Should the government regulate the sale of advertisement and distribution of junk food?

Answer 1

Yes because children are 30% more likely to become over- weight now then they were 20 years ago.

Or NO, because it violates the personal freedom to choose whatever you do and take into your body. The definition of unhealthy will be morally arbitrary and driven by political interests, and last, prohibition is not the way to deal with anything that is not a crime in itself.

Answer 2

Obesity is at epidemic levels in this country. Something has to be done. The situation is now life or death. So why hasn't there been an intervention? Why is this still such a problem when we have the knowledge and information about the dangers of obesity? Whose responsibility is it to bring about this change? There are many people who believe that the government has the responsibility to stop people from buying and eating unhealthy foods. Others believe there is no reason for the government to control people's actions, but that if educated, people should be able to make healthy decisions. This essay will discuss both sides of this issue, as well as some additional ideas as to how we can get started getting healthier.

Obesity is now more prevalent than overweight in the United States. This is the first time in history this has been the case. According to data from the 1988-1994 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, the prevalence of overweight in 1994 was 34.9% among American adults and 13.7% among children ages 6-11. The prevalence of obesity increased from 12% to nearly 18% in just the few years from 1991 to 1998. With the knowledge of these statistics comes responsibility. So, as asked before, whose responsibility is it to bring about change? (Daniel, 2008, p. 120)

A popular suggestion is to have the government restrict the sale, disbursement and advertisement of junk foods. With obesity rates being so high, the government could be a logical choice to help bring about change. One idea proposed is to have the government begin taxing junk food. However, deciding which foods to tax and how to calculate and account for different foods with different nutritional values would be some important things to consider.

A large-scale intervention is going to be necessary in order to affect the largest number of people, and the government seems to be the only entity with the financial means to promote healthy foods and lifestyles. Annually, the food industry spends $11 billion on advertising and another $22 billion on other consumer promotions. In 1998, promotion costs for candy bars were $10-50 million, for soft drinks $115.5 million, and McDonalds ended up spending over one billion dollars to promote their nutritionally poor food. In contrast to these figures, The National Cancer Institute only has an annual $1 million investment in the 5-A-Day campaign for increasing consumption of fruits and vegetables. The government could really inflate the numbers of dollars going into advertising for healthier foods. And though so many people would like to keep the government out of individual choice, with so much work to be done, a private company or group of people working toward promoting healthier lifestyles would surely struggle to see any real changes. (Daniel, 2008, p.121)

Answer 3

An initial reaction to the question is that junk food should be taxed. However, deciding what is junk and what isn't would be an almost impossible task.

Defining food as junk because it has a McDonalds logo on the bag would mean taxing salads in some cases. If we decide that burgers are all classified as junk, then even premium, low fat burgers from a butcher may also be classified as junk.

Alternatively, defining junk by fat content would also gather in such foods as cream, butter, peanut butter and a host of other foods that all have a higher fat content than most burgers.

Measuring calories or carbohydrate content lead to the same problems.

The production of junk food is actually not a big problem. It is the consumption, or rather, the excessive consumption of high fat, high sugar, low fiber food that causes the health problems. To tax the junk will also penalize those people who consume sensible amounts of junk food.

This answer isn't meant to argue against tax of junk but it does highlight some of the issues of imposing legislation. I think that most would agree that education and culture change can be more effective than regulation.