ok, ok, here's where i reveal that (for my sins) i worked in the fizzy pop industry for a few years... and my dad still does. it's not arms manufacture; hell it's not even as bad (from an ecological standpoint) as the VAST MAJORITY of products that most of us use on a regular basis.
i'm not trying to defend the industry and there's plenty of examples of Coke, Pepsi and the others doing dodgy stuff - just like every multinational... except they are much higher profile than most.
on the "bad for the teeth thing", fizzy pop has got an unwarranted bad reputation. there's lots of sugar in them (not the 'diet' stuff though) but that doesn't actually corrode teeth (unless your dental hygiene is bad - sugar isn't immediately damaging, and brushing twice or three times a day will negate its effects completely).
what is a problem is phosphoric acid; that is immediately corrosive. however, fizzy pop has considerably less phosphoric acid than citrus fruits for example. so orange juice is far worse for a persons teeth than coke or pepsi (unless the person in question doesn't brush, in which case the sugar in the fizzy pop will come into effect).
i don't think coke and pepsi are going to "save the world". like every corporation, they are primarily concerned with 'return on investment' and will do nasty things in the name of bigger profits. however, having done a lot of soul-searching after i quit the industry (and i'm not one to ignore facts to make myself feel better) i came to the conclusion that the manufacture and distribution of fizzy pop was one of the least harmful aspects of globalisation.
no, it's not "desirable". but there are much worse things happening in the world - and you'd be amazed (i imagine) if you knew just how much the modern recycling industry owes to coke and pepsi... seriously.
|
