Improving the well-being plays a crucial role in the development of each country. Thus, some people argue that implementing regulations regarding healthy food can improve the nation’s public health. However, I believe that one’s health is a matter of personal responsibility and choice.
On the one hand, implementing regulations regarding nutritious food may give more opportunities for lower financial or disabled people that can not access a good diet. Lower income people often have to spend their pay paying to meet basic food needs, which can limit their ability to make healthier dietary choices while disabled people may face additional barriers that make healthy food even harder to access. Therefore, a nutritious food program could help them have more chances for healthy food, leading to improving their overall well-being and contributing to the development of the country. For instance, in Japan, which is a developed country, nutritious food programs are given freely for students, which help them improve health and foster productivity in study.
On the other hand, I believe that improving health should be based on individuals’ choice and responsibility. Everyone is different so some people want to put on weight while others are able to maintain a balanced body. Furthermore, people have the right to food and its variations, meaning that they reserve the right to access sufficient food to meet their daily needs. In the nutrition programme in the USA, allowing students the freedom to choose from a wide range of food including ingredients to meet students’ demand whether they are trying to lose weight, gain weight, or maintain a balanced body.
In conclusion, while nutritious food is provided by the implementing laws of the government, indeed contributing to help difficult people have a chance to access a nutritious diet, the argument against it holds weight. individuals can make choices that best align with their health objectives, fostering autonomy and supporting a more personalized approach to nutrition.