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.


privilege (1) Rachel Grana (1) apha (1) sandusky (2) front groups (1) Sandy Hook (2) ssb (1) stigma (1) water security (1) soda (12) digital marketing (2) new year's resolutions (1) Big Tobacco (3) beverage industry (1) filibuster (1) Citizens United (1) Food Marketing Workgroup (1) physical activity (1) food justice (1) healthy eating (1) community health (1) Penn State (3) Let's Move (1) sugar-sweetened beverages (1) alcohol (4) news strategy (1) Catholic church (1) women's health (2) seat belt laws (1) violence prevention (6) diabetes (1) food and beverage marketing (3) media (4) liana winett (1) Texas (1) campaign finance (1) Newtown (1) Wendy Davis (1) food marketing (3) cancer prevention (1) summer camps (1) obesity prevention (1) language (6) American Beverage Association (1) water (1) food swamps (1) sexism (1) San Francisco (3) Big Soda (2) sports drinks (1) soda industry (4) Aurora (1) suicide prevention (2) media analysis (2) structural racism (1) california (1) Marion Nestle (1) gatorade bolt game (1) SB 1000 (1) Joe Paterno (1) tobacco tax (1) media bites (1) Whiteclay (4) food industry (2) chronic disease (2) public health (55) snap (1) product safety (1) mental health (2) framing (9) junk food marketing (3) childhood lead poisoning (1) autism (1) prison phone calls (1) messaging (2) built environment (2) paula deen (1) Johnson & Johnson (1) beauty products (1) marketing (1) Bill Cosby (1) choice (1) Oglala Sioux (3) values (1) cosmetics (1) news coverage (1) Jerry Sandusky (3) sexual health (1) child sexual abuse (5) Chile (1) media advocacy (15) soda tax (10) george lakoff (1) Proposition 29 (1) sexual violence (1) Coca-Cola (3) prevention (1) Bloomberg (3) sexual assault (1) suicide barrier (2) social change (1) Oakland Unified School District (1) regulation (2) suicide nets (1) indoor smoking ban (1) abortion (1) Colorado (1) SSBs (1) Connecticut shooting (1) Pine Ridge reservation (1) violence (1) genital warts (1) Berkeley (2) sugary drinks (6) cervical cancer (1) Dora the Explorer (1) Happy Meals (1) world water day (1) cancer research (1) industry appeals to choice (1) target marketing (5) Amanda Fallin (1) obesity (9) measure N (2) food environment (1) communication (2) weight of the nation (1) PepsiCo (1) Tea Party (1) food deserts (1) vaccines (1) Merck (1) prison system (1) sanitation (1) social justice (1) Golden Gate Bridge (2) McDonald's (1) Twitter for advocacy (1) SB 402 (1) Michelle Obama (1) tobacco (4) nanny state (2) elephant triggers (1) gun control (2) inequities (1) collaboration (1) HPV vaccine (1) gender (1) children's health (3) health care (1) junk food (1) Richmond (5) cigarette advertising (1) Telluride (1) food access (1) personal responsibility (2) Sam Kass (1) FCC (1) breastfeeding (3) institutional accountability (1) government intrusion (1) cap the tap (1) Pine Ridge Indian Reservation (2) tobacco control (2) food (1) equity (3) environmental health (1) corporate social responsibility (1) junk food marketing to kids (2) auto safety (1) naacp (1) El Monte (3) reproductive justice (1) youth (1) Measure O (1) health equity (9) online marketing (1) advocacy (3) childhood obesity (1) Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes (1) soda warning labels (1) Nickelodeon (1) Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (1) social media (1) tobacco industry (2) Big Food (2) SB-5 (1) race (1) gun violence (1) Gardasil (1) white house (1) public health policy (1)
  • Follow Us On Facebook
  • Follow Us On Twitter
  • Join Us On Youtube
  • BMSG RSS Feed

get e-alerts in your inbox: