Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Defined freedom
The definition of freedom is the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under restraint. An executive order made on December 11, 2012, bans non-diet sodas at county events and in county buildings. It also limits the percentage of high-calorie packaged snacks that vendors can offer. 56% of Howard County is either obese or overweight. The Institute of Medicine believes that 20% of that is caused by the consumption of sugary drinks. Politicians are policing people's rights by restricting people from buying what they please, limiting what vendors can sell, and by trying to change the way citizens in Howard County live. Firstly, people rights are being policed by politicians by having restrictions on what people can buy at county events and in county buildings. "I was furious when I first read this order because the bottom line is people have a choice of what they feed themselves, [The regulations are] a violation of a person's freedom, their right to choose." (New regulations ban sugary drinks, restrict sales of some foods.) People are allowed to choose what they want to eat, where …show more content…
they want to go, and what they want to do as long as it does not conflict with the law. Having this order takes away this right because the county has restricted foods that people might want to eat, but can't. Secondly, people's rights are being policed by politicians by limiting what vendors can sell. "Vendors have complained that the county's rules force at least 50 percent of their sales to be low-calorie alternatives, forcing them to either limit portion sizes or completely eliminate the sale of regular sodas and other drinks of a certain calorie intake." (Howard's sugary drinks ban needs boundaries [Editorial] July 3, 2014) Vendors in this situation have a huge dilemma because they can either comply with the order or not sell regular sodas at all. In both situations, they are losing money which can potentially hurt their career. People at county events or building might not want diet soda or reduced fat soda and because the vendor doesn't have what customers want, they won't have sales. Vendors have the right to choose what they want to sell because essentially, it is their business. Lastly, people's rights are being policed by politicians because they are trying to change the way citizen in Howard County live.
"...the county's health department recommends about a healthy lifestyle, and for that reason alone it is worthwhile. If it proves to have a normative effect — that is, if it helps county residents conclude that sugary drinks should not be a mainstay of their diets — then all the better." (A small step against obesity in Howard Co. Our view: Ban on selling sugary beverages in county buildings helps create a healthy culture) It is not the county's job to decide what should be in people's diets and what they should and should not eat. They should be giving people more choices not trying to tell people what is best for them. People can choose what they eat and how they live. It is not Howard County's responsibility to try and change
that. Politicians are policing people's rights by restricting people from buying what they please, limiting what vendors can sell, and by trying to change the way citizens in Howard County live. People have the right to choose what they want to eat, vendors can choose what they want to sell, and people have the right to choose how they want to live. One county event that is being impacted because of this order is the Fourth of July. This is a time when families and friends get together to celebrate their freedom, which is usually through food. With this executive order, people don't have the independence to choose what types of foods that they want to eat because there are restrictions on different types of foods that they can eat. The definition of restriction is the limitation or control of someone or something. The people of Howard County are being restricted from buying, selling, and eating what they please.
I think that government’s only role in the matter is to provide people with the information they need to make their health decisions. Although Balko is against federal funding for food labels, I think that it is necessary for people to know exactly what they are eating, such as how many calories, fat, protein, etc. Once people are aware of what are good and bad, the rest is up to the consumer. There is no need for prohibiting junk food because the individual knows what their actions will result in, and what someone choses to eat is no one else’s
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 Cannon further discusses this fault but with more emotional appeals, by use of personal narratives. Together these writers make it dramatically understandable why this combination of the food industry and politics is such a lethal ordeal. However, in The Food Lobbyists, Harold D. Guither makes a different viewpoint on the food industry/government argument. In his text Guither speaks from a median unbiased standpoint, which allows the reader to determine his or her own opinions of the food industries impact on government, and vise versa.
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
However, the outcome was different from his desired result due to strong protest from the dairy and livestock industry, so the Congress instead urged people to buy lean meat and less fat food so the dairy and livestock industry do not go out of business. This created the fat-free boom in the market in the 1980s. However, food companies began to put more sugar in their products because the taste was bad when they reduced fat in the food. Now, the sugar intake of Americans has doubled compared with before. In the American market, there are approximately 600,000 different food products, and 80% of those include sugar. Although sugar is written in various forms and names, one suggests that it’s bad in any form, especially if taken too much. Sugar consumed naturally through fiber-rich fruit or vegetable should be fine, but the added sweeteners stimulate the hormones that increase insulin. High insulin prevents people from thinking they are full, and thus crave more food. This causes many diseases. Of course one meal high in sugar will not kill them, but the problem is that people generally exceed daily sugar intake in one meal alone when consuming process food. We eat more processed and convenient food instead of fruits, vegetables, and
The government plays an important part in our safety, but many people think they take it too far. Recently, people have thought more and more about how much involvement the government should have when it comes to food regulations. Some people think the government's involvement in regulating food would greatly help obesity rates, and others think the country's obesity rates would show little to no improvement. Although no one cause of obesity exists, and no government regulations will likely alter someone’s lifestyle choices, the government should implement some regulations by implementing programs to educate and encourage citizens to lead a healthier life and by requiring companies to list a full disclosure of ingredients on their products.
We make personal choices about what and where to eat. The government is not going to eliminate the unhealthy food because we think it is the cause of obesity. Ultimately, we must decide to either stay away from unhealthy food or eat them in moderation. Despite all the efforts of education, media and guidance it doesn’t prevent us from grabbing that cheeseburger with fries on the way to work. In his essay “What You Eat Is Your Business,” Radley Balko argues that society should take full responsi...
In today’s society, there is a spotlight on the topic of staying healthy and fit. In the recent years weight loss programs have become increasingly popular, for example, Nutrisystem or Jenny Craig. These companies drive their business on improving unhealthy dietary habits. But, this increasing popularity is due to numerous large sized drink and meal options becoming available. Higher intake of calories and sugars eventually causes obesity. Although eating is essential for survival, what you eat is a personal choice. Many government officials have made strides to improve America’s obesity problems; both Mayor Bloomburg and Michelle Obama have approached this topic. Rather than a public health issue, obesity is a personal responsibility.Government
In order to ensure a healthy eating lifestyle for citizens the government should impose taxes on junk foods and drinks that are that are less in nutritional value than what is recommended to be consumed by the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). The extra money from junk food taxes can be used to subsidize actual healthy foods such as fruits and vegetables that seemed to be high priced. Unhealthy foods tend to lead to obesity and health risks. According to Alexandra Sifferlin, (a reporter for TIME who covers health-related issues) “42% of the population will be obese by 2030, which is based on a study released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention”. Many problems will accompany obesity, such as Diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, strokes and other health risks. While this proposal seems purely beneficial, it is not that simple to just impose a tax on what is deemed healthy in order to benefit the vast majority of people in the United States. There are many variables and factors that have to be considered if this proposal is to be put into effect.
The fact is that in our country, any government intrusion looks undesirable. We are so used to making free choice and to having access to everything we need and want that we have already forgotten the value and usefulness of the government control. No, that does not mean that the government must control everything and everyone. What I mean here is that the government control should be balanced with the freedom of choice. Unfortunately, plentiful foods do not lead to improved health conditions. We cannot always make a relevant choice. Our hurried lifestyles make us extremely fast, and eating is not an exception. We eat fast, but fast does not always mean useful. I believe, and in this essay I argue that the government must have a say in our diets. Because there are so many obese people, because obesity is an expensive disease, and because very often it is due to poverty that people cannot afford healthy foods, the government must control the amount and the range of foods which we buy and eat. Healthy foods must become affordable. Poor populations must have access to high quality foods. The production of harmful foods should be limited. All these would be impossible if the government does not take active position against our diets.
Imani Alleyne Professor D. Kaloustian English 302 5 May 2017 Feminist Issues in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a sci-fi pioneer that weaves a cautionary tale warning of the repercussions of human curiosity. More specifically, the woman’s place in her narrative reveals that the fate of the feminine kind is left up to the meddling males that alter their universe.
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.
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
Have you ever thought how much soda you consume and how bad it can be for you? Many people will drink soda instead of water, simply because it tastes better. The government should limit the intake of sugary beverages because it can lead to many different problems such as heart disease, obesity, and overall it is an unhealthy life-style. “The average person consumes almost 100lbs of sugar a year, with the single biggest source being soda.” A sugary beverage occasionally would be ok, but drinking it every day would cause problems for you overtime. People drink, more soda than they do water. People should be consuming at least eight 8-ounce glasses a day. Mostly no one will drink that amount of water a day. In today’s society, it can be easy to grab a soda for one dollar and carry on. They may taste better but they are not better for your health. “Sugary drinks include soda, fruit punch, lemonade, and other “aides” sweetened powdered drinks, and sports energy drinks.”
Eating is not an option but choosing the type of foods we eat is and we can make a change by eliminating trans fat foods, proving calorie information, and eliminating huge portions of food . The best choice would be to switch from junk food to more organic and fresh produce in which we could benefit greatly from. These regulations aren’t to limit our freedoms but to help us in the present and future and if nothing is done to stop obesity how will fast food affect people in 20 years? Therefor, These changes could change our society positively and help individuals sustain better health by decreasing health problems that arise from poor eating habits.
“At a time when an alarming number of teenagers are overweight and out of shape, these advocates say the last thing America’s schoolchildren need is a cola war that stations more vending machines in hallways and makes it easier for kids to buy soda.” (Kaufman) Like Mare Kaufman said, there is an alarming number of teenagers overweight and out of shape. Being overweight often leads to obesity which can cause serious health issues. Schoolchildren should not have sweet sugary soda available to them during school hours. This is the kind of drink that is fattening America’s children and making them become obese. Sugar is jam packed with empty calories that do nothing but make kids have poor health. “In Huntington, West Virginia one half of adults are obese.” (Pilot) One half of a population being not just overweight, but obese, is outrageous. Although this is only a city in a small state, if this pattern continues all of America could be obese. Being obese is being twenty percent over your ideal body weight. “One out of three children are obese.” (Harris) Junk food being sold in schools contributes to childhood obesity. Since various schools teach the subject health, and about healthy living in general, they should not be hypocritical. Saying to eat healthy, then selling junk food is contradictory, ironic, and perverse. Overall, completely banning junk food from being sold in