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.


election 2016 (1) strategic communication (1) junk food marketing (4) journalism (1) public health (71) tobacco (5) cosmetics (1) equity (3) Dora the Explorer (1) beverage industry (2) racism (1) SB 1000 (1) Proposition 47 (1) new year's resolutions (1) race (1) Marion Nestle (1) digital marketing (3) sexual health (1) diabetes (1) sexual violence (2) Proposition 29 (1) public health data (1) Oakland Unified School District (1) food environment (1) Oglala Sioux (3) community safety (1) environmental health (1) gun violence (1) cancer prevention (1) community (1) community health (1) social change (1) Bloomberg (3) mental health (2) sanitation (1) california (1) cervical cancer (1) advocacy (3) Penn State (3) summer camps (1) white house (1) beauty products (1) food and beverage marketing (3) Gardasil (1) soda (12) breastfeeding (3) food access (1) soda warning labels (1) social media (2) children's health (3) Aurora (1) personal responsibility rhetoric (1) public health policy (2) Twitter (1) Connecticut shooting (1) autism (1) adverse childhood experiences (3) obesity prevention (1) Texas (1) physical activity (1) Pine Ridge Indian Reservation (2) childhood lead poisoning (1) Telluride (1) sugary drinks (10) soda taxes (2) cannes lions festival (1) Let's Move (1) ACEs (2) paper tigers (1) alcohol (5) product safety (1) naacp (1) framing (14) gender (1) auto safety (1) Johnson & Johnson (1) sexual assault (1) obesity (10) Golden Gate Bridge (2) authentic voices (1) nanny state (2) Pine Ridge reservation (1) Rachel Grana (1) Big Tobacco (3) health equity (10) violence (2) healthy eating (1) communication strategy (1) Colorado (1) community organizing (1) values (1) weight of the nation (1) Wendy Davis (1) news strategy (1) media advocacy (23) Sam Kass (1) inequities (1) political correctness (1) privilege (1) Food Marketing Workgroup (1) diabetes prevention (1) health care (1) food (1) target marketing (9) emergency contraception (1) snap (1) Michelle Obama (1) news analysis (3) media analysis (6) water (1) prison system (1) food deserts (1) personal responsibility (3) ssb (1) childhood obesity (1) food marketing (5) world water day (1) communication (2) collaboration (1) messaging (3) campaign finance (1) measure N (2) Happy Meals (1) genital warts (1) women's health (2) PepsiCo (1) Citizens United (1) Black Lives Matter (1) indoor smoking ban (1) American Beverage Association (1) childhood adversity (1) Sandy Hook (2) news (2) Merck (1) choice (1) Twitter for advocacy (1) suicide barrier (2) news monitoring (1) violence prevention (8) youth (1) abortion (1) Big Soda (2) community violence (1) water security (1) child sexual abuse (5) built environment (2) Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (1) corporate social responsibility (1) cap the tap (1) filibuster (1) front groups (1) social justice (2) Berkeley (2) nonprofit communications (1) paula deen (1) soda industry (4) Big Food (2) SB 402 (1) language (6) sexism (2) industry appeals to choice (1) apha (3) cancer research (1) suicide prevention (2) democracy (1) social math (1) elephant triggers (1) suicide nets (1) SSBs (1) structural racism (1) liana winett (1) Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes (1) Whiteclay (4) tobacco tax (1) junk food (2) prevention (1) regulation (2) tobacco control (2) vaccines (1) gun control (2) education (1) default frame (1) food justice (1) Catholic church (1) San Francisco (3) gatorade bolt game (1) sandusky (2) Bill Cosby (1) junk food marketing to kids (2) Joe Paterno (1) seat belt laws (1) Measure O (1) food swamps (1) HPV vaccine (1) Coca-Cola (3) childhood trauma (3) government intrusion (1) prison phone calls (1) Amanda Fallin (1) El Monte (3) SB-5 (1) Richmond (5) media (7) george lakoff (1) Jerry Sandusky (3) sports drinks (1) safety (1) news coverage (1) soda tax (11) institutional accountability (1) tobacco industry (2) Nickelodeon (1) chronic disease (2) childhood obestiy conference (1) Newtown (1) reproductive justice (1) media bites (1) stigma (1) Chile (1) Donald Trump (2) cigarette advertising (1) McDonald's (1) online marketing (1) Tea Party (1) sugar-sweetened beverages (2) food industry (4) marketing (1) FCC (1)
  • Follow Us On Facebook
  • Follow Us On Twitter
  • Join Us On Youtube
  • BMSG RSS Feed

get e-alerts in your inbox: