Many people suggest governments issue laws that regulate citizens’ selection of food as a vehicle to combat poor eating habits. I am strongly opposed to this idea with respect to personal preferences.
On the one hand, legislation detailing food consumption could help promote a healthier diet. Indeed, lawmakers might set a standard intake of essential nutrition as advised by nutritionists as well as completely remove unhealthy dishes such as heavily processed foods from a list of possible picks. Anyone who does not follow the guideline could face a small monetary fine while companies that sell unlisted products could be banned from operating. Thanks to these measures, citizens are more likely to adopt a balanced diet which is scientifically proven to be the key to overall well-being.
On the other hand, a law that regulates people’s consumption of foods is unlikely to accommodate everyone’s needs. In fact, a person’s choice of dishes for his meal depends on various personal reasons ranging from taste preferences, and nutritional demands to financial constraints. Some choose to sit down at a McDonald’s for a Big Mac possibly because they are fans of cheesy beef patties or it might be the only lunch set they can afford if they are on special offer. Furthermore, I don’t believe it is the role of the state to prevent people from enjoying their guilty pleasures on rare occasions. That is why, in my opinion, asking everyone to follow strict guidelines is simply unethical, failing to address the needs and rights of each individual in a society.
In conclusion, although governmental control of one’s consumption might be of help to a more science-based diet, I believe people must be allowed to consume whatever they desire. As an alternative to decrees, ministries of health should run nationwide healthy eating campaigns.