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.


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

get e-alerts in your inbox: