IELTS Writing Task 2: Should Governments Regulate Unhealthy Food Sales? Sample Essays and Analysis

The topic of government regulation on unhealthy food sales has been a recurring theme in IELTS Writing Task 2 exams. Given its relevance to public health and policy, it’s likely to appear in future tests as well. Let’s explore this topic through sample essays and in-depth analysis.

Some people think that governments should ban the sale of unhealthy food in order to improve people’s health. Others believe that people should have the freedom to choose what they eat. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Analyzing the Question

This question requires candidates to:

1. Discuss the view that governments should ban unhealthy food sales
2. Discuss the opposing view that people should have freedom of choice
3. Provide their own opinion on the matter

It’s crucial to address all parts of the question to achieve a high band score.

Sample Essays

Band 8-9 Essay

The debate over government intervention in regulating unhealthy food sales has gained significant traction in recent years. While some advocate for strict bans to improve public health, others argue for individual freedom of choice. In my opinion, a balanced approach that combines education and moderate regulation is the most effective solution.

Proponents of government bans on unhealthy food sales argue that such measures are necessary to combat the rising epidemic of obesity and related health issues. They contend that by limiting access to harmful foods, governments can significantly reduce the incidence of diet-related diseases, thereby alleviating the burden on healthcare systems. Furthermore, advocates claim that strict regulations would encourage food manufacturers to develop healthier alternatives, ultimately benefiting consumers.

On the other hand, those who oppose such bans emphasize the importance of personal freedom and individual responsibility. They argue that government intervention in dietary choices infringes upon basic human rights and creates a “nanny state” where citizens are not trusted to make their own decisions. Additionally, critics point out that banning certain foods may lead to underground markets and potentially more dangerous alternatives, as seen with prohibition in the past.

In my view, a nuanced approach that balances public health concerns with individual liberty is the most prudent course of action. Rather than implementing outright bans, governments should focus on educating the public about nutrition and the long-term effects of unhealthy eating habits. This could be achieved through comprehensive school programs, public awareness campaigns, and clear labeling requirements for food products. Simultaneously, moderate regulations such as taxes on sugary beverages or restrictions on marketing unhealthy foods to children could be implemented to discourage excessive consumption without completely removing choice.

By combining education with targeted regulations, governments can empower individuals to make informed decisions about their diet while still addressing pressing public health concerns. This balanced approach respects personal freedom while acknowledging the government’s role in promoting the well-being of its citizens.

(Word count: 309)

Government regulation of unhealthy food

Band 6-7 Essay

The issue of whether governments should ban unhealthy food sales is a controversial topic. Some people think it’s a good idea to improve public health, while others believe it limits personal freedom. This essay will discuss both viewpoints and provide my opinion.

Those who support banning unhealthy food sales argue that it would help reduce obesity and other health problems. They say that many people, especially children, eat too much junk food, which leads to serious health issues. By banning these foods, the government could force people to eat healthier and live better lives. Also, it could save money on healthcare costs in the long run.

On the other hand, people against this idea say that it’s not the government’s job to tell us what to eat. They believe that everyone should have the right to choose their own food, even if it’s not healthy. They argue that banning certain foods could lead to a black market and make some foods more desirable. Additionally, they say that education about healthy eating is more important than bans.

In my opinion, I think a complete ban on unhealthy food is too extreme. Instead, governments should focus on educating people about nutrition and the risks of unhealthy eating. They could also put taxes on very unhealthy foods to discourage people from buying them too often. This way, people still have the freedom to choose, but they are encouraged to make healthier choices.

To conclude, while banning unhealthy food sales might seem like a quick fix for health problems, it’s not the best solution. A combination of education and moderate regulation would be more effective and fair.

(Word count: 276)

Band 5-6 Essay

Nowadays, some people think governments should stop selling unhealthy food to make people healthier. But others say people should choose what they eat themselves. I will talk about both ideas and give my opinion.

People who want to ban unhealthy food think it will help stop people from getting fat and sick. They say many people eat too much junk food and get ill. If the government stops selling these foods, people will have to eat better things and be healthier. This could also save money on hospitals.

But other people don’t like this idea. They say the government shouldn’t tell us what to eat. They think everyone should be free to eat what they want, even if it’s not good for them. They also say that if some foods are banned, people might still try to get them illegally.

I think banning all unhealthy food is not a good idea. Instead, the government should teach people about healthy eating. They could also make unhealthy food more expensive so people don’t buy it as much. This way, people can still choose what to eat, but they might choose better foods.

In conclusion, I believe teaching people about good food is better than banning bad food. The government should help people make good choices, not force them.

(Word count: 213)

Analysis of Essays

Band 8-9 Essay Analysis

This essay demonstrates excellent coherence, cohesion, and vocabulary use, characteristic of a high band score:

1. Task Response: The essay fully addresses all parts of the task, presenting a clear position and fully extended ideas.
2. Coherence and Cohesion: Ideas are logically organized with clear progression throughout. Paragraphing is well-managed, and cohesive devices are used effectively.
3. Lexical Resource: A wide range of vocabulary is used with full flexibility and precision. Uncommon lexical items are used naturally (e.g., “alleviating the burden,” “nuanced approach”).
4. Grammatical Range and Accuracy: A wide range of structures is used with full flexibility and control. Errors are rare and difficult to spot.

Band 6-7 Essay Analysis

This essay shows good control of language but lacks some of the sophistication of the higher band essay:

1. Task Response: The essay addresses all parts of the task, though some aspects are developed more than others.
2. Coherence and Cohesion: There is a clear overall progression, but some paragraphs are better linked than others.
3. Lexical Resource: There is a good range of vocabulary, though it’s less precise and varied compared to the Band 8-9 essay.
4. Grammatical Range and Accuracy: A mix of simple and complex sentence forms is used, with generally good control and only occasional errors.

Band 5-6 Essay Analysis

This essay demonstrates a more limited range of language and ideas:

1. Task Response: The essay addresses the task, but some points are underdeveloped.
2. Coherence and Cohesion: There is a basic structure, but paragraphing and linking could be improved.
3. Lexical Resource: Vocabulary is adequate for the task but limited in range and sometimes repetitive.
4. Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Mainly simple sentences are used, with some attempts at complex structures. Errors are more frequent but do not impede communication.

Key Vocabulary to Remember

1. Intervention (noun) /ˌɪntəˈvenʃən/ – the action or process of intervening
2. Epidemic (noun) /ˌepɪˈdemɪk/ – a widespread occurrence of an infectious disease in a community at a particular time
3. Alleviate (verb) /əˈliːvieɪt/ – make (suffering, deficiency, or a problem) less severe
4. Nuanced (adjective) /ˈnjuːɑːnst/ – characterized by subtle shades of meaning or expression
5. Prudent (adjective) /ˈpruːdnt/ – acting with or showing care and thought for the future
6. Infringe (verb) /ɪnˈfrɪndʒ/ – actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.)
7. Nanny state (noun) /ˈnæni steɪt/ – a government perceived as overprotective or interfering unduly with personal choice
8. Empower (verb) /ɪmˈpaʊə(r)/ – give (someone) the authority or power to do something

Conclusion

The topic of government regulation on unhealthy food sales is complex and multi-faceted. It requires careful consideration of public health concerns, individual freedoms, and the role of government in society. As you prepare for your IELTS Writing Task 2, consider practicing with similar topics that balance social responsibility and personal choice.

For additional practice, try writing essays on related topics such as:

1. Should governments tax sugary drinks to reduce obesity rates?
2. Is it the responsibility of schools or parents to teach children about healthy eating habits?
3. Should fast food advertising be banned to promote better health?

Remember to post your practice essays in the comments section below for feedback and discussion. This active engagement will significantly enhance your writing skills and prepare you for success in the IELTS exam.