It is believed that forbidding fast food is the best way for governments to enhance the community’s health, and that the majority of people would prefer a healthier diet. While it may be true that this method is effective for some individuals, I strongly agree with that and believe that banning is a sustainable solution for governments to increase citizen’s health.
First of all, vetoing fast food can reduce obesity and diseases. What I mean here is that when junk food is curbed, the amount of people choosing healthy diet increases. If, for example, fast food advertisements are restricted, it might reduce the consumers. Other may counter this by saying that junk food has its own advantages such as flexibility, high adaptability,…. This may be true , however keeping public health is a responsibility of the governments and that some restricted role should be adopted.
Another aspect is the fact that it can raise public awareness of having a healthy life, especially diet. The reason for this is that when authorities take strong action, it send a powerful message that unhealthy products should be replaced by some healthy items. For instance, in some developed countries, they use some approach like propagating the disadvantages of the detrimental objects on the Internet, especially for children to educate them. Other may disagree with this and say that they should have freedom on what they choose, but it is pivotal to prevent their health from unbeneficial things.
In conclusion, I understand that junk food should be banned by the authorities although some may argue that fast food brings convenience, protecting the well-being of citizens should always be the top priority.