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.


sports drinks (1) Rachel Grana (1) adverse childhood experiences (1) gun violence (1) product safety (1) Merck (1) Texas (1) vaccines (1) Berkeley (2) inequities (1) cancer prevention (1) Johnson & Johnson (1) industry appeals to choice (1) environmental health (1) Pine Ridge reservation (1) youth (1) childhood obesity (1) children's health (3) sexual violence (1) language (6) Catholic church (1) Sam Kass (1) Connecticut shooting (1) Oakland Unified School District (1) Marion Nestle (1) structural racism (1) food swamps (1) Nickelodeon (1) soda industry (4) social justice (1) Food Marketing Workgroup (1) soda warning labels (1) public health data (1) child sexual abuse (5) food industry (2) Chile (1) childhood trauma (1) collaboration (1) health equity (9) tobacco industry (2) prison phone calls (1) media advocacy (17) media bites (1) diabetes (1) cancer research (1) beverage industry (1) new year's resolutions (1) social math (1) sanitation (1) stigma (1) genital warts (1) Aurora (1) junk food (1) Proposition 29 (1) HPV vaccine (1) paula deen (1) prevention (1) Measure O (1) Dora the Explorer (1) government intrusion (1) Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (1) Bill Cosby (1) physical activity (1) sandusky (2) Colorado (1) food (1) corporate social responsibility (1) Penn State (3) public health (56) autism (1) nanny state (2) gatorade bolt game (1) sexual assault (1) equity (3) front groups (1) food deserts (1) food justice (1) Joe Paterno (1) McDonald's (1) tobacco (4) breastfeeding (3) gun control (2) cigarette advertising (1) sexism (1) auto safety (1) media (4) target marketing (5) obesity prevention (1) obesity (9) indoor smoking ban (1) childhood lead poisoning (1) San Francisco (3) elephant triggers (1) Amanda Fallin (1) naacp (1) personal responsibility (3) online marketing (1) choice (1) marketing (1) white house (1) community health (1) sugar-sweetened beverages (1) water security (1) gender (1) violence prevention (6) Telluride (1) campaign finance (1) food environment (1) Big Food (2) george lakoff (1) cap the tap (1) values (1) tobacco control (2) SB 402 (1) suicide prevention (2) mental health (2) food and beverage marketing (3) framing (10) FCC (1) Newtown (1) Bloomberg (3) Tea Party (1) food marketing (3) American Beverage Association (1) advocacy (3) SB-5 (1) health care (1) communication (2) Big Soda (2) SB 1000 (1) social change (1) Golden Gate Bridge (2) alcohol (4) cervical cancer (1) childhood adversity (1) world water day (1) built environment (2) ssb (1) Jerry Sandusky (3) filibuster (1) Let's Move (1) chronic disease (2) measure N (2) Pine Ridge Indian Reservation (2) privilege (1) violence (1) emergency contraception (1) sexual health (1) SSBs (1) Twitter (1) prison system (1) abortion (1) soda (12) snap (1) Richmond (5) news coverage (1) summer camps (1) sugary drinks (6) Citizens United (1) suicide barrier (2) social media (2) california (1) default frame (1) messaging (2) digital marketing (2) apha (1) weight of the nation (1) Gardasil (1) Oglala Sioux (3) women's health (2) Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes (1) Michelle Obama (1) healthy eating (1) El Monte (3) junk food marketing (3) food access (1) race (1) junk food marketing to kids (2) Wendy Davis (1) cosmetics (1) water (1) beauty products (1) suicide nets (1) Whiteclay (4) soda tax (10) Coca-Cola (3) public health policy (1) Twitter for advocacy (1) Big Tobacco (3) ACEs (1) seat belt laws (1) Happy Meals (1) media analysis (3) PepsiCo (1) Sandy Hook (2) institutional accountability (1) news strategy (1) tobacco tax (1) liana winett (1) reproductive justice (1) regulation (2)
  • Follow Us On Facebook
  • Follow Us On Twitter
  • Join Us On Youtube
  • BMSG RSS Feed

get e-alerts in your inbox: