Taylor Pearson

Small Government, Big Benefit

The government has always played a very strong role in the laws of the United States and in the lives of people who live in this country. At times in history, the government has been too strict on its people and at other times it has been too lenient. These leaders have, however, failed to achieve a successful medium between these two treatments. The situation is similar to this one when dealing with most everything that the government has any type of control over. Although there are opposing sides which either argue for strict government regulation of the diets of its people or no government regulation at all, a middle ground should be explored and examined by the government itself regarding this topic. Nutrition in America is a very touchy and sensitive subject to talk about. Because of the ready availability of certain types of foods in the United States, consuming these foods and beverages have become widely accepted by the general American population. The distribution and consumption of these foods, however, is still a very debatable topic because of the range of views on the subject of the American diet and how it should be controlled. Everyone who is debating about this topic has his or her own opinions on government regulation of diets through marketing (or lack of marketing) and these opinions differ based on the types of people that are included in the group. Although there is research and evidence that suggests that obesity is related to other diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and certain cancers, most Americans who are overweight or who do not want to change their current lifestyle claim that there are alternative causes of these diseases and health issues; they claim that these diseases are not related to the way in which a person eats and drinks on a daily basis (Malanga).

Taylor Pearson

These people are convinced by their theory that what they are doing is not causing any harm, so they do not change their lifestyles; It is at this point that the government feels like it has to step in to intervene. The trouble with the government getting involved in the situation is that when the government comes to a situation as controversial as this one, they start to go over-board with their involvement in the problem while trying to correct it completely all at once. The government seems, also, to cut off all of the things that they think are sources of the problem at once as well. There is, and never really has been, any balance in the system of the government when it comes to this type of issue. People come up with their own theory to make themselves feel like they are still in the right, the government recognizes that there is a problem, so it enters the situation without thinking out or planning for a legitimate solution to the problem; it places into and enforces rules and regulations that are possibly too strict for the people in the nation, and so the people turn the opposite way against the governments regulations. When this happens, the cycle just starts over and keeps repeating itself throughout time, and this cycle does not help anyone in any way because the problem never really finds a resolution this way. The view of these types of people who try to come up with and research their own theories to make themselves feel better about continuing what they are doing are on the no government involvement side of the argument about the regulation situation. The governments view on this problem is mostly focused on trying to better the citizens who live in its designated country; this is what the government says to the people that it strives to achieve, at least. The United States government is on the side of the argument which stresses strict, enforced regulation of food and beverages that

Taylor Pearson

the public is able to purchase and consume. The government claims to try and cut down on the exponentially increasing rates of obesity in America today by setting more strict rules and regulations on the foods and beverages that can be consumed and sold as well. The most current example of this today is the fact that the government has attempted to restrict certain convenience stores by how large the soft drinks that they sell can legally be. This, however, is not a very rational solution to the problem of widespread obesity. First of all, the law would not limit the number of soft drinks that the customer could buy at the convenience stores. Also, the law would not be enforced in every single store in America, so the overall effect would not be that great in the grand scheme of things and in the long run. Overall, this so-called simple solution to the larger more complex issue at hand would not be a significant help in the search for an end to diseases related to diet. The government also blames the companies themselves who produce the unhealthy products which contain unhealthy ingredients (Pettypiece). Because of this fact, to keep with the claim that it is trying to keep the rising rates of obesity and related diseases down, the government would need to regulate the portion sizes, the type of foods and beverages, and strictly regulate which ingredients can actually be put into the products that are being sold to consumers by significant companies. Another voice in the argument of government regulation or no government regulation are those citizens of the country who simply do not want anyone to tell them what they should and should not eat and drink, especially people who they have never even seen in person or maybe not even at all their lives. One portion of this sub-group is healthy Americans who simply do not want the governments hand on their food

Taylor Pearson

because they feel that most foods are naturally healthy and do not need anything added or taken away from them in a failed attempt to solve the issue. These people think that they are able to take care of themselves and their diets without the help of the governments voice in their lives. This group of people also feels that the country was founded on the individual freedoms of the people who live in America and that the allegations of diets causing diseases are not at all grounded in science. They utilize the argument that the government does not regulate things like skydiving, surfing, or swimming, which could also harm people, so these independent Americans feel that their individual diets should not need to be regulated either. This group of people feels that their constitutional rights on which the country was founded on enable them to control themselves the things that they do and put into their bodies when it comes to food and (drink Malanga). This group of people is also on the side of the argument that claims that no government regulation of food and beverages in the United States is the best way to handle the whole issue. With all of these things being said and all of the groups having their opinions based on who they are, what their responsibilities they have, what their individual experiences are, and where they are in their lives, there is another possible solution that should definitely be explored in order to keep the peace with each and every one of the different groups of ideas and opinions. There is a middle ground that could be reasoned in a way that the government is tackling its cause of feeling the need to protect or guide its people and that could also allow for the people in the country to make some decisions for themselves so that they can feel the freedom that they wish to feel because it is granted to them in their constitutional rights. This compromise could

Taylor Pearson

include the government giving out more information freely about nutrition and how important it is, while not imposing on anyones life in the process. This approach to the overall issue is more guiding rather than demanding, and people respond much better to this type of guidance than to being ordered to do something or to having something abruptly taken away from them. Also, the government could satisfy the need to regulate the companies that produce products by doing much as it does now and conducting even more inspections of these companies and telling the companies that they are not allowed to put over a certain percentage into each individual product of the ingredients that have been proven to be dangerous to humans if consumed in large amounts over a period of time. Some regulation but not too much would be a perfect medium that fits between the opposing arguments. With this solution put into effect, those people who feel they should not have to change their diets would not feel pressured, they would only be aware of the healthier choices with the more accessible information that would be encouraging, not pushy. With all of this being said, the government should not be so strict that its people cannot have a say in anything that they consume regarding foods and beverages, not too lenient in that the people would be able to consume whatever they feel like consuming with no information about what they should be doing, but rather, it should be a guiding resource that helps the community as a whole to stay informed about nutrition and keep itself healthy with a little motivation.

Taylor Pearson

Works Cited

"Center For Individual Freedom." CFIF.ORG. 3 June, 2004. Web. 21 September, 2012.

Malanga, Steven. The Washington Diet. City Journal: Spring 2011, 21.2: n. pag. Web. 21 September 21, 2012.

Mckay, Betsy. "What Role Should Government Play in Combating Obesity?" Wall Street Journal (2012): 2012. Web. 27 Sept. 2012 n. pag. WSJ.com. The Wall Street Journal, 18 Sept.

Pettypiece, Shannon. "Obesity Epidemic Needs Government Rules: NYC Health Chief." Bloomberg. N.p., 18 Sept. 2012. Web. 21 Sept. 2012.

Ross, Darrell W. "Thoughts on Government Regulation & the Natural Organic Whole Foods Industry." Ezine Articles. Ezinearticles.com, 07 May 2009.

Web. 27 Sept. 2012.

Scott-Thomas, Caroline. "Most Americans Are 'pro-regulation' on Food Safety Regardless of Politics, Study Suggests." FoodNavigator-USA.com. FOOD Navigator-usa.com, 2 Aug. 2012. Web. 27 Sept. 2012