It is very well understood that the consumption of fast food will lead to numerous health risks, yet many countries’ fast-food consumption is increasing daily. Is it necessary for the government to enter the market and impose higher taxes on certain goods so as to discourage its consumption? We will be discussing this aspect with the help of this article and case studies on the same.
Fast food is often what we call mass-produced food that is cheap and easily available to its consumers. Diabetes and heart diseases are also linked to these foods. Fast food is in a way advantageous and disadvantageous. How? You ask. Let us provide some examples. A working mother who has no time for herself let alone her kids, can always depend on these fast-food restaurants to pack her child’s lunchbox. Especially when Happy Meals comes with toys and other goodies that children are generally attracted to also leads to increased consumption of the food. Fast food consumption is more by teenagers and adults as well because food like pizza, burgers and French fries are also fun ways to socialize. Any type of food is the best way to socialize. Now, comes the third category of people who cannot afford to buy healthy foods and will have to or more like are forced to buy unhealthy products for themselves as well as their children.
So far we have understood that fast – food restaurant is about more than just nutrition. However, small pleasures of life can also risk a life. Fast food is high in sugar, salt and fat. These three ingredients though sound harmless and can not only affect your physical but mental health as well.
“The new 2024 Atlas underscores how factors driving economic development are contributing to obesity trends. Shockingly, of the global deaths attributed to high Body Mass Index (BMI), the population measure of obesity, 78% occur among adults in LMICs, eclipsing the 22% in high-income nations. Similarly, 80% of Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) are attributed to high BMI burden adults in LMICs, compared to a mere 20% in high-income countries.
“It’s a common misconception that obesity – and its myriad health implications – are only limited to certain countries in the Global North,’ said Kent Buse, Director of the Healthier Societies Program at the George Institute for Global Health. “But the barriers to healthy and affordable foods, to active transport and much-needed medical support are not limited to what people likely consider to be ‘rich’ countries, and governments all over the world need to implement policies that help communities gain access to healthy food and responsive health systems now. The projections in the Global Atlas make very clear what the alternative is, and it is a frightening prospect.”[1]
An interesting question to be answered is whether the government can interrupt between a citizen and their choices. The answer is a plain yes. For example, one opinion suggests that government can impose higher taxes in order to discourage consumer from buying unhealthy products. However, we have already discussed that the same would not have any larger impact and would only cause disarray between the consumers. In addition to this, if the government does in fact apply higher takes on cheap food, it must also provide consumers with healthy options that are also easily available as well as affordable. It is, in fact, well established that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting the health and safety of the people, even from their own choices and actions.[2] In the case of Atwater v. City of Lago Vista,[3] (upheld the constitutionality of an arrest and the jailing of a woman for failure to wear a seatbelt); Another case Simon v. Sargent,[4] was of the opinion that (holding a statute requiring motorcyclists to wear protective headgear does not violate due process, notwithstanding the claim that “police power does not extend to overcoming the right of an individual to incur risks that involve only himself”), aff’d without opinion, 409 U.S. 1020 (1972).
“Denormalization and destigmatization strategies are perhaps most transparent in social marketing campaigns—advertisements and educational materials that go beyond straightforward information about health risks to tap into powerful social norms.21 But law also plays an important role in influencing social norms.22 Bans on smoking in restaurants, workplaces, and even public parks and beaches mean that fewer people—kids in particular—see smoking as a normal, everyday activity going on around them. Regulations giving nursing mothers the right to feed their infants anywhere that they have a legal right to be present23 make life easier for breastfeeding families while also promoting breastfeeding as a normal activity that need not be hidden from view.”[5]
CONCLUSION
What role should we as a society and the government should play in discouraging harmful overconsumption? What are the best ways we can intervene that will be politically acceptable as well as build an effective healthy balance? We have very well-established case laws that the government should and has a legitimate interest in when it comes to ensuring maximum public safety and good health. This is also proved that the government can achieve this and take actions, actions that will save people from their own choices. There are limited health strategies that can be worked upon. In addition to this, the companies that sell junk food should also be regulated. Regular checks and policies need to be done and reviewed. A few examples: A “gently-induced free market voluntarism” (e.g., McDonald’s adding sliced apples and cutting back on fries in Happy Meals[6]) and “hidden hard paternalism”[7] (e.g., the trans-fat ban). One can also make educational efforts by spreading awareness among children, youth and adults by conducting workshops and more which would focus on promoting healthier lifestyles and the importance of physical exercise. Regulations that would be imposed should have a positive impact, for example: adding appropriate portion size and balanced meals.
[1] World Obesity Atlas 2024 | World Obesity Federation [2] See David Adam Friedman, Public Health Regulation and the Limits of Paternalism, 46 CONN. L. REV. 1692, 1767, (2014) (outlining five levels of interventional efforts) [3] 532 U.S. 318, 323 (2001) [4] 346 F. Supp. 277, 278–79 (D. Mass. 1972) (per curiam) [5] Wiley, Lindsay F., "Sugary Drinks, Happy Meals, Social Norms, and the Law: The Normative Impact of Product Configuration Bans Response" (2014). Connecticut Law Review. 258. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_review/258 [6] See Julie Jargon, Under Pressure, McDonald’s Adds Apples to Kids Meals, WALL ST. J., July 27, 2011, at B1 (describing the fast food chain’s decision as “the company’s latest move[] to fend off more regulation of what kids eat” and linking it to a San Francisco ordinance prescribing minimum nutritional requirements for meals that include toys or other incentive items aimed at children). [7] Friedman’s thesis hinges on the unpopularity of the portion cap rule as the paradigm of visible “hard paternalism.” See Friedman, supra note 1, at 1749 (noting that, unlike the portion cap rule, the trans fat ban’s “tangible impact on consumers” is minimal). He discusses—and largely dismisses— popular acceptance of two other Bloomberg-pioneered public health regulations: the trans fat ban, discussed above, and a calorie-labeling mandate for chain restaurant menus.
