MAHA-inspired Coke shift isn't a health win, nutritionists say
Why it matters: President Trump's announcement last week that the company would pivot from corn syrup was as much about power and asserting leverage as it was about advancing the "Make America Healthy Again" agenda.
It also reflected the movement's preoccupation with rooting out ingredients it deems harmful like corn syrup, seed oils or food colorants that — a strategy nutritionists say ignores the bigger point.
The big picture: Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. may be correct that high-fructose corn syrup is a driver of obesity and other chronic disease, but physicians and food experts say alternatives like sugar cane and beet sugar also lead to weight gain and bad outcomes.
"These one ingredient changes don't make these foods healthy," said Marion Nestle, professor emeritus of nutrition and public health at New York University. "They're not going to make any difference unless they change the dietary intake of what people are eating."
Substituting cane sugar for high fructose corn syrup is more like a cosmetic change, said Priya Fielding-Singh, director of policy and programs at George Washington University's Global Food Institute.
It "feels like a bit of a misplaced effort," she said.
State of play: Coca-Cola said Tuesday that a new Coke offering made with cane sugar will appear on shelves this fall alongside traditional, high-fructose corn syrup Coke.
Only it's not exactly "new." U.S. consumers have already been able to get cane-sugar Coke imported from Mexico. It's even made limited runs of "Passover Coke," made with sugar instead of corn syrup.
Kennedy nonetheless welcomed the announcement, telling Axios in a statement that "Americans deserve access to the same natural foods that other countries enjoy and we are delivering that."
The food industry has made other moves to align itself with MAHA's agenda. The Consumer Brands Association on Tuesday said it would encourage members to stop making products with artificial dyes by the end of 2027. The dairy industry this month committed to eliminating artificial dyes from ice creams.
Fast-food chain Steak 'n Shake also announced earlier this year that it was "RFK"ing it's french fries by cooking them in beef tallow instead of seed oils.
Zoom out: Scientific reviews show that ultra-processed foods can contribute to the development of chronic conditions like obesity, heart disease and diabetes.
But replacing one ingredient — even if it's a highly processed ingredient — isn't going to change the fact that the food product is still ultra-processed.
"It doesn't matter whether it has cane sugar or high fructose corn syrup —it's still sugar," Nestle said. "They're fine as occasional treats, but nobody should be drinking liters of soda and nobody should be eating quarts of ice cream" even after MAHA-influenced ingredient changes.
Cutting back the sodium content in foods, reducing intake of ultra-processed foods and making fresh produce more affordable are some interventions that could actually improve population health, Nestle added.
Reality check: Kennedy speaks frequently about reducing Americans' intake of ultra-processed foods, and has championed state efforts to restrict SNAP benefits from being used to purchase soda.
Coca-Cola CEO James Quincey told investors in April that the company is making progress on reducing sugar in its beverages by changing recipes and using global marketing and distribution resources to increase "interest in our ever-expanding portfolio."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
44 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
After Venus Williams' comment on health insurance, here's what to know about athlete coverage
Venus Williams' recent singles win at the DC Open showcased her longevity and brought attention to health coverage for aging athletes after a joking comment she made in an on-court interview. 'I had to come back for the insurance,' the five-time Wimbledon champion said after Tuesday's match, her first in 16 months. 'They informed me this year that I'm on COBRA, so it's like, I got to get my benefits on.' The 45-year-old Williams, who has won seven major singles titles, became the second-oldest woman to win a tour-level singles match in professional tennis. After losing Thursday, she acknowledged that her comment on health insurance was a 'fun and funny moment.' The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, more commonly referred to as COBRA, allows Americans to stay on their employer's insurance plan for a limited amount of time after leaving their job. It comes with high costs. Williams' comment led to questions about health insurance in the sports world. For most active professional athletes, partially or fully subsidized health insurance is provided by their league or governing body and guaranteed in their collective bargaining agreement. A CBA is an agreement reached between a league and its players that guarantees certain levels of player compensation and benefits and can be renegotiated every few years. So when athletes are playing, they're usually covered. But Williams, coming back to the sport after a 16-month hiatus, brought to light how long that insurance lasts — or doesn't last — for athletes when they're not playing. In the WTA, the governing body of the women's tour, players are eligible to enroll in the health insurance plan if they are ranked in the top 500 in singles or top 175 in doubles and have played a minimum of three WTA 250 level or above tournaments that year. If players are in the top 150 in singles or top 50 in doubles, the WTA will pay a portion of the premiums. If a player is no longer eligible under those requirements, they can enroll in COBRA for up to 18 months, which is likely the situation Williams was referencing. That is also the WTA's only option for retiring players. 'Nobody wants to be on COBRA, right?' Williams said after her second-round loss Thursday night. 'That remains an issue in my life. … Obviously (the interview was) a fun and funny moment, but it's an issue that people are dealing with, so it is serious.' The ATP provides health insurance to men's tennis players who rank in the top 250 in singles or top 50 in doubles. All other players with a ranking point are given the opportunity to purchase health insurance through the ATP's provider. For retired players, the only option is COBRA for up to three years. As an individual sport without a CBA, golf tours vary. A group insurance plan is available to active members of the PGA Tour, PGA Tour Champions (for golfers over 50) and the feeder Korn Ferry Tour. For players who meet certain 'performance criteria,' including how many tournaments they played and how often they won, the PGA Tour will partially subsidize the plan. In retirement, players are responsible for their own insurance. Some players join the PGA Tour Champions after the PGA Tour and play into their mid-60s, during which they maintain coverage. Top players can receive a subsidy from the PGA Tour in retirement. The LPGA Tour started offering its players fully funded health insurance for the first time this year. Before this year, players were given a $4,000 stipend. NBA players have access to one of the most inclusive insurance plans in retirement. If they played at least three years in the league, retired NBA players are eligible for fully funded health insurance in retirement, and if they played at least 10 years, they will have health care covered for their entire family. WNBA players are fighting for retirement health care as part of their new CBA, which they are currently negotiating with the league. Those negotiations have been heated, and the most recent meeting between the sides last weekend did not result in an agreement. One unique facet of the WNBA's healthcare is that athletes who have spent more than eight years in the league can be reimbursed up to $20,000 a year for costs related to adoption, surrogacy, egg freezing or additional fertility treatments. The NFL has less long-term coverage for retirees than most other leagues. Athletes who played in the league for at least three years can remain on the NFL health insurance plan but only for five years into retirement. NHL players who have played more than 160 games in the league — about two seasons — are eligible to buy NHL health insurance for their retirement. The retirement insurance plan is eligible for partial subsidization from the league. Baseball players who spent at least four years in the majors have the option to pay premiums to stay on the MLB's health care plan indefinitely. Minor-league baseball has its own separate CBA, which also guarantees health insurance for active players. In the minors, however, players who get cut or leave the league lose coverage at the end of that month.
Los Angeles Times
44 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump voters wanted relief from Medical bills. For millions, the bills are about to get bigger
President Trump rode to reelection last fall on voter concerns about prices. But as his administration pares back federal rules and programs designed to protect patients from the high cost of health care, Trump risks pushing more Americans into debt, further straining family budgets already stressed by medical bills. Millions of people are expected to lose health insurance in the coming years as a result of the tax cut legislation Trump signed this month, leaving them with fewer protections from large bills if they get sick or suffer an accident. At the same time, significant increases in health plan premiums on state insurance marketplaces next year will likely push more Americans to either drop coverage or switch to higher-deductible plans that will require them to pay more out-of-pocket before their insurance kicks in. Smaller changes to federal rules are poised to bump up patients' bills, as well. New federal guidelines for COVID -19 vaccines, for example, will allow health insurers to stop covering the shots for millions, so if patients want the protection, some may have to pay out-of-pocket. The new tax cut legislation will also raise the cost of certain doctor visits, requiring copays of up to $35 for some Medicaid enrollees. And for those who do end up in debt, there will be fewer protections. This month, the Trump administration secured permission from a federal court to roll back regulations that would have removed medical debt from consumer credit reports. That puts Americans who cannot pay their medical bills at risk of lower credit scores, hindering their ability to get a loan or forcing them to pay higher interest rates. 'For tens of millions of Americans, balancing the budget is like walking a tightrope,' said Chi Chi Wu, a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center. 'The Trump administration is just throwing them off.' White House spokesperson Kush Desai did not respond to questions about how the administration's health care policies will affect Americans' medical bills. The president and his Republican congressional allies have brushed off the health care cuts, including hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicaid retrenchment in the mammoth tax law. 'You won't even notice it,' Trump said at the White House after the bill signing July 4. 'Just waste, fraud, and abuse.' But consumer and patient advocates around the country warn that the erosion of federal health care protections since Trump took office in January threatens to significantly undermine Americans' financial security. 'These changes will hit our communities hard,' said Arika Sánchez, who oversees health care policy at the nonprofit New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty. Sánchez predicted many more people the center works with will end up with medical debt. 'When families get stuck with medical debt, it hurts their credit scores, makes it harder to get a car, a home, or even a job,' she said. 'Medical debt wrecks people's lives.' For Americans with serious illnesses such as cancer, weakened federal protections from medical debt pose yet one more risk, said Elizabeth Darnall, senior director of federal advocacy at the American Cancer Society's Cancer Action Network. 'People will not seek out the treatment they need,' she said. Trump promised a rosier future while campaigning last year, pledging to 'make America affordable again' and 'expand access to new Affordable Healthcare.' Polls suggest voters were looking for relief. About 6 in 10 adults — Democrats and Republicans — say they are worried about being able to afford health care, according to one recent survey, outpacing concerns about the cost of food or housing. And medical debt remains a widespread problem: As many as 100 million adults in the U.S. are burdened by some kind of health care debt. Despite this, key tools that have helped prevent even more Americans from sinking into debt are now on the chopping block. Medicaid and other government health insurance programs, in particular, have proved to be a powerful economic backstop for low-income patients and their families, said Kyle Caswell, an economist at the Urban Institute, a think tank in Washington, D.C. Caswell and other researchers found, for example, that Medicaid expansion made possible by the 2010 Affordable Care Act led to measurable declines in medical debt and improvements in consumers' credit scores in states that implemented the expansion. 'We've seen that these programs have a meaningful impact on people's financial well-being,' Caswell said. Trump's tax law — which will slash more than $1 trillion in federal health spending over the next decade, mostly through Medicaid cuts — is expected to leave 10 million more people without health coverage by 2034, according to the latest estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The tax cuts, which primarily benefit wealthy Americans, will add $3.4 trillion to U.S. deficits over a decade, the office calculated. The number of uninsured could spike further if Trump and his congressional allies don't renew additional federal subsidies for low- and moderate-income Americans who buy health coverage on state insurance marketplaces. This aid — enacted under former President Joe Biden — lowers insurance premiums and reduces medical bills enrollees face when they go to the doctor or the hospital. But unless congressional Republicans act, those subsidies will expire later this year, leaving many with bigger bills. Federal debt regulations developed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under the Biden administration would have protected these people and others if they couldn't pay their medical bills. The agency issued rules in January that would have removed medical debts from consumer credit reports. That would have helped an estimated 15 million people. But the Trump administration chose not to defend the new regulations when they were challenged in court by debt collectors and the credit bureaus, who argued the federal agency had exceeded its authority in issuing the rules. A federal judge in Texas appointed by Trump ruled that the regulation should be scrapped. Levey writes for KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism.
Business Journals
an hour ago
- Business Journals
Waiting for pharmacy benefit manager reform from Washington? Here's what to do now.
If you're frustrated with your pharmacy benefit manager (PBM), join the club. A recent survey found that three-fifths of large-company benefit leaders said their PBM contracts were opaque, overly complicated, and contained clauses that profit the PBM at the expense of employers and patients. Thankfully, you're not stuck. Washington is working on PBM reform, one of the rare issues for which there is agreement between both parties in Congress and the Trump administration. Of course, consensus isn't always enough to create legislation, and any passed law will take time to come into force. A recently-enacted bill in Colorado addresses some of these issues, but will not apply to many large employer-sponsored plans. What follows is a guide to the problems with PBM contracts, the reform proposals, and two approaches to addressing the existing issues that don't require waiting on Washington: Finding a new generation of PBM committed to more transparency; and Negotiating a more transparent arrangement with your current PBM. The problem with large PBMs Pharmacy benefit managers were created to reduce employer costs, yet over time they have evolved in ways that often incentivize increases in plan sponsor and employee costs: Vertical Integration: Nearly 80% of the prescription market (which totaled $600 billion in 2023) is controlled by PBMs run by the three largest health insurance carriers: CVS Caremark (owns Aetna), OptumRX (owned by UnitedHealth Group), and Express Scripts (owned by Cigna). Spread pricing: PBMs charge employers more than they pay pharmacies for drugs, keeping the difference. Drug company rebates: These payments are often in return for PBMs steering business to their products and can include other undisclosed fees. Misaligned Incentives: By favoring their own specialty and mail-order (or retail) pharmacies, PBMs may be restricting competition and limiting their interest in negotiating the lowest pharmacy markups. A recent FTC study found that PBMs often charged employers a markup for specialty drugs distributed through their affiliated pharmacies of more than 100% — and sometimes more than 1,000%. Recently, the big PBMs have started joint ventures to manufacture their own generic and biosimilar drugs, creating another potential conflict. Secrecy: PBM common practices such as spread pricing, rebates, contractual gag clauses, price list manipulation and others have created an environment ripe with opaqueness and confusion for employers. The proposed legislation Congress has been looking closely at PBM reform for several years, and a detailed bipartisan bill was removed from last December's stop-gap budget after Elon Musk tweeted that it was too long. Leading committees are now working to pass something similar. Indeed, two bills that passed Committee last year were reintroduced: The Prescription Pricing for the People Act directs the Federal Trade Commission to complete its ongoing study of PBM practices. The Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM) Transparency Act bans spread pricing, incentivizes PBMs to pass 100% of the rebates they receive to plan sponsors, encourages transparency, and requires annual reporting by PBMs of their pricing, reimbursement, and rebate practices. Other proposals go further, including the Patients Before Monopolies Act, which would ban PBMs and insurance companies from owning a pharmacy. The states have been busy as well, increasing their oversight of PBM practices through new legislation and reporting requirements. Unintended consequences of all of this are a concern for consultants and employers looking to control costs. In Colorado, Governor Polis signed HB 25-1094 into law in May. Effective in 2027, this law will regulate how PBMs can earn income, how they structure their formulary, and how they reimburse unaffiliated versus PBM-affiliated pharmacies, among other changes. Unfortunately, this new law won't apply to many large employer-sponsored healthcare programs. So large employers in Colorado are still left to design their own pharmacy strategy. Switching to a transparency-oriented PBM In recent years, more employers have switched their pharmacy programs to a new crop of PBMs who are unaffiliated with large insurers—including Navitus Health Solutions, Rightway Rx, Capital Rx, and SmithRx—and offer a more transparent business model. The advantages Pass-through pricing: Employers get the full benefit of network discounts and rebates, and instead of spread pricing, they pay a disclosed administrative fee per prescription. Fewer conflicts: The independent PBMs are less likely to have pharmacy operations or other business interests that differ from those of employers. Transparent disclosures: Employers get access to granular information about the pricing of each prescription rather than the opaque summaries provided by the large PBMs. Aggressive cost management: The independent PBMs emphasize lower net cost options in their formularies and have strict prior authorization requirements for more expensive drugs. The disadvantages Negotiating intermediaries: Since the upstart PBMs are small, many band together by using rebate aggregators, entities that negotiate lower prices with drug companies. But these negotiations have a downside: They can obscure the details of drug company rebates, especially since most of the aggregators are owned by the same insurance conglomerates that own the big PBMs. Potential disruption: Changing PBMs means employees must adjust to a new formulary, pharmacy network, and prior authorization procedures. Members may also object to the stricter utilization controls these companies use. Buying power: Smaller PBMs do not have the volume that the larger players do and are also unable to take on the risk of aggressive discount and rebate guarantees which can lead to a financial arrangement that appears to be less advantageous for employers. Renegotiating with your existing PBM Many companies that have investigated using a more transparent PBM ultimately decide that the advantages of sticking with a large provider outweigh the frustrations and potential conflicts. They are: Convenience: Dealing with one company that provides medical benefits, pharmacy benefits, and mail-order pharmacy service can be easier for employers and plan members alike. Lower effective prices: Some employers find that the greater bargaining clout of the large PBMs delivers good value even if the mechanics of their arrangements remain murky. Increased transparency efforts: Faced with the prospect of increased regulation, CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, and OptumRX have all announced programs that disclose more information about pricing and pass more of their rebates to employers. As they are just being instituted, their real-world impact remains to be seen. In any case, employers and their advisors can't afford to wait to scrutinize their PBM's business practices and press for more advantageous contracts. The time is now to: Look at the fine print: A typical PBM contract may specify high-level drug discounts, rebates, and dispensing fees. Dig deeper, and you can find exclusions and key definitions, such as what is a 'specialty drug.' Press for full pass-through of rebates: Work through every category and proposed exception to insist that rebates for all drugs go to the employer. Ask about conflicts: How does the PBM interact with its affiliated pharmacies? Are reimbursements different than those for independent pharmacies? Are the dispensed drugs made by brands it owns? Check its approach to cost control: What is its philosophy for adding drugs to its formulary? How does it generate prior authorization guidelines for drugs with high rebates? What percent of authorization requests are approved? Audit performance: At the end of a contract, demand a detailed itemization of all claims to ensure that the PBM has met its commitments. If it hasn't, fight for a financial adjustment. Whether your company decides to find a new PBM or renegotiate its deal with the current provider, there are a lot of details to consider. An experienced broker or consultant will help you sort through those complex contracts designed to confuse. And if Washington does end up passing PBM reform, that advisor will also be able to adapt your plan to take maximum advantage of the new rules. To learn more, contact Chris Mast, an actuary and benefits consultant with Alliant Employee Benefits in Greenwood Village, CO. Mast has worked with employers across Colorado and the US for more than 20 years. He can be reached at Alliant's Pharmacy team is made up of industry experts, pharmacists, and data specialists who provide marketplace perspective and insights, vendor capabilities, and practical knowledge to secure the best pricing and contract arrangements. Our buying power and partnerships enable us to support your benefits strategy, pharmacy program, and cost management throughout the entire program lifecycle. Learn more about Alliant at
