Shops should not be allowed to sell any food and drinks that has been scientifically proved to be bad for people’s health. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
In
this
day and age, there has been a heated controversy about unhealthy food
. Some folk hold the point that the government should check the quality of food
and strictly prohibit shops from offering harmful food
. From my perspective, this
program is of crucial significance for individuals and society.
Some people may claim that this
process could be costly and testing the products could take up public resources. There are dozens of stores and their corresponding products in one single city. Checking them separately will definitely require numerous funds and labour forces, adding great pressure on relevant departures. In addition
, this
law will barricade small businesses like individual food
makers and sellers from developping
themselves, so they are discouraged from their activities. Correct your spelling
developing
However
, these consequences are kind of short-view. The populace will have a better health level, which boosts social welfare on a larger scale. Just like what we have witnessed in the previous social reforms.
To begin
with, people are highly influenced to buy such
commodities if shops still provide and advertise them. To be specific, the masses are tempted customers to drink soft drinks like Coke and Pepsi, even though people recognize the potential impacts on their physical health due to
the excessive sodium which can lead to obesity and even diabetes. By contrast
, if shops replaced these beverages with healthy alternatives such
as fresh juice with no external sugar, customers would be encouraged to adopt healthy eating habits and they would be less likely to be affected by nutrition-related diseases. Due to
a
recent research, employees who meet good fitness standards show not only higher effectiveness during workingRemove the article
apply
,
but Remove the comma
apply
also
better psychological soundness.
In a nutshell, though this
suggestion could destroy several small firms, it can benefit the individuals as well as
the whole society. I believe the government should improve relative regulations to reach such
a goal.Submitted by christianwang on
Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Writing9 with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
coherence cohesion
To improve coherence and cohesion, make sure that the transition between ideas is smooth by using appropriate linking phrases and conjunctions. For example, instead of saying 'By contrast,' consider something more specific like 'Contrarily, if regulatory actions were taken...'.
task achievement
To enhance task response, provide more concrete and diverse examples or statistics to support your arguments. Instead of referring to general 'recent research,' name a specific study or source to add credibility.
task achievement
While your ideas are clear and comprehensive, there are minor grammatical errors such as using 'developping' instead of 'developing' or 'relevant departures' when 'departments' is meant. Minimizing these small errors will sharpen your response.
introduction
The introduction is well-crafted, presents the issue clearly, and states your stance effectively.
logical structure
The essay contains a logical structure with distinct paragraphs for different points, which makes it easy to follow the argument.
introduction conclusion
The conclusion effectively summarizes the main points made in the essay, reinforcing your stance in a concise manner.