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.


childhood obesity (1) Michelle Obama (1) digital marketing (2) social change (1) diabetes (1) paula deen (1) soda tax (9) beauty products (1) prison phone calls (1) San Francisco (2) privilege (1) cancer prevention (1) Dora the Explorer (1) junk food marketing (3) Oglala Sioux (3) sugary drinks (6) Joe Paterno (1) public health policy (1) messaging (2) george lakoff (1) SSBs (1) filibuster (1) cap the tap (1) gun violence (1) Marion Nestle (1) values (1) suicide prevention (2) prison system (1) marketing (1) food industry (2) beverage industry (1) cosmetics (1) Proposition 29 (1) SB 1000 (1) soda (12) media advocacy (13) autism (1) social justice (1) media bites (1) personal responsibility (2) food marketing (3) auto safety (1) Big Tobacco (3) stigma (1) child sexual abuse (5) Newtown (1) seat belt laws (1) prevention (1) Golden Gate Bridge (2) Colorado (1) Big Soda (1) Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (1) cervical cancer (1) industry appeals to choice (1) gun control (2) childhood lead poisoning (1) Coca-Cola (3) healthy eating (1) sandusky (2) snap (1) cigarette advertising (1) news strategy (1) inequities (1) El Monte (2) physical activity (1) Gardasil (1) Chile (1) white house (1) apha (1) california (1) indoor smoking ban (1) Catholic church (1) Bloomberg (3) Amanda Fallin (1) Pine Ridge Indian Reservation (2) community health (1) HPV vaccine (1) advocacy (3) junk food (1) Jerry Sandusky (3) Sam Kass (1) media analysis (1) Happy Meals (1) world water day (1) PepsiCo (1) water security (1) built environment (2) gatorade bolt game (1) sports drinks (1) obesity prevention (1) regulation (2) communication (2) children's health (3) gender (1) public health (53) sugar-sweetened beverages (1) Whiteclay (4) health care (1) language (6) Pine Ridge reservation (1) tobacco (4) Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes (1) collaboration (1) obesity (9) tobacco control (2) SB 402 (1) Citizens United (1) social media (1) structural racism (1) Let's Move (1) summer camps (1) measure N (2) suicide barrier (2) Johnson & Johnson (1) nanny state (2) Connecticut shooting (1) food environment (1) corporate social responsibility (1) ssb (1) genital warts (1) food access (1) abortion (1) food swamps (1) soda warning labels (1) alcohol (4) target marketing (5) vaccines (1) Measure O (1) mental health (2) choice (1) liana winett (1) Penn State (3) naacp (1) American Beverage Association (1) government intrusion (1) Big Food (2) Merck (1) environmental health (1) product safety (1) elephant triggers (1) reproductive justice (1) Sandy Hook (2) Richmond (4) weight of the nation (1) FCC (1) food deserts (1) SB-5 (1) breastfeeding (3) sexual health (1) equity (3) food (1) water (1) Tea Party (1) sexism (1) violence prevention (6) sanitation (1) food justice (1) tobacco tax (1) new year's resolutions (1) Oakland Unified School District (1) McDonald's (1) online marketing (1) tobacco industry (2) framing (9) Texas (1) Berkeley (1) health equity (9) cancer research (1) institutional accountability (1) soda industry (4) women's health (2) Nickelodeon (1) suicide nets (1) junk food marketing to kids (2) Twitter for advocacy (1) chronic disease (2) campaign finance (1) Wendy Davis (1) Food Marketing Workgroup (1) Aurora (1) front groups (1) media (3) food and beverage marketing (3) Rachel Grana (1)
  • Follow Us On Facebook
  • Follow Us On Twitter
  • Join Us On Youtube
  • BMSG RSS Feed

get e-alerts in your inbox: