“You are free to choose but you are not free from the consequences of your choice”. This shows that if people want to make the health choice in eating habit they will live with the outcome of that. Same goes for the people that chose to eat poorly and the only one they have to blame is themselves. This issue summed up mean that the Government will have their say in what we can and can not eat. Government regulations of what we consume creates problems of the government being blamed for you physical health problems. Although the Government is trying to help, I disagree with the government trying to regulate what we eat and drink because the bans are easy to get around, citizen will get what they want, and they minimize freedom.
Many hold the the belief that these bans are sufficient to change the condition of subject; however, these bans are easy to get around. In the text “ sugary drinks over
…show more content…
In the article “Food politics” they say that some think it is their option to drink as much as they please. This means that although these bans are to keep citizens healthy some do not care about what these product do to them only about the pleasure they get from food. This matters because those who consume these harmful products can not meet fitness standards, they think it is their option.
Some may say these bans are simply made to give assistance to the well being of mortals; however, these bans minimize their freedom. In the text “Should the government regulate what we eat?” The evidence shows that the board of health aims to eliminate the artery clogging fat. This means that the government is diminishing citizens right to chose whether or not to consume food prepared with the controversial item. The aforementioned evidence matters because the government's ability to regulate what we eat puts the Americans values of freedom in
In the article “What You Eat Is Your Business”, the author claims, Americans need to be more responsible for their own health and the government should not become involved (Balko). I argue this point; the American people have been tempted into buying foods that are unhealthy, cheap, and convenient, and we cannot be responsible when foods like this are so easy and available to purchase. We are also one of the fattest nations in the world. He conveys in the article that we should have some sort of responsibility for what we put into our own body (Balko), but I feel that with all of the tempting foods being right at our fingertips, we are getting fatter and fatter. When we turn on the television at night, and every fifteen minutes a food commercial comes on. When we go to school, there are vending machines in every building. Nobody offers water anymore with our meals; it costs extra just to get a cup for water with a meal.
The article,“ Battle lines drawn over soda tax,” by Associated Press , the Press explains how there is an ongoing “national fight about taxing sugary drinks.” According to Associated Press, “ Health experts say the beverages contribute to health issues such as diabetes, obesity, and tooth decay.” This quote demonstrates that sugary drinks can lead to health issues. Since sugary drinks leads to health issues, people are considering soda tax. This is because thirteen percent of adult minorities are diagnosed with diseases such as diabetes.
In his essay “The American Paradox”, Michael Pollan illustrates his conclusion that Americans who focus on nutrition have a higher probability of decreasing their well-being. Pollan defines the American paradox as “a notably unhealthy population preoccupied with nutrition and the idea of eating healthily.” For most of our human history, our parents and culture have influenced our diet. However, today the idea of what to eat has been based on the opinions of scientists, food markets, and nutritionists. I agree with Pollan’s argument that being preoccupied with what we eat makes us unhealthy, however, we need a balance and a sense of responsibility in what we eat.
A testimonial appeal stemming from the article, was taken up by Denmark, who, in 2011 said that “any foods high in saturated fat” were to be taxed, and this was passed into law. A secondary testimonial came from the United Nations, which declared that heart disease and “uncatchable” diseases, such as cancer, diabetes, etc. pose a greater risk now than ever before. Another testimonial taken from the text was this: “Western diet is now dominated by “low-cost, highly-proc...
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).
Zinczenko argues that it is not the consumers fault for putting themselves at risk of becoming obese or raising the chance of getting diabetes, but it is the fast-food companies fault for the lack of labeling their products with the nutritional information. While Balko argues that we as individuals should be held completely responsibly on whether or not one is choosing to put oneself at risk for obesity or type 2 diabetes. One should attain the consequences if the consumer chooses to drive to their preferred fast-food chain restaurant and place and order for an unhealthy meal. Likewise goes for the other way around, either way there are consequences for both, whether they be beneficial or not
But it’s doubtful that Americans will look favorably upon regulating their favorite vice. We’re a nation that’s sweet on sugar: the average U.S. adult downs 22 teaspoons of sugar a day, according to the American Heart Association, and surveys have found that teens swallow 34 teaspoons.” By consuming sugar consumers can experience what's known as a “sugar high” a sugar high can have the same effects drugs and alcohol cause. But since sugar is in our everyday lives it would be hard to regulate it. Research shows that the average adult consumes 22 teaspoons of sugar a day the average teen consumes 34 teaspoons of sugar. America is a country that loves sugar from soda to cereal everything has sugar. “Robert Lustig, an endocrinologist at the University of California, San Francisco, argued in the journal Nature that sugar is addictive and toxic—that it can poison the liver, cause metabolic syndrome (increasing the risk of heart disease, stroke, and diabetes), suppress the brain’s dopamine system, and cause us to crave more. Lustig concluded, controversially, that sugar should be regulated like a drug. Alcohol is regulated because of its ubiquity, toxicity, abuse, and negative impact on society, he wrote, and ‘sugar meets the same criteria.’” Robert Lustig wrote a journal saying that sugar is addictive and a toxin. It says that it poisons the liver and it suppresses the dopamine
Regarding the matter of personal food choice, in the article “What You Eat is Your Business,” Radley Balko claims that the way the government is spending a lot of money in trying to prevent obesity is wrong. This includes $200 million in the presidential budget for anti-obesity measure and several related policies such as menu-labeling and laboratory testing of nutrition (467). Balko argues that people should be responsible for their own health issues. He thinks the best solution to slowing down the “public health” crisis is to remove obesity form public matters and make it a private matter only (469). Balko believes this would improve people’s responsibility for their own health and lead to a better choice of diet and exercise. I strongly agree with Balko’s statement because the healthier your food choice is, the better health you will get. To sum up, the individual eaters are able to improve their health condition by removing the fast food from their daily menu and start taking exercise on a regular
In the article " Don't Blame The Eater" By David ZincZenco he expresses his bad eating habits growing up as an American child. David explains how his mother worked extended hours at her job , and didn't have the time to prepare home cooked meals.In consequence to eating bad foods David resulted torpid and obese at the age of fifteen. David blames the little knowledge he had on the health effects caused by fast food; if he knew better ; he would of made wiser choices. Today in America the epidemic of obesity has increased dramatically due to bad eating habits .One of the results in cosequence to those who follows an unhealthy diet high in sugar and fat ;has been the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes . Unfortinitely, type 2 diabetes has increased by 30 percent in children suffering from obesity, and not to mention the medical costs to treat diabetes has increased to 100 billion a year . However, such deseases can be cured if fast food restaurants stated the health risks involved if such foods are consumed just like the tabacco company states the health risk involved when smoking.If David had known then the damage he was causing to his body he wouldn't have risked his health by eating bad food at such a
He argues that tobacco labels have warnings yet fast food does not. However, this argument fails to recognize the fact that anything is bad in large amounts (Bowerman). According to Doctor Andrew Weil, too much fruit can hurt one’s effort to lose weight, and it can even raise a person’s risk of developing cardiovascular disease. These risks for fruit exist, yet nobody complains that there are no warning labels on apples. This serves to show that anything has the ability to make a person unhealthy. A diet that includes occasional fast food will not cause a person to become overweight as long as the diet is balanced. Again, this comes down to a person’s choice. If the person chooses to monitor calorie intake and maintains a diet with a variety of good foods, he will keep a healthy lifestyle. Additionally, the author’s complaint that fast food companies sell products “with proven health hazards and no warning labels” further proves that the knowledge is available for anyone to obtain (Zinczenko 464). If parents have a concern about the food that they are buying for their children, they can search for and find this information and adjust diets accordingly. The author also states that health information is available upon request. It is up to the consumer to take action and take control of his own health rather than put the blame on the
He says that “Instead of manipulating or intervening in the array of food options available to American consumers, our government ought to be working to foster a sense of responsibility in the ownership of our own health and wellbeing.” Here he states that the government should not manipulate the food items available to consumers instead of that government should make consumers responsible for their choices. But, here he lacks to provide any evidence that could support his claim and strengthen his argument. Also, readers might think the consumers are responsible for their choices but it is the duty of government to do their best to enable the consumers to take right decisions. Abolishing the harmful food items from the market will help the consumers to make right choices. Also, readers might say that he is a policy analyst and therefore holds such an opinion. This further weakens his reason to support his central
As a kid, people are told, “It’s my body, it’s my choice.” and from there on, that is how they treat themselves. However, should it still be your choice when it starts to cause you health issues? In many parts of the world, largely America, people are wondering when it’s right for the government and food places to step in when it comes to the foods we eat and how much is just too much. At what point do we lose control over our bodies? Some think that it’s the government’s job to protect us from diseases that come with bad eating choices, while others think that it is the individual’s job to decide what goes into their body and how much. The discussion then turns to people wondering if too much of a healthy food is a good or bad thing. Eating
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.
To survive in life we need to consume food whether it is for nutritional value or for the pure enjoyment of its savory taste. Individuals, not the government, have the right to choose what and when to eat; but good nutrition is important to maintain health and live a long and happy life. People need to make choices everyday about what they put into their bodies. Without proper nutrition, our bodies may not be able to function correctly. Most adults know what is good and bad for the body. We all know that diets rich in fruits and vegetables fuel the body in a healthy way and that protein gives us energy. Although we know what food is best for our bodies, each individual has a personal choice of what they put into their bodies and that should not be dictated by the government, even though
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.”