Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T16:21:55.146Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Commercial Speech and Unhealthy Food Products: Conceptual Foundations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2022

Andrés Constantin
Affiliation:
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON, DC, USA
Martín Hevia
Affiliation:
TORCUATO DI TELLA UNIVERSITY, BUENOS AIRES, ARGENTINA
Oscar A. Cabrera
Affiliation:
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON, DC, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article provides a critical and philosophical assessment of arguments invoked for and against the constitutional protection of commercial expression and the regulation of commercial speech with a focus on the commercialization of unhealthy food products.

Type
Symposium Articles
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Debates over the role of commercial speech and the permissibility of restrictions to commercial speech have long taken place in academic and non-academic settings. Scholars and caselaw have often claimed that commercial speech plays a vital role in the economic and social fabric. Commercial speech allows individuals to access valuable information to make personal decisions. Advertising provides useful information for making informed choices relevant to us and our close ones;thus, promoting individual self-government.Reference Redish1 In addition, commercial speech allows the economy to thrive by creating bonds and relationships between producers and consumers.2 This translates into profits, and ultimately national revenue; and, on the part of the consumer, the fulfilment of their needs. Proponents of robust protection of commercial speech have argued that it is a form of free speech (a cornerstone of liberal democracy), claiming that bans on advertising, promotion, and sponsorship violate their rights to freedom of commerce and freedom of expression. In their view, commercial speech is essential for producers and sellers to communicate information about their products and services. Thus, the restriction of commercial speech could restrain competition and favor some producers and sellers over others.Reference Adler3 Consequently, the role of commercial speech is arguably vital both to individuals and society.

In recent years, and based on emerging evidence of the impact of marketing and advertising in increasing the consumption of unhealthy products, various governments have adopted measures to restrict commercial speech when it promotes unhealthy food products.4 For instance, some countries have regulated the marketing of unhealthy food products to minors. Others have adopted regulations requiring the inclusion of front-of-package labels to help consumers make informed purchase and consumer choices.Reference Constantin, Cabrera and Ríos5 A global controversy has arisen about whether ultra-processed foods and beverages companies should or should not sponsor the Olympic Games or other major sports events.Reference Ireland, Chambers, Bunn and Oyebode6 On the one hand, governments have justified these restrictions as a matter of public health policy on the evidence that marketing of unhealthy food products leads to decisions that can be detrimental to health.Reference Piety7 On the other hand, the corporate world has frequently questioned and denied such evidence.8

In light of these controversies, this piece explores the conceptual foundations of restrictions to commercial speech when it comes to the promotion of unhealthy food products. Firstly, we explore whether commercial speech can be restricted to promote personal autonomy, a fundamental value of liberal democracy, and explain why protecting autonomy requires restricting commercial speech, especially when aimed at children. Secondly, we suggest that, considering the evidence showing bounded rationality, autonomy may require restrictions on unhealthy food products even if not aimed at children. In this sense, we tackle objections that commercial speech restrictions entail impermissible paternalism. Thirdly, we explore why the public health and communitarian perspectives require regulating commercial speech, while addressing the objection that commercial speech regulation would be an impermissible perfectionist measure. The last section concludes.

This piece explores the conceptual foundations of restrictions to commercial speech when it comes to the promotion of unhealthy food products. Firstly, we explore whether commercial speech can be restricted to promote personal autonomy, a fundamental value of liberal democracy, and explain why protecting autonomy requires restricting commercial speech, especially when aimed at children. Secondly, we suggest that, considering the evidence showing bounded rationality, autonomy may require restrictions on unhealthy food products even if not aimed at children.

Commercial Speech and Autonomy

In the classic liberal account of autonomy, the commitment of our societies to personal autonomy entails respect for our life plans, regardless of how others see their value. As the liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill famously put it, “[o]ver himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”Reference Mill9 Economists have developed a similar idea under the concept of the “homo economicus,” a hypothetical, perfectly rational individual with complete information about their options and perfect foresight of consequences who makes choices to promote their preferences.Reference Etilé10 To exercise their autonomy, individuals require freedom from external interference by others, including the State; they also need information. In this view, provided that individuals have access to information, they are the best judges of the value of their decisions and governments should remain neutral as to the value of individuals’ life plans. Therefore, the only acceptable justification for interference is to prevent harm to others — this is Mill’s famous “harm principle,” a cornerstone of liberal political philosophy. Of course, defining “harm to others” is not an easy task — it has been argued that “risk” is not a value-neutral concept and that the level of risk each individual is ready to accept is not obvious.Reference Callahan, Jennings, Gostin and Wiley11

In light of the harm principle, given the absence of potential harm to others and the relevance of information for individual decision-making, restrictions on commercial speech would not be justified, as a rule, in the classic liberal view. Nevertheless, the protection of autonomy may provide reasons to justify the government’s legal right to regulate commercial speech when it is misleading or deceptive. In certain cases, governments may even be required to compel speech — for instance, when mandating disclosure requirements — to prevent harm to or exploitation of the otherwise uninformed consumer.Reference Adler12

Now, in addition to freedom from external interference, the exercise of autonomy requires an internal capacity for deliberative action.Reference Gostin and Wiley13 Individuals with insufficient understanding to make informed choices to deliberate and act based on their desires and preferences are usually protected by legal systems from decisions that may harm them. This is clear, for instance, in the case of children. Under the assumption that children are not in the best position to judge which courses of action promote their own good, or that they are more likely to make poor choices, legal systems usually protect them from making decisions on their own. That is, they interfere with children’s will to advance their good. This interference is often regarded as a form of acceptable paternalism.Reference Husak and LaFollette14 When acting on behalf of children, adults have a duty to promote childrens’ “best interests.”Reference Rojo, Spector, Zamora and Vaquero15 This duty usually involves preventing children from exposure to certain risks which, in many countries, has included the requirement for broadcasting companies to establish child protection hours in order to prevent exposure to certain contents.Reference Boyland and Tatlow-Golden16

The duty to promote children’s best interests may justify restricting commercial speech that targets them. Although as children grow older, their deliberative capacity becomes stronger and they start to understand the nutritional dimension of food, studies have shown that advertising and marketing continue to affect children’s preferences for unhealthy food products. This, in turn, impacts their body weight development and, thus, their health.Reference Naderer17 As a response to the global concern for childhood obesity, countries like Chile, South Korea, the U.K., and Argentina have adopted regulations to reduce children’s exposure to the marketing of unhealthy food products — including prohibitions of marketing of unhealthy products in schools, or using fictional characters, like cartoons, to encourage consumption.Reference Jones and Reeve18 This shows that, under the liberal framework, the autonomy-defense of commercial speech does not apply to children. The duty to promote children’s best interests actually requires governments to restrict commercial speech in these cases.Reference Garde, Byrne, Garde, Curtis and Shutter19

In contrast, as we have already mentioned, in the liberal framework, given the commitment to neutrality and deference to the individual as the best judge of their interests, overriding a competent adult’s preferences for the sake of preventing harm to themselves is a controversial measure.20 Nevertheless, autonomy could still provide an argument to restrict commercial speech even if not aimed at children.

In our societies, we often accept paternalistic measures for risk regulation, such as the mandating of motorcycle helmets and seat belts or the fluoridation of drinking waters. Other more socially controversial measures, such as taxes on unhealthy products, like cigarettes, are paternalistic because they aim to disincentivize harmful conducts.21 These measures and regulations acknowledge the centrality of personal autonomy, but recognize the fact that personal behavior is not merely an issue of free will, and that both internal and external constraints also shape it.22 This is relevant in the context of unhealthy food products particularly due to the way in which these products are purposely engineered to trigger neurotransmitters and manipulate addictive-inducing sensations, as well as practices designed to target mental and emotional processing, such as, for instance, neuromarketing techniques.Reference Moss23 Accordingly, it can be argued that human beings actually lack complete information and foresight when it comes to harmful products like unhealthy foods, as well as logical and practical omniscience: we cannot have complete knowledge of all that logically and practically follows from our current actions and commitments. Moreover, we may lack the ability to fully understand risks. This is known as “bounded rationality.”24

Considering the evidence showing people’s bounded rationality, autonomy could actually provide reasons in favor of a restriction of commercial speech. Access to appropriate information is a necessary condition to make informed choices and assume risks, but commercial marketing and advertising can skew information consumers receive and heavily influence consumer purchase and consumption choices.25 In some cases, marketing tactics from the food and beverage industry portray consumption of unhealthy food products as “cool” or use popular fictional characters to associate the products with social recognition and professional success.Reference Gostin26

It is not possible to speak of full rationality when the marketing and advertising of unhealthy products operate at the most primitive level of our brains, influencing our decision-making processes and, thus, undermining the detailed scrutiny of the advantages and disadvantages of their consumption. Marketing and advertising techniques generate an impulse to consume these unhealthy food products.Reference Freeman and Kelly27 Thus, measures to restrict commercial speech would be justified in cases in which regulation is intended to neutralize the effects that marketing and advertising have on the consumption of products harmful to health in the face of a rationality deficit.Reference Simões28

Commercial Speech, Community, and Perfectionism

Another dimension of the commercial speech restriction debate comes from the communitarian perspective that strives to answer the question of what type of community we want to live in and what kind of relationships we want to foster. Communitarians argue that social institutions must promote social and communal values, which build our identity. Of course, individual autonomy and self-fulfillment matters, but they are not the main and only values for life in society.Reference Bell29 In this view, our societies are not merely a collection of strangers with duties to respect the legal rights of one another arising from a “social contract”; our respect for others is that we owe each other as fellow members of a community. Public health matters because it “encourages connectedness to the community… viewing health risks as common to the group, rather than specific to individuals, helps foster a collective responsibility for well-being.”30 As Dan Beauchamp explained in his seminal article, public health is “communal in nature, and concerned with the well-being of community as a whole and not just the well-being of any particular person. Policy, and here public health paternalism, operates at the level of practices and not at the level of individual behavior.”Reference Beauchamp, Beauchamp and Steinbock31 As such, regulators must use the law as a tool for creating conditions for a type of society where individuals can lead healthy and meaningful lives in their communities. According to this view, public health regulations, such as those involving restrictions to the marketing or advertising of unhealthy food products, aim at achieving community well-being. Accordingly, from a communitarian perspective, commercial speech restrictions would be justified as they aim to promote a community where people can lead healthy lives.

It may be argued, however, that communitarian public health measures restricting commercial speech incur in perfectionism. By dictating and promoting certain ideals of human excellence. Perfectionists accept restrictions to autonomy to promote those ideals of excellence. This is a stronger thesis than paternalism because it disregards the agent’s interests and only seeks to adjust the agent’s behavior to a particular ideal. In that sense, perfectionism is objectionable because it disrespects individuals in a particularly profound way: it does not set precise limits for its demands, and its goals do not have to be shared by its recipients.Reference Hurka32

However, the perfectionist accusation does not seem to apply to commercial speech restrictions, as these restrictions do not impose, nor aim to impose, an ideal of excellence or a lifestyle. On the contrary, they contribute to promoting an environment in which people can enjoy greater freedom to carry out their life plans by making informed choices or avoiding uninformed ones within their communities. Were the State not to intervene, it would deprive people of real opportunities to choose a healthy way of life. State intervention aims at creating environments that ensure healthy options do not go unnoticed or require a significant investment of time, money, and willpower that few people have. In such contexts, the State could effectively promote life plans that it considers valuable, as long as it does not coercively impose the way of life that it considers correct.Reference Raz33

Conclusion

In this article, we have shown that the discussion about regulation of commercial speech, when it comes to the commercialization of unhealthy food products, should not be limited to whether the government interferes with free speech, but should rather consider the government’s role in creating conditions for people to pursue their life plans, and ultimately promote their autonomy. We have also discussed a communitarian approach, which leads to public health regulations that invoke societal values.

Note

Dr. Hevia served as a consultant for Pan American Health Organization, outside the submitted work. Mr. Constantin reports funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, during the conduct of this work.

References

Redish, M.H., “First Amendment in the Marketplace: Commercial Speech and the Values of Free Expression,” George Washington Law Review 39, no. 429 (1971): 429-473.Google Scholar
See Redish, supra note 1.Google Scholar
Adler, J.H., “Persistent Threats to Commercial Speech,” Journal of Law and Policy 25, no. 1 (2016): 289-316 (In this piece, we are not concerned with misleading or deceptive commercial speech; instead, we are trying to address the more nuanced question of whether the government should interfere with instances of truthful commercial speech); See also: Central Hudson Gas & Elec. v. Public Svc. Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557 (1980) (There are multiple arguments to justify the government’s legal right to regulate untruthful commercial speech, which is outside the scope of this piece).Google Scholar
For the purposes of this paper, we consider the term “unhealthy food products” to encompass food and beverage products containing excessive levels of critical nutrients, such as sugars, sodium, and fats, posing a high risk for the development of non-communicable diseases. See generally: Pan American Health Organization. Ultra-processed Food and Drink Products in Latin America: Sales, Sources, Nutrient profiles, and Policy Implications (Washington, DC: PAHO, 2019).Google Scholar
Constantin, A., Cabrera, O.A., Ríos, B. et al., “A Human Rights-Based Approach to Non-Communicable Diseases: Mandating Front-of-Package Warning Labels,” Globalization and Health 17, no. 85 (2021): 17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ireland, R., Chambers, S., and Bunn, C., “Exploring the Relationship Between Big Food Corporations and Professional Sports Clubs: A Scoping Review,” Public Health Nutrition 22, no. 10 (2019): 18881897; Oyebode, O., Is it Time to Substitute Sports Sponsors for Healthier Alternatives? (June 21, 2021), University of Warwick, available at <https://warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/knowledgecentre/health/public-health/unhealthy_sport_sponsors/> (last visited May 6, 2022).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piety, T.R., “’Merchants of Discontent’: An Exploration of the Psychology of Advertising, Addiction, and the Implications for Commercial Speech,” Seattle University Law Review 25, no. 2 (2001): 377450; R.J. Donovan, “The Role for Marketing in Public Health Change Programs,” Australian Review of Public Affairs 10, no. 1 (2011): 23-40.Google Scholar
See Donovan, supra note 7 at 27.Google Scholar
Mill, J.S., On Liberty (New York: Penguin Books, 1985) at 68.Google Scholar
G. Wheeler, Bounded Rationality, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, available at <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bounded-rationality/> (last visited May 6, 2022). See also: Etilé, F., “Economic Perspectives on Food Choices, Marketing, and Consumer Welfare,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 50, no. 2 (2022): 221232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Callahan, D. and Jennings, B., “Ethics and Public Health: Forging a Strong Relationship” in Gostin, L.O. and Wiley, L.F., Public Health Law. Power, Duty, Restraint (Oakland California: University of California Press, 2016): at 50; J. Oberdiek, Imposing Risk. A Normative Framework (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017): at 86-92.Google Scholar
Adler, J.H., “Compelled Commercial Speech and the Consumer Right to Know,” Arizona Law Review 58, no. 421 (2016): 422476.Google Scholar
See Gostin, L.O. and Wiley, L.F., Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint (Oakland California: University of California Press, 2016), at 44.Google Scholar
Husak, D.N., “Legal Paternalism” in LaFollette, H., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Practical Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003).Google Scholar
Rojo, F. and Spector, E., “Los Derechos del Niño: un enfoque filosófico” in Zamora, J.L.F. and Vaquero, A.N., eds., Enciclopedia de Filosofía y Teoría del Derecho (Mexico, 2015). See generally: A. Garde and S. Byrne, “Combatting Obesogenic Commercial Practices through the Implementation of the Best Interests of the Child Principle,” in A. Garde, J. Curtis, and O. De Shutter, eds., Ending Childhood Obesity (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2020); United Nations (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child, United Nations Treaty Series, 1577, pp. 3-178, available at <https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child> (last visited May 6, 2022); S. Godwin, “Children´s Capacities and Paternalism,” Journal of Ethics 24 (2020): 307-331.Google Scholar
Boyland, E. and Tatlow-Golden, M., “Exposure, Power and Impact of Food Marketing on Children: Evidence Supports Strong Restrictions,” European Journal of Risk and Regulation 8 (2017): 224236. See also, E. Handsley et al., “Regulatory Axes on Food Advertising to Children on Television,” Australia and New Zealand Health Policy 6, no. 1 (2009): 1-10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naderer, B., “Advertising Unhealthy Food to Children: On the Importance of Regulations, Parenting Styles, and Media Literacy,” Current Addictions Reports 8 (2021): 1218; American Psychological Association, The Impact of Food Advertising on Child Obesity, available at <https://www.apa.org/topics/obesity/food-advertising-children> (last visited May 6, 2022).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naderer, supra note 17; Jones, A., Reeve, B. et al., “Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling to Promote Healthier Diets: Current Practice and Opportunities to Strengthen Regulation Worldwide,” BMJ Global Health 4 (2019): 116; H. Vidgen, E. Monsef, and K. Davidson, Rapid Review: Food Regulatory Approaches to Address Childhood Obesity, (March 2018), Queensland University of Technology, available at <https://foodregulation.gov.au/internet/fr/publishing.nsf/Content/8C77229FB54166D5CA25835B007B2516/$File/FRSC-Rapid-Review-childhood-obesity-QUT-8-March-2018.pdf> (last visited May 6, 2022); NCD Alliance, Turning the Table: Fighting Back Against the Junk Food Industry (November 12, 2021) available at <https://ncdalliance.org/news-events/blog/turning-the-table-fighting-back-against-the-junk-food-industry> (last visited May 6, 2022).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garde, A. and Byrne, S., “Combatting Obesogenic Commercial Practices Through the Implementation of the Best Interests of the Child Principle,” in Garde, A., Curtis, J., and Shutter, O. De, eds., Ending Childhood Obesity (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2020).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gostin and Wiley, supra note 13, at 45.Google Scholar
Id. at 46. See also Constitutional Court of Colombia, Action for unconstitutionality against Articles 14, 15, 16 and 17 of Law 1335 of 2009, Judgment C-830/10 (2010)Google Scholar
See Moss, M., Hooked: Food, Free Will, and How the Food Giants Exploit Our Addictions (New York: Random House, 2021); K.D. Brownell and M.S. Gold, Food and Addiction: A Comprehensive Handbook (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012) (We understand this is a very important element of this debate but do not delve into it in this piece, focusing instead on the conceptual foundations. For studies showing the addictiveness of unhealthy food products visit University of Michigan Food and Addiction Science & Treatment Lab, available at <https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/fastlab/yale-food-addiction-scale/ > (last visited May 4, 2022). On neuromarketing and other techniques aimed at exploiting emotional and subconscious responses, see: J. Chester, K. C. Montgomery, and K. Kopp, Big Food, Big Tech and the Global Childhood Obesity Pandemic (Center for Digital Democracy: May 2021), available at <https://www.democraticmedia.org/sites/default/files/field/public-files/2021/cdd_big_food_big_tech_5-21fin.pdf > (last visited May 4, 2022).Google Scholar
See Wheeler, supra note 10; Gostin and Wiley, supra note 13, at 46-47.Google Scholar
Note that a restriction on commercial speech could be justified even by the mere imposition of a risk, insofar as said imposition would limit the range of possible alternatives that a consumer can have and, by doing so, it would limit her autonomy. In this sense, it could be possible to argue that the marketing and advertising of unhealthy food products manipulates consumers’ decision-making processes and limits their autonomy by displacing healthy options in lieu of unhealthy options. By electing to live in inherently risky societies, consumers cede some elements of their autonomy and upon doing so they are owed a duty of care from others, including the State, which would justify the restriction of commercial speech to protect autonomy. See generally: Oberdiek, Imposing Risk. A Normative Framework (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017): at 86-92.Google Scholar
Gostin, L.O., Global Health Law (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014): at 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Freeman, B., Kelly, B., et al., “Digital Junk: Food and Beverage Marketing on FacebookAmerican Journal of Public Health 104 (2014): e5664; E. Boyland and M. Tatlow-Golden, “Exposure, Power and Impact of Food Marketing on Children: Evidence Supports Strong Restrictions,” European Journal of Risk and Regulation 8 (2017): 224–236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simões, F. D., “Paternalism and Health Law: Legal Promotion of a Healthy Lifestyle,” European Journal of Risk Regulation 3 (2013): 361362; C. Newdick, “Health Equality, Social Justice and the Poverty of Autonomy,” Health Economics, Policy and Law 12, (2017): 411–433, at 427.Google Scholar
Bell, D., Communitarianism in E.N. Zalta, ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, available at <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/communitarianism/> (last visited May 6, 2018).+(last+visited+May+6,+2018).>Google Scholar
Gostin and Wiley, supra note 13, at 18.Google Scholar
Beauchamp, D.E., “Community: The Neglected Tradition of Public Health,” in Beauchamp, D.E. and Steinbock, B., eds., New Ethics for the Public Health, at 57, cited in Gostin and Wiley, supra note 13, at 49.Google Scholar
Some philosophers have, however, offered persuasive defenses of perfectionism. See: Hurka, T., Perfectionism (Oxford University Press, 1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raz, J., Ethics in the Public Domain. Essays in the Morality of Law and Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995): at 118; M.C. Nussbaum, Creating Capabilities. The Human Development Approach (Cambridge, MA.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2013); A. Sen., The Idea of Justice (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2011).Google Scholar