My classmate Brandyss Drost recently wrote a commentary about the Illinois House recently approving a bill to eliminate artificial trans fats from restaurant and bakery food and food sold in school vending machines by January 2013. After being intrigued by her claim and opposition, I did some research and found that cafeterias operated by state and local governments and schools would not be included in the ban until January 2016.
Granted, my initial biased reaction to Brandyss' post came from the health nut in me that right away disagreed with her opposing viewpoint. Obesity and malnutrition is a horrible problem in American society that must be addressed. But after reader her post further and pondering it for a bit, I would have to say that she raises a valid argument when saying that enforcing such strict measures would be depriving citizens of their own right to eat whatever they want. Though I would like to see a change in the way American's choose to gain necessary nutrients and maintain a healthy diet, we are not currently in the position to worry about things of that nature, regardless.
In a previous post, I recently spoke of the issue of American's spending unnecessary amounts of on time and energy on so - called "problems" the media exploits in order to gain control of what we the want us to focus on rather than the real issues at large. (I.E. Obama's birth certificate). I think this follows into that same category.
Although, The House of Illinois and the Food and Drug Administration may have benevolent intentions by forcing American's to make healthier choices when dining out, doing so would take away human rights and would thus enable further controversy.
I say if they want to clog their arteries, let them. With that being, I disagree with their idea of controlling food "from restaurant and bakery food and food sold in school vending machines" before "cafeterias operated by state and local governments and schools" in the future but not now. The idea of focusing on the diet of children seems more logical. Children are limited in what they eat due being provided certain things by their caretakers and remain innocent when being ignorant to proper nutrition.
Illinois House has their priorities entirely backwards and should take further consideration into the notion that adults are responsible for themselves and will probably whine more than the average child who actually needs direction because they are more prone to being changed. Also, pop-culture and the media pose more of a threat to them because they are instilled by these outlets with the idea of either eating horribly or being unhealthily skinny is normalcy. The House of Illinois has a great concept but it is greatly flawed in many aspects.
Granted, my initial biased reaction to Brandyss' post came from the health nut in me that right away disagreed with her opposing viewpoint. Obesity and malnutrition is a horrible problem in American society that must be addressed. But after reader her post further and pondering it for a bit, I would have to say that she raises a valid argument when saying that enforcing such strict measures would be depriving citizens of their own right to eat whatever they want. Though I would like to see a change in the way American's choose to gain necessary nutrients and maintain a healthy diet, we are not currently in the position to worry about things of that nature, regardless.
In a previous post, I recently spoke of the issue of American's spending unnecessary amounts of on time and energy on so - called "problems" the media exploits in order to gain control of what we the want us to focus on rather than the real issues at large. (I.E. Obama's birth certificate). I think this follows into that same category.
Although, The House of Illinois and the Food and Drug Administration may have benevolent intentions by forcing American's to make healthier choices when dining out, doing so would take away human rights and would thus enable further controversy.
I say if they want to clog their arteries, let them. With that being, I disagree with their idea of controlling food "from restaurant and bakery food and food sold in school vending machines" before "cafeterias operated by state and local governments and schools" in the future but not now. The idea of focusing on the diet of children seems more logical. Children are limited in what they eat due being provided certain things by their caretakers and remain innocent when being ignorant to proper nutrition.
Illinois House has their priorities entirely backwards and should take further consideration into the notion that adults are responsible for themselves and will probably whine more than the average child who actually needs direction because they are more prone to being changed. Also, pop-culture and the media pose more of a threat to them because they are instilled by these outlets with the idea of either eating horribly or being unhealthily skinny is normalcy. The House of Illinois has a great concept but it is greatly flawed in many aspects.
No comments:
Post a Comment