If someone wants to eat at McDonalds and eat unhealthy food every week, what is wrong with letting that person eat that and have that person deal with the pros and cons that are associated with that lifestyle? Excess weight increases the risk of deadly diseases such as heart disease, stroke and cancer. According to the Center of Disease Control, the total cost of obesity in the U. Compared to Europe, America is relatively new to nanny measures. Similarly, the drug peddler lurking near the schoolyard offers a classic twentieth-century icon of malice. Are bad foods the next tobacco? Yet, those who attempt a healthy lifestyle are forced to pay very high prices for these types of foods while fast food and other processed and unhealthy foods remain cheap and easily accessible. Given this type of information, the government is starting to regulate what we eat.
We are learning all day, and many kids are just eating vast amounts of junk food. . It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions. Once the government intervention is removed, there are no health care costs to third parties. Instead of government controlling the fast food food industry and dictating what consumers can and cannot eat, why does the government not take a backseat and let people control their own destiny? Of course, parents have an important and critical role to play in teaching their children good eating habits and in modeling that behavior. We as citizens do have to right to choose what we eat, but when we do choose we should have to capability and knowledge to be able to choose beneficial meals that will only increase of well being. A lot of kids get it because they have to, but end up throwing it away.
In fact, in many ways, government control today is already far too expansive. The cost effectiveness of a government initiating policies that regulate the intake of foods and include taxation is not supported by any political party. In reference to the Bloomberg soda ban, I don't believe it's a realistic change. The first trigger for political regulation of private behavior—social disapproval—has long been tripped in the case of obesity. We cannot blame these people for taking advantage of the system, but we can stop it. What the hell do they think has been happening? Then frequent soda drinkers bought lower-priced soda, engaged in bulk discounted purchases, and brewed more sweetened iced tea. By Ryan Schwertfeger While the fast food companies may say otherwise, it is known without a shadow of a doubt that fast food is not very healthy or nutritious to eat- just ask Morgan Spurlock.
This causes parents to fret and cajole their children into eating too much. Taxes would reduce consumption of unhealthful foods and generate billions of dollars annually. In all four of our comparative cases, activists attack the producers or suppliers. The question is whether the perceived pro of having the government take a role in deciding healthy eating choices is really a pro at all, and to me, it would be a complete and utter con. It is nevertheless shocking to learn precisely how food companies lobby officials, co-opt experts, and expand sales by marketing to children, members of minority groups, and people in developing countries. Taxes on pizza and soda have actually been a success, r esearcher s have found a 10 percent increase in price of soda was associated with a 7. We eat fast, but fast does not always mean useful.
Nutrition might have been a health concern and a discussion in classrooms, but it did not stir political and ethical interest within the broader society. Is that not what the Founding Fathers wanted for America and its people? Sometimes people get nervous talking about government policy and food choices, as the very idea is an affront to personal freedom and the American way. For years, people consumed raw milk — and then the government regulated the milk industry and required milk companies to pasteurize the product. It has guided the advancement of society and it has led to incredible discoveries. Of course the government wants control.
This is a known fact, but we Americans have no voice to the government since there is no viable party yet for the Truth. What kinds of food policy reforms do we need? They charge corporate villains with seeking profits by peddling poison. There is simply too much tO know these days that people can't know it all. Sustained pressure from these advocates has not shifted national politics toward regulatory control, in part owing to strong and savvy lobbying by the food industry and its supporters. However, these costs exist because of government intervention.
I know others that have seen the calories the usually would eat at those restaurants and order more, so the purpose become obsolete. This medical consensus about the dangers of being overweight had little political effect. Now they must rewrite those policies before having something detestable legally…. Walter Willett, who is chairman of the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health and a strong ban advocate, claims that cause tens of thousands of premature deaths each year. Recently, with obesity on the rise, the new hot topic is whether or not the government should have control over what foods are sold in schools. Not only that, but doctors in America no longer have the freedom to treat patients however they see fit. Musto , The American Disease: Origins of Narcotics Control, 3d ed.
However, if a citizen is receiving food assistance such as food stamps, free school lunches, et cetera , the government should only allow its funds to be used for healthy alternatives. With a rising number of people with poor diets, the number of people suffering from obesity rises also. The American way of eating has become the elephant in the room in the debate over health care. You could no more recommend that today and stay credible in your field than anything else you could do, and this is 1961. Also shouldn't we be allowed to choose weather we want to eat healthy or not? The total calories for lunches had to be cut to 750 to 850 calories.
In part this may be because more than half of U. The measure is expected to go to a vote in December. I can just see it now, go the a pizza place. First, although trans fats may very well pose the health dangers claimed, medical studies in general are notoriously unreliable. Which kinda negates the healthy food objective. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.
I called to ask if that was not a bit repressive, why level penalize someone for what was obvisouly a didminimus error? I support eating healthy, but the government shouldn't have so much say over what we do. Americans did eat foods with less fat content, but because they were eating healthier foods, they ate more and the actual amount of fat calories increased because of an increase in overall calories. I believe that the government should have certain power over what food is sold in schools all over the nation. We have to have Washington control and reform the food industry, agribusiness. This could benefit some people who might not get these food options at home and it supports a healthy diet which benefits everyone. Here, you'll find over 45 million like-minded people working towards progress, kindness, and lasting impact.