Within the city limits of Dallas, Texas, two different life scenarios are being lived out. On the outskirts of downtown Dallas, in what is often referred to as the ghetto, many adults and children struggle to receive their daily nutritional needs. Low-income families cannot always afford healthy foods such as fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. In order to obtain some nutrition and meet their daily calorie intake, they are forced to consume hyperprocessed food that are healthy for one’s wallet, but not for their body. In place of fruit juices and milk, these low-income families are forced to drink sugary beverages that are conveniently sold at almost every store at a relatively cheap price. On the other hand, many families have sufficient funding, but choose to consumer unhealthy foods. These people have every opportunity to eat nutritionally rich foods and avoid junk food and sugary drinks, but they choose to use their freedom to do just the opposite. In the articles “Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables” by Mark Bittman and “Free to Be Fat” by Richard B. McKenzie, these two ideas are discussed in more depth. The essay “Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables” largely focuses on the effects of hyperprocessed foods on the body and its solution, while “Free to Be Fat” points out that our individual freedom in America plays a key role in today’s obesity problem. In the two articles, both Bittman and McKenzie utilize logos as a way to appeal to their audience; however, the articles differ in the way they use diction and tone.
Bittman uses logos to appeal to the audience’s reasoning and support his solution. In the paper “Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables,” Bittman employs statistics and studies to help justify hi...
... middle of paper ...
...d,” (Bittman). Bittman uses these statistics to show how hyperprocessed foods and sugary beverages have impacts America. Since the percentage of obese individuals continuously rises, Bittman believes that the government should step in and protect the health of individuals by establishing a new tax on junk food. People sense the urgency within Bittman’s article, since he believes it is time for the government to step in. Throughout history people have always wanted to limit the control of the government and only sought their help in dire situations; therefore, if the government is becoming involved in the weight gain problem, it must be a big problem.
Work Cited:
McKenzie, Richard B. "Free to Be Fat." The Daily Beast. N.p., 23 Nov. 2011. Web. 31 Jan. 2014.
Bittman, Mark. "Bad Food? Tax It." The New York Times. The New York Times, 23 July 2011. Web. 31 Jan. 2014.
Everyday Americans die from the diseases they carry from obesity. Many Americans overeat because of their social problems or because they are hereditary. Many plans have been discussed, but finding the solution is the problem. Junk foods and unhealthy beverages have corrupted children’s minds all over the nation, and putting a stop to it could lead to other benefits. Unhealthy foods and drinks should be taxed and healthy foods should be advertised to help prevent American obesity.
In addition, the fast food industry’s main goal is to produce profit, and advertisements for unhealthy nutrition options flood schools, television, billboards, and multitudes of other outputs, all places where young children can view endorsements for fast food. Drawing a parallel between fast food and tobacco, Fed Up claims that soda resembles the cigarettes of the 21st century and that both of these toxins present many future health implications. While continuing to discuss long term effects of unhealthy food and eating habits, various scientific researchers and individuals share that up to “40% of non-obese people have metabolic diseases” (Fed Up). While not everyone may appear overweight or obese, they may have diabetes, heart related problems, high blood pressure, and/or numerous other health concerns. Overall, Stephanie Soechtig’s Fed Up discusses the issues of obesity and how private provide and special interests place themselves above public
There has been withstanding controversy about whether fast food is easier on the pocket than eating home-cooked meals. Take McDonald’s for instance, they’re notorious for their convenient and affordable dollar and value menus. Since you can get a burger for just $1.19, feeding a family of four should be inexpensive right? Mark Bittman, author of “Is Junk Food Really Cheaper?” argues otherwise. He claims that fast food is not at all cheaper than buying a few groceries and cooking at home. He expresses the different myths about fast food like how it is supposedly cheaper than real food when measured by the calorie, the mentality of people that if it isn’t fast food, it has to be costly organic food, and that there just isn’t enough time to cook at home. These myths followed by genuine factors such as addictions and a cultural impact, help Bittman prove his argument’s validity across to his audience. I have to say that Bittman proved his argument’s effectiveness, for he clearly stated his thesis and provided various reliable
The argument talked about how the American diet should be changed since it is unhealthy and can cause numerous problems such as heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. In light of this issue, Bittman proposed the idea of taxing unhealthy food and drinks while promoting vegetables. This plan could potentially kill six birds with one stone. The benefits would include less unhealthy food consumption, the decrease of diseases, and the decrease of public health costs. They would also include in making healthy food more available to the masses, the environment would improve, and it would save billions of dollars annually that could be raised for other places and activities. Americans should implement ideas from countries like Japan and Denmark to help with this problem.
Moss uses more real-life examples and understands how to appeal to readers to prove his point and figures out the perfect combination of ethos, pathos, and logos in the stories to build his case, a great example of this being Jeffrey Dunn’s story. Dunn worked as an executive for Coca-Cola in 2001 whose main goal was to drive Coca-Cola into poor areas and convince “heavy drinkers” of the soda to drink more. On a business trip to Brazil, Dunn realized that “these people need a lot of things, but they don’t need a Coke” and decided to push the company in a healthier direction. This choice led to Dunn’s eventual firing, and the tale ends with Dunn marketing baby carrots as a snack food (Moss, 491-494). This story not only appeals to pathos by getting to readers’ emotions, but also to ethos and logos because Dunn is a credible source and gives an authentic experience that adds to the credible feel of the article. Pollan’s article has a very different connotation than Moss’s article, and reads as an appeal to authority right from the start. Pollan’s primary occupation is described as an author of food and eating books, not food scientist, however, Pollan’s entire article is based off of his opinion of how Americans should eat (Pollan, 420). Pollan’s rules, “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” might be a fine setup for a fad diet, but these rules don’t necessarily provide a reasonable solution for America’s obesity problem. Escape from the Western Diet is littered with logical fallacies that stunt its credibility, such as the False Dichotomy, Begging the Question, and the Hasty Generalization. In Pollan’s quote, “people eating a Western diet are prone to a complex of chronic diseases that seldom strike people eating more traditional diets” (Pollan, 421), the Hasty Generalization fallacy is apparent, as not every person who eats a Western diet is prone to chronic diseases. The quote, “the health care industry...stands to
In her essay, “Food’s Class Warfare,” author Tracie McMillan promotes the inclusion of both “individual changes and structural ones” (217), particularly “class consciousness” (217), in the fight for quality diets in America. She reveals the most common sides of the healthy food debate as the inherent “just-buy-better stuff logic” (215) and the opposing “structural challenges of eating well” (215). The main strategies for defeating the American “obesity epidemic” (216) have been reaching out to the individual, as well as changing the structure of the American food system itself. The favorite concept for structuralists is “food deserts - neighborhoods with insufficient grocery stores and thus insufficient supplies of healthy food” (216). She deems the concept insufficient in practice, as it ignores smaller markets and equates large stores with a healthy food source. While the individual viewpoint and structuralists argue with each other, they share common ideals. According to
American health, specifically our obesity epidemic, has grown into a trending media topic. A quick Google search will bring up thousands of results containing a multitude of opinions and suggested solutions to our nation’s weight gain, authored by anyone ranging from expert food scientists to common, concerned citizens. Amongst the sea of public opinion on obesity, you can find two articles: Escape from the Western Diet by Michael Pollan and The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food by Michael Moss. Each article presents a different view on where the blame lies in this public health crisis and what we should do to amend the issue. Pollan’s attempt to provide an explanation pales in comparison to Moss’s reasonable discussion and viable
I am responding to the request to analyze Radley Balko’s article, “What You Eat Is Your Business” and make a recommendation for or against publication in The Shorthorn at University of Texas at Arlington. In order to respond, I have examined the rhetorical appeals of Balko’s piece and determined why this article should be posted in the next edition of The Shorthorn. I believe that the Shorthorn audience would be interested in what is being discussed regarding of obesity, things that could potentially affect their lifestyle as well as the professors. In “What You Eat Is Your Business”, Balko claims that obesity is the responsibility of the individual not the government, and how our government is allowing American to live an unhealthy lifestyle
Drenkard, S. (2010). Overreaching on Obesity: Governments Consider New Taxes on Soda and Candy. Retrieved from http://heartland.org
In “Don’t Blame the Eater”, by David Zinczenko and in “What You Eat is Your Business”, by Radley Balko both authors discuss and make their stance’s clear on their believed cause of obesity in America. On one hand, Zinczenko argues that it is not the consumers fault for putting themselves at risk of becoming obese or being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, but that it is the fast-food companies fault. While on the other hand, Balko argues that we as individuals hold responsibility on whether or not we are putting ourselves at risk for obesity.
Throughout the past years and more here recently obesity has become a fast growing problem in the United States and around the world. Since this has become such a problem certain authors are starting to take a stand in how they think the solution should be fixed. The solutions are discussed in the following articles: How Junk Food Can End Obesity by David H. Freedman and What You Eat Is Your Business by Radley Balko. Both articles have clear and distinct arguments, but the argument by Balko entices his readers and has a clear purpose and tone that allowed his article to be more effective.
In the article, “A Food Manifesto for the Future”, Mark Bittman makes his claim on how our American diet is unhealthy and unsafe towards our bodies and the environment as well. Within his piece, he includes multiple suggestions that could be implemented towards the foundation of a healthier, and safer diet. Within all these recommendations, Bittman states that, “When people cook their own food, they make better choices.” I decided to argue for this proposal, after personal experiences that I have had recently where I was able to see the difference between cooking at home, and eating out. Within Bittman’s piece, he states that we should, “encourage and subsidize home cooking”, which at first I did not understand how exactly our nation could subsidize home
Balko’s use of informative statistics makes the reader think about government’s role with obesity, and how much they should to do with it being solved. For example, President Bush put $200 million into his budget for anti-obesity measures, and some Senators, including Joe Lieberman, made the call for a “fat-tax” on high calorie foods. Although it appears these politicians and government officials are all trying to help society and this growing problem in America, many would agree they are just hurting the cause. I remember when I
2. Obesity dramatically increased in the 70’s due to a number of factors. After World War 2, lawmakers, big business and labor leaders, along with many ordinary Americans put mass consumption at the center of their plans for a successful post-war nation. The availability of frozen dinners and a variety and surplus of different foods skyrocketed. In 1977, the US dietary guidelines changed drastically, promoting our diets as mainly carbohydrate based. Over the years, the sizes of certain foods and our portions have blown up. Twenty years ago, an average bagel was 3 inches in diameter and only 140 calories. Today, the size of the average bagel has doubled, now 6 inches in diameter and over 350 calories. The health problems that stem from being overweight go way beyond the ones we usually hear about, like diabetes and heart disease. Being overweight can also affect a person's joints, breathing, sleep, mood, and energy levels. In the U.S. 68.5% of adults are overweight or obese, 34.9% falling under the obese category and 31.8% of children and adolescents are overweight or obese with 16.9% being obese (Overweight and Obesity in the U.S.). Figuratively and literarily, the obesity rate is a growing problem. The total economic cost of overweight and obese persons in the United States and Canada caused by medical costs, excess mortality and disability is approximately $300 billion per year. $80 billion of this portion is due to overweight, and approximately $220 billion is due to obesity. Approximately 90 percent of the total $300 billon comes from the United States. The Trust for America's Healt...
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), obesity now ranks as the 10th most important health problem in the world (“Obesity Seen as a Global Problem”). Childhood obesity has more than doubled in children and tripled in adolescents in the past 30 years. Centers for Disease Control and Protection estimates that obesity contributed to the deaths of 112,000 Americans in 2000 (“Obesity in the U.S. Fast”). It is estimated that annual medical care cost of obesity are as high as $147 billion (“Obesity in the U.S. Fast”). Government-provided food stamps are often expended on junk or fast food, because it tends to be less expensive than fresh or cook food. Governments fund producers of meat and dairy products to keep prices low. For now, governments are taking a smarter and more productive approach through regulation, and by working with manufacturers.