More handpicked essays just for you.
How to write an arguementative essay
Trends in health promotion
Solutions and strategies to deal with global warming
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In the argument “Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables” by Mark Bittman, it talks about taxing unhealthy food and promoting vegetables. With the use of different strategies like emotions, credible research, solutions to problems, and much more he effectively assures that a diet change is what Americans need and will benefit from.
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.
…show more content…
The author first elicits an emotional response in his argument to address the problem to the reader by stating that it was “SAD” (par.
1). This was an effective point because it immediately grabbed the reader’s attention. It also played on people’s natural, instinctive qualities to help those who are in need. It got readers to start thinking from the author’s point of view and could make them try to help him in any way they can. Another way he used an emotional response was by talking about “tax dollars” (par.17). This was well placed because many Americans think that they work too hard to have their hard-earned tax dollars go to waste. This also brought the readers closer to the author because they would not want that to happen, which is a typical fear of
Americans. Bittman researched a number of things associated with his topic, cited credible research, and cited experts’ opinions to help sway the audience to his side. He cited many famous places such as Yale, where Yale verified all the beverage facts he talked about throughout his article. His use of places like Yale, which is widely-known was a great asset that added ethos to his argument. This is because when a person hears Yale they instantly think that the information is correct and agree with it especially if they do not anything about the topic. He also cited the expert opinion of “Lisa Powell, a senior research scientist at the Institute for Health Research and Policy at the University of Illinois at Chicago” who talked about the benefits of the tax (par. 14). This added logos to the argument since a senior research scientist means they have had many years of study in their respected field. This means that they know a lot and their words can often be trusted. Bittman also supported his claim by offering solutions to the problem and making sure that no one would be affected in a bad way. He offered solutions such as “we could convert refrigerated soda machines to vending machines that dispense grapes and carrots” (par.28). This helped because he is thinking of different ideas and it seems to the reader that he is open-minded. It makes him seem ready to accept any idea as long as it could help the problem. He also mentioned that even though it might look like this plan could hurt lower income, it would actually help them. This is because Bittman stated,“right now it’s harder to for many people to buy fruit than Froot Loops” (par.11). This part of the argument shows that he is trying to help every American and that there is no one he would not want to help. The author used real life examples to help persuade the audience. His use of the real-life example of the "historic 1998 tobacco settlement" showed the past success of the government when they took action against health-related lawsuits. This achieved its aim by giving off a rally the troops like feel that would get many readers to stand up to the problem and not back away. One problem I noticed with this argument is that although Bittman speaks of ideas that have been implemented in different ways he doesn’t tell if any of them actually succeed. For example, he said that “Romania passed and then un-passed” a similar law like the one he is trying to implement (par.18). This could question whether his plan would actually work if it had to be un-passed. Another problem was that it did not seem as if he considered even if there was a tax on unhealthy food that people might not eat unhealthy food since it is cheap, but because it tastes good. In conclusion, Bittman clearly persuaded the people to agree with him. He did this through various strategies including, but not limited to citing credible research, offering solutions to a problem, and using real life examples. They each helped in making this article interesting to read.
While shopping at a local Trader Joe’s, Freedman spots a bag of peas, which have been breaded, deep-fried and then sprinkled with salt. Upon seeing this snack, he is in shock to know that this same store, which is known for their wholesome food, would sell such a thing. With a tone of exasperation, he admits that, “I can’t recall ever seeing anything at any fast-food restaurant that represents as big an obesogenic crime against the vegetable kingdom.” It was such an unexpected situation for him to come across this small snack that represented the opposite of what the wholesome-food movement is for. To settle his own confusion, he clarifies that, “…many of the foods served up and even glorified by the wholesome-food movement are themselves chock full of fat and problem carbs.” This further proves that just because a certain food is promoted by a health fad, it does not validate that it is genuinely better than fast-food itself. A simple cheeseburger and fries from any fast-food restaurant would more than likely contain less calories than a fancy salad from the next hole-in-the-wall cafe. Not only that, but the burger and fries will be tastier and much cheaper
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
A testimonial appeal stemming from the article, was taken up by Denmark, who, in 2011 said that “any foods high in saturated fat” were to be taxed, and this was passed into law. A secondary testimonial came from the United Nations, which declared that heart disease and “uncatchable” diseases, such as cancer, diabetes, etc. pose a greater risk now than ever before. Another testimonial taken from the text was this: “Western diet is now dominated by “low-cost, highly-proc...
When we think of our national health we wonder why Americans end up obese, heart disease filled, and diabetic. Michael Pollan’s “ Escape from the Western Diet” suggest that everything we eat has been processed some food to the point where most of could not tell what went into what we ate. Pollan thinks that if America thought more about our “Western diets” of constantly modified foods and begin to shift away from it to a more home grown of mostly plant based diet it could create a more pleasing eating culture. He calls for us to “Eat food, Not too much, Mostly plants.” However, Mary Maxfield’s “Food as Thought: Resisting the Moralization of Eating”, argues differently she has the point of view that people simply eat in the wrong amounts. She recommends for others to “Trust yourself. Trust your body. Meet your needs.” The skewed perception of eating will cause you all kinds of health issues, while not eating at all and going skinny will mean that you will remain healthy rather than be anorexic. Then, as Maxfield points out, “We hear go out and Cram your face with Twinkies!”(Maxfield 446) when all that was said was eating as much as you need.
Pollan believes that Americans rely on nutrition science, the study of individual nutrients like carbohydrates, fats, and antioxidants, to fix the Western diet because it is the best source that exists. However, scientists have developed conflicting theories that confuse people to conclude as to how the Western diet causes disease, such as heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. Pollan disagrees with any type theory and instead blames the food and health industries who take advantage of new theories but do not to fix the problem of the Western diet. In turn, not only does he suggest people spending more time and money on better food choices, but he also proposes many tips to eat better, as well as a rule that will allow Americans climb out of the Western diet: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants (Pollan,
In recent studies, it was discovered that most of the foods that Americans consumed are foods which had gone through so many processes and thereby losing most of its nutritional values. Unhealthy nutrients are also been added to foods as additive during production to either preserve flavor or enhance its taste and appearance. An individual cannot simply trust what he or she is consuming at a fast food restaurant or even a cheap prepared meal at a grocery store. Processed food or western diet needs to be replaced and totally taken out of the American life and diet; this will help the Americans to live a healthier life, and spend less on medical bills.
In addition, the author is sometimes being too forceful by telling the reader what to do. Since he uses such an emotional and forceful tone in the article, it is doubtful if Singer is successful at selling the audience on his point concerning this issue. He may have convinced many people to donate a particular amount of money for charity to poor countries, but his article is not effective enough to convince me. All human beings have the right to have luxury items even though many would argue that they are doing so at the expense of their morality.
There are also many people who have been in the armed forces who now find it difficult to live an everyday civilian life (The Passage). Awalt says we shouldn’t help the homeless because they are lazy and do not want our help. He provided us with an example of a man that he tried to give aid to. In the end Awalt determined that this man did not want his help. This was not very effective considering he only provided us with one example.
The essay Junking Junk Food written by Judith Warner, brings to the audiences attention the wicked problem of how there has been a decline in Americans health. Warner’s information speaks loudly about being forced into a healthy lifestyle by the Obama administration. The Obama administration tried to enforce a healthy lifestyle among the citizens by focusing on the youth and taking away sugar options for them. Warner, puts her voice into this by mentioning the system during the world war when the soldiers had to eat overseas so there was less food consumption in America, which helped stop over consumption of food. Back then food was also much healthier thought, with less hormones, chemicals and less options of fast food. Again making it easier
In the article, “The Pleasure of Eating” by Wendell Berry, Berry was right about the fact that there should be a “Food Politics”. This article talks about “eating responsibly” and “eating agriculturally”. If you haven’t heard of these terms, they vary in Berry’s article. So “Eating responsibly” and “Eating agriculturally” basically means that everyone is expected to see and know about what they are eating. Nonetheless, not all fruits and vegetables are healthy. You might need to spend some time to take a look at the brand, price, and the facts about the products. Imagine, if Berry came to your dinner table? How do you get or purchase your food? What will you serve him? If Berry were to show up to my dinner, the best
To begin, I support the author’s argument that people think they know what’s best for the homeless when they
For years, the United States government has been trying to find a way to lower the obesity in the country. However, the approach it is using, i.e. taxing unhealthy food, is not the most effective one. People are going to purchase whatever products they wish, whether the price is increased a few cents or not. Junk food options are already set at a more reasonable price than healthy foods, enticing people to buy these less expensive goods. Even though putting a tax on other products, such as tobacco, has served the intended purpose, food is a necessity humans must have for survival. Society is used to consuming foods they want, and will continue to do so. Putting a tax on unhealthy food will not necessarily lower the obesity rate because there are other factors that contribute to this problem. Moreover, taxing measures are usually intended for the collective benefit of society rather than the individual. They are usually perceived as another way the government uses to take money out of the citizens’ pockets. Ultimately, thinking that higher taxes on unhealthy foods will help curb down the obesity rate in the country would be similar to say that cost is the sole contributing factor to this public health problem. Imposing taxes will not help lower the consumption level because these foods will still have lower prices than healthier choices. Taxes do not impact the nutritional value of foods, and their only predictable effect is to help in generating additional revenue for the government.
"Though experts increasingly recommend a diet high in plants and low in animal products and processed foods, ours is quite the opposite, and there's little disagreement that change it could improve our health and save tens of millions of lives." What will help us change the way we eat? What speech or moving moment would change out children's minds on the foods we ingest.Mark Bittman brings up this vital question in his article "Bad food? Tax it, and subsidize vegetables. He suggests that we tax the " health-damaging food", he is a firm believe that doing his will turn people from these choices while pumping money into Americas economy.
The government must have a say in our diets. Because the issues of obesity have already reached national scales, because the costs of obesity and related health issues have gone far beyond reasonable limits, and because fighting nutritional issues is impossible without fighting poverty and other social issues, the government should control the range and the amount of available foods. The cost of healthier foods should decrease. The access to harmful foods should be limited. In this way, the government will be able to initiate a major shift in nutritional behaviors and attitudes in society.
Jamie Oliver’s lecture, “Teach every child about food” from 2010, opens up with the scary truth that Americans are putting upon themselves: “Diet-related disease is the biggest killer in the U.S.” It is said that the children of today will have a life span ten years shorter than their parents because of the food they are eating. Oliver continues by sharing the statistic that in ten years this country will be spending about $300 billion a year on obesity costs. Information like this is proving that money is being put towards all of the wrong things.