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.


nanny state (2) apha (3) FCC (1) government intrusion (1) Big Food (2) inequities (1) media advocacy (23) HPV vaccine (1) white house (1) healthy eating (1) gun control (2) social math (1) child sexual abuse (5) Telluride (1) sexual health (1) women's health (2) democracy (1) Pine Ridge reservation (1) tobacco industry (2) ACEs (2) suicide prevention (2) Marion Nestle (1) Gardasil (1) liana winett (1) news analysis (3) diabetes (1) genital warts (1) Berkeley (2) racism (1) cannes lions festival (1) soda taxes (2) Catholic church (1) Aurora (1) SB 402 (1) marketing (1) food industry (4) auto safety (1) childhood trauma (3) Food Marketing Workgroup (1) public health policy (2) Oglala Sioux (3) ssb (1) soda tax (11) Colorado (1) Black Lives Matter (1) community violence (1) Let's Move (1) online marketing (1) Twitter for advocacy (1) sanitation (1) built environment (2) world water day (1) nonprofit communications (1) diabetes prevention (1) water security (1) Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes (1) equity (3) food access (1) Bill Cosby (1) Oakland Unified School District (1) framing (14) news monitoring (1) food deserts (1) Citizens United (1) breastfeeding (3) sugary drinks (10) food (1) childhood adversity (1) social justice (2) food justice (1) water (1) regulation (2) Nickelodeon (1) American Beverage Association (1) Connecticut shooting (1) abortion (1) beverage industry (2) elephant triggers (1) sugar-sweetened beverages (2) Measure O (1) Happy Meals (1) food and beverage marketing (3) prevention (1) vaccines (1) sexual violence (2) communication strategy (1) food environment (1) cosmetics (1) cancer prevention (1) Sandy Hook (2) default frame (1) Dora the Explorer (1) health equity (10) obesity (10) Pine Ridge Indian Reservation (2) values (1) youth (1) Merck (1) autism (1) prison system (1) soda warning labels (1) measure N (2) sexism (2) soda industry (4) sports drinks (1) messaging (3) corporate social responsibility (1) McDonald's (1) media analysis (6) El Monte (3) california (1) food swamps (1) seat belt laws (1) personal responsibility rhetoric (1) community health (1) summer camps (1) SB-5 (1) Big Tobacco (3) violence (2) Wendy Davis (1) snap (1) children's health (3) Joe Paterno (1) chronic disease (2) cancer research (1) new year's resolutions (1) campaign finance (1) prison phone calls (1) Tea Party (1) junk food marketing to kids (2) weight of the nation (1) product safety (1) SB 1000 (1) front groups (1) Sam Kass (1) Big Soda (2) obesity prevention (1) language (6) communication (2) sexual assault (1) target marketing (8) indoor smoking ban (1) stigma (1) news strategy (1) community safety (1) Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (1) public health (70) digital marketing (2) violence prevention (8) Bloomberg (3) Johnson & Johnson (1) Michelle Obama (1) news coverage (1) Golden Gate Bridge (2) environmental health (1) media (7) Rachel Grana (1) junk food (2) Proposition 47 (1) structural racism (1) tobacco (5) privilege (1) mental health (2) Newtown (1) cigarette advertising (1) junk food marketing (4) social change (1) gender (1) Coca-Cola (3) naacp (1) personal responsibility (3) race (1) tobacco tax (1) Texas (1) election 2016 (1) emergency contraception (1) childhood obesity (1) beauty products (1) soda (12) health care (1) gatorade bolt game (1) alcohol (5) San Francisco (3) advocacy (3) strategic communication (1) Amanda Fallin (1) filibuster (1) safety (1) community organizing (1) Donald Trump (2) journalism (1) community (1) paula deen (1) Chile (1) suicide barrier (2) authentic voices (1) reproductive justice (1) childhood obestiy conference (1) Jerry Sandusky (3) Penn State (3) paper tigers (1) tobacco control (2) childhood lead poisoning (1) Twitter (1) social media (2) Whiteclay (4) media bites (1) political correctness (1) suicide nets (1) food marketing (4) collaboration (1) choice (1) PepsiCo (1) public health data (1) gun violence (1) news (2) Richmond (5) george lakoff (1) sandusky (2) industry appeals to choice (1) institutional accountability (1) adverse childhood experiences (3) education (1) Proposition 29 (1) physical activity (1) SSBs (1) cap the tap (1) cervical cancer (1)
  • Follow Us On Facebook
  • Follow Us On Twitter
  • Join Us On Youtube
  • BMSG RSS Feed

get e-alerts in your inbox: