Should The Government Have The Power To Regulate What We Eat

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.

The issue of whether the government's regulation of what we eat and drink is fair, this question has started many debates of whether the government should regulate what we eat and drink. On one hand people don't the government to interfere with their lives. On the other hand there are those who say the government should regulate what we and drink . Although arguments on whether the government's regulation of what we eat and drink sounds valid, there are some problems with them. Yes!! Government regulation of what we eat drink is fair>

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

First off, in Radley Balko essay, “What You Eat Is Your Business” he thinks people need to start being responsible for their actions, because maybe it will help people from being so obese. Health Insurances should reward people for having a health style. Radley Balko talks about that if someone is paying for his health medicines, what is stopping him from not having something unhealthy (467). Nutritional testing is being conducted on restaurants by Congress (Balko 467).

Obesity has dangerously increased over the years. Its consequences can be fatal for the human immune system. Some of the complications of overweight are: heart disease, diabetes, malnutrition, cancer, and even death. However, the cost of healthy food is twice or three times more than the price of junk food. Everywhere healthy options are more expensive, even water costs more than sodas. Making healthier food more affordable, will contribute to having healthier population. I think healthy food options should be more affordable because cheaper prices for junk food promotes obesity and other severe health issues, and families with low income can’t afford the costs of a healthy lifestyle.

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.

Imagine if the government controlled what everyone ate. The U.S. Government wants to be able to regulate people’s diets. This means that people will be limited and banned from certain foods that are unhealthy. Does the government want Americans to look a certain way or does the government actually care about health? How will the society react if the government gives into this new absurd regulation? I am challenging the governments regulation of peoples diets because people will be able to secretly obtain these limited foods, many people will be frustrated and Americans should be able to make well thought out decisions on what they will consume.

Should changes be made to the regulations for the foods that are served in public schools? This can be a very controversial question to most people; children with obesity, parents who do not care and for who does care about the health of the children and teachers who only wants what is best for the benefit of the children. This paper will attempt to explain and convince the unknown of why it is very important for our public schools to have a healthy eating curriculum for the children that attends there. If society can find a way to come together for the children of the community to fight to have healthier foods in the community, come together and provide counsel to the children of what healthy eating is all about. This paper will

Obesity in the United States has really become an economic problem as well. People are spending the little money that they have and spending it on food that they shouldn’t be eating in the first place, which they should be spending their money on healthier and nutritious food, for themselves and their family. New England Medical Center, Michael Dansinger of the Tufts says:

According to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) more than one third (34.96%) of U.S adults are obese. This proves that people are not taking care of their bodies and being aware of the types of foods that go in their mouths. The issue is that many people are disagreeing with the government regulating what we eat, however if this law is not enforced people will be free to buy excessive amounts of unhealthy sugary foods, leading them to a chronic disease. Even though sugary drinks and foods can have a good taste and be satisfying to many, the government should regulate what we eat because there will be less people with chronic illness, it will be less money wasted on health care for obese people, and there will be less individuals consuming trans fats.

One reason the government should not ban sugary drinks is that people should have the right to choose their own beverages."We are smart enough to make our own decisions about what to eat and drink" stated Liz Berman from the group New York of beverage Choices in

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.

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.