{"id":17140,"date":"2012-09-29T10:41:38","date_gmt":"2012-09-29T15:41:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/?p=17140"},"modified":"2012-09-29T10:41:38","modified_gmt":"2012-09-29T15:41:38","slug":"regulating-the-size-of-soft-drinks-wont-solve-the-obesity-problem-but-will-infringe-on-individual-rights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/2012\/09\/29\/regulating-the-size-of-soft-drinks-wont-solve-the-obesity-problem-but-will-infringe-on-individual-rights\/","title":{"rendered":"Regulating the size of soft drinks won’t solve the obesity problem, but will infringe on individual rights"},"content":{"rendered":"

At Reason<\/em>, Baylen Linnekin<\/a> explains that even if all the claims about the nutritional evils of sweetened soft drinks are completely true, regulations will not actually make much difference:<\/p>\n

As an opponent of increased regulations, I find these latter scientific points noteworthy. But I also believe that even if sugar-sweetened drinks turn out to be virtually everything their opponents claim, people still have a right to buy and drink these beverages \u2014 just as much, as I argued in a recent Bloggingheads<\/em> debate, as they have a right to buy a Big Mac. After all, we don\u2019t have a right to free speech or to travel from one state to another because speech or travel has been proven by the scientific community to promote good health.<\/p>\n

But suppose, for the sake of argument, I was to take at face value the assertions of those who claim the NEJM<\/em> studies justify some combination of sugary drink taxes and bans.<\/p>\n

There is still this problem: The solutions these advocates propose won\u2019t likely solve the problem of obesity. For example, studies have suggested taxes will have little or no impact on obesity. And not one person has (to the best of my knowledge) even attempted to argue that soda bans would have any specific impact, either \u2014 unless one counts “sending a message” or “creating a debate” as conditions precedent to weight loss.<\/p>\n

There is also the issue of a genetic predisposition, which again is one finding of the studies. Many people are genetically predisposed to certain food allergies \u2014 including soy, dairy, gluten, nuts, and seafood \u2014 and food intolerances. I have never seen a researcher or AP journalist like Marchione argue seriously that the widespread impact of food allergies “adds weight to the push for taxes” on wheat, tofu, and shrimp. Yet if one were to buy the argument of those calling for taxes and bans to combat consumption of sugary drinks in light of the NEJM<\/em> studies, one would have to accept the idea of taxing society writ large based largely on the outcomes of what these researchers argue is a genetic condition.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

At Reason, Baylen Linnekin explains that even if all the claims about the nutritional evils of sweetened soft drinks are completely true, regulations will not actually make much difference: As an opponent of increased regulations, I find these latter scientific points noteworthy. But I also believe that even if sugar-sweetened drinks turn out to be […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[74,66,9,10,13],"tags":[322,150,244,661,217,118],"class_list":["post-17140","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-food","category-health-science","category-law","category-liberty","category-usa","tag-nannystate","tag-obesity","tag-publichealth","tag-regulation","tag-rights","tag-taxes"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2hpV6-4ss","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17140","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17140"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17140\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":17141,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17140\/revisions\/17141"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17140"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17140"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17140"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}