In recent years, a debate regarding
sugar
consumption
has emerged.
In particular
,
while
everyone agrees that eating too much
sugar
is detrimental to health, there are opposite views about who has to intervene to limit
sugar
consumption
, with some
people
saying that should be the
government
and others affirming
that is
an individual responsibility. In
this
essay, a brief explanation of
this
debate will be given.
It is undoubtedly true that
government
action could largely resolve the
sugar
consumption
issue. In fact, an eventual
government
ban on unhealthy food could effectively address the problem at its root, eliminating the supply of
people
eating too much
sugar
.
Moreover
,
government
campaigns against other substances have already proved to be effective, so
this
could be applied to
this
case too.
For instance
, anti-smoking campaigns, promoted by some countries, have reduced the number of cigarettes smoked.
Finally
, on a moral side, it is the
government
's duty to protect its citizens, and
this
protection comes
also
from guaranteeing their well-being. Given all
this
, it is not entirely inaccurate to say that it is the
government
's responsibility to limit
sugar
consumption
.
On the other hand
,
people
should be free to decide what is better for them. Actually, limited
consumption
of
sugar
could be beneficial and, for
this
, a
government
cannot ban it completely, but should only inform the population about possible health risks.
Furthermore
, if someone wants to eat more
sugar
, there are many ways of doing so, even if the political power tries to stop it.
For example
, historically, when there has been a ban on some substances, almost always a black market emerged and
this
type of trade was not regulated, with all the dangers that derive from
this
.
In addition
, as stated above,
people
should have the possibility to decide for themselves, without having external forces imposing their views. Surely, relying completely on the population's sensibility on the matter could be not as effective as a centralized policy.
In conclusion, it could be said that both views have their strong and weak points.
Whereas
citizens should be free to take decisions for their health, it is true that not only they could not reduce
consumption
, but
also
increase it.
For
this
reason, a hybrid approach should be preferred, with public-funded information campaigns to spread awareness on the overconsumption of
sugar
, but letting the population decide what they should do.