A recent study found that the following factors were associated with a higher risk of cancer: a low intake of vegetables, fruits, whole grains and dairy products and a high intake of processed meats, red meats and sugary beverages, such as soda.
In y opinion, governments should regulate not what the people should eat or not but the production of all companies that are producing and processing all kind of food that the people will eat. The regulations should ensure that all food available for eating cannot harm the people.
The problem is that many governments also subsidize the growth and production of so much food it makes it extremely difficult to then turn around and regulate it. At the end of the day, until governments stop subsidizing so much, people need to make their own choices about what they eat.
It is not a "realistic" job of a government to regulate what the people eat either openly in restaurants & snack bars or in the privacy of their homes.
Instead, the government can have an important role in guiding people to the healthy types of foods & in monitoring the foods that are sold in the markets. By various means including pricing, the government can encourage those who will make fruits, vegetables, and whole grains available at the lowest reasonable prices.
In many countries, the prices of fish are high. This is an example where many governments have failed in serving the best health interests of their own peoples.
In my opinion the goverment should regulate food content for carcinogenic substances to prevent food-related population diseases, not only cancer, but also diabetes, age-related macular degeneration, etc.
There are basically two considerations here:-
Firstly, the use of beneficial additives to food such as iodine to table salt to reduce the incidence of goitre and the addition of fluoride to reduce dental caries.
Secondly banning the use of harmful foodstuffs such as cured meat which have a carcinogenic potential.
BUT the most important action would be to prohibit cigarette smoking completely
Peter Gray Smokers have no rights to have lung cancer, if they choose to do so? Should we ban alcohol as well? Sugar? Where do we stop?
Government should banned all carcinogenic substances and impure food first and then should regulate what people eat
Anup Kumar Sarkar Is there a global consensus on the list of carcinogenic substances? How will the ban affect the welfare of the poor people?
If governments eventually has pay to fix the problems created by people choices of food; such as diabetes, cancer, heart, etc, yes they need to regulate people and manufacturers. But that’s not good for pharmaceutical companies. If government is not effected, just leave it for supply and demand.
Government can't prohibit or ban the consumption of particular foods and direct people to eat a certain ways. Government should respect the voluntary choices of individuals about their diets. However, government should regulate the food processing units in order to ensure quality, safety and nutrition of the food products.
I think that there are situations a government should regulate diets in a few case.
1) Fiji has a history of cannibalism, which is banned by law. I think a government has the right to do this.
2) Fiji has a very high incidence of life-style diseases, which also put severe pressure on the health system. To consume sugary soft-drinks (e.g. with way more than 60g of sugar per liter) can be regulated by the government putting a high tax on such drinks compared to sugar-free soft drinks. I think that no government can ban the consumption of such drinks.
Joseph Tham
That was a great question.
Yes, Governments should be notice about eating of people ( specially children in school and poor people and children). In my country we have a plan for these children and they get a free milk in school.
Media can be affect in this respect. ( increasing the knowledge and information of people about foods).
In the USA, food is classified in terms of nutritional value but such classification aren‘t mandated nor enforced.
Government should not take away the people's right to choose the food they would like to eat. In every country there is already Food and Drug Authority(FDA), which regulates the quality. Therefore, Government's job is to create awareness amongst the people and suggest the type of foods they should avoid, and also to promote the green concept in food processing.
Eberhard Weber Great example. It is difficult to argue against the prohibition of cannibalism.
what to eat or not eat is Individual's choice,Capacity to buy,Availability of that food but Government Definitely Regulate Quality ,to some Extent Quantity and Availability, Some part of Costing Through Tax
Thank you Joseph, another food for thought: assume that a government would regulate the nutritional intake of people (quality and quantity wise). What would happen to the undernourished and malnourished: put into prison where they then would get proper food as this would be mandatory...
After a long day at work, I would like to be able to have a nice spicy Italian sausage (processed of course, with possible carcinogenic elements), perhaps accompanied by a sugary soda to wash it down, a nice sweet chocolate cake (with extra sugar), and no vegetables at all. A stiff drink later in the evening would be nice as well. Or a puff…..
I am philosophically opposed to banning things other than extreme examples like met-amphetamine ie synthetic drugs that have no medicinal or social benefit as well as frank harm!
Consider also that the current dietary guidelines were introduced in the 1970’s after much manipulation by agri business and the governments desire to feed the population cheaply and with shelf stable goods as a remedy for the post war food crisis.
Subsequently, a huge body of evidence points to the dangers of poor quality oxidised fats, trans fats (abundantly present in most processed foods’ and the health benefits of good quality oils and fats including omega 3 fatty acids. This body of evidence also includes exposing the consequences of a high carbohydrate diet as well as the problems of added sugars and even small intakes of fructose concentrates such as sweeteners or soda beverages and their impact on LDL, triglycerides and hepatic insulin resistance. These all play a role in diabetes, obesity, heart disease and certain cancers including breast, prostate and colon.
Our bigger problem regarding impact on health is poor and unsustainable food growing and processing as well as food additives and preservatives and the toxic load and the environmental impact of modern petrochemical farming. Our governments should focus on these practices and industries and the rest will sort itself out. Quality versus quantity. The population still holds the naïve belief that ‘if it were harmful, the government would not allow it’ ..in our foods/ environment. A high level of scientific literacy introduced into our children’s schooling would raise the bar throughout socioeconomic and medico-economic aspects of our modern civilisation.
I would say increase people awareness and educate them to eat healthy.
Hassan Izzeddin Sarsak
You have misidentified and misdiagnosed the problem. Maybe you assume that people are uninformed and uneducated. I think it is not true. People are aware, informed and educated.
People want to have the freedom to be fat and unhealthy. Who are you to tell me what to eat?
Hassan Izzeddin Sarsak Are you a vegetarian sir? Are you aware and informed of ALL the health benefits of vegetarianism? May I suggest that you please and find out.
Promotion of healthy food styles among the wellbeing of the society is warranted. While the food industry will aim for the bigger profits, I think that the governments should balance that with awareness campaigns about what's healthy and not, as well as imposing more taxes on the non healthy supplies like sugars and nicotine products.
After a long day at work, I would like to be able to have a nice spicy Italian sausage (processed of course, with possible carcinogenic elements), perhaps accompanied by a sugary soda to wash it down, a nice sweet chocolate cake (with extra sugar), and no vegetables at all. A stiff drink later in the evening would be nice as well. Or a puff….
Besides who decides what they should “optimize” with respect to my health?
Surely you will decide for yourself, provided we take full responsibility for the health risk consequences and not ask the government to pay extra for our unhealthy lifestyle health care?
In the U.S., we have a crazy law. A hospital must treat anyone who comes into the Emergency Room and cannot ask any questions about citizenship and health insurance.
How about in your country? Do you have such a wonderful law? If not, why not?
I think that Mr Tham had asked the question with us laws on medical treatment elsewhere, but with regards to food I feel that people should be able to eat what they want. At the same time a government must control quality of food (e.g. that no spoiled food is sold). In Fiji sugar-free drinks attract lower tariffs than soft-drinks with sugar. In most countries alcohol and cigarettes also attract special taxes; a good idea would be to add these incomes to the health budget.....
Eberhard Weber
I agree that we should tax foods that are unhealthy and let the poor decide. However, in many cases, such taxes do hurt the poor more than the rich. There are tradeoffs that have to be made.
I understand what you mean, but I am not sure, if poor people are always hurt more, if we tax unhealthy food. When I go to the vegetable market in Suva and buy fresh vegetables I spend about half fresh vegetables cost in the supermarket.
Still healthy food can often not compete with chunk food what price is concerned....
Mohammad Mehdizadeh
May I humbly request you to write some comments in sentences. Single word responses are not helpful or useful. We want to know what YOU think and learn from you. There must be reciprocity. You are most kind.
Joseph Tham
Please don't scare the income tax and sales tax departments. :)
Rad Maythil Do you know how tough it is to raise taxes, especially on junk food? The companies have HUGE pockets for lobbying. Amen.
Dear Respected Joseph Tham
In my opinion the government should care for the well-being and safety of its people. Its responsibility include limiting the producing and distribution of unhealthy foods and agricultural crops that exposed to high concentration of chemical pesticides, etc.
Hoever these limitations may not solve the root of the problem, but it could be helpful.
Mohammad Mehdizadeh, I would not agree when governments would ban unhealthy foods, but through taxes government can influence people's choices. I mentioned earlier that soft-drinks with sugar are treated differently in Fiji than those without sugar (still they cost the same in the supermarket). Governments or health insurance also can give incentives for living more healthy, e.g. to give reduction when people do't go to see a dentist in a year.... There are many ways to influence people without punishing or banning.......
Mohammad Mehdizadeh In your respected opinion, what is the root of the problem?
The fancy and the glamour created by the advertisements of Jung food is a major factor among youth to indulge in unhealthy eating practices.The psychologically arrested youth become deaf and blind to purchase food in order to fill the vacuum created by the specially designed advertisements.This process of creating a desire for specific types of food and associating the same with desirable personality traits go a long way in creating and sustaining maladaptive eating behaviors.Govt is required to intervene in a systematic manner to reduce the effects of psychologically induced behavior regarding eating.
There is an example in my country, eat what you like and wear what people like,so should not.
Government can/should regulate production and marketing of junk/unhealthy food products.
If the Govt. regulate what people should eat, it must provide food to all. It is not possible. It should encourage to take healthy nourishment instead of malnutrition.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Medicine