Neil Buchanan, “Why New York’s (and Other Jurisdictions’) Food Regulations Do Not Violate Freedom of Choice: The False Notion That Our Tastes Are of Our Own Making,” FindLaw.com, May 20, 2010

Authored by a Cornell Law School visiting scholar with a Ph.D. in economics, this legal commentary suggests that government critics err when they call efforts to address obesity an infringement on their freedom of choice. According to the article, this objection has “no meaning in the context of a modern economy” where “we are being manipulated into eating unhealthfully.” To illustrate, the author says that those opposing government regulation in this area are saying, in essence, “Don’t let Big Brother tell me what to eat. I do what the Pillsbury Dough Boy tells me.”

The author argues that governmental initiatives aimed at altering our eating habits do not violate our freedom, but rather constitute “an important way to push back against all of the ways in which people are manipulated and harmed by industrial food production.” Because government is already “inextricably involved in deciding what is grown and sold, how it is labeled and marketed, and who can buy it,” the author opines, “there is nothing even remotely disturbing or unusual about a government’s enacting a law that will affect how and what people eat.” He suggests that a particular enactment’s legitimacy can be questioned only on the ground of what motivated the legislation and claims that a law changed to fight juvenile diabetes “is a legitimate use of government’s powers.”

The article concludes, “In sum, government efforts to improve public health do not undermine freedom of choice in food consumption, because such freedom is illusory. Our choices are, and have always been, shaped by the interactions of governments’ laws and businesses’ interests.”