Thursday, March 5, 2020
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)
I think the government is justified in taxing or even outright banning unhealthy foods for 3 reasons. First, it can be assumed that most people do not want to be obese, and if everyone thought carefully about the food they ate, they would likely eat fewer unhealthy items like soda. Therefore, when people eat unhealthy foods, it is fair to assume that most of the time they aren't fully aware of the health problems the unhealthy food could cause. If they were acting completely rationally, they would make the choice to eat healthy food, which is objectively better for them, way more often. However, due to a multitude of factors, like convenience, advertising, and addictive additives, people consistently make a choice that's not in their self-interest. When it's clear that the government is acting more rationally than citizens, and it is also clear that government intervention would benefit a rational person's self-interest, I think the government is justified in acting paternalistically. When people are clearly making the wrong choice for their self-determined best interest of health by eating too much unhealthy food, the government (which can think about the situation much more clearly than a citizen by conducting studies and such vs looking at two items on a shelf) should have every right to assist people in acting more rationally to course correct and improve their health. Second, I think government taxation/banning of unhealthy foods is justified because it does not violate the harm principle. By taking these products, the vast majority of the harm goes to the producers of the good. Frequently, these producers try to harm citizens by enacting false advertising, adding addictive additives, and making foods intentionally unhealthier to attract customers. When companies believe that selling unhealthier food to citizens makes them more money, they are clearly committing harm, which means the government is totally justified to respond. Increasing the prices of these goods makes these companies less able to enact harm through predatory practices, showing that society is clearly better off when the government taxes these products. Third, taxation is an inevitable part of government. Therefore, it makes sense that if they government has to tax something, they should target the goods that cause the most harm to society. The government can make the same amount of money taxing broccoli or soda. However, the only difference is that one tax incentivizes healthy eating while the other does the opposite. Maximizing these small positive benefits from taxes is hugely beneficial to the economy. By reducing consumption of unhealthy products, the government can reduce the negative externalize created by workers being less efficient/healthy after eating bad food. It simply makes the most sense for the government to tax goods that they think harm the economy the most.
ReplyDeleteGiven that my opinions typically align much more with Mill, my natural inclination is that we should not have taxes on unhealthy foods, nor should we ban them. I usually reject the idea of paternalism, as I believe that a society should be free to make its own decisions. However, in this particular case, I do believe that there should be a tax do de-incentivize people to buy unhealthy foods. The reason is because I believe this falls under Mill's Harm Principle. In other words, I believe that people making unhealthy decisions, specifically concerning their diet and fitness, actively hurts other individuals. While the current system of health care does this a little, proposed changes to the healthcare system would mean that people would individually contribute to a "pot" of money, that would then be used for the collective's healthcare. Currently in America we have an obesity epidemic, one that costs our healthcare system billions every year in medical treatments. Under our current, and especially under proposed healthcare systems, this would mean that taxes to fund the healthcare system would sky rocket to accommodate and treat obesity. In other words, the decision of one person to eat unhealthily would cost other people more money. For this reason, I believe that this falls under Mill's Harm Principle, and should at least have some sore of tax on unhealthy foods.
ReplyDeleteI believe Mill would agree with a tax to deter soda consumption, since it net harms everyone in the United States. When discussing drinking, Mill states, “Drunkenness... is not a fit subject for legislative interference, but I should deem it perfectly legitimate that a person who had once been convicted… of violence to others under the influence of drink should be placed under a special legal restriction…” Similar to how a drunk driver may do damage to others, obese people also cause damage to others. Obesity in the United States cost over 190 billion dollars per year and their consumption of the sugary drink means a higher cost for everyone’s healthcare. In an article by the NCBI, obese people cost “$4 billion in extra gas on highways… $1026 in absenteeism for every “very obese worker”” Implementing a tax to reduce the number of sugary drinks sold would be justified. Mill actually addresses something similar to this stating, “Almost every article which is bought and sold may be used in excess, and the sellers have a pecuniary interest in encouraging that excess...The interest, however, of these dealers in promoting intemperance is a real evil and justifies the State in imposing restrictions and requiring guarantees which, but for that justification, would be infringements of legitimate liberty.” (On Liberty, Chapter V). Since the promotion of the sugary drinks causes a net harm to the population, the only way for a reduced consumption is for the State to impose a restriction. Even though Mills discusses the infringement of the sale of alcoholic drinks rather than sugary drinks, the argument still applies, in which he agrees to a tax to reduce harm on others. Since the one of the harms is the excess amount of sugary drinks that is sold which causes harm to both the community in terms of pecuniary interest, and the individuals themselves in excess binging, Mills would agree that the taxation would be justified.
ReplyDelete