While pundits debate whether the now famous “soda ban” will improve the general health of the New York City citizenry, the merits of this law are defensible without employing arguments regarding social harm. With over a third of Americans categorized as obese, this legislation encourages residents to make health-conscious decisions regarding their diet (albeit in an unapologetic fashion). However, for this clear example of state paternalism to be justified, it must satisfy several conditions: the choice must be inherently “irrational;” there must be a demonstrated lack of information present; true choice must not be limited; and the state’s restriction must prevent serious and irrevocable harm.
We must first agree that choosing to become morbidly obese would be irrational. This is by no means an argument of aesthetics, but rather one of self-preservation. Research has proven that obesity is directly linked to high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, etc., and most Americans do not find these debilitating conditions desirable. These diseases are extremely costly, and they severely impair an individual’s quality of life. Excessive consumption of high-caloric beverages is a major contributor to the obesity crisis. Soda is not the only form of “empty calories,” but it is an obvious target for improving public health. As a physician in training, I was taught numerous ways of counseling patients about weight loss. First trick of the trade? Eliminate “liquid sugar,” which patients can do without changing the foods they eat. The proof? An extra-large Coca Cola from McDonalds is about one fifth of a person’s recommended daily caloric intake.
Some say, “Everyone knows sodas are bad for you.” I would suggest that advocates of this statement spend a few days in a family doctor’s office, where they will see just how wrong this assertion is. There is much confusion about how diet can affect our health, and even more denial about seemingly straightforward scientific data. But there are also structural reasons for the lack of good information about healthy choices. In the present case, the “default” size of sugary drink options at fast food chains is often 20 ounces. This is promoted as “normal,” and generally there are no choices smaller in the value meal. Such a marketing strategy immediately biases the consumer towards making an irrational decision; a “normal” person does not need over 200 calories in a drink at each meal (in the 1950s, the only drink size McDonalds offered was 7 ounces… have our bodily needs changed that much?!). While the soda ban does add a new limitation, consumers were already limited by their default options. Under the new soda ban law, consumers will have to make an active choice to opt out of the healthier option, back to the unhealthy, former status quo.
Yet, even if excessive consumption is irrational, and even if consumers have all the information needed to make an educated decision, isn’t how much soda I drink still my choice? Absolutely, and it is imperative to understand that consumers’ fundamental choices have not changed. At establishments affected by the soda ban, a citizen who wishes to drink 40 ounces of soda will still be able to purchase 40 ounces of soda (by purchasing two 20 ounce drinks). True, the transactional cost may rise, but choice has not been limited; the purchaser’s options have simply changed. In addition, large sodas will still be sold in grocery stores, vending machines, and at any institution that does not receive a health grade. Dairy drinks, fruit drinks, and alcoholic beverages will be, for all intents and purposes, spared. And the size of “diet” drinks will not be regulated in any capacity.
Some argue this legislation will not curb obesity rates in New York City. However, whether or not the ban works does not affect the original justification. Others argue that this ban sets a dangerous precedent. If the size of soda cups should be regulated, why not the ban sale of any burger over half a pound? Or ban the purchase of more than a hundred French fries at a time? I understand this concern, but this argument misses the point of the New York City legislation. Our country needs to be having this conversation. Obesity is killing this nation, both financially (in terms of health costs) and literally. New York City is not banning the consumer from drinking 600 calories; the law simply empowers consumers to ask themselves, should I drink 600 calories? We can still answer an emphatic “Yes.” But so long as people choose irrationally, one can argue that public policy can and should foster positive and educated decision-making. This law is not a limit on personal freedom; it provides a forum in which Americans can make healthier choices. The soda ban does this while still tipping its hat to political morality.
(see conditions as described by Thompson in Political Ethics and Public Office and Thaler and Sunstein in Libertarian Paternalism is not an Oxymoron)
No comments:
Post a Comment