The Perplexing Question of Fast Food: Why Does the FDA Allow It to Be Sold?

In a world where health-consciousness has become a norm, the medical community often takes turns declaring certain foods bad for your health. However, when it comes to fast food, the cycle of bans and allowances by government bodies such as the FDA remains an enigma for many.

The Constant Sarcasm

‘Why doesn’t the government ban everything they consider hazardous?’ This is a common sentiment among those who prefer exercising personal responsibility. The belief that government or political figures genuinely care about our health is often seen as an illogical assumption. In reality, their primary focus is often on maintaining their power and influence rather than public well-being.

The Gyms and Running Debacle

During the pandemic, the irony of government actions that seemingly conflicted with public health became apparent. Blocking gyms and limiting outdoor activities while claiming to prioritize public health has left many questioning the true intentions of political leaders. Governments, in this case, prioritize political power over public health.

Government Subsidies and Political Influence

The US government's subsidies of the most unhealthy foods might appear counterintuitive, considering their alleged interest in citizen health. In reality, these subsidies are driven by political motivations such as maintaining voter support and securing campaign donations. If the government were genuinely concerned about public health, it would likely support healthier food options rather than subsidizing unhealthy ones.

The Financial Argument

Another prevalent argument against banning fast food is the financial impact on both consumers and workers. Fast food is often cheaper than homemade meals, making it a popular choice for many. Additionally, banning fast food joints would lead to widespread unemployment among workers with limited other skill sets.

Fast Food and Personal Responsibility

It's often stated that fast food is only harmful to those with underlying health conditions. The assertion implies that people can make their own decisions about what they eat. For example, the author, who has worked at fast food places and consumed their food daily for decades, maintains a healthy weight and lifestyle due to personal discipline and awareness.

Banning fast food might seem like a straightforward solution, but it overlooks the complexity of the issue. People need to make informed choices about their diet, and banning fast food could lead to unintended consequences, such as an increase in low-quality home-cooked meals or reliance on more expensive, healthier options.

In conclusion, the complex relationship between the government, fast food, and public health is a multifaceted issue. While it's understandable to question the government's intentions and actions, it's crucial to recognize the impact of political and financial factors on these decisions.