<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd">
<channel>
<title>BloggingStocks</title>
<link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com</link>
<description>BloggingStocks</description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Is Coke's VitaminWater healthy enough to fend off a lawsuit?]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/01/15/is-cokes-vitaminwater-healthy-enough-to-fend-off-a-lawsuit/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/01/15/is-cokes-vitaminwater-healthy-enough-to-fend-off-a-lawsuit/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/01/15/is-cokes-vitaminwater-healthy-enough-to-fend-off-a-lawsuit/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/products-and-services/" rel="tag">Products and Services</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/law/" rel="tag">Law</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/ko/" rel="tag">Coca-Cola (KO)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/pep/" rel="tag">PepsiCo (PEP)</a></p><p><img hspace="4" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2006/08/coca_cola_buffett.jpg" align="right" vspace="4" border="1" alt="" />Don't you just hate it when one of the companies in your portfolio finds itself the subject of litigation? Especially when it's a lawsuit not so much for money but to generate a little bad publicity? I know, lawsuits are part of the game of any business. They are nothing more than another cost on the income statement. But I hate it when it has to do with an acquisition that is still young. I'm talking about <a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/the-coca-cola-company/ko/nys">Coca-Cola</a> (NYSE: <a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/the-coca-cola-company/ko/nys">KO</a>) and a lawsuit brought against its VitaminWater asset. </p>
<p>According to this <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsnews/idAFN1552043220090115?rpc=33">source</a>, The Center for Science in the Public Interest doesn't like the way that Coke publicizes the health benefits of VitaminWater and is suing to make its point. </p>
<p>Words on the label of the bottles of the product irk the group, words like "defense" and "rescue." For those who have never ingested one of these drinks, these are the names of the drinks and are supposed to help consumers know which beverage to use in case you are feeling sick, or are feeling fatigued, etc. </p><p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/01/15/is-cokes-vitaminwater-healthy-enough-to-fend-off-a-lawsuit/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Is Coke's VitaminWater healthy enough to fend off a lawsuit?</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/01/15/is-cokes-vitaminwater-healthy-enough-to-fend-off-a-lawsuit/">Is Coke's VitaminWater healthy enough to fend off a lawsuit?</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:20:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsnews/idAFN1552043220090115?rpc=33>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/01/15/is-cokes-vitaminwater-healthy-enough-to-fend-off-a-lawsuit/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/1430785/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/01/15/is-cokes-vitaminwater-healthy-enough-to-fend-off-a-lawsuit/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>beverages</category><category>center for science in the public interest</category><category>CenterForScienceInThePublicInterest</category><category>Coca-Cola</category><category>KO</category><category>PEP</category><category>PepsiCo</category><category>Vitamin Water</category><category>VitaminWater</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Steven Mallas]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:20:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Have it your way: Burger King sued over trans fat]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/05/16/have-it-your-way-burger-king-sued-over-trans-fat/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/05/16/have-it-your-way-burger-king-sued-over-trans-fat/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/05/16/have-it-your-way-burger-king-sued-over-trans-fat/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/bkc/" rel="tag">Burger King Hldgs (BKC)</a></p><img vspace="4" hspace="4" border="" align="right" alt="" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2007/05/burgerking.jpg" />The good folks at the Center for Science in the Public Interest are at it again. In the mid-90s I wrote about this group for <em>Business Week</em>, when it made the claim that Chinese food was bad for you. Shocking!<br /><br />In the crosshairs this time? Burger King. The public advocacy group is suing Burger King (<a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/burger-king-holdings-inc/bkc/nys">Burger King Holdings, Inc.</a> (NYSE: <a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/burger-king-holdings-inc/bkc/nys">BKC</a>)) because it's bad for you. <br /><br />Not quite the same shock effect as the Chinese food report had. Fast food bad for you? Stop the presses!<br /><br />But what better way to get your point across than with a shocker of a lawsuit? According to the group, the home of the Whopper is increasing its patrons' risk of heart disease and early death by knowingly using trans fat in its cooking. The CSPI is asking a District of Columbia Superior Court judge to order the chain to stop using the ingredient, or at least put a suitable warning on its packaging. Hey, skulls and crossbones are in fashion these days. Might work. Anything has to be better than that creepy "King" the company is using these days.<br /><br />The larger point: Burger King is the <a href="http://money.aol.com/news/articles/_a/kfc-taco-bell-switch-to-trans-fat-free/20070430071709990001">last of the large fast food chains</a> to address the very real issue of trans fat. In February the chain announced that it had been testing alternative oils, and that it hoped it would be able to roll something out in late 2008. This came two days after <a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/mcdonald-s-corporation/mcd/nys">McDonald's Corp</a>. (NYSE: <a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/mcdonald-s-corporation/mcd/nys">MCD</a>) announced it would stop using trans fat. <br /><br />Given the <a href="http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/trans-fat/CL00032">well-documented perils</a> of trans fat, it's hard to be critical of whatever methods are used to ban the cancer-causing substance. I'm not ragging on CSPI. The group does good work, and it's been an early and vociferous agitator in bringing childhood obesity into the light of day. But sometimes I wonder if the group isn't a little Quixotic. Suing a fast food chain because the food is bad for you takes a particular kind of chutzpah.<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/05/16/have-it-your-way-burger-king-sued-over-trans-fat/">Have it your way: Burger King sued over trans fat</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Wed, 16 May 2007 13:15:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://www.reuters.com/article/consumerproducts-SP/idUSN1621223120070516>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/05/16/have-it-your-way-burger-king-sued-over-trans-fat/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/897525/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/05/16/have-it-your-way-burger-king-sued-over-trans-fat/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>BKC</category><category>Burger King</category><category>BurgerKing</category><category>Center for Science in the Public Interest</category><category>CenterForScienceInThePublicInterest</category><category>mcd</category><category>Trans fat</category><category>TransFat</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Julie Tilsner]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2007 13:15:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Baristas getting chunkier?]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/06/30/baristas-getting-chunkier/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/06/30/baristas-getting-chunkier/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/06/30/baristas-getting-chunkier/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/bad-news/" rel="tag">Bad News</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/rumors/" rel="tag">Rumors</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/products-and-services/" rel="tag">Products and Services</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/management/" rel="tag">Management</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/industry/" rel="tag">Industry</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/consumer-experience/" rel="tag">Consumer Experience</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/sbux/" rel="tag">Starbucks (SBUX)</a></p><p><img id="vimage_1" alt="" hspace="4" src="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2006/06/scene8.jpg" align="right" vspace="4" border="0" /><a title="10News.com - Health - Starbucks Frappucino Has More Fat Than Big Mac" href="http://www.10news.com/health/9395093/detail.html">Frappucinos have more fat than and a big mac</a>, okay? </p>
<p>Last week, Reuters <a title="Starbucks targeted by group over high-fat products?|?Reuters.com" href="http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=marketsNews&amp;storyID=2006-06-16T204858Z_01_N16266251_RTRIDST_0_LEISURE-STARBUCKS.XML">reported </a>that, the Center for Science in the Public Interest -- having just launching a suit against KFC for frying chicken with trans fat -- now plans&nbsp; "to campaign against the global cafe chain Starbucks [<a title="SBUX: Starbucks Corp Quote, News &amp; Summary - AOL Money &amp; Finance" href="http://aolsvc.pf.aol.com/usw/quotes/quotesandnews?sym=SBUX&amp;exch=">SBUX</a>] because of the increased risk of obesity, heart disease and cancer associated with high-calorie, high-fat products it sells." </p>
<p>Starbucks is a high-profile company that has come under fire from advocacy groups in the past, leading to the company making changes in, for example, its policies toward coffee growers and an increase in the amount of <a title="Fair Trade Coffee" href="http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/fairtrade/coffee/">fair trade coffee</a> it buys. Good products can come from criticism. In fact, in the same Reuters piece, a spokesman said the company "is 'actively researching' alternatives to high-fat products. The company said it plans to eliminate trans fat from seasonal baked goods -- but not necessarily other products -- by this fall. "</p><p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/06/30/baristas-getting-chunkier/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Baristas getting chunkier?</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/06/30/baristas-getting-chunkier/">Baristas getting chunkier?</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:37:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/06/30/baristas-getting-chunkier/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/638420/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/06/30/baristas-getting-chunkier/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>barista</category><category>Center for Science in the Public Interest</category><category>CenterForScienceInThePublicInterest</category><category>coffee</category><category>consumer</category><category>fair trade</category><category>FairTrade</category><category>Frappucino</category><category>SBUX</category><category>Starbucks</category><category>stocks</category><category>trans-fat</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Canfield]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:37:00 EST</pubDate></item></channel></rss>
