Nowadays, some individuals are of the claim that the government should not allow shops which are selling food or drinks that are proven by scientist to cause bad health for human. Personally, I partly agree with this suggestion based on some major reasons that are explained in this essay.
To begin with, there are some persuasive rationales that support the claim that government should ban markets where sells food or drinks affect badly on people’s health. First of all, because of the low awareness of people about these types of provisions, they cannot avoid risks such as diseases or health issues from consuming them. If these shops got banned, we could protect health of society. Additionally, a healthy environment could also be created from this action, encouraging people to have a better eating habits. For example, in Viet Nam, there is a high rates of individuals who are obesity or having cancer due to eating too much fried chickens or drinking milk tea. From that reason, there is one last chance for the government to saving citizens by forbidden those shops.
However, if this one happens, there will be several objections from community. One of the possible problems is it can make many people feel annoyed because their free of choice is being interfered deeply. Furthermore, banning these market places can lead to economic recession in a country, staff in these shops lose their job, then being unemployed. For instance, many big brands of selling fast food and drinks such as Jolibee, Mc Donald’s contribute a huge amount of USD to the U.S.A, if these companies got blocked, this nation could witnessed a sharply drop in their economy. Consequently, prohibiting these places is not a good way to develop people’s health instead of paying more attention on education, teaching people about how to distinguish which products that are fit with their demands, reducing the chance of getting illness.
In conclusion, while the recommended solution to this problem is banning these kinds of markets, educating people to improve their knowledge is a better way. I maintain on my partial agreement with this notion because there are more effective ways for the public to deal with that issue.