Trump says Coca-Cola agrees to use cane sugar for coke in US
'I have been speaking to Coca-Cola about using REAL Cane Sugar in Coke in the United States, and they have agreed to do so,' Trump said. 'I'd like to thank all of those in authority at Coca-Cola.'
Coca-Cola did not immediately return a message seeking comment. The company already sells a version of Mexico Coke that contains cane sugar.
Coke's original soda currently contains high-fructose corn syrup, a sweetener made from corn, according to the company's website.
The syrup is commonly used in packaged goods because it is more shelf-stable, cheaper and sweeter than regular sugar, according to the Cleveland Health Clinic.
Donald Trump drinks a Diet Coke at the Al Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner in New York in 2016. Photo: AFP
US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jnr has said 'high-fructose corn syrup is everywhere' and contributing to making Americans unhealthy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South China Morning Post
18 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
US begins organ-transplant reform as ‘signs of life' found before some retrievals
The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has launched a reform of the organ-transplant system and threatened to close a major procurement body after a probe found premature attempts to start organ retrieval while patients showed signs of life. The investigation conducted by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), a division of HHS, examined 351 cases where organ donation was authorised but not completed. It found 73 patients had shown neurological signs incompatible with organ donation and at least 28 patients may not have been deceased at the time organ procurement was initiated, the HHS said in a statement on Monday. The probe also found evidence of poor neurologic assessments, questionable consent practices, and misclassification of causes of death in several cases, the agency said.
AllAfrica
4 days ago
- AllAfrica
Cog war's glaring and growing legal blind spot
Imagine waking up to the news that a deadly new strain of flu has emerged in your city. Health officials are downplaying it, but social media is flooded with contradictory claims from 'medical experts' debating its origin and severity. Hospitals are filled with patients showing flu-like symptoms, preventing other patients from accessing care and ultimately leading to deaths. It gradually emerges that a foreign adversary orchestrated this panic by planting false information – such as the strain having a very high death rate. Yet despite the casualties, no rules define this as an act of war. This is cognitive warfare, or cog war for short, where the cognitive domain is used on battlefields or in hostile attacks below the threshold of war. A classical example of cog war is a concept called 'reflexive control' – an art refined by Russia over many decades. It involves shaping an adversary's perceptions to your own benefit without them understanding that they have been manipulated. In the context of the Ukraine conflict, this has included narratives about historical claims to Ukrainian land and portraying the west as morally corrupt. Cog war serves to gain advantage over an adversary by targeting attitudes and behaviour at the individual, group or population level. It is designed to modify perceptions of reality, making 'human cognition shaping' into a critical realm of warfare. It is therefore a weapon in a geopolitical battle that plays out by interactions across human minds rather than across physical realms. Because cog war can be waged without the physical damage regulated by the current laws of war, it exists in a legal vacuum. But that doesn't mean it cannot ultimately incite violence based on false information or cause injury and death by secondary effects. The notion that war is essentially a mental contest, where cognitive manipulation is central, harks back to the strategist Sun Tzu (fifth century BC), author of The Art of War. Today, the online domain is the main arena for such operations. The digital revolution has allowed ever-more tailored content to play into biases mapped through our digital footprint, which is called 'microtargeting.' Machine intelligence can even feed us targeted content without ever taking a picture or recording a video. All it takes is a well-designed AI prompt, supporting bad actors' predefined narrative and goals, while covertly misleading the audience. Such disinformation campaigns increasingly reach into the physical domain of the human body. In the war in Ukraine, we see continued cog war narratives. These include allegations that the Ukrainian authorities were concealing or purposefully inciting cholera outbreaks. Allegations of US-supported bioweapons labs also formed part of false-flag justifications for Russia's full-scale invasion. During Covid, false information led to deaths when people refused protective measures or used harmful remedies to treat it. Some narratives during the pandemic were driven as part of a geopolitical battle. While the US engaged in covert information operations, Russian and Chinese state-linked actors coordinated campaigns that used AI-generated social media personas and microtargeting to shape opinions at the level of communities and individuals. Fake image of Donald Trump being arrested. Image: Wikipedia The capability of microtargeting may evolve rapidly as methods for brain-machine coupling become more proficient at collecting data on cognition patterns. Ways of providing a better interface between machines and the human brain range from advanced electrodes that you can put on your scalp to virtual reality goggles with sensory stimulation for a more immersive experience. DARPA's Next-Generation Nonsurgical Neurotechnology (N3) program illustrates how these devices may become capable of reading from and writing to multiple points in the brain simultaneously . However, these tools might also be hacked or fed poisoned data as a part of future information manipulation or psychological disruption strategies. Directly linking the brain to the digital world in this way will erode the line between the information domain and the human body in a way never done before. Traditional laws of war assume physical force such as bombs and bullets as the primary concern, leaving cognitive warfare in a legal grey zone. Is psychological manipulation an 'armed attack' that justifies self-defence under the UN charter? Currently, no clear answer exists. A state actor could potentially use health disinformation to create mass casualties in another country without formally starting a war. Similar gaps exist in situations where war, as we traditionally see it, is actually ongoing. Here, cog war can blur the line between permitted military deception (ruses of war) and prohibited perfidy. Imagine a humanitarian vaccination program secretly collecting DNA, while covertly used by military forces to map clan-based insurgent networks. This exploitation of medical trust would constitute perfidy under humanitarian law – but only if we start recognizing such manipulative tactics as part of warfare. So, what can be done to protect us in this new reality? First, we need to rethink what 'threats' mean in modern conflict. The UN charter already outlaws 'threats to use force' against other nations, but this makes us stuck in a mindset of physical threats. When a foreign power floods your media with false health alerts designed to create panic, isn't that threatening your country just as effectively as a military blockade? While this issue was recognized as early as 2017 by the groups of experts who drafted the Tallinn Manual on cyberwarfare (Rule 70), our legal frameworks haven't caught up. Second, we must acknowledge that psychological harm is real harm. When we think about war injuries, we picture physical wounds. But post-traumatic stress disorder has long been recognised as a legitimate war injury – so why not the mental health effects of targeted cognitive operations? Finally, traditional laws of war might not be enough – we should look to human rights frameworks for solutions. These already include protections for freedom of thought, freedom of opinion and prohibitions against war propaganda that could shield civilians from cognitive attacks. States have obligations to uphold these rights both within their territory and abroad. The use of increasingly sophisticated tactics and technologies to manipulate cognition and emotion poses one of the most insidious threats to human autonomy in our time. Only by adapting our legal frameworks to this challenge can we foster societal resilience and equip future generations to confront the crises and conflicts of tomorrow. David Gisselsson Nord is professor, Division of Clinical Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University and Alberto Rinaldi is postdoctoral researcher in human rights and humanitarian law, Lund University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
RTHK
4 days ago
- RTHK
Trump pulls US from World Health pandemic reforms
Trump pulls US from World Health pandemic reforms US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy is a long-time critic of vaccines. Photo: Reuters US President Donald Trump's administration said on Friday the United States was rejecting changes agreed last year for the World Health Organization on its pandemic response, saying they violated US sovereignty. Trump, on returning to office on January 20, immediately began the withdrawal of the United States from the UN body, but the State Department said the language from last year would still have been binding on the United States. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy, who is a longtime critic of vaccines, said that the changes "risk unwarranted interference with our national sovereign right to make health policy." "We will put Americans first in all our actions, and we will not tolerate international policies that infringe on Americans' speech, privacy or personal liberties," they said in a joint statement. Rubio and Kennedy disassociated the United States from a series of amendments to the International Health Regulations, which provide a legal framework for combating diseases, agreed last year at the World Health Assembly in Geneva. The amendments included a stated "commitment to solidarity and equity" in which a new group would study the needs of developing countries in future emergencies. Countries have until Saturday to lodge reservations about the amendments. Conservative activists and vaccine sceptics in Britain and Australia, which both have left-leaning governments, have waged public campaigns against the changes. The amendments came about when the Assembly failed at a more ambitious goal of sealing a new global agreement on pandemics. Most of the world finally sealed a treaty this May, but the United States did not participate as it was in the process of withdrawing from the World Health Organization. The United States, then under President Joe Biden, took part in the May-June 2024 negotiations, but said it could not support consensus as it demanded protections for US intellectual property rights on vaccine development. Rubio's predecessor, Antony Blinken, had welcomed the amendments as progress. (AFP)
