In recent days, President Enrique Peña Nieto inaugurated, in Azcapotzalco, the Innovation and Development Center of the country’s most important soda company. During his speech, he literally said: “I am a consumer of your products, a daily consumer. I can tell you that the President of the Republic drinks Coca-Cola every day... Coca-Cola Light! I hope that’s good publicity for your products... or maybe not, I don’t know anymore.”
A flood of indignant reactions quickly followed. In a country like Mexico, with high rates of diabetes and obesity, the issue of soda consumption is undoubtedly sensitive, especially when President Peña’s administration established a soda tax to discourage its consumption; the matter thus takes on schizophrenic tones: should we promote good publicity or discourage consumption?
In the age of social media and with such a public figure, we all become indignant political analysts. Most people are outraged at how the president promoted soda consumption in a country so affected by chronic degenerative diseases. Setting aside the debate about whether soda is “good” or “bad” (we tend to classify everything as good or bad, without shades or context), what concerns me about the criticism is the reductionist cause-and-effect factor attributed to soda. The president saying he drinks soda doesn’t make Mexicans want to drink it to be like him. If the president’s statement about his consumption signals collusion with major soda companies, then we have a problem. You can’t please both God and the devil. Should we reject any investment in the country depending on what product is manufactured? We cannot have such a Manichean view of the problem.
Obviously, soda consumption is not the ultimate cause of obesity and diabetes incidence. We need to start preparing new generations to have healthy lifestyles. It seems that soda consumption has become a moral issue. When President Calderón was accused of alcoholism, Alcoholics Anonymous groups didn’t come out to protest the promotion of alcohol consumption. When President Fox confessed to consuming Prozac—there we understood many things—New Age groups opposed to psychiatric medicine didn’t come out to say the president was promoting harmful substances. Barack Obama allows himself to be photographed in fast food places, diners, and street stalls, in the country with the highest prevalence of obesity worldwide, while Michelle campaigns against obesity. Clinton didn’t hide his fondness for hamburgers, nor Bush for fried pork rinds with Tabasco sauce, all foods almost “demonic” for health-conscious minds.
What worries me about the statement is the tone of uncertainty regarding good publicity. It seems poor Enrique, thinking of his detractors, wanted to highlight the “light” aspect of his Coke, which doesn’t make you gain weight, but didn’t realize that uncertainty in a president speaks louder than his soda. The president has been reminded directly, time and again, that his popularity levels are historically the lowest. To rebound, he will need more than good publicity and public relations strategy. A true willingness to correct course is needed, something that at this point seems very complicated. We all like to criticize. So let’s question the real crisis points of the administration: disappearances, major corruption cases, violence, impunity, nepotism, inefficiency, lack of negotiation and vision. If what concerns us is public health, then let’s question what has been done to improve the population’s overall lifestyle, not what the president drinks, lest we become puritans worried only about appearances.
@Lillie_ML
Originally published in El Economista
#soda #PublicPolicy #messages #nutrition
— This article was originally published in Spanish by Liliana Martínez Lomelí. Translation generated with AI from the original text.