The debate on whether there should be government regulations are needed in cases where it could help America persists throughout time. The most talked about topic within this is regulation of unhealthy food and beverage ingredients. Today, some major proposals presented include reducing the amount of sodium in the American diet and a possible ban on increasing soda sizes. These motions claim that regulation is needed for improvements in the general health of the national population. Within the constant battle between those who support government regulation of unhealthy ingredients and those who see it as a violation of their rights, the facts presented show that the dangers of these ingredients need to be limited by the government. …show more content…
Soda size bans would start the chain of less and less sugar consumption, directly making the population healthier, more energized, and happier in general. The ultimate plan is to get FDA support on gradually decreasing the maximum amounts of the unhealthy added components to the point where the difference is unnoticeable. The
National Academy of Sciences reinforces that in the case of salt, “The goal is not to ban salt, but rather bring the amount of sodium in the average American’s diet below levels associated with risks, hypertension, heart disease, and stroke” (Nat’l Academy of
Sciences). This clearly shows that these intentions are to bring down the average concentrations of these flavorings to a healthy level, not ban it. These limits might seem unnecessary or over-the-top, but the long-term effects would benefit the nation.
Those against the regulation of harmful ingredients of food say that people can make their own decisions based on the information given to them by means of food labels, public service announcements, and all kinds of health education. An anti- regulation writer said that, “You can control your salt take yourself, easily, by
Protection of the consumer consisted of passing the Meat Inspection Act of 1906 and the Pure Food and Drug Act. The Meat Inspection Act of 1906 was an act being pushed to ban misleading labels and preservatives that contained harmful chemicals. “The Food and Drugs Act of 1906 brought about a radical shift in the way Americans regarded some of the most fundamental commodities of life itself, like the foods we eat and the drugs we take to restore our health.” (Swann,1)Protecting the consumer was President Roosevelt’s main priority.
As a solution, Moss wants the government to have stricter regulations that are more effectively enforced to prevent processed food companies from putting the health of Americans at
That so interesting to hear and I think that since our founding of the nation, the Constitution can be referred to ask the "bible" of this country. The Founding Fathers worked so hard to be independent and create a nation that was different, but one that could work for many centuries. After two centuries and five decades it has seemed to work and it would be very hard to change something that so many of us are used, too. There are times when it may seem that our system is failing, much of the public doesn't blame the system when things go wrong, we tend to blame those who are in office or Congress. What makes our governmental system so different and unique is that people are more willing to go vote for the president and want their voice to
By growing more and more corn, to get rid of the surplus, companies have switched to corn sweeteners, and have begun to feed more corn to livestock. “Researchers have found that corn-fed beef is higher in saturated fats than grass-fed beef. ” Capitalism has paved the avenues that allow the government, which is always supposed to be in the public’s best interest, to alter the human diet to such extents that we are now gorging ourselves to our inevitable demise. The American diet is not the only thing that is affected by government
SUMMARY Food columnist for the New York Times and author of culinary books, Mark Bittman, in his essay, Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables, published in July 2011, addresses the topic of unhealthy eating habits and argues that the government should tax unhealthy foods and use the money generated from the taxes to subsidize staple foods. Bittman supports his claim first by appealing emotionally when discussing the negative effects of bad eating habits such as diabetes and cancer, second drawing a comparison to other items that are taxed by the government which are unhealthy, and lastly by utilizing a substantial amount of evidence to back up his ideas. The author’s overall purpose is to discuss the current relationship between the government
This appeals to our physiological needs because naturally, humans need to eat food and to hear from a professional that there are other influences outside of food that are giving cause to the obesity crisis gives Americans a slight sigh of relief when it comes to the degree of toxicity of our foods. Furthermore, that people eat a more wholesome diet versus those that do not, tend to be healthier than that live on fast and processed foods,there are also stark differences to recognize between these classes that should be taken into account as well such as the tendency to engage in exercise, air quality, and other health considerations such as smoking and
The Foods and Drug Act of 1906 has tremendously impacted the health of Americans. The act ensures that there is uniformity among food and drug products. Requiring uniformity makes sure that
So, a conclusion could be drawn that consumers will and do choose the unhealthy option a majority of the time. However, it does not address the disconnect, or why people are still consuming foods that are unhealthy for them even when given other options. One reason prominently stands out above the rest and that is the lack of education on the real effects the American diet, a highly addictive diet comprised of processed foods, high in sugar and fat, and void of fresh produce and other
The soda ban is a defective idea in itself because of the loopholes in the plan. As Karin Klien talks about the problem in her article “Sodas a Problem but…”, “Convenience stores such as 7-Eleven are overseen by State and would be exempt , but a Burger King across the street would be restricted” (Klien, 288). In addition, there isn’t a need for this soda ban because it makes no sense for a customer at a fast food restaurant (like Subway) to walk across the street and go to a 7-eleven, which is a state-ran store that has drinks that are over 16oz., and even over 64oz. People could even go to a grocery store and buy a 2-liter bottle of the sugary drink because it isn’t run by the city. Another way the soda ban contradicts itself is because of how you’d get the same amount of sugar if you were to drink a drink from a smoothie
Americans today are well-known for their eating habits. With all the options the food industry gives us it makes it hard to go to the grocery store and resist picking up that bag of barbeque-flavored chips or blueberry flavored candy. Due to these processed foods obesity is a growing epidemic in our country and who is to blame for it? In an article entitled “What You Eat is Your Business” by Radley Balko, Balko argues for less government intervention. Balko believes is it our responsibility to take care of ourselves and make it a priority.
¨Several critics questioned why the city was making proposal on sugary drinks a priority when some city schoolchildren have no physical education classes.¨ (Washington TImes) In New York, Mayor Bloomberg placed a law on the sizes of soda citizens are allowed to get. However, this caused a lot of controversy on whether the ban was good or bad. Despite the amount of people supporting the ban´s choice, the ban does have some downsides on it. It is not a good idea to limit the amount of a soda a person can purchase (or propose the ban) because it's not applying to all, it's taking rights away from people, and itś not a big deal.
The protection of environment is crucial to the wellbeing of this planet. The job of government is to protect and preserve the land on which its people live. However, there is a bill being considered that completely goes against this, one that calls for the eradication of the Environmental Protection Agency, a government program created to protect human and environmental wellbeing through their regulation of laws. I urge you to oppose bill H.R. 861 - the termination of the Environmental Protection Agency - because of the ways that the EPA protects air, water, and land.
ECONOMICS In many parts of the world, there is a shortage of available and affordable housing for people to buy. It may be because of scarcity in land supply and increase in the population. Land is a limited resource and the means to buy it is also limited. The rapid increase in the population has led to an increase in the demand of land.
1) Government may intervene in a market in order to try and restore economic efficiency. One of the ways the government intervention can help overcome market failure is through the introduction of a price floors and price ceilings. If prices are seen to be too high, price ceiling or a maximum price could be imposed on a market in order to moderate the price of the product. This policy is often used when there are concerns that consumers cannot afford an essential product, such as groceries. The effect of a maximum price could create a shortage as it could lead to demand exceeding supply for that particular good.
As of the year 2000, obesity rates have skyrocketed among adults and children, leading doctors to officially call it a nationwide “pandemic.” In order to fight this disease, many public institutions such as schools and hospitals have implemented regulations on the sale of junk food. However, some states like New York have taken an extra step to ensure its civilians cut down on the consumptions of these inexpensive treats by banning the purchase of soda that is larger than 16 oz. This law clearly violates the concept of separation of powers instituted by Congress. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled against this proposition before it could passed.