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.


front groups (1) health equity (9) PepsiCo (1) naacp (1) Proposition 29 (1) El Monte (2) paula deen (1) social media (1) sandusky (2) vaccines (1) sports drinks (1) suicide prevention (2) McDonald's (1) childhood lead poisoning (1) Coca-Cola (3) autism (1) food industry (2) Bloomberg (3) cancer research (1) Rachel Grana (1) product safety (1) cap the tap (1) Food Marketing Workgroup (1) diabetes (1) marketing (1) cosmetics (1) Colorado (1) Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes (1) Big Soda (1) corporate social responsibility (1) online marketing (1) choice (1) world water day (1) Catholic church (1) social change (1) food swamps (1) digital marketing (2) healthy eating (1) privilege (1) Gardasil (1) messaging (1) Happy Meals (1) Big Tobacco (3) advocacy (3) cervical cancer (1) built environment (2) Pine Ridge reservation (1) weight of the nation (1) sugary drinks (3) soda (11) suicide nets (1) Dora the Explorer (1) San Francisco (1) institutional accountability (1) obesity (9) Whiteclay (4) food justice (1) American Beverage Association (1) prison system (1) nanny state (2) tobacco control (2) FCC (1) SB-5 (1) HPV vaccine (1) food environment (1) health care (1) gatorade bolt game (1) breastfeeding (3) communication (1) auto safety (1) Richmond (4) california (1) Amanda Fallin (1) sanitation (1) water security (1) environmental health (1) media (3) language (5) personal responsibility (2) gender (1) filibuster (1) Penn State (3) equity (3) Oglala Sioux (3) soda industry (3) Oakland Unified School District (1) prevention (1) Jerry Sandusky (3) Big Food (2) Joe Paterno (1) child sexual abuse (5) food (1) food deserts (1) media bites (1) junk food marketing to kids (1) Chile (1) collaboration (1) social justice (1) childhood obesity (1) beauty products (1) Nickelodeon (1) Pine Ridge Indian Reservation (2) mental health (2) tobacco (4) obesity prevention (1) beverage industry (1) food marketing (3) genital warts (1) food access (1) tobacco tax (1) george lakoff (1) Texas (1) snap (1) regulation (2) tobacco industry (2) Connecticut shooting (1) reproductive justice (1) Johnson & Johnson (1) Twitter for advocacy (1) measure N (2) indoor smoking ban (1) Sandy Hook (2) gun violence (1) community health (1) junk food (1) abortion (1) liana winett (1) water (1) Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (1) media advocacy (9) Citizens United (1) campaign finance (1) Marion Nestle (1) structural racism (1) framing (7) seat belt laws (1) public health (47) prison phone calls (1) Measure O (1) Wendy Davis (1) media analysis (1) chronic disease (2) food and beverage marketing (3) alcohol (4) inequities (1) white house (1) cancer prevention (1) elephant triggers (1) Newtown (1) sexism (1) SB 402 (1) soda tax (7) children's health (3) cigarette advertising (1) Michelle Obama (1) sugar-sweetened beverages (1) Merck (1) suicide barrier (2) Golden Gate Bridge (2) Sam Kass (1) sexual health (1) apha (1) industry appeals to choice (1) Let's Move (1) values (1) target marketing (5) gun control (2) Tea Party (1) Aurora (1) junk food marketing (3) government intrusion (1) violence prevention (6) new year's resolutions (1) news strategy (1) women's health (2) stigma (1) SSBs (1) physical activity (1)
  • Follow Us On Facebook
  • Follow Us On Twitter
  • Join Us On Youtube
  • BMSG RSS Feed

get e-alerts in your inbox: