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.


Wendy Davis (1) social change (1) chronic disease (2) abortion (1) auto safety (1) childhood lead poisoning (1) inequities (1) soda tax (8) Joe Paterno (1) tobacco industry (2) Colorado (1) naacp (1) front groups (1) summer camps (1) child sexual abuse (5) filibuster (1) industry appeals to choice (1) sexual health (1) food environment (1) liana winett (1) paula deen (1) Tea Party (1) corporate social responsibility (1) media (3) nanny state (2) cigarette advertising (1) Measure O (1) breastfeeding (3) white house (1) community health (1) Whiteclay (4) food and beverage marketing (3) prevention (1) gun control (2) food deserts (1) prison system (1) tobacco tax (1) regulation (2) Penn State (3) soda warning labels (1) online marketing (1) stigma (1) Amanda Fallin (1) structural racism (1) weight of the nation (1) campaign finance (1) Connecticut shooting (1) cancer research (1) food swamps (1) indoor smoking ban (1) Johnson & Johnson (1) food (1) environmental health (1) Oakland Unified School District (1) gun violence (1) Nickelodeon (1) women's health (2) Proposition 29 (1) San Francisco (2) privilege (1) media bites (1) water (1) Big Soda (1) sugar-sweetened beverages (1) Twitter for advocacy (1) mental health (2) PepsiCo (1) suicide prevention (2) Richmond (4) diabetes (1) new year's resolutions (1) cap the tap (1) social justice (1) california (1) Berkeley (1) suicide barrier (2) American Beverage Association (1) communication (1) sugary drinks (5) elephant triggers (1) messaging (1) tobacco (4) healthy eating (1) Sam Kass (1) Pine Ridge reservation (1) cervical cancer (1) SB 402 (1) advocacy (3) Oglala Sioux (3) reproductive justice (1) children's health (3) FCC (1) HPV vaccine (1) Gardasil (1) gatorade bolt game (1) Marion Nestle (1) public health (50) soda (12) Bloomberg (3) junk food marketing (3) Coca-Cola (3) george lakoff (1) institutional accountability (1) Merck (1) cosmetics (1) collaboration (1) Michelle Obama (1) Big Tobacco (3) food access (1) SB-5 (1) public health policy (1) Golden Gate Bridge (2) Citizens United (1) language (5) equity (3) apha (1) ssb (1) SSBs (1) Catholic church (1) suicide nets (1) Aurora (1) personal responsibility (2) sanitation (1) Jerry Sandusky (3) beverage industry (1) Big Food (2) obesity (9) alcohol (4) Texas (1) seat belt laws (1) health equity (9) Sandy Hook (2) choice (1) snap (1) food industry (2) El Monte (2) Pine Ridge Indian Reservation (2) autism (1) food marketing (3) target marketing (5) sports drinks (1) measure N (2) Food Marketing Workgroup (1) sexism (1) junk food marketing to kids (1) water security (1) media analysis (1) world water day (1) Rachel Grana (1) health care (1) soda industry (3) SB 1000 (1) media advocacy (11) prison phone calls (1) tobacco control (2) childhood obesity (1) beauty products (1) vaccines (1) physical activity (1) framing (7) product safety (1) marketing (1) news strategy (1) Chile (1) McDonald's (1) violence prevention (6) food justice (1) Newtown (1) gender (1) Happy Meals (1) values (1) Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (1) Dora the Explorer (1) sandusky (2) junk food (1) Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes (1) obesity prevention (1) built environment (2) government intrusion (1) Let's Move (1) genital warts (1) digital marketing (2) cancer prevention (1) social media (1)
  • Follow Us On Facebook
  • Follow Us On Twitter
  • Join Us On Youtube
  • BMSG RSS Feed

get e-alerts in your inbox: