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.


Wendy Davis (1) elephant triggers (1) Big Soda (1) sports drinks (1) childhood obesity (1) alcohol (4) sandusky (2) cosmetics (1) gender (1) obesity (9) sexual health (1) summer camps (1) regulation (2) tobacco control (2) Citizens United (1) junk food marketing (3) HPV vaccine (1) McDonald's (1) childhood lead poisoning (1) Oakland Unified School District (1) online marketing (1) Colorado (1) violence prevention (6) front groups (1) water security (1) prison system (1) values (1) messaging (2) Richmond (4) world water day (1) equity (3) target marketing (5) autism (1) soda (12) digital marketing (2) environmental health (1) weight of the nation (1) social change (1) food environment (1) child sexual abuse (5) cervical cancer (1) Texas (1) reproductive justice (1) FCC (1) Oglala Sioux (3) cigarette advertising (1) cancer prevention (1) suicide barrier (2) product safety (1) soda industry (4) suicide prevention (2) marketing (1) Gardasil (1) Proposition 29 (1) community health (1) snap (1) indoor smoking ban (1) built environment (2) beverage industry (1) Sam Kass (1) corporate social responsibility (1) structural racism (1) mental health (2) california (1) Aurora (1) Big Tobacco (3) Berkeley (1) advocacy (3) Food Marketing Workgroup (1) soda tax (9) Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes (1) Tea Party (1) Let's Move (1) Amanda Fallin (1) Nickelodeon (1) food (1) suicide nets (1) food access (1) SB 1000 (1) language (5) American Beverage Association (1) gun control (2) Sandy Hook (2) Whiteclay (4) Coca-Cola (3) tobacco (4) seat belt laws (1) social media (1) women's health (2) news strategy (1) filibuster (1) media (3) inequities (1) framing (7) paula deen (1) sugary drinks (6) obesity prevention (1) prison phone calls (1) Happy Meals (1) healthy eating (1) SB-5 (1) San Francisco (2) Big Food (2) stigma (1) sugar-sweetened beverages (1) food and beverage marketing (3) food justice (1) tobacco industry (2) Rachel Grana (1) media analysis (1) Newtown (1) Michelle Obama (1) measure N (2) water (1) campaign finance (1) health equity (9) food deserts (1) auto safety (1) sanitation (1) industry appeals to choice (1) diabetes (1) personal responsibility (2) liana winett (1) Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (1) Jerry Sandusky (3) food swamps (1) apha (1) collaboration (1) social justice (1) junk food marketing to kids (1) food marketing (3) El Monte (2) Marion Nestle (1) breastfeeding (3) physical activity (1) nanny state (2) cancer research (1) ssb (1) food industry (2) gatorade bolt game (1) media advocacy (12) government intrusion (1) Joe Paterno (1) institutional accountability (1) genital warts (1) SSBs (1) george lakoff (1) Catholic church (1) Merck (1) children's health (3) Twitter for advocacy (1) abortion (1) Connecticut shooting (1) new year's resolutions (1) sexism (1) gun violence (1) choice (1) Bloomberg (3) Pine Ridge Indian Reservation (2) health care (1) chronic disease (2) Pine Ridge reservation (1) beauty products (1) vaccines (1) PepsiCo (1) SB 402 (1) public health (51) communication (2) junk food (1) naacp (1) Dora the Explorer (1) privilege (1) public health policy (1) prevention (1) Chile (1) Johnson & Johnson (1) Penn State (3) Golden Gate Bridge (2) media bites (1) tobacco tax (1) Measure O (1) white house (1) cap the tap (1) soda warning labels (1)
  • Follow Us On Facebook
  • Follow Us On Twitter
  • Join Us On Youtube
  • BMSG RSS Feed

get e-alerts in your inbox: