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.


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

get e-alerts in your inbox: