Some people think that shops should not be allowed to sell food or drinks that are scientifically proven to be bad for people's health. Do you agree or disagree?

Sample 1:

An often-debated topic is whether the sales of unhealthy food and beverages should be banned at shops and stores. Personally, I disagree with this opinion for a number of reasons.

Firstly, imposing a ban on selling unhealthy drinks may result in the sales of these products moving to the black market and subsequently a rise in crime figures. There are those who cannot overcome their craving for alcohol, for example, and they will search for any means available to access wine and beer. This reaction can be seen in the illegal trade of heroin in Vietnam.

Secondly, making any laws against the public sale of foods that are potentially harmful to health would limit the options that consumers have. For instance, many people opt for fast food instead of cooking meals to save time for work. It would be difficult for them to seek another alternative to their daily meals if shops are prohibited from selling fast food.

While this topic is still open to debate, I believe that other measures to improve the level of public health should be considered. The simplest action is that the government should continue campaigns to raise public awareness of healthy choices rather than trying to ban shops from selling unhealthy items. Another remedy is that a higher tax rate can be instituted on foods and beverages that are bad for people’s health. This may increase the price of these products, which may deter people from excessive individual consumption.

In conclusion, I do not believe that the government should ban shops from selling unhealthy foods and drinks due to potential problems and the availability of better alternatives mentioned above.

Sample 2:

In recent years, the issue of unhealthy food and drink consumption has gained attention. Some people argue that shops should not be allowed to sell food or drinks that are scientifically proven to be bad for people's health. While this argument has its merits, I disagree as I believe that people should be allowed to make their own choices about what they consume.

Firstly, individuals have the right to make decisions about their own health. People should have the freedom to choose what they eat and drink, even if it is unhealthy. For example, in the past, there were a few cities proposing a ban on the sale of sugary drinks in certain establishments, including restaurants, movie theaters, and sports arenas. However, this proposal faced significant backlash from consumers, businesses, and politicians who argued that it infringed upon people's personal freedoms and was an example of government overreach. I agree with this as I believe that banning the sale of certain foods and drinks would infringe upon people's personal freedoms and limit their choices.

Secondly, when bans are imposed, there is a risk of creating a black market for banned products. This has been seen in the case of illegal drugs, where bans have led to the growth of organized crime and increased health risks for users. In the case of unhealthy foods and drinks, a black market could lead to the sale of products that are even more harmful and would be difficult to regulate. For instance, in the early 20th century, the prohibition of alcohol led to the rise of a black market, with illegal production and sale of alcohol becoming a significant problem. This led to the consumption of more dangerous and harmful alcohol products, as they were often produced in unsanitary conditions and with no quality control. This shows that we should not ban harmful products as it would lead to a greater, more unmanageable problem.

In conclusion, while there are valid concerns about the health implications of consuming certain foods and drinks, I do not agree that banning their sale is the best solution as this would infringe on the personal freedoms of our democratic society and lead to a proliferation of seedier enterprises.

Sample 3:

It has been argued that selling beverages or any food proved by scientists harmful to human health should be banned. I completely agree with this perspective, as it will escalate the financial burden on the government and the people. Moreover, life expectancy will be lower.

First off, undoubtedly fast food or beverages, either hot or cold, change the taste of the tongue of the people. However, its adverse impact on people’s health makes it mandatory for shop owners to stop selling them. If people continue to consume them, they will experience psychological and physiological problems such as lack of concentration, malnutrition, stomach ulcer, and obesity, to name a few. To cure themselves from the problems mentioned above, they must take medication, which can escalate their financial burden. The treatment might be expensive. Moreover, the government also has to spend a lot of money in the medical sector to improve the condition of the people. It includes drugs, doctor’s fees, and expenditure on building healthcare centres. Thus, there are higher chances of neglecting other sectors, such as educational sports.

Furthermore, the longevity of humans will also drop. Individuals would not be able to enjoy a healthy lifestyle. Recently, it has been proved by American scientists that one slice of pizza deteriorates 8 mins of life, whereas soft drinks reduce 12 minutes of life. Therefore, to stop the mortality rate, it is a must for a seller to ban these products. In addition, if the population decreases during the time of war or other mishappenings, a country will have to rely on other’s help as this news is selling like hot cakes that the Russian government will give 10 to 13 lakhs to those families who will bear more than 12 children. In my perspective, it is sought by the government to equip its country with manpower as the country’s population has a big hand in its progress. So, to sustain it, unhealthy food or drinks must be outlawed.

To conclude, it is clear that the products which have been proved unhealthy should be prohibited from being sold in the market. If it is not done, there will be an additional burden on the pocket of ordinary men, reducing the long-life span of the multitude, who are the backbone of any nation.

Sample 4:

People are more conscious about their eating habits now than ever. It is argued that shops should not be allowed to sell soft drinks and food items that are proved detrimental to an individual’s health. This essay will discuss the possible reasons why a ban on such eating items is essential for long and healthy life.

To begin with, the government should play an active role in regulating the content of every eatable item that is dumped in the marketplace over the years. Due to the rising population and the growing demand, a substantial number of companies are entering the Food and Beverage industry. They are forced to sell products at a very cheap rate to create their own niche or capture the market. Therefore, they use raw materials of the lowest quality in order to survive in this highly competitive industry. Fast food items such as chips, frozen items like pizzas, French fries, etc., and processed foods have high-fat content and are engulfed in low-quality oil. Additionally, soft drinks have high sugar content in all their goods. These are the main reasons for the increasing number of heart attacks, obesity and diabetes in children and young adults.

On the other hand, the lower middle class and somebody having financial problems are bound to eat such unhealthy items as they are cheaper than healthier ones. Shop owners also get a high commission on these low-quality products, and to maximise their profits, they keep a pile of stock and advise their customers to try these items. A packet of fried chips or a can of sugary soft drinks costs much less than a healthy sandwich or a glass of juice.

To conclude, the government should ban these items or, at the least, levy an “Unhealthy tax” on food items or drinks that are detrimental to people’s health. Such steps will force the manufacturers to develop a healthier version, and the tax collected can be passed on as food benefits to the needy.