Latest news with #American Medical Association
The Guardian
5 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Coca-Cola defends corn syrup after Trump claims he struck cane sugar deal
The Coca-Cola company has defended its use of corn syrup after Donald Trump's claim Wednesday that he had apparently convinced the brand to switch to using sugar cane in its US drinks, as it does in Mexico and the UK. '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. I'd like to thank all of those in authority at Coca-Cola,' Trump said in a social media post late Tuesday. 'This will be a very good move by them – You'll see. It's just better!' Initially, the drinks giant responded with a neutral statement of appreciation for 'President Trump's enthusiasm' for Coke, and a vague message about 'new innovative offerings within our Coca-Cola product range' to come. On Thursday, however, the soft drinks company released an additional statement making positive claims about high-fructose corn syrup, a product that some blame for soaring US obesity rates and which has become a target of health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr's 'Make America healthy again' movement. 'The name sounds complex, but high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) – which we use to sweeten some of our beverages – is actually just a sweetener made from corn,' Coca-Cola said in a statement. 'It's safe; it has about the same number of calories per serving as table sugar and is metabolized in a similar way by your body.' It added that the American Medical Association 'has confirmed that HFCS is no more likely to contribute to obesity than table sugar or other full-calorie sweeteners', and said: 'Please be assured that Coca-Cola brand soft drinks do not contain any harmful substances.' In 2023, the AMA released a statement saying it recognized 'that at the present time, insufficient evidence exists to specifically restrict use of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) or other fructose-containing sweeteners in the food supply or to require the use of warning labels on products containing HFCS'. Trump's rather abrupt entry into the Coca-Cola sugar debate comes as he struggles to move past a growing controversy over the release of files relating to the disgraced sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a one-time friend of Trump's. The president's high consumption of Diet Coke is well-documented, including the installation of a red 'Diet Coke button' near his desk that he can press in order to summon a staff member with the drink. Diet Coke contains neither corn syrup nor sugar cane, but aspartame, a low-calorie artificial sweetener. A switch by Coca-Cola to using sugar cane could trade implications for the $285bn US soft drinks market. Coca-Cola in Mexico is made with cane sugar and packaged in glass bottles. Some is imported into the US, where it sells unofficially as 'Mexican Coke' at a premium over its domestic counterpart. In the 1980s Coca-Cola's US arm changed its formulation to use high-fructose corn syrup, supported by US farming subsidies, and not imported sugar cane subjected to import tariffs. But turning back the clock could prove costly if Trump's high US tariffs on nations that produce sugar cane continue to apply. Trump had previously clashed with the company over voting access in Georgia, where the company is based. But ahead of his second inauguration as president in January of this year, the company's CEO, James Quincey, presented Trump with an inaugural Diet Coke bottle.
CBS News
6 days ago
- Health
- CBS News
States pass privacy laws to protect brain data collected by devices
More states are passing laws to protect information generated by a person's brain and nervous system as technology improves the ability to unlock the sensitive details of a person's health, mental states, emotions, and cognitive functioning. Colorado, California, and Montana are among the states that have recently required safeguarding brain data collected by devices outside of medical settings. That includes headphones, earbuds, and other wearable consumer products that aim to improve sleep, focus, and aging by measuring electrical activity and sending the data to an app on users' phones. A report by the Neurorights Foundation, an advocacy group that aims to protect people from the misuse of neurotechnology, found that 29 of 30 companies with neurotechnology products that can be purchased online have access to brain data and "provide no meaningful limitations to this access." Almost all of them can share data with third parties. In June, the American Medical Association called for greater regulation of neural data. In April, several Democratic members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate whether companies are exploiting consumers' brain data. Juliana Gruenwald Henderson, a deputy director of the FTC's Office of Public Affairs, said the agency had received the letter but had no additional comment. Although current devices gather relatively basic information like sleep states, advocates for brain data protection caution that future technologies, including artificial intelligence, could extract more personal and sensitive information about people's medical conditions or innermost thoughts. "If you collect the data today, what can you read from it five years from now, because the technology is advancing so quickly?" said Democratic state Sen. Cathy Kipp, who sponsored Colorado's 2024 neural data protection bill when she was in the state House of Representatives. As both excitement and trepidation about AI build, at least 28 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands have enacted some type of AI regulation separate from the privacy bills protecting neural data. President Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill" included a 10-year halt on states passing laws to regulate AI, but the Senate stripped that provision out of the budget reconciliation bill before voting to approve it on July 1. The spirit of laws in Colorado, California, and Montana is to protect the neural data itself, not to regulate any algorithm or AI that might use it, said Sean Pauzauskie, medical director for the Neurorights Foundation. But neurotechnology and AI go hand in hand, Pauzauskie said. "A lot of what these devices promise is based on pattern recognition. AI is really driving the usability and significance of the patterns in the brain data." Cristin Welle, a professor of neurosurgery at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, said that AI's ability to identify patterns is a game changer in her field. "But contribution of a person's neural data on an AI training set should be voluntary. It should be an opt-in, not a given." Chile in 2021 became the first country to adopt a constitutional amendment for neurorights, which prioritize human rights in the development of neurotechnology and collection of neural data, and UNESCO has said that neurotechnology and artificial intelligence could together pose a threat to human identity and autonomy. Neurotechnology can sound like science fiction. Researchers used a cap with 128 electrodes and an AI model to decode the brain's electric signals from thoughts into speech. And two years ago, a study described how neuroscientists reconstructed the Pink Floyd song "Another Brick in the Wall" by analyzing the brain signals of 29 epilepsy patients who listened to the song with electrodes implanted in their brains. The aim is to use neurotechnology to help those with paralysis or speech disabilities, as well as treat or diagnose traumatic brain injuries and brain disorders such as Alzheimer's or Parkinson's. Elon Musk's Neuralink and Synchron, funded by Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, are among the companies with clinical trials underway for devices implanted in the brain. Pauzauskie, a hospital neurologist, started worrying four years ago about the blurring of the line between clinical and consumer use of neural data. He noted that the devices used by his epilepsy patients were also available for purchase online, but without protections afforded by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act in medical settings. Pauzauskie approached Kipp two years ago at a constituent meetup in his hometown of Fort Collins to propose a law to protect brain data in Colorado. "The first words out of her mouth that I'll never forget were, 'Who would be against people owning their own brain data?'" he said. Brain data protection is one of the rare issues that unite lawmakers across the political aisle. The bills in California, Montana, and Colorado passed unanimously or nearly unanimously. Montana's law will go into effect in October. Neural data protection laws in Colorado and California amend each state's general consumer privacy act, while Montana's law adds to its existing genetic information privacy act. Colorado and Montana require initial express consent to collect or use neural data and separate consent or the ability to opt out before disclosing that data to a third party. A business must provide a way for consumers to delete their data when operating in all three states. "I want a very hard line in the sand that says, you own this completely," said Montana state Sen. Daniel Zolnikov, who sponsored his state's neural data bill and other privacy laws. "You have to give consent. You have the right to have it deleted. You have complete rights over this information." For Zolnikov, Montana's bill is a blueprint for a national neural data protection law, and Pauzauskie said support of regulatory efforts by groups like the AMA pave the way for further federal and state efforts. Welle agreed that federal regulations are needed in addition to these new state laws. "I absolutely hope that we can come up with something on a national level that can enshrine people's neural rights into law because I think this is going to be more important than we can even imagine at this time." KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.
