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.


mental health (2) water (1) cervical cancer (1) media advocacy (21) junk food (2) Pine Ridge Indian Reservation (2) default frame (1) food deserts (1) Nickelodeon (1) Michelle Obama (1) gatorade bolt game (1) diabetes prevention (1) cap the tap (1) Wendy Davis (1) sexual assault (1) collaboration (1) Bloomberg (3) california (1) Penn State (3) target marketing (7) tobacco industry (2) media (7) messaging (3) Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (1) auto safety (1) values (1) physical activity (1) Twitter (1) HPV vaccine (1) Richmond (5) naacp (1) Big Food (2) SB 402 (1) Proposition 47 (1) food and beverage marketing (3) social justice (1) community violence (1) paula deen (1) soda tax (11) violence (1) Texas (1) structural racism (1) advocacy (3) childhood obestiy conference (1) Oglala Sioux (3) Connecticut shooting (1) tobacco control (2) Marion Nestle (1) childhood lead poisoning (1) sexual violence (2) sugar-sweetened beverages (2) cancer prevention (1) food swamps (1) Telluride (1) public health (66) soda industry (4) equity (3) Let's Move (1) front groups (1) community safety (1) online marketing (1) Newtown (1) suicide barrier (2) world water day (1) gun control (2) child sexual abuse (5) emergency contraception (1) personal responsibility (3) San Francisco (3) language (6) ACEs (2) suicide prevention (2) childhood trauma (3) Sandy Hook (2) Rachel Grana (1) weight of the nation (1) news (2) abortion (1) ssb (1) institutional accountability (1) SB 1000 (1) Sam Kass (1) food justice (1) privilege (1) journalism (1) Measure O (1) alcohol (5) El Monte (3) food access (1) food marketing (3) paper tigers (1) Joe Paterno (1) seat belt laws (1) childhood obesity (1) Big Soda (2) measure N (2) sports drinks (1) filibuster (1) framing (14) racism (1) soda taxes (2) prison phone calls (1) government intrusion (1) Tea Party (1) Amanda Fallin (1) youth (1) obesity prevention (1) obesity (10) inequities (1) indoor smoking ban (1) adverse childhood experiences (3) built environment (2) health equity (10) education (1) Bill Cosby (1) Catholic church (1) Golden Gate Bridge (2) breastfeeding (3) Pine Ridge reservation (1) Big Tobacco (3) media bites (1) health care (1) industry appeals to choice (1) Berkeley (2) democracy (1) campaign finance (1) summer camps (1) product safety (1) nanny state (2) water security (1) Oakland Unified School District (1) gun violence (1) george lakoff (1) Twitter for advocacy (1) Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes (1) suicide nets (1) women's health (2) sugary drinks (10) Chile (1) sandusky (2) healthy eating (1) autism (1) Johnson & Johnson (1) food industry (4) apha (2) community health (1) regulation (2) news monitoring (1) Merck (1) corporate social responsibility (1) sexual health (1) sexism (2) public health data (1) election 2016 (1) race (1) vaccines (1) sanitation (1) Proposition 29 (1) environmental health (1) snap (1) genital warts (1) violence prevention (8) children's health (3) cosmetics (1) communication (2) soda warning labels (1) choice (1) PepsiCo (1) SB-5 (1) digital marketing (2) white house (1) food (1) social media (2) media analysis (5) junk food marketing (3) SSBs (1) liana winett (1) prevention (1) Aurora (1) cigarette advertising (1) beverage industry (2) American Beverage Association (1) Citizens United (1) food environment (1) new year's resolutions (1) childhood adversity (1) beauty products (1) community organizing (1) diabetes (1) personal responsibility rhetoric (1) reproductive justice (1) Donald Trump (2) stigma (1) soda (12) junk food marketing to kids (2) news strategy (1) FCC (1) Jerry Sandusky (3) Whiteclay (4) Food Marketing Workgroup (1) authentic voices (1) political correctness (1) McDonald's (1) tobacco tax (1) Dora the Explorer (1) elephant triggers (1) social change (1) Colorado (1) marketing (1) news analysis (2) prison system (1) Happy Meals (1) Coca-Cola (3) gender (1) social math (1) chronic disease (2) Gardasil (1) tobacco (5) public health policy (2) news coverage (1) cancer research (1)
  • Follow Us On Facebook
  • Follow Us On Twitter
  • Join Us On Youtube
  • BMSG RSS Feed

get e-alerts in your inbox: