Sociology

The subject  of being too emaciated or too stout is the upshot of a multifarious set of both personal and social factors that scientist are beginning to fathom. Assisting people become fit, obliges a uniformly complex retort that involves wide ranging fitness and nutrition edification. More entre to rational health amenities for people with eating turmoil. Any news concerning weight robotically draws our attention. Government has in the recent times walloped us with what can be called dubious attempts to help regulate peoples eating habit in order to curb obesity and anorexia. The government gave mandate to the Food and Drug Administration power to regulate the manufacture, marketing and sale of tobacco, cigarettes and alcohol products. This meant that the sale of things appealing to young people would finally be banned and the government would have complete powers to dictate where they are sold. How far the government is going with this is the main question. Some cities are even proposing the ban of fast food restaurants to control obesity. The government has no business at all to tell what one should or should not eat. This depicts how America as a country is becoming less and less the land of the free and more so as the land of the slaves.

David a Denver columnist argues that the current legislation of tobacco is shallow and lacks expertise to regulate food effectively and basically the bill is based on the wrong things. If we were to regulate weight what else needs to be regulated Almost every discipline has a hitch and it would mean that everything else is regulated even the time that people wakes up and sleeps. Initially if we took a positive outlook on this then the answer is yes, regulation of fatty foods foods containing fats that if taken in excess makes people chubby, regulation of alcohol and tobacco and regulation of commercials will work. Those are direct simple answers but the truth is, there is no enough evidence that this rules will work. The problem is more deep-rooted and only a deep- rooted approach can work. The real problem lies in the socio- economic set up. If families would care to learn more on nutrition, establish better schools with quality resources then the problem would be solved.

Most researchers suggest that if law makers really wish to tax sugary beverages to curb nations obesity problem they could benefit by studying anti- tobacco campaigns. A study conducted at the University of Virginia suggested that it would be proper if the taxes are combined with stiff policy interventions as well as outreach programs to beat obesity. They claim that just like the popularity of smoking has dramatically declined then the policies would play a major role to bring down obesity. A 10 tax on fattening food is an identified model used by British government to verify the foods that ought to be advertised to children as this would reduce consumption.  Consumption of fattening food according to research would be reduced by banning advertisements in the media.  Attacking obesity epidemic, policymakers can turn for guidance to the countrys long-term effort to combat an equally pressing public health problemtobacco use.

Government has gone ahead to pioneer a proposal that would make it illegitimate for web sites, fashion magazines and advertisers to encourage anorexia. In New York bureaucrats espoused regulations that would entail restaurants to position calorie count. These exertion aimed at differing ends make it appear as if it can be easily fixed with little adjustments. According to a study conducted at  the University of John Hopkins it showed Americans are continuing to be fatter than ever. It also revealed by the year 2015, 75 of Americans will be obese. In a study conducted by Mathew it showed that obesity was responsible for 300,000 deaths in a year in USA. It is most common in Mississippi where 62 of its residents are overweight and 24 are already obese. Bill to make P.E compulsory in schools failed as most schools argued that they had no time for P.E and even lacked the necessary resources for its implementation.

Most people have the notion that by government regulating how much we consume it will have positive impact on our health. What does tobacco and alcohol commercials have to do with    the impact it has on our lives It is the same thing if the government regulates what is to be advertised in the television will that make a difference Health dangers connected to obesity are frequently accounted but most Americans are not prompted by this to change their lifestyle. Generally, amendments and feat is clearly needed . Question on which measures are appropriate and are generally acceptable to all is one that is controversial. Chiefly, as most people would also converse with that , the governments involvement in personal lifestyle choices such as food is in great contrast on what is accepted in the society. Adults have the autonomy to make decision they believe they are of best concern to them. However the same freedom can be triggered by informational and physical barriers.

A great number of obese people come from lower economic status backgrounds. They inhabit in areas with no gyms or local outdoor activities and if there are they are too expensive for them. Their neighborhood also lacks fresh produce at grocery hoard. Such kind of environmental proves difficult for any health advancement to take place. According to Mello, government can help by hampering the integer of food restaurants and present better recreational flairs.

Many also argue that advertisements have played their role in promoting obesity. The pervasive advertising of soft drinks and sugary cereals that barrages children during programmes can be equally negatively effective. Study shows that broods are exposed to 40,000 advertisements every year of which 72 of them endorse junk food. Advertisements attain their meant upshot of altering childrens eating habits. The fact that the National Cancer institute use approximately one million dollar as compared to the 33 billion by food industries to market junk food is completely creepy. Enhanced food labels can help thwart the consumption whims wrought by marketing and foil the continued prevalence of obesity in children. It does not have to be regulation that will frustrate obesity parents can play a key role in ensuring their children eat the right staff as nurturing enhanced eating habits at young age is vital because they will be ingrained in their lifestyle. Advertising on the other hand plays a major role in the mental growth of the child as it boosts his or her thinking aptitude in knowing the various types of foods and supplements available within their locality as ignorance has never been a defense. We can deduce from this that not all publicity is negative and regulating it is not the answer and neither is it logic.

The issue on whether the government should lead or follow in the subject of obesity is paramount. To a great extent it has a moral accountability to take a lucid leadership decision and try to turn this public health around. Underlying wiles on corporate power is a big challenge to the maturity of policies regulating obesity. The state at a large extent has no right to meddle with peoples free choices who also knows the consequences. Obesity unlike smoking which will affect the people around and cause cancer and other terminal diseases, obesity will not augment anybodys chances of getting diabetes or cancer and governments intrusion is almost inconsiderate. Its intervention is of great importance in swaying people but there is no summit in making people who are already obese feel ghastly about it.

If people are not smart enough to fix their obesity quandary then the government has no right to force people to lose weight. Many argue that if the government is genuinely after thwarting obesity then it should come up with practicable ways like cutting the prices on foods that are healthy and also recreation facilities in order to cater for everyone irrespective of their status quo. It is simply not socialist to crave to fix things that are human nature but it is socialism to allow government control us because at the end of the day those who want to live unhealthy life they will still do.

On the other hand we have seen before government programs deciphering problems and it can solve the obesity issue as well. The authentic solution to any predicament is to have an ardent problem solver following it. The main issue is how to identify the problem solver and trust them to give a mandate on what we should and should not do. According to Michelle Obama, she asserted that child obesity in America is an expensive menace to national security. Obesity brings a long with it an assortment of health hitches but when it occurs to children its more magnified. Richard affirmed that child obesity was no different from terrorism threat.

According to a research done by Radley, it depicted that Americans were now breathing longer than before though obesity prevalence has continued to rise since 1970s. In 1980 about eight states had reported that 10of their populace was obese and by 1990 the number rose by 3.3. Some bicker that the government is equally part of the problem and has contributed to some extent in the rise of obesity. When the government impeded the subsidizing of sugar and instead started to subsidize corn this resulted to high risks of obesity as now there is syrup and corn in almost everything consumed. The point is that the government has no right to regulate but to first undo the mess they were once part of.

David in his article, he engraves that  due to the increase of obesity rates most people as young as 40 are having knee problems as compared to previous years where the problem was only common to people in their 70s. He also depicts that legislation will extend the problem as it has turned into a cultural issue rather than a political one. Obese people are singled out in the society and the lingo has also changed since they are being referred as obese and not fat. Politicians should toughen their communication skills and in particularly their language. Instead of talking about people who eat too much they should change it to people who are at risk of obesity as this is more affirmative. David finalizes by saying that everyones life is his or her own dependability.

Greg in his book confirms how four teenagers in New York sued the McDonalds Corporation for playing a part in their obesity claiming that their products were detrimental to peoples health of which they were not comprehensible to an ordinary punter. He also depicts on how the federal government has played a part in enhancing high health standards. The government has launched programs and funded for them to educate people on how obesity results to chronic diseases.

The government though it would be in a good position to curtail obesity the fact is that it has failed to deliver in most programs as they have promised. People generally have little reliance in the government. According to Jacobson, what the government is actually doing is to levy taxes on candy, soft drinks, snack and junk foods. The tax is meant to help sponsor nutrition and health programs but the tax is too small for that.

Logically granted that actually obesity is a health issue, it is irrational that it should be termed as public health issue. Brownell challenges the government to salvage consumers mostly children from environmental aspects that make them fat thus rescuing taxpayers from the lumber of obesity. The government should work to ban promotion of products meant for children in a standardized way that will be fair to most people. Whether the government is to regulate weight or not, it is patent that obesity has adverse effects and individuals should be at the forefront to learn on the best way to curb or diminish it rather than the government. Everybody is responsible for the outcome in his or her life and as much as the government can play a role in all this, it is lucid there is nothing much they can do without the cooperation of people.