FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Bloomberg’s Battle Against Obesity

by BINOY KAMPMARK

Where there is no collective conscience – at least when it comes to social matters – there can be no workable paternalism. Matters such as health become secondary to choice – it is a consequence rather than a state of mind.  New York’s Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is certainly finding this to be the case with his campaign to impose limits on soda containers larger than sixteen ounces.  “I’ve got to defend my children, and yours, and do what’s right to save lives.  Obesity kills. There’s no question about that” (New York Times, Mar 11).

The sentiment Bloomberg faces is quite something else.  If it is the choice to consume obscene amounts of sugar in ungainly cans, then so be it.  Companies can profit happily without the encumbrances placed by conscience.  People have a “choice,” a term as empty as it is disingenuous.  They are sovereign, they decide.

Last week, Justice Milton A. Tingling of the State Supreme Court of Manhattan showed how little time he had for controls he deemed “arbitrary and capricious”.  The judge found that the Board of Health, appointed by Bloomberg, had overreached its powers in approving the plan and might well “create an administrative leviathan”.  The wars of paternalism were heating up, just as they did when the Affordable Health Care Act was upheld by the slimmest of majorities – 5-4 in the US Supreme Court.

Bloomberg does have the science on his side.  The politics, however, is another story.  Adam Bosworth, co-founder of Keas, is adamant that the mayor did get it right.  “Sixteen ounces of sodas may harm you.  Overall, experts say that we should be eating between 1750 and 2100 calories a day, and of these calories, the normal recommendation is that men restrict themselves to 150 calories of sugar each day and women to 100 calories of sugar” (Huffington Post, Mar 13).  But such forecasts of doom and calamity are not necessarily sufficient to justify nanny-state morality in the name of the collective good.

As suggested by Cass R. Sunstein in the New York Review of Books (Mar 7), Americans, or at least a great number, follow the dictates of J. S. Mill in that sense. Private choices are simply not the preserve of a state, even if they result in harm.  Power should only be exercised over individuals “to prevent harm to others.”  The good of a person, “either physical or mental, is not a sufficient warrant.”  Mill’s reasoning was that individuals are the best placed to make their decisions.

Problematically, such choices do not occur in a vacuum.  Health concerns, given their nexus with the state pocket, not to mention those of tax payers, make decisions regarding food murkier.  As obesity adds some $190 billion to annual national health care costs, it is only fitting that some policy makers have decided to take control.  In a buccaneering state of pure medical private insurance, this might be less of an issue.

The other issue here is that the choices are often ill-informed.  People, as Sunstein notes, are often overly optimistic about their decisions, and stuck in a permanent state of “presentism” – the ever present now, rather than the future, which is but a “foreign country”.  Sara Conly’s Against Autonomy, which Sunstein reviews, bolsters paternalism and gives it a rationale.  It is a discomforting premise, suggesting incapacity and imbecility on the part of the human race. “We are too fat, we are too much in debt, and we save too little for the future.”

Decisions are constantly being made in matters of food consumption on the basis of inadequate information.  The recent “horse in the lasagne” scandal in the United Kingdom showed that all too starkly.  Ignorance on matters of what we eat, the origins of such food, and the nutritional content, is all too present.  That said, Conly’s argument veers dangerously to the other side – a paternalistic state, by its very nature, presumes idiocy and incapacity. If you cannot decide, we shall do it for you.  More than that, it assumes an omniscient state, the all wise entity that knows what’s good for you.  More than the size of soda containers is at stake here.

Surely, there is a positive side to America’s obesity problem?  More applicants for the armed forces are failing their fitness tests.  The numbers are now staggering, relative to those in 2004.  While there is much to laud in the campaign from the First Lady to eat better and get fitter, the implications of this green project are obvious.  Community gardens, the growth of urban food, will make a better recruit, or at least allow them to pass the physical.  Obesity is effectively disarming the United States, a thrilling state of affairs if you are a pacifist, and appalling if you are into exercising the muscles of empire.  But let’s keep mum about that.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

 

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
June 24, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Pepe Escobar
Goodbye to All That: Why the UK Left the EU
Michael Hudson
Revolts of the Debtors: From Socrates to Ibn Khaldun
Andrew Levine
Summer Spectaculars: Prelude to a Tea Party?
Kshama Sawant
Beyond Bernie: Still Not With Her
Mike Whitney
¡Basta Ya, Brussels! British Voters Reject EU Corporate Slavestate
Tariq Ali
Panic in the House: Brexit as Revolt Against the Political Establishment
Paul Street
Miranda, Obama, and Hamilton: an Orwellian Ménage à Trois for the Neoliberal Age
Ellen Brown
The War on Weed is Winding Down, But Will Monsanto Emerge the Winner?
Gary Leupp
Why God Created the Two-Party System
Conn Hallinan
Brexit Vote: a Very British Affair (But Spain May Rock the Continent)
Ruth Fowler
England, My England
Norman Pollack
Fissures in World Capitalism: the British Vote
Paul Bentley
Mercenary Logic: 12 Dead in Kabul
Binoy Kampmark
Parting Is Such Sweet Joy: Brexit Prevails!
Elliot Sperber
Show Me Your Papers: Supreme Court Legalizes Arbitrary Searches
Jan Oberg
The Brexit Shock: Now It’s All Up in the Air
Nauman Sadiq
Brexit: a Victory for Britain’s Working Class
Brian Cloughley
Murder by Drone: Killing Taxi Drivers in the Name of Freedom
Ramzy Baroud
How Israel Uses Water as a Weapon of War
Brad Evans – Henry Giroux
The Violence of Forgetting
Ben Debney
Homophobia and the Conservative Victim Complex
Margaret Kimberley
The Orlando Massacre and US Foreign Policy
David Rosen
Americans Work Too Long for Too Little
Murray Dobbin
Do We Really Want a War With Russia?
Kathy Kelly
What’s at Stake
Louis Yako
I Have Nothing “Newsworthy” to Report this Week
Pete Dolack
Killing Ourselves With Technology
David Krieger
The 10 Worst Acts of the Nuclear Age
Lamont Lilly
Movement for Black Lives Yields New Targets of the State
Martha Rosenberg
A Hated Industry Fights Back
Robert Fantina
Hillary, Gloria and Jill: a Brief Look at Alternatives
Chris Doyle
No Fireworks: Bicentennial Summer and the Decline of American Ideals
Michael Doliner
Beyond Dangerous: the Politics of Climate
Colin Todhunter
Modi, Monsanto, Bayer and Cargill: Doing Business or Corporate Imperialism?
Steve Church
Brexit: a Rush for the Exits!
Matthew Koehler
Mega Corporation Gobbles Up Slightly Less-Mega Corporation; Chops Jobs to Increase Profits; Blames Enviros. Film at 11.
David Green
Rape Culture, The Hunting Ground, and Amy Goodman: a Critical Perspective
Ed Kemmick
Truckin’: Pro Driver Dispenses Wisdom, Rules of the Road
Alessandro Bianchi
“China Will React if Provoked Again: You Risk the War”: Interview with Andre Vltchek
Christy Rodgers
Biophilia as Extreme Sport
Missy Comley Beattie
At Liberty
Ron Jacobs
Is Everything Permitted?
Cesar Chelala
The Sad Truth About Messi
Charles R. Larson
A Review of Mary Roach’s “Grunt”
David Yearsley
Stuck in Houston on the Cusp of the Apocalypse
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail