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

It is not the government’s responsibility to manage what we eat. “Government is setting aside whether they have the constitutional authority to regulate what we eat (paragraph 2, source 1).” Government regulating what we eat could stop responsible people that eat healthy from treating themselves. People who have long hours of work rely on fast foods because

Taking trans fats, sugars, and other unhealthy products out of foods in America could cause people to eat healthier and make better food choices. According to the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, more than 50% of adults are overweight and one in five kindergarten children students are obese. Many food manufacturers may argue that trans fats and sugars do not have that big of an affect on the nation; however, trans fats/sugars cause children to be obese at an early age and adults to be obese too. Even though foods containing sugars and trans fats are delicious, the government should regulate what we eat because foods and drinks containing those sugars and trans fats are unhealthy, they can stop certain individuals on the verge of becoming obese not become obese, and not everyone makes the right choices.

Such as a ban ultimately puts the american values of freedom and individualism in jeopardy. Glass`s point is that if the government controls what we eat and drink then it is going to cause us very big trouble. However as the article of “food politics” states “poor health is much more than an individual's personal problems. If you are ill, your illness has consequences for others. This means

The most supportive argument why people are in an agreement with the government controlling what we eat is because of all the obese people in the country with medical problems. In fact obesity is one of the many problems

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.

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.

Sugary drinks and fast foods are constantly being consumed by Americans, causing an increase in health problems. Government regulation of what we eat and drink is fair because it will increase awareness of what individuals eat and can prevent higher rates of obesity. The article by Ryan Jaslow, "Sugary drinks over 16-ounces banned in New York City, Board of Health Votes" clearly supports the banning. However, “Should the Government Regulate What We Eat?" argues that the ban puts the American values of freedom at risk. Such regulations are necessary in order to maintain a healthy environment.

The federal government shouldn’t telling us how to live our lives. The government is prohibiting us to text and drive, talk and drive, smoke around children. We as citizens need to learn to resolve these matters with guidelines not demands. We will never grow as a society if the government continues to put restrictions on our every movement. If one person makes an error and all of sudden there is law to make sure their error never happens again, we will have so many laws we will become puppets to the government. The way the laws are influencing our lives may cause this domino effect.

The government would have too much power if they were to take away the freedoms we have as Americans to eat certain foods. “No, the government should not be entitled to the decisions of US citizens.” Just because some Americans are obese and cannot control what and how they eat food doesn’t mean the government should make the rest of Americans suffer by taking away the freedom of choice.

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

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 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

Over the past 50 years, the way we eat has changed more than it had in the previous 10,000. Now, 60% of Americans over the age of 20 are overweight. The fast-food industry is highly responsible for today’s health epidemic. Some people choose to blame the government for not balancing individual rights, and the common good. However, the government is not forcing you to eat. You put yourself at risk of diet related health problems.

What if you were forced to eat foods you don’t like to eat, because of its look or smell, but it is all you have. We will focus on what it takes to be a healthy in the eyes of the government, also what classifies as fatting/"bad for you" or in other words unhealthy. Why does the officials in our government put restrictions on school foods? Is it fair, what are they hoping to achieve by applying the restrictions on schools.