Should the government have a say on what we eat

0 Comment

Indeed, this happens to be a very divisive question. There are health experts who support a direct state intervention in the dietary choices made by the people. Yet, there are also groups and bodies who believe that government should have no say in what people eat. Pragmatically speaking, government should not have any say at all in what people eat because government has no right to interfere in the decisions people make, and if government really wants to help people eat healthy, it can do say without opting for a direct intervention.Government should not have any say in the food people eat because government has not right to interfere in expression of the free will of the people (Caplan 175). In any thriving democracy, too much government interference in lives of the people is not good. This trend if allowed to gain grounds could certainly lead to a diminishing of the rights of the people (Caplan 175). The government should not have any right to dictate as to what the tax payers or ordinary citizens should eat. People do have the wisdom and the maturity to decide as to what they and their families need to eat. Diet of people happens to be a social issue and not a legal issue. One of the primary roles of the government is to make new laws. Hence, government does not need to pose interference in an issue that happens to be more of a social problem and not a legal issue. Besides, the purpose of any effective government is not to define the lives of the people, but to assure that people are able to live their lives the way they want to. The other thing is that if the government is allowed to have a say in what people eat, the state may surpass this power to interfere with each and every aspect of the people’s life. This is not good for democracy. There does need to be a limit as to how much the government is allowed to interfere in the lives of the people. Telling people what to