An Essay on the Website of |
Regulation of Food
Diabetes, heart disease, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and
obesity are running rampant in our country (and world wide).
Because diet has a lot to do with these life threatening events, there
have been various efforts to regulate what we choose to eat.
A certain amount of regulation is currently in effect, but I do not
believe we should increase our regulation of diets, foods, or sources to
promote better nutrition and, hence, better health.
Why? (1)Attempts
by the government to regulate what and how we eat threaten to take away our
freedom of choice, which we all cherish, and (2) regulation doesn’t work!
The
American public doesn’t like to be told what to do and, especially, they
don’t want the government to control them.
One example of this would be taxes on cigarettes.
I have known a few people who have quit smoking due to the cost, but more
have given up the habit, or tried to quit, because of education on the health
dangers of smoking.
The mind-set of I’ll do what I want and nobody is going to tell me
what to do is very prevalent among smokers.
This same attitude can be seen in our children in the elementary school's
nutritious lunch program that is regulated by the federal government.
Just go to any elementary school cafeteria and notice all of the food
being thrown away.
The students don’t eat it.
I don’t support doing away with the program as it currently stands, but
I don’t believe any more drastic action would be more successful.
Personally, I have several health conditions that I control completely or
partially with diet.
My allergies are no longer a problem since I started taking a tablespoon
or two of locally grown honey each morning.
Several years ago I was diagnosed with hypoglycemia (low blood sugar).
The treatment?
“No sugar” as stated by my doctor.
It is impossible to eat NO sugar (witness the daily honey on a “no
sugar“ diet.), but I eat very little.
I have found that both of these requirements cost more money than if I
were eating the way I had previously eaten.
If I want to buy a can of peaches, I pay more for the natural (no sugar
added) than I would for the peaches in heavy syrup.
(Fresh peaches are even more expensive.)
Cost doesn’t seem to be a factor in changing the way I eat.
Consequently, I believe extra taxes on foods with little or no
nutritional value would not deter people from eating these foods, if that’s
what they want.
Oxford researchers stated that a tax on junk food
(a “fat tax”) would unfairly effect the poor because they spend a
higher percentage of their income on food and fattening foods are cheaper.
There have been a few other studies on the subject of a fat tax and
it’s success.
The results seem to be mixed.
I have heard of schools putting nutritious snacks, such as juice drinks
and cheese snacks, veggies and fresh fruits, in vending machines.
A much better choice than soda pop, candy, and chips that are usually
found in vending machines.
This would be one increase in regulation that I would embrace.
I’m sure it would only work if just the healthy choices were available.
All in all, it is the opinion of this author that people need more education rather than more government intervention. If one isn’t convinced that something is truly harmful, he won’t change his eating habits. It’s not really possible to save people from themselves! |
Site Map
HOME
ShortStories
Essays
Poems
Websites
Meetings
Comments
ContactUs
Members