What's really behind the soda industry's 'choice' rhetoric

printer friendlyprinter friendly

Last week, following New York City's public hearing on Mayor Michael Bloomberg's proposal to cap soda sizes at 16 ounces, industry reps and other critics pushed back hard, saying the ban on large portions "restricts choice." The trouble is, those critics don't explain whose choice is really being restricted. And that's because the answer is soda companies'.

Soda companies have long enjoyed extensive freedom over what products they create, market and sell, regardless of the social cost of their choices. In the 1950s, they chose to bottle their sugary beverages in 6.5-ounce containers, touting them as an occasional treat. Today, soda companies choose to inflate portions to 20 ounces and beyond, pushing sales of these oversized drinks by making sure they are cheap and always within arms' reach. Soda companies choose to continually expand their product lines, creating sugar-infused teas and sugary sports drinks; they've even added sugar and calories to water, in spite of research that links sugar-laden beverages to chronic health problems like diabetes and heart disease. They choose to market these unhealthy products disproportionately to low-income communities, communities of color, and youth. And now, in the face of growing public criticism, soda companies are choosing to borrow marketing tactics from the tobacco industry to improve their image and avoid government regulation.

So when soda industry spokespeople and executives argue that Bloomberg's proposal restricts choice, they need to be specific. It restricts industry's choice. It forces soda companies to be accountable to the public, rather than freely allowed to exploit the public. And it puts the public's health ahead of profits, taking a little power away from major corporations and putting it back in the hands of ordinary people.

The public's response to Bloomberg's proposal suggests this shift in power is exactly what people want. According to the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, of the 38,000 written comments the department received regarding the proposal, 32,000 were in support. Looks like people are seeing soda companies' "choice" rhetoric for what it really is: a thinly veiled scare tactic.


prevention (1) childhood adversity (1) suicide nets (1) Aurora (1) Michelle Obama (1) cancer prevention (1) sexual health (1) filibuster (1) Chile (1) soda tax (11) Let's Move (1) gun control (2) Tea Party (1) suicide prevention (2) paula deen (1) target marketing (7) Merck (1) health care (1) American Beverage Association (1) tobacco (5) media (7) community safety (1) gatorade bolt game (1) Telluride (1) public health data (1) healthy eating (1) Big Food (2) Donald Trump (2) marketing (1) ACEs (2) Bloomberg (3) messaging (3) Penn State (3) Jerry Sandusky (3) Amanda Fallin (1) Marion Nestle (1) Pine Ridge reservation (1) childhood lead poisoning (1) food environment (1) SB 402 (1) news strategy (1) sandusky (2) food and beverage marketing (3) diabetes prevention (1) campaign finance (1) language (6) naacp (1) Johnson & Johnson (1) diabetes (1) product safety (1) Berkeley (2) food marketing (3) gun violence (1) Catholic church (1) food industry (4) food swamps (1) abortion (1) SB-5 (1) El Monte (3) Rachel Grana (1) election 2016 (1) social change (1) tobacco control (2) summer camps (1) community violence (1) health equity (10) community organizing (1) framing (14) tobacco industry (2) alcohol (5) Gardasil (1) food access (1) ssb (1) government intrusion (1) media advocacy (21) sports drinks (1) snap (1) violence (1) childhood obestiy conference (1) obesity (10) Proposition 47 (1) media bites (1) Twitter (1) social justice (1) corporate social responsibility (1) apha (2) Bill Cosby (1) privilege (1) youth (1) genital warts (1) emergency contraception (1) Twitter for advocacy (1) journalism (1) Proposition 29 (1) Food Marketing Workgroup (1) junk food (2) news coverage (1) children's health (3) San Francisco (3) food deserts (1) regulation (2) Colorado (1) racism (1) social math (1) Sandy Hook (2) autism (1) beauty products (1) stigma (1) Golden Gate Bridge (2) inequities (1) Oglala Sioux (3) authentic voices (1) junk food marketing to kids (2) california (1) institutional accountability (1) environmental health (1) george lakoff (1) values (1) communication (2) online marketing (1) news monitoring (1) women's health (2) McDonald's (1) measure N (2) race (1) prison system (1) digital marketing (2) food (1) personal responsibility (3) structural racism (1) Oakland Unified School District (1) adverse childhood experiences (3) violence prevention (8) social media (2) industry appeals to choice (1) Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (1) mental health (2) seat belt laws (1) food justice (1) physical activity (1) breastfeeding (3) political correctness (1) FCC (1) media analysis (5) Citizens United (1) water security (1) Sam Kass (1) Texas (1) Happy Meals (1) community health (1) news analysis (2) equity (3) advocacy (3) default frame (1) liana winett (1) sugar-sweetened beverages (2) auto safety (1) elephant triggers (1) cosmetics (1) cervical cancer (1) soda warning labels (1) news (2) indoor smoking ban (1) child sexual abuse (5) Wendy Davis (1) sexual violence (2) Whiteclay (4) sanitation (1) education (1) democracy (1) paper tigers (1) front groups (1) junk food marketing (3) tobacco tax (1) choice (1) new year's resolutions (1) SB 1000 (1) chronic disease (2) Big Soda (2) childhood obesity (1) water (1) Pine Ridge Indian Reservation (2) soda industry (4) gender (1) Measure O (1) sugary drinks (10) soda (12) soda taxes (2) Richmond (5) Newtown (1) obesity prevention (1) Dora the Explorer (1) Coca-Cola (3) vaccines (1) HPV vaccine (1) suicide barrier (2) PepsiCo (1) white house (1) Connecticut shooting (1) cap the tap (1) built environment (2) personal responsibility rhetoric (1) public health policy (2) sexism (2) cancer research (1) weight of the nation (1) reproductive justice (1) collaboration (1) cigarette advertising (1) world water day (1) Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes (1) Nickelodeon (1) public health (66) beverage industry (2) childhood trauma (3) prison phone calls (1) Joe Paterno (1) SSBs (1) nanny state (2) Big Tobacco (3) sexual assault (1)
  • Follow Us On Facebook
  • Follow Us On Twitter
  • Join Us On Youtube
  • BMSG RSS Feed

get e-alerts in your inbox: