Government Food Regulations are Fair and Beneficial Government regulations have historically been implemented to benefit the people of the United States. The Clean Air Act of 1970 for example, was put in place to control air pollution on a national level, as well as provide a healthier and cleaner living environment for the people of the United States of America. The most recent regulation which has ignited a fierce debate is whether or not the government should be able to place regulations on what we eat and drink. The government should be able to place regulations on what we eat and drink because these regulations would help prevent health issues such as obesity, they would help improve the economy, and they would improve overall public health.

Foremost, these regulations would assist in combating major health issues such as obesity. In Source 1, Dr. Steven Safyer, President and CEO of Montefiore Medical Center can be quoted to say “For the past several years, I’ve seen the number of children and adults struggling with obesity skyrocket, putting them at early risk of diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.” The same article states that “According to the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, more than half of adults are overweight or obese and nearly one in five kindergarten students are obese.” This shows the grave importance of the issue at hand. The regulations that the government is presenting would help save lives, it would slow down the obesity epidemic, decrease the possibility of heart disease, as well as minimize the risk of cancer in children and adults. The decision is clear as day, the government should be able to implement regulations on what we eat, for the sake of personal health.

Furthermore, these new regulations will improve the economy in The United States. Source 2 states “Economists say, obesity and its consequences cost our society $190 billion annually in health care and lost productivity, so health officials increasingly want to find equally effective strategies to discourage people from over-consuming sugary drinks and fast food.” The United States lost $190 billion dollars, solely on combating obesity. We can only imagine the enormous amount of money the United States has lost on other illnesses caused by poor nutritional habits, such as heart disease or diabetes. In addition to money spent on trying to prevent these illnesses, fast food corporations spend billions of dollars on marketing and advertising, money that could be spent in areas more beneficial to the general population. It is clear that the amount of money spent on combating these issues would be significantly lower if people would eat healthier and make better decisions when it comes to nutrition.

However, not everyone is in support of these regulations. Source 3 raises the questions, “Does this open the door to the government being able to regulate even the most minute details of our lives? For example, will the government soon be able to regulate what kinds of movies we’re allowed to see in the theater, based on their arbitrary judgment of whether or not a film is dangerous to our mental health? Will the government soon regulate our consumption of red meat, under the assumption that vegetables provide a much healthier alternative to the artery-clogging properties of a steak?” These are understandable questions to have; it is completely normal to want to keep things as they are, but these questions are based on lack of knowledge. Questions like these don’t take into account that regulations like this do not happen overnight. There is a long and thorough process in which the government decides whether policies like these are necessary and beneficial to the overall quality of life. These questions also don’t take into account that the freedom of choice will still be preserved. Source 2 discusses the New York City soda size cap and says, “If you want more than 16 ounces, no government official is stopping you from ordering as many of those sizes as you like.” This helps demonstrate that the freedom to choose will not be taken away, instead, it will push citizens to make an informed decision on their next purchase.

In conclusion, government regulations on food and nutrition would have many benefits to the United States as a whole. It would improve the economy by spending less money on health issues that can be avoided, as well as excessive spending on advertising and marketing. It would help people understand what they are putting into their bodies and assist them in making educated decisions when eating. It would help combat serious health issues like obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, as well as lower the risk for illnesses such as cancer. The beneficial changes that these regulations would cause, outweighs the argument given by the opposition. Government regulation of what we eat and drink is not only fair but worthwhile.