Skip to main content

In NYC, the Bloomberg administration banned the selling of sodas over 16 ounces. There has been much ado about this. It brings up questions about what role government has to play in addressing obesity as a public health problem and the relation between government action and individual liberty. It also reminds us of the problem of unintended consequences. Optimizing food production via maximization used to be an imperative for survival. Presently, the cost per calorie is falling, even in developing countries. However, while we may be winning the battle against hunger development may also lead to other problems, namely obesity as a public health crisis (this may be becoming a salient problem in part of Latin America).

Well, from what I have heard Mexico has followed and surpassed us in terms of obesity. Perhaps it serves as a cautionary tale. But looking strictly at the price of calories is a limited analysis. One must also look at the sedentary lifestyles of the citizens who are purchasing these calories in greater numbers, because calories tend to make you fat only if you do not burn them off in some time after consuming them. As the price of calories goes down, the calorie cost of leisure time spent engaged in activities other than eating goes up. Being from the American Midwest, I’ve seen many a hearty soul live a life with eating calorie-dense food as the central leisure activity. They may have increased their lifetime capacity for consumption of delicious calorie-rich foods if they had devoted some salient amount of their leisure time to calorie-burning activities. But they behaved like addicts. Since calories, or at least the foods that contain them, can become addictive, we also need to assess the time preferences (discount rate for the future and rate of depreciation of current consumption capital) of the individuals to see if food addiction is the ‘rational’ behavior that leads them to an undesirable future state of utility.

So, what can be done about this? Changing the choice architecture of calorie consumption through public policy is one means. This does represent a net increase in the intrusion in the lives of individual citizen. But in a sense, it is really the government using intrusion to countervail against the irresponsible intrusion of food and beverage advertisers who are motivated by quarterly profits and not by epidemiological concerns. We could assign the responsibility for changing this choice architecture to the World Health Organization, but they would need the tools to accomplish the mission and this would require broad cooperation from a number of nation-states.

But this will inevitably lead to an outcry from our libertarian interlocutors that big government (even worse ‘global government’) is infringing on our individual liberties. I think the libertarian argument against government action (at least what I could make of it) is the argument that:

1.    Government can do things that will improve societal outcomes, at least in the short run.
2.    If government attempts to improve societal outcomes, then government will have to take official action.
3.    If government takes any action, then that action will lead to further government action which is undesirable.
4.    If government attempts to improve societal outcomes, then that action will lead to further government action which is undesirable. (2,3 by Hypothetical Syllogism)
5.    It is not the case that government should act in ways that will lead to further government action which is undesirable.
6.    Therefore, it is not the case that government should attempt to improve societal outcomes. (4,5 by Modus Tollens)

This sympathetic rendition is a valid argument. But it is unsound. The problem is that premise 3 is false. This is a logical fallacy known as a slippery slope argument. The slippery slope argument is essentially the argument that doing some of P will lead to either more of P (which is bad) or some of Q (which is also bad). There is no reason, prima facie, to believe this is true. You have to provide evidence to support that claim that doing some of government action will lead to more of government action or an undesirable type of government action in order to either universally generalize the claims that if government takes any action then that will lead to further undesirable government action or that in the present case it will specifically lead to particular undesirable action/outcomes. The former claim involves a universal generalization move, and the burden of proving it is heavy. The latter involves a sort of existential instantiation, and the burden of proof is far from overwhelming. However, I have not seen sufficient evidence to support either claim.

Notice they have conceded that government can improve the lives of people, but are opposing it on the basis of a logical fallacy. Is it ethical to oppose improving the lives of people based on an assessment of risk predicated on fallacious reasoning, even though the risk may be great in magnitude? You can supply your own ethical analysis of this situation. I’m not sure it’s a particularly difficult question.

Getting beyond the objections of anarcho-capitalist, there are bigger questions about freedom that just the roles of government in determining the amount of freedom.

Should people really have the freedom to live and eat any which way they can choose? I think we really need to explore the dialectical tensions between individual liberty and rationality. Maybe our notions of both come from the same intellectual movement, so it’s hard to see them dialectically related, but I still think a case could be made that they are indeed so related.

Individual liberty has a correlative concept—autonomy—that can be used in defining it. Being autonomous means having the locus of power to choose your path through the game of life (or whatever game you prefer to play) be centrally-situated on your own shoulders. Individual liberty is some measure of the extent to which you can exercise that autonomy given your subjection to externally-articulated constraints (e.g. rules, conventions, &c.) that must be observed as a condition for participation in whatever civilization one finds herself in.

Rationality has different meanings in different senses. But I think in some essential way, rationality is a conceptual architecture for making decisions. Like the natural scientific search for better quality explanations, rationality is the cognitive scientific search for better quality decisions. A central concern is defining what counts as quality in the domain of explanations. Utility theorists assert that it is about maximizing a funny little thing called ‘utility’. But I find it hard to seriously doubt that what counts as quality in decisions is the extent to which those decisions tend to make me better off.

So let’s say the calorie consumption game is a kind of game of perfect information. Let’s say I’ve read the current state of the art in nutritional literature and I know how many calories I need to consume for at each meal for the rest of my life in order to maximize my own health and welfare given whatever type of food I may be served by food preparers (and let’s assume I have some real number value I can assign to that state of maximization of my own health and welfare, which will not be changed because all appropriate considerations are already built into it). This means I have a strategy which tells me how I should behave with respect to nutrition at every meal. Let’s further say that I have a personal computational assistant meal planner that I carry around which consists of a device with a program that will remind me how of my strategy implies I should behave at my present meal. Now, at each meal I can either follow the dictates of my personal computational assistant—and note these are well-justified dictates—or I can exercise my own autonomous decision-making based on preference which may deviate from the plan from time to time and retain a fuller character of individual liberty. Following those dictates would be the most rational thing I could do under the circumstances. But following those dictates with fealty limits the exercise of my individual liberty, though since I am the one who programmed the strategy I am not, overall, deprived of the autonomy which is underlies my individual liberty. I have, in a sense, in the present become master and made my future self my own servant.

But what if I had someone else program that little nutritional pocket calculator for me? This would be someone who had the resources to consult with all the major nutritional experts and develop a strategy that would make me at least as healthy and with at least as much welfare as if I had programmed the strategy into the calorie calculator myself. The major difference being that it costs me whatever utility I would’ve gained from my autonomous conscious decisions about how to develop my own strategy for navigating the paths through my nutritional life and pre-prandial choices. Whether or not I consent to have the rational planners program the computational assistant for me is really rather idiosyncratic, it depends on my own personal discount rate for the value of purely autonomous choice about the path through the game that is this part of life and not any sort of high-minded philosophical position.

That is very tightly analogous to the position we are in vis-à-vis the government regulating our consumption choices. The opposition to government regulation in this and other domains appears to be rather idiosyncratic and personal instead of principled.    
Now, as the state of nutritional knowledge evolves, who is in a better position to adjust the choices sub-games that are a part of the larger game of perfect information that is played when the meal planner is first programmed: me or the planners with resources to build relationships with nutritional experts and institutional rules upon which to base decisions about how to re-program the meal strategy? That’s an important consideration to make in determining whether or not I should go it alone or allow myself to be regulated.

There is also the matter of total societal cost, which I may not concern myself with in individual decision-making but the government may in deciding on public policy. So, should the government create policies that promotes the general welfare? Or as the question was posed by one of my teachers, “Should people be required to engage in activities that reduce total societal cost?” I support such obligations. There are a number of different ways to think about this problem. You might set up a meta-rule that says, if societal cost exceeds personal benefit and personal cost of compliance is less than societal cost, then make a rule requiring compliance (where compliance may be the prohibition against an action or a requirement to take an action). That would not run counter to the logic of cost-benefit analsys (CBA).

But the question asks, “Should people be required to engage in activities that reduce total societal cost?” This implicitly draws a distinction between cases where compliance involves abstention from a forbidden action and cases where the rule-governed citizen is obligated to take an action—which is the case with being required to wear seat-belts in order to be in compliance with the prevailing rules.

Prohibitions and obligations put limits on the autonomy of an individual, but they impose different kinds of limits. Prohibitions set limits on the extent of an individual’s freedom. They remove negative liberties. Obligations limit a person’s positive liberties, which is to say they limit a person’s ability to act in a goal-directed fashion by goals motivated from within—the seat of a person’s individual autonomy. Thus, limiting positive liberty through obligations can be viewed as a more intrusive act. It represents being externally-driven to act rather than simply restricting the free exercise of internally-driven action.

The problem is, environmental constraints already restrict positive liberties. So, the locus of control of the agency of an individual is not strictly localized, and in all cases is not necessarily firmly centered on the individual. Conventions are an example of such externally-dictated drives to exercise individual agency in a particular way. Thus, imposing obligations on one group of people, say risk-lovers, that restrict their positive liberty, but that prevent them from restricting the positive liberties of liberties of another group, say risk-averse people, and may have no net effect on the exercise of positive liberties in society. This is, of course, ignoring the claims to a set of individual rights implied by self-ownership on the part of the risk-averse people; rights that exist precisely because of a relationship with the government and not those that would occur in a vacuum (a set that would be null, I think).

But what is the relationship of this analysis to total societal cost? First of all, this is an ontological commitment to the existence of such a thing as societal costs, which is not as unreasonable as The Iron Lady may have suggested. Total societal cost incurred over a period of time represents a sort of steady state in the allocation of scarce societal resources. Some amount of those resources—for reasons biological and psychological &c.—are required for each individual to engage in goal-directed activity as they complete their internally-articulated/ discovered purpose in life. Such pursuits of purpose are limited arbitrarily by the factor of inefficient allocations of scarce societal resources if there exists a feasible allocation which is at least as efficient, a fortiori if there is a strictly more efficient allocation. Without enjoining people to undertake certain activities to reduce total societal costs, in at least some circumstances, through public rules one could argue that these arbitrary limiting factors are brought into play where they otherwise would not be. The corollary is that we can push for strictly dominant allocative efficiency or at least more allocative efficiency through such obligations.

References:

Becker, G., & Murphy, K. (1998). A theory of rational addiction. Journal of Political Economy, 96(4), pp. 675-700.

McKay, B. (2012, September 18). What role should government play in combating obesity? Wall Street Journal.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tardis10, HudsonValleyMark, dkmich

    There will always be plenty of things to compute in the detailed affairs of millions of people doing complicated things. -Vannevar Bush 1945

    by Nathan Jaco on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 12:29:24 PM PDT

  •  OK, bring it down for me (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight, elmo, True North

    I'm not sure that banning the sale of sodas larger than 16 ounces is what I would have meant by "regulating eating." And I'm not sure what other policies you may have in mind.

    Actually, I'll pause to underscore my first point. If there is a personal liberty interest in buying large sodas, it isn't precisely the ability to drink a lot of soda. Isn't the elephant in the room here the economic interest of those who are selling the soda?

    "I am not sure how we got here, but then, I am not really sure where we are." -Susan from 29

    by HudsonValleyMark on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 01:19:20 PM PDT

  •  Absolutely not. (0+ / 0-)

    Everybody has got to die somehow, and if I have to pay for boozers, liars in Washington, military personnel led into phony wars, I can also pay for bad diets.   I am sick to death of this authoritarian country and its attempts to pack everyone in cotton.  

    What we need is a Democrat in the White House. Warren 2016

    by dkmich on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 02:27:27 PM PDT

  •  Things governemnt could actually do: (4+ / 0-)

    Change the farm subsidies so it no longer makes corn, and all the many evil products associated with corn cheap, like high fructose corn syrup.

    Use the money to subsidize small local farms.

    Get real food into places now considered food deserts.

    Make school lunches actually healthy. Chocolate milk is not healthy.

    These things could be done without limiting individual choice. I think we should start there.

    Also all calories are not equal. Treating them that way create false solutions.

    •  Farm Bill (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nathan Jaco

      Chinton, I agree.

      As I understand it, the omnibus Farm Bill comes up in Congress every few years.

      That's the bill that ensures that agribusiness gets massive subsidies for the unhealthiest foods. Those outfits need to go on a subsidy diet.

      Right now, corn is subsidized to such an extent that it is sold for less than the cost of production. Corn is fed to just about every animal raised for slaughter, including cows--whom Mother Nature did not design for corn (hence E. coli problems)--and fish.

      Corn, soybeans (mostly for animals), wheat, sugar--all heavily subsidized. You can find one or more of these items in just about every processed food in the grocery store.

      With the subsidies for corn and soybeans, the factory farms are subsidized.

      So, if you want people to eat healthier foods, work on the Farm Bill.

      - Reduce subsidies to agribusiness for corn, wheat, soybeans and sugar as much as possible, every round of Farm Bill debate.

      - Add subsidies for whole fruits and veggies that go to consumers, especially organic fruits and veggies.

      - Reduce subsidies that benefit factory farms. Animals raised to be slaughtered act in reverse: nine calories in to produce one calorie of food. Land that could be used to raise good food for humans is taken out of production to raise bad food (subsidized) for cows.

      - Find ways to get markets with fresh produce into all neighborhoods, especially the poorest, and find ways to let people use food stamps to buy produce from farmers' markets. (They can't do that right now.)

      - Stop the discrimination against ugly fruits and veggies. Find a way to get perfectly good fruits and vegetables that are the wrong size, or imperfect shape, for supermarket sales into the hands of people who need inexpensive fruits and veggies. (See the French law that addresses this.)

      - Work with community groups that are setting up vegetable gardens in the city, some of which produce astonishing amounts of veggies on tiny patches of land.

      - Offer classes in schools, starting with the early grades, to show kids how to make lunches or cook a meal, with the focus on healthy (and delicious) foods. Make it a family affair, if possible. (One community social worker I know had get-togethers with immigrant women, so they could all teach each other how to cook veggies popular in North America, but not necessarily familiar.)

      Fast food joints can sell a hamburger so cheap because almost all of it--meat, wheat, ketchup--is heavily subsidized by the Farm Bill.

      Veggies are expensive.

      Reverse that by reversing the subsidies, so that a green salad or an apple is cheap, and a hamburger is expensive.

      That's where I'd start.

      Change the Farm Bill. Move federal subsidies from bad food to good food. Change SNAP so that families can easily buy fruits and veggies with food stamps.

  •  The first thing to understand is that the reason (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nathan Jaco

    junk calories are so cheap is that government carefully controls the systems of calorie production (including, BTW, the part where the government blasts to smithereens random citizens of countries whose boundaries incorporate the petroleum reserves necessary to produce cheap calories).

    The government could simply decline to organize and subsidize the overproduction of HFCS and sucrose, and that by itself would be a big help. Breakfast "cereals" aren't 40% sugar just because people want to eat sugar for breakfast -- they're 40% sugar because sugar costs far less by weight than flour costs. nevermind HCFS: even cane sugar is half the price of flour. A $1/pound sugar tax would have almost no negative effect on the US at all, but it would have enormous positive effects.

    To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

    by UntimelyRippd on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 04:15:34 PM PDT

  •  Passing the regulation in NY (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nathan Jaco

    I don't live in New York so I didn't follow the soda debate.

    As I understand the situation, it was the health board that adopted that regulation.

    It seems to me that if a city government is going to adopt a rule like that, it should be done by an elected body, such as city council, after hearing all sides of the issue. The regulation would have more authority that way.

    Soft drinks aren't real food, and I rarely consume them, so regulating them to miniature size wouldn't affect me in the least. Regulate away.

    However, I don't think soft drinks are the main problem, either.

    I think the main problem is that bad foods are subsidized, making them cheap, and good foods are not, making them less accessible for many families.

  •  What would be easier than a calculator (0+ / 0-)

    Nathan, your system of having a trusty electronic device with you to suss out what to eat at every meal is just far too much trouble for most people, I suspect (but I might be wrong).

    It isn't necessary to worry about how many calories you take in or expend, not if one would rather not.

    Of course, if this all works for you, go for it. But it isn't a system that will work well for everybody--maybe not for most people.

    Switch to a plant-strong diet, with foods that are as whole as possible, chosen from fruits, veggies, whole grains, nuts, seeds. Drop the animals--meat, eggs, milk--and go whole hog for the plants.

    If you concentrate on whole foods, as much as possible, you'll consume less sugar and white flour naturally, but far more fiber.

    A plant-strong diet provides the nutrients, both macro- and micro-, that the body needs for optimal health.

    It is a mistake, I believe, to be too focused on one category of food or one aspect of health, such as weight. Someone who goes for nutritional excellence will benefit the entire body.

    One last thought. It is an interesting question, about whether to try to make people do things like reduce their calories this way or that, or increase their calorie expenditure, but it is basically a fruitless question.

    There is no way to force people to change what they eat or how much they exercise. Most people are probably already familiar with the basic information about nutrition and exercise. Most will do what they want to do, or what they are able to do.

    People who live in poor neighborhoods may lack any real opportunity to improve the family's nutrition, if the grocery stores they can get to lack good foods, such as produce.

    And crappy food is cheaper than good food because the bad stuff is subsidized and the good stuff isn't. Some people can't afford the healthier foods that would improve the family's nutrition.

    Government can do a lot, but not in the direction of trying to make people alter calories in or calories out. Government can help by stopping the subsidies of unhealthy food and stepping up subsidies for healthy foods.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site