Paternalistic Food and Beverage Policies: A Response to Conly
- 18 June 2014
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Public Health Ethics
- Vol. 7 (2), 170-177
- https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phu014
Abstract
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.Keywords
This publication has 12 references indexed in Scilit:
- Coercive Paternalism in Health Care: Against Freedom of ChoicePublic Health Ethics, 2013
- Evaluating Equity Critiques in Food Policy: The Case of Sugar-Sweetened BeveragesThe Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 2013
- A Penny-Per-Ounce Tax On Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Would Cut Health And Cost Burdens Of DiabetesHealth Affairs, 2012
- Measuring weight outcomes for obesity intervention strategies: The case of a sugar-sweetened beverage taxEconomics & Human Biology, 2011
- Autonomy, Paternalism, and Justice: Ethical Priorities in Public HealthAmerican Journal of Public Health, 2008
- General justifications for public health regulationPublic Health, 2007
- Public Health Ethics: Mapping the TerrainThe Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 2002
- An Ethics Framework for Public HealthAmerican Journal of Public Health, 2001
- The Justification of PaternalismEthics, 1979
- PaternalismMonist, 1972