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.
He expresses the different myths about fast food, like how it is supposedly cheaper than real food when measured by the calories, 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 to his audience. I have to say that Bittman proved his argument’s effectiveness, for he clearly stated his thesis and provided various reliable sources that aided in proving his view’s legitimacy. He states that the alternatives to fast food don’t have to be grass-fed beef and organic veggies, but instead pretty much anything that’s healthier than junk.
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.
America’s obesity epidemic is a hot topic these days. Many people, experts or not, offer an opinion on the best solution to our nation’s weight gain, two of them being Michael Pollan and Michael Moss. Pollan and Moss present different opinions on the subject and offer solutions to the issue. Although Pollan’s article has good points, Moss’s article does a much better job of discussing obesity and providing a viable solution.
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
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
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
Goldstein, Hesh. Why There is an Obesity Epidemic. 16 Nov. 2009. 12 Nov. 2011 .
Brody, Jane E. “Attacking the Obesity Epidemic by First Figuring Out Its Cause.” New York Times. 12 September 2011. Print.
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.