How arguments modify, complicate, or qualify each other

¶ … Obesity and Nutrition

Obesity is a major focus of contemporary social and human health concerns in the United States. In that regard, the nutritional content and quality of fast food have become very important to those issues. According to many critics, the widespread availability of fast foods, the manner in which their advertising is directed at children, and their ubiquitous availability are problematic. They are increasingly associated with the virtual epidemic of childhood and adolescent obesity in particular. In the most general sense, so-called "fast-food" is only one mechanism that contributes to obesity in society. Nevertheless, fast foods, sodas and other high-sugar drinks have borne the brunt of paternalistic government approaches to reducing their contribution to the problem.

The attempt to regulate commerce and consumer choice for the purpose of reducing consumption of fast foods and other foods considered to be unhealthful raises fundamental issues of civil rights and individual autonomy. Specifically, the issue of whether or not fast food consumption is advisable is completely separate from the issue of whether government may impose beneficial restrictions on matters of personal choice. The argument becomes even more complex when one also considers the issues of social constructs such as those pertaining to societal perceptions of physical attractiveness as a function of body weight and body composition. Moreover, those social constructs affect males and females very differently, to the extent that some observers consider the issue to be an important element of the roles and interrelations of the genders in society. Finally, there are even more complex aspects of personal psychology that also play an important role in obesity as a subconscious defense mechanism used to protect some individuals from unpleasant experiences or from specific types of personal fears.

Health vs. Personal Autonomy

There is no doubt that obesity is a serious health concern in the U.S. (Zinczenko, 20__). Close to sixty percent of American adults either overweight or clinically obese and almost as many children are already on the same track. Certainly, there are genetic and other factors, but the nutritional quality of typical American eating habits has been a major focus of the healthcare community and government healthcare officials. In some cities, legislative proposals have included taxes on sugared sodas and other foods deemed unhealthful by nutritionists and public health officials and advocates. Other jurisdictions are considering restricting public assistance vouchers (i.e. "food stamps") from being redeemed for certain types of foods based on their nutritional content and the connection between their consumption and the corresponding drain on public healthcare resources as a (long-term) result. In many respects, there may be justification for that approach, especially in connection with parental decisions. Overweight and obese children have a tremendously elevated risk for lifelong weight and obesity issues as adults, as well as for myriad health conditions that are substantially related to chronic overweight and obesity (Zinczenko, 20__).

The principal counterargument to these legitimate health and public welfare concerns is not that their underlying characterization of fast foods and their connection to obesity in society is necessarily incorrect. Generally, the potential negative health consequences associated with poor nutritional choices are acknowledged even by critics of regulating fast foods (Balko, 20__). Nevertheless, critics of any enforcement of nutritional choices, even for beneficial purposes, are offended from an entirely different perspective: namely, the inappropriate infringement of personal liberty and autonomy. Specifically, the objection is that government has a legitimate interest in protecting individuals in society from one another and may regulate or restrict choice for that reason in many ways. However, there is a crucial distinction between regulating behavior for the public good and doing so as extensively for the good of the individual. According to that view, the choice to consume irresponsible quantities of fast food is, however inadvisable, strictly a private matter of individual choice in which government authorities have absolutely no business interfering (Balko, 20__).

In general, it is difficult to overcome the objections expressed by Balko, at least with respect to competent adults who pay for their own medical care directly or through health insurance. However, Zinczenko's concerns may prevail over the competing interests of personal choice and autonomy with respect to two classes of people: (1) adults making nutritional choices for minor children, and (2) individuals who rely on public resources for economic support or for their medical care. That is because the appropriate limit of personal autonomy to make nutritional choices that are known to affect human health adversely may be where the individual uses public funds to implement those choices or relies on public funds or resources for medical care necessitated by related health consequences.

Deeper Significance of Nutritional Choices

From a personal psychology and interpersonal relationship perspective, nutritional choices may represent much more complex issues than superficial preferences for satisfying foods (Orbach, 20__). There is substantial empirical literature detailing the manner in which obesity is sometimes a consequence of unconscious impulses, particularly in relation to maintaining emotional distance from others or of reacting to specific threats, such as in connection with long-term post traumatic responses to sexual violation. In other instances, obesity may be largely a function of a defensive (pre-emptive or reactive) response to social vulnerability or rejection (Orbach, 20__).