Health lobbyists attack a private company for daring to recruit someone to oppose them

Rust never sleeps and neither do health lobbyists, who are outraged that a private company is recruiting someone for a position in the company to oppose health lobbyists and their unquenched desire to destroy businesses: Quote:

A recruitment drive by Coca-Cola to combat the threat of sugar taxes has been slammed as “appalling” by the New Zealand Dental Association.

A Coca-Cola South Pacific advertisement on LinkedIn for a public affairs and communications manager role promises “an opportunity to make a difference in the world”?working for the global drinks giant.

The successful applicant, who will work from?Auckland,?will manage government relationships in the?Pacific Islands to ensure sugar taxes don’t negatively impact the business, the job ad says.

A Coca-Cola spokesman says?it does not support?sugary drink taxes?as they are?”ineffective as a means of combating obesity”.

However, that’s contrary to?findings reached by?an international cohort of experts who?have published a new paper in?peer-reviewed medical?journal?The Lancet, highlighting “compelling evidence”?that?sugar taxes?help?improve health outcomes. End quote.

Peer-reviewed by peers who all support sugar taxes? That so-called “peer-reviewed” report has been slammed for its lack of scientific rigour.?Quote:

Massey University professor Sally Casswell??is among the group of experts, who come from international agencies?including the United Nations and the World Health Organisation.

The sugar industry is?like the tobacco and alcohol industry, they’ve really got no other stories to tell except that it won’t work,”?Casswell?says.

“It is ridiculous, there are?really strong reasons for Governments to start moving in this area, and they are starting to move.”

She says?a?broad response to obesity,?including?tackling other aspects of diet, exercise and the marketing of products,?was needed.

But emerging evidence shows?a sugar tax was similarly effective?to existing duties on tobacco and alcohol.

“Fewer?countries have been studied for sugar, but the ones that have, it’s really showing it’s making a difference to people’s behaviour.”

Despite its potential, a tax on sugar was under-used by policy makers, she says.?End quote.

See the linking of Coca-Cola with tobacco and alcohol, and the demonisation of sugar, comparing it to tobacco. These are the rather insidious tactics of these academics. If you dare to stand up against them then they hit you with SLAPP lawsuits to silence you.

What they are saying is that private companies should not be able to hire people to counter their spurious claims.

Sugar taxes are not at all like taxes on tobacco. For a start sugar is in many products, even fruits and vegetables. Secondly, sugar is not lethal to everyone who partakes in consuming it, whereas tobacco clearly is. A tax on tobacco affects only smokers. A tax on sugar affects everyone. But their playbook was written by the same sorts of people who fought tobacco companies. So they use the same tactics and the same language and push spineless politicians to implement their agenda.

As I said, if you then dare to oppose them they sue you, or in this instance get outraged that a company decides to fight them with a dedicated person.

Hell, I might apply for this job. I’m already fighting these pricks.

A fat bastard’s tax would be more effective than a sugar tax.