Shops should not be allowed to sell any food or drinks that have been scientifically proven to be bad for people’s health. 🔸 To what extent do you agree or disagree?
The debate surrounding whether shops should be prohibited from selling food and beverages that are scientifically proven to be harmful is a pressing issue in today’s
health
-conscious world. Use synonyms
While
I agree that regulating the availability of unhealthy Linking Words
products
is necessary to safeguard public Use synonyms
health
, I believe an outright ban may not be the most practical or effective approach.
Use synonyms
To begin
with, limiting the sale of scientifically harmful foods and drinks would significantly contribute to addressing public Linking Words
health
crises Use synonyms
such
as obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases. These conditions are often exacerbated by the overconsumption of unhealthy, processed foods high in sugar, salt, and unhealthy fats. By removing Linking Words
such
options from store shelves, consumers would have fewer opportunities to make poor dietary choices, thereby encouraging healthier eating habits. Countries that have implemented partial restrictions, Linking Words
such
as taxing sugary drinks, have already reported declines in consumption, highlighting the potential benefits of targeted interventions.
Linking Words
Moreover
, restricting the sale of unhealthy Linking Words
products
would send a strong societal message about the importance of prioritizing Use synonyms
health
. By holding businesses accountable for the Use synonyms
products
they offer, governments could foster a culture where individuals are more informed and empowered to make better lifestyle decisions. Use synonyms
For instance
, cigarette sales are tightly regulated in many parts of the world, leading to decreased smoking rates and improved public Linking Words
health
outcomes. A similar strategy could be applied to harmful food and drink Use synonyms
products
, emphasizing collective responsibility for well-being.
Use synonyms
However
, an outright ban may be overly restrictive and pose significant challenges. Linking Words
First,
defining which Linking Words
products
qualify as “scientifically harmful” can be complex, as dietary science is not always definitive and evolves over time. Use synonyms
For instance
, certain ingredients like saturated fats or artificial sweeteners have been subject to ongoing debate. A blanket prohibition might inadvertently penalize Linking Words
products
that could have a place in moderation within a balanced diet.
Use synonyms
Additionally
, Linking Words
such
a measure risks infringing on consumer choice and personal freedom. People should be allowed to make their own decisions, even if they are imperfect. Linking Words
Instead
of imposing a complete ban, governments could focus on raising public awareness through education campaigns and clearer food Linking Words
labeling
. By empowering individuals with knowledge, they can make informed decisions without feeling coerced or restricted.
In conclusion, Change the spelling
labelling
while
restricting the sale of scientifically harmful foods and drinks could play a crucial role in improving public Linking Words
health
, I believe a more balanced approach that combines regulation, education, and individual freedom would be more effective. By addressing the root causes of unhealthy consumption rather than resorting to outright bans, societies can achieve sustainable and meaningful progress in promoting better Use synonyms
health
outcomes.Use synonyms
Submitted by mohamad.rahimi.alisaraei 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.
task achievement
Expand on the potential negative consequences of an outright ban, such as its impact on the economy and possible backlash from consumers. This could provide a more balanced view and deepen the analysis.
coherence cohesion
Ensure that all transitions between paragraphs are equally strong to enhance the flow of the essay. Sometimes transitions can be more explicit to guide the reader smoothly from one point to another.
task achievement
The essay effectively addresses the topic by providing a nuanced stance that considers both sides of the argument (task achievement).
coherence cohesion
Logical structure is solid, with well-organized paragraphs that follow a clear sequence (coherence and cohesion).
coherence cohesion
The introduction and conclusion are well-written, providing a strong opening to the topic and a thoughtful wrap-up that reinforces the main argument (coherence and cohesion).
task achievement
Use of specific examples such as the regulation of cigarette sales and sugary drink taxes adds depth to the arguments and supports the points made (task achievement).
Support ideas with relevant, specific examples
Examples make your writing easier to understand by illustrating points more effectively.
Examples, if used properly, not only help you get higher marks for ‘Task Response’ but also for ‘Coherence’.
When giving examples it is best to put them after your main idea or topic sentence. They can be used in the middle of supporting sentences or they can be used to start a new sentence. There is no rule for where exactly to give examples in essays, logically they would come after your main idea/topic sentence or just after a supporting sentence.
Linking words for giving examples:
- for example
- for instance
- to illustrate this
- to give a clear example
- such as
- namely
- to illustrate
- take, for example