In the article “Should Candy and Soda be Banned from Schools?” by Tom Vilsack and J.Justin Wilson, Vilsack argues that sugary foods and drinks should be banned from schools, while Wilson disagrees and states that sugary foods and drinks should not be banned from schools. I agree with Wilson because taking away a kids privilege to make their own choices, and forcing them to do something, makes them more dependent.
Wilson states in the article “Researchers call this the “forbidden fruit theory,” because we often crave what we’re not allowed to have”. I have noticed from personal experience that when something that is banned is more tempting than something you have permission to do or have. In the news there are always reports on drug dealing and other crimes being very popular, why? It is mostly because it is against the law and certain people like to challenge the law, just like students with sugary products. If these foods were to be banned in school, students would find a way to still be eating sugary foods in school, which would cause them to get in trouble, for something the government did.
I also agree with Wilson in the statement “It’s not the government 's job to make decisions about what we eat and where we eat it.”, because the government has done enough to control
…show more content…
Obesity is one of the major reasons this argument came about. As Wilson states “it 's easier to simply assign blame to sugary drinks and snacks, rather than tackling the various roots of the problem.”, although sugary drinks and snacks have a lot of fats and sugars that could increase the chances of a student to have obesity, it is not the only cause of obesity. Obesity can also be inherited. If a student has obesity history in their family, then it would be their responsibility and choice to watch what they 're eating and how they maintain a healthy life. Most of the times the less healthy food is the inexpensive one, which also leads to students making the choice of junk food, over