Ban Too Far Essay

The health of our nation is an important topic that has been discussed for many years. It is no surprise that much of what contributes to illness such as heart disease and obesity is the consumption of sugar and junk foods. This is a simple fact that is widely known, but the government still feels the need to step in when it comes to controlling the population’s eating habits. Unfortunately, simply recognizing that something is bad is not always enough to deter someone from indulging. When it comes to our nation’s dietary habits, it is clear that some people may need assistance in making better choices and that is why the health and fitness industry is so big. At the end of the day, it is up to every individual to make their own choices whether

they are good or bad. How much of our diet needs to be dictated by the government—and is it necessary? Are proposed solutions like putting a tax on sugar content or limiting the sale of junk food an effective way to change a person’s dietary habits? While limiting the sale or junk food or sugary drinks might be effective in the short term, it is not an effective way to change a person’s habits because people generally do not like to be told what to do, it takes away some basic rights, and it does not educate them to make healthy choices.
A large reason why the government’s involvement in sugar and junk food restriction is ineffective is that essentially, people are being told what to do. Not everyone responds well when someone tells them they can’t have something. New York City’s Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg was criticized of “nannying” when he proposed banning the sale of soft drinks in fast food establishments. In the anonymous editorial, A Ban Too Far, they say, “too much nannying with a ban might well cause people to tune out.” (518) People will do what they want regardless of the rules. When the government tries to step in on issues such as diet, people are less likely to take it seriously. Banning or limiting the sale of sugary drinks only puts a Band-Aid on the problem. It is not an effective solution in the long term because it does not make people truly aware of the negative consequences of an unhealthy diet. On the surface, everyone knows junk food is bad, but finding ways to engage more people to make better choices would be the better solution.
Restricting the sale of certain food types takes away from a person’s freedom.

While being about to drink any amount of soda and juice might seem like a small freedom, it is still a choice that we should be free to make if we want to. Moving the population towards better health is important, but if someone wants to spend their days drinking liters of soda, shouldn’t they be able to do so without paying such a high tax? In Gary Taustine’s response to the anonymous editorial A Ban Too Far, he says, “This proposal sets a very bad, very dangerous precedent. Freedom is rarely taken away in supersize amounts; more typically it is slowly siphoned off drop by drop so people don’t even notice until they’ve lost it entirely.” (519) Removing small freedoms over time can go unnoticed and if we allow the government to control trivial things like junk food, it could potentially give them more power to take other, larger freedoms away from us. Giving the government control over something as small as our diets can have a negative impact on the way the population views authority. What sort of other freedoms could they take from us next? Even if people allowed the government to take more control, this would contribute to the creation of a more apathetic generation. Potentially, having freedoms taken away from us can become the norm. As Taustine has said, “If we permit him to regulate portion control without a fight, then we don’t deserve the few freedoms we have left.”

(519)
The most effective way to eliminate junk food consumption is to put more money into health education. Health education will give people the foundation they need to live a healthier lifestyle. If schools taught useful skills like nutritional cooking and physical education, people would be better equipped with the knowledge needed to make better and healthier choices. It is one thing to tell someone that junk food is bad and exercise is good, but instilling good habits early is what makes it a lifestyle. Promoting healthy habits is what ultimately changes our attitudes and our relationship with food. A beneficial solution would be to start in schools. A good starting point would be to propose that public schools spend more money on physical and nutritional education. If these things were presented in an exciting way, this would be a great way to engage children and get them to bring these good habits to the household, potentially getting the whole family involved. Essentially, we don’t want the population to “tune out,” we want them committed to changing their self destructive habits. Future generations would benefit from this over time, as these children grow to have their own families.
In the opposing view, one could argue that taxing sugar content and banning junk food by beginning this in schools can promote a healthier food environment. While that may be true, this does not tackle the root of the problem. Daniel Lieberman brings up an interesting topic in the article Evolution’s Sweet Tooth, “humans evolved to crave sugar, store it, and then use it” (522). Lieberman implies that humans cannot help their cravings for sweets as it is instilled in us biologically. Therefore, the proposition of a tax on food would be beneficial because it forces the population to make changes. However, this has proven not to be effective. For example, with the recent federal excise tax hike on tobacco products, I have not personally seen smokers affected by it – only financially. If someone wants to indulge in a vice, whether it be nicotine or sugar, people will still pay the higher price. At the end of the day, this doesn’t solve the problem. People are still left with their unhealthy habits, only with less money in their pockets.
Overall, we need to treat Americans as the adults they are and not regulate them like children. Teaching each other the benefits of living a healthy lifestyle acts as a positive reinforcement, which is more effective than punishing people by charging taxes or limiting sugar intake. While the intentions of Mayor Bloomberg are good, setting limitations on New York’s diet is not that answer. He may have been hoping to set a good example for others to follow, but proposing bans and raising taxes only shuts people down and decreases motivation to move towards a healthier food environment. It is difficult to imagine a future where tax hikes have eliminated the obesity epidemic. Health education is paramount in instilling good habits and engaging people to want to take better care of themselves. If people have the building blocks they need to establish a healthy foundation, they are better equipped to live healthier lives in the long term, and that is the solution that we should be exploring. People generally do not want to be forced into doing things, even if it is something we should all want, like being healthier – it is better for them to want it for themselves. People should not be coerced into health; they should voluntarily take the steps toward a better lifestyle. Once people are more conscious of their decisions, the probably for success is much higher than just blindly following set rules.