Big Soda and the Tobacco Playbook: What History Reveals About Soft Drink Corporations 

From the Counter to the Countertop: Understanding How Today’s Soda Industry Echoes the Past

For decades, soft drinks have been a familiar part of daily life—served at restaurants, fountains, sporting events, and family gatherings. Yet as public awareness around health, sugar consumption, and environmental impact has grown, large soft drink corporations such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi now face scrutiny similar to what the tobacco industry experienced in the late twentieth century.

Public health experts, researchers, and policymakers increasingly note that while soda and cigarettes are very different products, the strategies used by major soft drink companies to protect market share, influence public perception, and resist regulation closely resemble those once used by tobacco companies. Understanding these parallels offers valuable insight into where the beverage industry has been—and where it may be headed.

Shifting Responsibility: From Product to Personal Choice

One of the most frequently cited similarities between the tobacco industry and Big Soda lies in how responsibility for health outcomes is framed.

For years, tobacco companies emphasized personal choice, arguing that smoking was an individual decision rather than the result of addiction, aggressive marketing, or product design. In a similar way, large soda companies often highlight exercise, calorie balance, and “active lifestyles” while minimizing the role that high sugar intake plays in obesity, type-2 diabetes, and metabolic disease.

Public health researchers note that this framing shifts attention away from product formulation and consumption patterns, placing the burden primarily on consumers rather than on the companies that manufacture and market these beverages at scale.

Funding Friendly Science

Another striking parallel appears in the funding of scientific research.

Internal tobacco industry documents—released through litigation—revealed coordinated efforts to support studies that cast doubt on the health risks of smoking. These studies did not always deny harm outright but often emphasized uncertainty, alternative explanations, or inconclusive evidence, delaying regulatory action for decades.

Similarly, beverage industry funding has supported research and partnerships that emphasize physical inactivity over dietary sugar as a primary cause of obesity. While industry-funded research is not inherently invalid, public health scholars argue that selective funding has sometimes been used to influence public understanding, shift narratives, and slow regulatory momentum.

Lobbying and Regulatory Resistance

Both industries have invested heavily in lobbying and legal strategies to oppose public health measures.

Tobacco companies famously fought warning labels, advertising restrictions, and excise taxes. Today, soda companies actively campaign against soda taxes, portion limits, marketing restrictions, and labeling requirements—often at the local and municipal level.

These efforts are well documented in ballot initiatives and legislative battles across the United States and internationally. Critics argue that such resistance prioritizes sales volume over long-term public health outcomes.

Marketing to the Next Generation

Marketing strategies further reinforce the comparison.

Tobacco companies historically sought to build brand loyalty early, targeting young consumers before habits were fully formed. Public health experts argue that extensive marketing of sugary drinks to children and adolescents—through sports sponsorships, digital media, influencers, and culturally targeted campaigns—follows a similar trajectory.

Early exposure, researchers suggest, can normalize frequent consumption and establish long-term preferences that persist into adulthood.

Corporate Social Responsibility as Reputation Management

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives have played a central role in both industries’ public strategies.

Anti-litter campaigns, recycling pledges, community wellness programs, and environmental commitments can coexist with business models that rely on high-volume sales of products linked to health and environmental concerns. Critics describe this approach as reputational buffering—improving brand image without fundamentally altering product formulation or consumption patterns.

This does not negate the value of recycling or community initiatives, but it raises questions about whether such programs meaningfully address root causes.

Public Health Perspective: When Soda Follows the Tobacco Playbook

Over the past two decades, public health researchers have increasingly documented these similarities, leading some to describe sugary soft drinks as “the new tobacco”—not because the products are identical, but because the strategies used to protect market share, influence policy, and shape public perception are strikingly familiar.

Understanding this history allows consumers, food-service operators, and policymakers to better evaluate claims, assess alternatives, and make informed decisions in a changing beverage landscape.

A Changing Landscape: Better Ingredients, Greater Transparency

Importantly, the modern soft drink market is no longer monolithic.

Alongside multinational corporations, a growing number of independent and values-driven beverage companies are rethinking what soda can be. These brands often focus on:

• Lower sugar levels

• Alternative sweeteners such as organic cane sugar or honey

• Organic and non-GMO ingredients

• Clear ingredient sourcing and labeling

Rather than relying on marketing narratives alone, many of these producers emphasize formulation, transparency, and responsible sourcing as core business principles.

Not all soda is created equal—and consumers increasingly recognize the difference between legacy formulas and thoughtfully crafted alternatives.

Sustainability Beyond Messaging

Sustainability also plays a meaningful role in this shift.

While large soda corporations have pledged improvements in recycling and packaging, independent beverage companies often prioritize systemic changes—such as reduced reliance on single-use plastic, bag-in-box fountain systems that minimize packaging waste, and partnerships with regenerative or organic agriculture.

In food-service settings, fountain soda systems using responsibly sourced syrups can significantly reduce packaging waste while offering consistent quality and lower environmental impact compared to bottled beverages.

What This Means for Consumers and Food-Service Operators

The comparison between Big Soda and Big Tobacco is not about vilifying soda itself. Rather, it highlights how industry behavior matters—and how consumers now have more choice than ever before.

For restaurants, hotels, campuses, and retailers, beverage programs no longer have to default to legacy brands. Offering sodas made with better ingredients, lower sugar, and transparent sourcing allows businesses to meet evolving consumer expectations while maintaining profitability and operational efficiency.

For consumers, awareness creates opportunity: the ability to enjoy soda as an occasional pleasure without accepting outdated formulas or opaque practices.

Looking Forward

History shows that industries evolve when consumers, science, and values converge.

As the beverage landscape continues to change, the future of soda is likely to be shaped not by denial or deflection, but by innovation—where taste, health, sustainability, and transparency coexist. In that future, soda is no longer defined by excess, but by intention.