There is a belief among some that commercial activities involve selling any scientifically proven detrimental for public health should be banned outright. Personally, I partly agree with this suggestion based on some major reasons that are explained in this essay.
On the one hand, the assertion that junk food and drink constitute a negative impact on public community is understandable, given the multitude of unprecedently increasing rate of health problems. Living in a rapidly changing lifestyle and society, many people gradually favor instant meals from fastfood restautrants over the time-consumingly prepared ones as well as barely examine the actual nutritional values of the things they digested. Against this backdrop, WHO has witnessed widespread repercussions on the health communities as well as mortality and morbility, especially the rise in cases of diabetes, high blood pressure and even cancers in young generation. This negative impact impose a massive burdensome on healthcare system, then crippling the potential of nation’s development.
However, the assertion that government should prohibit the production and sale of these unhealthy commodities altogether could provide a sense of enforcement among residents. This may counteracts its original purpose, even stimulating the higher demands for junk food and beverage. The element in which one commodity can seem harmful for public health when nutritional values beyond allowable threshold or consumed consistently. According to this argument, all kinds of food possibly harm health community because some parameters of nutrition may be neglected. Moreover, this single factor is not enough to cause a such negative outcome, the other factors like sedentary lifestyle and mental illness are involved. Therefore, the cooperation between government and heathcare systems in providing recommendations on nutrition levels required is essential, while people need to enhance the knowledge of consumed sustenance.
In conclusion, while the detrimental consequences of unhealthy sustenance is undeniably factual, the outright prohibition of all them may not provide optimal solution. A well-considered approach that integrates both soft policies of authority and awareness of residents represents the most viable path.