8.Shops should not be allowed to sell any food or drink that have been scientifically proved to be bad for people’s health. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In

this

essay, I will argue why it is irrational to vote for the prohibition of selling

food

and beverages that have been proven harmful to people. Before assessing whether those types of

food

intake should be forbidden or not, one should first make a clear definition of "harmful". Anything

that is

eaten by people in their daily life may become "harmful" without scientific eating amount or frequency. That means all

food

or beverage, nutritious or unhealthy, would somehow become toxic anyway if people blindly eat them without considering the physical situations.

Therefore

, I would say that one can never draw a clear line between regular catering materials and the so-called "harmful"

food

when there are no premises set on the quantity or eating frequency.

Then

is the impracticality of the supposed policy: how can we solely ban the selling of certain types of

food

only when they are relatively more "harmful" than others, but permit others that are less harmful but would

also

be unhealthy under some circumstances? It is the ambiguity of the criteria towards

this

action that compels me to reject

this

notion. Apart from the lack of credibility on the judgement of "harmfulness", the given claim would

also

be unpersuasive because of its recklessness.

This

type of prohibition is practical only when its foreseeable contribution definitively outweighs the drawbacks it may provoke. Let alone how hard the act can be implemented, the possible outcome of

this

is clearly dark and negative; it would certainly deprive certain catering industries of the ability to survive and would make the entire society face the sadness of unemployment. Companies related to, say, snacks, alcohol or soda, would immediately witness their fate of extinction and end up with corruption, sending a throng of fired employees into the talent market, who would suddenly increase the pressures pushed on the government and human resource departments.

Whereas

that is

still not the whole story, when lots of countries

then

realize that they would experience vicious slumps in their international trade, in which the old day's economic titans-coca cola, KFC, burger king, Hennessy, etc.-would never make any money for their own countries, who would

also

not be that abundant to purchase inside the global importing and exporting chain. In conclusion, the absurdity and calamities witnessed behind

this

notion make me strongly veto it. I certainly believe that feasibility and possible hazards should be meticulously tested before any prohibition of

food

and drinks, even if they may seemingly harm our health.