Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 3, 2026

Choice and No-Choice Assays for Testing the Resistance of A. thaliana to Chewing Insects
Published on: May 14, 2008
Abstract:
Obesity is often considered a public health crisis in rich countries that might be alleviated by preventive regulations such as a sugar tax or limiting the density of fast food outlets. This paper evaluates these regulations from the point of view of equity. Obesity is in many countries correlated with socioeconomic status and some believe that preventive regulations would reduce inequity. The puzzle is this: how could policies that reduce the options of the badly off be more equitable? Suppose we distinguish: (1) the badly off have poor options from (2) the badly off are poor at choosing between their options (ie, have a choosing problem). If obesity is due to a poverty of options, it would be perverse to reduce them further. Some people in public health say that preventive regulations do not reduce options but, I shall argue, they are largely wrong. So the equity case for regulations depends on the worst off having a choosing problem. It also depends on their having a choosing problem that makes their choices against their interests. Perhaps they do. I ask, briefly, what the evidence has to say about whether the badly off choose against their interests. The evidence is thin but implies that introducing preventive regulations for the sake of equity would be at least premature.
Related Concept Videos
Equity Theory
Obesity
Mate Choice
Personal Choice and Fate Attributions
Drug Dosing: Obese Patients
Factors Affecting α-Alkylation of Ketones: Choice of Base
The reaction involving bases like EtO− whose conjugate acid EtOH (pKa = 15.9) is stronger than the ketone (pKa = 19.2) results in an equilibrium mixture with higher ketone concentration. As a consequence,...

