Should The Government Regulate What We Eat Essay

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 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

The government should not be able to tell people what kind of food they can and cannot eat. Each person has a personal responsibility for his or her health that they should have control of. This is why the controlling government should not regulate what people choose to eat.

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.

That’s what life’s all about?” (Stone, 287). In 2012, the Mayor of New York made a ridiculous law to restrict soda over the size of sixteen ounces. The choice of what size of soda a person could chose won't be an option anymore. Although, the soda ban can limit the exponentially growing rate of obesity it is unjust to the people of America because it limits freedom, lacks real restriction and opens doors to other prohibiting laws.

This source provides a lot of study based research information on several topics that relate to obesity. The article gives a lot of information about the battle between for fighting obesity and advocates that want Americans to make their own choices about the food they consume. This article covers a wide range of informative data from food served in schools, to the rise of industrial farming. The author is a freelance reporter that does not seem to have a bias for the obesity subject. Instead this author provides information for the government to regulate or not regulate the food Americans consume on a day to day base. The article’s audience could be made up of people looking to for the pros and cons of government regulations to help fight obesity. This source provides information to help anyone with some research material to in order to form their own opinion on the problems of obesity in this country. I found this source while using the CQ researcher website and searched for obesity in America.

Restaurants are an important source of daily food intake for New York City residents. An estimated one third of daily consumption comes from foods purchased from restaurants. Assuring healthy dining options is a public health concern. The public health concern this health policy aims to address is the presence of trans fat in foods served in restaurants. The presence of trans fat in foods creates a dangerous and yet preventable health risk to restaurant goers (2).

Diets have been a issue for the United States for a long time. The U.S. has thought about regulating peoples diets. This would make food healthier and better for you to eat. It would also eliminate junk food sold at stores and restaurants. The government should regulate peoples diets because it will help people be healthier, the food will be good for you, and the obesity rate will go down.

The first reason is because people have trouble making healthy decisions for themselves. This is supported in Passage 2, Regulations Do Change Eating Behavior, Paragraph 12, "Regulations make it easier for people to eat healthfully without having to think about it. They make the default choice the healthy choice." People can't resist comfort, and most of the time the unhealthy choice is the more comforting one. People have to make the healthy decision. One thing that also contributes to people not being able to stop is advertising. "Research back ups regulatory

Recently in New York City trans fats and large sugary drinks were banned for consumers to buy. But, should this really be enforced? All Americans should be capable of choosing their own foods and taking care of themselves without the government

One can describe trans-fat as unhealthy due to the preconceived notion that fat is essentially bad. Which is correct when moderation isn’t put into place by individuals who are in control of their own diets. Trans fats are mixed in with everyday snacks and there hasn’t been much of a benefiting factor for those who consume them regularly. Health problems such as heart disease are known to be linked with the product yet is being consumed regularly by a majority of the population. Those who control their own consumption should be made aware of the harmful factors of trans fat but banning trans fat as a whole isn’t very realistic. Government ruling to ban trans fat will diminish the freedom of choice for those who resign in Hallowell when considering

People run by popular gas stations and pick up a ginormous cup of basically sugar. Many people do this everyday and it is causing them to gain weight. Obviously, people can still buy many smaller drinks to equal the amount they would get with the large drinks but it will cost a lot more now. Some people can’t afford that or just do not want to spend that much money on a drink so they will not buy them. People do not want to work out so limiting the unhealthy drinks is a good idea. We cannot be feeding ourselves to die or become overweight easily. The large-sized drinks just cause problems so banning them is a good

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.