However the food we eat is high in fat and sodium and lack the nutrition needed to lead a healthy life. What’s being done to stop obesity, and whose problem is it? Should our government be able to step in and stop obesity as it becomes a matter of public health and a concern to the American people? This essay will discuss two authors with important views on the subject. In “What you Eat is your Business”, Radley Balko describes how our government is letting American's live unhealthy lives, while the healthy people have to pay for others unhealthy habits.
Balko states, “Instead of manipulating or intervening in the array of food options available to American consumers, our government ought to be working to foster a sense of responsibility in and ownership of our own health and well-being,” (396). The federal government should have their focus on limiting access to unhealthy choices of food by maintaining strict policies for fast food restaurants, rather than enabling Americans to make their own choices. Personal responsibility permits Americans to eat as much as they please and to prolong this epidemic for years on end. In David Zinczenko’s article “Don’t Blame The Eater,” he provides a statistic further proving that the food industry needs to undergo serious modification. “Today, according to the Nation Institute of Health, Type 2 (obesity-related) diabetes account for at least 30 percent of all new childhood cases of diabetes in this country, (392).
| | My ethical position for the world hunger is the moral relativism because it offers no moral guidance. It merely tells us that any particular action would be approved by one group, but denounced by another.The world hunger is a very broad and controversial issue but let's start with some questions:What should those of us in affluent nations do to help impoverished countries and individuals, especially those facing episodic or endemic hunger? It just slightly changes it. We should now ask: “Are we obliged to insure that they have adequate food entitlements?” That requires us to ask several derivative questions: do we have obligations to encourage (or coerce) their governments to enhance their entitlements? Are we obligated to establish ongoing trade relations with these countries to enhance their citizens’ entitlements?Do we have obligations to send food or to help distribute food when the country cannot do so on its own?
And are these food products good for us? The Media plays an important role on the way we Americans eat today. However, we are no longer interested in what the food is, but rather what it has in it. The problem is we're focusing on the invisible known nutrients and forgetting about the actual food itself. In addition, scientists have also discovered that by taking certain food and removing their important values and adding in so-called nutrients that can supposedly benefit us Americans health wise.
Food Inc. affectively convinces the audience with the use of logos, ethos, and pathos, that there are problems within the food industry that are negatively affecting everyone’s lives thus we should take action against big businesses in the food industry. The author sets the tone from the very beginning of the movie. Food Inc. starts with the camera panning through the supermarket isles with a calm voice over. This deceptive calm voice hides the message it tries to say. “The food industry doesn’t want you to know the truth about what you are eating because if you did, you might not eat it.” The sense of mystery behind our food and where it comes from just makes the viewer want to know more about the food system.
How far was hunger the main cause of the Russian Civil War? [12+3] This essay will examine how far hunger was the main cause of the Russian civil war. It will do so by evaluating and considering hunger as several other key factors roles in the build up to the civil war. There were many reasons for people to oppose the Bolsheviks. One of the main reasons for this opposition was the economic and social hardships Russia was going through particularly in the months after the October revolution.
Garrett Hardin and Peter Singer are no exceptions. The growing gap between the rich and the poor is a continuing problem in the world today and the subject has caught the interest of both these writers. Each writer implements his own distinctive metaphor to help him express his view on the poverty situation. Garret Hardin, Professor of Human Ecology at the University of California, argues, with the help of a lifeboat metaphor that splits the countries into merely rich and poor, that wealthy nations need not provide aid to poor countries, since they will take advantage of the opportunity present to them and consequently diminish the rich states’ resources. However, Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, actually believes that Hardin is wrong in his claim and that people should spend less money buying unnecessary possessions and rather donate that money to charity.
Food Stamps vs. Hunger in North Carolina Hunger is a major problem in the United States. This country is considered to be one of the most powerful and advanced nations in the world but yet our children are still experiencing hunger. With food subsidy programs such as the Food Stamp Program/SNAP, the School Breakfast and Lunch Program, WIC/Women Infants and Children and all of the other various charitable organizations that target hunger, there still remain areas where hunger problems exist. North Carolina is one of the states where the campaigns against hunger is continuous a plight for legislators, ministries and the families affected by this social dysfunction.
At your request, I have finished analyzing Radley Balko's article, "What You Eat Is Your Business"; I would like to give my explanation of why this article should be posted in the next edition of The Shorthorn. I believe that most Shorthorn readers would be interested in what is happening, things that could potentially affect their health or their lifestyle. "What You Eat Is Your Business" provides sufficient reasons and evidence to support the argument that Radley Balko stated in his article. Radley Balko's tone throughout the article appeals to pathos, which is associated with emotional appeal. Balko has an angry tone about the fact that the government believes people should depend on others for their health, and that they shouldn't take responsibility.
ONE ANGRY In Radley Balko’s article “What You Eat is Your Business,” he makes an argument towards lessoning government’s involvement with what he considers very individual decisions about what we eat. He uses the logos claim of cause and effect to explain that if we continue to make the obesity issue everybody’s problem, we will lose any financial advantage to staying healthy (p. 158). Although the appeal to shrink governmental say-so on matters as personal as food options will resonate with the predominately libertarian audience of the website Cato.org, the focus he places on the financial aspects of the argument are heavy-handed. Consider his question, “And if the government is paying for my anti-cholesterol medication, what incentive