肥胖的患病率,代谢综合征,以及相关的长期慢性疾病(心血管疾病,II型糖尿病,癌症,老年痴呆症,抑郁症)在美国和西方国家已经达到流行水平。为了应对这场公共卫生灾难,本文的作者提出并捍卫了一种新颖的生物伦理学论点:禁止儿童食用SSB(含糖饮料)的一致性论点(“一致性论点”)。这一论点的激进结论指出,政府有理由禁止儿童消费的SSB消费。理由如下:如果人们接受长期饮酒造成的身体伤害证明政府禁止儿童饮用酒精饮料是合理的,有强有力的证据表明,长期食用SSB会导致类似的身体伤害,然后,比照,政府也有理由禁止儿童消费SSB。为了支持这一论点,作者基于流行病学观察研究提供了广泛的证据,介入研究,对照试验,大型荟萃分析,以及SSB和慢性疾病背后的病理生理学和生物学作用机制。长期食用大剂量的SSB和酒精饮料都会导致相同的疾病:肥胖和胰岛素抵抗,心血管疾病,高血压,和癌症。长期食用SSB会增加患阿尔茨海默病的风险,痴呆症,和抑郁症。作者在总结本文时考虑了对一致性论点的突出反对意见,然后证明每个反对意见都是不合理的。
The prevalence of obesity, metabolic syndrome, and the associated long-term chronic diseases (cardiovascular disease, type II diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer\'s disease, depression) have reached epidemic levels in the United States and Western nations. In response to this public health calamity, the author of this paper presents and defends a novel bioethical argument: the consistency argument for outlawing SSBs (sugar-sweetened beverages) for child consumption (the \"consistency argument\"). This argument\'s radical conclusion states that the government is justified in outlawing SSBs consumption for child consumption. The reasoning is as follows: if one accepts that the physical harm caused by chronic alcohol consumption justifies the government outlawing alcoholic beverages for child consumption, and there is strong evidence that comparable physical harms result from chronic SSBs consumption, then, mutatis mutandis, the government is also justified in outlawing child consumption of SSBs. To support this argument, the author provides extensive evidence based on epidemiological observational studies, interventional studies, controlled trials, large meta-analyses, and the pathophysiology and biological mechanisms of action behind SSBs and chronic disease. Chronic consumption of large doses of SSBs and alcoholic beverages both drive the same diseases: obesity and insulin resistance, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and cancer. Chronic SSB consumption carries the additional risk of Alzheimer\'s disease, dementia, and depression. The author concludes this paper by considering prominent objections to the consistency argument, and then demonstrating that each objection is unsound.