Shifting the Focus: Food Choice, Paternalism, and State Regulation
- PDF / 411,465 Bytes
- 16 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 18 Downloads / 188 Views
Shifting the Focus: Food Choice, Paternalism, and State Regulation J. M. Dieterle 1 Accepted: 10 December 2019/ # Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
Abstract
In this paper, I examine the question of whether there is justification for regulations that place limits on food choices. I begin by discussing Sarah Conly’s recent defense of paternalist limits on food choice. I argue that Conly’s argument is flawed because it assumes a particular conception of health that is not universally shared. I examine this conception of health in some detail, and I argue that we need to shift our focus from individual behaviors and lifestyle to the broader social and environmental context. Such a shift allows us to see the ways in which industry practices are negatively impacting our well-being (a broader concept than “health”). I argue that state regulatory activity surrounding the conditions under which food is grown, processed, marketed, and sold needs to be strengthened. As a result, there are likely to be some indirect limitations on food choice. These indirect limitations are justified, but regulations in which the goal is to change individual behavior or lifestyle are not. Keywords Food choice . Paternalism . Autonomy . Disability . Obesity In 2012, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed regulations that would have prohibited the sale of sugary drinks in containers larger than 16 oz. New Yorkers were outraged. Polls showed that 60% of city inhabitants were opposed to the plan (Grynbaum and Connelly 2012). The proposed regulations received national attention and Jon Stewart mocked them on The Daily Show.1 Those opposed largely cited consumer freedom and personal choice as their reasons. College student Zara Alta nicely sums up the objection: “If people want to drink 24 ounces, it’s their decision” (Grynbaum 2012). A poll conducted one year later revealed that 68.85% of Americans supported limitations on food purchases for
1
See http://www.cc.com/video-clips/xy6uk1/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-jon-stewart-tries-to-figure-outwhat-he-s-allowed-to-put-in-his-mouth
* J. M. Dieterle [email protected]
1
Department of History & Philosophy, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI 48197, USA
2
Page 2 of 16
Food Ethics
(2020) 5:2
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients. They endorsed the claim that we should “prohibit purchases of certain food, like sugared soda, with food stamp benefits” (Lusk 2013). So apparently a majority of Americans think that SNAP recipients are not entitled to make their own decisions about sugary beverages. The New York poll was not national, so one possible explanation of the disconnect is that New Yorkers care more about consumer autonomy than the rest of the country. I surmise, however, that the more likely explanation is that people think we ought to be able to make our own food choices as long as we can pay for them ourselves, and those receiving public assistance are not entitled to exercise autonomy with public dollars. In this paper, I examine the question
Data Loading...
