Sunday, February 12, 2017
Obesity and Paternalism
Rates of obesity in the United States are alarming -- and efforts to reverse the trend seem ineffective. According the Center for Disease Control and Prevention 38 percent of U.S. adults are obese and 17 percent of teenagers are as well. Another third or so of Americans are overweight. Obesity can lead to serious health condition such as heart disease and diabetes. Some governments have attempted or considered paternalist interventions to stem the tide of obesity. For example, New York City attempted to ban the sale of soda pop in sizes greater than 16 oz. Other cities such as Berkeley and Philadelphia have passed a soda tax. In Philadelphia distributors are taxed 1.5 cents per once on soda pop and other sweetened drinks: a 2 liter bottle of pop that used to cost $1.79 sells today for $2.79 because of an added dollar in tax. These laws are intended to help consumers in these cities -- but have they gone too far? Are these laws and taxes justified? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that these laws and taxes which hold a light paternalistic nudge are completely justified in their restrictions. It is commonly accepted by the population of the United States that sugary drinks such as soda are not beneficial towards anyone’s health, and in fact quite detrimental to longtime or frequent users, possibly resulting in debilitating conditions such as diabetes or obesity. Due to these obvious health concerns, it seems only logical that there would be a slight paternalistic response. The New York City ban on large size containers, and the Philadelphia Soda Tax seem to be not only reasonable, but quite relaxed in terms of restriction. Looking into the New York City ban (no containers of soda greater than 16 fluid ounces), the max volume still allows 156% the daily recommended value of sugar (31.25g) for the average human. Based off of this, it is quite obvious that these restrictions do not make it any more difficult for the consumers to receive their fix of soda, though it does clearly nudge the consumer to purchase less than they were previously able to. There is a possible case which can be made that the individual should be free to consume and put into their body whatever they like, though none of the restrictions mentioned would halt consumption, it would just dissuade the individuals from over-indulgence. Based on the given data I believe that the taxes and laws placed on these cities is not only reasonable, but quite relaxed in terms of restriction and dissuasion.
ReplyDeleteI personally agree with Daniel on the matter. As it is common belief that soda and subsequently sugar is bad for ones health and is contributing to the obesity epidemic in the United States, limited consumption of the drink is justifiable by paternalistic beliefs. As I see libertarian paternalism as being the ideal form of paternalism, I completely agree with New York's ban on soda cups larger than a certain size as it directly works against the problem of obesity (stemming from soda consumption) by dissuading citizens from drinking the beverage as their options are more limited, yet not restricted. However, on that same page, my only qualm with some of the soda restrictions we have been seeing mainly revolves around the tax that states and/or cities are putting onto soda purchases. While it does succeed in dissuading people from buying and consuming the drinks, I believe that the higher price for soda is unreasonable as it has the potential to restrict people's freedoms on the matter. While most people are able to purchase the more expensive soda without much of a second thought, even the potential for this price increase to prevent a single person from buying their soda is an infringement on their liberty and should be unacceptable. I believe this primarily because of my stance on blanket policy, especially one that has the option or liberty (to drink soda) for some people. While blanket policy focused on libertarian paternalism is okay (like with the removal of different sized cups) as it still allows people with choice, its counterpart, being hard paternalism especially as a blanket policy is no good as it is too rigid to take into account the specificity of circumstance and individuality. For example, there are people in the United States with certain diseases which require for them to receive extra sugar, while a good sugary drink may have been the perfect solution for them, with increased prices it may become impossible for some to purchase. Overall this indicates that the law, regarding increase in prices or a more 'harder' paternalism may not only not work out in the way it was expected to, but have to opposite effects as it now hurts the health of the people it sought to protect. In conclusion, this debate over how the US should deal with obesity (stemming from sugary drinks) also reflects to some of the debates or differences between libertarian and regular paternalism, where in this case only one is the right answer.
ReplyDeleteNo one likes being told what to do, especially not adults. No one likes being told they can’t do something they enjoy, especially not adults. However, adults don’t always consider their well-being when they make decisions. Therefore, it is the government’s right to make efforts to coerce adults into making healthier choices. If the government of New York City tried to ban soda in sizes greater than 16 ounces, they were trying to eliminate unhealthy choices made by citizens. People are less likely to buy two small drinks than they are to buy one big drink. People like the soda, but not enough to buy it twice to satisfy their taste. If the people can only buy a relative little bit, they will choose not to spend more money or and be healthier. By making it harder to get a lot of soda, the governments will decrease obesity. This is better for peoples’ health and should therefore be allowed. I also agree with the idea of placing an increased tax on soda. Soda buyers will not appreciate an increase of the usual price, and will thus not buy it, getting healthier in the process. I think that these two methods are justified because they present buyers with a newer, harder choice: do I spend more money, or do I not drink soda? Previously, those who are thirsty can easily buy inexpensive soda as opposed to healthier and possibly more expensive drinks. They do not consider what they are costing themselves health-wise when they save financially. The government putting the laws in place will help the people see this cost. With these changes to the whole process, buying soda is more expensive and consuming a satisfying amount of soda is harder to do. Thus, soda sales and obesity will go down.
ReplyDeleteThe government is on the path of going too far. Government officials use the excuse of wanting better for the people for creating these taxes and laws while not handling the bigger issues that we have. The officials should not have a say in what we can and cannot eat nor should they put a tax on it because they believe that it will prevent people from buying them. Consumers are going to buy a product if they want it enough. The FDA is allowed because they are making sure that the products that are put in front of us are safe to consume. It is up to the person to take in the right amount. There has been thousands of deaths from lung cancer because people smoke tobacco, but they did not prevent Terrie (former spokesperson for the CDC) from buying multiple packs of cigarettes and smoking two packs a day. She eventually died from an oral cancer at 53. Before we can attack people what they eat, we need to make sure the recreational things we use are safe for us to use. And what are the big food and beverage companies going to do when their products are not being sold? What is the grocery store going to do? Throw it out. It is going to a complete waste because they are not going to donate it to a shelter or orphanage. It will become a huge waste of money and resources. Also, it will give others the privilege to ban food that they are not fond of. Let us be real here, the people who are passing these laws and taxes are not subjected to the same circumstances as the people who are buying and these products. The people who buy them are usually those who cannot afford filtered water and organic fruit juice. It’s easier to buy Arizona when they’re on sale for 2 for a dollar at CVS than almost $9 for a case of Lacroix. Are they going to provide the people with the money to do so? No, the taxpayers are already complaining about paying for SNAPS (food program) as it is and it you have to apply and qualify for it and if you make a certain amount of money you can’t have them at all. They don’t think of these things before they pass them. It’s about the money they can make from it and that is what makes it unjustifiable.
ReplyDeleteUnder a basic paternalistic framework, all these soda-discouraging laws would be justified. As Dworkin defines paternalism, “I shall understand roughly the interference with a person's liberty of action justified by reasons referring exclusively to the welfare, good, happiness, needs, interests or values of the person being coerced”. Clearly, obesity is a growing problem in the United States, and though it is influenced by a confluence of several factors, restricting one of the causes like soda would still help an individual’s welfare by decreasing the chance they become obese. Yet, it would seem John Stewart Mill and his utilitarian beliefs would object to the prohibition because “That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant”. Clearly, this violates the second tenant of Mill’s harm to others principle because preventing an individual from hurting one’s self is not a sufficient justification, because it then prohibits that individual’s liberty. Mill is positing that the most valuable good and the only way for humans to maximize their potential is for humans to retain individual autonomy to make decisions. For example, while soda might be bad generally because it causes obesity, if one needs to stay up to study for a test and needs caffeine, restricting his ability to get soda would be an undue harm. But, I believe Mill would actually agree with these laws for a couple of reasons. First, none of these laws are restricting an individual’s choice. The access to soda remains the same in all those states, it would just cost more, therefore individuals are retaining their autonomy. Secondly, Mill himself argues that paternalism is allowed in the case of children and in backward societies because in those cases, individuals, “require being taken care of by others, must be protected against their own actions as well as against external injury”. While adults and teenagers who purchase good are obviously not children and we don’t live in a backwards society, the fundamental idea behind Mill’s point is that these people do not have strong enough decision making calculuses to make their own decision. Yet, adults do not have perfect capacities to make their own decisions often being misguided by emotions or missed perceptions. Therefore, all these soda laws are just provoking a more focused decision making calculus, so the same logic for improving a child’s decision making should stand. Finally, Mill argues that you could paternalistically interfere and prevent a man from selling himself into slavery because being a slave would severely restrict his freedoms even if he independently made that choice, which leads Dworkin to conclude based off Mill, “Paternalism is justified only to preserve a wider range of freedom for the individual in question.” While obesity is clearly not equivalent to slavery, becoming obese would still restrict an individual’s freedom. If one becomes obese literally every single physical action becomes harder to complete and your ability therefore to execute and take advantage of multiple freedoms would be limited. Therefore, insofar as these soda laws would allow for people to access more of their freedoms while retaining their autonomy, they are certainly justified under Mill and Dworkin’s beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI believe that many of these paternalistic interventions are justified. They are all in place to help a large amount of people improve their own lives. If the people want to have a large helping of soda they should understand that they must pay more. It is like offsetting the risk of health concerns with money. And since the interventions are not limiting the soda, just the size, it is reasonable to continue these practices, since they are still giving people the choice to drink what they want. They are justified because they are improving the lives of several people and are doing so in a subtle method. Some people would see this as subversive and sneaky, but it is the best way to solve more than just obesity. If we use the frog in boiling water example, where a frog will not realize he is being killed if the water is slowly brought to a boil, and use in a more positive connotation, we realize that it is possible to get beneficial results with minimum rates of change. I feel that going too far would include complete banning of soda which would completely destroy any freedoms you would have in choosing what you wish to drink.
ReplyDelete