It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Case Against Coke

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 04:10 AM
link   

The Case Against Coke


www.thenation.com

That was just the beginning of a ninety-minute slugfest that the Financial Times later said "felt more like a student protest rally" than a stockholders' meeting. One after another, students, labor activists and environmentalists blasted Coke's international human rights record. Many focused on Colombia, where Coke has been accused of conspiring with paramilitary death squads to torture and kill union activists. Others highlighted India, where Coke has allegedly polluted and depleted water supplies. Still others called the company to task for causing obesity through aggressive marketing to children.

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 04:10 AM
link   
There are some crazy reports on how coke does business world wide. The cases in South America are particularly disturbing: (for example)

"On the morning of December 5, 1996, union leader Isidro Segundo Gil was standing at the gate of the Coca-Cola bottling plant in Carepa, Colombia, when two paramilitaries drove up on a motorcycle and shot him dead. A week later, unionists say, paramilitaries lined up all the workers inside the plant and forced them to sign a letter resigning from the beverage union SINALTRAINAL, spelling the end of the union at the plant"

Hey man, business is business and I guess no one had better get in the way of the all mighty dollar.

www.thenation.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 04:31 AM
link   
I can say I am not going to buy another damn Coke again, and if i do...i'll seriously kick myself. That is just down right wrong!



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Mahem87
 


It is funny, I was drinking a coke when I came across the article. I guess "funny" probably isn't the best choice of words.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 04:45 AM
link   
I think I would of spat it out in disgust...at least had the reaction in mind to do so



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Karlhungis

The Case Against Coke


www.thenation.com

That was just the beginning of a ninety-minute slugfest that the Financial Times later said "felt more like a student protest rally" than a stockholders' meeting. One after another, students, labor activists and environmentalists blasted Coke's international human rights record. Many focused on Colombia, where Coke has been accused of conspiring with paramilitary death squads to torture and kill union activists. Others highlighted India, where Coke has allegedly polluted and depleted water supplies. Still others called the company to task for causing obesity through aggressive marketing to children.

(visit the link for the full news article)



"Still others called the company to task for causing obesity through aggressive marketing to children."

what? how can coke be held responsible for making children obese? this makes no sense to me, because if children didnt drink 3 or 4 cokes a day and eat snacks to no end while playing video games, they wouldn't be obese to begin with. children nowadays spend more time inside than outside running around, so they are not getting the same amount of exercise as children did as soon as 10 years ago. coca cola just puts the product out, it is the responsibility of the PARENT and the child to realise that not doing any exercise whatsoever and drinking and eating junk food can only result in the child getting fat.

granted, coke and all soda products can be addictive due to the caffeine content, but once again, the parent can control how much soda their child drinks. blaming their child's fatness on the company that they willingly bought the product from is the worst excuse ive ever heard for obesity.

this is just like the argument where parents blame video game companies that make violent video games for the shootings that have occurred in schools and the like. i don't know about you guys, but the last time i played a First person shooter, i didn't go out and purchase enough weapons to arm a small nation, and then shoot up my workplace. the fact that these children were able to stockpile guns in their house right under their parent's noses just goes to show how careless those parents were, concerning how involved they were in their children's lives... and as far as the video game excuse goes, you can take the computer out of your childs room... it is not a neccessity. Parents are too quick to blame anything but themselves today for the faults of their children. if a parent would take the time to ask their children questions, and spend a few minutes a day talking to their kids, things like this wouldn't happen as often, because if a parent doesn't know that there are 7 ak-47's, five pistols, 2 uzi's and ammo out the wazoo in their child's closet, it's not grand theft auto's fault.

i know that this really has nothing to do with the business practicse of coca cola itself, i cannot comment on that as i have no firsthand knowledge of said practices, it just angers me when parents blame their childrens problems that they have direct control over on outside factors.

-DISCLAIMER-
i did not read the full article, so if i took this comment out of context, i apologize, i would also like to add that this is my opinion, and i would like it to be regarded as such, and in no way am i flaming karlhungis for his posts, im just responding to the snippet.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by sandman692
 


I think you are correct that parents need to be held accountable for their children's health. However, I believe that they were being scrutinized for advertising heavily toward children.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 07:37 AM
link   
yeah, i agree that companies advertise a little too heavily to children, but they are easy targets. if a child sees an ad for a toy, they begin to bug their parents until the parents give in and just buy the toy.it's easier for a company to manipulate the mind of a child than it is the mind of an adult.

i agree with you karl.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by sandman692
 


I look at it this way however, if you buy something for your child just to get them to shut up then you're not really doing your job as a parent.

As far as how they do business, just about as bad as a lot of companies i've heard of. It's a shame that these companies think they have to go through such drastic measures to make a few extra bucks.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   
this is very true, parents aren't doing their job as parents... but if you ever sit on a bench outside a toystore, just watch how many kids pitch fits and how many parents give in and give the children what they want.

when i was a kid, i got spanked if i ever pitched a fit just to try to embarass my parents to buy me a toy, it was good discipline. i knew from then on that i couldn't guilt trip my parents into buying me stuff, because i would get more of the same. nowadays if a parent disciplines their child in public, they're lucky if child protective services isn't beating down their door the next day. it's a sad state of affairs that we're in today fellas, and i don't see it getting better any time soon.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by sandman692
 


Parenting is not easy, but parents do need to realize the impact that they are having on their children. They may think that they are making them happy by getting them what they want, but there is a reason that it is called "spoiling". It ruins your child. But for parents to allow their kids to drink so much soda is just insanity. How can you claim to care about your child when you allow them to drink something so bad for them?



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 02:04 AM
link   
When large companies contract work to third world countries they often don’t have to much say in what goes on. I am definitely saying they are not responsible in some way but I am saying that the main office doesn’t always watch what goes in the factories compared to the figures that come in. I have a fair bit of experience since I’m an Expat in China.

Yes parent’s should take more responsibility in what their kids are doing, eating etc I wholeheartly agree but I also agree that there should be some control (though I don’t know how much or what control) on marketing towards children as parents don’t always know what their kids are buying with their pocket money.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Another fantastic example of why American business needs to be kept in America. Not that that has EVER been our M.O.... but it would be nice.

Of course, ensuring that American products are made in America, where workers are not worked to death, under-paid etc. would require ethical and moral resolve from coorporations - and we all know that the wealthiest conglomerates have about a thimble-full of either.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by NewWorldOver]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 02:40 AM
link   
It is interesting to note that most soft drink machines in schools have either been removed or filled with more beneficial drinks. I haven't had a cola in 3 yrs. I don't have a bumper with rust in my gut.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 04:17 AM
link   
i agree that they may not see what is going on, but that is why they have quality control specialists there, and environmental people as well... granted, that doesn't mean that they are doing their job, but in a perfect world, i guess people wouldn't let things like that happen.

as far as what kids buy with their pocket money and such goes, i feel that if parents had a more positive impact on the way their children grow up, then they wouldn't want to spend that money on soda in the first place, they would want to buy something else, i do however still feel that marketing is having a negative impact on society, but it seems as if its a combination of careless parents and marketing that is screwing these kids up so much.

this is how it plays out in my head.

a kid is sittin on the couch watching tv. lets say this kid is 12, and a commercial comes on tv that is advertising twinkies. the kid goes to the grocery store with his mom later that week, and sees the twinkies that were in the ad. he remembers how good they looked in the ad and bugs his mom about the twinkies because he wants them. as he begins to whine, the mother is one of those "jesus stfu i dont need this right now" moods, and buys the twinkies to keep the kid happy. the kid gets a box of twinkies every week after that. (i would like to note that at home, the kid doesn't go outside, he just plays video games and sits around all day) about a year later, the mom notices that the kid has gained about 25 pounds in fat, and is becoming obese. she blames the twinkies, because her child wasn't fat before he started eating the twinkies, and now she wants to pursue legal recourse.

why doesn't the mother realize that her child is fat because she let him eat the twinkies to no end? and had the child not seen the commercial, would he have wanted the twinkies in the first place? if she actually tries to pursue legal recourse, does she go after the ad agency, for making her child want the twinkies in the first place, or after the twinkie company for making the twinkies, OR does she actually try to go after the video game company for inhibiting her child's ability to go outside and get exercise?
see where im going with this? a parent can find a million reasons for what is wrong with their kid besides taking the blame that they know is theirs.

honestly, if i was a judge, and someone came to me with a case like this, i would laugh at them and tell them to take responsibility... case dismissed.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 05:20 AM
link   
I work for a global company. I know that we would be absolutely destroyed in the media if any of these allegations were made against us. The media has piled on us for some questionable rebate programs that were offered in regards to fair trade. Nothing has been proven but the allegations alone have demonized us in the eyes of many.

I can't understand why behavior like this on Coke's part seems to go unreported. I guess it is all about the bottom line. What my company has been accused of affected the bottom line of another large corporation. What Coke has been accused of only bolstered their bottom line at the cost of a few thousand workers. As long as no corporations lose money due to the actions, all is fair.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 06:37 PM
link   
You can't rationalize ethics of companies in foreign countries that have a different system that would allow things like this to happen. Welcome to the world stage. Life is cheap. Money is king. The golden rule is, he who has the gold, makes the rules. That is a pretty harsh reality. I am not saying I agree with it.

Until cheap labor goes away, America's standard of living becomes more realistic, the standard of living in cheap labor countries rises or countries stop letting foreign companies set up shop on their soil thereby exploiting their people, we will always have companies exploiting cheat labor.

I guess it does not surprise me at all that Coke as hired guns. I am sure Pepsi does too and their's have been voted 4 to 1 better in a blind taste test.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by wdkirk
Until cheap labor goes away, America's standard of living becomes more realistic, the standard of living in cheap labor countries rises or countries stop letting foreign companies set up shop on their soil thereby exploiting their people, we will always have companies exploiting cheat labor.


capitalism is here to stay. until something so major that the entire foundation of the world economy is torn away and restructured, we will only continue down this path, and unfortunately, i don't see things changing too soon.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join