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.


junk food marketing (3) Amanda Fallin (1) Chile (1) communication (2) water security (1) genital warts (1) naacp (1) community health (1) stigma (1) Rachel Grana (1) Merck (1) San Francisco (2) language (5) summer camps (1) mental health (2) Jerry Sandusky (3) gender (1) gun violence (1) childhood obesity (1) sugary drinks (6) apha (1) white house (1) equity (3) Penn State (3) Proposition 29 (1) suicide nets (1) soda tax (9) Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (1) Dora the Explorer (1) Michelle Obama (1) cigarette advertising (1) sports drinks (1) weight of the nation (1) Sandy Hook (2) ssb (1) childhood lead poisoning (1) HPV vaccine (1) Coca-Cola (3) Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes (1) soda warning labels (1) sanitation (1) Oakland Unified School District (1) privilege (1) media advocacy (12) suicide barrier (2) Connecticut shooting (1) soda industry (4) advocacy (3) chronic disease (2) marketing (1) Big Food (2) Colorado (1) vaccines (1) sexual health (1) Pine Ridge Indian Reservation (2) Sam Kass (1) SB 1000 (1) measure N (2) Citizens United (1) seat belt laws (1) food justice (1) reproductive justice (1) cancer research (1) healthy eating (1) food swamps (1) collaboration (1) Pine Ridge reservation (1) cervical cancer (1) Happy Meals (1) soda (12) tobacco control (2) beauty products (1) obesity (9) Joe Paterno (1) sandusky (2) choice (1) structural racism (1) Golden Gate Bridge (2) violence prevention (6) auto safety (1) food (1) social justice (1) SB 402 (1) women's health (2) media bites (1) Wendy Davis (1) Bloomberg (3) government intrusion (1) Nickelodeon (1) water (1) framing (7) PepsiCo (1) cosmetics (1) filibuster (1) media (3) Berkeley (1) indoor smoking ban (1) diabetes (1) liana winett (1) world water day (1) Whiteclay (4) media analysis (1) suicide prevention (2) physical activity (1) child sexual abuse (5) SSBs (1) beverage industry (1) environmental health (1) Oglala Sioux (3) sugar-sweetened beverages (1) Twitter for advocacy (1) cancer prevention (1) children's health (3) digital marketing (2) values (1) campaign finance (1) SB-5 (1) breastfeeding (3) cap the tap (1) target marketing (5) public health policy (1) Richmond (4) online marketing (1) news strategy (1) new year's resolutions (1) American Beverage Association (1) junk food (1) food deserts (1) corporate social responsibility (1) Tea Party (1) prevention (1) california (1) prison phone calls (1) messaging (2) food and beverage marketing (3) elephant triggers (1) nanny state (2) health equity (9) Texas (1) obesity prevention (1) product safety (1) health care (1) junk food marketing to kids (1) tobacco (4) sexism (1) snap (1) Catholic church (1) Big Tobacco (3) social media (1) McDonald's (1) Marion Nestle (1) Food Marketing Workgroup (1) regulation (2) front groups (1) autism (1) Measure O (1) FCC (1) Johnson & Johnson (1) Big Soda (1) paula deen (1) gatorade bolt game (1) gun control (2) personal responsibility (2) tobacco tax (1) george lakoff (1) tobacco industry (2) prison system (1) public health (51) food environment (1) food marketing (3) inequities (1) El Monte (2) alcohol (4) Let's Move (1) food access (1) built environment (2) institutional accountability (1) Aurora (1) industry appeals to choice (1) social change (1) Newtown (1) Gardasil (1) abortion (1) food industry (2)
  • Follow Us On Facebook
  • Follow Us On Twitter
  • Join Us On Youtube
  • BMSG RSS Feed

get e-alerts in your inbox: