English 91, section 23044
30 May 2012
Nutrition drastically impacts our health and everyday lives. It is imperative to the future of our wellbeing and life longevity. The government has recognized this. We cannot assume more government role and action will benefit us. The government should not take more of a role in nutrition. More government interference would have a negative effect in our society. The poor government programs and regulations already in effect have shown that more of a role would have harmful consequences to our health and financial obligations. When it comes down to it, we should all have the responsibility and right to eat what we want, when we want, without others removing or forcing us to eat certain foods.
In this economy, we cannot afford to be spending billions of dollars on more government programs and regulations that are having a more negative rather than positive outcome. One program,” The National School Lunch Program,” is the second largest nutritional assistance program in the nation after the Food Stamp program (Hargrove). According to the U.S Department of Agriculture “The National School Lunch Program cost $10.8 billion dollars FY 2010.”(USDA). Yet with all that government spending, there are still increases in obesity. USA Today reported that a startling 61% of U.S. citizens weigh too much, and about 26% are obese-30 pounds or more over a healthy weight (Hargrove). While I attended High School, it seemed like the USDA was revoking more and more foods every year. There was once a time when they removed carbonated drinks from vending machines and certain foods were not being sold anymore. My peers and I thought that this was not effective in stopping or slowing the consumption of soda and the foods we desired. For example, if we did not drink a soda at school, we would go home and drink a soda after school. Therefore we get what we want, regardless of what...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document