Search Helium

Home > Health & Fitness > Nutrition > Nutrition & Health Issues

Healthy eating: An individual choice or government responsibility?

Title endorsed in part by:

Results so far:

Individual
88% 1021 votes Total: 1159 votes
Government
12% 138 votes

Individual

by Ashley Dabney

Created on: January 24, 2008

People think that the U.S. government is this huge powerful group of people, why? Because everyone is use to all the rules and regulations created by the government since the 18th century. Just because the government can tax goods, tell people how fast to drive and that drugs are illegal doesn't mean they can tell you how to eat. Eating healthy is an individual choice. Sure, the United States houses most of the obese humans, but is it really the government's fault?

Well in a way it is. You have the choice of what you put in your body, but with all these new subjects being taught at schools nationwide the government should add the subject of eating healthy and having a healthy lifestyle. There are health classes taught in schools around the nation, but they need to focus less on sex and drugs and more toward healthy food choice.

I know there are those of you reading this thinking, "what about the people out of high school already? " I think the government should come up with materials for the public to encourage smart eating choices. Doctor's offices already provide this information to the public, but not everyone goes to the doctor or reads the materials in the offices to know about healthy eating choices. If the government came out with more information about eating healthy, then maybe more people would treat it as a law, even when it's not.

Even if the government did step in to help promote healthy eating, the choice is still up to individuals. You have the right to consume whatever you want, but most people still know the consequences of their eating habits. There are exceptions though, such as a child. They have their rights to say yes' or no' I don't want/like this to whomever their caretaker is, but when it comes down to it, that child will eat what is given to them just because it's food and they are hungry. Children are smart enough to know that if they want to eat they have to eat what's given to them. A 5-year-old doesn't have the power to go out and purchase their own food. The child's caretaker is responsible to help promote healthy eating for them. And if the caretaker cannot practice a healthy diet, how is the child going to?

Personally, I think when people talk about what is right or wrong for how a caretaker cares for a person they ask way too many questions. Like, "Why does the caretaker give the child this or that? How do caretakers let them eat this or that? Who made that child overweight? They should be accountable for their actions on their children." That is just asking too many questions which lead to unreasonable answers in an individual's head. If you think that it is an individual's right to choose what they eat, why ask such questions? You are just contemplating your entire argument.

The government does, however, have control over the food stamp program, which allows citizens to purchase any type of food. And for sake of my argument that it is an individual's right to choose what they consume, it wouldn't be relevant to vent on this topic. However, if the government were giving food stamps to for the sake of providing nutrition, you'd think they would want it to be healthy food, which they can change to promote a healthy lifestyle for citizens.

I believe the government doesn't have the right to be held responsible for an individual's well-being, because if you look at all the crime and drugs still on the streets today, even with government enforcement, obviously it just goes right on past citizens' heads. Plus most of the time people think that the government is wrong with their actions. So putting the blame on a government for an individual's food choice would be a joke.

Learn more about this author, Ashley Dabney.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Government

by Ben Cartright

Created on: October 19, 2007

To suggest that "eating healthy" is an individual's choice is to make three uninformed, dangerous assumptions: that the accessible food supply is, in and of itself, untainted; that fast-food marketing campaigns are equally countered by direct, legitimate sources of information that expose the detriments of its continued product consumption; and, that sensible alternatives are available to average Americans.

Unfortunat ely, none of these assumptions are even remotely true, and all three are either directly subject to existing federal standards of inspection, which as recent events have shown, fall perilously short of instilling consumer confidence; or are wholly compromised by the nefarious influence of international trade agreements with foreign governments to whom we, as a nation, are increasingly indentured. Add to this volatile mix, the powerful influence lobbyists acting on behalf of the fast-food industry exert on legislators, and it becomes readily apparent that Americans have little choice in the matter.

The failures of the Chinese Government to effectively inspect exports to the United States recently resulted in the sickness and death of many Americans. The effect of the ensuing outrage was the expulsion of China's highest-level authority on the export of foreign consumer goods and promises that higher standards would be implemented. The telling fact however, is that after an offer by the United States to implement inspection areas in export zones in China was rejected by the Chinese government, the Chinese threatened to call in all outstanding foreign debts if the United States attempted to further regulate or minimize Chinese imports.

What does all this mean? It means that because the United States is beholden to China, as debtor, the Chinese government can dictate the terms of inspection and export of products destined for your digestive tract. If you die in the process, you will do so knowing that there wasn't a thing your government could do to prevent it. In the end, you'll pay for the nation's debt with your life and the only fact comforting your survivor's will be that you tried to eat a healthy, balanced diet that was sufficiently fortified with toxins, antifreeze and bacteria.

It would be unfair, however, to single out China as the lone purveyor of tainted food distribution since in recent weeks the inspection failures at the Topps Meat Company resulted in several cases of E. Coli sickness, culminated in millions of pounds of recalled beef and ended with the termination of operations and closure of the plant.

If that isn't depressing enough, consider this: it wouldn't have mattered if officials from our own Food and Drug Administration were on hand in China to inspect their tainted exports, because in all probability, the inspectors would have exhibited the same kind of diligence and success there, as they did here. And, if we insist on poisoning our own people, it would be monumentally hypocritical to condemn the Chinese for trying to do the same, even if we didn't owe them hundreds of billions of dollars.

Of course, consumption of frozen beef patties may not be anyone's idea of "eating healthy", but recent recalls of tainted spinach and other vegetables confirms that these failures are not endemic to meat processing plants. For this, one cannot hold the American people accountable. It is the failure of federal agencies to properly monitor mandates that have been enacted to keep the population safe and the failure of the government to actively enforce those standards to prevent widespread sickness and death.

Coupled with this miserable state of inspection, Americans are attacked on a consistent basis by fast-food marketing campaigns that inundate the population with false perceptions of satisfaction and taste at cut-rate prices. That these companies spend billions of dollars luring customers to their grease-laden drive-thru's while offering simple alternatives for working families to quickly ingest heart-failure, cancer, diabetes and obesity is tantamount to assisted suicide. It is unconscionable to consider that the government does not restrict these marketing campaigns simply because legislators are indebted to their pestilence endorsing lobbyists. It is worse to acknowledge that in addition to this collusion, the government imposes severe penalties on consumers for falling prey to their advertising tactics by way of taxes and increasing advocacy of insurance companies. Of course, the same was true with the tobacco industry until millions of people dropped dead. Perhaps, the time will come for government intervention when the hearts of 300-pound 10-year olds start exploding on the plastic playgrounds they could barely traverse anyway.

And, if all that isn't difficult enough to digest already, the government, in its fanatical courtship of lobbyists, maintains an artificially high cost of domestically grown products simply because it's good for business and amply fills the coffers of your affiliated political party for distribution to your "representative" to properly continue the cycle of graft and corruption. The instances herein are far too numerous to itemize for effective discussion and proper indignation, but for the purposes of eliciting interest, a cursory review of agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland will confirm why, for example, the cost of corn is so high and why at a time of fiscal depression Congress would earmark nearly $11 billion in subsidies to corn farmers. Hint: subsidizing industry at a time when product demand and price are at an all time high occurs only when massive political contributions are made.

The government of any nation has an obligatory duty to position itself in the international sphere so that it is free from unconscionable foreign trade demands, enabling it to ensure a food supply that is safe for public consumption while actively regulating the advertising and marketing of products it is keenly aware are detrimental to the public health.

It is only then reasonable to lay the burden of public health on the public itself.

Learn more about this author, Ben Cartright.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.


CONNECT WITH US

Read
our blog
Helum for writers

Write and get published
Share with other writers
Polish your freelancing skills

Join our active writing community
Helium Content Source for Publishers

Quality articles from proven freelancers
Exclusive rights, fast turnaround
Brand engagement, business blogging -- our writers do it all

Get custom content today!

INFORMATION


Helium, Inc.
200 Brickstone Square Andover, MA 01810 USA