Should The Government Regulate What We Eat And Drink Essay

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.

Will consuming only 16 oz. of soda make you skinnier? Of course, assuming you won’t buy a higher amount from vending machines, super-markets, or convenience stores. Well, this is what the controversial soda ban introduced by Mr. Bloomberg is proposing, an unsuccessful quest to reduce obesity rates in New York by limiting the amount of soda per customer. A ban that also is indirectly threatening the soda industry including small businesses, which might lead to job losses. Despite all the positive outcomes that this ban might generate overtime, restricting New York’s consumers from buying large sizes of the sugary drinks would not prove an effective way of guiding Americans into eating healthy, healthy living should rather be properly taught and practiced across the country.

Transition Statement: While some think that the sugary drink ban is the best option, others think it isn’t a viable option. I will now discuss some opposing views concerning the ban. Most opposition to a ban revolves around the idea that it may not be the best solution to a problem. Many people argue that the legislation is flawed and will not have a large or effective impact.

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

Statements have been made asking why not increase the choices of healthy eating in schools and other public establishment rather than banning soda. A major issue the citizens are facing as if they ban soda, what could they possibly been next? (Michael. “60% in city oppose Bloomberg’s soda band, poll finds.” The New York City Times. Times 22 August, 2012. March 23, 2018

Some pros about letting the government control what we eat is that about 60% of the world is overweight and over 25% of the population eats fast food every day. The government could help us limit how much we take in and how often. They could also set up plans to help you lose all of the extra weight and help you become healthy again. Obesity is one of the main issues in our world, we eat more calories in a day then we should in 2 days. A lot of people don’t watch what they eat or how many calories it has in it, they just look at how good it is. Fast food isn’t the only problem, it’s the factories that

It is not ok for the government to regulate convenience foods, if they do riots will happen and millions will lose jobs. Also, our economy will drop instantly and won’t go back up. Junk food and soda companies make up a lot of our economy. To add on, it won’t help obesity because sometimes it's genetic.

The government acts as if they can make decisions for everyone, but in reality no one wants someone else telling them what they cannot do. There have been many debates on whether the government should be allowed to regulate people’s diets; especially those of teenagers. No way though, should the government be deciding what teens can and cannot eat. There are many reasons why the government should not regulate diets including that the healthy food usually tastes disgusting, businesses will decrease without people buying the things they use to, and people should be allowed to make their own choices on how they choose to diet.

One of them involves the fact that it can cause obesity. The part of the article that was saying yes on banning was really having a thorough thought on having these sweets can cause more obesity. It was also stating that one third of America’s children are either overweight or obese. Another fact that this article had mention is that when teenageres are obese as teens 80% of those teen remain obese as adults. They also stated that eating foods like these can also cause more than just obesity. It may cause certain cancers, and chronic diseases like diabetes, heart disease, asthma, and high blood pressure. But what they proposed on what the government should do instead to change these horrific facts is changing what kids eat at schools. Since that is where many kids eat half of their daily calories. I really agreed with this statement because I can relate. I know that my school serves really fat and greasy foods that are bad for the body. As it has really affected me in my sports activity. When I eat something fattening from the cafeteria at my school, I later have little energy when I am at baseball practice. But on the contrary when I eat something healthy like a salad I don’t feel as bad as I do when I eat something unhealthy and

I agree that despite the fact that sugary drinks leads to obesity and diabetes, the restaurateurs and retailers, including the transnational corporations such as Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and McDonalds, continue to oppose this legislation in order to increase their profits. Though New York has the 12th lowest obesity rate in the nation, the adult obesity rate has increased from 17.1 in 2000 to 27 percent currently.1 This proves that obesity is still on the rise and that it is about time to take actions to prevent the complications of obesity. However, limiting the size of a drink would not prevent obesity. The government cannot improve the health of an individual by limiting their food. Individuals have to choose their own lifestyle. Until the individual

Regulating our food is not the best option. Banning certain food from stores and restaurants will only bring harm to their businesses. For example, “The ban would prevent retailers who sell prepared food from also dispensing sugared beverages, including sodas and sweetened

According to Gostin and Wiley (n.d), “The role of public health is to assure the conditions needed to promote and protect people’s health. These conditions include various economic, social, and environmental factors that are necessary for good health” (para, 2). The law in the United States of America proved that there is a positive suitable balance between public health interests by public officials and individual autonomy. The Soda Ban is an excellent example of this kind of balance. The balance between officials of public health and liberty should be flexible in which it opens the door for all parties to be engaged without limitation or favoritism.

I believe that knowledge is power. I believe that we should take every opportunity we can about the foods we eat, what is healthiest for us and what may not be the healthiest for us. But, the ultimate choice is ours ands ours alone. We are a nation based on freedon. The freedoms that we so cherish cannot and should not be controlled by our Government making decisions that are the ultimate decision of the individual person. If we allow the Government into our every day lives in something that concerns our decision making of what and how much food we put in our bodies, what will be next? Will the Government then tell us what literature is best for us to read and ban the rest? Will the Government tell us how many children we are allowed to have per family?

The common thought of most Americans living in the United States that it is the greatest country on planet earth, and second is not even close. They believe this notion because of the freedoms this great nation was founded on: The freedom of religion, the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly. These freedoms turn into more simplistic generalities that are assumed and exercised by Americans daily, such as the freedom of choice. Although the freedom of choice is a right given to us at birth, it is a right that the federal government of the greatest nation on earth is slowly starting to rescind. Lets take health care for example, or most specifically, obesity. Law makers are slowing starting to

The greatest gift to humanity is the ability to choose what we want and what we think is good for us. Though some choices may seem good for us, they may not be necessary. In the world, there is a variety of food to choose from, healthy, unhealthy, sugary, salty, and fatty just to name a few categories. While adults make their choices, children are sometimes forced to abide on what is imposed on them. The U.S. Department of Agriculture released a standard that eliminates sugary snacks and drinks from school vending machine, replacing them with healthier items. The implementation of this standard has both a positive and a negative effect. While this appears as good news to some parents, others are tremendously affected by it, therefore raising the question, “Should schools ban sugary snacks and drinks?”