Summary and response - food regulation-

-Should foods linked to diet-related disease be regulated?
-Summary

This article shows two opinions about this topic.
   One side claims foods that linked to diet-related disease should be regulated. The author shows some opinions by experts. Deborah Cohen, a physician and researcher, insists goverment should regulate foods that linked to diet-related disease as government regulate alcohol and tobacco because overeating is at least as harmful as drinking. She also government should make policy protect us from triggers that make us eat when we are not hungry. Robert Lusting, a pediatric endocrinologist and professor of pediatrics, also cites the regulation of alcohol and tobacco. He claims we should limit consumption of sugar as we limit alcohol or tobacco. Both experts argue that we should think about sugar as well as alcohol and tobacco and that government should act because food industry won't do it.
  The other side claims that government shouldn't regulate because it denies consumer's choice. Elaine Kolish, vice president of CFBAI says protection for children is "a role for a nanny, not the government". Michael D. Tanner, a senior fellow, claims food taxes is bad idea because it is anti-responsibility. This side respects consumer's choice.

-Response

I agree with that government shouldn't regulate foods that linked to diet-related disease. As some experts say in this article, it is consumer's choice and people should take responsibility about what they eat. Some experts claims foods should be regulated because they are as harmful as alcohol or tobacco. However, I think foods and alcohol or tobacco has difference. Foods are essential for people while alcohol or tobacco are not essential and they are for our pleasure.Therefore, I think people should be able to be responsible for at least our essential things.