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.


cancer prevention (1) collaboration (1) naacp (1) Bloomberg (3) FCC (1) public health (67) SSBs (1) Pine Ridge Indian Reservation (2) healthy eating (1) government intrusion (1) new year's resolutions (1) San Francisco (3) campaign finance (1) language (6) public health data (1) PepsiCo (1) soda taxes (2) tobacco control (2) sexual health (1) American Beverage Association (1) Merck (1) political correctness (1) SB-5 (1) tobacco (5) Texas (1) Bill Cosby (1) prevention (1) food swamps (1) Food Marketing Workgroup (1) obesity (10) personal responsibility rhetoric (1) paper tigers (1) junk food marketing (3) sandusky (2) SB 402 (1) elephant triggers (1) food justice (1) built environment (2) sugar-sweetened beverages (2) vaccines (1) social media (2) Twitter for advocacy (1) race (1) communication (2) advocacy (3) liana winett (1) suicide nets (1) water (1) Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes (1) Oakland Unified School District (1) Telluride (1) Sandy Hook (2) summer camps (1) Penn State (3) Black Lives Matter (1) ACEs (2) sugary drinks (10) food and beverage marketing (3) cosmetics (1) prison system (1) sexual assault (1) violence prevention (8) abortion (1) cigarette advertising (1) beauty products (1) equity (3) Joe Paterno (1) McDonald's (1) Rachel Grana (1) suicide prevention (2) Tea Party (1) Big Tobacco (3) community violence (1) social change (1) structural racism (1) news monitoring (1) Johnson & Johnson (1) food marketing (3) Twitter (1) white house (1) auto safety (1) stigma (1) Richmond (5) racism (1) news strategy (1) childhood lead poisoning (1) indoor smoking ban (1) regulation (2) chronic disease (2) messaging (3) community organizing (1) Jerry Sandusky (3) soda industry (4) food industry (4) target marketing (7) digital marketing (2) snap (1) sanitation (1) food access (1) default frame (1) food (1) youth (1) emergency contraception (1) Big Food (2) autism (1) media (7) soda tax (11) prison phone calls (1) news analysis (3) Connecticut shooting (1) HPV vaccine (1) front groups (1) journalism (1) inequities (1) violence (2) election 2016 (1) community safety (1) tobacco tax (1) privilege (1) water security (1) junk food marketing to kids (2) childhood adversity (1) cancer research (1) Wendy Davis (1) obesity prevention (1) industry appeals to choice (1) Amanda Fallin (1) Citizens United (1) media analysis (5) california (1) social justice (1) physical activity (1) george lakoff (1) women's health (2) food environment (1) childhood obesity (1) gun violence (1) Pine Ridge reservation (1) marketing (1) Proposition 47 (1) Newtown (1) environmental health (1) paula deen (1) tobacco industry (2) Gardasil (1) children's health (3) gender (1) community health (1) authentic voices (1) soda (12) Oglala Sioux (3) measure N (2) health care (1) Golden Gate Bridge (2) democracy (1) alcohol (5) childhood obestiy conference (1) breastfeeding (3) mental health (2) seat belt laws (1) health equity (10) Catholic church (1) sexism (2) choice (1) Nickelodeon (1) news (2) cap the tap (1) product safety (1) safety (1) social math (1) junk food (2) El Monte (3) Coca-Cola (3) personal responsibility (3) Proposition 29 (1) child sexual abuse (5) adverse childhood experiences (3) world water day (1) Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (1) genital warts (1) Michelle Obama (1) Aurora (1) framing (14) cervical cancer (1) Berkeley (2) Colorado (1) institutional accountability (1) soda warning labels (1) weight of the nation (1) corporate social responsibility (1) Marion Nestle (1) sexual violence (2) beverage industry (2) media bites (1) gatorade bolt game (1) Dora the Explorer (1) food deserts (1) reproductive justice (1) nanny state (2) online marketing (1) Big Soda (2) gun control (2) community (1) public health policy (2) education (1) childhood trauma (3) ssb (1) Donald Trump (2) diabetes (1) Let's Move (1) values (1) SB 1000 (1) Happy Meals (1) diabetes prevention (1) media advocacy (21) news coverage (1) Measure O (1) Sam Kass (1) sports drinks (1) Whiteclay (4) Chile (1) apha (2) suicide barrier (2) filibuster (1)
  • Follow Us On Facebook
  • Follow Us On Twitter
  • Join Us On Youtube
  • BMSG RSS Feed

get e-alerts in your inbox: