Food industry messaging pulled from Big Tobacco playbook

printer friendlyprinter friendly

"Is Big Food the new tobacco?" wondered a group of food and beverage industry executives at a recent New York conference dedicated to addressing legal challenges to their industries. We don't often hear it from industry representatives themselves, but it's not the first time in recent memory a major industry has faced comparisons to the tobacco industry. Debates around estrogenic chemicals in children's products, gun control and climate change, for example, have prompted advocates to argue that chemical companies and the gun lobby, among others, are taking a page from the tobacco industry's playbook, a series of tactics the industry designed to spread misinformation about, undermine regulation of, and thwart litigation against its harmful products.

A cornerstone of the tobacco industry's playbook involved using personal responsibility rhetoric — that is, arguments that shifted the responsibility for tobacco-related health harms solely to those who smoke, rather than the companies that produced and marketed toxic (and deadly) products. At BMSG, we have dedicated several years to exploring when and how the tobacco industry first started using personal responsibility arguments in their public conversations.

Our first study of the issue, an analysis of news, legislative testimony and industry documents from the early 1950s and 60s, found that early tobacco control arguments — including those made on the heels of the 1964 Surgeon General's report that declared smoking a public health problem — were striking for their absence of appeals to personal responsibility. Instead, the tobacco industry used the news primarily to raise doubt about whether or not their products were truly harmful.

Our latest study revealed that it wasn't until 1977 that the tobacco industry started using the news to disseminate personal responsibility messages. Those messages became more and more common in the news over time, eventually becoming the industry's main public argument in the 1980s.

Over the course of the more than two decades of news coverage we studied, the industry refined its messages around individual responsibility to address the political challenges it faced: In the early 1970s, Big Tobacco used arguments that characterized smoking as an issue of personal freedom and, therefore, claimed that any efforts to regulate smoking were a violation of that freedom. By the 1980s, when the industry was facing legal challenges from smokers and their families, Big Tobacco framed smoking as an informed choice that consumers knowingly made — a framing that neatly ignored tobacco addiction. Consequently, the argument held, smokers themselves, not the industry, were responsible for the health consequences of that choice.

Again and again, we've seen Big Food use similar arguments that portray consumers as solely responsible for health harms that result from consuming their products. Food and beverage companies often subtly invoke individual choice and personal responsibility, as the American Beverage Association does with its slogan "Delivering Choices." At other times, industry attempts to deflect blame are more direct. For example, industry representatives often blame consumers for failing to exercise moderation, like the National Restaurant Association did when one of its executives declared, "People who have a weight problem are making bad decisions. Overeating is a choice." More recently, Coca-Cola CEO Muhtar Kent defended his company in the Wall Street Journal, arguing "Americans need to be more active and take greater responsibility for their diets."

So is Big Food the next Big Tobacco? And what do our findings mean for public health and social justice advocates going forward? Much research and scholarship has compared the food industry's tactics to Big Tobacco's playbook. Our work brings the origin and impact of a key element of that playbook into sharper focus and illuminates how the industry strategically adapted its personal responsibility messaging over time. Advocates working on policies that challenge the many industries harming health, from food to guns, should continue to boldly confront this strategy for blocking regulation and insist that the companies themselves exercise some personal responsibility for the products they foist upon the marketplace.

sexual violence (2) diabetes (1) cancer prevention (1) childhood obesity (1) Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (1) tobacco industry (2) collaboration (1) new year's resolutions (1) chronic disease (2) Oglala Sioux (3) structural racism (1) public health data (1) Proposition 47 (1) cigarette advertising (1) Whiteclay (4) social change (1) Citizens United (1) San Francisco (3) political correctness (1) soda tax (11) HPV vaccine (1) journalism (1) choice (1) nanny state (2) race (1) food marketing (5) PepsiCo (1) Bloomberg (3) paula deen (1) prison system (1) SB-5 (1) Michelle Obama (1) digital marketing (3) media bites (1) personal responsibility rhetoric (1) privilege (1) Let's Move (1) women's health (2) community (1) built environment (2) government intrusion (1) community safety (1) nonprofit communications (1) Bill Cosby (1) democracy (1) youth (1) SB 402 (1) seat belt laws (1) gun violence (1) FCC (1) Jerry Sandusky (3) Richmond (5) Black Lives Matter (1) alcohol (5) physical activity (1) tobacco (5) childhood obestiy conference (1) soda warning labels (1) Twitter (1) community health (1) paper tigers (1) SSBs (1) Telluride (1) Nickelodeon (1) summer camps (1) food and beverage marketing (3) adverse childhood experiences (3) obesity (10) news monitoring (1) world water day (1) Johnson & Johnson (1) food justice (1) institutional accountability (1) junk food marketing (4) breastfeeding (3) liana winett (1) public health (71) Rachel Grana (1) public health policy (2) suicide barrier (2) inequities (1) authentic voices (1) communication (2) equity (3) marketing (1) ACEs (2) Dora the Explorer (1) food industry (4) childhood lead poisoning (1) personal responsibility (3) vaccines (1) Connecticut shooting (1) Proposition 29 (1) gender (1) naacp (1) Berkeley (2) soda taxes (2) healthy eating (1) Colorado (1) language (6) junk food marketing to kids (2) Tea Party (1) junk food (2) strategic communication (1) community organizing (1) water (1) safety (1) cosmetics (1) media advocacy (23) community violence (1) Joe Paterno (1) Food Marketing Workgroup (1) prevention (1) media analysis (6) white house (1) advocacy (3) sexual health (1) auto safety (1) gun control (2) Happy Meals (1) Aurora (1) Golden Gate Bridge (2) reproductive justice (1) genital warts (1) news analysis (3) food access (1) sugar-sweetened beverages (2) gatorade bolt game (1) children's health (3) product safety (1) Wendy Davis (1) regulation (2) soda industry (4) food (1) Pine Ridge Indian Reservation (2) autism (1) campaign finance (1) messaging (3) default frame (1) elephant triggers (1) Chile (1) sanitation (1) SB 1000 (1) tobacco control (2) Sandy Hook (2) Twitter for advocacy (1) election 2016 (1) indoor smoking ban (1) framing (14) diabetes prevention (1) ssb (1) filibuster (1) communication strategy (1) stigma (1) childhood adversity (1) Donald Trump (2) child sexual abuse (5) Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes (1) media (7) news strategy (1) Pine Ridge reservation (1) beverage industry (2) El Monte (3) Big Tobacco (3) values (1) Texas (1) sexual assault (1) sugary drinks (10) news coverage (1) sports drinks (1) sandusky (2) abortion (1) online marketing (1) violence prevention (8) prison phone calls (1) social math (1) childhood trauma (3) apha (3) health care (1) Penn State (3) Big Soda (2) suicide nets (1) cancer research (1) Oakland Unified School District (1) beauty products (1) cap the tap (1) suicide prevention (2) Newtown (1) violence (2) soda (12) corporate social responsibility (1) Big Food (2) news (2) health equity (10) obesity prevention (1) Measure O (1) california (1) cannes lions festival (1) McDonald's (1) racism (1) water security (1) front groups (1) American Beverage Association (1) social justice (2) Amanda Fallin (1) industry appeals to choice (1) food swamps (1) environmental health (1) snap (1) food deserts (1) george lakoff (1) weight of the nation (1) measure N (2) Coca-Cola (3) Sam Kass (1) emergency contraception (1) education (1) tobacco tax (1) Marion Nestle (1) food environment (1) Gardasil (1) cervical cancer (1) target marketing (9) mental health (2) Merck (1) Catholic church (1) social media (2) sexism (2)
  • Follow Us On Facebook
  • Follow Us On Twitter
  • Join Us On Youtube
  • BMSG RSS Feed

get e-alerts in your inbox: