2 Votes
Government Regulating Vending Machines →www.washingtonpost.com
"The Obama administration will ask Congress to improve childhood nutrition by ridding school vending machines of sugary snacks and drinks…" Does government have the right to tell you what you can and can't eat by eliminating your options?
Interesting question by wyldeling
Does government have the right to tell you what you can and can’t eat by eliminating your options?
Let me ask one in response, does the government have the right to intercede in what is deemed a public health problem?
Government Regulating SCHOOL Vending Machines by Jackson
Does government have the right to tell you what you can and can’t eat by eliminating your options
I think it has the right to choose to not offer options to kids in publicly funded institutions. It isn’t saying they can’t bring them from home and it isn’t saying they can’t consume them at school. This is the government regulating what is offered at a government (or public) funded place. Lastly, the liberty of children is already limited by the government (truancy laws, alcohol age limits, smoking limits, etc). I mean, I am fairly sure that schools aren’t allowed to have cigarette vending machines in schools. (I realize the difference, but still feel the comparison is worth considering).
Of course, the government does regulate what we can and can’t eat through the FDA. But I don’t see this as the same thing at all, as per above.
I wonder if that blanket “schools” would include private schools. I doubt they could do anything there in this regard.
Local vs Fed government; individual health responsibility by Brandon
I agree with what Jackson said about the government having the ability to decide what food, if any, it wants to provide in schools. That government, however, should be the school district. It’s their responsibility – and if they don’t do a good job, it’s the parents that should put pressure on them to change.
I can see how the federal government might feel pressure to get involved, however, if it decides to tie its success to the individual eating choices of its citizens.
Instead of this, I think the government’s involvement (both at the federal and local level) should center on education. So, a campaign promoting organic food and water (as opposed to fast food and soft drinks) would be fine, but things like subsidizing the organic farmers, taxing fast food or sugar, outlawing trans fats – or even forcing companies to list calorie counts1 – wouldn’t.
This way the responsibility for (and the influence of) an individual’s health decisions rest where they should: on the individual first and on his/her family second.
1 I used to be on-board with the calorie count thing, but I like it less and less the more I think about it. Not only does it take responsibility from the consumer, it provides a false indication of what it takes to be healthy. (It’s the toxin and nutrient content that matters.)