It is argued that a ban should be placed on any types of food or drink that are categorized as being unhealthy to human health. While I understand the reasons behind this suggestion, I argue that a limitation should be implemented instead.
It is undeniable that the primary objective of this ban is to protect the overall health of the community. By stopping consumption of unhealthy food that contains a lot of fat, cases of cardiovascular diseases and obesity can be significantly reduced. This is particularly true for young children, who are not yet aware of the benefits of maintaining a healthy diet. Moreover, the removal of addictive substances such as alcohol can prevent any irrational behaviors and accidents caused by people under the influence. Overall expenditure on healthcare and treatment will decrease as a result, which means that more money will be spent toward a better quality of life.
However, I believe that there will be negative consequences on society should such a law be enforced. As healthier types tend to have less appetizing appearances and taste, only a few dishes will be enjoyed in celebrations compared to items found in fast food restaurants. Economically wise, alcohol and tobacco are two of the most taxed items, which provide the government funding for urban planning and social welfare. Putting a stop to consuming these products entirely may cause significant financial problems and the labour force will be more likely to pay more of their earnings as taxes. Considering these reasons, only a restriction can be placed on these types of products.
In conclusion, removing foods with negative qualities can be effective in improving the people’s health and promoting a healthier lifestyle. Despite this, I think that the government should only limit the consumption of such types of food to avoid affecting mental health and the economy.