Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Dietary patterns of americans
Government and food industry
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Dietary patterns of americans
The government should not have a say in our diet. It will go against the right of individual liberty, and several changes will occur in food companies, which will have an influence on millions of people. Its government policies will also bring various health changes to individuals, and unexpected consequences will occur. On top of that, there are countless examples of government involvement failing.
In much of the United States, the right to individual liberty is given. If the government intervenes, and has a say in our diets, then this right is denied. The citizens have a right to freedom of speech, and liberty. This includes their right to make their own decisions on what they should and should not consume.
Numerous government policies bring unintended consequences. For example, since the 1970’s, the Department of Agriculture dietary guidelines urged many citizens to eat low fat diets to decrease the risk of obesity and heart disease. Many Americans took the government’s advice and ate less fattening food. As a result, though, they consumed more food which means they took in more calories. This increase in the overall calories also meant an increase in the total amount of fat calories. They did this because they believed that they were eating healthy foods, so they could eat as much as they would like to. This was a misunderstanding caused by the
…show more content…
For example, in 2007, we had similar obesity rates to Quebec. It’s government decided to step in and ban items and advertising for unhealthy foods. Canada has a comparable climate, population, region, and setting. If we are so similar and government involvement did not affect any of their obesity rates, then why should we expect a change? This will only waste money the government does not have. The government has not been able to stop crime, pregnancy in adolescents, underage drug use, and poverty, so how can we expect a change in our
Radley Balko, The author of the essay “What You Eat is Your Business”, would agree that in order to stop obesity, we must turn this public problem around and make it everyone’s individual responsibility. Instead of inflicting the importance of personal ownership, government officials, politicians and congress make obesity a public problem by prohibiting junk food in school vending machines, federal funding for new bike trails and sidewalks, and restrictive food marketing to children. Overall I agree that this manipulation of food options is not the proper way to fight obesity, however, I think that government should inform people about the food they are eating because then they have no excuses for not taking responsibility of the actions.
Drenkard, S. (2010). Overreaching on Obesity: Governments Consider New Taxes on Soda and Candy. Retrieved from http://heartland.org
In his article, “What You Eat Is Your Business” Balko contends that government intervention is the wrong way to fight obesity. Rather, each individual should be held responsible for their own actions (Balko 467). This assertion is made through lines of deductive reasoning. He starts this argument by first arguing that former President Bush reserved $200 million in an anti-obesity budget that will foster measures to prevent and reduce obesity (467). Following that, he referred to some politicians trying to put a “‘fat tax’ on high-calorie food” (467).
In his article “What You Eat Is Your Business,” Radley Balko emphasizes that we ought to be accountable with what we eat, and the government should not interfere with that. He declares that the state legislature and school boards are already banning snacks and soda at school campuses across the country to help out the “anti-obesity” measure. Radley claims that each individual’s health is becoming “public health” instead of it being their own problem. Balko also states, “We’re becoming less responsible for our own health, and more responsible for everyone else’s.” For instance, a couple of new laws have been passed for people to pay for others’ medicine. There is no incentive to eat right and healthy, if other people are paying for the doctor
Some may say that it’s the people’s choice how much food they want to eat, and I totally agree with them. That’s why I proposed ads and other forms of education over government legislation. If everyone was educated well about portion sizes, it’s more likely that they will make better choices that will affect all of us.
Nutritionism and Today’s Diet Nutritionism is the ideology that the nutritional value of a food is the sum of all its individual nutrients, vitamins, and other components. In the book, “In Defense of Food” by Michael Pollan, he critiques scientists and government recommendations about their nutritional advice. Pollan presents a strong case pointing out the many flaws and problems that have risen over the years of following scientific studies and government related warnings on the proper amount of nutrients needed for a healthy diet. Pollan’s main point is introducing science into our food system has had more of a negative impact than a positive one, we should go back to eating more of a traditional diet. I believe food science has given us
Michael Pollan makes arguments concerning the eating habits of the average American. Pollan suggests, in spite of our cultural norms, we should simply “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly Plants.”
The question of what is the government’s role in regulating healthy and unhealthy behavior is one that would probably spark a debate every time. Originally, the role was to assist in regulating and ensure those that were unable to afford or obtain healthcare insurance for various reasons would be eligible for medical care. However, now it seems that politicians are not really concerned about what’s best for the citizens but woul...
After taking a closer look at the American diet, it 's clear to see Americans are in a lot of trouble. The average American diet is filled with lots of greasy fast food, large cuts of meat, salty junk food and sugar-laden sodas. This tradition is then passed on to the children and creates a legacy of ailments, disease and a lower quality of life. To many people, plant-based eating sounds like a death sentence. In reality, it 's all about getting creative with the foods you already like. It also involves intentional meal-planning and organization. However, your health is worth it. The ability to experience a better quality of life should be motivation enough to start changing your eating habits. Consider a few of these simple ways to incorporate plant-based eating into each meal without eliminating delicious taste.
The federal government has a huge amount of power over America’s food and monitoring food safety. They have many rules and regulations that are required to be followed nationwide. The Delaney Clause of 1958, the regulation of genetically modified organisms and organic agriculture, and the Healthy and Hunger Free Kids Act are just a few of the many ways in which the government regulates the country’s food and the citizens that purchase and ultimately consume it.
It could also completely crush the stereotypes of Americans who are “all overweight and obese”. It could also set this country up for a healthier, and more fit generation. But, it also doesn’t have to be done all at once. Not every American can just be thrown into eating right. “Government intervention on our nutrition may not be as controlling as we think. Simply reducing the amount of vending machines on college campuses, or portion sizes in high school cafeterias are small acts that can do a great deal in the long run.” (Knell). This shows that the government could slowly infuse slight changes over period of time to help every American to get into the right pace of eating healthy. But it’s not just eating healthy in general that turns many people away: it’s the insane cost of healthy food. “Over the course of a year, $1.50/day more for eating a healthy diet would increase food costs for one person by about $550 per year.” (Dwyer). The government should make it so that unhealthier foods are more expensive so that more people are not inclined to buy them and are more inclined to by the cheaper and healthier
The government must have a say in our diets. Because the issues of obesity have already reached national scales, because the costs of obesity and related health issues have gone far beyond reasonable limits, and because fighting nutritional issues is impossible without fighting poverty and other social issues, the government should control the range and the amount of available foods. The cost of healthier foods should decrease. The access to harmful foods should be limited. In this way, the government will be able to initiate a major shift in nutritional behaviors and attitudes in society.
Obesity in the United States Obesity is a problem all around the world not only the United States, but many other places! My forte and the stand against the reasoning against the government exploiting regulating the food and drink habits is that they shouldn’t be going around banning what Americans eat, or even drink; it’s our choice to eat and drink what we want not the government they don’t choose what we eat and drink we do! Us Americans, and also my point of view is that we should be able to come home and eat something that Americans want to eat because we want to, not only should we be allowed to eat what we want, but citizens’’ should also be able to drink what we want not have the government regulate everything that we eat and also drink.
Radley Balko, a senior editor at Reason, states, “We’re becoming less responsible for our own health, and more responsible for everyone else’s” (396). Individuals consistently buy fast food around the country, making the decision to consume foods that can cause obesity. There is the false economic belief that it is less expensive to eat fast food than to purchase healthy alternatives at a grocery store. Fast food is less expensive in the beginning, yet costs significantly more at the end; I am simply discussing nourishment quality here, not the consequent health insurance costs it puts on the obese. No one needs to reprimand the individuals who end up getting obese on account of no deficiency they could call their own, yet neither would anybody like to exonerate obese individuals from personal responsibility.
Many of us express our freedom by talking, writing, and drawing. So the same should be said for eating. If we choose to eating a Big Mac over a home-grilled hamburger then so be it. If we choose to watch the super-bowl rather than playing football then so is it. No one has the right to tell us what to eat or to force us to be slimmer and just like we choose to be capitalist; the food industry has the right to capitalize on our hunger without forcing it down our throat without our consent or that might be considered