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.


california (1) breastfeeding (3) choice (1) summer camps (1) Chile (1) alcohol (4) Newtown (1) prevention (1) personal responsibility (2) autism (1) physical activity (1) suicide prevention (2) digital marketing (2) advocacy (3) news strategy (1) junk food (1) ssb (1) world water day (1) food (1) Dora the Explorer (1) social media (1) Big Soda (1) Proposition 29 (1) beauty products (1) Citizens United (1) gun violence (1) water security (1) chronic disease (2) Happy Meals (1) cancer prevention (1) Penn State (3) Let's Move (1) seat belt laws (1) regulation (2) Bloomberg (3) social justice (1) communication (2) media (3) sanitation (1) public health policy (1) target marketing (5) SB-5 (1) stigma (1) Michelle Obama (1) sugary drinks (6) marketing (1) paula deen (1) Sandy Hook (2) industry appeals to choice (1) Measure O (1) framing (9) prison phone calls (1) El Monte (2) Food Marketing Workgroup (1) media bites (1) obesity prevention (1) elephant triggers (1) Pine Ridge Indian Reservation (2) Catholic church (1) soda (12) SB 402 (1) Colorado (1) tobacco (4) SSBs (1) front groups (1) Connecticut shooting (1) Whiteclay (4) new year's resolutions (1) food marketing (3) gun control (2) gender (1) gatorade bolt game (1) built environment (2) Twitter for advocacy (1) nanny state (2) campaign finance (1) soda tax (9) abortion (1) Amanda Fallin (1) Marion Nestle (1) FCC (1) reproductive justice (1) Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (1) cigarette advertising (1) collaboration (1) cap the tap (1) Golden Gate Bridge (2) soda warning labels (1) Joe Paterno (1) measure N (2) sugar-sweetened beverages (1) food and beverage marketing (3) environmental health (1) social change (1) junk food marketing to kids (2) Rachel Grana (1) sports drinks (1) Jerry Sandusky (3) indoor smoking ban (1) snap (1) food industry (2) food swamps (1) online marketing (1) institutional accountability (1) Richmond (4) product safety (1) sandusky (2) Nickelodeon (1) values (1) Texas (1) water (1) suicide barrier (2) tobacco control (2) george lakoff (1) healthy eating (1) soda industry (4) language (6) American Beverage Association (1) sexual health (1) equity (3) health equity (9) SB 1000 (1) women's health (2) Oglala Sioux (3) child sexual abuse (5) privilege (1) HPV vaccine (1) health care (1) food justice (1) food access (1) filibuster (1) violence prevention (6) weight of the nation (1) Gardasil (1) Oakland Unified School District (1) naacp (1) children's health (3) mental health (2) white house (1) food environment (1) McDonald's (1) Tea Party (1) tobacco tax (1) food deserts (1) cosmetics (1) Coca-Cola (3) childhood obesity (1) obesity (9) liana winett (1) media analysis (1) suicide nets (1) sexism (1) tobacco industry (2) beverage industry (1) San Francisco (2) inequities (1) public health (53) junk food marketing (3) vaccines (1) government intrusion (1) Aurora (1) PepsiCo (1) Wendy Davis (1) prison system (1) Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes (1) Big Food (2) cervical cancer (1) childhood lead poisoning (1) genital warts (1) structural racism (1) diabetes (1) Johnson & Johnson (1) Berkeley (1) Big Tobacco (3) Merck (1) Pine Ridge reservation (1) cancer research (1) corporate social responsibility (1) Sam Kass (1) media advocacy (13) apha (1) auto safety (1) community health (1) messaging (2)
  • Follow Us On Facebook
  • Follow Us On Twitter
  • Join Us On Youtube
  • BMSG RSS Feed

get e-alerts in your inbox: