Ludwig and Nestle states in article Can the Food Industry Play a Constructive Role in the Obesity Epidemic?, “Far greater profits come from highly processed, commodity-derived products-fast food, snack foods, and beverages-primarily composed of refined starch, concentrated sugars, and low quality fats” (1809). I believe that the corporations can if they really want to send the right message to their consumers. Some corporations actually do promote healthy eating habits to their consumers when they come to the fast food corporations. The corporations started to promote healthy eating more after many research have been done to prove how bad fast food has been towards its consumers. Ludwig and Nestle expresses, “Research links frequent consumption of highly processed foods to weight gain and increased risk for diet-related diseases” (1809).
That’s why it’s easy to imagine the industry throwing its weight behind a soda tax. School lunch reform would become its cause, too, and in time the industry would come to see that the development of regional food systems, which make fresh produce more available and reduce dependence on heavily processed food from far away, could help prevent chronic disease and reduce their costs. Recently a team of designers from M.I.T. and Columbia was asked by the foundation of the insurer UnitedHealthcare to develop an innovative systems approach to tackling childhood obesity in America. Their conclusion surprised the designers as much as their sponsor: they determined that promoting the concept of a “foodshed” — a diversified, regional food economy — could be the key to improving the American diet.
Balko stated, “If policymakers want to fight obesity, they’ll halt the socialization of medicine, and move to return individual Americans’ ownership of their own health and well-being back to individual Americans. That means freeing insurance companies to reward healthy lifestyles, and penalize poor ones” (397-398). Balko shows that he supports the Americans taking responsibility of their own health than having the government intervene because it will eventually take away certain freedoms and liberties that other responsible Americans deserved. Balko shows two point views for those people who work hard and make good healthy decisions should enjoy the benefits of requiring less medical attention, and for those that make poor health decisions that result in obesity and requiring more medical helps should be responsible for it. This way, everybody is held to their own actions, which likely would cause people to make better choices in general, and not only regarding
Rhetorical Analysis of Super Size Me Fast foods are one of the leading causes of major problems like obesity for many Americans today. An average man, Morgan Spurlock, decides to conduct an experiment dealing with the effects of consuming too much fast food. The film Super Size Me, a persuasive documentary following Spurlock’s experiments, aims to show the danger of fast food, particularly focusing on McDonald’s food, on consumers’ health. Its purpose is to bring awareness to the public about corporate responsibility concerning the food consumers eat, such as McDonald’s, which makes them overweight. In his documentary, Spurlock eats only food from McDonald’s for a month (thirty days) to see how his health can be affected and he is examined by three doctors before, during, after the experiment.
The morality of the issue definitely helps to convince readers that the government holds the responsibility on obesity. In addition, their evidence also includes a comparison of the personal responsibility argument with obesity to the personal responsibility argument for Big Tobacco. This comparison works well as they state how “the nation tolerated personal-responsibility arguments from Big Tobacco for decades, with disastrous results” (Brownell and Nestle 525).
As far as healthier affordable alternatives, you pass just as many Subways, Jimmy Johns or Panera’s as you would a McDonalds. In this essay I will attempt to counter Zinczenko’s arguments by providing other alternatives for individuals who desire to eat healthier, explain why I feel filing a lawsuit against the vendors is really a way to place blame where it isn’t due. I will explain that Zinczenko bases his arguments based on his own personal situation and not sources such as surveys or polls. In conclusion I hope to explain how people themselves are to blame for their obesity. I will show how you do blame the Eater!!
For example, TexPIRG has been a strong supporter encouraging the USDA to raise the standards for food to be served to children in school cafeterias. Previously, meat that was rejected by fast food chains could be and was served to school children. Now the standards have been raised, but if food is found to be substandard, it can take as long as a week for schools to be notified, so children can still eat bad food for that long before the schools know to pull it. There are food industry giants who spend quite a lot of money lobbying legislators and persons in positions of power in state and federal regulatory agencies, whose interest are all about profit and not about quality or sometimes even safety. Big food producers are displeased with the Obama administration’s rules that require food producers to disclose ingredients and processing methods because this will cost them more to produce food and will also limit what they can sell (and what people will buy).
He recommends that in search of a better way to serve customers, the fast food industry has negatively infused its way into the American culture. Schlosser brings to light plenty of shocking facts like how the actual cost of a Happy Meal is determined and how it manipulates the children to persuade their parents to treat them out to McDonalds. A growing awareness of the connection between diets and disease is slowly but surely taking hold in the minds of consumers. Natural and organic foods are becoming more popular across the country. However, our government hasn’t taken the steps that most
They must take responsibility for their health and well-being, and stand up for what is right and necessary. There has to be balance between the two. For instance, in our reading by Radley Balko, “What You Eat Is Your Business,” he states that it is entirely up to an individual to make the right choices, and that too much government interference is contributing to the problem. He’s right, but not in the way he presents it. The government is interfering in exactly the wrong way, that is to say, they advocate for the very issues that makes America fat, such as allowing pharmaceutical companies to thrive off of our obesity related illnesses and allowing companies like Monsanto to poison our food and limit our options for healthy fruits and
As obesity and its effects gain awareness, Americans are making more efforts to encourage a healthy lifestyle. Many restaurants are incorporating healthier choices into their menus and “policy-makers are taking action to protect children from the fast-food trend” by limiting “food advertising aimed at children” (“Fast Food”). In 2004 the health campaign Verb was launched, using boldface names to promote physical activity and healthy decision-making. Unfortunately, Verb was terminated in 2007 due to a lack of funds (Kluger 227). The problem with the current endeavors, then, is that they are not void of any possible defects.