the issues of integrity, ethics and law posed in this case study ?

Identify at least 3

Misleading marketing: Coca-Cola launched a campaign that claimed soda was healthy for
children, without providing detailed information or evidence. This could be seen as a violation
of the ethical principle of honesty and transparency, as well as the legal principle of consumer
protection. The company was taken to court by the Australian Competition and Consumer
Commission and had to correct its advertisements. Coca-Cola was sued by the Center for
Science in the Public Interest for making false or deceptive health claims about its
VitaminWater product, which contains a high amount of sugar. The company tried to have
the lawsuit dismissed, but a judge ruled that it could continue after determining that
VitaminWater lacked the nutritional requirements needed to make certain health claims.

Soda tax and obesity: The U.S. government is considering imposing a tax on soft drinks as a
way to reduce obesity and the national deficit. This raises the question of whether the
government has the right to interfere with the consumers’ choice of beverages and whether
the tax would be effective and fair. Coca-Cola and other soft drink makers oppose the tax and
argue that obesity is caused by other factors, such as sedentary lifestyle. They also claim that
they have reduced the average caloric content in soft drinks by introducing diet beverages.
This raises the issue of whether Coca-Cola is being honest and responsible about the health
effects of its products and whether it is using its influence and resources to lobby against the
public interest. Coca-Cola faces criticism for contributing to the obesity epidemic, as its
products are high in sugar and calories. The company has opposed the proposal of a soda
tax, which aims to reduce consumption and raise revenue for health programs. This raises
ethical questions about the social responsibility of Coca-Cola, and whether it should take
more proactive steps to address the problem of obesity and its related health consequences.
It also involves political and economic issues, as the soda tax could affect the profitability and
competitiveness of Coca-Cola and other beverage companies.

Caramel coloring and cancer risk: The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) urged
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ban caramel coloring in soda drinks and other
products, claiming that it contains two cancer-causing ingredients. The American Beverage
Association denied this view, saying that there is no evidence that caramel coloring causes
cancer in humans. However, California made plans to label products that contain caramel
coloring8. Pepsi and Coca-Cola reformulated their products in California to avoid the
labeling, but a later study revealed that Pepsi products sold outside of California still
contained the controversial ingredient, while only one out of 10 Coca-Cola products did so.
This raises the issue of whether Coca-Cola is being transparent and consistent about the
safety of its ingredients and whether it is complying with the state and federal laws and
regulations. It also raises the issue of whether Coca-Cola is putting the consumers’ health at
risk by using potentially harmful substances in its products. The CSPI claims that the caramel
coloring used by Coca-Cola contains two carcinogenic chemicals, which could pose a health
risk to consumers. This raises ethical questions about the safety and transparency of the
ingredients in Coca-Cola products. It also involves legal issues, as California requires labeling
of products that contain these chemicals, and the FDA may consider banning them
altogether.