The article “Junking Junk Food”, by Judith Warner, is one that explains two sides to the national obesity problem in the United States. She starts her article by talking about Sarah Palin's objections to the “Obama nanny state” which she believes is out to infringe upon the peoples right to eat whatever they please (401). Glenn Beck is also cited in her paper as objecting to the idea of government regulation. His anger over the issue includes reports of government health inspectors shutting down a 7 year old's lemonade stand (401). With about two-thirds of Americans being obese, the Obama administration has been fighting hard to help Americans with the issue of obesity.
He viewed the problems of fast food causing obesity as being more toward person responsibility. As he sees it, people are now bringing “government between you and your waistline.” This is backed up by politicians across the chart. George Bush marked “$200 million in his budget for anti-obesity measures.” With the government as talking about creating a fat-tax on foods with high calories. He believes that this is not the way to go. His thoughts lean toward having the government more involved with creating a sense of personal responsibility of our own health and the way we eat.
False advertising is also another unpleasant practice that fast food companies use to lure in costumers. Some of these practices include no warning labels on advertisements like there are on dangerous things like tobacco and confusing labels on food served that lead customers into eating more calories than intended. David Zinczenko advocates that it is some of the fast food companies fault for the decline in America’s general health. At the end, David chooses not to complain about the legalities, but instead encourages us to let the justice system do its work. In the article David Zinczenko discusses “Shouldn't we know better than to eat two meals a day in fast-food restaurants” we the people of America should know by now that it is
Since insurance companies are not supposed to make an obese persons insurance premium higher than a healthy individual, then that obese person’s heart attack drives up the insurance premium of the healthy person. The obese are making it everyone’s problem by not putting down that cheeseburger because they know that the government is paying for their anti-cholesterol medicine. Balko claims that the government is getting “between you and your waistline” meaning that the government is interfering by telling Americans what we can and cannot do with our health. Congress is now considering menu-labeling which means that restaurants would have to send every menu item to the laboratory for nutritional testing. Meaning that the restaurants would not have the freedom to put whatever they want on the menu.
Logos is the use of logic for further support on a particular subject. Becoming a fat society is not a logical solution to Schwartz’s argument. Schwartz describes dieting as one starving himself to the point where his fat will begin to eat itself (185). Dieting is simply gaining control of the number of calories in one’s daily diet. By promoting obesity and leaving dieting in the past, Schwartz never begins to mention the health factors
Summary: What You Eat Is Your Business In What You Eat is Your Business; Radley Balko argues that the government is employing multiple means to combat obesity, such as using the media to promote an anti-obesity campaign; using health initiatives to ban junk food in schools, applying tax dollars to create more sidewalks and bike trails, demand more labeling from food companies, and pushing that same industry to be more accountable. As David pointed out all this action is “bringing [the] government between you and your waistline”. David explains that politicians have already clung to the idea. President Bush allocated millions of dollars in the federal budget for that very campaign. Schools across the country have already begun to make changes to the health options they offer on the schools campuses.
While some argued that it is the fault of food industries, and for some, fault of consumers, it can easily be resolved with two words: self-responsibility. Therefore, consumers are definitely the ones responsible for the current epidemic in this country. The first reason why consumers are responsible for America’s obesity epidemic is because consumers are the ones that choose what to eat and feed their children. There are many alternatives to fast food but most people rather not take their time to prepare for a healthier meal. In “The Battle against Fast Food Begins in Home”, author Daniel Weibtraub tries to convince parents to take a stand and fend off obesity in their homes.
I believe that David Zinczenko in his article submitted to the New York Times “Don’t Blame The Eater” makes a good case for how society should be concerned about a generation facing a lifetime of childhood obesity, Type 2 diabetes, heart diseases and other related health complications. However I find that I feel personal responsibility should be the governing factor in this matter. Mr. Zinczenko asks in his article “ Shouldn’t we know better than to eat two or more meals a day in a fast food restaurant? ” Yes we should because although specific warning labels aren’t found on fast food packaging we’ve known for years that fast food consumption on a daily basis is hazardous to your health. There’s information readily available about childhood obesity as stated in Zinczenko’s article where he notes that “Before 1994, diabetes in children was generally caused by genetic disorder-only about 5 percent of childhood cases were obesity-related, or Type 2 diabetes.
Obesity has become a serious problem in America, including children. But who is to blame? Is it the kids, fast food, or the advertisements you see on television? Daniel Weintraub, author of “The Battle Against Fast Food Begins in the Home”, states his opinion that it is the parents’ fault. I completely agree with Weintraub and believe that they should take more responsibility.
Pollan wants to know how we lost our way. For him, America reached a new level of absurdity in 2002, when the Atkins diet saw a resurgence and, almost overnight, carbohydrates became dietary villains (replacing fat as our nutritional enemy number one). Pollan hypothesizes that any culture that could change its eating habits on a dime must have some sort of eating disorder because such a thing “never would have happened in a culture in possession of deeply rooted traditions surrounding food and eating.” (2) After all, why do Americans — unlike people in most other countries in the world — rely on the government to come up with dietary goals to tell them what to eat? Why do we choose our meals on the “food pyramid” — which itself changes every few years and is often dependent more on politics than on science? Why do we pay more attention to the percentages of vitamins in our breakfast than we do to its taste, or substitute “nutrition bars” for meals?