Food Policies between Pluralism and Paternalism

Abstract

As noted in the description for the section The Political Theory of Food & Drink Policies, measures such as the implementation of taxes on fat foods and sugary drinks have elicited a growing debate on whether the state has the right to interfere with people’s eating and drinking choices. Many recent debates in public health ethics have engaged critically with the individualistic (and anti-paternalistic) liberal approach. At the same time, the rising number of different individual food styles and dietary choices bring about consumer desires for product diversity and information. This panel aims to reflect on these developments and to relate current debates on paternalism, free speech, and censorship to food and drink policy. Some examples of relevant questions here: Should the state in the name of protecting citizens regulate food and drink advertising and food and drink labels? Do consumers have a right to be informed about the nutritional contents of the food and drinks they purchase? If yes, should the state contribute (for example through legislation) in providing that information for them? This panel aims to address normative questions concerning whether, when, and how the state ought to intervene and how it ought to balance the interests of the public good and individual consumers.

Title	Details
Food Security and Dietary Pluralism: What Demands of Justice?	View Paper Details
Ritual Slaughtering vs Animal Welfare: A Utilitarian Example of (Moral) Conflict Management	View Paper Details
Food Labels, Autonomy and the Right (Not) to Know	View Paper Details
The Value of Unhealthy Eating and the Limits of Paternalism	View Paper Details
Should Marketing Claims about Naturalness, Authenticity, and Purity be Regulated?	View Paper Details