Public health is becoming an urgent issue nowadays. Some argue that governments should create nutrition and food choice laws to improve public health, while others believe that it is a matter of personal choice and responsibility. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

These days, general well-being has become a public concern. It is believed by many that authorities are entitled to issue

food

-regulating rules in order to ameliorate public

health

.

However

, others discern that individuals are responsible for their

choices

, and they do not have to be obliged to consume certain types of diet. Whilst I firmly believe that governments ought to intervene to a certain extent, I

also

believe that citizens have to be at liberty to choose from different

options

according to

their

health

conditions and appearance preferences. On the

one

hand,

one

reason why states should intervene in civilians'

food

choices

relates to their power of supervision over various

health

-influencing sectors.

In other words

, some

food

corporations tend to mislead consumers by providing them with illusive images regarding their products as being healthy

while

they are loaded with palm oils and refined sugars. Since states are able to censor

such

erroneous data, they would be adjusting citizens'

options

by discarding

such

produce.

One

further

reason why governments ought to participate in the selection process is that they are armed with nutrition experts and researchers who are able to provide citizens with the proper and up-to-date

options

according to

universal

health

organisations and the latest recommendations around the world. In Egypt,

for instance

, public education campaigns against the dangers of obesity have been launched which have been based on the latest findings of WHO regarding

food

choices

.

On the other hand

,

one

evident merit which proves the necessity of personal

choices

without governmental intervention relates to medical reasons.

In other words

, in certain medical conditions, regularly do patients require a specific style of diet in order to override the complications of

such

an ailment. Patients ,

therefore

, have to adjust their intake and opt for suitable

choices

, the thing that cannot be actualized by governmental intervention. An eminent example of

this

is diabetic patients who are obliged to cut sugar and carbohydrate intake as their bodies are not able to eliminate simple sugars from their bodies. From a physical perspective, civilians should be given the right to choose their preferable body shape.

This

is mainly

due to

the fact that what an individual is keen to consume usually reflects back on their appearance and physique. Bodybuilders,

for instance

, who choose to have

such

an iconic body image opt for a high-protein diet which helps them augment their solid muscles.

Subsequently

, any roles may be considered to be a violation of their rights of having a particular body appearance. In conclusion, despite the previously-mentioned benefits of authoritarian intervention on

food

options

, I am convinced that individuals should be given the choice to adjust their intake for

health

and preference reasons.