Food Nannies: Who Decides What You Eat? Essay

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

Snacks and sodas have been removed from vending machines and have been banned on school campuses because of the state legislature and school boards. A “fat tax” has been suggested for high calorie foods. Another possibility being considered is that restaurants will have to send in every item on their menu to a laboratory so that it can be tested for its nutritional value and then labeled on that restaurant’s menu. This takes away a person's personal responsibility for their own body and well-being and makes it the government’s responsibility. Balko states “your well-being, shape, and condition have increasingly been deemed matters of ‘public health’, instead of matters of personal responsibility.” It is becoming more and more common for states to prevent private health care providers from charging obese clients at higher rates which removes any financial reasoning behind being

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.

In the article, “What You Eat is Your Business,” senior writer and investigative reporter, Radley Balko, argues obesity is a personal and individual responsibility and should not be regulated through the government since that violates our freedoms and rights. Balko states the government’s regulations in preventing obesity, such as, removing junk food in school vending machines, more detailed food labels, and forcing the food industry to be more responsible in their behavior towards the health issues of consumers. Many politicians agree with banning of unhealthy snacks and sodas from school vending machines, in addition, calling for a fat tax on unhealthy, high calorie foods. According to Balko, this is the wrong way to fight obesity, he continues,

Eating healthy has become a thing of the past. In the essay by Mark Bittman “Bad Food? Tax it, and Subsidize Vegetables Instead” offers an idea on how to change the Standard American Diet: making healthy food cheaper and fast, processed food more expensive. Calculating the tax to increase one penny would make a difference in the price and the decision for the people as to whether or not the people are will purchase processed foods. He explains that taxes on carbonated drinks and processed foods should increase due to the amount of money it would bring into the government, and the benefits of a healthier American. Bittman’s results remove chronic health diseases that reinvent the way we eat. In “Nickle and Dimed on Not Getting by in America,”

Radley Balko, the once editor of the Huffington Post, argues in his essay “What You Eat Is Your Business,” that personal responsibility is necessary when it comes to the food you ingest and your health. Balko goes into detail about how the government should not have a hand in what consumers eat or where they eat by discussing initiatives the government has put in place. Anti-obesity initiatives such as the request for more food labels and the restriction of junk food in vending machines at schools are becoming more popular and causing the American population to not take responsibility for their own health choices. American’s well-being has become an issue of “public health” instead of being an individual concern.

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.

Has the balance between personal freedom and the government's responsibility to provide health and welfare of its citizens been eroded? The answer to that is No. Yes, there should be a balance between personal freedom and the government’s responsibility to provide health and welfare of its citizens. Personal freedom is one of the great perks of being an US citizen. The ability to choose for yourself and not have a dictatorship telling you what you can and cannot do is priceless. Yes, USA is a free country but if someone is requesting assistance from the government, like with any other entity, there are rules and regulations to follow. Times have changed amongst everything from types of food healthy for people to technology used to help cure diseases.

The government with all of its power is now trying to tell you what you can and cannot eat. It is true that America has an obesity problem but people’s freewill should be respected in regarding individual lifestyle choices. Americans should have the freedom to choose what food they eat and the lifestyles they choose regardless of the impact on their health.

This regulation is necessary in order to increase awareness of what individuals eat. Bent Glass argues in "Should the Government Regulate What We Eat?" that "the support of the ban on trans fats are quick to point out the negative health effects of consuming food prepared with the banned item." Many restaurants are putting the amount of calories on their food menus. However, many Americans just keep eating the food because of its quality and flavor, been conscious of how many calories it contains. This clearly demonstrates the importance of the regulation necessary to maintain individuals in a safe environment.

With obesity rates increasing at an exponential rate, a tax on fat foods and specifically high sugar beverages of 20% or about 1 cent per ounce could reduce obesity rates by 3.5%, bringing the rate down to 30% among adults (Kalaidis). While 3.5% may not sound like a lot, if you take an approximate U.S. population of 350 million people, suddenly that mere 3.5% turns into over 12 million Americans who would no longer be considered obese. Marion Nestle, a well-respected expert in food policy, recently conducted a study investigating the impact of a junk food tax through predictive modeling. Her study revealed that 2,600 deaths, 9,500 heart attacks, and 240,000 new cases of diabetes could be prevented with a simple 1 cent per ounce tax on sugary beverages (Satran). A junk food tax of this kind could greatly increase the health of the American public as a whole by reducing death rates and healthcare

The government can make money by taxing unhealthy fast food and use it for education and less expensive gym memberships. If there was money invested in more education about healthy eating, young adults would have a better understanding of what is healthy. The teachers could teach the class on how to eat healthy and what kinds of healthy foods there are. The extra money could be used for a nutritionist or a chef that specializes in healthy foods. The less expensive gym memberships would mean that more people would afford to join. The nutritionist expert believes that putting in more money into school programs would increase the healthy food intake. Mark Bittman, author of Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables states, “Rather than subsidizing the production of unhealthful foods, we should turn the tables and tax things like soda, French fries, doughnuts and hyperprocessed snacks” (35). Most would believe that unhealthy food should be taxed rather than healthy food. If the the government wants the people to eat healthy, then start taxing the unhealthy food, so the healthy food is cheaper. A hamburger cost $1 and a salad costs about $5. Which one would the people want to buy? The hamburger because it is cheaper and delicious. The salad may be healthier, but the hamburger is way cheaper. A study has shown that a penny-per-ounce tax on unhealthy food would generate about billions of dollars in income and it

Even if it is detrimental to society - it is exactly that - a societal issue, not a governmental one. The federal government should not have a say in how we live if the purpose of government is to protect the way of life of all people. Whether every person should believe that we should be careful of what we eat does not matter. The government should allow people to make their own choices. The government controlling what we eat would act as a gateway, or catalyst, towards the government controlling every aspect of humanity. This would leave us with little, if any, free will. Soon the government would begin to control how much electricity we can use in a day because of increasing argument for saving the environment, or even as far as controlling the way we dress because this leads to crime and/or violence. It can be seen that everything can have valid convincing reasons so that once we accept one aspect of control, the diet would stop us from disagreeing in some way to other ideas, increasing the governments control over us. They may seem valid and useful at first, but then we will end up with no free will at

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.

Wouldn’t it be reasonable to consider that people just might eat healthier if they simply had the money to do so? It would be interesting to consider that the people who usually have bad eating habits, are the ones who actually can’t afford to eat healthy. America has the highest obesity rate in the world, but who knows where we could be if the healthy food was more affordable and the junk food wasn’t reasonably cheap. Illnesses and diseases have become common too in people, many that come from just unhealthy eating that has taken a negative toll on the body. Not to mention, people living in low-income areas where in those areas, the main thing around them are fast food restaurants. The promotion of healthier eating and a healthier lifestyle, though, isn’t completely hidden from the public, though more ads about tasty junk food are on televisions, billboards, and so on, more than food that will benefit your body and general health. These things are all played into the fact that people already have a terrible diet, and the prices of foods that can make someone’s diet healthier are too high for most to even include them in their diet regularly. Healthier foods should cost less because it can help lower the high obesity rate in America, it will promote a healthier lifestyle to people to do things like exercise more, and it can help prevent life-threatening illnesses caused by unhealthy eating.