for Gerber’s Fruit Juice Snacks, which are mostly corn syrup and sugar. That court held that “reasonable consumers should [not] be expected to look beyond misleading representations on the front of the box to discover the truth from the ingredient list in small print on the side of the box.” Vitaminwater has 33 grams of sugar in each 20-ounce bottle.
The judge excluded one group of New Jersey-based plaintiffs from the case but otherwise rejected Coke’s arguments to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, paving the way for the plaintiffs’ lawyers to ask to take depositions of Coca-Cola executives, to ask for discovery of key vitaminwater marketing documents, and to seek certification as a class action. Besides CSPI’s litigation unit, Reese Richman LLP and Whatley Drake & Kallas, LLC are representing the plaintiffs. Michael Reese of Reese Richman and CSPI’s Gardner argued in court for the plaintiffs.
CSPI is also on the verge of suing McDonald’s over its use of toys to market unhealthful foods directly to young children. In previous cases, CSPI has won a major pre-lawsuit settlement agreement improving the nutritional quality of the foods Kellogg markets to children, and a settlement refunding millions of dollars to consumers who were deceived by the marketing of Airborne, a dietary supplement. CSPI is also in court in another case against Coca-Cola over deceptive claims by the company that its Enviga green-tea-flavored soft drink has “negative calories,” thus promoting weight loss. 

Get Updates Via Email

Journalists can receive CSPI news releases via email.
Not a journalist?
Sign Up for Email Now
NAH

NAH

Subscribe Now

Subscribe Now »

Subscribe Today and Save!

In Recent Issues


Cover Story: 1 in 8: What You May Not Know About Breast Cancer

Special Feature: Soy Oh Soy: Is It Really Bad For You?

Brand-Name Rating: Pasta Sauce

NAH
Subscribe Now

Coca Cola is Being Sued Over 'Vitamin Water' Health Claims

Coca Cola is Being Sued Over 'Vitamin Water' Health Claims

Written by PrintE-mail
Members of the health movement are often on the lookout for healthy beverages. Water is not particularly flavorful, and this has given rise to a plethora of health drink scams. Flavored water has existed for well over a decade, and it continues to fool some people into believing that they are getting all of the benefits of spring water, with added flavors. Campbell's V8 came reconstituted more recently, adding mysterious "natural flavors" and reconstituted juices. When green tea became popular, companies like Lipton jumped on the new trend by delivering green teas containing unknown "natural flavors", along with DNA-damaging sodium benzoate, sodium hexametaphosphate, and of course, artificial colors.
Coca Cola has been pushing Vitamin Water for some time. This health scam contains 33 grams of refined sugar, which equates to around 8 teaspoons (about 3 tablespoons). That is not far from a regular can of coke, which has 39 grams. Synthetic vitamins are then added to make the drink healthy. As such, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) filed a lawsuit against Coca Cola for making ridiculous health claims about its chemically engineered sugar water.
On the bottles, Coca Cola Company makes the unapproved (and bogus) health claims that the drinks prevent chronic diseases, reduce the risks of eye diseases, promotes healthy joints, and supports optimal immune function. The sugar inflammation and the fact that these drinks cause the depletion of real nutrients will wreak havoc upon those who are duped into drinking it.
Notice that the F.D.A. has not sent any warning letters, or commenced armed raids against the Coca Cola Corporation yet, as is so common with legitimate health claims about nutrition. Instead, the only regulation for Coca Cola is privately funded by a non-profit consumer advocacy group.
According to The Huffington Post, the Coca Cola company attempted to defend itself by asserting that, "no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking Vitamin Water was a healthy beverage". Did you catch that slight-of-hand? The company responded by implying that it is ridiculous to believe that vitamins can improve health. Did they not realize that this is an admission of the own dishonest marketing, since their own vitamin-enhanced water was previously said to be "healthier" than regular water before the lawsuit began?
It is irrational to trust the marketing claims of Coca-a-Cola, particularly on issues of health. They are yet another company that places poisonous aspartame inside diet drink cans that already have a hidden lining of transparent BPA plastic. All of their drink products contain B.P.A., by the way. They continues using carcinogenic aspartame despite the fact that this "calorie free" poison has been proven to cause weight gain. They sell regular tap water in bottles (Dasani), whilst giving customers the illusion that they are making health-conscious decisions. They even ran a "Say no to H20!" campaign that advised people to drink soft drinks instead of water. For health reasons, of course.
We are opposed to all forms of deception, but it is especially despicable when those who are trying to take care of their health are being intentionally baited into harming themselves.