Staff Reports
When American Beverage Association CEO Kevin Keane says consumers deserve choice and greater transparency, he’s speaking for common-sense conservatives who trust markets more than mandates. The industry’s new Good to Know initiative, which puts ingredient information in one place, demonstrates that private companies can deliver clarity without turning to bureaucrats and warning labels. Rather than cheerleading for more government control over what families buy, conservatives should applaud companies that give customers the facts and let them decide.
Keane’s pitch for “meaningful choice” and “accessible transparency” is exactly the approach that preserves liberty while promoting health. The beverage world hasn’t waited for edicts from Washington; it has innovated, offering hundreds of lower- and zero-sugar options and clearer labeling so people can make their own decisions. That’s how change happens in a free society — through competition and consumer preference, not through punitive taxes or heavy-handed regulations.
Make no mistake: the activists and some public-health policymakers want to take power away from consumers and hand it to gatekeepers who think they know better. We’ve seen proposals for sugar taxes, bans, and endless stigma around ingredients like artificial sweeteners even after regulators have found them safe. Keane’s call for transparency offers a sane alternative — give people the information, preserve choice, and let families choose what works for them.
Industry-led transparency also undercuts the narrative that manufacturers are hiding something. By listing more than a hundred beverage ingredients with plain-English explanations, the trade group is attempting to defuse fear-driven campaigns that prey on confusion. That kind of openness should be rewarded, not punished, by policymakers who claim to care about both health and liberty.
Conservatives should be clear-eyed about motives: regulators who favor bans and one-size-fits-all solutions often cloak their ambitions in concern for public health, but the result is always less freedom. If the beverage industry continues to meet consumers halfway with better labels and more low- or zero-sugar choices, there is no justification for more intrusive government interventions that limit options and drive up costs.
This is the moment to defend market-based solutions and call out the nanny state when it rears its head. Support for transparency and choice aligns with conservative principles — skepticism of bureaucratic overreach, respect for personal responsibility, and faith in innovation. Let the market and informed consumers lead; Washington shouldn’t be in the business of dictating what adults can drink.
