These days, fast hood like otter controversial issues is a source of conflict. Some believe that the government should stop advertisements about this kind of food. Others believe that the government showed only increase people awareness and people should be free to choose. Discuss both and give your opinion?
Perhaps the role of government policy in nutrition has captured public attention in order to clarify a complex issue questioned about to what agent states are permitted constitutionally to skew their citizens to choose healthy nutrition instead of fast foods. Legally explaining, the origin of such a dilemma has been deducted from the notion defending that in which regulatory state or administrative one has been authorized theoretically or practically to create legal obstacles to reshape individual and social minds. It seems generally, the necessity of structuring a healthy atmosphere for people does not allow them to accept any reason raised by the opponents of the formidable role of states fully the regulations arranging individual and social norms. Whereas such an important point of view should not exceed more limits for people’s access to different kinds of the food persuaded people viridly and requested vastly by them to enjoy in their daily lives.
First and fore most a vast range of scholars and low makers have accorded wilt the robust function of states to control and decrease the usages of fast foods via regulating new social orders and norms and codifying the current customs and conventions accepted vastly and recommending people to restrict fast food usages more and more. While fast food industries like KFC and MacDonald and etc. have prepared high opportunities for people searching either part or full time jobs, scientific findings deducted from the recent research done by the University of Technology Sydney in 2017 point out the costs of medical services imposed on people who paid taxes for social services and facilities are much higher than the money paid unemployed job seekers by governments and NGOs.
There is a primary responsibility of the states to review their strategies and plan short and long term approaches in order to improve nutrition and public health. Absolutely, this is a vital function of the states to boost up the economic productivity specially among small business activists. But what is of great value is to manage generally to prepare the best situation for people in terms of health including individual and public nutritional lifestyles. No matter how important it is to struggle for controlling influenced by the improvement of small business like fast food canters the growing rate of economic crisis, the increasing rate of publishing advertisements motivating people including teenagers and children to eat fast foods instead of healthy cuisine must be limited.
In addition, eating food is an event to make or deepen individual relationships and ties. There is a myriad of business or diplomatic official meetings arranged and scheduled by managers at the time of lunch or dinner for most of human history inducing much of the 19 the and 20th centuries. Also, cooking food is a brilliant chance for a chef as well as make an opportunity to enjoy with family and other members of his or her family.
It is much more likely to solve some interpersonal concerns or misunderstandings made by some conducts in a daily life. Principally, while the fast foods are inexpensive and cooked easily for people, they decrease or even remove their chances unfortunately to live with a real happiness. Therefore, officials, law and policy makers and other people involved have been gravelly recommended to encourage people to choose some home-cooked food and other kinds of conventional cuisine. Hence, some enchanting advertisements should be constrained more and more.
On the other hand, some researchers and academics accord wilt the regulatory role of governments in such subjects. The objective observations collected from different countries in the north and south continents present that governmental administrative approach could not deliver a formidable food back in order to solve so-called new-found nutritional phenomenon. Such a conventional governing style is not recommended either the western societies experiences show us well that the states should not interfere wilt constraining their citizens from free choice in their lives like the kinds of food. People mentally have been motivated to do or not to do from whatever they have been prohibited it. Asa result, wrongful policies dictated by the states are much more likely to persuade people to eat fast foods and accept them as their daily cuisine alternatively. Another reason is people have a robust right to choose their lifestyles. Meanwhile, the serious duty of the officials is to observe social revolutions and styles followed by people or institute cultural and social movements. Hence, more interference likely to put society as a whole to be on the verge of grave damaging consequences. This is an instant predicted result pushing everyone to defend such an approach more conservatively.
Having cited above points, I believe strongly believe in the idea that noting is back and white. No one is here to accord with this idea completely that each of regulatory or administrative states fully accepted. As well, everybody has experienced how necessary it is for people to enjoy their divine freedom them without and restrictions. The actual given guarantee of performing au regulations is the acceptance of them by people wilt full consent had rules and laws been regulated on the basis of real social necessity and consent, and less crime.