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.


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

get e-alerts in your inbox: