Government Control Over Public Food Choices in America
This paper argues that the United States government should implement programs and legislation to reduce the prevalence of fast food in American society. Drawing on evidence from public health research, food industry practices, and existing government initiatives, the paper examines the rise of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease linked to fast food consumption. It highlights vulnerable demographics — particularly children and low-income communities — who face disproportionate exposure to unhealthy food environments. The paper also considers the enormous financial burden fast food–related illness places on federal health resources, addresses opposing arguments centered on personal choice and states' rights, and concludes that federal intervention is both justified and necessary.
- Introduction: Thesis: government must curb fast food prevalence
- Background: Fast Food, Disease, and Industry Behavior: Rise of fast food linked to disease and corporate greed
- Children and the Case for Government Intervention: Childhood obesity and exploitative food advertising examined
- Low-Income Communities and the Cost of Fast Food: Fast food concentrates in poor areas; economic and health costs
- Opposing Views and Responses: Personal choice and states' rights arguments rebutted
- Conclusion: Federal action needed to reverse obesity epidemic
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper organizes its argument around specific vulnerable demographics — children and low-income communities — giving abstract policy claims concrete human stakes and supporting evidence.
- It anticipates and directly rebuts the opposing "personal choice" argument, particularly by pointing out its inapplicability to minors, which strengthens the pro-intervention thesis.
- Quantitative evidence (e.g., $238 billion in annual obesity-related healthcare costs, 13% childhood obesity rate) is woven throughout to ground normative claims in measurable reality.
Key academic technique demonstrated
This paper demonstrates the classic argumentative essay technique of addressing the counterargument before the conclusion. By presenting opposition viewpoints — personal freedom, states' rights, voluntary industry change — and then systematically dismantling them with evidence, the paper models how conceding partial points can actually strengthen an overall argument rather than weaken it.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a clear five-part structure: an introduction establishing the thesis, a background section documenting the scope of the problem, an evidence section organized around two key demographics (children and low-income communities) plus economic costs, an opposing-view section with rebuttal, and a brief conclusion. This structure mirrors the classical persuasive essay form and is well-suited to policy argument writing at the undergraduate level.
Introduction
"Obesity poses a greater threat to our national security" (Nestle 2011, p. 1). Along with other major health conditions such as heart disease and diabetes, the rise in obesity is almost wholly explained by the rise in unhealthy junk foods within the typical American diet. Fast food companies often ignore the real needs of their consumers — namely health and well-being — opting instead for a path of lucrative profits. The government should implement programs to reduce the prevalence of fast food in America.
Background: Fast Food, Disease, and Industry Behavior
One of the worst consequences of the increase in fast food consumption is the corresponding rise in related diseases within American society. Since the beginning of fast food's dominance in the late 1940s, the fast food industry has been growing at an alarming rate. This growth has influenced several generations of Americans to eat less healthy food, as fast food alternatives became increasingly available. As the popularity of fast food increased, so did the risks associated with poor diets. Diabetes, obesity, and heart disease are now among the biggest killers in contemporary society, alongside tobacco and alcohol. The rise in obesity and its corresponding health conditions is directly linked to the increase of fatty and sugary foods within the typical American diet (Garcia et al., 2004). The more popular junk food becomes, the more dangerous it proves to be.
Yet most of the food companies responsible for this trend are clearly ignoring the warning signs. Rapid and uncontrolled growth has produced a desire for profit rather than concern for customer well-being. Research shows that "over the last three decades, fast food has infiltrated every nook and cranny of American society" (Schlosser, 2004, p. 3). In the year 2000 alone, Americans spent over $110 billion on fast, unhealthy foods (Schlosser, 2004). Poor dietary habits are a direct result of this saturation.
Additionally, advertising techniques and strategies have played a large role in how brazenly food companies pursue profit. McDonald's is now the world's most recognizable brand image (Schlosser, 2004). There is a clear trend of exploiting the most vulnerable populations within American society; high rates of junk food advertising are even found on educational television programs (Jacobson, 2007). Most of the more notorious companies have shown great resistance to change. Several major companies that produce healthier alternatives also own brand names of pure junk food marketed directly to children (Jacobson, 2007). Efforts toward reform have been shallow, doing little to curb the national epidemic. Consequently, advocates outside the industry have called for external government intervention. Junk food politics has become a controversial subject, riddled with partisan biases. As Nestle (2011, p. 1) observes, "junk food and obesity are key indicators of political divisions in our society." Yet many people continue to advocate for some form of intervention.
References
American Alliance for Health. (2002). Texas restricts junk food sales in schools. The Journal of Physical Education, 73(6), 18–19.
Garcia, Robert, Flores, Erica S., & Chang, Sophia Mei-ling. (2004). Thirteenth annual symposium on contemporary urban challenges: Urban equity. Fordham University School of Law. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 31, 1267.
Jacobson, Michael F. (2007). As the junk food world turns. Nutritional Action Healthletter, 34(5), 2–3.
Lazarus, David. (2011). Tax junk food: Fight obesity one penny at a time. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 2, 2011 from http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/25/business/la-fi-lazarus-20110225
Let's Move. (2011). Programs and resources. About Let's Move. Retrieved February 28, 2011 from http://www.letsmove.gov/programsresources.php
Nestle, Marion. (2011). Culture wars: How junk food and obesity became politicized. The Atlantic. Retrieved February 28, 2011 from http://www.theatlantic.com/food/archive/2010/12/culture-wars-how-junk-food-and-obesity-became-politicized/67841/
Schlosser, Eric. (2001). The Dark Side of the All-American Meal. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Schor, Juliet. (2004). Born to Buy: The Commercialized Child and the New Consumer Culture. Simon and Schuster.
Violand, Adam. (2008). 10 things the food industry doesn't want you to know. U.S. News. Retrieved February 28, 2011 from http://health.usnews.com/health-news/difitness/diet/articles/2008/10/17/10-things-the-food-industry-doesnt-want-you-to-know
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.