The Importance Of Food Regulations

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>

In our daily life, we all have tasted sugar probably more than you think. Sugar is something we enjoy without having much concern, in fact this can be problematic. With the amount of sugar we take in, it can affect our health in the future. Therefore, the US government should create strict sugar regulations, in order to prevent future health problems of its citizens. The regulation can hopefully help prevent the increasing rate of diabetes, more risk of liver issues, and reduce people’s sugar addiction. Most people are unaware of these problems and it’s up to the US to make a change in people's health with a strict sugar regulation.

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

The ban on larger sodas would only make people buy more than one soda to satisfy their cravings as they do not like being told what they can and can not have. In 2013, in response to the ban, The Daily Signal reported “Mayor Bloomberg and the Board of Health seek to use their power to change consumer behavior. This assumes that citizens are ignorant and must be protected from themselves.” This agrees with the above statement of the people not liking being told what they can and can not do, or have. Another thing people may argue is that the ban is for people to be able to be healthier and still have soda. CNN News reports that “One of those solutions is to control portion size and sugar consumption.” While this is true the ban would only be subjective to places such as movie theaters, sports venues, restaurants, and places that people visit every once in a blue moon. The Huffington Post reports, “It's also important to look at where people acquire such large drinks. … Such neighborhood stores selling over 50 percent food products fall under the jurisdiction of the City's Department of Health, and therefore would be limited by the ban. Those selling under 50 percent food products would be exempt from the ban.” This basically states that convenience stores, supermarkets, and gas stations would not be subjective to the ban so people could just go to one of these places to get larger sodas therefore finding a way around the ban. This subjectiveness of the ban would not only make the ban inefficient but would also cost the city by stores and other places that fall under the jurisdiction of the ban having to cut workers, which then causes the state to have to create more programs for poorer city

As food moves through several steps from production to consumption, its risk of becoming unsafe is very high. Thus, the creation and implementation of laws are indispensable to minimize the risk of unsafe food. However, food laws are not intended to oversee the quality of the food.

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 1 - In her article Nadia Arumugam acknowledges some of the counter arguments to her own claim. She admits that the ban does not prevent customers from buying two cans of soda if they wanted, it only forbids “food services establishments regulated by the city” to sell sugary drinks exceeding 16 ounces. Through his art, the creator of the cartoon Dave Granlund demonstrates his position on the soda ban by questioning its effectiveness. He would likely disagree with the Nadia Aruguman because if someone wants to drink more than 16 ounces, he can and he will most probably do so.

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 New York Soda Ban is unfair, disliked, and useless, and if the government doesn’t revoke it, it denies people the right to make a choice. The soda ban “doesn’t apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based drinks, or alcoholic beverages; it wouldn’t extend to beverages sold in grocery or convenience stores. "(New York Times, Debate Club)Also exempted are "vending machines or newsstands that serve only a smattering of fresh food items."

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.

Organics’R’us is a proud company in manufacturing organic, non-GMO foods. Organics’R’us is known for their food around the world, and prides themselves on creating safe, and readily available foods for many different people. Organics’R’us has recently become concerned with the actions of the government in passing a new food law. This new food law would require a food company to lab their food with a QR code that people would then scan to find out if a specific product contains genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

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.