Health misinformation and freedom of expression: considerations for policymakers.

Health misinformation, most visibly following the COVID-19 infodemic, is an urgent threat that hinders the success of public health policies. It likely contributed, and will continue to contribute, to avoidable deaths. Policymakers around the world are being pushed to tackle this problem. Legislative acts have been rolled out or announced in many countries and at the European Union level. The goal of this paper is not to review particular legislative initiatives, or to assess the impact and efficacy of measures implemented by digital intermediaries, but to reflect on the high constitutional and ethical stakes involved in tackling health misinformation through speech regulation. Our findings suggest that solutions focused on regulating speech are likely to encounter significant constraints, as policymakers grasp with the limitations imposed by freedom of expression and ethical considerations. Solutions focused on empowering individuals - such as media literacy initiatives, fact-checking or credibility labels - are one way to avoid such hurdles.

Reinterpreting the health in all policies obligation in Article 168 TFEU: the first step towards making enforcement a realistic prospect.

The EU Treaties oblige the EU institutions to take health objectives and concerns into account in all policy fields. Nevertheless, this obligation is only marginally honoured in many EU policy areas at best. One problem is the lack of enforcement options to pursue further implementation. This paper examines the obligation to 'mainstream' health in Article 168 TFEU and demonstrates the difficulties in enforcing the obligation in more detail. It then offers a new, deeper interpretation of the contents of the mainstreaming obligation and discusses how this definition may be used to facilitate better enforcement in the future.

The Ethics of Taxing Sugar-Sweetened Beverages to Improve Public Health.

The World Health Organization highlights fiscal policies as priority interventions for the promotion of healthy eating in its Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Non-communicable Diseases. The taxation of sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs) in particular is noted to be an effective measure, and SSBs taxes have already been implemented in several countries worldwide. However, although the evidence base suggests that this will be effective in helping to combat rising obesity rates, opponents of SSBs taxation argue that it is illiberal and paternalistic, and therefore should be avoided. Bioethical analysis may play an essential role in clarifying whether policymakers should adopt SSBs taxes as part of wider obesity strategy. In this article we argue that no single ethical theory can account for the complexities inherent in obesity prevention strategy, especially the liberal theories relied upon by opponents of SSBs taxation. We contend that a pluralist approach to the ethics of SSBs taxation must be adopted as the only suitable way of accounting for the multiple overlapping, and sometimes, conflicting factors that are relevant to determining the moral acceptability of such an intervention.