I personally believe the comparison between Tobacco and fast food is too severe to say fast food is the new tobacco. Although, I do think that the government can step in by giving more regulations to the fast food industry. For example if the fast food industry is under regulation to have a minimum of five items on their menu that are healthy foods. In this case to count as a healthy food the transparency in what is in the item would need to be clear. The calories and healthy benefits should also be proven and that could help with obesity in America. This would help to actually have healthy options that can be obtained at a convenient price. Although regulation as previously stated has its positives, it is often met with backlash as we've seen with the now defunct big-soda ban in New York City. 

 

Because of opposition for consumers, it would be difficult for the government to step in without overreaching their power and encroach on the liberty of others to govern their lives how they see fit. Yes, some regulations prevent citizens from exercising their free will with out consequences. However, should it really be the governments responsibility to control something so inconsequential compared to inflation and foreign affairs. If one chooses to eat a Big Mac and wash it down with a giant liter of Coke, that's their prerogative. As a result, it is the individual who made that choice to deal with the consequences of said actions of any. Especially considering how the U.S does not have universal healthcare, many may view it as unfair to allow the government to have their finger on the menu when the government is not responsible for their medical care bills. With such opposition, politicians need to understand both sides of the topic and find a happy medium to appease both parties.

 

Moreover, If fast food was to be like tobacco that would be unfair to the lower income Americans who get the food because of the cost. It also would not be right for the high school students who would have no place to go for lunch. Fast food is cheap, accessible, and reliable. To regulate it just as tobacco is regulated would make cheep meals inaccessible to those that need it most.  For instance, a starving, homeless person on the street might be able to scrape together a few dollars for a Wendy’s 4 for 4 meal which offers  a sandwich, fries, chicken nuggets, and a drink for four dollars. Although it may not be tantamount to a hearty salad, it is just enough for a person of modest means to survive.

 

In conclusion, yes, regulation would not be out of the question. Having awful meals that are detrimental to the human body would be in no one's best interest. The US has the FDA to protect us in that regard to a certain extent. But to go beyond that may pose challenges for everyone, whether it be due to a violation of civil liberties or a violation of an individuals access to sustenance. If politicians were to push regulation, it would be positive so long that they keep the aforementioned reservations in mind. If not, there could be harmful long lasting effects that outweigh the dangers of eating a Big Mac every now and again.