For the first time ever, a big soda company is launching a campaign to combat obesity. The Coca-Cola Co., fighting back on how the sweet calories in sugary sodas have become a health policy and obesity bogeyman lately, kicks off its initiative with a new epic two-minute ad called "Coming Together." It's live online and begins airing tonight on CNN, Fox News and MSNBC. The spots underline how getting fat comes from consuming excessive calories from any number of sources, and that sodas aren't the only source of weight-increasing calories.

The ad is a montage of video clips like children exercising, scientists testing plants, and a rapid-fire series of a multiethnic smiling faces. While these images play, a female voiceover intones: "Beating obesity will take action by all of us, based on one simple common sense fact: All calories count. No matter where they come from. Including Coca-Cola and everything else with calories. And if you eat and drink more calories than you burn off, you'll gain weight."

Coca-Cola Co. spokesperson Diana Garza Ciarlante told TODAY the campaign's "purpose is to highlight some of the specifics behind the company’s ongoing commitment to deliver a greater choice of beverages, including low and no-calories options, and to clearly communicate the calorie content of all its products."

"We call it 'Coming Together' because it informs Americans about all the company has been doing to bring folks together and deliver more choice and calorie transparency," Coca-Cola Co. spokesperson Ben Sheidler told TODAY. "In it we acknowledge that obesity is the issue of this generation and that we want to step into the national discourse to help identify ways to address the problem with willing partners."

Coca-Cola wasn't able to provide details yet about what other forms the campaign will take. "What I can tell you is that we've never been more committed to doing our part to help address the issue of obesity, and 2013 is going to be a landmark year in terms of expanding partnerships and efforts to educate consumers about energy balance," said Sheidler.

The tide is turning against the 45 gallon sea of soda the average American drinks annually. A New York City ban against the sale of sodas over 16 oz. goes into effect in June. Support for the measure came from arguments that excessive soda consumption contributes to obesity. The mayor of Cambridge, Mass., is considering a similar measure. The New York City Health Department has also run public service announcements asking viewers whether they're "pouring on the pounds" and showing glasses of human fat gushing from a soda can into a glass. The department ran ads on the New York City subway pointing out how you would have to walk three miles from Union Square in Manhattan to Brooklyn to burn off the calories in one 20 oz. soda.

Samantha Levine, New York City Office of the Mayor deputy press secretary, told TODAY, "New York City’s bold action to combat the obesity epidemic is already making a difference and it’s clear the industry is taking notice. But the fact remains that sugary drinks -- which play a unique role in this epidemic and have zero nutritional value -- are the single largest driver of the increase in obesity."

The American Heart Association recommends limiting daily added sugar intake to 37.5 grams, noting it as a contributing factor for obesity. A 20 oz. bottle of Coke contains 65g of sugar.

Figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention place American obesity levels at 35.7 percent, up from 13 percent in 1962.

Despite the sugary brown drink backlash, and the fact that soda has no nutritional value, a July 23, 2012, Gallup poll found that the self-reported weights of Americans was essentially the same between those who drank two or more glasses of soda per day and those who drank none.

RELATED: Coca-Cola’s new anti-obesity ad: Help or hurt Latinos?

In late 2012, the health activist group Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) sponsored a viral video called "The Real Bears," using spoof characters modeled after the iconic Coca-Cola polar bears, which shared an array of frightening soda-related facts. The video's capper was one of the soda-swilling polar bears getting diabetes and having its foot amputated. It got over 2 million YouTube views.

In response to the new Coca-Cola campaign, CSPI head Michael Jacobson told TODAY that the "industry is under unprecedented pressure from academics, schools and parents. They're trying to stem the tide of criticism by taking a page out of crisis control 101, which is to pretend like they're concerned about the issue. If they were serious, they would stop advertising full-calorie drinks, charge less for lower calorie options, and stop fighting the soda tax. They're just running feel-good ads aimed at neutralizing criticism."

The final decision is up to the American consumer whether they're going to open up their pocketbooks — and mouths. Will they swallow what Coke is selling? And do ads like these really work? Alex Bogusky, co-founder of advertising firm Crispin Porter + Bogusky, who collaborated with the CSPI on "The Real Bears" video, told TODAY: "Yeah they work. People are anxious to hear they can still drink soda like water, so the message falls on many receptive ears."

Asked to respond to the remarks made by the CSPI and Bogusky, Coca-Cola Co. spokesperson Ciarlante said, "Big challenges like obesity aren’t going to be solved without honest and collective action. This includes action by business, government, teachers, scientists, health professionals, parents and, of course, companies like The Coca-Cola Company. We have an important role in this fight which can only be won if everyone works together."

There have been undercurrents of weight discrimination in the workplace for years, but a Texas hospital decided to go anti-fat full throttle.

A Texas newspaper recently reported about a fat-averse Texas hospital — Citizens Medical Center in Victoria, Texas — and its unheard-of policy of refusing to hire anyone with a body mass index of more than 35.

The policy, according to The Texas Tribune, states:

… an employee’s physique “should fit with a representational image or specific mental projection of the job of a healthcare professional,” including an appearance “free from distraction” for hospital patients.

“The majority of our patients are over 65, and they have expectations that cannot be ignored in terms of personal appearance,” hospital chief executive David Brown said in an interview. “We have the ability as an employer to characterize our process and to have a policy that says what’s best for our business and for our patients.”

Body mass index is calculated based on height and weight, with a measure over 30 qualifying as obese. A 5-foot-10 man who weighs 245 pounds would have a BMI of over 35, the hospital's cutoff.  A 5-foot-2 woman would be over the cutoff at 195 pounds.

The hospital’s policy may cause outrage, but it’s an extreme example of an obesity bias that has been percolating in the nation’s workforces, starting with seemingly benign measures such as encouraging workers to walk at lunch.

Companies are beefing up their efforts to make you healthier, and they’re taking out the big guns. You’re costing employers too much money for medical coverage, and increasingly firms are imposing penalties on workers who don’t get with the healthy program.

According to a report released this week by consulting firm Mercer:

“87% of large employers say they will add or strengthen programs or policies to encourage more health-conscious behavior.”

While this hospital is talking about the image heavier workers send to customers, what drives so much of these decisions is the cost fatter employees represent. Healthier workers cost less when it comes to insurance, sick time, productivity, etc., according to many business experts.

But are any these policies legal?

In fact, weight discrimination is one of the last types of bias that’s, for the most part, legal. Michigan is the only state that has any laws on the books protecting the rotund among us, and a handful of cities also have some restrictions.

The Michigan law, on the books in that state since 1977, has seldom been used but appears to be getting dusted off lately by overweight workers who believe they were given the shaft because of their weight.

For anyone who lives outside Michigan, the only recourse is going to the federal  Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and seeking help under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Don’t expect a lot. Simply being overweight generally does not qualify as a disability.

David Scher, an employment attorney with the Employment Law Group, said: “This issue was litigated extensively in the airline industry sometime ago. The bottom line is that it is not illegal to discriminate solely on the basis of weight provided the employer has a legitimate business reason.”

However, he added, the Texas employer has two problems here.

“The slippery slope for this hospital is that its reasoning may be questionable and (it) specifically states ‘appearance’ as its basis," he said. "For example, in Washington, D.C., it is generally illegal to discriminate based on ‘any’ surface characteristic for its own sake, commonly called the ‘ugly law’. So a bold policy like this would likely be illegal in D.C. because it flat-out uses “appearance” itself as the basis for the policy."

He said the hospital could be on shaky legal ground unless it can establish a job-related reason for banning heavy workers, such as the possibility that they would be unable to physically fit between hospital beds.

"Further, the hospital will either need to ‘eyeball’ an applicant or do an actual BMI test and obtain highly personal medical information about an applicant," he said. "A hospital of all places should know that merely obtaining this information will likely violate privacy laws.”

The Texas example may seem over the top, but heavier workers have been hit in the wallet before.

In a study by John Cawley, an associate professor at Cornell University, he found that obese white women had worse labor market outcomes than any other overweight workers.

“The obesity penalty for wages was much greater for white than black females,” he told me a while ago. He pointed out that research has shown that obesity tended to lower the self-esteem of white women much more than black women. “That could end up affecting your work potentially,” he speculates.

It’s hard to make a case for such bias at work, especially in today’s economy where finding a job can be so difficult.

Who’s looking out for these portly citizens? Not Citizens Medical Center. Will they be turning away fat patients next?

A version of this story also appears on the website CareerDiva.

Eli Meir Kaplan / The Atlantic

A produce aisle of a Wal-Mart is seen in this file photo.

Wal-Mart is unveiling a simple icon that it says will help consumers make a snap decision about whether a food is healthy, without delving into the nitty-gritty of the nutrition label.

The move by the nation's biggest retailer to label some food products as "Great For You," being unveiled Tuesday, could be a significant development in the fight against obesity because of the company's enormous influence in the marketplace, over both consumers and food vendors eager to sell into the Wal-Mart supply chain.

There have been fumbles in the past. In 2009, major food makers backed off a plan to label foods as “smart choices” after the Food and Drug Administration, which has been working on a standard system for such logos, noted that many competing nutrition symbols could be confusing. At the time, some food makers were criticized for trying to market items such as mayonnaise and sugary cereals as “smart choices.”

The FDA has not finished its standards, but Wal-Mart is moving ahead to slap a green jumping-jack-shaped icon onto certain in-house Great Value and Marketside products as well as on fresh fruits and vegetables.

Wal-Mart will provide detailed criteria for the "Great For You" label on its website but is trying to give an easy visual cue to busy shoppers roaming the grocery aisles in its thousands of stores.

Wal-Mart plans to slap this label on produce and some house-brand packaged food items.

“If you’re walking down the aisles you’ll basically be able to see the better choices,” said Leslie Dach, the company’s executive vice president for corporate affairs, in a news briefing.

Wal-Mart announced plans to develop the icon last year, as part of a heavily promoted initiative endorsed by first lady Michelle Obama as part of her push to fight obesity. Wal-Mart also has promised to reduce prices on healthier items, offer more stores in underserved “food deserts” and reduce sodium, sugar and trans fats in certain packaged foods.

The first “Great For You” icons will start appearing in produce aisles in April, company executives said. The labels then will gradually roll out on certain store-branded packaged items throughout the year.

Andrea Thomas, Wal-Mart’s senior vice president of sustainability, said other companies that supply food to Wal-Mart could choose to use the icon if they wished. If consumers start shifting their behavior as a result of the labels, she said that could provide an incentive to other food makers to adopt the system.

Christina Roberto, a doctoral student with Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity who is studying food labeling, said the idea of a simple label is a good one – as long as the criteria for what gets the label is sound.

“It will be important to think about, ‘What nutrition criteria are they using?’” she said.

Wal-Mart said it conducted rigorous tests to make sure no unusual products squeaked through in its guidelines.

“There are no candy bars that would qualify,” Thomas said.

The company said it developed its criteria by looking at government guidelines and working with health organizations and other parties interested in healthy eating.

For example:

• Raisins will get the icon, but dried fruit with sugar added would not.
• Plain oatmeal qualifies, but sweetened oatmeal does not.
• Brown rice will get the label. White rice will not.
• Plain or artificially sweetened yogurt makes the cut, but yogurt sweetened with sugar does not.
• Skim milk would carry the icon, but whole milk would not.

Some decisions were harder than others. For example eggs ultimately were included because they are a good, low-cost source of protein despite concerns over cholesterol, Thomas said.

Thomas said Wal-Mart looked closely at FDA definitions to avoid potential conflicts but was not willing to wait for the FDA to come out with a standardized labeling system.

FDA spokeswoman Siobhan DeLancey said in an email that the government agency is still working to create a standard front-of-package labeling system, and appreciates Wal-Mart's interest in making a tool intended to help consumers make healthy choices.

Other retailers also have experimented with offering healthy food labels, as part of efforts to address nationwide obesity problems.

For example, grocery chain Supervalu has a “nutrition iQ” system that uses color-coded shelf tags to identify which foods at its stores are healthier.

But Wal-Mart, as the nation's biggest grocer, inherently has more power and influence.

Harry Balzer, chief industry analyst with NPD Group and an expert on eating habits, said new health labels tend to get noticed because consumers are always looking for something different.

But he said his research has consistently shown that people think about other things first, such as taste and value.

“Health is always a secondary consideration in the foods and beverages that you eat,” Balzer said.

What do you think of Wal-Mart's new labels? Tell us on Facebook.

Related:

Wal-Mart, other big boxes try out smaller boxes

Food makers’ challenge: Reduce salt, keep taste