It is common to identify paternalism as the central ethical concern with food policies limiting individual choice. We argue that paternalism is not the most useful frame for discussing the ethics of such policies. A paternalism-oriented inquiry often focuses on whether unhealthy eating reflects an informed, voluntary choice in order to determine if government interventions are objectionably paternalistic. We argue that informed and voluntary choice is not a suitable ideal for food experience, and is not the most useful frame for theorizing food experience and food policies. It more fruitful to focus inquiry around the value and disvalue of unhealthy eating. We ask: In what ways is unhealthy eating valuable for individuals and groups? How does the value of unhealthy eating bear on the ethics of policies limiting food options?
CO-AUTHORS: Katherine King, Nancy Kass and Ruth Faden
