Section 1
Despite the colossal food wastage in America, hunger remains a significant problem in America. The effects of food wastage are significant and carry adverse effects not only on the individual but also on the environment. Research has demonstrated that approximately 40% of food in the United States goes uneaten. Evidence has shown that America wastes food worth about $165 billion every year (Gunders, 2015). The wasted food ends up in landfills, leading to greenhouse gas emissions such as methane and carbon dioxide. Based on these realities, making food wastage illegal in the US could be a viable strategy.
Congress has developed several laws that prohibit environmental waste and pollution. Food is a major cause of environmental pollution, especially when they pile in landfills. According to Gunders (2015), the organic matter from food waste contributes to 16% of methane emissions. Therefore, this shows that wasted food forms a significant source of global emission. Also, the pilling of wasted foods pollutes the environment and acts as a substantial cause of the odor and bad scenery. The law banning food wastage will have a significant role in conservation and sustainability efforts. It will also allow America to properly adhere to local and international statutes on global warming.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Hunger remains a significant problem in the US. Food security remains a significant challenge in the country. As illustrated by the author, “Food insecurity has been a significant problem in the United States with one in six or 50.2 million people residing in food-insecure households" (Faruque & Islam, 2015). The hunger hit particularly hard during the recession and continued throughout the years. A significant portion of Americans are living in poverty, and this contributes to widespread starvation. Child hunger has substantial effects on children and is among the leading causes of mortality and morbidity. Social justice demands equality in the distribution of resources. Food wastage only occurs among the affluent and middle-class groups. Outlawing food wastage will also enable the redistribution of food to the most disadvantaged society members, thereby improving health and well-being.
Food wastage occurs at different stages in food production and consumption. As elaborated by Gunders (2015), wastage begins in farming and continues to harvesting, processing, distribution, retail, and household consumption. Banning food wastage will increase efficiency and empower the country to produce more. More importantly, it will instill a culture of responsibility and accountability in resource utilization and consumption. The global population is also on the rise. Hickey & Ozbay (2014) emphasize that the worldwide community will hit about 10 billion people. The US will not be left behind in the population surge. Congress must protect the interests of the future by focusing more on saving rather than wastage. Stakeholders in the food industry could save considerable amounts of food if the law comes in place as all stakeholders will have taken responsibility.
Section 2
However, food consumption must remain the liberty of an individual. The government or Congress, for that matter, cannot make a law determining how individuals should consume their food. America is a constitutional democracy, and such a move would go against the fundamental ideas that make America a great nation. Individuals have the liberty to consume food the way they wish without the interference of the government. First, food is an essential component that directly influences the life of an individual. Controlling the way people eat is unethical and unconstitutional as it goes against the tenets of personal liberty. In this regard, one would also argue that the government is responsible for ensuring the proper management of waste resources. Banning food wastage would not solve the problem of the emission of greenhouse gases or degradation. Therefore, policymakers should remain keen on solving fundamental problems rather than limiting people's freedom to eat and dispose of surplus. More importantly, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect people's rights to safeguard the properties of people. The law upholds individuals to use their belongings in a manner that suits them. More importantly, the government has a vital role in protecting any adversity or collateral damage that emerges from the use.
The truth is that individuals have the right to consume food in a way that befits them. However, this does not mean that people can irresponsibly use things in an insensitive way. The previous research has shown that food wastage harms the environment, climate, and sustainability measures. Every law must be accompanied by responsibility. For instance, the US constitution allows individuals to own and bear arms. However, this does not mean that it is okay to use a firearm against an individual or wildlife. The same should apply to food. Illegalizing food wastage does not mean that individuals are denied an opportunity to eat how they want. Instead, the strategy aims to ensure responsible usage and prevent loss of food that would otherwise serve other disadvantaged populations. The cost-benefit analysis also favors the law inhibiting food wastage. Sustainability, climate change, and environmental sanitation are all critical aspects that stakeholders should endeavor to protect. It would be immoral for individuals to irresponsibly use food in their household without taking a keen consideration of the implications they are having on the three critical areas. The argument against liberty and private use should not overshadow the need for personal responsibility.
Section 3
Utilitarianism is among the most famous ethical guidelines. It primarily focuses on making decisions that guarantee happiness to the largest number of people. Utilitarianism is based on the idea that the end justifies the means (Mandal, Ponnambath, & Parija, 2016). An action is moral so long as it causes happiness to the largest number of people. Therefore, utilitarianism is a consequentialist model that seeks to assess an event's outcome rather than the action per se (Mandal, Ponnambath, & Parija, 2016). A utilitarian moralist would have several perspectives about the issue. Banning food wastage as action might sound wrong from a utilitarian proponent because it controls how people use food. However, the consequences would guarantee happiness to many people due to the associated benefits such as environmental cleanliness, sustainability, and the ability to feed persons in hunger. Despite the draconian nature of the law, more people are bound to benefit in the long run. However, this does not necessarily mean that the opponents will agree with my assertions. Based on the same utilitarian policy, one might argue that controlling how people consume their food has an indictment on their happiness. Opponents would argue that utilitarianism views the outcome of an event. In this case, the outcome would be a controlled food consumption and possible incarceration due to the same.
Therefore, such individuals are not bound to agree with my point of view. Regardless, banning food wastage remains a contentious and controversial issue that has adverse implications on an individual. The cost-benefit analysis has shown that more individuals are likely to benefit from banning food wastage, including the millions of hungry Americans and their children. Therefore, this would shift the happiness from the wealthy minority to the poor majority.
References
Faruque, C. J., & Islam, M. R. (2015).Hunger Reduction in the United States of America: Analysis of Factors Contributing to Hunger. Journal of International Social Issues (May 2015) , 3 (1), 13-23.
Gunders, D. (2015). Wasted: How America is losing up to 40 percent of its food from farm to fork to landfill. 2012. Natural Resources Defense Council: New York .
Hickey, M. E., & Ozbay, G. (2014). Food waste in the United States: A contributing factor toward environmental instability. Frontiers in Environmental Science , 2 , 51.
Mandal, J., Ponnambath, D. K., & Parija, S. C. (2016). Utilitarian and deontological ethics in medicine. Tropical Parasitology , 6 (1), 5.
