It isn’t just parents giving their children soda, it’s also the school districts providing more unhealthy choices and minimal nutritional items, such as milk or water, and fruits and vegetables. From 1985 to 1997, school districts decreased the amount of milk they bought by nearly thirty percent and increased purchases of soda by one-thousand and one-hundred percent. (Roberts) About fifty-six to eighty-five percent of school age children consume at least one soft drink daily. (Roberts) Children these days are not getting enough calcium, mainly because of the large consumption of soft drinks. Instead of grabbing a glass of milk, most kids, teens and adults would rather drink soda.
These could cause the obesity. Although advertising is not the only cause of the rising obesity, it influences children deeply. Therefore, the pressure groups want to limit the junk food advertisings in order to avoid the obesity that could expand to the next generation. The influence of the children in a family is very strong, especially in the family which has only one child. They could persuade their parents to spend money, as their parents often give them what they want.
For example, the food marketing companies usually uses the attractive poster about fast food to get the attention of the kids. Moreover, the author also used some kind of emotional language such as he said that banning the junk food is “misguided and ineffective”.He also tried to give more some reasons to demonstrate that food marketing is not a serious matter of childhood obesity. He said the young people prefer using the internet more than watching TV. In addition, the average number of ads also decreased from 18 in 1977 to 13 in 2003, but he was not right about it. In the
However, since the modern evolution of television and the Internet consumers are only becoming more vulnerable to harmful food ads promoting things like fast good and snacks. All thanks to television, obesity rates have sky rocketed within the past thirty years, prompting children to refrain from physical activities and regular exercise; it is simply easier (and seemingly more enjoyable) to stay indoors. Because of this lack of activity, it is quite common for children to be diagnosed with early on conditions such as diabetes. But are the children really to blame? It is a well known fact that advertisers will target their ads towards children.
The author uses argumentation to try to persuade the reader that many parents do not care what their children eat. He also suggests children are quite frequently allowed to eat unhealthy foods. Crister also states the foods are often from places which do not monitor what the foods contain and just make them attractive to children. Even though the author does make use of language which makes his essay appeal to who ever read it, he fails to address the other sides of the issues. For example he uses analogy when he states that thinness should be a way of life for people in today’s society.
First, I think providing junk foods in school gives students a variety of food choices. Secondly, junk foods are convenient and a delicious source for snacks. Lastly, if the school stops selling junk food it would lose a lot of money. My first reason of why I support keeping junk food in school is that selling junk food provides students a variety of choices for lunch and snacks. Everyone can choose what they like to eat.
Students are being fed unhealthy lunches at school cafeterias simply because it is cheaper to produce unhealthy processed foods so alternatives and healthier food go away. Unfortunately money takes precedence over the health of students; from the perspective of the school boards, it is much cheaper to have processed foods made for them by other companies instead of making healthier foods right in the schools. Also, processed and pre-made foods are cheaper than fresh homemade foods, which would also make healthier foods more expensive. Therefore, the logic said that if schools were to make the food healthier and as a result more expensive, in order to cover the costs the students would have to pay more. Unfortunately, student and parents rely on these lunches because they do not have the income to be able to afford either full-priced or homemade lunches.
It is because it is illegal. If we are lowering the drinking age, will we be worse off because kids are used to binge drinking? Another issue is stress. When parents were growing up, they didn’t have the kind of stress kids are dealing with today. So why are so many teenagers stressed to succeed academically?
A quick snack to eat in between a few classes may appear harmless, but in the end it adds up. Snack after snack, students go about their day completely unaware of the harmful effects of all the unhealthy food they have consumed. Because these junk foods cause childhood obesity, cause heart disease and diabetes, and contributes to poor eating habits, junk food should not be made available in schools. In an article “Should States Ban Junk Food?” it states that nearly 300,000 people die each year from complications associated with being obese or overweight (Codey, 1). Many children in schools walk past vending machines or enter school cafeterias where there is a significant amount of junk food being presented to them.
Ten Reasons to Avoid Soft Drink Consumption: A single can of soda contains the equivalent of 10 teaspoons of sugar. This amount of sugar, especially in liquid form, skyrockets the blood sugar and causes an insulin reaction in the body. Over time, this can lead to diabetes or insulin resistance, not to mention weight gain and other health problems. Soft drink companies are the largest user of sugar in the country. Soda contains phosphoric acid, which interferes with the body’s ability to absorb calcium and can lead to osteoporosis, cavities and bone softening.