Coca-Cola Co. CEO Muhtar Kent argues against a tax on sugared drinks, saying that Coke's small role in obesity should be considered, in part, against lack of regular exercise ("Coke Didn't Make America Fat," op-ed. Oct. 8). It's almost a relief to read that others agree that lack of regular exercise is a problem. I wonder why regular exercise programs and better nutrition programs are not part of the health-care reform debate.
I, for one, enjoy my ice-cold Coke after a three-hour bike ride.
Denise Leary
Seattle
Mr. Kent clearly is protecting his turf in his commentary about Coke not making America fat. If you take in more calories than you burn, you gain weight.
I agree that Americans do not exercise enough, but they also eat too many empty calories, including his product, Coca-Cola.
As someone who works hard to take care of herself and her family, I believe we should consider taxes on products that do not enhance health. I am also in favor of having people who eat too much, exercise too little and indulge in other risky behaviors pay more in health-care premiums than someone like myself who eats well, exercises regularly and doesn't smoke or drink too much.
Mr. Kent's opinion is clearly biased by his desire to maintain Coke's market share and profitability. Taxing his product will affect these. The market will sort out the demand and supply.
Cathy Rocke
Santa Fe, N.M.
Mr. Kent uses the measure of 140 calories in 12 ounces of Coke when most products are readily available in 20-ounce portions. The 12-ounce can is virtually extinct at sporting events and fast-food restaurants where sizes up to 32 ounces are common. The Coca-Cola Web site further clouds the numbers by basing its nutritional measurements on eight-ounce portion sizes.
His most glaring omission is that he ignores the average daily consumption of Americans who drink soft drinks. Including people in the average calorie percentages who rarely or never consume soft drinks makes the numbers look better for Coke, but much worse for those who drink it.
Daniel E. Oppenheimer
Hempstead, N.Y.
Mr. Kent drives home some great points but the article lacks fizzle by ignoring an even more important point, which is that it is not the business of government to tell us what we can and cannot eat in the first place.
Laurence Needleman
River Vale, N.J.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 