There are some people who concede that governments could enforce legal obligations towards people’s diet and food preference, whereas others believe that food-concerned matters should not be obligatory but controlled by individuals themselves. While I believe that it might well reduce probability of some health-concerned issues, it is evidently a human right’s violation.
To begin with, there are individuals who fervently admit the government’s nutritional and diet preferential control, and they call for the authorities to implement laws for such strict supervision. Such viewpoints mainly arise from the seriously increasing obesity rates across many countries, including the United States, where majority of the population is struggling with health problems related to heart or other internals caused by the overweightness. As for solution, a general population as well as governmental authorities put forward a potential key to get rid of the long-established dilemma of obesity. While this decision might have well contributed to the falling obesity levels, thereby generally increasing public health, there is a still long way to go in terms of implementation and making sure on the benefits of such law enforcements.
By contrast, the opponents argue that it can be clearly attributed to a violation of the human rights. Governmental tight supervision over the general population’s food preferences could be undoubtedly poked as clear trial of human rights mockery. They say that the every individual holds responsible for their own consumed products, and that governments should not be the ones to strictly guide them. Besides, this type of violation also can be attributed the constitutional rights of general public. A well-documented instance can be seen in the United States, where publics’ rights are well reserved owing to the democratic way of running the country. While law implementations have a long path to cross, it is ultimately contingent upon people’s tendency.
In conclusion, although governments can directly ensure falling rates of overweightness, it can be seen as human right’s abuse. A comprehensive approach — one that actually combines public’s approval and governmental supervision – is ultimately the most beneficial.