Deakin University
Browse

File(s) under permanent embargo

Is nutritional advocacy morally indigestible? A critical analysis of the scientific and ethical implications of 'healthy' food choice discourse in liberal societies

journal contribution
posted on 2014-07-01, 00:00 authored by Christopher MayesChristopher Mayes, D B Thompson
Medical and non-medical experts increasingly argue that individuals, whether they are diagnosed with a specific chronic disease or condition or not (and whether they are judged at minimal risk of these consequences or not), have an obligation to make 'healthy' food choices. We argue that this obligation is neither scientifically nor ethically justified at the level of the individual. Our intent in the article is not simply to argue against moralization of the value of prudential uses of food for nutritional health, but to situate nutritional advocacy in the context of Western liberal democracy that values free choice. We have two objectives: (i) to untangle and examine the substance of discourses on 'healthy' food choice that simplify nutrition science and place a moral obligation on individuals and (ii) to establish a more comprehensive view of the relationship among food, ethics and health. Although critical of certain features of the liberal political and moral tradition, we argue that John Stuart Mill's notion of experiments in living provides fertile ground for an improved ethical understanding of individual obligation and of the interconnections among food, health and well-being.

History

Journal

Public health ethics

Volume

7

Issue

2

Pagination

158 - 169

Publisher

Oxford University Press

Location

Oxford, Eng.

ISSN

1754-9973

eISSN

1754-9981

Language

eng

Publication classification

C1.1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal

Copyright notice

2014, The Author