Nanny Bloomberg?

Government should have a role in regulating processed foods

A now-widespread debate has been amplified by Mayor Bloomberg’s attempt to curb obesity by restricting the size of sweetened beverages sold by certain vendors in New York City. The policy will probably have less impact than expected both by its proponents and its critics. There are reasons to doubt that the restriction will have significant effects on obesity rates or public health. People could easily buy two small sodas instead of one large one. The law’s critics on the hard-core libertarian side can calm down: the government is not, nor will it be, prohibiting people from eating as much sugar (or fat or salt or whatever) as they desire. That said, a larger ideological question lurks beyond the particulars of Bloomberg’s policy: does the government have a legitimate role in regulating unhealthy contents in food and drink?

It is clear that food and drink manufacturers put in a ton of ingredients that, when consumed in large quantities, cause serious health problems for many people. Sugar-laden beverages are at least as much a part of the problem as growing food-portion sizes. One 12-ounce can of Coke contains the equivalent of nine teaspoons of sugar. Many people, especially kids who don’t know better, routinely consume 20-ounce bottles of soda. There is evidence that the way the body metabolizes sweetened beverages is such that people do not eat less after consuming all those extra calories. (See Dr. Robert Lustig's lecture.) This makes sweetened beverages especially obesogenic. Soda (and fruit juice – which has just as much sugar) does not fill you up. It just adds unnecessary fat to your body, contributing to diabetes and heart disease. That the government necessarily pays for much of the resulting medical care suggests it has a legitimate interest in nudging people toward less obesogenic habits.

This debate is not about whether people should be allowed to eat and drink whatever they please. Say the government limited the salt in certain processed foods. Nothing prevents people from putting more on if they really wish to. Simply buy a container of salt and sprinkle it on until your blood pressure makes you burst. The problem is that much of the hyperconsumption of such problematic ingredients occurs unwittingly. People can read labels, but do they understand the significance of those numbers as they chow down food that has been practically engineered to promote overeating? Studies have shown that people eat more when they’re given more, without realizing it. For example, by having a machine fill up a soup bowl from underneath the table, unbeknownst to the diner who proceeds to eat however much is pumped in. Does this suggest that people are making an informed, rational decision of the kind that libertarians extol? Do people really desire to be eating this much sugar, salt, and fat? That seems doubtful. They eat what tastes good. Yet what tastes good is largely a matter of habit. Serve people soda with half the current level of sugar, and after awhile they wouldn’t know the difference. Their health would be better, though.

If people could eat much less unhealthy ingredients and still enjoy their food and drink, then why hasn’t the industry voluntarily cut the levels of these ingredients? In large part, it’s about competition. Food manufacturers use tons of salt to make their foods more appetizing. Call it hyperpalatable. If one manufacturer cuts salt while others don’t, people will find the lower-salt food less appealing. If all manufacturers cut the salt (to, say, the level that people might naturally sprinkle on food they made from scratch), eventually people probably wouldn’t know the difference. Voluntary reform will not work.

To the extreme libertarians who are so incensed by any such discussion, these arguments are irrelevant or worse. It should be up to individual choice, full stop. But individual choice didn’t create this problem, and individual choice won’t solve it. The staggering quantities of unhealthy ingredients in processed foods amounts to a social problem, both because of the corporate nature of its development and the widespread effects on public health. The government could well regulate the fat, salt, and sugar in processed foods, and people could still be free to add as much as they wish, or prepare their own food, from scratch, to their liking. There is no need for this to be an either/or question. Bloomberg’s policy will probably have little effect, but his motivating premise cannot be lightly or glibly dismissed.