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.


sexual assault (1) Berkeley (2) children's health (3) Proposition 29 (1) Sam Kass (1) world water day (1) junk food marketing (4) Pine Ridge Indian Reservation (2) industry appeals to choice (1) authentic voices (1) white house (1) vaccines (1) childhood adversity (1) communication strategy (1) community health (1) junk food (2) diabetes prevention (1) soda industry (4) gatorade bolt game (1) snap (1) food (1) Marion Nestle (1) front groups (1) diabetes (1) FCC (1) environmental health (1) campaign finance (1) tobacco (5) education (1) HPV vaccine (1) community safety (1) Proposition 47 (1) Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (1) obesity prevention (1) soda (12) personal responsibility rhetoric (1) safety (1) choice (1) Gardasil (1) nanny state (2) Sandy Hook (2) water (1) naacp (1) community (1) breastfeeding (3) American Beverage Association (1) San Francisco (3) soda warning labels (1) physical activity (1) child sexual abuse (5) cap the tap (1) Let's Move (1) sanitation (1) Bloomberg (3) inequities (1) Texas (1) messaging (3) news monitoring (1) race (1) Oakland Unified School District (1) tobacco tax (1) Telluride (1) social justice (1) cannes lions festival (1) Big Soda (2) mental health (2) sexual health (1) indoor smoking ban (1) george lakoff (1) El Monte (3) soda taxes (2) Twitter for advocacy (1) cancer research (1) beauty products (1) childhood obestiy conference (1) food deserts (1) abortion (1) health equity (10) Black Lives Matter (1) Rachel Grana (1) weight of the nation (1) chronic disease (2) SSBs (1) seat belt laws (1) PepsiCo (1) filibuster (1) community violence (1) prevention (1) sandusky (2) childhood lead poisoning (1) apha (2) suicide nets (1) marketing (1) gender (1) paper tigers (1) gun control (2) women's health (2) election 2016 (1) childhood obesity (1) news (2) cancer prevention (1) SB 1000 (1) values (1) Whiteclay (4) Happy Meals (1) sports drinks (1) food swamps (1) healthy eating (1) food marketing (4) prison system (1) social media (2) political correctness (1) tobacco control (2) ssb (1) Aurora (1) news coverage (1) racism (1) measure N (2) public health policy (2) Amanda Fallin (1) SB 402 (1) violence (2) structural racism (1) McDonald's (1) food environment (1) target marketing (8) reproductive justice (1) Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes (1) Tea Party (1) obesity (10) california (1) Oglala Sioux (3) Coca-Cola (3) summer camps (1) Richmond (5) democracy (1) nonprofit communications (1) communication (2) Bill Cosby (1) elephant triggers (1) online marketing (1) stigma (1) Measure O (1) social math (1) corporate social responsibility (1) Golden Gate Bridge (2) tobacco industry (2) Nickelodeon (1) ACEs (2) journalism (1) sexual violence (2) Citizens United (1) Big Tobacco (3) liana winett (1) food and beverage marketing (3) Donald Trump (2) Catholic church (1) autism (1) digital marketing (2) food justice (1) adverse childhood experiences (3) SB-5 (1) privilege (1) Food Marketing Workgroup (1) sexism (2) collaboration (1) Penn State (3) Colorado (1) personal responsibility (3) news strategy (1) government intrusion (1) water security (1) suicide prevention (2) youth (1) cosmetics (1) regulation (2) Jerry Sandusky (3) health care (1) Connecticut shooting (1) built environment (2) Michelle Obama (1) Dora the Explorer (1) news analysis (3) Pine Ridge reservation (1) childhood trauma (3) media (7) institutional accountability (1) prison phone calls (1) Big Food (2) Wendy Davis (1) suicide barrier (2) Joe Paterno (1) junk food marketing to kids (2) public health data (1) Newtown (1) social change (1) framing (14) paula deen (1) default frame (1) soda tax (11) equity (3) emergency contraception (1) language (6) community organizing (1) beverage industry (2) new year's resolutions (1) media bites (1) sugary drinks (10) genital warts (1) violence prevention (8) auto safety (1) Chile (1) food access (1) food industry (4) alcohol (5) sugar-sweetened beverages (2) Merck (1) advocacy (3) cervical cancer (1) Twitter (1) media analysis (5) product safety (1) public health (68) Johnson & Johnson (1) gun violence (1) media advocacy (22) cigarette advertising (1)
  • Follow Us On Facebook
  • Follow Us On Twitter
  • Join Us On Youtube
  • BMSG RSS Feed

get e-alerts in your inbox: