Some people think that shops should not be allowed to sell food or drinks that are scientifically proven to be bad for people’s health. Do you agree or disagree?
The increasing availability of unhealthy food and drinks has raised questions about whether their sale should be banned once they are proven harmful. While such a measure could seem beneficial in theory, I would argue that an outright prohibition is neither practical nor desirable.
There is no doubt that highly processed products, particularly those rich in sugar, salt, and artificial additives, contribute to serious health conditions such as obesity and heart disease. Removing them from shop shelves would likely reduce consumption and encourage healthier eating habits. In the long term, this could ease pressure on public healthcare systems and promote a healthier population. Proponents also claim that restrictions would protect vulnerable groups, especially children, from exposure to harmful products.
Nevertheless, banning unhealthy foods raises issues of fairness and feasibility. Personal choice is an important aspect of modern society, and many would see such restrictions as an unnecessary intrusion into private life. Moreover, prohibition often fails to achieve its goals: people may seek out alternative sources, creating unregulated markets that are even harder to control. It is also important to recognise that not all products are harmful when consumed occasionally; the real problem lies in excessive intake.
A more constructive approach would be to combine public education with regulation, such as clear labelling, restrictions on advertising, and higher taxes on unhealthy items. These measures encourage healthier behaviour without eliminating freedom of choice.
In conclusion, while the health risks of certain foods and drinks are undeniable, banning them entirely is unlikely to succeed. A balanced strategy that informs and guides consumers is a more sustainable way forward.
Evaluation
Task Response 7.0
Your essay presents a clear and well-developed position, consistently arguing against a complete ban while acknowledging the benefits of such a policy. The discussion is balanced, with both sides explored adequately before reaching a logical conclusion. Your ideas are relevant and extended with appropriate explanations, particularly in discussing public health impacts and individual freedom. However, the second paragraph could be slightly more developed with a specific real-world example to strengthen the argument further.
Coherence & Cohesion 7.0
The essay is logically organised with a clear progression of ideas. Each paragraph has a distinct focus, and transitions such as “Nevertheless” and “Moreover” are used effectively to guide the reader. Cohesion is strong, though slightly more varied linking devices could enhance the flow further. Overall, the structure is easy to follow and academically appropriate.
Lexical Resource 7.0
You demonstrate a strong command of vocabulary with precise and topic-specific language such as “outright prohibition,” “public healthcare systems,” and “unregulated markets.” Word choice is accurate and varied, contributing to a formal tone suitable for IELTS. There is minor room for improvement in using more varied synonyms for repeated concepts like “unhealthy foods.”
Grammatical Range & Accuracy 7.0
Your grammar is generally accurate with a good mix of complex and simple sentence structures. There are no major errors that affect clarity. However, a few sentences could be slightly refined for greater precision and variety. Increasing the use of more advanced structures (e.g., conditional or inversion) could push this to a higher band.
Model Answer (Band 8 Level)
The widespread availability of food and beverages that are scientifically linked to adverse health outcomes has sparked debate over whether governments should prohibit their sale. Although such a policy may appear beneficial from a public health perspective, I strongly believe that banning these products is neither an effective nor a justified solution.
Admittedly, there is compelling evidence that excessive consumption of highly processed foods, particularly those containing high levels of sugar, salt, and artificial ingredients, contributes to chronic illnesses such as obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Eliminating these items from retail outlets could potentially reduce their consumption and, consequently, alleviate the burden on healthcare systems. Furthermore, restrictions may serve to protect vulnerable populations, especially children, who are more susceptible to aggressive marketing and unhealthy dietary habits.
However, an outright ban raises significant concerns regarding individual autonomy and practical implementation. In modern societies, personal freedom is a fundamental principle, and restricting access to certain foods could be perceived as an overreach of governmental authority. Additionally, history has shown that prohibition often leads to unintended consequences, including the emergence of black markets and unregulated distribution channels. It is also crucial to recognise that many foods considered unhealthy can be consumed safely in moderation; therefore, the issue lies not in the products themselves but in excessive consumption.
A more pragmatic approach would involve a combination of regulatory and educational measures. Governments could implement clearer nutritional labelling, restrict misleading advertising—particularly those targeting children—and impose higher taxes on unhealthy products. Such strategies would empower consumers to make informed choices while preserving their freedom.
In conclusion, although the health risks associated with certain foods and drinks are well-established, banning them entirely is neither practical nor effective. A balanced approach that prioritises awareness and responsible consumption is a more sustainable and realistic solution.