It is argued that the advertising of certain food needs to be prohibited like that of cigarettes in several nations because of the drawbacks of overeating. From my perspective, it is partially true that consuming too much harmful food, as smoking, can cause a number of serious chronic diseases, having said that, forbidding the advertising of foodstuff is not an effective way to prevent overeating.
First and foremost, overeating, defined as consuming excessive amount of food unnecessarily, has a negative impact on our health in the same way smoking does. These two both damage our body gradually with early signs, for example, reducing the concentration ability, followed by severe health-related problems like cancer and diabetes. In addition, overeating, however, is harmful to not only inner body but also physical appearance. Taking obesity as an obvious illustration of overeating, research has shown that there is an increasing number of female patients being unconfident when they are getting fatter. Mentally-speaking, this can cause psychological disorders.
Secondly, eating, as stated in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, is classified as a physiological need; hence, banning food advertising cannot prevent dwellers from consuming food. Instead, it will be much practical if government takes action by encouraging more exercise in schools and workplaces. For instance, 30-minute yoga classes can be taken place after working hours for sedentary workers. Furthermore, forbidding food marketing makes consumers unambiguous about the products that they purchase, thus leading to misunderstanding. It is vital that local authority should provide enough information in every advertising, from the calories that the food contains to recommended amount of eating.
In conclusion, although consuming too much foodstuff is as unhealthy as smoking, banning food advertising is an unnecessary action. As substitutes, more exercise and sufficient information should be added to deal with this phenomenon.