“Do things really go better with Coke?” (Susman J. [Editorial] J Fam Pract. 2009;58:630), prompted a barrage of letters—more than the journal has received on any single article in recent history.
Your editorial condemning the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and The Coca-Cola Company is a despicable attack on an act of generosity—and an example of political ideology run amok.
The editorial condemns Coca-Cola for offering financial support to a good cause, and the AAFP for accepting it, apparently for no other reason than that Coke makes drinks with sugar and there are fat people in America. Such logic implies that the AAFP should refuse contributions from automakers, television manufacturers, and candy companies, since they all contribute in some way to obesity.
Nothing in the editorial suggested that Coca-Cola is pushing an agenda or that the AAFP will produce a program that is compromised in any way. In fact, according to statements on the Academy’s Web site, the agreement specifically gives the AAFP full, independent editorial control.
The anti-corporate left has been demonizing private-sector funding of medical activities and research for years, by critics who are blissfully unaware of or carefully avoid pointing out the equally perverse incentives created by funding from government agencies and liberal foundations. Peer review, public access to databases, and transparency are the ways to ensure the quality of science and professional conduct, not witch hunts based on speculation or editorial knee-jerk reactions based on political ideology. The AAFP was entirely in the right to accept a contribution from The Coca-Cola Company, and we applaud both parties for entering into an agreement.
John Dale Dunn, MD, JD
Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center
Fort Hood, Tex
Joseph Bast
Heartland Institute
Chicago, Ill
It is a shame that you have chosen political expediency and political correctness over sound science to castigate Coca-Cola. I would expect more from an academician and editor-in-chief of a professional journal.
For instance, I would anticipate at least a rudimentary understanding that caloric in-take in excess of that expended leads to obesity—not mere consumption of sweetened beverages.
While I appreciate the average citizen and average legislator asking for simplistic solutions to complex societal issues, we physicians have a responsibility to educate lay individuals. To blame national obesity trends on sugary beverages does a disservice to society and portends poorly for our profession as advisors on public health issues. Your readers would be better served by being educated in the scientific realities of contemporary public health concerns than by being subjected to the regurgitation of unscientific political agendas.
Michael P. Elston, MD, MS, FAAFP