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.


cap the tap (1) Joe Paterno (1) Connecticut shooting (1) sanitation (1) food deserts (1) gun violence (1) autism (1) Michelle Obama (1) Big Food (2) cosmetics (1) soda (12) world water day (1) food swamps (1) Berkeley (1) news strategy (1) Happy Meals (1) water security (1) cancer research (1) Sandy Hook (2) california (1) sugary drinks (6) Texas (1) cancer prevention (1) Penn State (3) water (1) El Monte (2) Catholic church (1) American Beverage Association (1) children's health (3) beauty products (1) Tea Party (1) Newtown (1) indoor smoking ban (1) chronic disease (2) prison system (1) San Francisco (2) Oakland Unified School District (1) diabetes (1) summer camps (1) cigarette advertising (1) Food Marketing Workgroup (1) community health (1) weight of the nation (1) SSBs (1) sexual health (1) media bites (1) liana winett (1) child sexual abuse (5) sandusky (2) collaboration (1) junk food marketing to kids (1) Measure O (1) white house (1) sugar-sweetened beverages (1) violence prevention (6) Coca-Cola (3) media analysis (1) Whiteclay (4) Golden Gate Bridge (2) Chile (1) language (6) healthy eating (1) media (3) Let's Move (1) mental health (2) Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (1) auto safety (1) food and beverage marketing (3) Rachel Grana (1) new year's resolutions (1) Pine Ridge reservation (1) naacp (1) suicide nets (1) corporate social responsibility (1) seat belt laws (1) public health (52) marketing (1) food environment (1) soda industry (4) alcohol (4) filibuster (1) Oglala Sioux (3) structural racism (1) Twitter for advocacy (1) stigma (1) HPV vaccine (1) suicide prevention (2) Marion Nestle (1) inequities (1) environmental health (1) food access (1) choice (1) campaign finance (1) Citizens United (1) institutional accountability (1) food industry (2) childhood obesity (1) gender (1) Big Tobacco (3) Dora the Explorer (1) abortion (1) gun control (2) tobacco control (2) FCC (1) reproductive justice (1) public health policy (1) health care (1) physical activity (1) McDonald's (1) beverage industry (1) tobacco (4) Richmond (4) social media (1) tobacco tax (1) Wendy Davis (1) values (1) breastfeeding (3) suicide barrier (2) front groups (1) advocacy (3) industry appeals to choice (1) george lakoff (1) Merck (1) government intrusion (1) Nickelodeon (1) gatorade bolt game (1) target marketing (5) Pine Ridge Indian Reservation (2) Bloomberg (3) media advocacy (13) food justice (1) junk food (1) Gardasil (1) food (1) online marketing (1) paula deen (1) equity (3) measure N (2) SB-5 (1) health equity (9) cervical cancer (1) framing (8) Johnson & Johnson (1) personal responsibility (2) snap (1) privilege (1) Aurora (1) genital warts (1) digital marketing (2) ssb (1) soda warning labels (1) messaging (2) Jerry Sandusky (3) food marketing (3) SB 1000 (1) sports drinks (1) Colorado (1) prevention (1) nanny state (2) obesity (9) Amanda Fallin (1) Big Soda (1) Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes (1) soda tax (9) Proposition 29 (1) obesity prevention (1) PepsiCo (1) vaccines (1) elephant triggers (1) product safety (1) junk food marketing (3) apha (1) SB 402 (1) childhood lead poisoning (1) social change (1) women's health (2) tobacco industry (2) prison phone calls (1) sexism (1) regulation (2) Sam Kass (1) social justice (1) built environment (2) communication (2)
  • Follow Us On Facebook
  • Follow Us On Twitter
  • Join Us On Youtube
  • BMSG RSS Feed

get e-alerts in your inbox: