The debate on whether there should be government regulations are needed in cases where it could help America persists throughout time. The most talked about topic within this is regulation of unhealthy food and beverage ingredients. Today, some major proposals presented include reducing the amount of sodium in the American diet and a possible ban on increasing soda sizes. These motions claim that regulation is needed for improvements in the general health of the national population. Within the constant battle between those who support government regulation of unhealthy ingredients and those who see it as a violation of their rights, the facts presented show that the dangers of these ingredients need to be limited by the government. …show more content…
Soda size bans would start the chain of less and less sugar consumption, directly making the population healthier, more energized, and happier in general. The ultimate plan is to get FDA support on gradually decreasing the maximum amounts of the unhealthy added components to the point where the difference is unnoticeable. The
National Academy of Sciences reinforces that in the case of salt, “The goal is not to ban salt, but rather bring the amount of sodium in the average American’s diet below levels associated with risks, hypertension, heart disease, and stroke” (Nat’l Academy of
Sciences). This clearly shows that these intentions are to bring down the average concentrations of these flavorings to a healthy level, not ban it. These limits might seem unnecessary or over-the-top, but the long-term effects would benefit the nation.
Those against the regulation of harmful ingredients of food say that people can make their own decisions based on the information given to them by means of food labels, public service announcements, and all kinds of health education. An anti- regulation writer said that, “You can control your salt take yourself, easily, by