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.


snap (1) soda industry (4) Connecticut shooting (1) cosmetics (1) reproductive justice (1) public health data (1) privilege (1) Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes (1) personal responsibility (2) cap the tap (1) beverage industry (1) sexism (1) beauty products (1) Sandy Hook (2) apha (1) news strategy (1) corporate social responsibility (1) summer camps (1) genital warts (1) Twitter for advocacy (1) tobacco tax (1) childhood lead poisoning (1) ssb (1) Food Marketing Workgroup (1) filibuster (1) Big Tobacco (3) Texas (1) product safety (1) prison phone calls (1) food swamps (1) california (1) media advocacy (16) Penn State (3) Dora the Explorer (1) McDonald's (1) food and beverage marketing (3) target marketing (5) online marketing (1) physical activity (1) water security (1) Gardasil (1) media (4) gatorade bolt game (1) Chile (1) Rachel Grana (1) built environment (2) diabetes (1) Coca-Cola (3) women's health (2) El Monte (3) cervical cancer (1) social media (1) Whiteclay (4) language (6) healthy eating (1) world water day (1) childhood obesity (1) soda (12) auto safety (1) campaign finance (1) soda warning labels (1) food marketing (3) youth (1) Oakland Unified School District (1) SB 1000 (1) children's health (3) Wendy Davis (1) sugar-sweetened beverages (1) FCC (1) SB 402 (1) Measure O (1) advocacy (3) food access (1) Marion Nestle (1) choice (1) media bites (1) institutional accountability (1) Berkeley (2) marketing (1) Joe Paterno (1) Oglala Sioux (3) industry appeals to choice (1) seat belt laws (1) water (1) SSBs (1) social math (1) chronic disease (2) messaging (2) food deserts (1) suicide prevention (2) suicide barrier (2) measure N (2) indoor smoking ban (1) Telluride (1) mental health (2) PepsiCo (1) food (1) tobacco control (2) sexual assault (1) SB-5 (1) food environment (1) prison system (1) nanny state (2) Newtown (1) race (1) Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (1) stigma (1) health care (1) soda tax (10) gun violence (1) autism (1) food industry (2) sexual violence (1) suicide nets (1) public health policy (1) Pine Ridge Indian Reservation (2) tobacco (4) equity (3) Nickelodeon (1) weight of the nation (1) Let's Move (1) environmental health (1) Michelle Obama (1) regulation (2) gender (1) collaboration (1) Richmond (5) Amanda Fallin (1) junk food (1) violence (1) Sam Kass (1) Johnson & Johnson (1) Aurora (1) food justice (1) framing (9) gun control (2) prevention (1) digital marketing (2) Citizens United (1) Big Soda (2) junk food marketing (3) Happy Meals (1) social change (1) Tea Party (1) Big Food (2) junk food marketing to kids (2) naacp (1) liana winett (1) george lakoff (1) Pine Ridge reservation (1) elephant triggers (1) sandusky (2) Merck (1) paula deen (1) news coverage (1) sanitation (1) sexual health (1) Colorado (1) media analysis (2) social justice (1) cigarette advertising (1) Bloomberg (3) HPV vaccine (1) Bill Cosby (1) front groups (1) community health (1) abortion (1) white house (1) new year's resolutions (1) values (1) alcohol (4) government intrusion (1) tobacco industry (2) child sexual abuse (5) structural racism (1) American Beverage Association (1) breastfeeding (3) cancer prevention (1) cancer research (1) violence prevention (6) communication (2) Catholic church (1) Proposition 29 (1) inequities (1) San Francisco (3) health equity (9) obesity prevention (1) sugary drinks (6) Golden Gate Bridge (2) Jerry Sandusky (3) sports drinks (1) obesity (9) public health (55) vaccines (1)
  • Follow Us On Facebook
  • Follow Us On Twitter
  • Join Us On Youtube
  • BMSG RSS Feed

get e-alerts in your inbox: