Podcast appearances and mentions of Philip Morris

A top Wall Street strategist discusses A.I. and stock valuations. And Big Tobacco talks smokefree profits. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, we dive into the realities of dealing with portfolio drawdowns as dividend growth investors. From personal examples to strategies for averaging down, price anchoring, and knowing when to hold or sell, we share how we manage the emotions that come with falling share prices.We also cover the latest news and dividend hikes, including:Novo Nordisk – promising results from its new oral weight-loss drugLondon Stock Exchange Group – stepping into blockchain with MicrosoftIntel & Nvidia – surprising partnerships in the chip industryTexas Instruments, Microsoft, W.P. Carey, and Philip Morris – dividend hike updatesPlus, we review Bradley's dividend portfolio and answer listener questions on hedging against USD, quick dividend stock screeners, reinvestment strategies, tax-efficient accounts, and more.

Von TikTok-Videos im Zahnarztkittel über die große E-Rechnungs-Pflicht bis hin zur Frage, ob Philip Morris jetzt der „Gesundheitsapostel“ der Dentalbranche wird – Olaf und Björnpacken wieder alles auf den Tisch.Gerüchteküche um Dentsply Sirona, frische Partnerschaften à la Amann Girrbach x Henry Schein, und die DMS 6 zeigt, wie's wirklich in Deutschlands Mündern aussieht. Dazu Innovationstrophäen für Dürr Dental, Start-up-Witze über Aligner zum Selfie-Bestellen und ein Ethik-Check mit Zigarettennachgeschmack.Es wird analysiert, gelacht und manchmal auch ein bisschen gezweifelt – immer mit Blick darauf, was Marketingentscheider wirklich wissen müssen. Denn wer beim Branchengespräch im Wartezimmer mithalten will, hört hier genau richtig rein.Kurz: 15 Minuten Branchentratsch mit Faktenbasis, Wortwitz und Augenzwinkern – damit das Wartezimmer nie langweilig wird.------Dental Talk wird präsentiert von Dental Marketing - dem Fachmagazin für Dental- Marken----Egal, ob neue Trends oder Geschehnisse der letzten Tage, der Podcast von Björn Kersten und Olaf Tegtmeier kommt am Montag und behandelt die spannendsten Themen des Dental- und Marketingbereiches. Beide kennen die Bereiche so gut wie Ihre Westentasche und diskutieren mit Spaß an der Sache und meinungsstark aktuelle Themen und geben Einblicke hinter die Kulissen.---- #DentalTalk #DentalMarketing #SocialMediaDentistry #ERechnung2025 #PraxisDigitalisierung #Zahnarztwahl#DentsplySirona #AmannGirrbach #HenrySchein #DürrDental #AlignerStartup #Mundgesundheit

Stefano Volpetti is the President of Smoke-Free Products and Chief Consumer Officer at Philip Morris International. With a background in Consumer Goods at P&G, he joined the legacy tobacco business to lead it into a new era: smoke-free. In this episode, we explore what motivated his move to a controversial industry—challenging his own pre-conceived ideas—and how he's reinventing the category through product innovation, consumer understanding, and innovative marketing and route-to-market. Tune in to hear about: Stefano's career journey from Procter & Gamble to Philip Morris in a variety of functions and roles Their flagship product IQOS, and how it's become a multi-billion dollar brand Shifting from B2B to a consumer-centric B2C How experiential marketing is key to consumer adoption The importance of courage, purpose and continuous improvement   Follow us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/fmcgguys/ Follow us on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/fmcgguys/   Audio Mixing by Rodrigo Chávez Voice Acting by Jason Martorell Parsekian   Disclaimer The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the individual guests and do not necessarily reflect the views of The FMCG Guys (Dwyer Partners SL) or its partners. The FMCG Guys make no representations or warranties about the accuracy, completeness, or suitability of any information discussed, and accept no responsibility for any decisions or outcomes based on this content. Listeners are encouraged to seek their own professional advice before acting on any of the topics covered.  

Veronika Rost erzählt, warum sie in der als anrüchig geltenden Tabakbranche arbeitet – und ob man einen Job überhaupt nach moralischen Gesichtspunkten wählen sollte.

In this week's episode, Ryan, Chris, and Courtney dive into the paradox of modern investing: why are so many investors chasing assets like Gold, Bitcoin, and Nvidia, which offer little to no income—while ignoring the historical power of dividend-paying stocks? We unpack a revealing JP Morgan study showing that concludes 55% of the S&P 500's total return since 1987 came from re-invested dividends. Contrary to popular belief, high-flying tech stocks haven't been the primary engine of long-term market returns. In fact, the best-performing U.S. stock over the past 40 years, Altria Group (ticker: MO), formerly known as Philip Morris, is an old-school producer and marketer of tobacco products. From 1985–2025, Altria stock returned an incredible 2,033,839%, a $1,000 invested in 1985 would be worth over $20 million today! Even more remarkably, over 80% of that return can be attributed to dividend reinvestment. But here's the twist—dividend paying value stocks have been underperforming their growth stock counterparts over the past decade, driven by themes like AI, have dramatically outperformed. Is this just a temporary anomaly? Will markets revert to the mean? Are dividend stocks about to make a comeback? Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway is betting big on income-rich sectors like healthcare and energy instead of chasing the current hype around the Magnificent 7. With many high-yielding stocks trading at steep discounts to the tech-heavy S&P 500, is now the time to lean into income? We give you the “Payne Perspective.” We also tackle the recent signs of weakness in the labor market—and what it really reveals about the underlying health of the economy. Are Wall Street economists missing the mark yet again? The stock market is hitting all-time highs, economic growth is accelerating, and corporate profits are trending upward, all forward-looking indicators that point to a continued expansion. So, do we truly need more rate cuts? Or is the Federal Reserve simply spiking the punch bowl—risking an overheated economy and inflated asset prices? We break it all down and share exactly what we think.

Milton Berle || (44) Salute to Winter Sports | January 6, 1948Sponsored by: Philip Morris. A salute to winter sports. Miltie is in the north woods, in a cabin with Mr. and Mrs. Gallop.: : : : :My other podcast channels include: DRAMA X THEATER -- SCI FI x HORROR -- MYSTERY X SUSPENSE -- VARIETY X ARMED FORCES -- THE COMPLETE ORSON WELLESEnjoy my podcast? You can subscribe to receive new post notices. Also, if you have a moment, please give a 4-5 star rating and/or write a 1-2 sentence positive review on your preferred service -- that would help me a lot.Thank you for your support.https://otr.duane.media | Instagram @duane.otr#comedyclassics #oldtimeradio #otr #radioclassics #jackbenny #fibbermcgeemolly #bobhope #lucilleball #martinandlewis #grouchomarx #abbottandcostello #miltonberle #oldtimeradioclassics #classicradio #duaneotr:::: :

In this episode, Gordon sits down with Richard Le Moult, CMO of Latin America at Pernod Ricard, for a conversation about the realities of modern marketing leadership. From his early days at Danone, Kraft and Philip Morris to now leading marketing across one of the most dynamic regions in the world, Richard shares what it really means to be a marketer today—and why he finds the complexity exhilarating.The conversation explores  Richard's international journey—from France to Mexico to Brazil and why LATAM is a region full of big opportunities. Furthermore why managing conflicting expectations isn't a problem, but the job. He also reflects on not being afraid to embrace the messiness of it all why he sees himself as a midfield player, connecting defense and attack — a perfect analogy for the CMO role today.Ending on the future of marketing: hyper-personalization, scalable big ideas and redefining experience.Tune in to get insights on how big brands navigate complex markets. 

 Esta semana por motivos de salud no pudimos reunirnos a grabar, pero no queremos dejarles sin episodio esta semana asi que abrimos un epsiodio exclusivo de mecenas para todos:.Conoce al "king Con" o el rey de las estafas!..

Stephen Grootes speaks to Themba Mathebula, PMI's director of external affairs for Southern Africa, about the company's call for a science-based approach to tobacco regulation, emphasizing harm reduction strategies and access to smoke-free alternatives for adult smokers. The Money Show is a podcast hosted by well-known journalist and radio presenter, Stephen Grootes. He explores the latest economic trends, business developments, investment opportunities, and personal finance strategies. Each episode features engaging conversations with top newsmakers, industry experts, financial advisors, entrepreneurs, and politicians, offering you thought-provoking insights to navigate the ever-changing financial landscape.    Thank you for listening to a podcast from The Money Show Listen live Primedia+ weekdays from 18:00 and 20:00 (SA Time) to The Money Show with Stephen Grootes broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show, go to https://buff.ly/7QpH0jY or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/PlhvUVe Subscribe to The Money Show Daily Newsletter and the Weekly Business Wrap here https://buff.ly/v5mfetc The Money Show is brought to you by Absa     Follow us on social media   702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702   CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/Radio702 CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Howard is joined by Katie Perry to dive headfirst into the "Degenerate Economy", a term he coined to describe the collision of speculation, vice, free time, and mobile tech. From the sin stocks of the 1980s to Robinhood, crypto, and Zyn pouches, this conversation unpacks how financial speculation has morphed into mainstream entertainment. They explore why the post-COVID world unleashed a wave of retail trading, how platforms like Twitter and Discord are the new Wild West saloons, and what it means when money becomes religion. Plus, Howard shares his own investment thesis behind the Degenerate Economy Index, including why CME, Philip Morris, and even Bitcoin make the cut. A must-watch for anyone wondering how speculation, technology, and culture are reshaping capitalism.Join Our Community! https://stocktwits.com/Sign up for our daily FREE newsletter to keep in touch with the market: https://thedailyrip.stocktwits.com/Chapters00:00 What Is the Degenerate Economy?02:45 From Booze to Zyn: Vice Meets Technology05:00 Speculation as Entertainment08:15 Why Everyone's a Gambler Now10:00 The Missing “Risk Score” for Investors12:00 Peak Grift and the Summer of Scammers15:00 How Speculation Went Mainstream17:00 Dotcom vs Degen: Are We in a Bubble?20:30 Crypto as the New Global Religion25:00 Building the Degenerate Economy Index27:00 Philip Morris, Zyn, and Modern Vice StocksDisclaimer:All opinions expressed on this show are solely the opinions of the hosts' and guests' and do not reflect the opinions of Stocktwits, Inc. or its affiliates. The hosts are not SEC or FINRA registered advisors or professionals. The content of this show is for educational and entertainment purposes only. Please consult with your financial advisor before making any investment decision. Read the full terms & conditions here: https://stocktwits.com/about/legal/terms/

Was passiert, wenn eine Managerin einen Traditions-Tabakkonzern radikal neu denkt — und aus einer ehemaligen Fabrik in Neukölln einen Produktions-Inkubator für DeepTech und Startups macht? In dieser Folge von How to Hack spricht Veronika Rost, Geschäftsführerin Deutschland bei Philip Morris, über den mutigen Wandel vom Tabak- zum Nikotinkonzern, über Produktinnovation, interne Kulturarbeit und die Idee, Transformation nicht als Selbstzweck, sondern als gesellschaftliche und wirtschaftliche Chance zu begreifen.Die beiden reden über:

Juli 2025 – ein Monat der Extreme! Trotz turbulenter Märkte legt das Echtgeld.TV-Depot um über 4 % bzw. 12.810 € zu. Tobias Kramer analysiert die spannendsten Gewinner & Verlierer und zeigt, wie er auf den Crash bei Novo Nordisk, starke Quartalszahlen bei Nike und Kursexplosionen bei Warner & Trade Desk reagiert.

The tax break for Heated Tobacco Products made by Philip Morris has been extended for an extra two years. Guyon Espiner spoke to Corin Dann.

In a recent RNZ investigation, the investigation alleges that NZ First Party Leader, Winston Peters, has close connections to the multinational tobacco company, Philip Morris. This has raised concerns about what impact alleged tobacco lobbying has on government policies and decisions. News and Editorial Director and Monday Wire Host, Joel, spoke to Calvin Cochran, a spokesperson for the Smokefree Expert Advisory Group about RNZ's investigation, and what needs to be done to tackle tobacco-industry lobbying in Aotearoa.

Nidhi Oberoi is a dedicated medtech executive with over 17 years of experience and currently serves as Business Leader, Imaging Franchise at Terumo Medical Corporation. She discusses her journey from India to the heart of the medtech industry, her impactful work on innovative heart valve treatments while at Medtronic, and her advocacy for women's health. Nidhi shares her leadership philosophy centered on empowerment, the importance of mindfulness in business, and her vision for a future in cardiology and women's health.   Guest links: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nidhi-oberoi-278a111/ Charity supported: Save the Children Interested in being a guest on the show or have feedback to share? Email us at theleadingdifference@velentium.com.  PRODUCTION CREDITS Host: Lindsey Dinneen Editing: Marketing Wise Producer: Velentium   EPISODE TRANSCRIPT Episode 060 - Nidhi Oberoi [00:00:00] Lindsey Dinneen: Hi, I'm Lindsey and I'm talking with MedTech industry leaders on how they change lives for a better world. [00:00:09] Diane Bouis: The inventions and technologies are fascinating and so are the people who work with them. [00:00:15] Frank Jaskulke: There was a period of time where I realized, fundamentally, my job was to go hang out with really smart people that are saving lives and then do work that would help them save more lives. [00:00:28] Diane Bouis: I got into the business to save lives and it is incredibly motivating to work with people who are in that same business, saving or improving lives. [00:00:38] Duane Mancini: What better industry than where I get to wake up every day and just save people's lives. [00:00:42] Lindsey Dinneen: These are extraordinary people doing extraordinary work, and this is The Leading Difference. Hello, and welcome back to another episode of The Leading Difference podcast. I'm your host, Lindsey, and today I'm excited to introduce you to my guest, Nidhi Oberoi. Nidhi is a seasoned MedTech executive dedicated to the mission of serving clinicians and patients. With over 17 years of experience working on commercialization of innovative technologies, She has led various strategic and operational initiatives that have transformed standard of care. Her bold, collaborative, and empathetic leadership style allows her to push boundaries and inspire teams to create durable value. She currently leads business initiatives for the structural heart business in Medtronic, which serves patients with heart valve disease. She's also an advocate for evidence based care for women's health. Nidhi has an undergraduate degree in economics from India and an MBA in marketing and entrepreneurship from Syracuse University. Thank you so much for being here, Nidhi, I'm so excited to speak with you. [00:01:44] Nidhi Oberoi: Yeah, thanks for having me. [00:01:46] Lindsey Dinneen: Of course. Well, I would love, if you don't mind just starting off by sharing a little bit about yourself and your background and what led you to MedTech. [00:01:56] Nidhi Oberoi: Yeah, absolutely. I was born and raised in India, and just like any typical Asian Indian household in those days, if you were a bright student, you were generally expected to pursue a track in sciences, medicine or engineering, or maybe a second option in accounting and finance. Predictably, after I completed my high school, I was on my path to pursue a career in sciences. But then I changed courses and ended up pursuing an undergraduate degree in economics, and eventually an MBA in marketing and entrepreneurship from upstate New York. Now, as I reflect back and realize that what attracted me to business eventually, it was this realization that it's both in art and a science. The science aspect helps to ensure that the business can financially run smoothly with a strong P&L, while the art side of the business is the ability to set the vision, the direction, inspiring people, innovating, connecting with people. So what I really was interested was in a career in marketing and general management. You asked me what led me to medtech, I'd say my entry into the healthcare industry was by chance. I got recruited into this industry through a summer internship when I was doing my MBA with a company called Conva Tech, which was part of Bristol Myers Squibb then. And by the time I had completed my internship, I already knew I wanted to be in the healthcare industry given the impact you have on the patient's lives. I did have opportunities to interview with other companies like Philip Morris and others, and I just decided that this is what I wanted to do. And after I graduated, I started working for a company called Covidian, which was then a spinoff from TCO International. And Covidian was eventually acquired by Medtronic. It's been 16, 17 years since I've been working for this company and it has a really strong mission of elevating pain, restoring health, and extending life of patients around the world. So that's that's my story there. [00:04:07] Lindsey Dinneen: Excellent. Thank you so much for sharing that. I'm curious. Of course your career trajectory has been really interesting and you've had a lot of different experiences along the way. So what are some of the key things that say maybe your schooling or your early career really set you up for success for what you're doing now? [00:04:29] Nidhi Oberoi: Yeah, so there's just so many different experiences that either have shaped my interest, where I wanna go, or has shaped my leadership style. Now, as I mentioned, I decided to move away from sciences to a more kind of social sciences field, economics and then business, and that was due to the fact that I was not the person who could just crunch numbers sitting on the table. I liked connecting with people. So I think some of those personality traits helped me decide what I wanted to do. And I would say one of my core value is impact, purpose. And so healthcare, it was just natural for me to gravitate towards healthcare because you are truly impacting people with different technologies. And I'd also say, as I grew further along in my career, early on when I joined Covidian, I had some great leaders who gave me a lot of ownership, and that shaped my leadership style as well. And that's how I operate. I empower my teams. I coach them along, but give them a lot of accountability. So there's so many different experiences, but these are some of the experiences that come to mind as. As as I reflect back now what that has shaped my career and also my leadership style. [00:05:55] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah, absolutely. And speaking maybe more into your leadership style, I'm really curious if you could tell us a little bit more about that philosophy of yours. I love that ownership mentality. It sounds very counter to what a lot of folks don't appreciate, and that's micromanagement. And so I'm curious, how do you bridge the gap yourself as a leader between making sure that, your team stays on track and the goals and really key, important performance indicators are met, while also giving them that ownership and that empowerment to make decisions and do things in a way that best aligns. [00:06:35] Nidhi Oberoi: Yeah. So I think there's so many different facets of leadership, and let me highlight some of the others that feeds into the third aspect, which is the empowering team. So I think as a leader, first thing first, you need to provide clarity, direction, focus. I've been part of so many different teams where if people can relate to what they're doing, why they're doing, they can get lost, right? So I think that's the first thing. You need to have the ability to cut through the noise, provide direction to the team, organization you're leading. And then the second part is inspiring and bringing people together to execute on that vision. So this is the culture piece. You are listening to others, you're hearing others' perspectives and being inclusive. And the last thing, which I mentioned early on, is empowering your teams and making them accountable. So to your question of how you bridge the gap, I think you have to give clear direction. And when you empower teams doesn't mean that you don't coach them, right? You are just telling them that you trust them to do the job and you are here to help them. And one of the technique that I use is I ask questions, so I don't give answers. When you ask someone in your team to lead the project, they come to you. Then you ask questions. And I've seen, based on my experiences, that gives them a sense of ownership that this is something they're thought through. And oftentimes I've heard from people that they feel like they become a better version of themselves because I ask a lot of questions. I make them think. So that's my approach on how I kind of bridge the gap, but also make sure along the way that you're supporting them in the right direction. [00:08:24] Lindsey Dinneen: Absolutely. Yeah, and you mentioned as you were speaking a little bit towards how your past experiences shape who you are and how you kind of relate to the world now, you mentioned core values, and I would love, if you don't mind, if you would share a little bit more about your core values. I noticed that on your LinkedIn profile, that was something that was very highlighted as being extremely important to you, which I love. I'd love if you would share a little bit about maybe how you developed your core values and how those play out for you. [00:08:57] Nidhi Oberoi: Yeah, absolutely. I think core values is something that you always have, but you just sometimes need a little bit of handholding to unfold those, right? And so in my case, a few years back, I had an opportunity to work with a coach, and she really helped me understanding what I'm good at. These are things that you already have, but you may not realize or you may not know how to articulate. So for me, the number one thing that came out was purpose. And I'm like, "No wonder I'm in the healthcare industry. I'm big on impact. I like building things." And so that's where it's coming from. The other core value of mine is excellence. I like to do things with excellence. I put my heart and soul into things. I'm a very passionate person. But also you gotta have an eye on quality versus decision making, right? Over time, I've learned excellence is my core value, but it's a journey, it's a process. It's not a destination. So you don't have to dwell on things. Sometimes things go wrong and you just have to keep moving on and have a growth mindset. So there's a good aspect of the value, but there could be a blind spot, like in this case for excellence and I've learned to manage that as well. And yeah, so I think these are some of the core values, which is, I think, also part of being a leader. You have to have self-reflection. You need to dig deeper and understand what you stand for. And, this has just guided me along the way. And yeah, so those are some of the things that I'd say has really helped me all along in my career. [00:10:41] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah, of course. So, tell me a little bit more about your current position and what are you looking forward to as you move forward in your own career as well? [00:10:53] Nidhi Oberoi: Yeah, currently I'm in the structural heart space, and these are really old and sick patients. And it's just amazing to see these patients getting impacted by our technology, getting back to their day-to-day life. And as part of structural heart, also, most recently I've been able to work on therapies. I've been focusing on the congenital portfolio, which is, these are devices that are used to treat patients that have congenital disease, and it's very impact driven because you're dealing with children here who tend to get multiple surgeries throughout their lifetime. So my role right now is to focus on business initiatives. Some of it is expansion across geographies. Some of it is increasing supply for these products. I mean, there's not a big business case for these kind of products, but the impact is huge. So that's my current focus. And, moving forward, in my career, I'm looking to grow into a general management track, and that's what attracted me to marketing because I consider marketing as running a business within the organization. So for me, running a business would be something that I would be looking forward to. And that's why I have spent time in so many different kind of roles, whether it's marketing, it's commercial transformation, whether it's global roles. So that's how I've been building my skillset so that I can one day lead a business. [00:12:25] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah, that's very exciting. Okay, so you're building all of these skill sets. You're working towards this incredible goal. Do you have an idea of what kind of business you would want to get into? Or is this, " We'll see," and I'll interview you again when that happens? [00:12:38] Nidhi Oberoi: Yeah, I think cardiology, there's so much opportunity in cardiology. There are so many people getting impacted by cardiovascular disease around the world, and there's so much innovation too happening, not just on the treatment side, but also on the diagnostic side. So I would say either something in the cardiology space would be very attractive because it's innovative. There's such a huge population that gets impacted by it. Or the other area of interest for me is women's health, and I think it just makes me smile how there's progress being made. I know there's so much work that needs to be done. We know there's not enough evidence, it's underfunded, but I think the work is starting there, and better evidence generation will lead to better decision making, which will lead to better outcomes. So I would say either in the cardiology space or the women's health space, these are the two areas of interest to me. [00:13:38] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah. And I noticed again, with LinkedIn, you are very passionate about women's health and I love that. And I am wondering if you could speak a little bit towards some of themes that I kind of picked up on, things like stigma with women's health, medical gaslighting and self-diagnosis. And I know there's a lot to that and it's probably too much for one conversation today, but can you highlight a couple of the areas that you particularly find concerning, that are things that we can all do better? [00:14:11] Nidhi Oberoi: Yeah. Yeah. I think first of all there's such lack of education and awareness. As women transition through different stages of life, I feel like a lot of it is taken for granted. We don't question it. And as someone who's been following this for a little bit of a time, I almost feel like it's my duty and being in the healthcare industry, to raise awareness about this or encourage them to be more educated patients. When they go to a doctor, if they don't get answers, they should ask more questions. So I think, so that's that lack of education and awareness piece. There's a lot of work happening. There's so many advocacy groups. Women are coming together, supporting each other, so I think that's happening as well. The other thing that really bothers me is on the diagnostic side. I wrote an article around women get mammograms. Just because there's not enough evidence out there, sometimes you just have to go through a number of tests to have a diagnosis, either a positive or a negative. So I also feel like maybe the advent of technologies like AI in the diagnostic field can help improve that, because it starts with the diagnostic side, and we just don't have enough right now. And like I said, it can either be a good thing or bad thing. I've also heard of women going through a number of tests to find out that they don't have anything, which is fine, but it's just a lot of money along the way getting to the diagnosis. And then, the third thing I'd say is as we get more intelligent with evidence, it will lead to better awareness among the physician community too. And that's what gaslighting comes because there's not a lot of evidence, there's not a lot of awareness. Even physicians sometimes can't guide you in the right direction. But if you have more studies coming out, it will make them more aware and guide their patients in the right direction. So there's just so many different things, but I feel like you could start being a self-aware patient and not just assume as you go through different stages of your life that this is what it comes being with a woman. Be more proactive, ask questions, research, talk to other people and get help. [00:16:32] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah. Yeah, that's really great advice, and I appreciate your perspective in sharing with us a little bit about maybe even some of the things that we all can do as we're trying to hopefully push the quality of women's healthcare forward and make it more widely available and whatnot. So thank you for sharing. As you have been going throughout your career-- and you obviously care so much about purpose and you have a lot of passion for helping people and for the healthcare industry in general-- are there any moments that really stand out to you as affirming, "Hey, I am in the right industry at the right time?" [00:17:11] Nidhi Oberoi: Yeah, there's been so many moments and I would say most of these moments are when I've interacted with patients. When I started with Covidian, I was leading an initiative which would help a lot of women who were having open hysterectomies-- this is like 10, 15 years back-- to have a minimally invasive hysterectomy through a new procedure technique. So it was called single incision surgery. And I happened to talk to some patients, and it was just amazing to hear those stories where they were telling me how they could get back on their feet, travel, within just a week after the procedure. So that's the defining moment. And then, when I was working on one of the businesses where patients have very varicose veins, I met a patient who was a mom of four. So she had four kids within a span of six, seven years, and she had very visible varicose veins on her legs. And that impacted her quality of life. And when she got the procedure done with our technology, she was just so happy. It was not just cosmetic, but also less painful, and being more present with her kids because of that. And then I'd say most recently in the cardiology space, these are really sick patients, older patients with multiple conditions, and just hearing their stories of getting a new heart valve, it's amazing to see how, again it's getting back to life. So it's always, when you meet these patients, those are the defining moments, and it just reaffirms why you're in healthcare and why you need to continue to work in the healthcare space. [00:18:58] Lindsey Dinneen: Yes. I love that so much. Yeah, so pivoting the conversation a little bit just for fun. Imagine that you were to be offered a million dollars to teach a masterclass on anything you want. It can be within your industry. It could be related to anything your background, your experience, but it doesn't have to be. What would you choose to teach? [00:19:19] Nidhi Oberoi: Yeah, that's a great question. I don't think I have an expertise right now, but maybe something on mindfulness and yoga. One of my goals is to do a yoga teacher training, but the importance of mindfulness in business. There's so many things you can do: power walks, taking a break, journaling. These are so underrated, but I think these things are necessary. It's more important than ever now, given the fast change. There's so much, so many changes happening at such a fast pace. So I would say that would be my topic, but I don't think I'm ready yet to have that masterclass. [00:20:03] Lindsey Dinneen: Fair enough. Fair enough. So I'm curious, how long have you been incorporating these kinds of really important mindfulness practices into your own life and your own routine. Is this something that you've had for years and years or is it a more recent development? [00:20:19] Nidhi Oberoi: Yeah, I think it's more recent. I would say three to four years, although I wonder why I did not do that. I think within the organization, as you are managing multiple things, it just forced me at that point of time when I was juggling a lot of things in my life and I wanted some pause and clarity. And I actually, years back, I had take a yoga class and then I started doing core barre yoga as well. So I realized that it really has a big impact on me. And then I just try to be more disciplined and try to take out time, if not every day, maybe every two days, but I would say it's more of a recent phenomena. It does require a lot of discipline. Earlier you start, the better it is because you're not going to get it right away. It takes a lot of discipline and commitment to incorporate these. And you won't be able to do it all the time, but at least starting that and trying to incorporate day to day life is a good start. [00:21:26] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah, absolutely. I found personally that starting my day with a much more intentional routine that includes things like meditation and those kinds of mindfulness practices makes a huge difference in how I feel throughout the whole day and the week in general. So, and that's a more recent development for me too. So it's one of those interesting things about how that evolves over time. So I love that. Thank you for sharing about your own journey. All right, and then how do you wish to be remembered after you leave this world? [00:21:59] Nidhi Oberoi: As I said purpose is my core value, big on impact. So I just want to leave the world a little bit better and do my bit. And whether it's working on things, like working on technologies and providing access to health care to patients, probably globally. So it's just continuing to make an impact in the healthcare space and leaving the world a little bit better than I inherited it. [00:22:27] Lindsey Dinneen: Yes. Excellent. And final question, what is one thing that makes you smile every time you see or think about it? [00:22:37] Nidhi Oberoi: Yeah. There are so many different things. As you start meditating or focusing on mindfulness, it's the small things in life that you start enjoying. Being in Minnesota, the good weather is difficult to come by. So sunshine really makes me happy. But yeah, I think being present makes you more joyful. You just start enjoying everything in life. The other thing I would say is just simple acts of kindness. People helping other people is also something that just moves me and touches me. [00:23:11] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah, of course. I'm really curious. Okay, so I said final question, but then I have a follow up. So when you said being present helps bring you joy, could you share a little bit more about what you mean by that? [00:23:24] Nidhi Oberoi: Yeah. So I think being present means that you are not thinking about your past and you're not thinking about your future. And so what that means is all you're focusing is what's in the now, and I'm going to start speaking the language of someone who teaches yoga or meditation, but being present really is you're not in the past. You're not in the future. You're just enjoying your day, the moment, as it comes by, it's as simple as that. You're centered. You're aligned with yourself and you just focus on what's in your control. You don't dwell on things either of the past or in the future. So I think that's a very, that's a beautiful moment to be in. [00:24:11] Lindsey Dinneen: Yes, I couldn't agree more. Well, thank you for sharing a little bit more about that. I really appreciate it. And thank you so much for your time today. This has been such a great conversation. I've loved learning about you, and I'm so excited about your career future, especially with your goal of starting your own company at some point. So I will be cheering you on for that whole process. I know that's no small undertaking. But in the meantime, I just want to say thanks again for your time, and thank you so much for working hard to change lives for a better world. [00:24:45] Nidhi Oberoi: Well, thank you so much. Thank you for the opportunity. It's been so fun chatting with you. You're joyful. [00:24:52] Lindsey Dinneen: Thank you. Well, excellent. We are so honored to be making a donation on your behalf as a thank you for your time today to Save the Children, which works to end the cycle of poverty by ensuring communities have the resources to provide children with a healthy, educational, and safe environment. So thank you so much for choosing that charity to support. Thank you also so much to our listeners for tuning in. And if you're feeling as inspired as I am right now, I'd love it if you'd share this episode with a colleague or two. And we'll catch you next time. [00:25:30] Ben Trombold: The Leading Difference is brought to you by Velentium. Velentium is a full-service CDMO with 100% in-house capability to design, develop, and manufacture medical devices from class two wearables to class three active implantable medical devices. Velentium specializes in active implantables, leads, programmers, and accessories across a wide range of indications, such as neuromodulation, deep brain stimulation, cardiac management, and diabetes management. Velentium's core competencies include electrical, firmware, and mechanical design, mobile apps, embedded cybersecurity, human factors and usability, automated test systems engineering, and contract manufacturing. Velentium works with clients worldwide, from startups seeking funding to established Fortune 100 companies. Visit velentium.com to explore your next step in medical device development.

New Zealand First should be stripped of the tobacco and vaping portfolio, according to an advocacy group set up to keep kids off nicotine. The call comes after RNZ published documents alleging close ties between tobacco giant Philip Morris and New Zealand First. Guyon Espiner broke the story, and spoke to Melissa Chan-Green.

In der heutigen Folge sprechen die Finanzjournalisten Nando Sommerfeldt und Holger Zschäpitz über die Stargate-Ernüchterung, miese Lockheed-Martin-Zahlen und geben Euch noch schnell ein paar Steuertipps mit auf den Weg. Außerdem geht es um Nvidia, Microsoft, TSMC; Broadcom, Micron, AMD, Texas Instruments, Softbank, General Motors, RTX, Northrop Grumman, Philip Morris, Medpace, Fortrea, Charles River Laboratories, Thermofisher, Invesco NASDAQ Biotech ETF (WKN: A12CCJ), Sartorius, Oracle, Kohls, Workday, Salesforce. Wir freuen uns über Feedback an aaa@welt.de. Noch mehr "Alles auf Aktien" findet Ihr bei WELTplus und Apple Podcasts – inklusive aller Artikel der Hosts und AAA-Newsletter.[ Hier bei WELT.](https://www.welt.de/podcasts/alles-auf-aktien/plus247399208/Boersen-Podcast-AAA-Bonus-Folgen-Jede-Woche-noch-mehr-Antworten-auf-Eure-Boersen-Fragen.html.) [Hier] (https://open.spotify.com/playlist/6zxjyJpTMunyYCY6F7vHK1?si=8f6cTnkEQnmSrlMU8Vo6uQ) findest Du die Samstagsfolgen Klassiker-Playlist auf Spotify! Disclaimer: Die im Podcast besprochenen Aktien und Fonds stellen keine spezifischen Kauf- oder Anlage-Empfehlungen dar. Die Moderatoren und der Verlag haften nicht für etwaige Verluste, die aufgrund der Umsetzung der Gedanken oder Ideen entstehen. Hörtipps: Für alle, die noch mehr wissen wollen: Holger Zschäpitz können Sie jede Woche im Finanz- und Wirtschaftspodcast "Deffner&Zschäpitz" hören. +++ Werbung +++ Du möchtest mehr über unsere Werbepartner erfahren? [**Hier findest du alle Infos & Rabatte!**](https://linktr.ee/alles_auf_aktien) Impressum: https://www.welt.de/services/article7893735/Impressum.html Datenschutz: https://www.welt.de/services/article157550705/Datenschutzerklaerung-WELT-DIGITAL.html

Vejret har været 'meget farligt' og har skabt breaking de sidste dage hos alle landets medier og meteorologer. Og én ting er, at DMI for første gang bruger kategoriseringen 'meget farligt vejr', noget andet er, at der alene i går blev målt 14 skybrud. Men retorikken fra både DMI og medier har fået kritik. Kategoriseringen 'meget farligt vejr' er blevet kaldet alarmistisk, hvilket lægger sig i slipstrømmen på tidligere kritik af, at temperaturkortene er blevet røde, hvis vi rammer 19 grader. Puster vejrmeldingerne fra medier og meteorologer til både klimaangst og 'normal' angst? Eller er de omvendt blevet bedre til at fortælle os, hvordan mere ekstremt vejr påvirker og rammer os? Det er dagens P1 Debat. Du kan blande dig i debatten ved at ringe ind fra 12:15-13:30 på 70 21 19 19 eller send en sms til 1212. Medvirkende: Cecilie Hother, tidl. vejrvært TV2 Herdis Preil Damberg, meteorolog og kommunikationsmedarbejder i DMI, tidl. ansat ved DR Vejret Caroline Bessermann, aktiv i Den Grønne Ungdomsbevægelse, studerer klimaforandringer KU Christopher Arzrouni, external affairs manager hos tobaksfirmaet Philip Morris. og tidl. særlig rådgiver for Kristian Jensen Sigurd Agersnap, MF, SF Hans Kristian Skibby, MF, Danmarks Demokraterne Christian Holst Vigilius, Folketings- og Regionsråds kandidat for Konservative i Gentofte/Region Øst Vært: Oliver Breum Producer: Sebastian Lund Tilrettelægger: Sebastian Lund og Vilhelm Juhler Kjær

Shares in retailer Kohl's jumped as investors discussed whether it was the next meme stock. Coca-Cola reported mixed quarterly results. Philip Morris quarterly revenue missed forecasts. Lockheed Martin 's quarterly profit was hit by more than $1.7 billion in charges last quarter. And, General Motors saw net income shrink 35% last quarter, as tariffs weighed. Charlotte Gartenberg hosts. Sign up for the WSJ's free What's News newsletter . Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ben and Tom discuss earnings for KO, GM, PM, DHR, LMT, RTX, and NOC. Song: Mr. Brightside- The KillersFor information on how to join the Zoom calls live each morning at 8:30 EST, visit:https://www.narwhal.com/blog/daily-market-briefingsPlease see disclosures:https://www.narwhal.com/disclosure

White House Press Secretary Leavitt said they could see more tariff letters for August 1st.European bourses are in the red and currently trade at session troughs, US equity futures also incrementally lower.DXY is flat awaiting fresh catalysts, whilst Antipodeans lag given the risk-tone.JGBs react to the election, bonds elsewhere have a bearish bias, Gilts lag.Crude moves in lockstep with risk while base metals remain cushioned.Looking ahead, US Richmond Fed Index, NBH Policy Announcement, Speakers including Fed Chair Powell & Bowman, ECB's Lagarde. Earnings from SAP, Intuitive, Capital One, Baker Hughes, Coca Cola, Lockheed Martin, Philip Morris, RTX, DR Horton, Northrop Gruman, Danaher, MSCI & Pulte.Read the full report covering Equities, Forex, Fixed Income, Commodites and more on Newsquawk

APAC stocks traded mixed after failing to sustain the early upward momentum seen at the open following the fresh record intraday highs on Wall St.White House Press Secretary Leavitt said they could see more tariff letters for August 1st.European equity futures indicate a lower cash market open with Euro Stoxx 50 future down 0.4% after the cash market finished with losses of 0.3% on Monday.DXY is steady, JPY is the marginal laggard as Japan returns from holiday, EUR/USD failed to hold onto the 1.17 handle.Looking ahead, highlights include US Richmond Fed Index, NBH Policy Announcement, Fed Chair Powell & Bowman, ECB's Lagarde, BoE's Bailey, Supply from UK & Germany.Earnings from Akzo Nobel, ASM International, Dassault Aviation, Julius Baer, Lindt, SAP, Intuitive, Capital One, Baker Hughes, Coca Cola, Lockheed Martin, Philip Morris, RTX, DR Horton, Northrop Gruman, Danaher, MSCI & Pulte.Read the full report covering Equities, Forex, Fixed Income, Commodites and more on Newsquawk

Philip Morris allegedly pitched draft legislation to NZ First as part of a lobbying campaign for its Heated Tobacco Products, according to documents released in litigation against a US vaping company. Guyon Espiner spoke to Corin Dann.

Wir sehen in Reaktion auf die seit gestern Abend gemeldeten Ergebnisse eine auf breiter Front negative Reaktion, mit den Aktien von GM, Coca-Cola, Philip Morris, Sherwin-Williams, Lockheed Martin, NXP Semiconductor und Synchrony Financial schwächer. Nur die Aktien von Northrop Grumman, D.R. Horton und Pulte Home tendieren nach den Ergebnissen freundlich. Neben dem gemischten Ertragsbild wächst die Sorge vor einer merklichen Anhebung der Zölle ab dem 1. August. Die EU scheint eine gegenüber Washington härtere Verhandlungsbasis einzunehmen. Insbesondere Frankreich drängt darauf keinen Deal um jeden Preis einzugehen. Die EU ist der mit Abstand größte Handelspartner der USA. Ein Podcast - featured by Handelsblatt. +++Erhalte einen exklusiven 15% Rabatt auf Saily eSIM Datentarife! Lade die Saily-App herunter und benutze den Code wallstreet beim Bezahlen: https://saily.com/wallstreet +++ +++EXKLUSIVER NordVPN Deal ➼ https://nordvpn.com/Wallstreet Jetzt risikofrei testen mit einer 30-Tage-Geld-zurück-Garantie!+++ +++ Alle Rabattcodes und Infos zu unseren Werbepartnern findet ihr hier: https://linktr.ee/wallstreet_podcast +++ Der Podcast wird vermarktet durch die Ad Alliance. Die allgemeinen Datenschutzrichtlinien der Ad Alliance finden Sie unter https://datenschutz.ad-alliance.de/podcast.html Die Ad Alliance verarbeitet im Zusammenhang mit dem Angebot die Podcasts-Daten. Wenn Sie der automatischen Übermittlung der Daten widersprechen wollen, klicken Sie hier: https://datenschutz.ad-alliance.de/podcast.html

Wir sehen in Reaktion auf die seit gestern Abend gemeldeten Ergebnisse eine auf breiter Front negative Reaktion, mit den Aktien von GM, Coca-Cola, Philip Morris, Sherwin-Williams, Lockheed Martin, NXP Semiconductor und Synchrony Financial schwächer. Nur die Aktien von Northrop Grumman, D.R. Horton und Pulte Home tendieren nach den Ergebnissen freundlich. Neben dem gemischten Ertragsbild wächst die Sorge vor einer merklichen Anhebung der Zölle ab dem 1. August. Die EU scheint eine gegenüber Washington härtere Verhandlungsbasis einzunehmen. Insbesondere Frankreich drängt darauf keinen Deal um jeden Preis einzugehen. Die EU ist der mit Abstand größte Handelspartner der USA. Abonniere den Podcast, um keine Folge zu verpassen! ____ Folge uns, um auf dem Laufenden zu bleiben: • X: http://fal.cn/SQtwitter • LinkedIn: http://fal.cn/SQlinkedin • Instagram: http://fal.cn/SQInstagram

Send us a textThis week on The Skinny On, Kristen and Jen power through illness, time zone chaos, and toddler wrangling to bring you a jam-packed episode to break down two major consumer deals: Ferrero's $3.1B offer for Kellogg and the possible Heinz Kraft breakup. They explain why these legacy food brand split up, the logic behind reverse mergers and spin offs, and how wellness trends are shaping the M&A landscape.They also revisit the Kraft-Heinz saga—from Kraft's origins as a Philip Morris spinoff to its Cadbury takeover, spin off breaking into Kraft and Mondelez and eventual reverse merger with Heinz, backed by 3G Capital and Warren Buffett. It's a rare example of a mega-deal gone wrong, and Jen and Kristen unpack how the deal was structured, why it disappointed, and what Buffett's $12B investment ($4Bn of common and $8Bn of preferred equity) really meant. With Kraft-Heinz now considering a breakup to "unlock shareholder value," they examine the long arc of strategic separation as a financial tool—and its implications for investors.Finally, the duo pivots to Wall Street career trends, sharing firsthand stories of how trading desks once ruled the world, how quant roles are often misunderstood, and why sales & trading may be poised for a comeback. They reflect on the brutal pace of recruiting cycles, the importance of self-awareness in navigating early career decisions, and how the sexiest seat on the Street can change overnight. Oh—and Elon Musk's Grok is back in the news with a $200B valuation. Buckle up, this one covers it all.For a 14 day FREE Trial of Macabacus, click HEREOur Investment Banking and Private Equity Foundations course is LIVEnow with our M&A course included! Shop our LIBRARY of Self Paced Online Courses HEREJoin the Fixed Income Sales and Trading waitlist HERE Our content is for informational purposes only. You should not construe any such information or other material as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

Denise Woodard is the founder and CEO of Partake, an allergy-friendly food company. Woodard started her career in pound-the-pavement sales roles at Philip Morris and FedEx, gaining robust experience in winning business by providing genuine solutions to her clients. She then spent the majority of her early career at the Coca-Cola Company, starting in sales and then finding her niche working on the emerging brands that were better aligned with her values, like Honest Tea and Health-Ade. After rising through the ranks and becoming the director of national sales for Coca-Cola's Venturing and Emerging Brands (VEB), Woodard was proud of the career she had built for herself and didn't envision she'd ever leave her job. But after having her daughter, Vivienne, and finding out her child suffered from food allergies, she started to realize just how stark the allergy-friendly food landscape was. She couldn't find any options that were nutritious and delicious, and after some nudging from her nanny, Woodard decided to do something about it. She promptly put together a new business pitch for an allergy-friendly snack brand, entered a pitch competition, and won. She spent the next year building Partake while working her day job before leaping into it full-time. Since then, Woodard has become the first Black woman to raise over $1 million for a packaged food company, and Partake Foods can now be found in over 18,000 retailers, including Target and Whole Foods.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hvad skal man som liberal mene om burkaforbuddet? Eller brugerbetaling hos lægen? Og hvad skal man som konservativ synes om topskat? Eller fri abort? I en række sommerferieprogrammer vil vi her i Borgerlig Tabloid hjælpe dig med, hvad du kan mene om store, vigtige og principielle dagsordener - og hvorfor. Betragt det som en slags borgerlig holdningsguide, hvor vi med udgangspunkt i de to store borgerlige, idépolitiske strømninger - liberalisme og konservatisme - vil udstyre dig med argumenter, som du kan bruge, næste gang du kaster dig ud i en debat over spisebordet, på den brune bodega eller til familiefødselsdagen. I de to første afsnit indtager vi det liberale standpunkt. Borgerlig Tabloid sender som normalt igen fra den 1. august Vært: Joachim B. Olsen, debatredaktør på B.T. Gæst: Martin Ågerup, økonom, tidligere direktør i CEPOS og nuværende Direktør i Popoulos Analytics Christopher Arzrouni, Chef for external affairs i Philip Morris og tidligere særlig rådgiver for Kristian Jensen Journalist: Maria Asmine Dam Producer: Jens Marrot og Maria Asmine Dam Er du tvivl om, hvad du skal mene om aktuelle emner, så tilmeld dig nyhedsbrevet Borgerlig Tabloid fra Joachim B. Olsen - så får du borgerlig argumenter direkte i din indbakke: https://www.bt.dk/debat/borgerlig-tabloid-faa-borgerlig-debat-direkte-i-din-indbakkeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hvad skal man som liberal mene om burkaforbuddet? Eller brugerbetaling hos lægen? Og hvad skal man som konservativ synes om topskat? Eller fri abort? I en række sommerferieprogrammer vil vi her i Borgerlig Tabloid hjælpe dig med, hvad du kan mene om store, vigtige og principielle dagsordener - og hvorfor. Betragt det som en slags borgerlig holdningsguide, hvor vi med udgangspunkt i de to store borgerlige, idépolitiske strømninger - liberalisme og konservatisme - vil udstyre dig med argumenter, som du kan bruge, næste gang du kaster dig ud i en debat over spisebordet, på den brune bodega eller til familiefødselsdagen. I de to første afsnit indtager vi det liberale standpunkt. Borgerlig Tabloid sender som normalt igen fra den 1. august Vært: Joachim B. Olsen, debatredaktør på B.T. Gæst: Martin Ågerup, økonom, tidligere direktør i CEPOS og nuværende Direktør i Popoulos Analytics Christopher Arzrouni, Chef for external affairs i Philip Morris og tidligere særlig rådgiver for Kristian Jensen Journalist: Maria Asmine Dam Producer: Jens Marrot og Maria Asmine Dam Er du tvivl om, hvad du skal mene om aktuelle emner, så tilmeld dig nyhedsbrevet Borgerlig Tabloid fra Joachim B. Olsen - så får du borgerlig argumenter direkte i din indbakke: https://www.bt.dk/debat/borgerlig-tabloid-faa-borgerlig-debat-direkte-i-din-indbakke See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In the early 1960s, R.J. Reynolds, one of the largest and most profitable tobacco companies in the U.S. at the time, wanted to diversify its business. Its marketing strategies had been highly successful in selling its top brands, like Camel, Winston and Salem cigarettes, and executives thought, Why not apply the same strategies to, say, the food industry?So in 1963, R.J. Reynolds acquired Hawaiian Punch. It marked the beginning of the tobacco industry's entry into the food sector. In the following decades, R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris expanded aggressively into the food industry, acquiring major brands, like Del Monte, Nabisco, General Foods, Kraft and 7UP, where they produced hyperpalatable, chemically-engineered foods now known as ultra-processed foods, or UPFs. These products were marketed especially to children and other vulnerable groups. In Berkeley Talks episode 229, Laura Schmidt, a professor of health policy in the School of Medicine at UC San Francisco, discusses how ultra-processed foods — like cookies, sodas, instant noodles, fish sticks and cereals — are a direct legacy of the tobacco industry, and are responsible for a dramatic rise in obesity, diabetes and other chronic diseases across the country. “About 60% of the calories in Americans' diets are from ultra-processed foods,” says Schmidt, who spoke at a UC Berkeley event in May. “In the mid-'80s, when we see ultra-processed foods starting to scale up in the American food supply, we also see obesity starting to really rise. That is the moment when some of the largest food companies are owned by tobacco companies.”This talk took place on May 5, 2025, and was co-sponsored by the Berkeley Food Institute (BFI) and Berkeley Public Health. It was moderated by Isabel Madzorera, an assistant professor in food, nutrition and population health at Berkeley Public Health and co-faculty director at the Berkeley Food Institute.Watch a video of the event on the Berkeley Food Institute's YouTube page.Listen to the episode and read the transcript on UC Berkeley News (news.berkeley.edu/podcasts).Music by HoliznaCC0.Photo by Cory Doctorow via Wikimedia Commons. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today we're talking with health and nutrition expert Dr. Stuart Gillespie, author of a new book entitled Food Fight: from Plunder and Profit to People and Planet. Using decades of research and insight gathered from around the world, Dr. Gillespie wants to reimagine our global food system and plot a way forward to a sustainable, equitable, and healthy food future - one where our food system isn't making us sick. Certainly not the case now. Over the course of his career, Dr. Gillespie has worked with the UN Standing Committee on Nutrition in Geneva with UNICEF in India and with the International Food Policy Research Institute, known as IFPRI, where he's led initiatives tackling the double burden of malnutrition and agriculture and health research. He holds a PhD in human nutrition from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Interview Summary So, you've really had a global view of the agriculture system, and this is captured in your book. And to give some context to our listeners, in your book, you describe the history of the global food system, how it's evolved into this system, sort of warped, if you will, into a mechanism that creates harm and it destroys more than it produces. That's a pretty bold statement. That it destroys more than it produces, given how much the agriculture around the world does produce. Tell us a bit more if you would. Yes, that statement actually emerged from recent work by the Food Systems Economic Commission. And they costed out the damage or the downstream harms generated by the global food system at around $15 trillion per year, which is 12% of GDP. And that manifests in various ways. Health harms or chronic disease. It also manifests in terms of climate crisis and risks and environmental harms, but also. Poverty of food system workers at the front line, if you like. And it's largely because we have a system that's anachronistic. It's a system that was built in a different time, in a different century for a different purpose. It was really started to come together after the second World War. To mass produce cheap calories to prevent famine, but also through the Green Revolution, as that was picking up with the overproduction of staples to use that strategically through food aid to buffer the West to certain extent from the spread of communism. And over time and over the last 50 years of neoliberal policies we've got a situation where food is less and less viewed as a human right, or a basic need. It's seen as a commodity and the system has become increasingly financialized. And there's a lot of evidence captured by a handful of transnationals, different ones at different points in the system from production to consumption. But in each case, they wield huge amounts of power. And that manifests in various ways. We have, I think a system that's anachronistic The point about it, and the problem we have, is that it's a system revolves around maximizing profit and the most profitable foods and products of those, which are actually the least healthy for us as individuals. And it's not a system that's designed to nourish us. It's a system designed to maximize profit. And we don't have a system that really aims to produce whole foods for people. We have a system that produces raw ingredients for industrial formulations to end up as ultra processed foods. We have a system that produces cattle feed and, and biofuels, and some whole foods. But it, you know, that it's so skewed now, and we see the evidence all around us that it manifests in all sorts of different ways. One in three people on the planet in some way malnourished. We have around 12 million adult deaths a year due to diet related chronic disease. And I followed that from colonial times that, that evolution and the way it operates and the way it moves across the world. And what is especially frightening, I think, is the speed at which this so-called nutrition transition or dietary transition is happening in lower income or middle income countries. We saw this happening over in the US and we saw it happening in the UK where I am. And then in Latin America, and then more Southeast Asia, then South Asia. Now, very much so in Sub-Saharan Africa where there is no regulation really, apart from perhaps South Africa. So that's long answer to your intro question. Let's dive into a couple of things that you brought up. First, the Green Revolution. So that's a term that many of our listeners will know and they'll understand what the Green Revolution is, but not everybody. Would you explain what that was and how it's had these effects throughout the food systems around the world? Yes, I mean around the, let's see, about 1950s, Norman Borlag, who was a crop breeder and his colleagues in Mexico discovered through crop breeding trials, a high yielding dwarf variety. But over time and working with different partners, including well in India as well, with the Swaminathan Foundation. And Swaminathan, for example, managed to perfect these new strains. High yielding varieties that doubled yields for a given acreage of land in terms of staples. And over time, this started to work with rice, with wheat, maize and corn. Very dependent on fertilizers, very dependent on pesticides, herbicides, which we now realize had significant downstream effects in terms of environmental harms. But also, diminishing returns in as much as, you know, that went through its trajectory in terms of maximizing productivity. So, all the Malthusian predictions of population growth out running our ability to feed the planet were shown to not to be true. But it also generated inequity that the richest farmers got very rich, very quickly, the poorer farmers got slightly richer, but that there was this large gap. So, inequity was never really properly dealt with through the Green Revolution in its early days. And that overproduction and the various institutions that were set in place, the manner in which governments backed off any form of regulation for overproduction. They continued to subsidize over production with these very large subsidies upstream, meant that we are in the situation we are now with regard to different products are being used to deal with that excess over production. So, that idea of using petroleum-based inputs to create the foods in the first place. And the large production of single crops has a lot to do with that Green Revolution that goes way back to the 1950s. It's interesting to see what it's become today. It's sort of that original vision multiplied by a billion. And boy, it really does continue to have impacts. You know, it probably was the forerunner to genetically modified foods as well, which I'd like to ask you about in a little bit. But before I do that, you said that much of the world's food supply is governed by a pretty small number of players. So who are these players? If you look at the downstream retail side, you have Nestle, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, General Mills, Unilever. Collectively around 70% of retail is governed by those companies. If you look upstream in terms of agricultural and agribusiness, you have Cargill, ADM, Louis Dreyfus, and Bunge. These change to a certain extent. What doesn't change very much are the numbers involved that are very, very small and that the size of these corporations is so large that they have immense power. And, so those are the companies that we could talk about what that power looks like and why it's problematic. But the other side of it's here where I am in the UK, we have a similar thing playing out with regard to store bought. Food or products, supermarkets that control 80% as Tesco in the UK, Asta, Sainsbury's, and Morrisons just control. You have Walmart, you have others, and that gives them immense power to drive down the costs that they will pay to producers and also potentially increase the cost that they charge as prices of the products that are sold in these supermarkets. So that profit markup, profit margins are in increased in their favor. They can also move around their tax liabilities around the world because they're transnational. And that's just the economic market and financial side on top of that. And as you know, there's a whole raft of political ways in which they use this power to infiltrate policy, influence policy through what I've called in Chapter 13, the Dark Arts of Policy Interference. Your previous speaker, Murray Carpenter, talked about that with regard to Coca-Cola and that was a very, yeah, great example. But there are many others. In many ways these companies have been brilliant at adapting to the regulatory landscape, to the financial incentives, to the way the agriculture system has become warped. I mean, in some ways they've done the warping, but in a lot of ways, they're adapting to the conditions that allow warping to occur. And because they've invested so heavily, like in manufacturing plants to make high fructose corn syrup or to make biofuels or things like that. It'd be pretty hard for them to undo things, and that's why they lobby so strongly in favor of keeping the status quo. Let me ask you about the issue of power because you write about this in a very compelling way. And you talk about power imbalances in the food system. What does that look like in your mind, and why is it such a big part of the problem? Well, yes. And power manifests in different ways. It operates sometimes covertly, sometimes overtly. It manifests at different levels from, you know, grassroots level, right up to national and international in terms of international trade. But what I've described is the way markets are captured or hyper concentrated. That power that comes with these companies operating almost like a cartel, can be used to affect political or to dampen down, block governments from regulating them through what I call a five deadly Ds: dispute or dispute or doubt, distort, distract, disguise, and dodge. And you've written very well Kelly, with I think Kenneth Warner about the links between big food and big tobacco and the playbook and the realization on the part of Big Tobacco back in the '50s, I think, that they couldn't compete with the emerging evidence of the harms of smoking. They had to secure the science. And that involved effectively buying research or paying for researchers to generate a raft of study shown that smoking wasn't a big deal or problem. And also, public relations committees, et cetera, et cetera. And we see the same happening with big food. Conflicts of interest is a big deal. It needs to be avoided. It can't be managed. And I think a lot of people think it is just a question of disclosure. Disclosure is never enough of conflict of interest, almost never enough. We have, in the UK, we have nine regulatory bodies. Every one of them has been significantly infiltrated by big food, including the most recent one, which has just been designated to help develop a national food stretch in the UK. We've had a new government here and we thought things were changing, beginning to wonder now because big food is on that board or on that committee. And it shouldn't be, you know. It shouldn't be anywhere near the policy table anyway. That's so it's one side is conflict of interest. Distraction: I talk about corporate social responsibility initiatives and the way that they're designed to distract. On the one hand, if you think of a person on a left hand is doing these wonderful small-scale projects, which are high visibility and they're doing good. In and off themselves they're doing good. But they're small scale. Whereas the right hand is a core business, which is generating harm at a much larger scale. And the left hand is designed to distract you from the right hand. So that distraction, those sort of corporate CSR initiatives are a big part of the problem. And then 'Disguise' is, as you know, with the various trade associations and front groups, which acted almost like Trojan horses, in many ways. Because the big food companies are paying up as members of these committees, but they don't get on the program of these international conferences. But the front groups do and the front groups act on in their interests. So that's former disguise or camouflage. The World Business Council on Sustainable Development is in the last few years, has been very active in the space. And they have Philip Morris on there as members, McDonald's and Nestle, Coke, everybody, you know. And they deliberately actually say It's all fine. That we have an open door, which I, I just can't. I don't buy it. And there are others. So, you know, I think these can be really problematic. The other thing I should mention about power and as what we've learned more about, if you go even upstream from the big food companies, and you look at the hedge funds and the asset management firms like Vanguard, state Capital, BlackRock, and the way they've been buying up shares of big food companies and blocking any moves in annual general meetings to increase or improve the healthiness of portfolios. Because they're so powerful in terms of the number of shares they hold to maximize profit for pension funds. So, we started to see the pressure that is being put on big food upstream by the nature of the system, that being financialized, even beyond the companies themselves, you know? You were mentioning that these companies, either directly themselves or through their front organizations or the trade association block important things that might be done in agriculture. Can you think of an example of that? Yes, well actually I did, with some colleagues here in the UK, the Food Foundation, an investigation into corporate lobbying during the previous conservative government. And basically, in the five years after the pandemic, we logged around 1,400 meetings between government ministers and big food. Then we looked at the public interest NGOs and the number of meetings they had over that same period, and it was 35, so it was a 40-fold difference. Oh goodness. Which I was actually surprised because I thought they didn't have to do much because the Tory government was never going to really regulate them anyway. And you look in the register, there is meant to be transparency. There are rules about disclosure of what these lobbying meetings were meant to be for, with whom, for what purpose, what outcome. That's just simply not followed. You get these crazy things being written into the those logs like, 'oh, we had a meeting to discuss business, and that's it.' And we know that at least what happened in the UK, which I'm more familiar with. We had a situation where constantly any small piecemeal attempt to regulate, for example, having a watershed at 9:00 PM so that kids could not see junk food advertised on their screens before 9:00 PM. That simple regulation was delayed, delayed. So, delay is actually another D you know. It is part of it. And that's an example of that. That's a really good example. And you've reminded me of an example where Marian Nestle and I wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times, many years ago, on an effort by the WHO, the World Health Organization to establish a quite reasonable guideline for how much added sugar people should have in their diet. And the sugar industry stepped in in the biggest way possible. And there was a congressional caucus on sugar or something like that in our US Congress and the sugar industry and the other players in the food industry started interacting with them. They put big pressure on the highest levels of the US government to pressure the WHO away from this really quite moderate reasonable sugar standard. And the US ultimately threatened the World Health Organization with taking away its funding just on one thing - sugar. Now, thankfully the WHO didn't back down and ultimately came out with some pretty good guidelines on sugar that have been even stronger over the years. But it was pretty disgraceful. That's in the book that, that story is in the book. I think it was 2004 with the strategy on diet, physical activity. And Tommy Thompson was a health secretary and there were all sorts of shenanigans and stories around that. Yes, that is a very powerful example. It was a crazy power play and disgraceful how our government acted and how the companies acted and all the sort of deceitful ways they did things. And of course, that's happened a million times. And you gave the example of all the discussions in the UK between the food industry and the government people. So, let's get on to something more positive. What can be done? You can see these massive corporate influences, revolving doors in government, a lot of things that would argue for keeping the status quo. So how in the world do you turn things around? Yeah, good question. I really believe, I've talked about a lot of people. I've looked a lot of the evidence. I really believe that we need a systemic sort of structural change and understanding that's not going to happen overnight. But ultimately, I think there's a role for a government, citizens civil society, media, academics, food industry, obviously. And again, it's different between the UK and US and elsewhere in terms of the ability and the potential for change. But governments have to step in and govern. They have to set the guardrails and the parameters. And I talk in the book about four key INs. So, the first one is institutions in which, for example, there's a power to procure healthy food for schools, for hospitals, clinics that is being underutilized. And there's some great stories of individuals. One woman from Kenya who did this on her own and managed to get the government to back it and to scale it up, which is an incredible story. That's institutions. The second IN is incentives, and that's whereby sugar taxes, or even potentially junk food taxes as they have in Columbia now. And reforming the upstream subsidies on production is basically downregulating the harmful side, if you like, of the food system, but also using the potential tax dividend from that side to upregulate benefits via subsidies for low-income families. Rebalancing the system. That's the incentive side. The other side is information, and that involves labeling, maybe following the examples from Latin America with regard to black octagons in Chile and Mexico and Brazil. And dietary guidelines not being conflicted, in terms of conflicts of interest. And actually, that's the fourth IN: interests. So ridding government advisory bodies, guideline committees, of conflicts of interests. Cleaning up lobbying. Great examples in a way that can be done are from Canada and Ireland that we found. That's government. Citizens, and civil society, they can be involved in various ways exposing, opposing malpractice if you like, or harmful action on the part of industry or whoever else, or the non-action on the part of the government. Informing, advocating, building social movements. Lots I think can be learned through activist group in other domains or in other disciplines like HIV, climate. I think we need to make those connections much more. Media. I mean, the other thought is that the media have great, I mean in this country at least, you know, politicians tend to follow the media, or they're frightened of the media. And if the media turned and started doing deep dive stories of corporate shenanigans and you know, stuff that is under the radar, that would make a difference, I think. And then ultimately, I think then our industry starts to respond to different signals or should do or would do. So that in innovation is not just purely technological aimed at maximizing profit. It may be actually social. We need social innovation as well. There's a handful of things. But ultimately, I actually don't think the food system is broken because it is doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason. I think we need to change the system, and I'll say that will take time. It needs a real transformation. One, one last thing to say about that word transformation. Where in meetings I've been in over the last 10 years, so many people invoke food system transformation when they're not really talking about it. They're just talking about tweaking the margins or small, piecemeal ad hoc changes or interventions when we need to kind of press all the buttons or pull all the levers to get the kind of change that we need. And again, as I say, it was going to take some time, but we have to start moving that direction. Do you think there's reason to be hopeful and are there success stories you can point to, to make us feel a little bit better? Yeah, and I like that word, hope. I've just been reading a lot of essays from, actually, Rebecca Solnit has been writing a lot about hope as a warrior emotion. Radical hope, which it's different to optimism. Optimism went, oh, you know, things probably will be okay, but hope you make it. It's like a springboard for action. So I, yes, I'm hopeful and I think there are plenty of examples. Actually, a lot of examples from Latin America of things changing, and I think that's because they've been hit so fast, so hard. And I write in the book about what's happened in the US and UK it's happened over a period of, I don't know, 50, 60 years. But what's happened and is happening in Latin America has happened in just like 15 years. You know, it's so rapid that they've had to respond fast or get their act together quickly. And that's an interesting breed of activist scholars. You know, I think there's an interesting group, and again, if we connect across national boundaries across the world, we can learn a lot from that. There are great success stories coming out Chile from the past that we've seen what's happening in Mexico. Mexico was in a terrible situation after Vicente Fox came in, in the early 2000s when he brought all his Coca-Cola pals in, you know, the classic revolving door. And Mexico's obesity and diabetes went off to scale very quickly. But they're the first country with the sugar tax in 2014. And you see the pressure that was used to build the momentum behind that. Chile, Guido Girardi and the Black Octagon labels with other interventions. Rarely is it just one thing. It has to be a comprehensive across the board as far as possible. So, in Brazil, I think we will see things happening more in, in Thailand and Southeast Asia. We see things beginning to happen in India, South Africa. The obesity in Ghana, for example, changed so rapidly. There are some good people working in Ghana. So, you know, I think a good part of this is actually documenting those kind of stories as, and when they happen and publicizing them, you know. The way you portrayed the concept of hope, I think is a really good one. And when I asked you for some examples of success, what I was expecting you, you might say, well, there was this program and this part of a one country in Africa where they did something. But you're talking about entire countries making changes like Chile and Brazil and Mexico. That makes me very hopeful about the future when you get governments casting aside the influence of industry. At least long enough to enact some of these things that are definitely not in the best interest of industry, these traditional food companies. And that's all, I think, a very positive sign about big scale change. And hopefully what happens in these countries will become contagious in other countries will adopt them and then, you know, eventually they'll find their way to countries like yours and mine. Yes, I agree. That's how I see it. I used to do a lot of work on single, small interventions and do their work do they not work in this small environment. The problem we have is large scale, so we have to be large scale as well. BIO Dr. Stuart Gillespie has been fighting to transform our broken food system for the past 40 years. Stuart is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow in Nutrition, Diets and Health at theInternational Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). He has been at the helm of the IFPRI's Regional Network on AIDs, Livelihoods and Food Security, has led the flagship Agriculture for Nutrition and Health research program, was director of the Transform Nutrition program, and founded the Stories of Change initiative, amongst a host of other interventions into public food policy. His work – the ‘food fight' he has been waging – has driven change across all frontiers, from the grassroots (mothers in markets, village revolutionaries) to the political (corporate behemoths, governance). He holds a PhD in Human Nutrition from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. 

Petar Kosovac gost je kod Vladimira Stankovića u 182. epizodi podkasta Biznis Priče

Experts still can't explain this 1967 bigfoot film. Why is it that after nearly 6 decades the Patterson Gimlin film is still making bigfoot believers?

Petar Kosovac gost je kod Vladimira Stankovića u 182. epizodi podkasta Biznis Priče

Valeria Martinez begins the show by unpacking FirstGroup's (FGP) results. Valeria and Dan explore how the renationalisation of rail franchises is affecting the business, the timeline for other franchise nationalisations and how the company looks compared with its peers.Next, materials company Oxford Instruments (OXIG), which this week announced it was selling its quantum business for £60mn. Julian Hofmann looks at what it will focus on instead, its exposure to tariffs and more. Last up, Alex Newman joins to discuss Blue Whale Growth holding Philip Morris (US:PM). It differs vastly from the fund's typical tech holdings, and the tobacco company is now considered an ESG stock by some. Listen to find out the latest investment case. Timestamps 1:46 FirstGroup12:42 Oxford Instruments21:38 Philip Morris and Blue Whale Growth Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Recently I was asked to review a forthcoming book for American Scientist magazine. The book was entitled, Sweet and Deadly: How Coca-Cola Spreads Disinformation and Makes us Sick. I did the review, and now that the book has been published, I'm delighted that its author, Murray Carpenter, has agreed to join us. Mr. Carpenter is a journalist and author whose work has appeared in publications such as the New York Times, and the Washington Post, and has been featured in places like NPR's All Things Considered and Morning Edition. Interview Summary So, let's start with your career overall. Your journalism has covered a wide range of topics. But a major focus has been on what people consume. First, with your book Caffeinated and now with Sweet and Deadly. What brought you to this interest? My interest in caffeine is longstanding. Like many of us, I consume caffeine daily in the form of coffee. And I just felt like with caffeine, many of us don't really discuss the fact that it is a drug, and it is at least a mildly addictive drug. And so, I became fascinated with that enough to write a book. And that really led me directly in an organic fashion to this project. Because when I would discuss caffeine with people, mostly they just kind of wanted the cliff notes. Is my habit healthy? You know, how much caffeine should I take? And, and in short, I would tell them, you know, if you don't suffer from anxiety or insomnia and you're consuming your caffeine in a healthy beverage, well, that's fine. But, what I realized, of course, is that by volume, the caffeinated beverage people consume most of is sodas. And so that led me to thinking more about sodas because I got a lot of questions about the caffeine in sodas. And that led me to realize just the degree to which they are unhealthful. We've all known sodas not to be a health food, but I think that the degree to which they are not healthy surprised me. And that's what led me to this book. Yes, there's some very interesting themes aren't there with addiction and manipulation of ingredients in order to get people hooked on things. So let's talk about Coca-Cola a bit. Your book focuses on Coca-Cola. It's right there in the title. And certainly, they're giants in the beverage field. But are there other reasons that led you to focus on them? Other than that, the fact that they're the biggest? They're the biggest and really almost synonymous with sodas worldwide. I mean, many people don't say ‘I want a pop, I want a soda.' They say, ‘I want a Coke.' I quote a source as saying that. You know, what that means is you want a sugar sweetened beverage. And it's not just that they're the most successful at this game, and the biggest. But as I started doing this research, I realized that they have also been the most aggressive and the most successful at this sort of disinformation that's the focus of the book. At generating these health campaigns, these science disinformation campaigns, we should say. This is not to say Pepsi and Dr. Pepper have not been at this game as well, and often through the American Beverage Association. But it is to say that I think Coca-Cola has been the most sophisticated. The most invested in these campaigns. And I would argue the most successful. And so, I really think it's a league apart and that's why I wanted to focus on Coca-Cola. That makes good sense. So, in reading your book, I was struck by the sheer number of ways Coca-Cola protected their business interest at the expense of public health and also the degree to which it was coordinated and calculated. Let's take several examples of such activities and discuss exactly what the company has done. And I'd love your opinion on this. One thing you noted that Coke acted partly through other organizations, one of which you just mentioned, the American Beverage Association. There were others where there was sort of a false sense of scientific credibility. Can you explain more about what Coke did in this area? Yes, and one of the organizations that I think is perhaps the exemplar of this behavior is the International Life Sciences Institute. It's a very successful, very well-funded group that purports to you know, improve the health of people, worldwide. It was founded by a Coca-Cola staffer and has, you know, essentially carried water for Coke for years through a variety of direct and indirect ways. But so front groups, the successful use of front groups: and this is to say groups that don't immediately appear to be associated, say with Coca-Cola. If you hear the International Life Sciences Institute, no one immediately thinks Coca-Cola, except for people who study this a lot. The International Food Information Council, another very closely related front group. This is one of the ways that Coke has done its work is through the use of front groups. And some of them are sort of these more temporary front groups that they'll establish for specific campaigns. For example, to fight soda taxes in specific areas. And they often have very anodyne names, and names again that don't directly link them to Coca-Cola or a beverage, the beverage industry. And the reason that this is so important and the reason this is so effective is journalists know if they were saying, Coca-Cola says soda isn't bad for you, of course that raises red flags. If they say, the International Life Sciences Institute says it's not bad for you, if they say the International Food Information Council says it's not bad for you. The use of front groups has been one of the very effective and persistent, strategies. It almost sounds like the word deception could be written the charter of these organizations, couldn't it? Because it was really meant to disguise Coca-Cola's role in these things from the very get go. That's right. Yes. And the deception runs very deep. One of the things that I happened onto in the course of reporting this book, Sweet and Deadly, is Coca-Cola two different times, organized three-day seminars on obesity in Colorado. These two attendees appeared to be sponsored by a press organization and the University of Colorado. They were funded and structured entirely at the behest of Coca-Cola. And it wasn't until after people had attended these seminars and reported stories based on the findings that they'd learned there. Much, much later did people find out that yes, actually these were Coca-Cola initiatives. So yes, deception, runs deep and it's a huge part of their public relations strategy. It's like reputation laundering, almost. Well, it is, and, you know, I make frequent analogies to the tobacco industry in the book. And I think one of the things that's important to remember when we're looking at tobacco and when we're looking at Coca-Cola, at the soda industry writ large, is that these are industries that are producing products that science now shows unequivocally are unhelpful. Even at moderate levels of consumption. So, in order for the industry to continue selling this product, to continue leading, they really have to fight back. It's imperative. It's a risk to their business model if they don't do something to fight the emerging health science. And so, yes, it's very important to them. You know, it's easy, I guess, to ascribe this kind of behavior to ill meaning people within these organizations. But it's almost written into the DNA of these organizations. I mean, you said they have to do this. So, it's pretty much be expected, isn't. It is. I think young people when they hear something like this, they often shrug and say capitalism. And, yes, there's something to that. But capitalism thrives also in a regulated environment. I think that's maybe a little bit too simplistic. But the aspect of it that does apply here is that Coca-Cola is in the business of selling sugar water. That's what they're there to do. Granted, they've diversified into other products, but they are in the business of selling sugar water. Anything that threatens that business model is a threat to their bottom line. And so, they are going to fight it tooth and nail. So how did Coca-Cola influence big health organizations like the World Health Organization and any equivalent bodies in the US? Well, so a few different ways. One of the ways that Coca-Cola has really extended its influence is again, through the use of the front groups to carry messages such as, you know, a calorie is a calorie. Calories and calories out. That's, that's one of the strategies. Another is by having allies in high places politically. And sometimes these are political appointees that happen to be associated with Coca-Cola. Other times these are politicians who are getting funding from Coca-Cola. But, yes, they have worked hard. I mean, the WHO is an interesting one because the WHO really has been out a little bit ahead of the more national bodies in terms of wanting soda taxes, et cetera. But there's a subtler way too, I think, that it influences any of these political entities and these science groups, is that Coca-Cola it's such an all-American beverage. I don't think we can overstate this. It's almost more American than apple pie. And I think we still have not sort of made that shift to then seeing it as something that's unhealthful. And I do think that that has, sort of, put the brakes slightly on regulatory actions here in the US. Let's talk about the Global Energy Balance Network, because this was an especially pernicious part of the overall Coca-Cola strategy. Would you tell us about that and how particular scientists, people of note in our field, by the way, were being paid large sums of money and then delivering things that supported industries positions. Yes. This was a Coca-Cola initiative. And we have to be clear on this. This was designed and created at the behest of Coca-Cola staffers. This was an initiative that was really an effort to shift the balance to the calories outside of the equation. So energy balance is one of these, sort of, themes that Coca-Cola and other people have, sort of, made great hay with. And this idea would be just calories and calories out. That's all that matters. If you're just balanced there, everything else is to be okay. We can talk about that later. I think most of your listeners probably understand that, you know, a calorie of Coca-Cola is not nutritionally equivalent to a calorie of kale. But that's what the Global Energy Balance Network was really trying to focus on. And yes, luminaries in the field of obesity science, you know, Stephen Blair at the University of South Carolina, Jim Hill, then at the University of Colorado's Anschutz Center, the Global Energy Balance Network funded their labs with more than a million dollars to specifically focus on this issue of energy balance. Now, what was deceptive here, and I think it's really worth noting, is that Coca-Cola developed this project. But once it developed the project and gave the funding, it did not want to be associated with it. It wasn't the Global Energy Balance Network 'brought to you by Coca-Cola.' It appeared to be a freestanding nonprofit. And it looked like it was going to be a very effective strategy for Coca-Cola, but it didn't turn out that way. So, we'll talk about that in a minute. How much impact did this have? Did it matter that Coke gave money to these several scientists you mentioned? Well, I think yes. I think in the broader scheme of things that every increment of scientific funding towards this side matters. You know, people talk about the science of industrial distraction or industrial selection. And, you know, partly this is this idea that even if you're funding legitimate science, right, but it's focused on this ‘calories outside of the equation,' it's sucking up some of the oxygen in the room. Some of the public conversation is going to be shifted from the harmful effects of a product, say Coca-Cola, to the benefits of exercise. And so, yes, I think all of this kind of funding can make a difference. And it influences public opinion. So how close were the relationships between the Coca-Cola executives and the scientist? I mean, did they just write them a check and say, go do your science and we will let you come up with whatever you will, or were they colluding more than that? And they were colluding much more than that. And I've got a shout out here to the Industry Documents Library at the University of California at San Francisco, which is meticulously archived. A lot of the emails that show all of the interrelationships here. Yes, they were not just chatting cordially - scientists to Coca-Cola Corporation. They were mutually developing strategies. They were often ready at a moment's notice to appear at a press conference on Coca-Cola's behalf. So, yes, it was a very direct, very close relationship that certainly now that we see the conversations, it's unseemly at best. How did this all come to light? Because you said these documents are in this archive at UCSF. How did they come to light in the first place and how did shining light on this, you know, sort of pseudo-organization take place? Well, here we have to credit, New York Times reporter, now at the Washington Post, Anahad O'Connor, who did yeoman's work to investigate the Global Energy Balance Network. And it was his original FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests that got a lot of these emails that are now in the industry document library. He requested these documents and then he built his story in large part off of these documents. And it was a front-page New York Times expose and, Coke had a lot of egg on its face. It's then CEO, even apologized, you know, in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. And you know, the sort of a secondary aspect of this is after this funding was exposed, Coca-Cola was pressured to reveal other health funding that it had been spending money on. And that was, I think over a few years like $133 million. They spread their money around to a lot of different organizations and in some cases the organizations, it was just good will. In other cases, you had organizations that changed their position on key policy initiatives after receiving the funding. But it was a lot of money. So, the Global Energy Balance Network, it is sort of opened a chink in their armor and gave people a view inside the machine. And there's something else that I'd love to mention that I think is really important about the Global Energy Balance Network and about that initiative. As Coca-Cola seems, and this became clear in the reporting of the book over and over again, they seem always to be three moves ahead on the chess board. They're not just putting out a brush fires. They're looking way down the road. How do we head off the challenge that we're facing in public opinion? How do we head off the challenge we're facing in terms of soda science? And in many cases, they've been very, very effective at this. Were Coca-Cola's efforts mainly to influence policies and things in the US or did they have their eyes outside the US as well? I focused the book, the reporting of the book, really on Coca-Cola in the US. And also, and I just want to mention this tangentially, it's also focused not on non-nutritive sweetened beverages, but the sugary beverages. It's pretty tightly focused. But yes, Coca-Cola, through other organizations, particularly the International Life Sciences Institute, has very much tried to influence policy say in China, for example, which is a huge market. So yes, they've exported this very successful PR strategy globally. So, the corporate activities, like the ones you describe in your book, can be pretty clearly damaging to the public's health. What in the heck can be done? I mean, who will the change agents be? And do you think there's any hope of curtailing this kind of dreadful activity? Well, this is something I thought about a lot. One of the themes of the book is that the balance of public opinion has never tipped against Coca-Cola. And we talked about this earlier, that it's still seen as this all American product. And we see with other industries and other products. So, you know, Philip Morris, smoking, Marlboro. Eventually the balance of public opinion tips against them and people accept that they're unhealthful and that they've been misleading the public. The same thing happened for Exxon and climate change, Purdue pharma and Oxycontin. It's a pattern we see over and over again. With Coca-Cola, it hasn't tipped yet. And I think once it does, it will be easier for public health advocates to make their case. In terms of who the change agents might be, here we have a really interesting conversation, right? Because the foremost change agent right now looks like it's RFK Jr. (Robert F. Kennedy), which is pretty remarkable and generates an awful lot of shall we say, cognitive dissonance, right? Because both the spending of SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funds for sodas, he's opposed to that. He has just as recently as the week before last called sugar poison. He said sugar is poison. These are the kinds of very direct, very forceful, high level, initiatives that we really haven't seen at a federal level yet. So, it's possible that he will be nudging the balance. And it puts, of course, everybody who's involved, every public health advocate, I think, who is involved with this issue in a slightly uncomfortable or very uncomfortable position. Yes. You know, as I think about the kind of settings where I've worked and this conflict-of-interest problem with scientists taking money and doing things in favor of industry. And I wonder who the change agents are going to be. It's a pretty interesting picture comes with that. Because if you ask scientists whether money taints research, they'll say yes. But if you ask, would it taint your research, they'll say no. Because of course I am so unbiased and I'm so pure that it really wouldn't affect what I do. So, that's how scientists justify it. Some scientists don't take money from industry and there are no problems with conflicts of interest. But the ones who do can pretty easily justify it along with saying things like, well, I can help change the industry from within if I'm in the door, and things like that. The universities can't really police it because universities are getting corporate funding. Maybe not from that particular company, but overall. Their solution to this is the same as the scientific journals, that you just have to disclose. The kind of problem with disclosure as I see it, is that it - sort of editorializing here and you're the guest, so I apologize for intruding on that - but the problem with disclosure is that why do you need to disclose something in the first place because there's something potentially wrong? Well, the solution then isn't disclose it, it's not to do it. And disclosing is like if I come up and kick you in the leg, it's okay if I disclose it? I mean, it's just, there's something sort of perverse about that whole system. Journals there, you know, they want disclosure. The big scientific association, many of them are getting money from industry as well. So, industry has so permeated the system that it's hard to think about who can have any impact. And I think the press, I think it's journalists like you who can make a difference. You know, it wasn't the scientific organizations or anything else that got in the way of the Global Energy Balance Network. It was Anahad O'Connor writing in the New York Times, and all the people who were involved in exposing that. And you with your book. So that's sort of long-winded way of saying thank you. What you've done is really important and there are precious few change agents out there. And so, we have to rely on talented and passionate people like you to get that work done. So, thank you so much for sharing it with us. Let me just end with one final question. Do you see any reason to be optimistic about where this is all going? I do. And I've got to say maybe you're giving scientists a little bit of short shrift here. Because, as the science develops, as it becomes more compelling and a theme of the book is that soda science really, over the past 15, 20 years has become more compelling. More unequivocal. We know the harms and, you know, you can quantify them and identify them more specifically than say, 15 years ago. So, I think that's one thing that can change. And I think slowly you're seeing, greater public awareness. I think the real challenge, in terms of getting the message out about the health risks, is that you really see like a bifurcated consumption of Coca-Cola. There are many people who are not consuming any Coca-Cola. And then you have a lot of people who are consuming, you know, say 20 ounces regularly. So, there is a big question of how you reach this other group of people who are still high consumers of Coca-Cola. And we know and you know this well from your work, that soda labeling is one thing that works and that soda taxes are another. I think those are things to look out for coming down the pike. I mean, obviously other countries are ahead of us in terms of both of these initiatives. One of the things occurred to me as you were speaking earlier, you mentioned that your book was focused on the sugared beverages. Do you think there's a similar story to be told about deception and deceit with respect to the artificial sweeteners? I suspect so, you know. I haven't done the work, but I don't know why there wouldn't be. And I think artificial sweeteners are in the position that sugary beverages were 10 to 15 years ago. There's a lag time in terms of the research. There is increasing research showing the health risks of these beverages. I think people who are public health advocates have been loath to highlight these because they're also a very effective bridge from sugar sweetened beverages to no sugar sweetened beverages. And I think, a lot of people see them as a good strategy. I do think there probably is a story to tell about the risks of non-nutritive sweeteners. So, yes. I can remind our listeners that we've done a series of podcasts, a cluster of them really, on the impact of the artificial sweeteners. And it's pretty scary when you talk to people who really understand how they're metabolized and what effects they have on the brain, the microbiome, and the rest of the body. Bio Murray Carpenter is a journalist and author whose stories have appeared in the New York Times, Wired, National Geographic, NPR, and PRI's The World. He has also written for the Boston Globe, the Christian Science Monitor, and other media outlets. He holds a degree in psychology from the University of Colorado and a Master of Science in environmental studies from the University of Montana, and has worked as a medical lab assistant in Ohio, a cowboy in Colombia, a farmhand in Virginia, and an oil-exploring “juggie” in Wyoming. He lives in Belfast, Maine. He is the author of Caffeinated: How Our Daily Habit Helps, Hurts, and Hooks Us and Sweet and Deadly: How Coca-Cola Spread

Major companies are lobbying Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson to veto several new tax bills before the Tuesday deadline. From Tesla to Netflix, see what's at stake in the state's budget battle. https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/tesla-netflix-philip-morris-among-those-pushing-wa-governor-for-tax-vetoes/ #ClarkCounty #localnews #WAbudget #taxbills #Ferguson #Tesla #Netflix #veto #WAleg #WashingtonState

Donderdag 15 mei: Serax verwierf internationale faam met z'n serviezen, ontworpen door bekende namen zoals Ottolenghi en Pascale Naessens. De 64-jarige Axel zet een stap opzij om plaats te maken voor een externe CEO: Tim Kamanayo. Tim vergaarde 25 jaar ervaring als marketeer bij onder meer Philip Morris, AB InBev en Neuhaus. Maar is ook bekend met Serax. Vorig jaar kregen zo'n 20.000 arbeidsmigranten van buiten de EU een vergunning om te komen werken in Vlaanderen. Maar nu sluit de Vlaamse regering de deur voor laaggeschoolden van buiten de EU. Collega Valerie Bauwens gaat erover in gesprek met Frank Beckx, directeur van het kennis- en lobbycentrum bij werkgeversorganisatie VOKA. En in ons dagelijks beursgesprek hebben we het over de Duitse defensiefabrikant Renk. De naam doet misschien niet meteen een belletje rinkelen, maar na dit beursgesprek zal je hem nooit meer vergeten, dankzij onze beursgast Tom Simonts. Renk produceert onder meer versnellingsbakken voor tanks. En daar stromen de orders binnen. Z 7 op 7 is de nieuwe dagelijkse podcast van Kanaal Z en Trends. Elke ochtend, vanaf 5u30 uur luistert u voortaan naar een selectie van de meest opmerkelijke nieuwsverhalen, een frisse blik op de aandelenmarkten en een scherpe duiding bij de economische en politieke actualiteit door experts van Kanaal Z en Trends.Start voortaan elke dag met Z 7 op 7 en luister naar wat echt relevant is voor uw business, onderneming, carrière en geld.

Investing in Bizarro World Episodes: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIAfIjKxr02sAztzlJNy1ug5bDvTVZkME&si=w2d_EF-B5jMo1dYD Subscribe to Investing In Bizarro World: @bizarroworld Programming Note: Bitcoin hits $100K again. And Gerardo buys Bitcoin for the first time. Chris Curl shows him how simple it is in this new video. https://bit.ly/3RXiJgbThe free version of the 316th episode of Investing in Bizarro World is now published.Here's what was covered:Macro Musings - GDP goes negative, and markets call it bullish. Powell punts again. Fed signals it may abandon the 2% inflation target if jobs suffer. Trump touts a “major” trade deal with the UK — that keeps tariffs the same. Tariff fallout grows: ports go quiet, shelves thin out. Paul Tudor Jones says stocks could hit new lows and warns of a 10% chance AI wipes out half of humanity within 20 years. Nick and Gerardo aren't laughing.Market Takes - Utilities and staples — the only S&P sectors up more than 2% YTD — continue to outperform as tariffs benefit domestically sourced goods. Philip Morris up 45% in 2024 because of no foreign dependence. Rotation into commodities is well underway. Bond and currency markets flashing stress. Nick sees more chop ahead but no recession — and new highs later in the year. How China is de-dollaring. Gold still under-owned. Bizarro Banter - The world gets a new pope — a Cubs fan from Chicago. Nick and Gerardo reminisce about 2016, the Cubs' last title, and the founding of Digest Publishing. AI warning bells ring louder as Elon Musk and other developers privately predict apocalyptic risk. Why NatGold, which tokenizes what it calls “naturally vaulted gold” isn't for serious investors. Gerardo jokes about naturally vaulted tokenized orgasms. Nick has a naturally vaulted six-pack. If you want to own gold, buy gold. If you want to own Bitcoin, buy bitcoin. Even Gerardo's buying Bitcoin. Learn more: https://bit.ly/3RXiJgbPremium Portfolio Picks - For paid listeners only. 0:00 Introduction1:06 Macro Musings: 2016 All Over? Paul Tudor Jones. Tariff Talk.11:33 Market Takes: S&P Sector Highlights. Uranium Snapback. Rick Rule. Gold Under-owned.24:06 Bizarro Banter: AI & Humanity. Gerardo Buys Bitcoin. NatGold Isn't Serious.28:41 Premium Portfolio Picks: Battery Technology Discussion. Two Lithium Stocks. Two Juniors Drilling Now. You need to subscribe to Bizarro World Live to get this section: https://bit.ly/4j4HRwDPLEASE NOTE: There are now two versions of this podcast. 1. Bizarro World Live — Pay $2 per episode to watch us record the podcast live every Thursday and get Premium Portfolio Picks every week. You can do that here. https://bit.ly/4j4HRwD2. Bizarro World Free — Published the Monday after the live recording with no Premium Portfolio Picks.Visit our website Daily Profit Cycle for more content like this and more! https://dailyprofitcycle.com/

In this episode of The Speed of Culture, Matt Britton talks with Marian Salzman, SVP at Philip Morris International. Marian shares her insights on PMI's shift towards a smoke-free future, the transformational impact of AI in market research, and essential lessons from her fearless approach to career growth and innovation.Follow Suzy on Twitter: @AskSuzyBizFollow Marian Salzman on LinkedInSubscribe to The Speed of Culture on your favorite podcast platform.And if you have a question or suggestions for the show, send us an email at suzy@suzy.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Unser Partner Scalable Capital ist der einzige Broker, den du brauchst. Inklusive Trading-Flatrate, Zinsen und Portfolio-Analysen. Alle weiteren Infos gibt's hier: scalable.capital/oaws. Aktien + Whatsapp = Hier anmelden. Lieber als Newsletter? Geht auch. Das Buch zum Podcast? Jetzt lesen. Boeing, Intel & Kering zeigen: Jede Krise hat ein Ende. Oder auch nicht. Adidas, Philip Morris & Summit Therapeutics sind weiter High-Performer. BioNTech freut's auch. Börse freuen Statements von Trump. Kryptonerds zocken bei Stake & kriegen Zinsen bei PayPal. Gegen Friedrich Vorwerk (WKN: A255F1) ist sogar NVIDIA ein Low-Performer. Cantor Equity Partners (WKN: A40TTJ) soll das neue MicroStrategy werden. Upexi (WKN: A40PUJ) das MicroStrategy für Solana. Diesen Podcast vom 24.04.2025, 3:00 Uhr stellt dir die Podstars GmbH (Noah Leidinger) zur Verfügung.

Philip Morris International reafirma su compromiso con la no venta a menores de edad y su estrategia de productos sin humo en República Dominicana. Conversamos con Leticia de Andrés, Gerente de Comunicación Externa para CARICAM, sobre el futuro del consumo responsable y las alternativas libres de humo.

Send me a messageIn this episode of the Climate Confident podcast, I had the pleasure of speaking with Sandhya Sabapathy, Global Head of Environment and Net Zero at Entain, about the evolving role of sustainability in business – and what it truly takes to make climate action effective, strategic, and inclusive.We discussed how sustainability has moved from the sidelines to the boardroom, driven not only by regulation but by clear commercial logic. Sandhya pointed to examples like IKEA – reducing emissions by 24% while growing revenue by 30% – as proof that climate strategy and profitability can go hand in hand.We explored the growing influence of mandatory ESG reporting, the shift of climate accountability to audit committees, and how these trends are forcing businesses to be more transparent, not just more ambitious.Sandhya also reflected on how to avoid burnout in purpose-driven work, why inclusivity leads to more resilient climate solutions, and the critical need to include marginalised voices in the climate conversation.Listen in to hear why manufacturing might be further ahead on sustainability than you'd think, what we can learn from companies like Philip Morris (yes, really), and how even small actions can build corporate momentum for meaningful change.Whether you're leading a sustainability team, looking to influence from within, or just starting your climate journey – there's something here for you.

In this episode: Philip Morris, the Big Tobacco giant best known as the maker of Marlboro cigarettes, helped Ron DeSantis defeat ballot measures last fall that would have legalized marijuana and protected abortion rights. A few months later, the Florida governor did a favor for Philip Morris: Allowing the company to sell its IQOS product line free of state tobacco taxes. And now Florida lawmakers are advancing company-backed bills that would cement that decision into state law. Show notesThe bills discussed in today's show:Senate Bill 1418 — Heated Tobacco ProductsHouse Bill 785 — Heated Tobacco ProductsHouse Bill 1517 — Civil Liability for the Wrongful Death of an Unborn Child House Bill 1219 — Employment AgreementsSenate Bill 806 — Florida Trust CodeHouse Bill 1173 — Florida Trust CodeDeSantis grants tax favor for Philip Morris after $500,000 gift Get full access to Seeking Rents at jasongarcia.substack.com/subscribe

More on dividend growth investing  -> Join our market newsletter!  Schedule a meeting with us ->  Financial Planning & Portfolio Management While it may be a somewhat misused paraphrase of Warren Buffet's famous baseball analogy, 'fat pitch' is a term often thrown around in investing circles. In most settings, it implies that an investment opportunity is extremely lucrative with a high probability of success—but they are rare. Beyond having the discipline to patiently wait for these opportunities, what does a 'fat pitch' actually look like?In this episode, Greg discusses the concept of 'fat pitches' by exploring the extraordinary long-term performance of Altria (formerly Philip Morris), despite numerous industry challenges and negative headlines. Through a detailed analysis of Altria's historical performance, including its high dividend yield and impressive cash flow management, he emphasizes the timeless principles of dividend growth, patient investing, and compounding. 00:00 Introduction to The Dividend Mailbox Podcast02:34 Review of Current Dividend Growth Performance and Market Observations06:13 Case Study: The Success of Philip Morris15:58 Key Takeaways from Philip Morris's Performance24:51 Lessons on Dividend Growth and Compounding32:14 Conclusion and Final Thoughts Send us a textBook time on our calendar here If you submit a question to us and we use it in an episode, we will send you an official The Dividend Mailbox Yeti® Tumbler -> Email us at ethan@growmydollar.com.Notes & Resources:DCM Investment Reports & ModelsVisit our website to learn more about our investment strategy and wealth management services.Follow us on:Instagram - Facebook - LinkedIn - TwitterIf you enjoy the show, we'd greatly appreciate it if you subscribe and leave a review

In this episode, Scott Becker discusses eight key stories, covering top investment picks like Tempus AI and Eli Lilly, market trends with Peloton and Philip Morris, and leadership rankings with Fortune's most underrated CEOs.

In this episode, Scott Becker covers two and a half stories today, including his talk on innovation at University Hospitals, the rise of Peloton and Philip Morris, and Fortune's latest rankings of underrated and overrated CEOs.

In this episode of Market Mondays, we dive into some of the most pressing topics shaping the worlds of investing, technology, and politics. We start by discussing the controversial Trump Meme Coin—should people invest in it, even if they don't align with his agenda? Next, we tackle the TikTok ban and reversal, as Apple and Google removed the app but later reinstated it. What does this mean for the platform's future and its impact on investors? We also explore the presence of big tech CEOs at the inauguration, with the notable absence of Elon Musk, and analyze who stands to benefit most from this political alignment.An audience member asked about 2x leveraged ETFs as a long-term strategy for young investors, and we shared our thoughts on whether it's a smart move. We also reviewed Barron's stock picks of the year, diving into companies like Coupang, Affirm Holdings, J.M. Smucker, Philip Morris, and more, offering our insights on which ones might be worth considering. Special guest 19 Keys joined the conversation to discuss the TikTok ban reversal, Trump's return to power, and how these events could shape the market.We also delved into the brewing tech wars, questioning whether Mark Zuckerberg is being used as a weapon to challenge Apple's dominance. Finally, we circled back to Trump's meme coin and what it means for investors. Don't miss this episode filled with actionable insights and deep discussions on the intersection of business, technology, and politics.#MarketMondays #InvestingTips #TrumpMemeCoin #TikTokBan #BigTech #BarronsStockPicks #AppleVsMeta #19Keys #StockMarketInsights #YoungInvestors #ETFsSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/marketmondays/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Your next fortune cookie may be filled with an ad… because 1 startup baked 135M of them.Business school applications surged 32% this year… because of Zuck and AI.Philip Morris' cigarette stock is at an all-time high… because Zyn sales have overtaken cigarettes.Plus, the most popular restaurant in Austin, TX? It's AI. $PM $HD $SPY—-----------------------------------------------------Subscribe to our new (2nd) show… The Best Idea Yet: Wondery.fm/TheBestIdeaYetLinksEpisodes drop weekly. It's The Best Idea Yet.GET ON THE POD: Submit a shoutout or fact: https://tboypod.com/shoutouts FOR MORE NICK & JACK: Newsletter: https://tboypod.com/newsletter Connect with Nick: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicolas-martell/ Connect with Jack: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jack-crivici-kramer/ SOCIALS:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tboypod TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@tboypodYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@tboypod Anything else: https://tboypod.com/ See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.