Eat By Daren Bakest Analysis

In their 2012 article, "The Toxic Truth about Sugar," Lustig et al argue that sugar, like alcohol, ought to be regulated by governments due to the harm it can cause to individuals' health and the public good. Their argument, at first glance, appears to be highly logical and virtually unassailable: alcohol is regulated because it is bad for health and causes other problems for society, and so sugar which is the cause of much greater and more pervasive health problems and is also detrimental to the social and cultural fabric of the peoples of the world in a variety of ways involving the agricultural industry and global development should also be carefully regulated and controlled. The researchers cite actions taken in other countries along the same lines as a further justification of their call for more control when it comes to sugar content and consumption, and clearly spell out some of the concrete harms that increased sugar consumption has had and will have on the world's population, not just in developed/industrialized countries but in all countries adopting similar diets. This adds up to a very compelling picture of the threat that sugar specifically and "junk food" (calorie-dense and nutritionally-lacking consumables) generally constitutes to the world population.

This is a fact that is not only staggering, but also shocking that we’ve let this happen to the modern age what with all the technology that could perhaps help reduce this. Paragraph 3’s testimonial is in short order, the UN says that sugar is now in the same league of products as tobacco and alcohol, especially when consumed in large amount, can pose a serious health threat, however it is OK, but only if used in moderation.

There is a dramatic increase in the number of children who are being affected by diabetes and obesity in America. Sugary drinks and unhealthy snacks should be taken out of the vending machines in schools and replaced with healthier choices to help stop this trend. Some may argue that taking out the options it is taking away a student’s right to choose what they will and will not eat. However, by taking out the sugary drinks healthy habits are encouraged, future diseases are avoided, and a healthier generation is brought up.

Sugar is everywhere in our lives. When you eat, sugar is in the food such as hamburger, sandwiches, pizza, bread, etc. When you drink, sugar is in the beverage like soda, juice, coffee and even milk. Furthermore, sugar exists in snacks such as cookies, cupcakes, biscuits and so on. I cannot list everything with sugar here. Actually, when we eat, we eat sugar. Unfortunately, sugar is now considering a toxic to our bodies. It causes diseases like obesity, diabetes, heart attack and cancer, etc. As sugar threatens the public health, government is considering curb sugar consumption by taxes on sugar; restrictions placed on food production and even age requirements on purchasing sugary foods. For this research project, I decided to pursue the question, Should sugar be regulated? This question deserves to be examined because we need to make some change for life to reduce sugar intake but at the same time it’s controversial that whether the government should intervene and regulate sugar. I wonder how the government will take appropriate measures to regulate sugar as well as improve public health.

Ultimately, the debate continues as to whether the US government should create strict sugar regulations or not. Sugar regulations should be enforced in order to decrease the rate of diabetes, risk of liver failures, and sugar addiction problems. These problems outright can ruin a person’s life, even leading to death. These problems give the necessary reason for the government to take action for a stricter sugar regulation for population

Most people say that the government’s role, in our diets, is the key for a healthier life. While others may argue that it is freedom of choice to eat whatever we want. However depending on the point of view, the government’s role in shaping what we consume is either a compulsory intervention or a blatant interference on American free will. Even though we hear a good argument on the government controlling our diets, most research show that the involvement of the government on our diets has shown little to no results.

Coke or Pepsi? Diet or regular? These are questions that many of us hear on a regular basis when making choices about what we want to drink. But if a new law has its way this variety of drink choice could be no more, which is largely because soda and sugary beverages are contributing to the staggering increase in obesity rates in recent years in the United States. Obesity is defined as an abnormal accumulation of body fat that is usually 20% or more over an individual’s ideal body weight for their specific height, age and gender (Free Medical Dictionary 2007). Body weight and obesity risk are a result of genes, metabolism, behavior, environment, culture and socioeconomic status, wherein behavior and environment play two of the largest roles (University of Drexel 2015). People make decisions based on their environment or community which influence their health decisions and due to this it is essential to create environments that make is easier for people to engage in physical activity and eat a healthy diet (University of Drexel 2015). This is a problem that is particularly persistent in low-income populations causing them to suffer higher rates of obesity and the adverse health consequences that follow as a result of these poor diets. This is due in large part to their poor economic state but also their environment because they are surrounded by people that are in similar situations and dealing

Sugar is, and has always been, unavoidable; conversely, sugar has not always been toxic. Naturally abundant and technically enhanced, this substance has followed in the footsteps of tobacco and alcohol, becoming just as unhealthy and ultimately lethal. And, without the implementation of government

Eating unhealthy foods is one of the major causes of obesity today; but should there be a higher tax on all soft drinks and junk food? Should people be punished for eating what they want? Yes, there are health risks involved with an unhealthy diet but is a higher taxing on these foods the right alternative? With the price of healthcare raising maybe the extra tax could help alleviate it, maybe not. Perhaps the higher tax will turn people away from buying unhealthy foods and drinks. Consuming unwholesome food can lead to clogged arteries, heart attacks and many other fatal illnesses. Buying the healthier substitute may help our

Should the government have the right to decide which foods we can and cannot eat? In Theory no they should not however due to the current obesity rates rising at a very high rate the government should be able to tell us what to eat The personal problem of weight gain and self control have transformed into a public issue that needs to be addressed by the government. The article “French Fries as Contraband” by Kathy McManus gives insight and information about a law passed in Los angles banning the creation of any new fast-food restaurants in 32 mile zone located Low income zone in South central LA, The Idea of this law is to attract new Healthier stores and fresh produce Markets to combat the rising rates of Obesity and The rise of diabetes.

What if tomorrow’s news headline read, “U.S. GOVERNMENT BANS THE SALE OF KRISPY KREME DOUGHNUTS?” How would the country react? According to a study released by the National Center for Health Statistics (2008), “32.7% of American adults were overweight…an additional 34.3% were obese, and that 5.9% were extremely obese” (McGuinness 43). Americans are overweight and obesity is the cause of tens of thousands of preventable deaths in the nation each year (McGuinness 42). The nation is suffering a public health crisis due to overconsumption of nutritionally void food and beverages where “unhealthy eating and sedentary living has become the societal norm” (McGuinness 46). Some believe that the government should intervene by regulating American’s diets; however, others maintain that government intervention would set a dangerous precedent by undermining individual freedoms. Allowing the government to intervene is a slippery slope and could potentially lead to more intrusive actions (“Slippery Slope” 1). Instead of abrogating personal choice the government should re-evaluate the support it gives to institutions that contribute to the obesity epidemic.

The government acts as if they can make decisions for everyone, but in reality no one wants someone else telling them what they cannot do. There have been many debates on whether the government should be allowed to regulate people’s diets; especially those of teenagers. No way though, should the government be deciding what teens can and cannot eat. There are many reasons why the government should not regulate diets including that the healthy food usually tastes disgusting, businesses will decrease without people buying the things they use to, and people should be allowed to make their own choices on how they choose to diet.

The fact is that in our country, any government intrusion looks undesirable. We are so used to making free choice and to having access to everything we need and want that we have already forgotten the value and usefulness of the government control. No, that does not mean that the government must control everything and everyone. What I mean here is that the government control should be balanced with the freedom of choice. Unfortunately, plentiful foods do not lead to improved health conditions. We cannot always make a relevant choice. Our hurried lifestyles make us extremely fast, and eating is not an exception. We eat fast, but fast does not always mean useful. I believe, and in this essay I argue that the government must have a say in our

Firstly, in America we have the freedom to make all kinds of decisions and it is one of the most important things in our lives. We do not have rations and we are not forced to buy and food. We are able to buy almost any food we want and consume it at any rate we deem appropriate. This means that the government doesn’t have any control over what we eat. People like it this way

Over the years society has inherited bad habits, among these have been unhealthy eating and drinking choices. These unhealthy decisions have led to a large percentage of our society to become obese. People have their own opinions and ideas on how this problem should be handled, the people brought forward these ideas with the insight of creating the most healthy life for all. In hopes of helping the large percentage of obesity decrease there has been a variety of ideas which have presented themselves as solutions. Banning super-sized menu items and tax on non healthy options exist as potential options for solving the obesity crisis. People of today’s society debate whether or not such banning and taxing will solve the obesity epidemic