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.


cervical cancer (1) Bloomberg (3) prevention (1) prison system (1) Richmond (5) Joe Paterno (1) obesity (9) framing (10) built environment (2) mental health (2) naacp (1) social justice (1) weight of the nation (1) diabetes prevention (1) Colorado (1) HPV vaccine (1) physical activity (1) SB-5 (1) FCC (1) marketing (1) Tea Party (1) childhood obesity (1) childhood trauma (1) reproductive justice (1) Newtown (1) community health (1) food marketing (3) social media (2) Food Marketing Workgroup (1) Pine Ridge reservation (1) cigarette advertising (1) Big Food (2) American Beverage Association (1) Whiteclay (4) white house (1) sexual assault (1) Michelle Obama (1) food deserts (1) water security (1) world water day (1) junk food marketing (3) Rachel Grana (1) soda warning labels (1) filibuster (1) autism (1) genital warts (1) tobacco (4) Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (1) Big Soda (2) ACEs (1) public health (57) cancer prevention (1) water (1) violence prevention (6) collaboration (1) El Monte (3) Bill Cosby (1) Dora the Explorer (1) food and beverage marketing (3) alcohol (4) Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes (1) McDonald's (1) Texas (1) breastfeeding (3) media bites (1) gun control (2) Coca-Cola (3) choice (1) Twitter for advocacy (1) front groups (1) digital marketing (2) advocacy (3) food swamps (1) abortion (1) structural racism (1) junk food marketing to kids (2) food access (1) SB 1000 (1) george lakoff (1) adverse childhood experiences (1) Sandy Hook (2) Penn State (3) gun violence (1) cancer research (1) Big Tobacco (3) sexual violence (1) health equity (9) gender (1) Nickelodeon (1) junk food (1) violence (1) public health data (1) snap (1) regulation (2) california (1) target marketing (6) Telluride (1) children's health (3) child sexual abuse (5) summer camps (1) race (1) nanny state (2) privilege (1) industry appeals to choice (1) values (1) childhood adversity (1) Oglala Sioux (3) sexual health (1) emergency contraception (1) campaign finance (1) personal responsibility (3) Wendy Davis (1) Proposition 29 (1) Berkeley (2) Pine Ridge Indian Reservation (2) Sam Kass (1) youth (1) health care (1) Amanda Fallin (1) paula deen (1) environmental health (1) SSBs (1) suicide prevention (2) Gardasil (1) online marketing (1) women's health (2) Marion Nestle (1) Measure O (1) food environment (1) apha (1) social math (1) Citizens United (1) SB 402 (1) tobacco industry (2) auto safety (1) suicide barrier (2) San Francisco (3) measure N (2) stigma (1) childhood lead poisoning (1) beverage industry (1) sandusky (2) corporate social responsibility (1) soda (12) sanitation (1) cap the tap (1) equity (3) tobacco control (2) Catholic church (1) food (1) seat belt laws (1) media advocacy (17) public health policy (1) sexism (1) healthy eating (1) soda industry (4) elephant triggers (1) gatorade bolt game (1) chronic disease (2) tobacco tax (1) Merck (1) prison phone calls (1) language (6) Golden Gate Bridge (2) soda tax (10) indoor smoking ban (1) PepsiCo (1) Chile (1) social change (1) vaccines (1) Aurora (1) media analysis (3) sugar-sweetened beverages (1) Happy Meals (1) product safety (1) ssb (1) media (4) communication (2) default frame (1) Jerry Sandusky (3) new year's resolutions (1) news coverage (1) liana winett (1) sugary drinks (7) obesity prevention (1) Johnson & Johnson (1) Twitter (1) cosmetics (1) food justice (1) messaging (2) inequities (1) suicide nets (1) food industry (2) news strategy (1) institutional accountability (1) sports drinks (1) Oakland Unified School District (1) beauty products (1) Connecticut shooting (1) government intrusion (1) diabetes (1) Let's Move (1)
  • Follow Us On Facebook
  • Follow Us On Twitter
  • Join Us On Youtube
  • BMSG RSS Feed

get e-alerts in your inbox: