It is argued by many that people’s nutrition and food options should be subject to government regulations, while others assert that it should be a matter of personal preferences. As far as I am concerned, despite all the benefits that governmental control on food might provide, we reserve the right to select what we eat.
On one hand, it is worth considering that the authority should be responsible for devising a comprehensive set of diet rules. In the first place, this would be a crucial step towards a universal healthy lifestyle. In other words, nutrition laws serve as an effective measure against the overconsumption of junk food. As a result, dangerous illnesses or digestive disorders can, to a great extent, be constrained. Secondly, rigorous bans on unhealthy food would lighten the burden on the economy. As the government grapples with the associated impacts of poor diets, healthcare costs have escalated in the recent years, posing a constant threat to the industry. Such an issue could be resolved if the government imposed certain restrictions on their citizens’ diets.
On the other hand, I hold a fervent belief that the idea of governmental regulations concerning food choice is unreasonable. To begin with, a single set of diet laws could not accommodate every individual needs. For instance, we could only decide on an appropriate meal after considering our personal tastes, health status, or financial constraints. In addition, government laws on food and nutrition selection would infringe on people’s freedom of choice. On specific occasions, consumers simply wish to enjoy a sense of spontaneity by trying out exotic dishes instead of conventional ones. Depriving people of such guilty pleasures might prove unethical as it spoils the enjoyment of eating.
In conclusion, although governmental intervention may encourage us to take a more scientific approach to health and diets, people should still be able to choose to consume what they prefer. The government’s role should only be confined to that of a reliable consultant for the public.
It
is argued
by
many
that
people’s
nutrition and
food
options should be subject to
government
regulations, while others assert that it should be a matter of personal preferences. As far as I
am concerned
, despite all the benefits that governmental control on
food
might provide, we reserve the right to select what we eat.
On one hand, it is worth considering that the authority should be responsible for devising a comprehensive set of diet
rules
. In the
first
place, this would be a crucial step towards a universal healthy lifestyle.
In other words
, nutrition laws serve as an effective measure against the overconsumption of junk
food
.
As a result
,
dangerous
illnesses or digestive disorders can, to a great extent,
be constrained
.
Secondly
, rigorous bans on unhealthy
food
would lighten the burden on the economy. As the
government
grapples with the associated impacts of poor diets, healthcare costs have escalated in the recent years, posing a constant threat to the industry. Such an issue could
be resolved
if the
government
imposed certain restrictions on their citizens’ diets.
On the other hand
, I hold a fervent belief that the
idea
of governmental regulations concerning
food
choice is unreasonable. To
begin
with, a single set of diet laws could not accommodate every individual needs.
For instance
, we could
only
decide on an appropriate meal after considering our personal tastes, health status, or financial constraints.
In addition
,
government
laws on
food
and nutrition selection would infringe on
people’s
freedom of choice. On specific occasions, consumers
simply
wish to enjoy a sense of spontaneity by trying out exotic dishes
instead
of conventional ones. Depriving
people
of such guilty pleasures might prove unethical as it spoils the enjoyment of eating.
In conclusion
, although governmental intervention may encourage us to take a more scientific approach to health and diets,
people
should
still
be able to choose to consume what they prefer. The
government’s
role should
only
be confined
to that of a reliable consultant for the public.