32 oz. Soda Ban and Freedom

As I discussed briefly last time, NY Mayor Bloomberg recently pushed for a limit to the size of sugary drinks. Under his proposal, 32 oz. soda will be banned from sale in public places like theaters and sports venues, and those in contravention of the ban will face a $200 fine.

There has been a backlash against this proposal on the grounds that it encroaches upon freedom. The complaint runs that by banning 32 oz. soda, the government is limiting the freedom of citizens to buy 32 oz. soda, which violates the rights of citizens to make their own choices. To what extent is this a sound argument?

To take this from the beginning, we should first recognize that the government makes many bans that people do not object to on the grounds of freedom. One can't buy narcotics like crack cocaine, but that's considered acceptable because crack cocaine is very dangerous. Equally, one cannot drive above the speed limit. In effect, there is a ban against driving faster than 30 miles per hour in New York City. But we accept this because it makes pedestrians safer.

So, is the soda ban like either of these? Not really. Under Bloomberg's proposal, it's still possible to get 32 oz of soda, you'd just have to buy two 16 oz sodas. This ban is far less severe than a speed limit which says you can never go faster 30 miles an hour. Peculiarly, it's kind of like saying that you can go over 30 miles per hour, but first you have to travel 16 miles an hour, then speed up another 16 miles per hour.

I bet you never thought that cars (and the speed limit) and drinking soda
could be so closely related to one another before.

So, the soda ban isn't a ban in the traditional sense that you can't EVER buy drugs, or EVER travel faster than 30 miles an hour in the city. So, what's the most appropriate comparison? I think we should defer to Cass Sunstein & Richard Thaler and their 'libertarian paternalism'. Under this theory, which is detailed in the book Nudge, we should let people make their own choices about what to eat and buy, etc., but we should try to change the default choices that people make, so that these choices aren't too damaging. I think it's best to explain this with an example.

Many people express a desire to donate organs, but some countries donate more than others. In the UK it's less than 20% of the population, in Austria it's almost 100%. What explains the difference? In the UK, people have to 'opt in' to organ donation. It is presumed that they don't want to donate and people have to make an active effort to make their organs available for transplant. The opposite is true in Austria. By contrast, it is presumed that all people want to donate, and you have to make an active choice not to donate. The point (as summed up by Dan Ariely in the video below) is that people often 'go with the flow' and so the choices that people make are significantly influenced by what's available.

Is one of these countries more or less free because of their approach to organ donation? I don't think so. I think they're both equally free because people can donate their organs, or not. The only difference is that in one country, the presumption is that people do want to donate organs, and there are a lot more organs available for donation (which is good). In the other, the presumption is against donating organs, and there are fewer organs available (which is less desirable).

How does this link to the soda ban? It seems to me that the ban effectively makes 16 oz. the default maximum soda size. However, it doesn't stop people from drinking more if they really want to. They just have to buy a second 16 oz. soda. My guess is, however, that many people will not be thirsty after they have the first drink, so will end up drinking less than 32 oz. in total. The good thing about this is that they'll consume fewer calories through sugar, and might therefore be less prone to obesity and diabetes.

People often 'go with the flow' and so the choices that people make are significantly influenced by what's available. All the soda ban does is affect availability, by making 16 oz. the default large soda size. It doesn't prevent people from buying 32 oz of soda if they really want it, however, it just makes it slightly more time-consuming. So at the end of the day, the soda ban is not a question of freedom. The soda ban is a question of framing choices and options in a way that can lead to a desirable outcome.

The soda ban is far closer to an opt-out system of organ donation than a speed limit or drug ban, and because of this the 'freedom' objection to the soda ban loses much of its force.






http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/pr2010/pr10_053.shtml


http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2010/02/17/decision-making-and-the-options-were-offered/

Soda vs Marijuana NYC

At the start of June Andrew Cuomo proposed that holding up to 1oz. of marijuana and revealing it in public should carry no more of a fine than $100.  In an example of comic timing, this proposal came just after NY Mayor Bloomberg pushed for a limit to the size of sugary drinks.  Under his proposal, 32 oz. soda will be banned from sale in public places like theaters and sports venues, and those in contravention of the ban will face a $200 fine.

Jon Stewart has rightly had some laughs over the last few weeks by pointing to a 32 oz. soda, and 1 oz. of marijuana, and smirking with incredulity.  The punch line of his 'bit' is:

"Just to be clear, this soda is twice as illegal as this much weed," he joked, holding up two plastic cups filled with the substances. "And you know, here's the sad thing: they go together so well!"





Although he's being funny, I would like to take issue with his comparison of the two.  The marijuana fine is for simply possessing the drug; the soda fine is for selling the sugary treat.  The two things are different.

The fine for selling marijuana in NYC is far higher than $100.  Indeed, if you sold that 1 oz. of weed instead of just possessed it, you could face 3 months in prison and a $500 fine.  Equally, if you just possess 32 oz. of  soda (let's say you carry a huge bottle into a football stadium that you bought at Target a few weeks before) you're not committing a crime that the Mayor would want to punish under the proposed law.

Selling marijuana has a higher sentence than selling large soda, and possessing marijuana has a higher sentence than possessing a large soda.  So in each case, soda is 'less illegal' than weed.

Having said this, I'm sympathetic to attempts to curb obesity, and I think a large soda ban might be a good way to go.  If accessibility of high-calorie foods contributes to rising obesity, then maybe we should make it harder to get lots of these foods by limiting the ability of people to buy them.  A soda ban, it seems to me, would do exactly that.  I'd be interested to hear what you think, so please feel free to add comments, and I'll pick this topic up in my next blog post.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/08/jon-stewart-marijuana-soda-video_n_1580552.html
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/marijuana-law-in-new-york.html

In Favor of Eating Meat

The New York Times posted a competition to write articles in favor of eating meat.  You can read the six best of of them here.

I think I'm inclined to agree with Chicago philosopher Brian Leiter that, the mere fact that the NYT believes this to be a topic worth discussing is a broad triumph for the anti-meat movement.

Eating Less Meat

Peter Singer is broadly accredited with launching the modern animal welfare movement with his book Animal Liberation (1975).  As a utilitarian Singer argues that we should not test products on animals, nor eat their meat when this causes these animals avoidable pain.  Maybe you could test a cancer drug on an animal if it will likely save many human lives.  However, because animals can feel pain we shouldn't treat them poorly; like humans, it's morally wrong to needlessly harm animals.

With the growth of Human Rights literature there has been a concurrent rise in animal rights philosophy.  Like humans, animals are posited as beings with dignity and therefore deserved of a certain level of treatment.  New Zealand, for example, is one of the first countries to grant rights to higher apes therefore banning all research upon them.

Even if you don't think either of these positions is wholly convincing, they should give pause for reflection, and until you've reached a more considered position, maybe eating less meat is a good first step.  Graham Hill's video below gives some good reasons why we should eat less meat, even if you don't want to be a 'hardcore' vegetarian or don't think you could give up meat cold-turkey (excuse the pun).

Pink Slime in Your Beef?

At the Pizza tour a few weeks ago, Scott talked about the way in which US Mozzarella has its water water content replaced with oil.  This is allows the cheese to remain fresh longer, but it also is the reason why a real NY slice often ends in a burned mouth.

In recent weeks there have been a series of articles on 'Pink Slime', a kind of processed meat:

"The “pink slime” is made by gathering waste trimmings, simmering them at low heat so the fat separates easily from the muscle, and spinning the trimmings using a centrifuge to complete the separation. Next, the mixture is sent through pipes where it is sprayed with ammonia gas to kill bacteria. The process is completed by packaging the meat into bricks. Then, it is frozen and shipped to grocery stores and meat packers, where it is added to most ground beef." - ABC News (includes a video).

The 'Pink Slime' product looks kind of like a Mr. Softie Ice-cream.

Although I don't mind eating cheese with extra oil, I'm not sure I'd like to eat something that used to look like that.  Matt Yglesias at the Slate has some interesting comments on the jobs related to the production of this beef here and here.

Sapere Aude!

Last week, Josh the group leader, several super volunteers and the awesome students of MS104 all began our Food Writing Project with a tour lead by Scott, the most knowledgeable man (on the topic of Pizza) I've met.  We tasted loads of different slices and styles, and there is so much to talk about.


John's of Bleeker Serves only Full Pizzas!


Some of the students and volunteers will be reviewing the different food we try.  Others will be reviewing the restaurants or describing the things we did.  I'm going to take a slightly different approach.  Over the following weeks I'm going to be talking about the ethical and philosophical questions that come with eating food, and I'm hoping that it'll make you think about it too.


This might sound scary at first.  After all, when I hear people say they're a philosopher, I imagine old people with big grey beards sitting at their desks surrounded by hundreds of books.  But I think that's only half the picture.  We all do philosophy whenever we think about a topic and try to understand it better.  For example, did you know that 'Science' used to be called 'Natural Philosophy'?  This is because these early scientists were philosophizing about the natural world.

So, we can all be philosophers! All you need is to be interested in learning more about a subject, and to be committed to making good arguments in favor of your beliefs.  Importantly, in addition to this, good philosophers must listen to the arguments of others and change their minds and behavior if opposing arguments are stronger than your own.

It might be true that we can all do philosophy and think about subjects that interest us.  But why focus upon food?  This is a wonderful question, and I think there is a very strong reason: WE ALL EAT.  No matter where you're from; whether you're a man or a woman; tall or short; skinny, or a bit on the chubby side, we all eat.  Some of us might eat more than others, some people might eat only certain kinds of food, but we all eat.  It is because food touches all of our lives that it deserves, and needs, to be thought about. 

• We spend a lot of money on food; could and should some of this money be spent on other things? 
• Is everyone able to eat every day?  Should they be able to?  Should they be able to eat the same things you eat?
• Why are some foods popular and others less popular; what are we missing out on?
• How much of the Earth's resources are used to make food for people?  Can we use those resources for other things?  If the Earth has a limited amount of resources, does this mean we should try to limit the number of people?

There are so many interesting questions linked too food, so it can be hard to know where to start.  So, for this blog, I'm going to focus on the questions that naturally arise from the times MS104 and the rest of us spend together.  Last week we took a pizza tour and it raised - at least in my mind - many interesting questions.  One that stuck out the most though was moving food.  Whether it be physically importing tomatoes from South America to Italy, or taking idea of pizza from Italy to the USA, there's a lot to think about.  And this is what I'll be exploring in my next post: Moving Food.


Questions to consider:

• What does 'Sapere Aude!' mean?
• Can you be a philosopher about anything; is Scott a philosopher about pizza?
• What do you do all the time that might also deserve to be thought about more carefully?

A Surprise in my Kitchen!

 

This week I woke up to find a mouse in my kitchen!  

A 1998 New Yorker article estimated that there might be as many as 28 MILLION rats in NYC.  That's 4 rats for every person!!

I don't know about you, but I'm going to make doubly sure that I clean my kitchen after cooking so I don't leave crumbs for mice to eat.  I'm also going to clean all my surfaces thoroughly before cooking - imagine if a mouse walked over the table just before you started chopping your lunch on it!