Blah Blah Flowers

In April, we learnt that Innocent Smoothies had fallen to the Dark Side of the Force by doing a deal with Coca Cola. Innocent now have a competition to design their bottle labels for them. Of course they aren't going to put out a label admitting their collusion with a company that benefits from union busting activities in South America or the creation of drought conditions in areas of India that have supported farms for centuries, but that shouldn't stop people so minded from writing competition entries about this or their other activities should it?

Labels: Coke, corporate malpractice, Innocent Smoothies

If you've been following Internet trends then you'll know that before the thing about Amazon celebrating 'dead guy on stick' day by hiding all the queer stuff before Jehova comes round the thing was about Innocent Smoothies deciding that goodwill and customer loyalty doesn't mean nothing in a recession and selling thirty percent of their soul to Coca-Cola. They've been very open about it, and if you email them you too can get the largely pro forma response that they send to everyone.

Geordie Monkey has most of the relevent points here, including Mark Thomas's response.

I also wrote to them, got the standard response, replied criticising the standard response and asking about the research they claimed they did that told them that it was all right to sell out to Coke (although being all ex-advertisers they... (and you can all work out the humorous joke based on the double meaning of Coke for yourselves)) and was told:

I was an idiot and made a dumb and inappropriate refrence to 'people that write books' about coke (I think in just one email) which I regret, have apologised for, and will certainly not write again...

In terms of due diligence, I spoke to leading members in the ngo sector, consulted with independent CSR representatives and yes, read up on coke's side of the story at www.cokefacts.com.

I didn't press the point which I sort of regret now of asking exactly which NGOs they talked to (it'll be useful to know what NGOs if any support Coke) but it just goes to show, when money is at stake, people accept their prejudices over alternate viewpoints. After all, why pay attention to what people who do research and write books say?

So yes, another disappointed ex-Innocent customer signing in here...

Labels: Coke, Innocent Smoothies, Mark Thomas

What's inside Red Bull. Not as bad for you as Coca-Cola, but the whole 'wings' stuff is seriously over-rated. Not a suprise as I've been drinking it for years and my feet have remained firmly on the ground. I can't speak for my mind but that's a different mental problem...

Labels: Coke, drink, health

So I've been sweets (or candy if you must) free since February 1st, no real reason other than I was rather concerned about how I was automatically buying sweets every day and not really caring what I bought but then practically inhaling them and finishing them off within a few minutes. It's hardly the same as turning old ladies over for their pension money to fund a crack habit but I've become rather sensitive to noticing repetitive behaviour patterns in myself, especially when they don't add value to my life, so I decided to knock the sweetie habit on the head.

Less successful has been kicking soft drinks, though I'm down to a can of something coke-like and a can of something Red Bull-like a week. Avoiding Coke should be a moral duty, let alone what it does to your body. But whilst visiting my parents this weekend and having to step into a health food shop I discovered Whole Earth's sparkling delicious cola. Sugar-free it uses a mix of apple juice and lemon juice to give me the kick you expect from Coke's sugar overload.

What odds can I get on not being able to find it anywhere round where I live?

Labels: Coke, drink, ethics, food, whole earth foods

What Happens To Your Body If You Drink A Coke Right Now?. Fucking crickey! And I bought a can of Coke this morning... [via Link Machine Go]

Labels: Coke, health