.png)
The Coca-Cola Company, founded in 1886, grew from a single Atlanta drugstore into a global beverage corporation.
Via strategic political lobbying, the company has shaped international commerce and public policy.
During World War II in the 1940s, sugar shortages hit the United States as battlefields consumed former sugar-producing regions.
While American households adapted to sugar rationing, Coca-Cola's president Robert Woodruff saw an opportunity.
Woodruff approached the U.S. government with a specific pitch: American soldiers needed Coca-Cola to maintain morale.
He argued that the familiar taste of Coke would strengthen troops' fighting spirit.
The government agreed, granting Coca-Cola additional sugar rations beyond civilian limits.
This decision expanded Coca-Cola's reach.
The company shipped millions of bottles to American soldiers in Europe and the Pacific, establishing Coke as a symbol of American culture overseas.
In the late 1900s, Americans grew more health-conscious.
People scrutinized food labels, tracking calories and fats.
As soda sales declined, beverage companies adapted.
Coca-Cola faced this market shift directly.
In 1999, they bought Dasani, entering the bottled water market to meet consumer demand for healthier drinks.
This move sparked controversy.
As lawmakers drafted stricter water quality standards, Coca-Cola actively opposed these regulations. Critics pointed to court documents and media reports showing the company resisting chemical testing requirements, arguing that profit outweighed public safety concerns.
In 1985, Coca-Cola replaced sugar with high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in its flagship drink.
HFCS offered clear advantages: it cost less than sugar and simplified the manufacturing process.
Other companies followed Coca-Cola's lead, making HFCS the standard sweetener in American soft drinks.
Scientists soon identified links between HFCS consumption and specific health problems.
Studies connected the sweetener to increased rates of obesity and diabetes.
These findings challenged the industry's choice of HFCS.
Coca-Cola responded by funding research and lobbying efforts to defend HFCS use.
The company emphasized economic benefits, particularly how domestic corn production reduced dependence on foreign sugar.
This decision influenced U.S. agricultural policy, public health outcomes, and consumer behavior.
The effects persist today in ongoing debates about sweeteners, nutrition labels, and corporate responsibility.
In the 1970s, overflowing landfills and litter-strewn landscapes pushed U.S. states to act.
Their solution: bottle bills requiring deposits on beverage containers to boost recycling rates.
Coca-Cola saw these bills as a direct threat to its business model, which relied on single-use containers.
The company launched an aggressive lobbying campaign, arguing that deposits would raise prices for consumers and burden retailers with storage costs.
Instead, they pushed for curbside recycling programs.
In the early 2000s, rising global obesity rates prompted governments to target sugar consumption, particularly through soda taxes.
This policy thrust Coca-Cola, a beverage industry giant, into a contentious public health battle.
The company spent millions lobbying against these taxes.
Their key argument: soda taxes disproportionately affect low-income consumers while ignoring other causes of obesity.
The debate split into two camps.
Public health experts pushed for taxes to reduce sugar intake and obesity rates.
Opponents, led by Coca-Cola, framed it as government overreach into consumer choice.
.png){kind=logo}
.webp)
.webp)
.webp)