How healthy are your eating choices?
Do you ever look at the nutritional information on food packages to find out an item’s ingredients, its total calories or its fat content? Does this information affect what you buy and eat?
Could better labeling on food packaging help you make healthier consumer choices?
In their guest essay “How to Help Americans Eat Less Junk Food,” Kat Morgan and Mark Bittman argue that putting warning labels on highly processed foods will help consumers improve their health:
Whether you shop for food in a traditional grocery store, a big-box store, a bodega or a gas station, you’ll have to contend with the reality that many if not most of your options are junk — highly processed foods often loaded with sugar, salt and chemical additives.
You’ll also have to contend with a haze of aggressive marketing — terms like “low fat,” “gluten-free,” “paleo,” “keto-friendly” and “a good source of fiber” — that doesn’t answer the fundamental question: Is this food good for me? An orange is a simple enough choice, but a frozen dinner? There is little reliable guidance available for people who don’t have the time, patience or skill to analyze the dense nutrition labels on food packaging.
What could help is a system giving consumers important nutrition information at a glance on the front of a package: a warning sign that a high-sugar soda or breakfast cereal product, for example, is an unhealthy choice. The bold move here would be to steer people away from food that’s bad for them.
These kinds of labels, of course, are the last thing most large food manufacturers want on their products. But a few countries, mostly in Latin America, have begun to require or encourage such labeling, and there’s some early evidence that it’s already having a positive effect on the way people eat.
The essay details some of the dangers of processed food in America, as well as the history of governments using labels to indicate health risks on food products:
With some 60 percent of the American diet coming from processed foods — foods that have been linked to an increased risk for diabetes, heart disease and some cancers in the United States — it’s time for our government to update our labels with warnings, too.
Not so long ago, the United States was a world leader in informative food labeling: In the 1960s, Congress passed legislation to mandate that food companies place ingredient lists on all products in interstate commerce. About seven years later, nutrition labeling was expanded for some foods to include the number of calories and amounts of protein, carbohydrates, fat and certain micronutrients. In 1990 the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, a response to the growing number of confusing nutritional claims on packages, required food companies to make consistent claims and include a standardized nutrition fact panel on their products.
But as a concession to industry, Congress also allowed food producers, with approval from the Food and Drug Administration, to print claims about reduced disease risk on certain food labels. Oats, for example, could claim to “reduce cholesterol”; foods could be labeled “heart healthy” or indicate that they contain “antioxidants” that “help the immune system,” even though these assertions are overly simplistic.
Chile, Mexico, Brazil and dozens of other countries have worked to change food labeling. Research has suggested that these labels can help people understand nutritional quality and change their purchasing habits. Ultimately, the goal of the labels is to improve nutrition and reduce the consumption of ultraprocessed foods.
After Chile adopted several regulations in 2016 that included advertising restrictions on unhealthy food, a ban on junk food and beverages in schools and warning labels, researchers found that the consumption of drinks high in things like sugar and sodium declined by nearly 25 percent. Researchers have also observed that warning labels led to reductions of sugar, sodium and saturated fat in the food supply. In Uruguay a survey published in 2020 assessing the early effects of nutritional warnings found that 58 percent of participants who noticed the warning changed their decision about buying a product. Of those who changed their decision, 17 percent said they opted for a similar product with fewer warnings, and 18 percent decided not to buy a similar product at all.
My students, read the Opinion essay and then tell me:
How concerned should we be about unhealthy food for our own physical health? How informed are you about the food and ingredients you regularly consume? Do you know about the dangers of added sugar, sodium and fat in highly processed foods?
What did you learn about unhealthy food from the essay? Were you surprised that 60 percent of the American diet comes from processed foods that have been linked to an increased risk for diabetes, heart disease and some cancers?
Kat Morgan and Mark Bittman write, “Intuitive front-of-package labeling is one of the best levers available to policymakers, and it is already working elsewhere. It can work here, too.” Do you agree? Should junk food come with warning labels?
Some countries in the European Union use a system called Nutri-Score that grades food products on a scale from A (most healthy) to E (least healthy). Chile and several other Latin American countries label products with bold, black octagons that warn consumers about high quantities of sugar, sodium, fat and calories. What type of food label do you think could be made most effective in the United States? Do you think these improved labels would change your own eating habits?
Morgan and Bittman write that new labeling laws would be much more challenging to enact in the United States. Food manufacturers in the U.S. argue that new labels would be costly and that those costs would be passed on to consumers. How persuasive are these arguments against warning labels? What other ideas do you have and what other ideas do you propose to improve the dietary habits of Americans and to make them eat healthier and to make them eat healthier foods?
Here goes my personal opinion: I think that food labels should have warning labels. In the article, it says that in places that have warning food labels, people have started to eat healthier. Before I read the article I thought it would be better to have people learn about what they are eating, but the article also says that people don't care enough to learn about their food which I think is also true. Having food labels on junk food would help our society. This is because both adults and children are more likely to be hesitant of unhealthy brands if the labels are clearly shown. In addition, parents would buy less junk food for their kids over all. Not having labels may be beneficial for companies to add more chemicals and bad ingredients, but not informing consumes is a bad thing to do, possibly causing harm to many people. I think we all should be concerned about unhealthy food. We should be concerned about unhealthy food because eating unhealthy food can lead to cancer's, diabetes, and increased heart rate, and if we have 60 percent of Americans eating unhealthy that means over half of the population is more likely to get Diabetes, increased heart rate and different types of cancers. I believe that if food had warning labels, adults would be a lot more conscientious about their dietary choices. But teens wouldn't. Even though adults are supposed to set examples for teenagers and kids, the teens don't care about what they eat or drink because they don't think about long term consequences. So, it might help the adults of today, the adults of tomorrow (teens) might make too many mistakes with their diets for them to change it in the future. I think food companies should put warning labels on their food products due to the unhealthy factors junk food has on people. Putting labels on junk food will likely cause people to eat less of it, and allow people to make healthier choices. The labels should include the chemicals, dyes, the amount of sugar and negative effects the product has on the buyer.
I think that food companies should put warnings on the label because It will make people eat or drink less of that product, and will make it so people will make more healthy choices, like with junk food if that food has a lot of sugar in one serving, there should be a warning about that high amount of sugar, Which could lead getting diabetes because of that high amount of sugar. they should also put a warning about what type of dye or chemical they used to make the product. so in my opinion they should put a warning on unhealthy food.
I think that food companies should put food labels because it could cause diabetes and make you unhealthy. Most food products have red 40 or a lot of sodium. Red 40 can cause migraines, hyperactivity, and allergic reactions like hives. If you take too much sodium in a day it could cause high blood pressure,kidney disease,and stomach cancer. Because of these risks, warning labels should be placed on these food items.
I think huge food companies should put warning labels. For snacks or foods that are unhealthy they can put warnings if they have a lot of sugar, sodium, or even artificial colors. For example Cheetos say they use real cheese but they use artificial colors to make it look more orange, real cheese isn't orange. Food companies could also use labels if they have an ingredient that somebody could have an allergy to. For example Uncrustables have peanut butter which has peanuts. They should add a warning label so nobody can get an allergic reaction.
I think that putting warning labels could be a good idea. It can assist people with dieting if they should eat that specific product or not. People should be aware of what they're eating, and In case they are trying to avoid eating a lot of calories, then a warning label should be necessary. It could also avoid the companies being sued if someone was hospitalized since that person was warned, but went ahead anyways.
In my opinion, food should have warning labels. Around the U.S, more children are eating more and there have been a ton of cases of obesity. In order to stop that, food should alert parents about how much sodium and how many calories, a certain snack/food contains. This can bring more healthier lives and less health issues. Most importantly, our world wouldn't have to be so judged about what people eat.
I believe junk food should have warning labels to inform consumers about the potential health risks associated with their snack/food. Many junk foods are high in sugar, salt, and unhealthy fats, which can lead to serious health issues like obesity, diabetes, or heart disease. By placing warning labels on these products, consumers can make more informed choices about what they eat. For example, a label could state, "High in sugar: may contribute to weight gain and tooth decay." This would help people understand the risks and encourage them to opt for healthier alternatives. Overall, warning labels on junk food can promote better eating habits and improve our health.
Although many consumers overlook the nutritional information on food packages, the alarming statistic that nearly 60 percent of the American diet comes from highly processed foods linked to serious health risks, such as diabetes and heart disease, underscores the need for warning labels (Engle). Implementing clear labels, akin to those adopted in Chile, could significantly alter purchasing behavior, as evidenced by a nearly 25 percent decline in sugary drink consumption following their introduction (Engle). This correlation suggests that when consumers are confronted with straightforward warnings about high sugar and fat content, they are more likely to make healthier choices, demonstrating that improved labeling is not just beneficial but essential for public health. By fostering awareness of the dangers inherent in processed foods, warning labels can empower individuals to take control of their dietary habits, ultimately steering them toward better nutrition.
I think junk food should come with warning labels, because sometimes people just start eating too much without knowing what they are really eating. Some foods have to much calories and if people eat too much of it, it could lead to some problems later on in your life. Some companies also say that their food is made with real fruit or something, but we don't know. The companies have to prove it with labels to be able to say that.
I believe that food should have labels because, it should say how many calories it should have, how much sugar and sodium some people can have diabetes or cholesterol and so like they could get sick for it. These are requirements that junk food should have labels on them.
I think junk food should come with warning labels because parents need to know the maximum to give their kid. The kids can be very hyped up and not sleep at night. Kids need a lot of sleep, my niece who's 3 years old had so much sugar that she gets mad a lot and doesn't sleep at night. It's important to make sure what's also inside the food in case there's something the kids or adults are allergic to. Peanuts are an example because a lot of people can be allergic to peanuts.
We Americans should be very concerned about unhealthy food. The percentage of people - and even more concerning - children with obesity in the US has risen dramatically since the late 20th century. This trend is in direct correlation with the rise in the percentage of processed food in American diets, which in turn is in large part due to the misleading claims of manufacturers and the reluctance of the government to take on big food corporations. It’s often difficult for Americans to make informed decisions between food products when they aren’t given simple, easy-to-understand guidance on what they should or should not eat. Warning labels on unhealthy food for things like high sugar content could solve this problem, as proven by the data provided in Morgan and Bittman’s essay about Latin American and European countries that have already implemented laws that require such labels. The “right to health” sealed within numerous Latin constitutions that boosts the federal government’s ability to take on big food manufacturers in court is also an example to be followed. Enacting policies similar to these that protect the well-being of its citizens should be a no-brainer for any national government - especially that of the leading world power.
I agree with the claim, junk food should come with warning labels. I believe that adding these labels will make people really realize what they’re eating. Beyond that, it would make them question, should they really be eating this? How much is this food actually benefitting me? Looking through others’ responses, I saw the idea of junk food not needing labels because everybody knows junk food isn’t good for you come up, but I disagree with that. I think that even though many know “junk food isn’t good for you” they don’t know the extent of it most of the time. When I visited Puerto Rico and Mexico, I noticed that the junk food had labels translating to “excess sugar”, “excess sodium”, and “excess calories”. Similarly, when my aunt and uncle visited Switzerland, all of the junk foods they brought back for us had a “nutri-score” bar where foods were ranked based on how good/bad for you they were. Although this is voluntary for companies, I think it’d be a good idea—this way people can really know how negative the food is towards their health.
I believe that junk food should come with warning labels because it would overall be beneficial to society as a whole. We tend to turn a blind eye to when it comes to eating out because most of the time it is the quickest and cheapest option families have, however this has caused there to be a big increase in certain diseases in the United States which has been surprising “foods that have been linked to an increased risk for diabetes, heart disease and some cancers” this is truly concerning and if we were to ut food labels on out packaging then this would help us lower the the percentage of diabetes and heart disease in our country. Other countries have started to do this “mostly in Latin America, have begun to require or encourage such labeling, and there’s some early evidence that it’s already having a positive effect on the way people eat” If it's already starting to demonstrate positive effects then i believe we should start and find ways to make things better for our people.
I agree that junk food should have warning labels. I feel and have heard about the many health concerns that come from certain foods alone whether it is junk food or not junk food, but junk food in particular has many ingredients that can cause health issues in the long term and just simply aren't healthy for you in the moment. Of course, I still have junk food here and there, but as I have grown older I have tried to space my time out when it comes to eating junk food. I think this idea of having a warning label is really helpful especially for the younger generation because it is so easy for junk food to become a snack especially when younger, and I feel if junk food is just categorized as a typical snack it will not help kids realize that junk food might not be the best choice to have often. I think it is easy to forget that these foods are in some cases very unhealthy despite something tasting good and despite it just being a snack.
I feel that junk food should not be a daily thing, but should be treated as a treat. Wheather is be chips or candy, neither of them are filling or healthy enough to be considered proper meals. That is why we eat them for taste, and that amazing taste should be earned. Personally, when I eat junk food after I earned it, the taste and feeling is just generally better. Parents should be limiting junk food to their children and keep them as treats, not snacks. Now, it may be harmful, but if all bags of chips were splattered with warning labels, you would feel ashamed for eating which would take away the whole “good work treat” idea associated with it. Would you eat a candy bar if it said that it caused diabetes in big, bold, red letters?
Junk food is such a worryingly worrying epidemic throughout the entire world but particularly in America, a high-income country, 40 percent of people should not be obese and as the article states '60% of food in the American Diet is processed' which is wrong. This prompt reminds me of an ongoing debate online about some content creators, I forget who, created a Lunchables alternative and labeled it as healthy for you. The lunch, however, was not healthy and did not even follow the bare minimum of the recommended FDA lunch for kids, with the lunches being around 250 calories, no whole grains, and far too much sodium. To add, the minimum calories suggested is 700, they would need to eat three of these packs and one is already 35% of daily fat! Things like this with companies using cleaver wording like 'better for you' when they still are terrible for you is completely ruining our society. I believe we should be very concerned with Unhealthy food in the U.S. Not only are obesity rates rising-affecting over 40% of adults according to the CDC but there has also been an increase to long term health consequences: diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. The U.S should label foods and products with major harming chemicals, such as red 40 for an example. Healthier organic food should not be more expensive than processed unhealthy food, it should be less expensive so Americans can have easier access to it.
Could better labeling on food packaging help you make healthier consumer choices?
In their guest essay “How to Help Americans Eat Less Junk Food,” Kat Morgan and Mark Bittman argue that putting warning labels on highly processed foods will help consumers improve their health:
Whether you shop for food in a traditional grocery store, a big-box store, a bodega or a gas station, you’ll have to contend with the reality that many if not most of your options are junk — highly processed foods often loaded with sugar, salt and chemical additives.
You’ll also have to contend with a haze of aggressive marketing — terms like “low fat,” “gluten-free,” “paleo,” “keto-friendly” and “a good source of fiber” — that doesn’t answer the fundamental question: Is this food good for me? An orange is a simple enough choice, but a frozen dinner? There is little reliable guidance available for people who don’t have the time, patience or skill to analyze the dense nutrition labels on food packaging.
What could help is a system giving consumers important nutrition information at a glance on the front of a package: a warning sign that a high-sugar soda or breakfast cereal product, for example, is an unhealthy choice. The bold move here would be to steer people away from food that’s bad for them.
These kinds of labels, of course, are the last thing most large food manufacturers want on their products. But a few countries, mostly in Latin America, have begun to require or encourage such labeling, and there’s some early evidence that it’s already having a positive effect on the way people eat.
The essay details some of the dangers of processed food in America, as well as the history of governments using labels to indicate health risks on food products:
With some 60 percent of the American diet coming from processed foods — foods that have been linked to an increased risk for diabetes, heart disease and some cancers in the United States — it’s time for our government to update our labels with warnings, too.
Not so long ago, the United States was a world leader in informative food labeling: In the 1960s, Congress passed legislation to mandate that food companies place ingredient lists on all products in interstate commerce. About seven years later, nutrition labeling was expanded for some foods to include the number of calories and amounts of protein, carbohydrates, fat and certain micronutrients. In 1990 the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, a response to the growing number of confusing nutritional claims on packages, required food companies to make consistent claims and include a standardized nutrition fact panel on their products.
But as a concession to industry, Congress also allowed food producers, with approval from the Food and Drug Administration, to print claims about reduced disease risk on certain food labels. Oats, for example, could claim to “reduce cholesterol”; foods could be labeled “heart healthy” or indicate that they contain “antioxidants” that “help the immune system,” even though these assertions are overly simplistic.
Chile, Mexico, Brazil and dozens of other countries have worked to change food labeling. Research has suggested that these labels can help people understand nutritional quality and change their purchasing habits. Ultimately, the goal of the labels is to improve nutrition and reduce the consumption of ultraprocessed foods.
After Chile adopted several regulations in 2016 that included advertising restrictions on unhealthy food, a ban on junk food and beverages in schools and warning labels, researchers found that the consumption of drinks high in things like sugar and sodium declined by nearly 25 percent. Researchers have also observed that warning labels led to reductions of sugar, sodium and saturated fat in the food supply. In Uruguay a survey published in 2020 assessing the early effects of nutritional warnings found that 58 percent of participants who noticed the warning changed their decision about buying a product. Of those who changed their decision, 17 percent said they opted for a similar product with fewer warnings, and 18 percent decided not to buy a similar product at all.
My students, read the Opinion essay and then tell me:
How concerned should we be about unhealthy food for our own physical health? How informed are you about the food and ingredients you regularly consume? Do you know about the dangers of added sugar, sodium and fat in highly processed foods?
What did you learn about unhealthy food from the essay? Were you surprised that 60 percent of the American diet comes from processed foods that have been linked to an increased risk for diabetes, heart disease and some cancers?
Kat Morgan and Mark Bittman write, “Intuitive front-of-package labeling is one of the best levers available to policymakers, and it is already working elsewhere. It can work here, too.” Do you agree? Should junk food come with warning labels?
Some countries in the European Union use a system called Nutri-Score that grades food products on a scale from A (most healthy) to E (least healthy). Chile and several other Latin American countries label products with bold, black octagons that warn consumers about high quantities of sugar, sodium, fat and calories. What type of food label do you think could be made most effective in the United States? Do you think these improved labels would change your own eating habits?
Morgan and Bittman write that new labeling laws would be much more challenging to enact in the United States. Food manufacturers in the U.S. argue that new labels would be costly and that those costs would be passed on to consumers. How persuasive are these arguments against warning labels? What other ideas do you have and what other ideas do you propose to improve the dietary habits of Americans and to make them eat healthier and to make them eat healthier foods?
Here goes my personal opinion: I think that food labels should have warning labels. In the article, it says that in places that have warning food labels, people have started to eat healthier. Before I read the article I thought it would be better to have people learn about what they are eating, but the article also says that people don't care enough to learn about their food which I think is also true. Having food labels on junk food would help our society. This is because both adults and children are more likely to be hesitant of unhealthy brands if the labels are clearly shown. In addition, parents would buy less junk food for their kids over all. Not having labels may be beneficial for companies to add more chemicals and bad ingredients, but not informing consumes is a bad thing to do, possibly causing harm to many people. I think we all should be concerned about unhealthy food. We should be concerned about unhealthy food because eating unhealthy food can lead to cancer's, diabetes, and increased heart rate, and if we have 60 percent of Americans eating unhealthy that means over half of the population is more likely to get Diabetes, increased heart rate and different types of cancers. I believe that if food had warning labels, adults would be a lot more conscientious about their dietary choices. But teens wouldn't. Even though adults are supposed to set examples for teenagers and kids, the teens don't care about what they eat or drink because they don't think about long term consequences. So, it might help the adults of today, the adults of tomorrow (teens) might make too many mistakes with their diets for them to change it in the future. I think food companies should put warning labels on their food products due to the unhealthy factors junk food has on people. Putting labels on junk food will likely cause people to eat less of it, and allow people to make healthier choices. The labels should include the chemicals, dyes, the amount of sugar and negative effects the product has on the buyer.
I think that food companies should put warnings on the label because It will make people eat or drink less of that product, and will make it so people will make more healthy choices, like with junk food if that food has a lot of sugar in one serving, there should be a warning about that high amount of sugar, Which could lead getting diabetes because of that high amount of sugar. they should also put a warning about what type of dye or chemical they used to make the product. so in my opinion they should put a warning on unhealthy food.
I think that food companies should put food labels because it could cause diabetes and make you unhealthy. Most food products have red 40 or a lot of sodium. Red 40 can cause migraines, hyperactivity, and allergic reactions like hives. If you take too much sodium in a day it could cause high blood pressure,kidney disease,and stomach cancer. Because of these risks, warning labels should be placed on these food items.
I think huge food companies should put warning labels. For snacks or foods that are unhealthy they can put warnings if they have a lot of sugar, sodium, or even artificial colors. For example Cheetos say they use real cheese but they use artificial colors to make it look more orange, real cheese isn't orange. Food companies could also use labels if they have an ingredient that somebody could have an allergy to. For example Uncrustables have peanut butter which has peanuts. They should add a warning label so nobody can get an allergic reaction.
I think that putting warning labels could be a good idea. It can assist people with dieting if they should eat that specific product or not. People should be aware of what they're eating, and In case they are trying to avoid eating a lot of calories, then a warning label should be necessary. It could also avoid the companies being sued if someone was hospitalized since that person was warned, but went ahead anyways.
In my opinion, food should have warning labels. Around the U.S, more children are eating more and there have been a ton of cases of obesity. In order to stop that, food should alert parents about how much sodium and how many calories, a certain snack/food contains. This can bring more healthier lives and less health issues. Most importantly, our world wouldn't have to be so judged about what people eat.
I believe junk food should have warning labels to inform consumers about the potential health risks associated with their snack/food. Many junk foods are high in sugar, salt, and unhealthy fats, which can lead to serious health issues like obesity, diabetes, or heart disease. By placing warning labels on these products, consumers can make more informed choices about what they eat. For example, a label could state, "High in sugar: may contribute to weight gain and tooth decay." This would help people understand the risks and encourage them to opt for healthier alternatives. Overall, warning labels on junk food can promote better eating habits and improve our health.
Although many consumers overlook the nutritional information on food packages, the alarming statistic that nearly 60 percent of the American diet comes from highly processed foods linked to serious health risks, such as diabetes and heart disease, underscores the need for warning labels (Engle). Implementing clear labels, akin to those adopted in Chile, could significantly alter purchasing behavior, as evidenced by a nearly 25 percent decline in sugary drink consumption following their introduction (Engle). This correlation suggests that when consumers are confronted with straightforward warnings about high sugar and fat content, they are more likely to make healthier choices, demonstrating that improved labeling is not just beneficial but essential for public health. By fostering awareness of the dangers inherent in processed foods, warning labels can empower individuals to take control of their dietary habits, ultimately steering them toward better nutrition.
I think junk food should come with warning labels, because sometimes people just start eating too much without knowing what they are really eating. Some foods have to much calories and if people eat too much of it, it could lead to some problems later on in your life. Some companies also say that their food is made with real fruit or something, but we don't know. The companies have to prove it with labels to be able to say that.
I believe that food should have labels because, it should say how many calories it should have, how much sugar and sodium some people can have diabetes or cholesterol and so like they could get sick for it. These are requirements that junk food should have labels on them.
I think junk food should come with warning labels because parents need to know the maximum to give their kid. The kids can be very hyped up and not sleep at night. Kids need a lot of sleep, my niece who's 3 years old had so much sugar that she gets mad a lot and doesn't sleep at night. It's important to make sure what's also inside the food in case there's something the kids or adults are allergic to. Peanuts are an example because a lot of people can be allergic to peanuts.
We Americans should be very concerned about unhealthy food. The percentage of people - and even more concerning - children with obesity in the US has risen dramatically since the late 20th century. This trend is in direct correlation with the rise in the percentage of processed food in American diets, which in turn is in large part due to the misleading claims of manufacturers and the reluctance of the government to take on big food corporations. It’s often difficult for Americans to make informed decisions between food products when they aren’t given simple, easy-to-understand guidance on what they should or should not eat. Warning labels on unhealthy food for things like high sugar content could solve this problem, as proven by the data provided in Morgan and Bittman’s essay about Latin American and European countries that have already implemented laws that require such labels. The “right to health” sealed within numerous Latin constitutions that boosts the federal government’s ability to take on big food manufacturers in court is also an example to be followed. Enacting policies similar to these that protect the well-being of its citizens should be a no-brainer for any national government - especially that of the leading world power.
I agree with the claim, junk food should come with warning labels. I believe that adding these labels will make people really realize what they’re eating. Beyond that, it would make them question, should they really be eating this? How much is this food actually benefitting me? Looking through others’ responses, I saw the idea of junk food not needing labels because everybody knows junk food isn’t good for you come up, but I disagree with that. I think that even though many know “junk food isn’t good for you” they don’t know the extent of it most of the time. When I visited Puerto Rico and Mexico, I noticed that the junk food had labels translating to “excess sugar”, “excess sodium”, and “excess calories”. Similarly, when my aunt and uncle visited Switzerland, all of the junk foods they brought back for us had a “nutri-score” bar where foods were ranked based on how good/bad for you they were. Although this is voluntary for companies, I think it’d be a good idea—this way people can really know how negative the food is towards their health.
I believe that junk food should come with warning labels because it would overall be beneficial to society as a whole. We tend to turn a blind eye to when it comes to eating out because most of the time it is the quickest and cheapest option families have, however this has caused there to be a big increase in certain diseases in the United States which has been surprising “foods that have been linked to an increased risk for diabetes, heart disease and some cancers” this is truly concerning and if we were to ut food labels on out packaging then this would help us lower the the percentage of diabetes and heart disease in our country. Other countries have started to do this “mostly in Latin America, have begun to require or encourage such labeling, and there’s some early evidence that it’s already having a positive effect on the way people eat” If it's already starting to demonstrate positive effects then i believe we should start and find ways to make things better for our people.
I agree that junk food should have warning labels. I feel and have heard about the many health concerns that come from certain foods alone whether it is junk food or not junk food, but junk food in particular has many ingredients that can cause health issues in the long term and just simply aren't healthy for you in the moment. Of course, I still have junk food here and there, but as I have grown older I have tried to space my time out when it comes to eating junk food. I think this idea of having a warning label is really helpful especially for the younger generation because it is so easy for junk food to become a snack especially when younger, and I feel if junk food is just categorized as a typical snack it will not help kids realize that junk food might not be the best choice to have often. I think it is easy to forget that these foods are in some cases very unhealthy despite something tasting good and despite it just being a snack.
I feel that junk food should not be a daily thing, but should be treated as a treat. Wheather is be chips or candy, neither of them are filling or healthy enough to be considered proper meals. That is why we eat them for taste, and that amazing taste should be earned. Personally, when I eat junk food after I earned it, the taste and feeling is just generally better. Parents should be limiting junk food to their children and keep them as treats, not snacks. Now, it may be harmful, but if all bags of chips were splattered with warning labels, you would feel ashamed for eating which would take away the whole “good work treat” idea associated with it. Would you eat a candy bar if it said that it caused diabetes in big, bold, red letters?
Junk food is such a worryingly worrying epidemic throughout the entire world but particularly in America, a high-income country, 40 percent of people should not be obese and as the article states '60% of food in the American Diet is processed' which is wrong. This prompt reminds me of an ongoing debate online about some content creators, I forget who, created a Lunchables alternative and labeled it as healthy for you. The lunch, however, was not healthy and did not even follow the bare minimum of the recommended FDA lunch for kids, with the lunches being around 250 calories, no whole grains, and far too much sodium. To add, the minimum calories suggested is 700, they would need to eat three of these packs and one is already 35% of daily fat! Things like this with companies using cleaver wording like 'better for you' when they still are terrible for you is completely ruining our society. I believe we should be very concerned with Unhealthy food in the U.S. Not only are obesity rates rising-affecting over 40% of adults according to the CDC but there has also been an increase to long term health consequences: diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. The U.S should label foods and products with major harming chemicals, such as red 40 for an example. Healthier organic food should not be more expensive than processed unhealthy food, it should be less expensive so Americans can have easier access to it.
