Perfection: Should The Government Control What We Eat?

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.

When dealing with the case for Empress Matilda we must also consider what time she was born into. In these early ages society didn’t seem ready yet for a female ruler. Therefore, with no other legitimate heir to the crown, Stephen was in a much better position at the beginning, gaining support far easier than her which brought him the advantage of being crowned so fast in such a crucial moment.

Supportive Structures Form- When an embryo forms, supportive structures develop that are crucial for proper growth. These structures support and protect these developmental embryos. Some of these structures are the umbilical cord, amniotic sac, the placenta, yolk sac, chorionic villi, and the allantois. During the third week of embryonic development after conception, chorionic villi connect to the uterine wall, which provide maximum contact with maternal blood. They sprout from chorion, are an essential element in pregnancy and a product of conception. Branches of the umbilical arteries carry embryonic blood to the villi. Although the mother’s blood is in contact with the embryo’s villi, the systems

Children in America are faced with different choices every day. Some of these choices can be either good or bad for them. But these children don't really know the consequences of their actions, but the school does. Schools are serving unhealthy and un properly cooked meals to children every single day. These food companies make big money from these schools because the schools just buy the lunches so the kids will eat something. The schools don't really care what goes into the students stomachs, but as long as the school meets the requirements it's okay. Then the students just eat it because it looks and taste good, but they don't have an idea of what their eating is made out of or where it has been before. The government needs to start making school lunches more healthy for these students, if not then then unfortunately the number of obese children will rise.

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

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.

Background In 2012, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) began to change the way hospitals were reimbursed for their services. This change would base reimbursement on the delivery of higher quality services. This new type of payment program meant hospitals would be rewarded for positive outcomes and be penalized for poor outcomes.

The United States is believed to be a free country, not monocracy. No one wants the government to charge them extra for the snacks they decide to eat. People want to make the choice to be healthy on their own. The choice is up to the individual it is not the governments` choice to make. No matter how much more the taxes the government puts on junk and fatty food, it will not stop people from eating them. 2.

These are just some other ways that the Government is "doing it's part". How is that giving us more options? They are forcing us to do what they consider healthier even though some of us don't want to follow that rule. Not all of want to eat healthier. As sad as that is, it's true. Some people are very happy with their eating habits whether it's healthy or not. So, why force those people to do something they have no interest in doing in the first place?

Have you ever taken a bit in your school lunch and just want to spit it all back out? Or how about the little portions you get? These types of school lunches should not be allowed to be given to the students because there are many reasons why school lunches are bad for health reasons. Although the school lunches are supposed to be healthier and better for our well-being, school lunches should change because it’s not very appetizing, there are little portions, and there isn’t any difference in the health level before.

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

The government should have a say in people's diets. There are many people that feel that the government should have a say in their diets. Additionally, there are other people that think the government should not have a say in their diets. Obesity is a growing problem in the United States. Many people die or contract diseases that relate to their diets. Also, many people are unaware of the dangers of unhealthy eating. The government generally provides information that correlates to the daily recommendations for food intake and food choices. Additionally, the government provides information guiding food portion size. The government should aid people with their diets. The government can advertise the correct portion size and effects of healthy and unhealthy food choices.

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

One of the reasons why junk food should not be banned from school cafeteria is because the cafeteria isn’t the only source kids have too unhealthy foods. Kids in school can go just around the block to the gas station or minimart and buy all sorts of junk foods, probably even more than what they can buy in school from vending machines and the lunch lines combined. Like Rosenthal said, “at some open-campus schools have made it a practice to walk to nearby mini-marts and gas stations to buy the same products they used to purchase in the vending machines” (9). This quote tells us that campuses have made it easier for students to go out during school and or afterschool to purchase the junk food they want. A school administration recently did an experiment to see if students could purchase individual food and beverage items, either from vending machines, school store, canteen, snack bar or a la carte

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.