Criticism of Coca-Cola

Criticism of Coca-Cola has arisen from various groups, concerning a variety of issues, including health effects, environmental issues, and business practices. The Coca-Cola Company, its subsidiaries and products have been subject to sustained criticism by both consumer groups and watchdogs, particularly since the early 2000s.

Products

Caffeine

Main article: United States v. Forty Barrels & Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola

In 1916, there was a federal suit under which the government unsuccessfully attempted to force The Coca-Cola Company to remove caffeine from its products.

Bottles

Main article: Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.

In 1944, Escola was a waitress in a restaurant. She was putting away glass bottles of Coca-Cola when one of the bottles spontaneously exploded in her hand. She successfully argued that the company was liable.

Health effects

A link has been shown between long-term regular cola intake and osteoporosis in older women (but not men). This was thought to be due to the presence of phosphoric acid, and the risk was found to be the same for caffeinated and noncaffeinated colas, as well as the same for diet and sugared colas.
In 2016, a Framingham Heart Study published by the American Heart Association's journal Circulation showed daily drinkers of fizzy drinks which contain sugar, suffered a 30% increase in fat linked to diabetes and heart disease which the researchers said reinforced existing advice to minimise sugar sweetened drinks.

Liverpool City Council started a campaign against sugary drinks in May 2016. The campaign entitled “Is your child’s sweet tooth harming their health?”, names Lucozade as the worst offender, with 62 grammes of sugar in a 500 ml bottle, followed by Coca-Cola. Posters will be displayed in doctors' surgeries and hospitals.

Pesticide contamination

In 2003, the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), a non-governmental organisation in New Delhi, said aerated waters produced by soft drinks manufacturers in India, including multinational giants PepsiCo and Coca-Cola, contained toxins including lindane, DDT, malathion and chlorpyrifos — pesticides that can contribute to cancer and a breakdown of the immune system. Tested products included Coke, Pepsi, and several other soft drinks (7Up, Mirinda, Fanta, Thums Up, Limca, Sprite), many produced by The Coca-Cola Company.

CSE found that the Indian produced Pepsi's soft drink products had 36 times the level of pesticide residues permitted under European Union regulations; Coca-Cola's 30 times. CSE said it had tested the same products in the US and found no such residues.

Coca-Cola and PepsiCo angrily denied allegations that their products manufactured in India contained toxin levels far above the norms permitted in the developed world. David Cox, Coke's Hong Kong-based communications director for Asia, accused Sunita Narain, CSE's director, of "brandjacking" — using Coke's brand name to draw attention to her campaign against pesticides. Narain defended CSE's actions by describing them as a natural follow-up to a previous study it did on bottled water.

In 2004, an Indian parliamentary committee backed up CSE's findings, and a government-appointed committee was tasked with developing the world's first pesticide standards for soft drinks. Coke and PepsiCo oppose the move, arguing that lab tests aren't reliable enough to detect minute traces of pesticides in complex drinks like soda.

The Coca-Cola Company has responded that its plants filter water to remove potential contaminants and that its products are tested for pesticides and must meet minimum health standards before they are distributed.

Coca-Cola had registered an 11 percent drop in sales after the pesticide allegations were made in 2003.

As of 2005, Coke and Pepsi together hold 95% market share of soft-drink sales in India.

In 2006, the Indian state of Kerala banned the sale and production of Coca-Cola, along with other soft drinks, due to concerns of high levels of pesticide residue On Friday, September 22, 2006, the High Court in Kerala overturned the Kerala ban, ruling that only the federal government can ban food products.

Vitamin Water lawsuit

In January 2009, the US consumer group the Center for Science in the Public Interest filed a class-action lawsuit against Coca-Cola. The lawsuit was in regard to claims made, along with the company's flavors, of Vitamin Water. Claims say that the 33 grams of sugar are more harmful than the vitamins and other additives are helpful. Coca-Cola insists the suit is "ridiculous."

Coca-Cola and Catalan language

File:RepteCocacola.jpg

40,000 Coca-Cola cans on May 31, 2014, Barcelona

File:RepteCocacola CAT.jpg

RepteCocacola CAT

In Catalonia, there has been controversy regarding Coca Cola's refusal to print its labels in Catalan. On 12 December 1993, the Platform for the Catalan Language (Plataforma per la Llengua) managed to make a world record by bringing together more than 15,000 empty Coca-Cola cans in Barcelona’s central square Plaça de Catalunya and using them to build a giant sign that read "Let’s label in Catalan". At the time, the organisation adopted the motto: "The Coca-Cola label in 135 languages around the world, but not in Catalan?".

On May 31, 2014 Plataforma per la Llengua, recalling the act of the 12th of December, 1993, collected over 40,000 Coca-Cola cans for making a mosaic with the letters "Etiqueteu en Català!" (Label in Catalan!) in the heart of Barcelona, Catalonia, at Plaça de Catalunya to demand the company label in Catalan after more than 20 years of lawsuits.

Mislabelling

Main article: POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co.

In 2014, POM Wonderful successfully argued that Coca-Cola's Minute Maid division mislabelled a product as a pomegranate and blueberry juice, when it was made 99.4% from apple and grape juices. POM Wonderful said this labelling caused unfair loss of sales of its own pomegranate and blueberry juice.

Environmental issues

Water use

In March 2004, local officials in Kerala shut down a $16 million Coke bottling plant blamed for a drastic decline in both quantity and quality of water available to local farmers and villagers.

In April 2005, the Kerala High Court rejected water use claims, noting that wells there continued to dry up last summer, months after the local Coke plant stopped operating. Further, a scientific study requested by the court found that while the plant had "aggravated the water scarcity situation," the "most significant factor" was a lack of rainfall.

The case has been appealed and a decision is pending. Coca-Cola has set up a page to rebut these charges at cokefacts.org that was once owned by its detractors.

Packaging

Packaging used in Coca-Cola's products has a significant environmental impact but the company strongly opposes attempts to introduce mechanisms such as container deposit legislation.

In 2013, the company was criticized in Australia for undertaking litigation that led to the invalidation of a bottle recycling deposit.

Animal testing

In 2007, the Coca-Cola Company announced it would no longer conduct or directly fund laboratory experiments on animals unless required by law to do so. The company's announcement came after PETA criticized the company for funding invasive experiments on animals including one study in which experimenters cut into the face of chimpanzees to study the animals' nerve impulses used in the perception of sweet taste. Some experimenters have criticized PETA's campaign against Coca-Cola and other companies claiming that their work would be undermined if they lost corporate funding.

Economic business practices

Monopolization

In 2000, a United States federal judge dismissed an antitrust lawsuit filed by PepsiCo Inc. accusing Coca-Cola Co. of monopolizing the market for fountain-dispensed soft drinks in the United States.

In June 2005, Coca-Cola in Europe formally agreed to end deals with shops and bars to stock its drinks exclusively after a European Union investigation found its business methods stifled competition.

In November 2005, Coca-Cola's Mexican unit - Coca-Cola Export Corporation - and a number of its distributors and bottlers were fined $68 million for unfair commercial practices. Coca-Cola is appealing the case.

"Channel stuffing" settlement

Coca-Cola Co, on July 7, 2008 compromised to pay $137.5 million to settle an October 2000 shareholder lawsuit. Coca-Cola was charged in a U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, with "forcing some bottlers to purchase hundreds of millions of dollars of unnecessary beverage concentrate to make its sales seem higher." Institutional investors, led by Carpenters Health & Welfare Fund of Philadelphia & Vicinity, accused Coca-Cola of "channel stuffing," or artificial inflation of Coca-Cola's results which gave investors a false picture of the company's health. The settlement applies to Coca-Cola common stock owners from Oct 21, 1999 to March 6, 2000.

Investments and operations in apartheid South Africa

Coca-Cola entered South Africa in 1938 and, after the beginning of the official white South African government's policy of apartheid or "separate development" beginning in 1948, the company grew rapidly. By the 1980s at the height of racial oppression, with 90% of the market, Coke dominated the soft-drink industry with sales in the hundreds of millions of dollars, accounting for 5% of the parent company's global market. Coke employed 4,500 workers, operating under the racially segregated housing, workplace, and wages, and was one of the largest employers in the country.

In 1982 in South Africa, black workers asked the community to boycott Coke and called two work stoppages until the company agreed to recognize and bargain with their union, raise its workers' low wages significantly, and share information on who controls their pension fund.

As a result of Coke's economic support of white South Africa and its apartheid system, in the 1980s, it became a major target of organizers across the country against U.S. and corporate economic support for apartheid in the U.S. Boycotts then spread across the country to many universities including Tennessee State, Penn State, and Compton College in California, which established a "Coke Free Campus." Demonstrations were held by the Georgia Coalition and the AFSC at Coca-Cola's Atlanta headquarters.

In South Africa, in 1986, the Coca-Cola response was to donate US$10 million to a fund to support improvements of housing and education for black South Africans and to announce "...plans to sell its 30% share of a major bottler and a 55% share of a canning operation within six to nine months." (The company's assets there were estimated at US$60 million, their annual sales were circa US$260 million, and with 4,300 workers one of the largest U.S. employers in South Africa.) However, the movement in the U.S. demanded full divestiture and did not accept the company's offer to sell a major portion of the holdings to a South African firm.

After democratic elections that produced Mandela's majority rule government, Pepsi sought to re-enter the South African market. In fact, "Coke never truly left the country, leading to overwhelming dominance through the rest of the 20th century. Pepsi adhered to different social imperatives and suffered exceptionally low market shares as a result." Indeed, in the late 2000s, Coke's market share of the soft drink market in South Africa was estimated at 95% and Pepsi's at 2%.

Employee issues

Racial discrimination

In November 2000, Coca-Cola agreed to pay $192.5 million to settle a class action racial discrimination lawsuit and promised to change the way it manages, promotes and treats minority employees in the US. In 2003, protesters at Coca-Cola's annual meeting claimed that black people remained underrepresented in top management at the company, were paid less than white employees and fired more often. In 2004, Luke Visconti, a co-founder of DiversityInc, which rates companies on their diversity efforts, said: "Because of the settlement decree, Coca-Cola was forced to put in management practices that have put the company in the top 10 for diversity."

Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co.

Main article: Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co.

In 2001, the Sinaltrainal trade union filed a suit against Coca-Cola in a Miami district court. The union alleged that Coca-Cola bottling partners, Bebidas y Alimentos and Panamco, assisted paramilitaries in murdering several union members. The court decided charges would be considered against the partners but not Coca-Cola itself. On September 4, 2006, Judge Martinez dismissed the remaining claims against the two bottlers.