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.


equity (3) Joe Paterno (1) Rachel Grana (1) tobacco control (2) SSBs (1) health equity (9) water (1) violence (1) framing (11) new year's resolutions (1) snap (1) San Francisco (3) mental health (2) sanitation (1) Richmond (5) sexism (1) McDonald's (1) obesity (9) campaign finance (1) abortion (1) childhood trauma (1) soda tax (11) auto safety (1) paula deen (1) Gardasil (1) Let's Move (1) Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (1) Aurora (1) food swamps (1) tobacco industry (2) gun control (2) community health (1) seat belt laws (1) Jerry Sandusky (3) Happy Meals (1) online marketing (1) advocacy (3) nanny state (2) institutional accountability (1) built environment (2) tobacco (4) diabetes (1) cigarette advertising (1) social media (2) Proposition 29 (1) gun violence (1) Big Food (2) beauty products (1) social change (1) ssb (1) chronic disease (2) sugar-sweetened beverages (2) children's health (3) emergency contraception (1) Johnson & Johnson (1) Chile (1) indoor smoking ban (1) ACEs (1) media bites (1) SB-5 (1) news analysis (1) Newtown (1) SB 1000 (1) food industry (2) Penn State (3) healthy eating (1) george lakoff (1) junk food (2) sandusky (2) food and beverage marketing (3) Marion Nestle (1) Sandy Hook (2) summer camps (1) elephant triggers (1) alcohol (4) collaboration (1) public health (58) adverse childhood experiences (1) Pine Ridge Indian Reservation (2) communication (2) environmental health (1) PepsiCo (1) Coca-Cola (3) food (1) Pine Ridge reservation (1) Big Soda (2) American Beverage Association (1) media advocacy (18) Nickelodeon (1) food marketing (3) autism (1) Twitter (1) Wendy Davis (1) physical activity (1) inequities (1) beverage industry (1) food justice (1) HPV vaccine (1) junk food marketing (3) personal responsibility (3) Merck (1) liana winett (1) Dora the Explorer (1) structural racism (1) Texas (1) Amanda Fallin (1) water security (1) apha (1) media analysis (3) gatorade bolt game (1) SB 402 (1) childhood obestiy conference (1) public health data (1) Berkeley (2) filibuster (1) regulation (2) media (4) reproductive justice (1) Twitter for advocacy (1) child sexual abuse (5) privilege (1) Big Tobacco (3) messaging (3) Michelle Obama (1) junk food marketing to kids (2) food deserts (1) cap the tap (1) Bill Cosby (1) weight of the nation (1) gender (1) Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes (1) obesity prevention (1) sexual health (1) violence prevention (6) social math (1) FCC (1) Food Marketing Workgroup (1) soda (12) sexual violence (1) Catholic church (1) sports drinks (1) choice (1) Oglala Sioux (3) Colorado (1) soda warning labels (1) values (1) Citizens United (1) Golden Gate Bridge (2) vaccines (1) sexual assault (1) industry appeals to choice (1) world water day (1) digital marketing (2) sugary drinks (9) news strategy (1) breastfeeding (3) health care (1) suicide barrier (2) childhood lead poisoning (1) El Monte (3) stigma (1) marketing (1) childhood obesity (1) Bloomberg (3) measure N (2) diabetes prevention (1) youth (1) prevention (1) public health policy (2) childhood adversity (1) front groups (1) target marketing (7) government intrusion (1) Whiteclay (4) cervical cancer (1) cancer prevention (1) naacp (1) Connecticut shooting (1) tobacco tax (1) social justice (1) soda industry (4) language (6) corporate social responsibility (1) white house (1) food access (1) california (1) cancer research (1) Oakland Unified School District (1) default frame (1) suicide nets (1) suicide prevention (2) cosmetics (1) Measure O (1) food environment (1) prison phone calls (1) product safety (1) genital warts (1) prison system (1) Sam Kass (1) news coverage (1) women's health (2) Telluride (1) Tea Party (1) race (1)
  • Follow Us On Facebook
  • Follow Us On Twitter
  • Join Us On Youtube
  • BMSG RSS Feed

get e-alerts in your inbox: