In recent years, there has appeared an influx of opinions on the topic of food. Some argue that state officials should enact laws assigning their citizens’ food choice be nutritious and wholesome, while others dispute that it should be up to each individual. From my perspective, I favor the viewpoint of the second group.
On the one hand, it is discernible why some want to emphasize the significance of whole food. In several countries, people are facing up to numerous aftermaths of obesity due to the excessive amount of junk food they consume. Those are namely health deterioration, depression and eating disorders, etc. Moreover, obese people may find it challenging to save money, since they squander much on food. That elaborates the need of specific laws to disrupt the increasing number of this 20-century issue.
On the other hand, there is no rationality in imposing food regulations on state members only for that reason. First, as serious as obesity is, it is nonsensical the liberty of human beings in opting for what they need is deprived. Imagine if the laws were enacted, citizens would feel distressed, since they would have
to follow a diet in lieu of having food options for themselves. Therefore, as nutritious the food might be, they would not find it indispensable and afterwards seek to dodge the law. Furthermore, they even can
experience mental issues as a consequence of food choice deprivation and the absence of freedom.
Second, imposing those laws may also put a threat to the existence of fast-food enterprises. Since the government no longer allow their citizens to consume any junk food, those companies may be brought to ruin. This does not do wonders for both the governments and those enterprises, in contrast, it may decelerate the reinforcement of nations’ economy.
In conclusion, instead of imposing food laws, countries should propagandize the significance of nutritious food with a view to ensuring the most rational food choices of their inhabitants.