Talking about soda warning labels: A Q&A with Xavier Morales and Genoveva Islas
by: Heather Gehlert
posted on Thursday, July 17, 2014
At Berkeley Media Studies Group, we keep an eye out for news articles, talking points, and other resources that can help public health advocates more effectively make the case for their issue. Whether it’s giving an interview to a reporter or testifying in front of decision-makers at a hearing, the way we frame an issue and the language we use influences the way people think about a problem and, ultimately, what actions they see as necessary — or even possible — to solve it.
That’s why an op-ed published earlier this summer in the Fresno Bee (and later cross-posted at phi.org) grabbed — and held — our attention. Written by Xavier Morales, executive director of the Latino Coalition for a Healthy California, and Genoveva Islas, an award-winning media advocate and regional director for the Central California Regional Obesity Prevention Program, the commentary makes a strong case for putting warning labels on soda. One thing that struck us about the piece is its lack of emphasis on a particular word that we’ve been encouraging advocates to avoid for years: obesity.
Often discussed as a proxy for other health issues, “obesity” cues people to think about individuals’ body weight, obscuring the social and environmental factors at play in shaping our health. In their op-ed, Morales and Islas instead focused primarily on the link between soda and diabetes, a chronic illness that, the authors explain, “comes with a long list of complications, including blindness, kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, amputations and premature death.”
“The beverage industry has been relentless in crushing anything that highlights the fact that consuming their products can be harmful,” they continue. “In fact, their media campaigns, which not coincidentally target youths of color, intentionally link their products with a happy and exciting life. Individuals who have lost a limb, or a family member, know better. This is why we need a warning label.”
Less than two weeks after the article was published, SB 1000, a first-of-its-kind bill that would require sugary drink bottles and cans sold in California to feature a warning label, passed a major legislative hurdle with a 21 to 13 vote in the state Senate. The bill was later voted down by the California Assembly Health Committee; however, advocates will continue to push for policies to reduce sugary drink consumption, knowing that their setbacks are temporary and help to advance public health over the long term.
BMSG reached out to Morales and Islas to learn more about the strategy behind their writing and how advocates can improve the way they communicate about soda warning labels and other public health issues:
Your piece begins with a startling statistic on diabetes, which is a departure from the usual media spotlight on obesity. Why did you make diabetes your focus?
Islas: There is a lot of blaming of individuals and reference to personal responsibility when we talk about obesity in our society. There is less of that stigma when we talk about diabetes. So the focus on diabetes is important to help get our message through. There is an undeniable connection between sugar overconsumption with the development of diabetes. So I think it’s important to really help the general public and decision-makers know about the need to mitigate the overconsumption in order to prevent diabetes.
Morales: Another angle is that one does not have to be obese to have diabetes. Also, science is now providing incontrovertible evidence that beverages containing caloric sweeteners disproportionately contribute to fatty livers, which causes the pancreas to go into overdrive, which then can lead to diabetes.
We also know that a calorie is a unit of energy, so when industry talks about a calorie of sugar water being the same as a calorie of broccoli, what is being lost is the differential impact these have on our livers and pancreas. Many Latinos have been shown to have a variant of a gene that drives the liver to aggressively produce and store triglycerides which result in fatty liver syndrome, which is a precursor to diabetes. This genetic predisposition, when coupled with social determinant of health issues regarding food security, active transportation, physical activity, safe communities, living wages, trauma, saturation of fast food restaurants, and aggressive marketing of unhealthy products, is a perfect storm for diabetes. Obesity, while it has been described as an outcome of unhealthy living, is really a symptom, and often an intermediary, for diabetes. The media have been reporting this backwards — that obesity causes diabetes. The true relationship is much more dialectical, with environmental conditions being the primary driver.
As you both know, effective media advocacy involves not only getting your policy message out but also getting it in front of the right people at the right time. Tell me about the political context for this piece and the planning that went into it.
Islas: The article was developed strategically given the status of Senate Bill 1000 in the legislature. This piece was a purposeful intent to educate and inform as well as to help build the political will to support the legislation. Featuring it in Fresno was also important, as many of the Senate and Assembly members in the Valley tend to lean more conservatively. The more the public support a bill, the more likely lawmakers will be to vote for it.
Now that the bill has been voted down, going forward, what messages do you hope to see more of — or less of — in the media?
Islas: I want to see more messages about the devastation that diabetes and obesity-related illnesses are having in our communities. We definitely need to educate the public consciousness that we are in a desperate fight to prevent needless disability and death as a result of diabetes and what a central role sugary drinks play. These stories are really needed in order to counter the beleaguering arguments that calories are just calories and that sodas aren’t really harmful.
Morales: We also need to continue coming back to the industry’s real motives behind marketing these products to our families and communities — profits. They claim that they’re selling “happiness” or “vida,” but the truth is that they’re selling ill health. We see the poor health outcomes daily and the cost to society continues to add up. I hope to see more real stories of real people and the impact that these preventable illnesses are having on their lives as we move forward.
You’re both longtime advocates and no strangers to the issue of sugary drinks. Have you noticed any change over the last few years in how receptive editors are to soda-related stories?
Islas: In terms of stories on our beverage environment, I have definitely seen more stories being featured in local papers that have helped to share both sides of the story; this is a big step from a predominate historical frame in favor of industry and blame on individual responsibility.
In Central California, we have so many communities that are challenged by water quality issues. Many residents don’t have free water to drink so they purchase beverages, and those beverages are often the most affordable and most detrimental to their health. It’s no coincidence that we have such a high rate of SSB consumption and no surprise that we have a correspondingly high level of obesity and related illness like diabetes. If these communities were affluent, civically engaged communities, there would be coordinated action to halt this injustice, but given the marginalization of these communities, little attention is paid to them and this reality rarely gets covered by local media.
Morales: I agree with Genoveva. I think that the issue of soda is similar to the issue of tobacco in terms of favorability of the product and receptivity by media over time. Papers are finally picking up stories that highlight how harmful these beverages truly are. We saw surprising receptivity among editorial boards for newspapers across the state as we worked on moving SB 1000 through the Senate and Assembly. A total of 24 editorial boards actually came out in support of the bill, which was unexpected. This support not only helps educate constituents, but also shows legislators that there is support for bills like this in their district, which can be the difference between an ‘aye’ or ‘no’ vote.
What do you think are the most important elements of a strong op-ed?
Islas: A strong op-ed is one in which there is a powerful opinion and compelling message. In addition, a good op-ed is one in which there is a clear action suggested.
Morales: Op-eds also need to be timely. For this bill, timing was key, so having this piece come out in Fresno and some of the other Central Valley papers at the right time really helped to make a statement to legislators at critical voting points.
What lessons have you learned or advice would you give to advocates wanting to leverage the media to advance a public health policy — on sugary drinks otherwise? Any particular pitfalls they should avoid?
Islas: I think it is really important to lift up real experiences and challenges through stories. If we can make the issue relevant and identifiable to more people, then I think we can help to cultivate more support. I think a huge pitfall to avoid in particular in terms of sugary drinks is making consumers feel bad that they drink soda; this will put people on the defensive and actually build support against efforts to mitigate SSB consumption. The product is bad, not the people who drink it. We need to keep the focus on the detriment and the disease outcomes. We also need to shine the light on the manipulation of consumers and engineering of overconsumption through marketing, placement, portion size, affordability and ubiquity of sugary drinks. These are the clear policy factors to be changed.
Morales: Make time to visit editorial boards in person if you can. An opportunity to talk face-to-face with the editor allows you to make a truly compelling and heartfelt case for your issue. Some of the editorial boards may not have come out in support for SB 1000 with just a phone call.
Imagine it’s 20 years from now, and a reporter is writing a story about soda and health. What’s the headline?
Islas:
From Soda Delivery To Water Delivery — Communities Across America Have Prioritized Health
Remember When Soda Was Cheaper Than Water?
Climate Change Seals The Lid On Sodas!
Morales:
Rates of Preventable Diabetes Down 50% in Last Decade!
Hidden Science from Pepsi & Coca-Cola Shows Companies Knew Harmfulness of Products from the Beginning
Anything else I should know?
Islas: One of the arguments against the warning label that really gets under my skin is, “Shouldn’t we just be doing more education?” The warning label is education, and it will have much more reach that any individual health educator.
Morales: Policy and legislation like the warning label are cropping up across the U.S., not just in California. While we haven’t passed a bill just yet, every new proposed piece of legislation is a win for advocates and communities alike. It’s only a matter of time before we succeed in passing legislation that prioritizes our families and communities, and we’re honored to be a part of this work.
Know an advocate who has used the media to make the case for public health policy change? Email us at info@bmsg.org, and we might feature them in a future blog.