Abstract:
There is currently a global obesity epidemic and New Zealand, like many
other countries, has high levels of obesity both in the adult and child population.
This presents a threat to society due to the risk to individual and population
health, and the impact on public services.
A major contributor to obesity levels is the nature of the current eating
environment; one in which various factors make it natural and easy to lead an
unhealthy lifestyle. By targeting these, the law could help to combat the obesity
epidemic. Historically, attempts to address obesity through legal means have
encountered opposition on paternalistic grounds. Given the threat that obesity
poses, both to the individual and society as a whole, a certain level of paternalism
is justified to control it, particularly when it comes to the protection of children.
Currently, legal measures to control obesity can be implemented in New Zealand
without resorting to hard paternalism. The law should be used to increase
regulation of the food industry, rather than using it to control food intake directly.
This is a softer paternalistic approach and includes changes to labelling
requirements and the regulation of the marketing to mandate for improved
information to be disseminated about food products. It also includes the
implementation of a universal nutrient profiling system to overcome any problems
associated with deciding which food products should be subject to increased
regulation. Change to the eating environment in New Zealand could also be
facilitated via the implementation of a fat-tax to address the price inequalities
between healthy and unhealthy food products.
Currently the food industry in New Zealand is minimally regulated by
statute, with an emphasis on food safety and hygiene. This is no longer
appropriate given rising levels of obesity. Furthermore, it is no longer appropriate
that food product marketing be regulated by the industry, given its contribution to
obesity levels, and the obvious conflict of interest.
Notwithstanding that obesity control in New Zealand can presently be
tackled using such an approach, a higher level of paternalism is necessary for
measures aimed at children. Therefore, in the current food environment,
paternalistic health laws, designed to protect children, are justified on the basis of
the risk to children, and the need to protect them.
Additionally, the need for a more paternalistic approach to obesity
control generally must be kept under continual review, particularly in light of
studies linking food with addiction. Although food litigation has been initiated
against food companies by the obese in other jurisdictions, and has had an impact
on the eating environment, this is not a realistic prospect in New Zealand, even as
a last resort, in the absence of appropriate regulation.
