The Student Room Group

Discussion on the link between junk food, poor health, and even crime.

I have written a proposal to Lords in Parliament regarding the severity of the junk food crisis and I would love your input as intelligent students who may be studying similar issues.

Some of my links may not seem immediately concrete but I think that you will find with a little research into university research the connections can all be firmly made.

I am hoping to recruit a student to help me to do this. The proposal to push forward the ban on junk food follows.

I would love everybodys input in the subject.

Thank you

Dear Lord Baroness Berridge,

I have a proposal regarding the severity of the effects that the problem of junk food has on the individual, families, and society.

I would like to propose that the banning if junk food be made a more important and bigger priority.

The following shows a direct causal link between the type of food, and it's affect on people and society. This is a basic overlay of the issue and once it is fleshed out, it will make the security of the problem very clear.

I would like to begin with a quote said by Gautama Buddha:

"Without health life is not life; it is only a state of langour and suffering - an image of death."- Gautama Buddha

There are many reasons that keeping your body in good health is very important.

If you take good care if yourself and your life then when someone else depends upon you, then you will be in a position where you can give them that help and support. This even applies to a politicians.

A healthy body leads to a healthy mind. Just by looking after your health properly all of your other decisions become easier and better for you and others around you.

There us an expression that shoukd be taken very seriously.

"you are what you eat"
Because you are. And so is the society as a whole.

It would be best if there was a collective image in the minds of the population of what a bad diet can do and what the difference is between a society with it and one without it.

It should probably be taught and studied in more detail in schools, as was the case with global warming.

Because it is analogous to an epidemic that can effect everything within a specific country.

Obesity would go down
Peoples finances would improve.
Weight related health problems of which there are many would decrease. including immobility.
Therefore early death would decrease.
These things also cause a lack of self-worth which often involves a feeling of depression for people. They become lazy and take to things that hurt them further. Things that don't require energy, concentration, or movement, such as; spending every spare minute staring at a television as one example; getting lost in somthing such as gambling as another.

They become used to there behaviour and it eventually causes over-indulgence as the individual all loses sight of the root cause of their problem.

•The behavioural problems would improve a lot naturally once junk food is banned. There would be no force of will once the root cause of the problem is gone....

Due to the fact that the person becomes used to spending half of there time staring at fiction or indulging in other things that don't require much concentration, energy or movement, their heads will slowly build up with bad ideas due to the fact that they care less.

They care less about
Lack of concentration on facts and the "real world" eventually makes people more open and susceptible to false/wrong information/ideas because it becomes what they are used to being more exposed to.
It can even be linked to drug use, which is a gateway, and therefore crime would be reduced too. - The individual has become susceptible to very bad ideas.

In the case that it wad banned:
Due to the average person's increased health there would be more repercussions. People would have more energy, better concentration and clarity of thought. That is why it is said 'you are what you eat'"
After this people would be more relaxed and concentrate on their performance in every area more easily.
Afterwards the entire economy would begin to improve. The shape and prosperity of the country in general - Which involves a lot of details - over a long period of time. Although there would be alot of almost immediately noticeable benefits because if it too.

As you can see, once someone begins eating it, it can easily become a slow downward slope in a person's life, and it does not just effect the individual it effects people around them too. a whole country can be effected.

we were all dissuaded from it at a very early age, and it turns out that it was for a very good reason.

The saying 'You are what you eat' has far reaching implications.

Please consider the proposal to move up the ban of junk food and make it a bigger priority.

Thank you for considering my words,

Your faithfully,
Paul Michael Stennett.
the correct way to address the Baroness is:

Original post by the bear
the correct way to address the Baroness is:


Thank you very much. This is extremely useful. To tell you the truth the areas of expertise for the Lords made it slightly difficult to choose one, but I will make a note if this for the edit, and choose more Lords to send it too in the future.

Thanks again.
Original post by Pmstenn1983
Thank you very much. This is extremely useful. To tell you the truth the areas of expertise for the Lords made it slightly difficult to choose one, but I will make a note if this for the edit, and choose more Lords to send it too in the future.

Thanks again.

it is from this site:

To be fair, they'd be lucky to get even a "g'day" from me.
Original post by Guru Jason
To be fair, they'd be lucky to get even a "g'day" from me.

Well the more possible routes I explore and take the higher the likelihood if gaining support I believe and whilst not every politician supports the same thing we do need each other.

Think about it,
If trust is broken between politicians and the public than society begins to erode.

Thank you for your input despite a difference of oppinion. It is still valued. And Thank-you for the link... it will be useful.
I would understand if this was fortification, but getting rid of junk food won't automatically make people healthier. It'll just make people protest as they get their fix from somewhere else. Not even MPs want it gone. Nice idea in theory, but not in practice.
Proof of a causal link? Accessibility to whole foods (as opposed to junk foods) is quite dependent on income. Right now many families are avoiding cooking to save energy and money. Fundamentally you're moralising a bunch of issues to try to fit them together. I fundamentally reject your conclusions, as banning junk food would not remove the root cause: poverty.

What I do agree with though is the lack of education on diet. Home Economics should be brought back to not only teach kids how to cook but how to buy, store and manage food for one person or a family. This is such a skill, and it takes a while to learn it.
Reply 8
You've got spelling mistakes, and mixed up 'affect' and 'effect', 'if' and 'of', 'there' and 'their', and singular and plural. The introductory paragraphs and bullet points are incoherent due to ordering and grammar.

Needs a massive rewrite.
Reply 9
Honestly, if the government subsidised gym memberships it would help massively, subsidised healthier foods.
Also, there no substantiation or sources to support your claims like junk food being linked to drug use.

'A healthy body leads to a healthy mind'; people with healthy bodies can still suffer from chronic or terminal diseases and mental health issues. What about Stephen Hawking...?
(edited 1 year ago)

Quick Reply