Should government increase their role in guiding food and nutrition selections? |
Yes
Government should controll what schools eat because over 30,000 people die because of obesity. If government dont act fast than we all could get FAT and that would not be healthy. Thanks to Michelle Obama, who is trying to get schools to eat healthier, she is succeding but is doing this very slowly.
Posted by: AnonymousExposure
Many of us are exposed to foods like snacks and soda that are unhealthy. The government can take a part and change that for the future generation. Limiting the certain food consumption. Some of the meals from school don't even provide nutrition facts! Obesity can also be prevented when the government decides to limit food consumption.
Posted by: AnonymousI think the government must increase their role in guiding nutrition selections due to the obesity epidemic facing our country.
I believe the government has to step in and influence nutrition decisions more especially in our nation's schools. The school lunch program is not currently set up to teach children how to make good food choices and is contributing to the obesity epidemic in our country.
Many children cannot learn proper nutrition at home therefore the only place they receive education about nutrition is schools. However, our governments policies allow children to consume chocolate milk on a daily basis which contains as much sugar as a soda. Children need to learn that French fries are not a good vegetable option but according to school program guidelines it is.
Obesity is a contributing factor in the development of several life threatening diseases such as diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease. The costs associated with treating these diseases are driving health costs beyond where many people can afford proper medical treatment.Posted by: tae993agI support the government increase in guiding food and nutrition selections, because it is in everyone's best interest if our country is healthy.
The sole purpose of business is to make money. Food companies get us addicted to their food, pharmaceuticals want to give us pills, and surgeons want their cosmetic surgery fees, all in order to make money. The government should dictate that nutrition labels be placed on all foods being sold anywhere, so people know what they are eating. The government should also require that healthy alternatives are available in schools and in restaurants. This will balance the freedom to eat what we want, with helping to provide us with healthier choices.
Posted by: labusyFat People
Obesity starts at a young age everywhere, a legal minimum purchasing ability would keep kids fit and able to function correctly, as in they would be able to WALK in the store and not ride those stupid carts. The fact of the matter is, people don't understand that when you have too much you get fat
Posted by: AnonymousThe government should take a more active role in educating the public on healthy nutrition choices.
Some people have grown up making poor food choices. If the government is more active in making information known, it will be easier for us to combat the growing problem of obesity. Knowing how to plan a meal, what options have less calories, which foods are healthier and other simple tips can create ease in changing lifestyles for those who were raised oblivious of nutritional guides. People need to understand that food is fuel, and what you eat is directly proportional to how you feel and how you look.
Posted by: badmadicinehelp us get healthy
most Americans do not care what they eat and most likely heads straight to the fatty sugary foods. but with the governments help in banning some of those foods the Americans can live longer because they are more healthier. even though it is cheaper to buy less healthy food we should not give up our health and chance at a longer life be jeprdised by the want for spare change.
Posted by: AnonymousTo an extent, the government should regulate food selection, because a government has a responsibility to protect its people, or at least its budget and its economy.
People may say, "The only people who are harmed by bad eating habits are the ones who engage in them," but that is patently false. Food-related conditions such as diabetes tax the health-care system, creating opportunity costs in the economy which stifle its growth; in addition, the government loses money directly from the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
Posted by: TheSansBecause of the state of the health care system, the government should increase their role in guiding food and nutrition selection.
The way the health care system works is that we all are effected by each others actions. When I go for a check up to the doctor I am not just paying for the time it takes the doctor to look at me. Some of the money goes towards lighting, staff, other operating expenses and some goes to making sure the doctor can take care of other patience. If I go to an office where the doctor take cares of a lot of very sick people chances are I'll pay more money for things like check ups. If there are less sick people it means the doctor's expenses will be less and I will pay less. So the governments guidance will lead to healthier people. That will lead to cheaper health care, and hopefully a better economy .
Posted by: ChrisFIirtyAbsoutley
From Health Affairs: Public health approaches, particularly those
involving government action, are sometimes
caricatured as forcing people to behave in certain
ways. In fact, though, the public health community
has long understood the need for programs
that blend a focus on individual choices and collective
responsibility. Contemporary advances
have resulted from such interventions as improved
sanitation, control of infectious diseases,
better nutrition, and reduced smoking. Some
problems require a greater emphasis on one versus
the other, but most often they are not clearly
separable.
Many health threats require collective action
because harmful exposures are shared and not
under individual control (such as air or water
pollution). The control of infectious diseases is
the classic example, in part because vectors can
range extensively and infected people can affect. The right to health is a fundamental and widely
recognized aspect of human rights.26 Around the
world, poor diet and obesity threaten this right.
For people to be healthy, personal behavior, safe
conditions, and an environment that supports
healthy choices must combine in complementary
ways.
The use of collective action to support personal
responsibility is central to public health. It has
been discussed in a variety of political and economic
contexts using language such as “asymmetric
paternalism,”27 “optimal defaults”28 and
“libertarian paternalism,” and “choice architecture.”
29 The underlying notion is that choices. It is both possible and legitimate for private
and public institutions to affect behavior while
also respecting freedom of choice. Often people’s
preferences are ill formed, and default
rules, framing effects, and starting points will
inevitably influence their choices. In these circumstances,
a form of paternalism cannot be
avoided.…[L]ibertarian paternalists should attempt
to steer people’s choices in welfarepromoting
directions without eliminating freedom
of choice.”Posted by: AnonymousThe government should promote the eating of healthy foods, without overstepping boundaries, because a healthy people are a productive people.
A healthy and fit populous is a productive populous. Therefore, it is in the best interests of our government to promote eating healthy foods. They should not, however, go as far as taxing unhealthy foods, or making certain foods illegal. Regardless, they will never back healthy food programs, because an unhealthy and lethargic populous is an easy to control populous as well.
Posted by: BrianDjDependent on others.
I think the government should because a lot of people don't know how to self-govern themselves. Once they get too far and start claiming for disability because they are too fat, the people who work and pay taxes are hit with paying for people who can't work because they are too fat.
Posted by: Anonymousit is our governments duty to protect its citizens
Many people have gotten extremely sick, been injured in some way, or even died because of food consumption. E coli has claimed the lives of many adults and children. The government should be able to protect us from these by restricting certain practices of the way companies prepare their meat, which is how these diseases get transferred to us. Those animals are sometimes completely in the dark their whole lives crowded together in their feces. The government needs to put an end to this disgusting way of preparing food.
Posted by: AnonymousEven with the current regulation, a lot of unhealthy things are in our food.
The government forbids certain foods such as tainted meats, and requires that ingredients be shown. However despite this there are a lot of chemicals and unhealthy compounds in our food today. Furthermore the government does not look at the synergy of the elements in our food. The chemicals by themselves may be more or less harmless, but working together they may be very harmful. Furthermore a lot of these chemicals have long term effects which no one pays attention to.
Companies will do anything to sell as much of their products, and as cheaply as possible, disregarding the health of their consumers. The government must step in.Posted by: 4uncLifeGovernment can guide the nation
New York Times’ resident “food guru” Mark Bittman suggests, “Let’s just raise the price of being unhealthy.” The idea is by taxing bad and subsidizing good food, we will improve the health of our nation. Taxes would reduce consumption of unhealthful foods and generate billions of dollars annually. This can be used to subsidize the purchase of healthy, staple foods. Subsidizing healthy foods means that healthy food distributors would be compensated for lowering their prices, making these foods more affordable. Only government has the power to levy such taxes, which will guide Americans in the right direction. This can affect the whole nation, and encourage them to make good choices.
Posted by: Anonymousschool lunch is unhealthy
School lunches should be changed dramatically. They are serving children unhealthy food with many grams of sugar, artificial flavors, and who knows what else. School is where children learn what is healthy to eat and what is not. If school lunch is all they know as "healthy", then they are likely to have bad eating habits for the rest of their lives. They serve french fries as their vegetable, and chocolate milk as their healthy part of dairy..
Posted by: AnonymousYes they should.
More advertising, if a child wants a console game because of amazing advertisement, then healthy food should be advertised more? Oh because it's not fun? If largely obese not being able to move fun? Is being bullied at school fun because of being overweight? Is dying for being fat, going to make people proud? No!
Posted by: AnonymousThe government should increase its role in guiding food and nutrition selections by restricting funding for food products to only healthy choices.
It is wrong to restrict what foods a corporation is able to sell. However, if a citizen is receiving food assistance (such as food stamps, free school lunches, et cetera), the government should only allow its funds to be used for healthy alternatives. For instance, food stamps could be used to purchase fruits, vegetables, meats, or dairy, but not candy bars, chips, or sodas. Candy bars, chips, and sodas are not necessary components of a diet, so by funding their purchase, the government is essentially funding a form of recreation that not only creates health problems, but increases its financial burden. Most people on government-funded food plans have no health-care plans, so when they become sick as a result of their unhealthy, government-funded diet, the government ends up paying for their emergency room health-care too.
Posted by: A PaulNutrition is an important thing to address.
Considering the obesity epidemic plaguing this nation, it would be a great idea to keep a steady job on focusing on nutritional information for all consumers.
Posted by: NumberlessClemente63Yes, I don't think people deserve freedom.
People are all fat. Obesity is the second highest in preventable deaths every year, second to only tobacco. The government needs to immediately start placing restrictions on fatty foods, such as fast food restaurants. Currently, everyone has the freedom to make their own choices, and obesity is skyrocketing. More than 1/3 of the country is obese, and another 1/3 is overweight. Obesity problems cost 33 billion dollars every year, and this money is coming out of the taxes, which could be used for much more useful things such as education.
Posted by: AnonymousThe Government Won't Tell you What to Eat
If an individual decides to eat junk food like Doritos, soda, chips, or candy bars, that's their choice. But as a tax payer whose money ends up turning into food stamps, I do believe they should not be used to purchase these kinds of items. If a low-income individual is also on medicaid, eating healthy will also reduce the risk of problems like diabetes and obesity and the overall cost of the medicaid program. Allowing food stamps to only be used to buy healthy foods like fruits, vegetables, meat, milk eggs, etc, will increase the demand for stores to provide healthy foods, and reduce the number of people who purchase three meals a day from gas stations and convenience stores.
Posted by: Anonymous
The government should decrease their role.
The government should decrease their role in nutrition selections. In comparing the US government recommendations with that of other governments, particularly European governments, the US recommendations contains entirely too much starch and too little protein. This triggers a glycemic response, causing the body to produce an excess amount of insulin, and causes the body to retain fat.
Posted by: VoicelessEmil67Even if they increase their role, it is still on the individual.
If the government were to go out and put a nutrition label on everything, it is still up to the individual to read the label and decide whether or not they will still pick up the product. Typically those who care about their health will already know what is healthy and what isn't. Do you honestly think the people who need guiding in food and nutrition selections, will actually listen to the guidelines. Junk food will always be available, the government can't get rid of unhealthy things, even with labels.
Posted by: AnonymousThe government already does too much in our lives, and they don't have the money to do more anyway.
People are first and foremost responsible for their own care. The government should only take a supporting role in any fundamental lifestyle decisions, such as nutrition. While it is wise for the government to help people know what is healthy and good for them, it should not go beyond that. Should the government go beyond this role, then they are taking the responsibility away from the people to care for themselves, and this is neither appropriate, nor justified.
Posted by: MariaRThe government sucks. I don't like Obama.
The government gets involved with too many things that they shouldn't. People eat what they want no matter what people say. Obesity does not necessarily impair the normal functioning of a body as other diseases do. Many people with a BMI in the obesity range are not physically impaired and live normal lives.
Posted by: AnonymousNo way!
The government already controls every sinlge thing that we do! Why do we need them to tell us what we need to eat? I go to high school and our school lunches are horrible! I hate eatting at school and most kids go up town to eat because it taste nasty. Obviously, the things that they are trying to make us eat in school isn't working out very well because nobody likes to eat it. Things are under cooked and greasey. The governement does NOT need anymore control over our food! Let the country run on it's own like it once did!!
Posted by: AnonymousNo way!
The governement does not need anymore control over us! They have enough control on us now as it is so why give them more? Our school lunches are monitored by the government because they think that they will be healthier and taste better but that has been the total opposite! They taste the worst and I hate eatting them so I go up town almost everyday because of how badly they are. Nobody likes them. And the government thinks they are doing such a good job? Maybe they should eat the lunch food and see how they like it!
Posted by: hello111I do not support an increase in the government's regulation of food and nutrition selections because I feel the FDA already implements the right standards, and people should be allowed to decide what they consume.
I believe that the FDA should continue to set the standards for what is safe and what is not for the public. However, beyond that I believe that people should have the freedom of choosing what they consume and what they do not consume. The government should address more political issues that they are better suited to handle than the consumption choices of the everyday American. As long as food is safe to eat, I think it is best to leave determining nutritional value to those who are considering it for dinner.
Posted by: taffydeliteI believe the food pyramid is all the government contribution people need in making food and nutrition selections.
I think regardless of what the government does there are people that are going to continue to make unhealthy and unwise food choices. The government has already done its part when it created the food pyramid to assist people in make good choices. If people choose not to follow that then it is their fault and not the fault of the government.
Posted by: 54nShaINo, It restricts freedom to eat what want.
Over 50% of kids of politicians go to a private school. What would they know about public kids? We are required to waste food. At my school, a poll was taken that shows 80% of people took vegetables just to get by the stupid regulations. 80% of the fruits & veggies wasted because of stupid regulation! Besides 18% is not "a widespread occurrence of an infectious disease in a community at a particular time" As it does not infect other people. It is not a epidemic. As for food stamps, we wouldn't really need them If our economy wasn't this bad. As for the point about " Unhealthy things in our food" That is not the best way to solve the problem.
Posted by: TheAntidoterNo way
The governement does not need anymore control over us! They have enough control on us now as it is so why give them more? Our school lunches are monitored by the government because they think that they will be healthier and taste better but that has been the total opposite! They taste the worst and I hate eatting them so I go up town almost everyday because of how badly they are. Nobody likes them. And the government thinks they are doing such a good job? Maybe they should eat the lunch food and see how they like it!
Posted by: AnonymousIf the government worries about what we eat, then what will be next?
When a governments can micromanage what we eat, they can do anything else they want. If the government cannot provide basic food assistance to the millions on food stamps, while over half of the food in schools is thrown away, how can they expect to do a good job managing independent adults? The short answer is that they cannot. If the government seeks to manage adult food choices, seeking to punish those who buy sugar will interfere with punishing those who rape, maim and murder. Thus, controlling adults on food choices will harm them, as well as violate their adult rights.
Posted by: Pir4AndBethel High School
Kids should have choices, if they want to be fat, let them be. Football player or any athlete should not be able to get one scoop pasta and be full. That is not nutritious at all. Somebody needs to realize this. There are growing boys and every year the portion gets smaller and smaller. No matter what they say or do they will not be able to make school lunches appealing or healthy. Its disgusting I go to Bethel High School in Connecticut and lunches are disgusting and the portions are to small. I go to practice starving if I dont get two or three lunches. The lunches are disgusting and unhealthy to the fact of the quality of the food.
Posted by: AnonymousNo, because the government should not have the authority to have a say in what you eat.
The US government should not regulate nutrition. I can support this with many facts. Even though there are people in the US who are overweight and can not control what they eat, the government should not be able to control that for them. Another example of how the government has taken over our nutrition is in New York City you are not allowed to drink sodas over a certain number of ounces. I think that this does not have anything to is do with the nutrition just the fact that brand like Pepsi or Coke can make more money off of there products buy selling more smaller ones at a larger price.
Posted by: AnonymousMama and Papa Obama?
I realize this issue didn't start with the Obamas in office, but they sure have prolonged it. Since when do full grown adults need to revert back to listening to what "Mommy and Daddy" say to eat? Cannot a full grown human being living in this world decide for themselves what they should and should not eat?
This comes right back down to the government trying to control how we spend our money: the government says we're getting fat, the government says we need to be healthier, the government says we need encouragement to do what is right for OUR bodies. What do I say? I say, "Frankly my dears, I don't give a damn."
On a food rack there could be sodas, juices, cakes, apples, candy bars, protein shakes, microwavable popcorn, water, and just about everything else under the sun. If I want to spend my five bucks to buy a 32 oz soda and a big, fat Honey Bun, you better believe I'm going to do it. If I want a water and an apple, well then I'll get a water and an apple and I'll feel good about myself eating something healthy.
Point being, WE make our own choices -- not THEM.
THEY do not own our bodies. THEY do not live in us. THEY do not come with us to the doctor's office when we feel sick, and THEY certainly do not routinely clean out our refrigerators.
You want the government telling you what to eat? While they're at it, you should ask them to do your job, maybe raise your children, clean your house, balance your checking account, manage your money. HEY! maybe they'll even take Spot on a walk for you.
The government has their place. They have their duties. But let's not forget, they have their stomachs and we have ours.Posted by: arizona_heartCitizens' choice to eat healthy
No because it's the people's choice to eat healthy or unhealthy. No one makes them go to restaurants and eat all the food on their plate. It's not meant to be proportioned. The government would be going against the citizens right to freedom of choice. Many restaurants also do have a healthy alternatives.
Posted by: Anonymousno way josay!
We chose what we want to eat, and the government sholdn't! It's our body, not thiers! We can be as fat or as skiney as we want and we can eat what we want! The government already has enough control over us!! Its our lives not theres so please government don't do this to us!
Posted by: AnonymousLeave our lives to us.
The government is always trying to influence the way we do things as Americans. The people who eat to much do it because they choose to. I say no more government involvement with our food, because I'm tired of not being able to eat the things I want, because people are criticizing me, because I'm eating what the government has made us believe as " fatty foods."
Posted by: AnonymousNo
Because the United States is known as a free country and we are not free if the government controls school lunches! I feel the government has done enough harm to our wonderful country! Control of school lunches should be left in the hands of the local community!!! If the government doesn't work on our debt then our country will fall apart!
Posted by: AnonymousOur governement came up with the food pyaramid to begin with.
The previous "food pyramid" was more like a "feed lot pyramid". The foods recommended were more like what is used to fatten cattle in the Chicago feed lots. Americans are suffering from a epidemic of obesity. Get the government out of the food business and let common sense rule the land.
Posted by: AnonymousNo they have much larger issues to worry about.
The issues America faces today are much larger than obesity. We are currently still fighting overseas. We have other diseases such as cancer to focus on as well. Being American means we have rights, rights to make decisions on our own, not the government calling the shots for us. The government needs to get their priorities straight.
Posted by: AnonymousIt's my life.
The government should have no role concerning my life. If I choose not to wear a seat belt and get into a car accident and die that is my prerogative. I feel that the government is involved in our lives more than it should be. If I want to go into dumb things I should be able to. I don't understand why we live in a society where we let our government control us. We should control our government. "God save our country for the people will not." - Millard Fillmore, president, United States.
Posted by: AnonymousNO WAY!
The government may rule in politics, but I think that if they keep on doing stuff like this they'll turn us to communism. Actually, that's what my friend says, but I agree with her! I'm tired of being pushed to my knees. I just wish that I could have more freedom in this country!
Posted by: AnonymousThe government should not increase their role in guiding food and nutrition selections, because it already has too much control.
Generally speaking, people are taught proper nutrition and what is healthy from an early age. As a guide, we also have the food pyramid. If people choose not to follow it, then that's their choice. People should be able to choose whatever they want to eat, just like choosing their outfit for the day. The government already has so much control. First, they made the fast food chains eliminate trans-fats, now there are regulations for restaurants and salt use. While I agree that these are poor nutrition choices, it is my choice to consume it. If I eat it, I suffer the consequences. If we let them control what we eat, what will be next? What will happen to the manufacturers of food that the government decides is bad for us? How do they decide what is bad? How many people will lose their jobs? The government should stay out of food and nutrition selections.
Posted by: KimMyh3r0