Talk:Criticism of Coca-Cola

Mis-Leading Counter-critisubjec, If you drink coca cola 50 times in your life time you die 10 yeras younger
The former is a generic piece of information no more relevant than, say, an article on newspapers. The latter is equally irrelevant as it is Coca-Cola Companies statement to shareholders. Not the supporting evidence suggested.

It seems incredibly bizarre to me that of all the criticisms to be written down as null criticisms, these were chosen. However, the former does to some extent suggest that there is a criticism to be shot down, the latter is just is statement.

They both appear to be corporately backed comments as neither is an actual criticism. This would indicate to me that the sections need to be removed as they have no bearing in their current form.

Perhaps Andrew Nutters changes should be reverted, as looking at his editions, they all are aimed at rebuking the criticisms directly without providing evidence.

Such editions should, perhaps, be discussed here instead, or left for open debate?

Open speculation here... but also the name "Andrew Nutter" is associated not only with Coca-cola events, but noteably the creator of the "Cappuccino soufflé pudding with red wine cola cubes" see: http://uktv.co.uk/food/recipe/aid/556552

Name used for convenience?

Naznomarn (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC) How valid source is www.snopes.com? Regarding the reference number 40 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.237.218 (talk) 10:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Repetition: appeal for tidy up
There seems to be a bit of repetition in this article for instance between the "sinaltrainal law suit" section and "bottling plant deaths" sections. Perhaps the sinaltrainal law suit section should be removed. Likewise "Coca-Cola's interactions with Nazi-Germany" could be usefully included in "World War II". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete the pitiless (talk • contribs) 16:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The information about the murders and profiteering are highly relevant to Coca-Cola as a business. Xkit (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Creation museum
Nobody has mentioned the (alleged) Coca-Cola sponsorship to the Creation Museum? How true/false is this? -Julián Ortega - drop me a message 17:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Things that need changing
I think that if anyone that takes the time to read this article and look at the sources you would see that most of the sources are out of place and things taken out of context. the first section on lawsuits about tooth decay should be removed because there is no evidence to support that. Also the Nazi Germany pieces are skewed to make it seem as if the Coca Cola Company supported the Nazi's when in fact they didnt. All they did was buy Fanta, invented by a Coca Cola employee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slapshot2727 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed This Nazi and anti-semitism section is over the top. At worst, coca-cola may have acted like the proverbial arms merchant who sold to both sides. Except that isn't even a good analogy, a soft drink is not significantly useful for a government at war. "you sold soft drinks to Nazis" does not strike me as something that would raise an eyebrow today. It is difficult to see how this vague accusation of Anti-semitism and collaboration with the Nazi government can be sustained by these sources. Regarding the other paragraph, it is hardly fair to describe the purchase of land that was nationalized a generation prior as "anti-semitic". Aaron north (talk) 06:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Article is lacking
There are a lot of claims in this article that lacks an exact date or a link of reference or have it broken. The Colombia part have mostly of it's links broken except one from mindfully.org, which I found distrust because I couldn't find any page where they explain who or what they are neither contact info other than newsletters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.147.4.195 (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to add to the mix
Much of this page seems to have been written by one or more disgruntled Indian person(s). Huge sections refer to Coca-Cola's problems in India. Hardly a global view! 89.102.118.180 (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC) User:Misacek01 currently logged out

ADHD
Supposedly there is a relationship with ADHD as well. --196.215.150.24 (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

--88.104.176.188 (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC) No there isn't. I drink it either barely ever or too much or none at all, I know from my own personal experience that this isn't true.

Protest Example in Ireland?
If someone is going to talk about a worldwide protest, it would be helpful if they also explained what the protest was about. The first mention of Ireland in the article is "The protest example started in Ireland." This makes absolutely no sense. Please correct it. A.S. Williams (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

No proof (Sochi 2014 section)
"The wording of the law is intentionally vague". There is not any proof for the "intentionally" part. I suggest removing this word. - 89.110.28.135 (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Large removals by Formerly 98
Just wanted to point out that large portions of this article have been removed by Formerly 98 in. Could someone take a look at this? This user seems to have a history of pro-corporate POV editing. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So that is why the bottling plant murders section was empty! Hmm, it's removed so much stuff it's almost certainly vandalism and should be reverted ASAP. Hopefully someone else can have a look over it properly, I'm heading off to bed. &mdash;ajf (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

If you guys want to put all that poorly referenced stuff back, feel free to do so. It will make it that much easier for me when I propose this article for deletion as a POV fork. Formerly 98 (talk) 05:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Struck with apologies for being deliberately provocative. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

nazi connection
a Criticism of Coca-Cola page and no mention of the Nazi connection? 14:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.56.180.48 (talk)
 * Please WP:Be bold expand the article with reliably sourced information.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * see Fanta JoN13:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.172.99.44 (talk)
 * Oh yeah, like if that has something to do with criticism. I'm afraid that it's completely absurd to blame a carbonated soft drink for the fact that it was imported into Nazi Germany. 195.191.165.5 (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

effects of coke on human body in 1st hour
need to paraphrase and link to this important information: http://www.blisstree.com/2010/06/23/mental-health-well-being/what-happens-to-your-body-if-you-drink-a-coke-right-now/
 * Totally unintentionally, my recently added Health effects source showed what I suspect is the same graph as 90.215.8.78's link but didn't quote the original. JRPG (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Criticism of Coca-Cola. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.proxyinformation.com/cocacola/cokeres.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

dont revert
You have to provide proper citations re wiki policies before you make claims that could leave wiki open to legal challenge. You cant just put what you want with dead and not relevant citations, you have to do this first. Please do not revert until you can rove what you claim

Simply provide relevant citations and then you can put what you want. You know the rules and which citations are allowed. You cant just slander a company with no proof? Please do this and then there is no disagreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:20d:1300:6126:aed1:a1cb:b1e (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2017


 * You need to provide justification for removal of references. Dead ref links are not a reason to remove content. What citations do you see as not relevant or reliable? Please be clear about each problem cite before removing content.Dialectric (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

"be less white"
Coca-Cola has received a flood of media coverage for its racial policies and they deserve to be covered in this article. Juno (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree, but it has to be written in a neutral, objective, take-no-sides way. I've seen two different paragraphs written about it for this article and they are so biased. They read like they're trying to argue why this is racist instead of just saying something along the lines of "these statements were decried as racist". I mean the latest paragraph uses The Daily Wire as a source. DrPepperIsNotACola (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request
Hello. I represent the Coca-Cola Company and am disclosing my conflict of interest so I can request some changes to this Wikipedia article. Here is what I propose:

1.Under the Environmental Issues header and Water Use subheader, after the sentence "The case has been appealed and a decision is pending," could someone please add:

"In 2017, Coca-Cola declared that it had no plans to restart bottling operations in Plachimada, Kerala, and in 2019, it proposed turning the plant into a training center for local farmers."

Supporting sources: The Wire, The Hindu, New Indian Express

And please add "In 2021, the bottling plant was turned into a COVID-19 care center"

Supporting sources: The Hindu, India Times
 * The New Indian Express link was dead so could not source the "in 2019, it proposed turning the plant into a training center for local farmers" but otherwise this edit was implemented.  Spencer T• C 22:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello @Spencer,
 * Thank you for taking the time to help with the implementation of our edit requests. We really appreciate your insights and would like to offer adjustments accordingly.
 * Under the Environmental Issues header and Water Use subheader, after the sentence "The case has been appealed and a decision is pending," could you please add:
 * The case has been appealed and a decision is pending. In 2017, Coca-Cola declared that it had no plans to restart bottling operations in Plachimada, Kerala. In 2019, the company’s Indian bottling entity, Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Private Limited, proposed turning the plant into a center to train local farmers on the drip-irrigation technique, ultra-high density plantation. [The Wire [The Hindu ]] [Caravan Magazine] In 2021, the bottling plant was turned into a COVID-19 care center. [The Hindu] [India Times]
 * Thank you again. I look forward to receiving your response. PolarBear1886 (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

2. Again under the Environmental issues: Water Use section, after the sentence "They also attacked state government that on one hand, it was talking about taking measures to save the river and on the other hand, gave permission to set up the plant" could someone please add:

"The government canceled the land allocation in 2022, as Coca-Cola did not break ground on the plant within a five-year period, as was agreed-upon in the contract. Coca-Cola stated that it decided against building the plant due to the company re-franchising."

Supporting source: Hindustan Times
 * ✅  Spencer T• C 22:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

3. Under Environmental Issues header, Packaging subheader, there is a sentence that reads:

"The head of sustainability Bea Perez has said they will continue to use plastic, stating "customers like them because they reseal and are lightweight" and that they create a lower carbon footprint."

Could we please adjust the sentence so it states: "The head of sustainability Bea Perez has said they will continue to use plastic, stating "customers like them because they reseal and are lightweight" and that they create a lower carbon footprint than aluminum and glass bottles."

Supporting source: BBC
 * ✅  Spencer T• C 22:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

4. Under the Environmental issues header, Packaging subheader, there is a sentence that reads: "The company strongly opposes attempts to introduce mechanisms such as container deposit legislation."

Could we change "Strongly opposes" to "has opposed" so it's worded a bit more neutrally?
 * ✅  Spencer T• C 22:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

5. Under the Environmental issues header, Packaging subheader, there is a sentence that reads, "In 2013, the company was criticized in Australia for undertaking litigation that lead to the invalidation of a bottle recycling deposit." After this sentence, could we please add:

"However, Coca-Cola introduced a bottle deposit initiative in Brazil in 2018, which led to the company producing 1.8 billion fewer plastic bottles the following year. It subsequently introduced bottle deposit initiatives in Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Guatemala, Mexico, and Panama."

Supporting sources: Beverage Daily, Packaging Europe, Packaging Europe, Ellen MacArthur Foundation
 * ❌ Do you have additional reliable, independent sources for this information? I am unable to access the first link, the PackagingEurope articles appear to largely be press releases/quotes from Coca Cola staff rather than independent analysis, and the Ellen MacArthur foundation appears to be largely supported by trade groups (including Coca Cola) and associated with greenwashing. Additionally, it appears that the Brazil program does not appear to be a true bottle deposit program, since per the website it appears to give the user a discount for future product purchases rather than cash back, which is not apparent in the proposed edit. This should be clearly stated in the proposed edit.  Spencer T• C 22:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello @Spencer. Thank you for taking the time to help with the implementation of our edit requests. We really appreciate your insights and would like to offer adjustments accordingly.
 * 1. Regarding sources and fact clarification:
 * - I reviewed your request to add more reliable, independent sources and to disclose consumer discounts as a part of the bottle deposit program. The copy has been adjusted accordingly. Please find revised edits below:
 * Under the Environmental issues header, Packaging subheader, there is a sentence that reads, "In 2013, the company was criticized in Australia for undertaking litigation that led to the invalidation of a bottle recycling deposit." After this sentence, could you please add:
 * In 2017, the company’s Australian bottler and distributor, Coca-Cola Amatil, joined Exchange for Change, a partnership with other beverage companies. The same year, the partnership was selected by the Australian government to oversee recycling initiatives. [Financial Review] [Financial Review] Under this partnership, Coca-Cola was named as a collaborator in Victoria, Australia’s, container deposit scheme in 2021. The scheme provided refunds to consumers who returned empty bottles to the store for recycling. [Vic.gov]
 * In 2018, the company introduced bottle deposit recycling initiatives in Brazil by distributing reusable “universal bottles.” Consumers who purchased one of the reusable bottles and returned it to the store after use received a discount on their next purchase. As a result, Coca-Cola produced 1.8 billion fewer bottles. [Fast Company]
 * I am also wondering if you could please help us with a some additional edit requests on a couple of other pages:
 * 2. Regarding the Plachimada edit request:
 * - Again, thank you for your help with implementing the edit request on the “Plachimada Coca-Cola Struggle” page. I have followed up with updated sources on that page as well. If possible, could you please take a look and advise accordingly?
 * 3. Regarding further edit requests on the Coca-Cola company page:
 * - If possible, could you please review my edit request on the Coca-Cola company page? I recently resubmitted the edit request after the associated talk page was archived and would greatly appreciate your feedback and assistance.
 * Thanks again for handling this request. I look forward to your response. PolarBear1886 (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

6. Under the packaging subheader, there is a sentence that reads, "Greenpeace also claims that Coca-Cola has actively lobbied against recycling and deposit return schemes in several European countries"

Could we please change "claims" to "claimed"?
 * ✅ This appears to have already been implemented at time of this review.  Spencer T• C 22:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

7. After that sentence, could you please add the following information:

"In 2022, Greenpeace stated that it welcomed Coca-Cola’s pledge to make 25% of its packaging reusable by 2030."

Supporting source: Greenpeace
 * ✅ By another editor.  Spencer T• C 22:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

"Coca-Cola made all of its plastic packaging recyclable in Sweden in 2019, and it rolled out 100% recycled rPET plastic bottles in the Netherlands in 2020 and Norway in 2021. It also started to introduce 100% recycled plastic bottles to US and Great Britain markets in 2021."

Supporting source: Bloomberg, Bloomberg, Food Manufacture, Packaging Europe

"The company has also partnered with Burger King, TerraCycle, Carrefour, and Loop to reduce plastic waste."

supporting sources: Forbes, Beverage Daily, Packaging Insights, Waste Today Magazine, Plastics Technology Online, Recycling Toda

8. Under the air pollution section, could you please add this sentence:

"In May 2014, Coca-Cola reached a settlement with the EPA, in which it paid $165,900 in civil penalties."

supporting sources: ''', ''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolarBear1886 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ideally, a third party source would be preferable but seems reliable.  Spencer T• C 22:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

That is all. Thank you all for your help. I really appreciate it.

PolarBear1886 (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi I will start reviewing some of the requested changes, please see comments inline.  Spencer T• C 22:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It appears you have responded to all the points in the request. Can the request be marked as answered? GiovanniSidwell (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Marked as answered.  Spencer T• C 22:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, @Spencer. Thank you again for providing assistance with our edit requests. We wanted to follow up on our previous request and check to see if there is anything else we need to do for further implementation. Here is the information again:
 * 1. Regarding sources and fact clarification:
 * - I reviewed your request to add more reliable, independent sources and to disclose consumer discounts as a part of the bottle deposit program. The copy has been adjusted accordingly. Please find a revised edit request below:
 * Under the Environmental issues header, Packaging subheader, there is a sentence that reads, "In 2013, the company was criticized in Australia for undertaking litigation that led to the invalidation of a bottle recycling deposit." After this sentence, could you please add:
 * In 2017, the company’s Australian bottler and distributor, Coca-Cola Amatil, joined Exchange for Change, a partnership with other beverage companies. The same year, the partnership was selected by the Australian government to oversee recycling initiatives. [Financial Review] [Financial Review] Under this partnership, Coca-Cola was named as a collaborator in Victoria, Australia’s, container deposit scheme in 2021. The scheme provided refunds to consumers who returned empty bottles to the store for recycling. [Vic.gov]
 * In 2018, the company introduced bottle deposit recycling initiatives in Brazil by distributing reusable “universal bottles.” Consumers who purchased one of the reusable bottles and returned it to the store after use received a discount on their next purchase. As a result, Coca-Cola produced 1.8 billion fewer bottles. [Fast Company]
 * I am also wondering if you could please help us with an additional edit request  on another page:
 * 2. Regarding further edit requests on the Coca-Cola company page:
 * - If possible, could you please review my edit request on the Coca-Cola company page? I recently resubmitted the edit request after the associated talk page was archived and would greatly appreciate your feedback and assistance. I have tagged you in the edit request for easy reference.
 * Thanks again for your help. I look forward to your response. PolarBear1886 (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, @Spencer. Thank you for your feedback. Please find a revised version of our edit request reflecting the templates. I have also updated the other page to reflect this as well. I wasn't sure if you meant to directly use the citation templates or use the in-text citation numbers, so please let us know if any other edits to these requests need to be made.
 * Under the Environmental issues header, Packaging subheader, there is a sentence that reads, "In 2013, the company was criticized in Australia for undertaking litigation that led to the invalidation of a bottle recycling deposit." After this sentence, could you please add: In 2017, the company’s Australian bottler and distributor, Coca-Cola Amatil, joined Exchange for Change, a partnership with other beverage companies. The same year, the partnership was selected by the Australian government to oversee recycling initiatives.
 * Under this partnership, Coca-Cola was named as a collaborator in Victoria, Australia’s, container deposit scheme in 2021. The scheme provided refunds to consumers who returned empty bottles to the store for recycling.
 * In 2018, the company introduced bottle deposit recycling initiatives in Brazil by distributing reusable “universal bottles.” Consumers who purchased one of the reusable bottles and returned it to the store after use received a discount on their next purchase. As a result, Coca-Cola produced 1.8 billion fewer bottles. PolarBear1886 (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, for ease of request review and implementation, can you use the cite news or cite web templates to include information in your references, such as publication date, author, publisher, etc.? Bothe here and at the other page as well (rather than just providing raw links). See how I did that with the above references you provided for your previous edit request (an example of this is here: . Thanks,  Spencer T• C

COI Edit Request
Hello, @Throast. We want to thank you for providing assistance with implementing our request on the Coca-Cola Company article. We would like to check in to see if further assistance may be provided in this article as well. If you are interested, please see the following information:

1. Regarding sources and fact clarification:

- I reviewed a previous editor’s request to add more reliable, independent sources and to disclose consumer discounts as a part of the bottle deposit program. The copy has been adjusted accordingly. Please find a revised edit request below:

Under the Environmental issues header, Packaging subheader, there is a sentence that reads, "In 2013, the company was criticized in Australia for undertaking litigation that led to the invalidation of a bottle recycling deposit." After this sentence, could you please add:

'''In 2017, the company’s Australian bottler and distributor, Coca-Cola Amatil, joined Exchange for Change, a partnership with other beverage companies. The same year, the partnership was selected by the Australian government to oversee recycling initiatives. [Financial Review] [Financial Review] Under this partnership, Coca-Cola was named as a collaborator in Victoria, Australia’s, container deposit scheme in 2021. The scheme provided refunds to consumers who returned empty bottles to the store for recycling. [Vic.gov]'''

'''In 2018, the company introduced bottle deposit recycling initiatives in Brazil by distributing reusable “universal bottles.” Consumers who purchased one of the reusable bottles and returned it to the store after use received a discount on their next purchase. As a result, Coca-Cola produced 1.8 billion fewer bottles. [Fast Company]'''

Thanks again for your help. I look forward to your response. PolarBear1886 (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , while I appreciate that you value my opinion, please note that canvassing of individual editors (perhaps based on previous reviews) is considered inappropriate on Wikipedia. I've added an Edit COI tag so that other reviewers can have a look. Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 22:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CRYSTALBALL. The AFR.com sources as well as the Victoria container deposit scheme PDF all implied that the schemes are still in the planning stages or have barely begun. The PDF in particular shows that no data has been received showing the scheme was past the planning/early implementation stage in Victoria. From page 2: "Victoria — Starting 2023". Once this scheme has gotten underway in these respective areas, and after an amount of time allowing for data to be charted has passed, a link in the External links section can be added giving readers information on its progress. Regards, Spintendo  01:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)