Fast food is very helpful
Modern people do not have time to prepare food at home so it helps them save time. You can get tasty food to eat. Fast food companies provide jobs to many people so if it is banned many people may lose their jobs. Fast food takes very less time to be cooked.
Fast FOOD SHOULD BE ILLEGAL AND BANNED
Argument 1-Fast foods should be banned without any doubts !! There are a lots of fast food industries all around the world . From all of this fast food industries , I would only consider a few as healthy fast food. One of the healthy fast food is Subway . The number of unhealthy fast food industries outnumbered the healthy fast food industries. This is sad but a true fact . Fast foods contains preservatives which could be indeed , poisoning to human body . Another major problem caused by fast foods are obesity[and that is the condition of being fat or overweighted.
Argument 2-Mac Donald’s says that their big Macs have 470 calories of fat in them when they actually have 590 calories of fat.It has chemicals in the food that are addictive and make people want more.
Argument 3-Fast food should be banned because it links to lots of medical problems.Eating burgers and chips increases your risk of heart disease and type 2 diabetes.A young girl became paralyzed from her neck down after eating a chicken strip from KFC. Burgers have heaps of sugar in them.
Argument 4-It causes more health issues than some drugs and it's more addicting than some drugs.
So Many Reasons
A. Cost - You almost always end up with extra, wasteful food when cooking at home which is also a waste of money. Fast food almost always comes at a lower price than home cooked meal.
B. Convenience - Fast food saves so much time compared to a home cooked meal, leaving more time for busy lives.
C. Health - Although the main disadvantage of fast food are health related, there are many healthier alternatives that are starting to appear on menus like McDonald's and Burger King.
D. Sustaining - Eating fast food satisfies hunger fast, it’s very filling.
E. It’s delicious - I don’t know about anybody else, but I LOVE chicken nuggets and French fries.
There are plenty of other better solutions.
While there are good points on why it should be banned, the only reason why not banning fast food restaurants is that there are other solutions that can do the same job without removing such a staple element of society. Limit advertising. Limit the amount of shops per area. Anything but banning them. It will do the same job without gathering an angry mob of angry fast food consumers. You should encourage healthy eating even more, not force it
No, were losing are freedom.
Gun control, health control, and food control?!?! All this ban is doing is telling us what we can and can't do. Now the government wants to be our mommy and tell us that we can't have a cookie before eating something healthy. Plus this isn't going to work. When Denmark had a fat tax the people switched to cheaper food, or they shopped somewhere else. When New York banned large sodas in restaurants,
the people could buy two mediums, or a two liter of soda. We need to repeal this ban.
As unhealthy as fast food is, freedom of choice wins out.
I don't eat fast food very often, and I am aware of how unhealthy it is. However, I feel people should be able to put whatever they want into their bodies, whether it be unhealthy food or drugs. I do think fast food industries should indeed put more research into making less harmful products and reducing fat, but people make a conscious choice to eat it knowing it's bad for them, so it's ultimately their responsibility to take care of their own health.
Each person is responsible for their own actions
People are most definitely responsible for the choices they make. Yes, fast food is not doubt unhealthy for you almost all the time. But, in moderation, fast food can be helpful and sometimes quite enjoyable. Just because someone (or maybe lots of people) can't control themselves, does not mean people who can control themselves should be denied this treat.
It can be a treat
You have just been out and had a long, hard day's work. Actually all week you have been having a hard time. Everything is crammed into your mind. Finally you have finished your jobs. You haven't eaten properly, haven't drank enough water and not enough sleep. Ah ha! McDonalds just round the corner. A treat! Why not? You say. If you ban fast food, this is NO treat for you!
For Fast Foods
1) Meals for on the go
2) places for teenagers to AFFORD food
3) it builds civilization
My top 3 reasons why fast food shouldn't be banned. Yes, when we think of fast foods its those greasy fries, flippin' burgers, & bottomless soda fountains. It sounds all unhealthy doesn't it? I will admit at first I did want fast foods to be banned then, thinking of the word FAST FOODS its really just food being able to served quickly to customers. However, it does lack of nutrition values for a person. Fast foods should not be banned, they just need to find ways HOW to cook a meal healthier & still be the joint selling food @ reasonable price. In addition, hungry teens obviously on a low budget go there for the cheap prices that are still clinging onto that $1 bill & fast foods attract them teeners + people in city/town (whatever) to make the place a bit more "exciting" or "entertaining" at least.
Outside the scope of government
Fast food is widely accepted to be an unhealthy food choice; however, it is outside the scope of government to decide what people are lawfully allowed to eat.
A truly poor person wouldn't waste precious money on fast food when there are items at a grocery store that are much cheaper and healthier, so why is this argument often used?
By Ray Dunne
Obesity rates are rising fast
The UK, like many other western countries, is facing an obesity timebomb. An estimated one in four men and one in five women are obese.
The number of obese children has doubled over the past 20 years. One in 10 six-year-olds and one in six 15-year-olds are now obese.
Experts have warned that 40% of the population could be obese within a generation unless urgent action is taken.
Being obese increases the risk of developing cancer, diabetes and heart disease. It is responsible for 9,000 premature deaths in the UK each year.
In March, more than 100 of the country's leading health and consumer groups called on the government to ban junk food ads in a bid to diffuse the ticking bomb.
The groups, which included the British Heart Foundation and medical royal colleges, said ads were fuelling rising rates of obesity.
What are children watching?
Over 70% of all food advertising is on TV
About 40% of ads during children's programmes are for food
Most ads are for confectionary, fast food, pre-sugared breakfast cereals, savoury snacks or soft drinks
Manufacturers spend £285m advertising these foods each year
Source: Food Standards Agency
The Food Standards Agency has also been examining the issue. A report for the agency, published in September, concluded that there was a link between advertising and children's diets.
"We reviewed all of the research that has been carried out over the past 30 years," says Dr Gerard Hastings of the University of Strathclyde and one of the authors.
"Our review found that advertising can have an impact on children's diets.
"Our research is quite robust. It was quite extensive and it went through rigorous peer review."
The FSA has since suggested that there should be restrictions on food ads which target children. However, it has stopped short of calling for an outright ban.
In a consultation document, it says new rules should be introduced to "address the imbalance" between ads for healthy and unhealthy foods.
HAVE YOUR SAY
Here's a radical idea - How about limiting advertising to "only" wholesome, healthy products?
It suggests this could take the form of limits on ads for "foods, meals or snacks high in salt, sugar or fat".
The FSA said the rules should apply during children's TV slots but says extending them "might also be justified".
About 40% of ads during children's programmes are for food. Most of these are for confectionary, fast food, pre-sugared breakfast cereals, savoury snacks or soft drinks.
Campaigners say the case for an outright ban is clear.
"It's a cast iron case as far as we can see," says Charlie Powell, project officer at Sustain, one of the leading proponents of a ban.
The facts about obesity in the UK
One in four adult men is obese
One in five adult women is obese
One in 10 six-year-olds and one in six 15-year-olds are now obese
Being obese increases the risk of cancer, diabetes and heart disease
It can reduce lifespan by nine years
Obesity costs the UK economy more than £2bn each year
Experts say 40% of the UK population could be obese in a generation
However, critics say the scientific evidence is not as clear-cut as some campaigners make out.
"I don't think the scientific evidence presented in the Food Standards Agency report supports its conclusion that ads are influencing children's diet," says Dr David Ashton, an epidemiologist at Imperial College London.
"I am not persuaded at all that there is a link. It is convenient to blame large food manufacturers.
"It is much easier than confronting the real issue, which is that decline in physical activity over the last few decades is to blame."
Those opposed to any outright ban on food advertising are quick to point to the experience of Sweden and the Canadian province of Quebec.
Both have strict laws outlawing food ads which target children.
However, Sweden has similar obesity rates to the UK. Quebec has similar obesity rates to the rest of Canada, where there is no such law.
"The bans have had no impact whatsoever on obesity rates," says Dr Ashton.
"Some people might want to say that Sweden and Quebec are not typical of the UK. That may indeed be the case.
"But they are the only live experiments on real people that we have and they have not shown any benefit."
Campaigners dismiss the comparison as simplistic.
"The ban in Sweden was never designed as a measure to tackle children's obesity," says Charlie Powell of Sustain.
"It was brought in in 1991 with the introduction of commercial television.
"Television advertising is just one part. You have to address all commercial activities.
"That is why we want a ban which would end all commercial activities through lots of different media, not just television. Television ads are just one part of it."
The authors of the FSA report shied away from calling for a ban on junk food ads.
"I wouldn't advocate that at the minute," says Dr Hastings.
"The danger of banning ads is that manufacturers will simply turn to other channels."
Dr Hastings believes rather than trying to censor ads, health chiefs should try to harness the power of advertising.
"Marketing has the potential to resolve what is an enormous public health problem," he says. "We should be harnessing it as a way of improving diet."
The government for its part appears to be quite reluctant to ban any form of food advertising.
Tessa Jowell has indicated she prefers a voluntary code for manufacturers and advertisers rather than any law.
"If that doesn't deliver then maybe the government should consider something more draconian," says Dr Hastings.
"But for the moment let this be a warning shot across the bows."