Health Choices Violates Individual Rights

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

Healthcare in the United States! Now that is a question for the ages. Is Healthcare a right or a privilege? Ask 10 people and you will get 10 different answers. Some say yes some say no, however almost all have caveats to their answers. This is where the dilemma starts.

The Federal government for years has told people what they should and should not put in their bodies. Whether it’s Tran’s fat or cigarettes, sugar or alcohol, saturated or salt, legislators and regulators pick things off our table because they think they know better. For example, considering the widespread of obesity in America, it is substantiated by statistics that “the cost of obesity is currently estimated at $190 billion per year” and the bad thing about it’s coming from taxpayers. (Experts, The) I have several issues with this statement: first, the simple fact that the government is spending money on a disease that humans caused on themselves. According to the article” What Causes Obesity?” it is stated that “The risk factors that contribute to obesity can be a complex combination of genetics, socioeconomic factors, metabolic factors and lifestyle choices”. Sadly, citizens have not much choice but to pay higher taxes. And finally, the simple fact that the government is spending money on ineffective solutions. According to the article, ‘Government Intervention Will Not Solve Our Obesity Problem’, it is stated that “despite the myriad of studies showing American obesity is increasing, research does not clearly support that government can solve this complex problem’ (Marlow) For example, the government solution of adding calories counts on the menu. A recent study has shown that “27.7 percent who saw the calorie labeling” had

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

As an attempt to reduce the rising obesity and obesity-related disease rates, Mayor Bloomberg of New York City has proposed a ban on soft drinks larger than 16 oz. According to an infographic created by the Huffington Post, extra large soft drinks have accounted for an average of 301 extra calories in people’s diets across the US. Although measures need to be put into place to improve the unhealthy diets and lifestyles of many Americans, a ban on large soft drinks is not the solution. The ban on soda would be an ineffective attempt at reducing obesity and obesity-related diseases, as well as an infringement of civil liberties and an attack on businesses in New York City.

Their advertisement proclaimed that all they wanted to do was “protect their Freedom of Choice.” “This is New York City; no one tells us what neighborhood to live in or what team to root for,” says the narrator, as Yankees and Mets fans shout in the background. (Grynbaum, 2012). Since May 30 when Bloomberg wanted to ban the sale of soft drinks over 16 ounces in regulated food establishments such as movie theaters and sport arenas. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat, recommended there be a federal study linking together sugary beverages and obesity. “The talking points are ‘Nanny State,’ that it won’t work, because people will just buy as much as they ever would, and that this disproportionately hurts the poor,” said Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University. (Grynbaum, 2012). People that are not middle or low class would buy as much soda as they wanted and the rest of the people would be stuck with whatever drink is leftover. The lower class minority groups seem to always get the shorter end of the stick and in most cases unless a big group of them get together their voices will not be heard. The mayor or the city council should not have the right to tell you what size soda to drink or what kind of soda to drink; We live in The United States of America and there is no law that says anything about a specific size or flavor of soda so until that day comes nobody should

In New York City the mayor is trying to ban sugary sodas to decrease the amount of obesity. Two-thirds of adults in New York are overweight, 40% of elementary and middle school students fight obesity. Is this because of the intake of sugary sodas or is it the lack of self control? "Liz Berman, the coalition's chairwoman" states "We are smart enough to make our own decision about what to eat and drink."

However this argument is weak due to the most popular places, such as fast-food chains, are affected by the ban. You would also have to go out of your way to buy more soda, which is a huge inconvenience and it will cost more money, simply because you want an unhealthy beverage. The text “Soda’s a Problem But...” Klein argues against the ban, but a lot of her pieces of reasoning are not logical, for example “People would simply buy two 16-ounce cups” (Klein 289). This is illogical because it will cost more money to buy multiple cups of soda, which would cost more money, and they may not finish the soda’s that they bought at the convenience store or restaurant.  If you bought more cups of soda you would be taking up space within your car, if you have less space you will not have anywhere else to store more valuable objects like your phone or wallet. Soda being harder to get will help us make a healthier society because it will discourage people from buying more soda than they actually

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.

Question 2 – This infographic relates to Nadia Arumugam’s claim that, if not anything else, this ban may teach us about the importance of “portion control”. In her article she quotes Thomas Hardy and according to him the reduction of the consumption of sugary drinks from 20 to 16 ounces “every other week” will help New Yorkers avoid gaining about 2.3 million pounds a year. One of the problems is that people don’t realize the actual amount of unhealthy products they consume in a longer period of time.

Other people think that it is the government’s problem to fix obesity. Although the government’s efforts have been provided, they have been lackluster and ineffective through society. The government has implemented such organizations such as the ABA to regulate beverages in schools to make for a better lunch. They try to regulate beverages in elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, and even times of day they can and can’t be sold (Source A). This is ineffective because this just causes people to bring in their own unhealthy drinks, and more likely more of them then needed because they can’t buy them in school.

The government is trying to do its best to regulate what is healthy and unhealthy for

Many store owners might argue that if they ban super-sized soda drinks they will be receiving less money because the bigger the drink the more it costs; however, the health of the U.S citizens is much more important because the more they consume those sugary foods and

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.