Cravings. You walk into the kitchen just yearning for something to satisfy that sweet tooth. But after looking in the cabinets you fail to find anything. Moving on to the fridge, all you see is healthy food. You knew what you had coming – there is limited sugary food now. But even still, all you want in that moment is just a little something sweet, but it’s more expensive now. This could be the new America. Traditionally, the United States prides itself on people’s rights. Most take these rights for granted – freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion. However, government is increasing their interference with the everyday lives of people, and one of the most basic of rights is in jeopardy of being taken away – a person’s diet. Regulations issued to keep people healthy are not right, and shouldn’t be allowed.
The food someone puts into their bodies is not a governmental problem. It is the individual’s responsibility to make decisions that affect themselves. While eating healthy is a good idea, it does not need to be forced upon people. If a person wants to eat unhealthy, who is the government to say they can’t? It is the person’s responsibility to look after their own health. The government should not be the public’s babysitter. Some argue an individual’s health becomes a public concern when medical costs need to be covered. However, the government officials wanting to limit sugar, fats, and salts, are the same people raising the medical costs. If they didn’t raise the costs, then unhealthy diets wouldn’t be as big of a deal.


Also, people will find a way to get around laws that ban unhealthy food. Buying two medium sodas instead of one large drink will avoid the ban of big cups, like John Stossel mentioned in his video, “Myths, Lies, and Complete Stupidity.” Raising taxes on some unhealthy food will likely lead people to buy different, cheaper products that are just as bad. Not only will people get around it, but some people just don’t care. John Stossel’s segment points out an interesting fact. They found that adding calorie counts to menus did not affect the consumer in making healthy choices. Adding these will only cost money to the government, which is already deep in debt. Laws take money to make, and even more money when they are repealed, as in the fat tax in Denmark. The government needs to put money into more important problems than food.

Another reason the government should not dictate the American diet is that they do not know the individual’s dietary needs. As John Stossel mentions, salt may be harmful to some people, but not others. Banning salt would be unnecessary for much of the public. For example, athletes need salt to replenish electrolytes. Not only do they need salt, but some athletes with an intense training regime require a high caloric diet to maintain body weight and muscle. For some, that means eating food high in fat. Under the new food regulations, this would mean paying more for these foods, or not buying them at all.

Overall, the government should not impose regulations on food because it is not their responsibility, there wouldn’t be any net gain for their efforts, and each person is different. The government should put as much time, effort, and money into things that would actually improve the lives of people, not dictate them. After all, food regulations could just be the start of stricter rules. And in the future when you’re searching for something sweet in your kitchen, you’ll be left with only one question – what’s next?