Government Regulating Food 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

The government should not have a say in the people’s diets. It is their life and they get to choose what decide to put into their bodies. No one needs the government telling them what to eat. Many people eat healthy by choice. Most people, at least in America, are educated well enough to distinguish between what foods are good for us and foods that are not so good for us. So people choose to eat healthy because it fits their active life-style and they enjoy their figure. If someone wants to ruin their life by eating constant junk, then let them. It is their choice. While e government says today that they may only have a say in our diets, tomorrow they will control them. As a whole many people may view themselves as adults, and know that with adulthood

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.

Remember when the tobacco industry was on trial and being held accountable for their illicit marketing and targeting tactics to further profits all the while denying any health issues associated? America has a similar issue but not as illuminated as the tobacco industry resulting in the surgeon general’s warning. This issue is free to market to children, free to market wherever profits are foreseeable, and free to label products to become more appealing. This issue is the ever growing food industry. Kind of taboo to blame food for the severe and skyrocketing obesity rate in America right? Have you ever checked your labels? Know what’s really in your food? Looked at and researched health programs controlled by politicians and bought and paid for health officials? The American food industry needs to have government regulation to prevent further obesity and malnutrition that is devastating our public health on a national scale.

In the article, “Goodbye Big Soda: New York Becomes First City to Ban Large-Sized Soft Drinks,” “...two-thirds of American adults now considered obese… and nearly 40% of the city’s [New York] public elementary and middle school students…” (Park). The harsh reality of today is that America is fat, and it is embarrassing. This is partly due to the fact that some people have no self control when it comes to food and it has gotten out of hand. Society is so quick to blame the fast food restaurants for obesity, but it really is not their fault. People choose where and what they do and do not eat; they do not have to eat fast food but they do anyway. Even if as the government takes action and takes away some of the more tasty, unhealthy foods and replace them with less tasty, healthier foods, people will eventually get used to it, They will adapt and it will just become normal, like a habit or everyday

On the other hand, the opposition believes that is not fair that the government wants to interfere in their own food choices. The U.S. government by adding taxes on junk food wants to tell people what they have to eat and what they don’t have to. People must have the right and the freedom to decide what is good and healthy for them and what is not. Also, they affirm that adding taxes on junk food won’t help to combat health diseases and even the obesity on this country because people that love junk food will still buy it, no matter how much it will costs. In addition, some people think that the junk food is convenient for low income people because it saves them the time and money that they have and most of the time it’s not a treat for them, it is the only type of food that they can afford. However, I think that they are completely wrong because junk food is cheap that is true, but it is unhealthy and it is killing and causing many health problems to the people that eat it. After certain time people that consume junk food will have to deal with the problems that eating this type of food cause and they will spend more

By giving the government the right to decide what we eat we are making things more expensive for us, making it hard for kids that have unique food needs to find something to eat, and would allow them to take away our personal freedom. All people will be forced to spend the money that they would once use for bills for healthy foods. Those with special food needs will not have the options needed and finally the freedom of choosing what to eat will be taken from us. This is not what America

Should the government control what children eat or don’t eat, or should parents step up to the plate and decide what their own children should eat. The two articles, “Parents, not bureaucrats, should decide what kids eat” by Daren Bakst, and “First lady’s fight for healthier food needs broad support” by William Rice both take a turn on the national issue of healthy eating. Daren Bakst states that it should be parents that instruct their children on how they should eat and the government should not interfere with this decision, even at school. But on the other hand William Rice explains that the obesity rate is rising steadily each year and that we cannot afford not to put a plan into action. Even with these differences both articles use the same tactics to share information throughout. “Parents, not bureaucrats, should decide

The government should use its authority to restrict the amount of fast food Americans consume to try to minimize the problem with obesity.  Fast food is a major source of the obesity problem that is increasing at an extremely rapid pace in the United States of America.  Right now in the U.S., there are over 50 million adults alone that are obese.  With that alarming number, the government should be stepping in to enforce laws and regulations that prohibits food industry from selling high fat foods.  While the government claims it 's too hard to step in because the foods people eat are a personal choice, it took the government 20 years to respond to health warnings that were issued (Health Affairs, Kersh).  The fact that a medical consensus brought up health warnings, but those warnings were ignored, shows that the government has shown little interest in America 's health problems.  Schlosser states that " {t}he United States now has the highest obesity rate of any industrialized nation in the world (240)."  The government loves to use the slogan about kids being our future, yet a quarter of the kids in America are overweight.  Part of the reason for this is because a lot of schools are getting rid of gym class

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

The idea I agree with in the article "Regulating Diet and Health Choices Violates Individual Rights" written by Jonathan S. Tobin is giving the government the authority to ban or regulate what they think is bad for us is not always a good thing. I agree with this idea because if the government has the authority to ban or regulate what they think is bad for us, they would just take action before

Fast food is responsible for the increase of obesity rates in Western nations. In order to curb obesity rates, government regulation from the local level is necessary. The fast food corporations are responsible for the obesity epidemic because they make false health claims about their food and market heavily to children. But critics of regulation state that individuals, along with their food choices are responsible for the obesity epidemic. But regulation proponents believe that fast food needs regulation because of high obesity rates in poor inner city neighborhoods. In order to curb current obesity rates, local governments must intervene by implementing fast food regulations.