New York – Just how far would a government go to protect us from ourselves?
Join our WhatsApp groupSubscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
In New York City — which already bans smoking in public parks in the name of public health and bars artificial trans fats from food served in restaurants — Mayor Michael Bloomberg now wants to stop sales of large sodas and other sugary drinks, in a bid to battle obesity. But in a country where fries have been equated with freedom, Bloomberg’s proposal begs super-sized questions about government’s role in shaping and restricting individual choices. What’s next, a Twinkie purge?
“The idea of the state stepping in and treating adults essentially as children and trying to protect them for their own good, as opposed to the good of others, that’s been with us for as long as we’ve been around, as long as we’ve had governments,” says Glen Whitman, an economist at California State University-Northridge who is a critic of paternalistic public policy.
The most famous example was Prohibition, which barred the manufacture and sale of alcohol from 1919 to 1933. But Whitman and others see a new wave of intervention afoot, based on behavioral economics rather than religious moralism, and symbolized by moves like Bloomberg’s. Allow it to continue, they say, and who knows where it could lead?
If government officials can limit the size of sodas, why couldn’t they next decide to restrict portion sizes of food served in restaurants or the size of pre-made meals sold at supermarkets? Why wouldn’t a government determined to curb obesity restrict sales of doughnuts or pastries or — perish the thought, New Yorkers — ban bagels with a schmeer of cream cheese?
If government is within its right to restrict behavior to protect health, then why wouldn’t a mayor or other official ban risky sexual conduct or dangerous sports like skydiving? What’s to stop a mayor from requiring people to wear a certain type of sunscreen or limit the amount of time they can spend on the beach, to protect them from skin cancer?
The more ho-hum reality is that many of the policies restricting individual choice in the name of public health seem almost benign, like curbs on fireworks sales or enforcement of motorcycle helmet laws. But such moves represent a “constant creep until all of a sudden its extremely obvious,” said Mattie Duppler of Americans for Tax Reform, a conservative anti-tax lobbying group that regularly spotlights examples of what it considers overreaching “Nanny State” public policy.
She points to moves by governments, like the city of Richmond, Calif., to impose taxes on sugary sodas and moves by states like Utah, which widened a ban on indoor smoking in public places to include electronic cigarettes that don’t emit smoke.
“What we’re seeing is government trying to put its fingers around the throat of anything that claims public health impetus,” Duppler says.
Others, though, have their doubts. Richard Thaler, co-author of “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness,” which argues for policies that encourage rather than mandate changes in consumer behavior, calls Bloomberg’s soda proposal “inartful and probably ineffective and too heavy-handed for my taste.”
But for him, most of the questions it raises are about practicality, rather than red flags.
Would a Bloomberg curb on big drinks ban free refills, asks Thaler, an economist at the University of Chicago? Would it ban special offers to buy one drink and get the second at half-price?
Thaler, who says he is against government mandates or bans, argues that governments will get the most mileage from policies that nudge behavior, like placing fruit more prominently in school cafeterias. But he dismisses warnings that government efforts to improve public health risks sending the country down a slippery slope of more control and less individual choice.
“Any time people do something that people don’t like, they predict it will lead to something awful,” Thaler said. “I have not seen a big trend of governments becoming more intrusive.”
Even Duppler has her doubts about what Bloomberg’s soda proposal represents. It may be so politically iffy that it fizzles before it even gets off the ground. Then again, you never know what to expect from the city that never sleeps — and no longer smokes in bars, in airports or in the park.
“We’ll see,” she says of the soda proposal. “There’s some crazy ideas — and sometimes they just take hold
If you want the government to pay for your healthcare, then the government can dictate what you eat and how you spend your time. If you want your freedom, then don’t keep signing up for free government health insurance!
Most heimeshe yidden have become aware of the health benefits of a whole grain and low fat diet. Thus, most would order a whole grain bagel with low or no-fat cream cheese (cholov yisroel of course). Thus, this is not a risk of potential government regulation we need to worry about
The problem is we are so far down this slippery slope we are almost at the bottom & both Republicans & Democrats are at fault, Democrats want to control everyone’s life & every aspect of it (like breathing sleeping included) & Republicans only the Moral issues the only solution is a Libertarian if not we are headed toward the United Soviet Union of States
I am reading this while eating my breakfast of four slices of toast and butter. Are they going to send food police into the house too?
There’s a law in New York City requiring seatbelts. This law protects everyone. Enforcement is difficult.
There’s a law in NYC banning mobile phone use while driving. This law protects everyone. Enforcement is difficult.
There’s a law in NYC banning DWI. This law protects everyone. Enforcement is difficult.
Banning large soft drinks is delving into an area that really protects no one, as the result of drinking large soft drinks is an individual risk that only effects the drinker.
If the Mayor doesn’t want to add lots of sugar to his diet, let him watch his intake.
Concentrating on fixing the infrastructure of the city could really add a positive note to the administration. Thin people and safe drivers can fall through a hole in the street just as well as obese people.k
Mr. Mayor, it’s time you realize that there are regular people living in this city who might not meet your standards of personal wellbeing. Education is in order, not legislation. A Higher Authority has long ago set those standards and even He has difficulty with enforcement.
next will be the thursday nite kugel/kishke/chulent. Fressers beware!! Your cholesterol may go down!!
Big brother is watching you.
first comes the soda, then who knows what else they might do?
Why punish skinny people? I know several thin people who drink sugary sodas (and eat fries, candy ect). it doesn’t effect their weight. why stop them from having something? they manage to maintain their weight- its not the item but the consumer!!
maybe its a fork and knife problem, not an item by item issue. A soda every once in a while is ok- its when the consumer lacks self control that the real issues set in.
Portion size has increased like crazy since in the last 20 years. If you slice a chili late Danish it’s like 8 slices of kokosh cake
It is NOT a Mitzvah to overeat and get fat. “Some” yiden wake up on Shabbat morning with a piece of cake and cup of coffee before Davening!
After Davening, they head for the kiddush, sample a few pieces of cake and some chips, cholent, kugel, some herring, a full meal on any other day of the week. And then head home eat another meal–and a large one at that. Again with wine, challah, maybe some chicken, cholent, cold cuts, and dessert. After minchah–seudah shelishi; maybe a roll, some tuna fish, and a piece of now stale cake left over from kiddush. Often not even hungry, but it’s a social thing & also a Mitzvah! Saturday night, a slice of pizza (or two or three).
In America, the Orthodox lifestyle has led many into a dangerous cycle of overeating and indulgence. Under the banner of frumkeit, some Yiden have adopted a lifestyle that’s literally going to cut years and perhaps decades from their lives. I worry about the long-term health of Orthodox Jews, especially in America. I fear G-D FORBID an epidemic of heart disease, diabetes, and of course, unnecessary deaths resulting from complications of obesity.
I don’t think banning smoking in parks is comprable to banning artificial Trans fats… Re: second hand smoke
Listen – when it comes to eating – Hakodosh Baruch Hu – gave us shabbos and as my doctor says – we get ‘thanksgiving’ every Shabbos – Chulent, Kugel, Herring, Shnaps, etc…
The Mayor is well intended – but it should be left to the individual
Charles Finkelstein would find this abhorant, obnoxcious and not in accord with rabbinic athority.
The public never voted to increase portion sizes, they were introduced to us by businesses hungry for our patronage. The government owes it to us to step in as a counterbalance and level the playing field. This is long overdue and a tremendous mitzva. Keep up the good work Bloomy!
first of all many restaurants that offer fountain soda offer FREE refills, so if someone feels the need for 32 ounces of Coke or 48 ounces of Fruit Punch all you have to do is walk back a few times and you can drink your way to diabetes. I’m an adult and I wouldn’t mind a bit of help in regulating my portions of unhealthy foods. The part of our personality that wants 32 ounces of soda is a child, and it’s easier if someone else tells him “no.”