Question

Write a composition (300-350 words) the following:

Express your views either for or against the statement 'Junk food should be banned'.

Answer 1

For the statement

I really agree with the case to outlaw junk food. The simple word "junk" makes one think of all unwelcome, dangerous objects gathering around our homes. If we seek both physical and mental health, foods that block our arteries, promote fat cells to multiply, and weaken our muscles have no place in our diets. Often struggling with self-control in the face of tantalising, scented fried dishes sizzling in toxic fats, we are creatures of taste and habit.

Often, the sight and smell of fried food seething and sizzling in fatty acids are irresistible. A tongue used to the flavour of melting conserved cheese can overwhelm the most informed dietary information, therefore generating an irresistible need to indulge. It cannot be moved from giving in to the urge by any amount of reason or hard-hitting facts. Under such circumstances, only a complete prohibition will be able to sufficiently reduce these impulses.

With their diversity of sauces and spices meant to appeal to the palate, frequently at the expense of health, the enormous lines at fast-food outlets confirm the explosive industry of convenience meals. Artificial colours and taste enhancers impair our health; children, especially are exposed to these risks. Before our future generations have an opportunity to flourish, as a society we have to shield them from such dangers.

Small fast-food establishments run in the nooks and edges of cities where no quality or hygiene is guaranteed, while food control agencies oversee hotels and restaurants. Obesity and heart-related problems have become the bane of modern civilization; the sooner these are eliminated, the better for the people; a complete ban on junk food is the only way to prevent a future health catastrophe.

Against the statement

Though it might seem like a simple fix, banning junk food is more like following shadows. Such dishes are unquestionably appealing and well established in many people's taste in cuisine.

Junk food, characterised by its lack of nutrients and high-calorie content, might not contribute to a healthy diet, but neither do many traditional foods we consume daily. Numerous packaged foods on our kitchen shelves, laden with unhealthy ingredients, must also be banned under such criteria.

Furthermore, these "problematic" foods are quick meals that satisfy appetites at a reasonable cost, therefore meeting the needs of both students and professionals. In moderation, these supposedly "junk" foods offer a welcome diversion from the monotony of home-cooked cuisine. This is the reason they are termed optional or "discretionary" meals.

One wonders how something like a burger, loaded with meat and fresh greens, fits into the trash category. Are they worse than white rice or dishes cooked in refined oils, which have been stripped of their essential nutrients and are the mainstay of many diets? Many dietitians contend that the true offenders, processed rice and bread, should be taken off our diets. Does that, however, support a government-mandated ban on widely consumed basic foods? There are other ways to handle the problem than enforcing prohibitions than bans. Most vital is awareness. Much of the harm caused by "junk" food can be greatly reduced if the public is informed by promotional activities, if courses in healthy eating are included in schoolbooks, and if celebrities avoid endorsing unhealthful products. An excellent example of encouraging healthier choices, India's effort to emphasise millets and red rice during the G20 Meet motivates people to change their diets. Without resorting to extreme measures, encouraging the manufacture of reasonably priced organic foods, regulatory warnings on products heavy in empty calories and possible health hazards, and lobbying against bad eating habits can help to make society more health-conscious.