Should Government Have Control Over Our Diets

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’re likely aware that cities and governments around the world are increasingly involved in our daily lives. In fact, government control today has already become far too expansive. Now, they want to control what we eat, how much junk food we have access to, and are spending millions of tax dollars attempting to limit portion sizes, salt, trans fats, and other nutritional aspects of the food we consume. Some governments are even trying to implement ‘fat’ taxes. But is this fair? Is it reasonable for a government to intervene in our kitchens? Are they going too far by regulating the personal choices of citizens? Should the government have control over our diets, the foods we eat, or our portion sizes?

The Debate: Should the Government Control What We Eat?

New York City’s mayor, Michael Bloomberg, has proposed reducing the sales of large soda items at restaurants, movie theaters, and by street vendors in an effort to combat the rising obesity epidemic. Many people are left wondering what large soda consumption has to do with the government. After all, if a person wants to overindulge and become obese, isn’t that their personal problem?

Unfortunately, obesity costs the government billions of dollars in medical expenses every year. The U.S. government pays a significant amount of money to welfare recipients who suffer from medical problems linked to obesity and poor diet. In fact, poor diet is second only to smoking as a cause of preventable medical issues.

For many governments, the key to controlling obesity and related health costs is to regulate the food industry more strictly. In New York’s case, the mayor has gone so far as to require restaurants to only serve foods low in trans fats and salt, with each restaurant being rated based on the ‘health’ aspects of their menu. Restaurants that fail to comply would face hefty taxes in order to remain in business.

Still, the majority of people believe that the responsibility of choosing healthy foods falls on each individual and should not be placed on the government.

Many political analysts are divided on this issue, considering the costs of government intervention in the medical industry. Many of the diets recommended by the government are not suitable for every individual, and people should have the basic human right to choose what they like and dislike. One of the earliest forms of government intervention in citizens’ diets was the pasteurization of milk. For years, people consumed raw milk until the government regulated the milk industry, requiring companies to pasteurize the product. Not only did this increase the price of milk, but there have also been debates over the years about the health benefits (or lack thereof) of pasteurization.

The cost-effectiveness of a government implementing policies to regulate food intake and impose taxes is not supported by any political party. Many believe that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) already have too much control over the food market in the United States, which only drives up costs and reduces the quality of food available. Placing warning labels on food items high in salt, sugar, or trans fats would cost individual food manufacturers millions of dollars in residual expenses.

One of the biggest problems in society today is that individuals are no longer held accountable for their actions. Far too many people shift responsibility by blaming the government. Should we be able to sue McDonald’s for making us fat simply because they offer unhealthy food choices? Or should we accept that the individual made the choice to purchase the food, rather than spend their money elsewhere? Even more confusing is the fact that the United States Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which provides food stamps to nearly one-third of U.S. citizens, does not regulate the types of food that can be purchased with government funds. Many believe that limiting the foods available to those dependent on public healthcare, which is funded by taxpayers, would be an effective way to reduce health problems caused by an unhealthy diet.

The amount of government control over food consumption is a slippery slope that should not be ventured by any government, large or small. When governments, already responsible for regulating guns and drugs, continue to face massive problems related to these issues, it suggests that they may not be capable of effectively managing the personal choices of their citizens.

Ultimately, each of us is responsible for the foods and drinks we consume. We are in control of the choices we make for our children, and we are accountable for our own health and wellbeing. Shifting the burden of responsibility onto the government is a misguided pursuit. Perhaps the key lies in providing more education to society, so people better understand how the foods and drinks they consume impact their long-term health. Not only would this be more cost-effective in the long run, but it would also ensure that the individual freedoms we enjoy in our daily lives remain intact, and that the responsibility for our health falls where it belongs—on us.