Major Soda Companies Target RFK Jr.’s Health Movement Amid Lobbying Efforts

Major US soft-drink and snack-food corporations are orchestrating a campaign aimed at undermining Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again (Maha) movement, which seeks to reduce American consumption of soda and ultra-processed foods. An investigation by the Guardian, in collaboration with the environmental watchdog Fieldnotes, reveals that these corporations are leveraging a network of pollsters, strategists, and political financiers closely tied to the national Republican Party. This campaign is designed to pit Donald Trump’s supporters against the Maha initiative, which these companies view as a significant threat to their profits.

The American Beverage Association, along with the Consumer Brands Association, is leading the charge. Notable companies such as Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Keurig Dr Pepper are among those that contribute to these trade groups, which have expressed concern over the potential impact of Maha-backed efforts in their annual reports. These reports highlighted the risks posed by legislative measures advocating for restrictions on food dyes in schools and limitations on the use of federal nutrition assistance, commonly known as Snap benefits, for purchasing soft drinks.

In a memo circulated earlier this year, the beverage lobby underscored the importance of maintaining support from conservative lawmakers by warning that endorsing Maha initiatives would betray the voters who supported Trump. They asserted that working-class families had “risen up to vote for President Trump on the promise of a new era.” The message was clear: oppose Maha, or risk alienating a crucial voter base.

Efforts to promote these health initiatives have gained traction outside the political arena, with a dozen states successfully obtaining waivers from the US Department of Agriculture to restrict Snap benefit usage. States like Utah and Arkansas have passed legislation to limit food dyes in school meals, demonstrating that the Maha movement is resonating with some lawmakers despite significant industry pushback.

Lobbying Strategies and Political Maneuvering

Lobbyists representing the beverage industry have implemented a strategy that involves creating a veneer of separation between corporate interests and their political messaging. Communications obtained through public records requests show that industry representatives sought to leverage the Maga-versus-Maha narrative to influence state-level nutrition bills. For example, during a critical period in February, Michael Gardner, a soda lobbyist, contacted Arizona lawmakers to voice opposition to a Snap-related bill that ultimately faced a veto from the governor.

The lobbyists not only communicated their positions but also directed lawmakers’ attention to articles suggesting that Trump voters supported their stance on Snap benefits, with one article sourced from a poll commissioned by the American Beverage Association itself. This poll, conducted by Public Opinion Strategies, received nearly $2 million in funding from the association in 2023.

In addition, the lobbying efforts were bolstered by connections to a broader network of political firms led by Phil Cox, a former executive at Americans for Prosperity, a prominent conservative organization. This network has been characterized by its ability to execute strategies with “lethal precision” in the political landscape.

The campaign further involved the Center Square, a media outlet identified by Columbia University as promoting partisan narratives disguised as objective journalism. This outlet is funded by conservative organizations, including Donors Trust, which has ties to the Koch family.

Industry Influence and Community Response

As industry lobbyists engaged directly with lawmakers, a front group called Americans for Food and Beverage Choice launched a Facebook advertising campaign promoting the industry’s polling data across multiple states. Despite presenting itself as a grassroots organization, the group is staffed by individuals employed by the American Beverage Association, including its CEO, Kevin Keane.

Additionally, a campaign involving Maga-aligned social media influencers sought to disseminate pro-soda messages nationally. These influencers, who were compensated for their posts, echoed the industry’s talking points while failing to disclose their financial ties. One influencer, Eric Daugherty, tweeted against the Maha messaging, invoking President Trump’s fondness for soda to bolster the industry’s perspective.

The influence of industry lobbyists has drawn criticism from lawmakers like Utah’s state representative Kristen Chevrier, who noted that the industry’s focus on profits overshadows public health concerns. Chevrier recounted her discussions with lobbyists, highlighting their prioritization of financial losses over the health of vulnerable populations.

Despite significant industry opposition, the movement towards healthier nutrition policies continues to gain ground, reflecting a growing public interest in addressing health issues linked to diet. As the competition between the soda industry and the Maha initiative unfolds, the implications for public health and consumer choice remain significant. The outcome of this struggle will likely shape the future of nutrition standards and regulations in the United States.