Adam Oliver, senior lecturer at the London School of Economics and Political Science, wrote an article in The BMJ (2011) explaining how nudging, or libertarian paternalism, in an effective means of tackling the obesity epidemic in the United Kingdom. Given the similarities in societal structure and government between the U.K. and the U.S., his ideas can be extrapolated to the context of the obesity epidemic in the U.S. Yet where Oliver’s article, and many other arguments, falls flat is in the lack of attention paid to socioeconomic class and opportunity.
According to Oliver (2011), “people are free to engage in the behaviour change intervention if they wish but are not required to alter their behaviour if they ultimately do not wish to do so,” a theory that may work in the context of the examples he gave, such as in Iceland, a country that has one of the smallest margins of income disparity, and in workplace settings where it might be assumed that everyone is earning a steady income. Yet it has been shown in the U.S. that nudging, due to fiscal constraints, does not work among the nations poor, who are largely at the greatest risk for obesity and obesity related health complications.
…show more content…
in hopes to nudge consumers, particularly youth, away from high caloric drinks in exchange for healthier options, consumers instead found alternative beverages at a similar price that contained roughly the same caloric value and there was virtually no decrease in weight (Gross, 2015). Furthermore, showing calories on restaurant menus have proven ineffective in reducing caloric intake. In some instances individuals with low socioeconomic status are more likely to buy the higher calorie food items believing that additional calories with sustain them longer (Fletcher, Frisvold, & Tefft,