Explain Why The Government Should Not Have A Say In Our Diets

Should government be regulating what we eat? On a yearly basis 18 million dollars are spent on school lunches for schools all over America. And taxpayers, are the ones paying for part of that. Government is trying to get the United States to eat healthier, but in the end money is being wasted and people are not happy about it. Overall the government should not be regulating what we eat.

The issue of whether the government's regulation of what we eat and drink is fair, this question has started many debates of whether the government should regulate what we eat and drink. On one hand people don't the government to interfere with their lives. On the other hand there

Everyone loves the idea of a government that truly cares about him or her. Especially a government that would go so far as to layout a healthy diet plan to insure the health of your children and to battle childhood obesity. It is great that the government is concerned about adolescent obesity and the nutrition students receive at school. However, the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) Food and Nutrition Guidelines provide more problems for schools and they need to be eradicated, as well as repealing the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act.

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.

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

The government is not responsible for the consequences of poor dietary choices made by individuals. The government is how ever needed to change the way we see health care. In America we have been taking on the burden of others issues unwillingly through the healthcare system. The article What You Eat Is Your Business by Radley Balko explains how premiums on healthcare due to “Your heart attack drives up the cost of [other’s]”. When others are paying for your personal health issues, it makes it easier to not “put down the cheese burger”. Other than motivation from the government we as individuals

However, unlike the view of David Zinczenko, Radley Balko, a senior editor at Reason and author of “What You Eat Is Your Business”, takes a strong clear stance that Americans are to blame for their own actions and health. Balko illustrates that the government is spending millions of dollars on changing the distribution food, such as what is being sold in school cafeterias and calling obesity a nationwide health crisis. He expands this idea by stating, “A society where everyone is responsible for everyone else’s well-being is a society more apt to accept government restrictions” (159). Basically, he believes this is a misguided resolution in the fact that government should not be concerned with intervening and restricting the food options for the entire population, but should be with individuals harboring responsibility for their own health.

300 years ago, people immigrated to America to be free. These people did not want to have to worry about the government telling them what they can and cannot do, but that was a simpler time. Today, society is taking this freedom for granted, and are abusing their privileges as

When the Obama administration 's Hunger-Free Kids Act was put into motion, children across the nation were in uproar. The act requires school lunches to minimize portion sizes, limit calories, and cut back on protein consumption in general for all students. Most students, including myself argue that the government should not have any say in our diets. The government shouldn 't have control over what we are eating for three very obvious reasons. clearly, the act 's "one size fits all" approach does not apply to every individual student affected. Second, The federal government is being hypocritical with the passing of this act, we can inhale harmful smoke and injest chemicals such as alcohol but we can 't even have a good burger for lunch? Third, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act clearly limits students ' choices and prevents them from making intelligent decisions on their own. Overall, the Hunger-Free Kids Act is not helping children by regulating their diets.

An article called Michelle Obama Shouldn’t Decide What Your Child Eats is a different stand point. The main issue is whether or not the government/Michelle Obama should be regulating eating habits during school. The author Daren Bakst brings some good points to the table of why the government shouldn’t regulate schools. It’s very hard for parents to monitor what their children eat while at school. Bakst feels that this doesn’t mean parents haven’t provided their children with necessary knowledge to make informed choices (Bakst). He also feels that “this doesn’t justify federal control” (Bakst). Parents should have their own say in what they feel their school should be offering to the children. For the government to step in is like an over step in boundaries. One suggestion would be for the school to offer a board meeting to discuss healthy options for the

The Declaration of Independence reads, “ We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Whether or not the government should have a say

Obesity in America is a growing problem. There are too many fast food restaurants and many Americans aren’t physically active. Food advertising is targeting children for high calorie, high fat snacks and sugary drinks. Americans are exposed to oversized food portions in restaurants, fast food places, gas stations, movie theaters, super markets, and etc. Some Americans even have a lack of access to healthy foods. If the government had a say in our diets, problems like these would be prevented.

America is known for being one of the unhealthiest nations in the world. This true statement is able to be traced all the way back to what is in our foods: corn, sugar, salt, and fat. Each of these ingredients are generally okay to consume small amounts. Unfortunetly, many Americans

Obesity is a rising epidemic that has long plagued the citizens of America. Unfortunately, the fight to end obesity has opened a gateway for governmental control over the personal lives of American consumers. At first glance, many Americans might be convinced that congress’s efforts to eliminate this concerning health issue

Regulating what the government should control and what they should not was one of the main arguments our founding fathers had to deal with when creating our nation, and to this day this regulation is one of the biggest issues in society. Yet, I doubt our founding fathers thought about the idea that the food industry could one day somewhat control our government, which is what we are now facing. Marion Nestles’ arguments in the book Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health deal with how large food companies and government intertwine with one another. She uses many logical appeals and credible sources to make the audience understand the problem with this intermingling. In The Politics of Food author Geoffrey