Obesity Argument Essay
Michael Bloomberg, former mayor of New York City, once proposed a ban on super-sized sodas as a solution to the cities growing obesity issue. He believed that government interference was the best way to improve the health of citizens. New York City is not the only place to propose this idea. Boston is currently trying to ban sugary drinks and San Francisco is launching a campaign against Happy Meals in their city. These attempts of the government to restrict our diets are unnecessary and will cause more problems than they solve.
It is true that obesity is a growing problem in America and restricting people’s diets might be a potential solution; however, there are plenty of other options available to lower obesity rates in America that don’t require such extreme measures. These options include making healthier food more available and educating people on ways to live healthier lifestyles. Fast food, for many Americans, especially low income families, is what people rely on as a food source for most of their meals. This is because it is the cheapest way to get food on the table. Instead of restricting unhealthy foods we need to focus our energy on making healthier foods from grocery stores …show more content…
and farmers markets cheaper and more available. This way many people no longer have to rely on the exceedingly unhealthy choices at fast food restaurants. New York City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito agrees, she once argued, “New Yorkers deserve a comprehensive approach to public health that will support healthy eating and increase access to fresh food instead of punitive policies,” in response to Michael Bloomberg’s soda ban. Education is also a viable alternative to restricting our diets. There needs to be a stronger focus on educating people to manage their own diets in healthy ways. If people had a better understanding of what the ideal diet is and how to make the best choices then there would be no need for government interference.
In addition to being unnecessary, government restrictions of unhealthy foods would be harmful to the economy. Many large corporations such as fast food chains and soft drink companies would suffer if people were suddenly unable to buy their products. The United States fast food revenue for 2015 was $200 billion and over 4 million people were employed by the industry. (Sena, 1) Soft drink companies such as Coca-Cola and PepsiCo are not solely soda companies, they own Tropicana, Minute Maid, Glaceau, Gatorade and many other well-known brands. By restricting sugary sodas, we would indirectly be affecting other industries without intending to. The consequences of restrictions are too great. If the government banned citizens from eating unhealthy foods the loss of money and jobs in the country would be colossal.
Many people argue for government restrictions on diets because they don’t want their tax money being spent on healthcare for obese people with diabetes.
While it is fair to want to lower obesity and diabetes rates for Americans, this will not be the solution people are looking for. Diabetes rates will decrease if people eat healthier but they will never disappear. There will still be people with diabetes that cannot be cured. Also, people need healthcare for many other reasons so Americans will always be paying taxes for healthcare. Additionally, if people still strongly believe that their tax money going towards obese people is unjust there are still the other options for solving the obesity problem. The first resort for lowering obesity does not need to be restricting our
diets.
It is fair for people to want America to be healthier. The way to make this happen is not through government restrictions on our diets but through education and increasing availability of healthy alternatives. Our country does not need such extreme measures as these proposed restrictions. We are also too reliant on fast food and soft drink companies to do away with them. It is important that people realize the unnecessary harm we would be inflicting upon ourselves if these restrictions became real. The government should absolutely not impose any restrictions upon the diets of American citizens.
It is true that obesity is a growing problem in America and restricting people’s diets might be a potential solution; however, there are plenty of other options available to lower obesity rates in America that don’t require such extreme measures. These options include making healthier food more available and educating people on ways to live healthier lifestyles. Fast food, for many Americans, especially low income families, is what people rely on as a food source for most of their meals. This is because it is the cheapest way to get food on the table. Instead of restricting unhealthy foods we need to focus our energy on making healthier foods from grocery stores …show more content…
and farmers markets cheaper and more available. This way many people no longer have to rely on the exceedingly unhealthy choices at fast food restaurants. New York City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito agrees, she once argued, “New Yorkers deserve a comprehensive approach to public health that will support healthy eating and increase access to fresh food instead of punitive policies,” in response to Michael Bloomberg’s soda ban. Education is also a viable alternative to restricting our diets. There needs to be a stronger focus on educating people to manage their own diets in healthy ways. If people had a better understanding of what the ideal diet is and how to make the best choices then there would be no need for government interference.
In addition to being unnecessary, government restrictions of unhealthy foods would be harmful to the economy. Many large corporations such as fast food chains and soft drink companies would suffer if people were suddenly unable to buy their products. The United States fast food revenue for 2015 was $200 billion and over 4 million people were employed by the industry. (Sena, 1) Soft drink companies such as Coca-Cola and PepsiCo are not solely soda companies, they own Tropicana, Minute Maid, Glaceau, Gatorade and many other well-known brands. By restricting sugary sodas, we would indirectly be affecting other industries without intending to. The consequences of restrictions are too great. If the government banned citizens from eating unhealthy foods the loss of money and jobs in the country would be colossal.
Many people argue for government restrictions on diets because they don’t want their tax money being spent on healthcare for obese people with diabetes.
While it is fair to want to lower obesity and diabetes rates for Americans, this will not be the solution people are looking for. Diabetes rates will decrease if people eat healthier but they will never disappear. There will still be people with diabetes that cannot be cured. Also, people need healthcare for many other reasons so Americans will always be paying taxes for healthcare. Additionally, if people still strongly believe that their tax money going towards obese people is unjust there are still the other options for solving the obesity problem. The first resort for lowering obesity does not need to be restricting our
diets.
It is fair for people to want America to be healthier. The way to make this happen is not through government restrictions on our diets but through education and increasing availability of healthy alternatives. Our country does not need such extreme measures as these proposed restrictions. We are also too reliant on fast food and soft drink companies to do away with them. It is important that people realize the unnecessary harm we would be inflicting upon ourselves if these restrictions became real. The government should absolutely not impose any restrictions upon the diets of American citizens.