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.


alcohol (4) news strategy (1) SB 402 (1) children's health (3) values (1) media advocacy (11) Jerry Sandusky (3) media (3) beauty products (1) nanny state (2) Big Soda (1) Catholic church (1) online marketing (1) stigma (1) measure N (2) HPV vaccine (1) genital warts (1) Gardasil (1) food and beverage marketing (3) food marketing (3) language (5) built environment (2) suicide barrier (2) cervical cancer (1) sanitation (1) Let's Move (1) Bloomberg (3) food industry (2) prevention (1) social media (1) Oglala Sioux (3) Dora the Explorer (1) reproductive justice (1) cancer prevention (1) target marketing (5) communication (1) Nickelodeon (1) personal responsibility (2) breastfeeding (3) filibuster (1) Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (1) cap the tap (1) food environment (1) Richmond (4) media bites (1) SB 1000 (1) new year's resolutions (1) auto safety (1) Coca-Cola (3) paula deen (1) Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes (1) junk food marketing (3) messaging (1) framing (7) tobacco control (2) cancer research (1) corporate social responsibility (1) Aurora (1) diabetes (1) violence prevention (6) junk food marketing to kids (1) beverage industry (1) privilege (1) Texas (1) child sexual abuse (5) Golden Gate Bridge (2) apha (1) PepsiCo (1) Johnson & Johnson (1) women's health (2) health care (1) prison system (1) Connecticut shooting (1) food swamps (1) collaboration (1) abortion (1) food deserts (1) Measure O (1) elephant triggers (1) vaccines (1) Newtown (1) social change (1) health equity (9) public health (50) industry appeals to choice (1) soda tax (8) Joe Paterno (1) soda industry (3) cosmetics (1) autism (1) naacp (1) world water day (1) water security (1) tobacco industry (2) San Francisco (2) front groups (1) environmental health (1) sexism (1) physical activity (1) Chile (1) suicide prevention (2) Colorado (1) suicide nets (1) Sandy Hook (2) obesity (9) childhood obesity (1) American Beverage Association (1) Tea Party (1) Marion Nestle (1) mental health (2) gatorade bolt game (1) inequities (1) indoor smoking ban (1) product safety (1) Food Marketing Workgroup (1) campaign finance (1) El Monte (2) Big Food (2) institutional accountability (1) water (1) Citizens United (1) seat belt laws (1) sexual health (1) advocacy (3) california (1) healthy eating (1) white house (1) structural racism (1) SB-5 (1) junk food (1) cigarette advertising (1) gun violence (1) equity (3) marketing (1) food justice (1) Oakland Unified School District (1) chronic disease (2) Michelle Obama (1) gender (1) sandusky (2) sugary drinks (5) public health policy (1) Penn State (3) soda (12) regulation (2) Happy Meals (1) obesity prevention (1) sugar-sweetened beverages (1) weight of the nation (1) digital marketing (2) childhood lead poisoning (1) Sam Kass (1) soda warning labels (1) food access (1) summer camps (1) choice (1) Rachel Grana (1) community health (1) george lakoff (1) gun control (2) Amanda Fallin (1) McDonald's (1) Big Tobacco (3) Pine Ridge reservation (1) media analysis (1) Wendy Davis (1) ssb (1) sports drinks (1) Twitter for advocacy (1) Proposition 29 (1) SSBs (1) snap (1) Merck (1) tobacco (4) Whiteclay (4) prison phone calls (1) liana winett (1) government intrusion (1) tobacco tax (1) social justice (1) Berkeley (1) Pine Ridge Indian Reservation (2) FCC (1) food (1)
  • Follow Us On Facebook
  • Follow Us On Twitter
  • Join Us On Youtube
  • BMSG RSS Feed

get e-alerts in your inbox: