Obesity is often considered a public health crisis in rich countries that might be alleviated by preventive regulations such as a sugar tax or limiting the density of fast food outlets. This paper evaluates these regulations from the point of view of equity. Obesity is in many countries correlated with socioeconomic status and some believe that preventive regulations would reduce inequity. The puzzle is this: how could policies that reduce the options of the badly off be more equitable? Suppose we (...) distinguish: (1) the badly off have poor options from (2) the badly off are poor at choosing between their options (ie, have a choosing problem). If obesity is due to a poverty of options, it would be perverse to reduce them further. Some people in public health say that preventive regulations do not reduce options but, I shall argue, they are largely wrong. So the equity case for regulations depends on the worst off having a choosing problem. It also depends on their having a choosing problem that makes their choices against their interests. Perhaps they do. I ask, briefly, what the evidence has to say about whether the badly off choose against their interests. The evidence is thin but implies that introducing preventive regulations for the sake of equity would be at least premature. (shrink)

Recent efforts by legislative officials and public health advocates to reform the US food stamp program, or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, have focused on restricting the types of foods eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits, specifically sugar-sweetened beverages. We argue that it is, in principle, permissible for the US government to enact a SNAP-specific SSB ban prohibiting the purchase of SSBs with SNAP benefits. While the government has a duty to ensure that citizens meet their nutritional needs, since SSBs provide (...) negligible nutrition, it has no obligation to subsidize them. Additionally, there is good reason to think that a SNAP-specific SSB ban would enable the government to better fulfill two other duties—improving citizens’ health and providing public services like Medicaid and Medicare in a more cost-effective manner. Still, because the costs and benefits of such a ban remain uncertain, we argue that the government should conduct well-designed pilot projects to help determine the effects of an SSB ban. (shrink)

Sarah Conly defends paternalistic public health policies, such as New York City’s soft drink ban, on the grounds that they promote values that people accept but have difficulty realizing, owing to their cognitive biases. In this commentary, I criticize Conly’s defense of the soft drink ban and offer my own view of the justification for paternalistic food and beverage policies. I propose that paternalistic government restrictions on food and beverage choices should address a significant health problem pertaining to a specific (...) type or class of food or beverage. There should also be substantial evidence that the restrictions are likely to be effective at dealing with the problem and that alternative ways of dealing with it, which do not involve coercion, are likely to be ineffective. (shrink)

Breastfeeding and human milk are the normative standards for infant feeding and nutrition. Given the documented short- and long-term medical and neurodevelopment advantages of breastfeeding, infant nutrition should be considered a public health issue and not only a lifestyle choice.In a letter sent out to 2600 hospitals across the country they [Public Citizen] demand that healthcare facilities “immediately discontinue the distribution of commercial infant formula manufacturer discharge bags,” claiming it undermines women’s success at breastfeeding. What they failed to explain is (...) why a woman’s decision regarding her own tits is anyone’s fucking business but her own.Clearly, policies to promote breast-feeding.. (shrink)

Ross and MacKay argue that excluding sugar-sweetened beverages from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is ‘in principle morally permissible’ because it does not violate the central obligation that SNAP is meant to discharge—the obligation to ensure that citizens have secure access to food adequate to meet their nutritional needs. I query this argument, and suggest two other ways of understanding the core purpose of SNAP. According to the first, the core purpose of SNAP includes promoting good nutritional outcomes; thus, one (...) might argue, including sugary drinks in SNAP undermines its core purpose. According to a second conception of SNAP, its core purpose ought to be much broader: promoting good nutritional outcomes, ensuring food security and providing secure access to other food-related goods, such as pleasure, social experiences and cultural expression. (shrink)