Sugar vs Diet Coke

So it just occurred to me that vodkadietcokes never actually talks about diet coke, which is weird cos i think my entire vapid manic running-on-empty-and-constantly-crashing-into-pedestrians existence is just a symptom of Diet Coke’s postmodernist cultural logic jk. BUT today on a forum where I talk to random people about how fun it is to be mentally ill I saw this:

“Some people order like 2 burgers a side of onion rings, a portion of fries and then add on a diet coke. Like what?? This can apply with any good. People go to an all you can eat buffet, totally stuff themselves but get a diet coke. Why? Just why?”

 

So like obviously the OP is just a basic that thinks fat people r stupid, but like the question is asked so often that it got me thinking. I have two main theses:

1) People picking diet over fat/sugary coke [used interchangeably from now on lol] because factors other than calorific value are important to them when making that choice

2) People are increasingly drinking more diet coke even when eating usual junk food basically because Coke told them to.

 

– Coke appear to be changing tactics globally (but so far most effectively across western markets) and pushing their non sugar products, as sales figures show (i.e. in 2017 UK sales of non-sugar Coke caught up w its sugary counterpart for the first time, which is good for Coke cos this April saw a 520m pound / $735m tax slapped on all sugary drinks.

– the hustle is a clear response to increasing regulatory pressure from officials and consumers groups who basically think (with good reason) sugar is the new tobacco i.e. the devil and must get gone. If Coke share this view it follows they have to push their Diet/Zero/Life products harder to survive – as it doesn’t look like they/American Beverage Association can just keep taking regulators to court when there is a public health outcry like they did w NY mayor Bloomberg when he tried to ban supersize Fat Coke servings in 2012, naturally got sued and lost the case, lol. 

– Coke are paranoid about damaging consumer trust (as is everyone). Not long ago Coke got pressed for buying up millions of $$ of (obviously therefore biased) research to pedal it’s sugary drinks and claim that americans as a whole – get this – are focusing too much on counting calories and not enough on exercise. A recent campaign by public health officials and a New York Times exposee resulted in the disbandment of a certain Global Energy Balance Network, a non-profit created by Coke to ‘shift focus away from bad diets’ onto moving around, lest we stop suckling the teat from which evil saccharine fizz drips. This wasn’t great for the brand so now Coca Cola are trying very hard to make the impression they are leading the fight against Fat Coke (incl. raising prices, reducing bottle sizes etc.), bless em.

– Idk if this is something people just say in market research or whether it’s true but the received wisdom is that consumers are becoming smarter and harder to fool/please. Also despite the food/drink industry’s valiant efforts, actual science publishes its peer-reviewed findings on sugar – and these are increasingly damning and publicly available. So even if the average american/brit still eats a lot of crap, it stands to reason they’ve had enough exposure think fat coke is not as attractive a choice as diet cos they associate it with health risks specific to fat coke, such as multiple teeth falling out due to tooth decay in young adults frequently drinking the stuff.

(yes diet coke will do terrible things to you too like make your hair fall out but shhhhh)

Okay so that’s basically the answer – but like I think it’s important to also keep in mind that we’re still talking about sugar – King Sugar, the commodity of empire, slavery and neo-liberal immiseration – and the industry won’t let up without a fight just cos we’re getting a bit fat here in the core economies. There’s a reason why it has been easier for food and drink giants to intimidate ‘developing’ countries attempting to step out of line and do something silly like govern. A notable example is (as ever) Mexico, when in 2001 an attempt to tax non-cane sweeteners (like High Fructose Corn Syrup, key ingredient in Fat Coke, pain and death) resulted in two law suits that saw the Mexican state fork out $58.4 and $37mil to two unconnected US-based transnational corporate interests. In a more recent and grotesque twist, a deep-in-2009-recession Mexico handed over $90.7 million compensation to Cargill Inc. The American TNC successfully used NAFTA rules to ‘level’ that particular playing field, as Mexico paid dearly its attempt to boost domestic sugar industry that at the time estimated to affect some 4 to 5 million Mexican jobs. The move will surely function as a best practice case study for industry for decades to come, especially in the light of uncertainty associated with things like CETA, Brexit and Trump’s trade wars. But all that deserves a separate blog imo. Cheers!

 

Sources:

https://onlinelibrar…1111/jphd.12192

https://www.theguard…a-marion-nestle

https://well.blogs.n…ola-to-disband/

https://www.ft.com/c…d6-00144feab7de

http://www.cityam.co…coca-cola-sales

http://www.thedrum.c…d-strategy-kick

https://www.cnbc.com…-sugar-tax.html

https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/a_spoonful_of_sugar_final.pdf

https://www.italaw.com/cases/223

https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0133_0.pdf

notes on sensory exclusion: the two senses of public good

I think a reasonable way to begin is here, right now.  I am sitting in one of the research centres of my university. It is a space for research postgraduate students like me to do their work. It is one of the few places on campus where I am able to do so, but it is far from being somewhere I can do so best. Despite all the emphasis on the ‘facilities’ that are provided for our ‘community’, like a hot water tap and a couple of extra computers, the main aspect of study for me is sensory. What it feels like, literally, to work in a certain space.

Here, the lights are copious and bright, and the white light seems to reflect in depthless white sheets off the white smooth of rounded plastic tables. All the surfaces are smooth and depthless, just like the single-hue sculptures of Anish Kapoor, sharply and economically framed, but concave, convex without end.  The tabletop is brighter, more luminous than my computer screen. There seems to be no meaningful distance between the white light and me. There is no depth to the room. Everything is here, happening – to me – at the same time. I try to imagine a different sensory point of view to mine, what might it be like to work here in a different body and I cannot.

I just left a talk given by Nina Power. She gave a paper on the public, the state, protest, legal subjects. She considered a number of concepts like ‘public space’, ‘public opinion’, ‘public order’, and their relationship with the polis, police, policy. She considered the simultaneity of these fictions and functions. Negatively affected by the state that segregates those it exploits from its definition of ’the public’, negative publics emerge. Refugee and migrant movements, police violence movements, free education movements, Sisters Uncut. Nina talked about the way in which those excluded from the fictional ‘public’ (in the name of which the law acts as such, punishing or permitting X as it sees fit) – whether by virtue of the fact of their documentation and/or dissent – find themselves excluded on all counts. That is, temporally, spatially, politically. Collectivities are constituted in the negative. This is, in a way, the real public, or that pole of ‘the public’ with actual bodies.

The university has its own privatised spaces that are meant to be shared and common. I think of sensory exclusion as another mode of slicing the public into fantasies of the good of the public and the ghosts that are its threat. What kind of body can withstand the private, prestigious, card-access-only spaces of the (public) university? What is the individual body implied? The light is too bright for me means body unfit for the light, unfit for the room or in other words failing of test of fitness, of fitness for academia. I fail the reasonable test for access, I lose my membership to the room, my citizenship of the polis (Goodley et al:20). The university is not a tower but an ivory city-state, and to identify with the polis is to coincide with police, the law of the land, the law of the good proper.