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.


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

get e-alerts in your inbox: