Which Is More Evil: Coke or Pepsi?

Take the Mother Jones taste test.

Ring: <a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-22883647/stock-photo-a-d-generated-professional-boxing-ring-empty-showiing-audence-in-back.html?src=dDq730ydjSttGedLalVItg-1-52">James Steidl</a>/Shutterstock; Coke: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/elsie/4023275760/sizes/m/in/photolist-78wkHs-79Wz6z-7obmDo-af4t7e-9GBmP4-dpeXV7-aVy8gt-aVy8wX-aVy8pZ-bQUepB-epXTR3-ep2EKT-epXUks-8zcFVc-d7TA2f-7ywjKJ-8i3a3G-8aSbpA-8i2BdS-8i2Lbj-8hYDkR-8hYpUr-8i2NpN-8i2Fy5-8i2QzL-8hYuir-fbw2XW-9DhQ7J-81txkz-9WtgCc-brx7xX-7HvJwB-9Z5rRT-8Bfq7D-9BoSRv-7Q8mBT-cES9Hf-czYdn7-9eXnGJ-9PWS83-9U6iQF-akEk4e-ek9rNs-8WRU2b-9cZh6f-a5KsBM-f8B7vG-fmDozi-7UuZtR-8Mft9c-8MftcD/">Elsie esq.</a>/Flickr; Pepsi: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mpd01605/4326343205/sizes/m/in/photolist-7AiD7e-8r8kN1-8r8kKy-cPS5LA-ahTUMW-azbsCk-a2kqnw-7EzXcw-bZeKj3-9EquyV-e64t33-9dUdSY-ehyPP1-cvP2uL-aiqkjF-8exrKs-918s8g-aCBVzj-91bAD5-7AnpsS-7AiD88-7Anpm3-86JtgJ-eYydoj-eYmNWX-eYmQLk-eYyevU-cUrpwq-8kZLFQ-cUriLs-85y9wv-9ZeeqN-9xhAzY-9Knkt2/">MPD01605</a>Flickr; Gloves: <a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-110695982/stock-photo-boxing-gloves-close-up.html?src=IqdCfV4UhVAE5E7pU5MXYA-1-4">OZaiachin</a>/Shutterstock. Photoillustration by Matt Connolly.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


In response to a recent lawsuit, the Grocery Manufacturers Association recently revealed the source of $7.2 million in dark-money contributions it had solicited to fight Washington’s Initiative 522, a measure on next week’s ballot that would require food companies to label products with ingredients made from genetically modified organisms. Pepsi was the largest contributor to the trade group’s anti-labeling effort, donating $1.6 million. Coca-Cola wasn’t far behind, chipping in another $1 million.

If you don’t like GMOs, then you probably shouldn’t drink either of America’s leading soda brands. But let’s say Coke and Pepsi products are your only options. How do the two soda giants compare on the social-responsibility index? Here’s our totally subjective guide to the relative malevolence of America’s favorite pop-making multinationals.

deadliness in excess

cosal.es

Coke: Guzzling between 6 and 10 liters of Coke daily contributed to the sudden death this February of 31-year-old Natasha Harris of New Zealand, according to her coroner’s report. Pepsi: Nobody would ever drink this much Pepsi.

Most evil: Coke

 

Sketchy marketing

Coke: Faces an ongoing class-action lawsuit over the health claims of Glacéau Vitaminwater, which contains eight tablespoons of sugar per bottle. Vitamins? Not so much. Pepsi: In 2011, settled a $9 million class-action lawsuit over Naked Juice’s claims to contain “all natural” and “non-GMO” ingredients. 

Most evil: Tie

 

Paramilitary death squad hiring?

Coke: Two of its bottlers hired a Colombian paramilitary group to murder union organizers, according to a 2001 lawsuit filed in the US by the United Steelworkers union. The case was dismissed in 2009, but these and similar allegations in Guatemala have sparked boycotts and street protests. Coke denies the claims. Pepsi: Do people in Latin America even drink Pepsi?

Most evil: Coke

 

orangutan endangering

Alex Aw/Flickr
Coke: Loved by orangutans, apparently.

 

Pepsi: Contributes to the killing of orangutans by purchasing conflict palm oil, the Rainforest Action Network alleges.

Most evil: Pepsi

 

racism

Coke
Coke: In 2000, paid $156 million to 2,000 current and former African American employees to settle what was then the largest racial-discrimination case ever. Pepsi: Last year paid $3.1 million to resolve a federal charge that it discriminated against 300 African American job applicants.

Most evil: Coke (Pepsi’s case was more recent, but Coke’s was waaay bigger)

 

Sexism

Coke: An interactive online ad that ends, in one scenario, with a woman standing next to a bed in her underwear, was lambasted by Sweden’s sexist ad watchdog for portraying women as “pure sex objects.” Pepsi: To promote an energy drink, released an iPhone app (above) that coaches men on pickup lines and encourages those who “score” to post details such as name, date, and comments to Facebook and Twitter.

Most evil: Pepsi (Objectifying women = bad. Posting names of sexual conquests online = ick!)

 

Public-Relations LAMENESS

Coke: Funded a (now discredited) Harvard scientist: One of the sweets’ industry’s biggest allies, he touted sugar as perfectly healthy. Pepsi: Has funded astroturfy groups like the Heartland Institute, which questions “how bad the obesity problem is.”

Most evil: Coke (People take Harvard seriously. The Heartland Institute, not so much.)

 

pro-Gluttony Lobbying

Coke: Spent $9.4 million lobbying against a tax on sugary beverages. Pepsi: Spent $9.2 million lobbying against the  tax.

Most evil: Tie

 

Evicting farmers from their land

CJ Chanco/Flickr
Coke: Criticized by Oxfam for its links to land disputes that have driven subsistence farmers into poverty.    Pepsi: Ditto.

Most evil: Tie

 

Replacing Jesus with a cola-chugging fat guy

Coca-Cola
Coke: Coca-Cola ads that first appeared in 1931 in the Saturday Evening Post and other national magazines popularized the modern image of Santa Claus as a pudgy guy dressed in red. The rest is history. Pepsi: Pushes an alternative image of Santa as a party dude who secretly drinks Pepsi when he’s on summer vacation at the beach.

Most evil: Pepsi (At least Coke used its Polar Bears to draw attention to global warming.)

 

Shameless spin

Coke: Its ad (above) about fighting America’s obesity epidemic may have actually contributed to the problem by spinning Coca-Cola products as components of a healthy lifestyle. Critics responded with a parody video that ends with the exhortation: “Don’t drink Coke.” Pepsi: “We firmly believe companies have a responsibility to provide consumers with more information and more choices so they can make better decisions,” PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi wrote in a PR essay that appeared in one of the country’s most respected annual reports on obesity. Huh?

Most evil: Coke (There’s a reason the parody video has more YouTube views than the actual ad.)

 

And the winner is…

Index of Soda Evil

Now about that Izze you’re drinking…Oh, dang! PepsiCo owns Izze, too.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate