Coca-Cola’s Reach

Coca-Cola has had an influential role in policy formation. During the early 1900s, a movement against the use of cocaine because of public health and safety concerns led to various legislative acts that restricted the use, exportation, and importation of the coca leaves in the United States. For instance, the Federal Narcotics Control Board and the Narcotics Division within the Department of Treasury were

created during this time to control the flow of the leaves in the United States. In addition, the law Jones-Miller Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act of 1922 closed off the importation of the leaves into the country, but granted permission to a few companies to continue manufacturing goods with coca leaves as long as they destroy the excess material that was cocaine. This act made it easier for the US government to regulate the flows and track the amount of coca leaves (Elmore, 2015). The Coca-Cola Company lobbied for the permission to create a business relationship with one of these companies, Maywood Chemical Works, on the basis of the preservation of Coca-Cola’s flavor. They made the case that Coke would not be the same if it were not for the coca leaf. This petition created a loop hole in the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914, that allowed the use of de-cocainized coca leaf extract (Elmore, 2015). Maintaining this third-party relationship allowed the Coca-Cola Company to be shielded from the judgmental eyes of consumers who were against the coca leaf.

Another example of Coca-Cola’s influence in policy is their interference in the Peruvian drug trade. Peru was the major source of the coca leaf for Merchandise #5 used in the Coca-Cola syrup. With the increase of tariffs of coca leaves in the United States, only a few companies

remained in the importation sector, thus giving the power of pricing to those foreign companies, one being Maywood Chemical Works. In the beginning of the 20^th century, legislation was created to regulate the trade of coca leaves in the United States, but these legislations were drafted to comply to the needs of the Coca-Cola company. One report from the US drug agency in 1930, supported by the lobbied Porter Act of 1930, outlined the specific restrictions of coca leaf importation that allowed Coca-Cola to continue their use of the decocainized version of the leaves, for the sake of their product’s flavor, as it was a form of non-medicinal coca (Gootenberg, 2004). With these close political ties between the Maywood Chemical company and government officials, Maywood had influence in Peruvian politics since they were one of their few remaining customers. By breaking up any forming monopolies in Peru, The Maywood company supported US political aims while also ensuring a stable and low price of these Peruvian coca leaves for their business partners, like Coke. However, this affected Peruvian drug control at their national level since they were not able to create the monopolies for better drug regulation like the United States (Gootenberg, 2004, p. 243-246).

The relationship between Coca-Cola, Maywood Chemical Works, US government, and Peru demonstrates the power corporations have in the economy and in the government. With the reduction in regulations that limit corporation behavior, large corporations continue to gain power in the economic and political sector to the point where they are interwoven into our society and are hard to distinguish. This can be problematic because they influence legislation to the company’s benefit, not necessarily for the greater good. This raises the question of whether large corporations should have this level of power in policy formation and what that means for future laws that restrict certain corporate behaviors. Is it too late to change this relationship between corporations and politics?