What You Eat Is Your Business By Radley Balko Summary

In “What You Eat Is Your Business,” Radley Balko tackles the issue of who is responsible for fighting obesity. Balko argues that the controversy of obesity should make the individual consumers culpable for their own health and not the government (467). As health insurers refrain from increasing premiums for obese and overweight patients, there is a decrease in motivation to keep a healthy lifestyle (Balko 467). As a result, Balko claims these manipulations make the public accountable for everyone else's health rather than their own (467). Balko continues to discuss the ways to fix the issue such as insurance companies penalizing consumers who make unhealthy food choices and rewarding good ones (468). This forces the community to become responsible

for their own health instead of the government helping. Balko believes the government should not intervene and guide consumers choices since their personal responsibility and freedom is taken away (468). Although Balko is correct in saying that consumers should be responsible for themselves, because food companies manipulate consumers and restrict their personal responsibility, the government should set ethical guidelines for them to follow.
The personal responsibility of consumers is taken away when food companies unethically manipulate them through research.

By researching the wants and needs consumers, food companies have obtained several methods to manipulate them. In “The Supermarket: Prime Real Estate,” Marion Nestle explains that supermarkets hire social scientists to study the emotions and unconscious minds of consumers to help them promote their business (497-498). Researching is done in order to better understand their clients and execute the best methods to control them. Nestle explains that researchers constantly interview shoppers to get a better sense of what they like to shop for (498). When researchers get an insight into what customers are interested in they can incorporate that information into supermarkets themselves. When supermarkets offer memberships to customers and those customers receive benefits, supermarkets also benefit with information from the consumer. Through a membership, supermarkets are able to carefully record each customers’ buying habits (Nestle 498). As customers apply for a membership, they unknowingly help companies get a better idea of how to use the unconscious mind to promote their sales. However, supermarkets do inform the consumer on the use and purpose of a membership within the terms and conditions. Supermarkets also give the shopper the responsibility to choose whether they want a membership with the store or not. Although supermarkets do inform the consumer, they

lure in the customer with cheaper prices for membership holders. In Nestle’s essay, she gives an example of prices of Pepsi-Cola in a P&C Market; the two-liter bottles of Pepsi Cola were sold at $1.49 and the six pack of twenty-four ounces were valued at $3.00 which was a benefit only for members (503). While the six-pack of Pepsi Cola of eight ounces was valued at $2.25 it contained almost less than half of the volume than two-liter bottle and the six-pack special for members and is given at a higher price for less of the product (Nestle 503). Through these offers, the customer is compelled by supermarkets to get a membership in order to avoid having to pay higher prices for products. When this occurs the responsibility consumers have has been limited because supermarkets influence their choices.
Furthermore, the layout of products in the store is unethical since consumers personal choices are changed and influenced by the supermarket. Nestle explains that every supermarket follows fundamental tactics that are based on conducted research (499). These tactics limit the freedom of a customer when making a choice of food. For example, supermarkets place the highest selling foods in the back of the store, to make a customer walk past several more products (Nestle 499). By requiring customers to transverse greater lengths for essentials, supermarkets ensure customers are exposed to more products they may not need or are unhealthy. Additionally, the highest selling products are placed sixty inches from the ground where adults are clearly able to see them (Nestle 499). If products are at the eye level of the customer, it is the first thing they see and they will most likely buy it. Nestle states that supermarkets claim people exercise their own responsibility and freedom of choice when choosing their products (498). Customers do have their own choices to make when at the supermarket, but when those own choices are influenced, it reduces their own responsibility and freedom. Additionally, great efforts by researchers and supermarkets have been made to make customers favor one product over the other (Nestle 498). If stores are able to influence a consumer's’ choices then they have succeeded in controlling that customer. When companies are allowed to influence the choices that customers make it breaks ethical standards that don’t allow for a responsible choice.
Food companies interfere with personal responsibility by marketing through unethical standards.

Customers are faced with temptation by products every time they go to store. They decide whether to go with a cheaper price or a higher price for products that they need. By doing so, they are exhibiting their personal responsibility to make their own choices when purchasing products. Through these purchases, supermarkets in the U.S. profited $350 billion from food products in 2005 (Nestle 502). These profits favor the supermarkets greatly and allow them to continue selling products that appeal to consumers and increase their sales. Supermarkets are in business to boost their customers to buy more and never to buy less (Nestle 503). In Nestle's essay, a supermarket manager claimed that he does not force his customers to purchase Pepsi in larger quantities in his P&C Market since he also offers it in smaller quantities (503). Nestle provides a table that shows the prices for each Pepsi-Cola quantity available in the store. The table shows that it is cheaper to buy a larger quantity of Pepsi-Cola than to buy a smaller quantity that is almost double the cost. When buying a larger quantity, consumers are more likely to drink more of the Pepsi-Cola and take in more calories (Nestle 503). The manager responded by saying that if the customer desires smaller quantities they should be willing to pay more and it is not the store's problem (Nestle 503). However, when customers are

not able to afford a more expensive price they are more likely to buy the larger quantity. Which makes them take in more calories and increase their chances of continuing to buy the larger quantity for the cheaper and convenient price. By marketing through these methods, supermarkets cause consumers to make irresponsible choices.
Moreover, food industries have manipulated the food itself and advertised it through unethical methods, inhibiting consumers personal responsibility. The addictive food that is sold by supermarkets is made to appeal to the consumers’ taste and make them addicted to it. In Michael Moss’ “The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food,” he mentions that the potato chip is a snack that provides a feeling of pleasure as well as a rewarding sensation in the brain through its coating of salt and fat (490). Small details food companies put in the food make a difference in the taste, which tends to attract more consumers without them aware of how they are being addicted to the food. In food companies’ perspective, the engineering of food to add more flavor and attract more consumers has no issue since it is how companies make their profits. Stephen Sanger, head of General Mills and the Yoplait brand, was able to produce $500 million in revenue from a new dessert that originated from the yogurt since it maintains a nutritive image with consumers (Moss 475-476). However, the new modified dessert contained twice the amount of sugar than the original yogurt (Moss 475). In addition to the product being unhealthy, Stephen reportedly said in a meeting that people bought what tasted good and that he would continue to promote his business. Nevertheless, when adding more sugar or simply modifying the product to appeal the customer it makes it more addictive and more likely to be bought again. To continue manipulating the food without informing the customers that the product is now more addictive becomes a moral issue. The responsibility then lies with the companies to inform the consumer of such engineering in the food to allow them to make their own independent decision of purchasing a product.
Ethical guidelines provided by the government would allow for more responsible choices by the consumers. Supermarkets have been able to manipulate consumers’ choices through the information they have obtained from its customers. Their business is able to grow and attract profits, but do it through unethical methods. By manipulating store layouts and memberships, supermarkets have been able to greatly influence the choice that consumers make. When consumers are influenced by these manipulations they do not make appropriate choices of products to purchase. Companies do these manipulations to better their business and they do so since it is there job. Companies have no worries whether the personal responsibility of consumers is affected since consumers are the ones that choose to purchase the product. Food companies also influence consumers through the quantities it offers and the food itself. Through challenging choices of products set by supermarkets consumers have difficulty deciding if it's cost effective. Therefore, consumers make an irresponsible food choice when supermarkets influence the choices they are allowed to make. Influence of engineered food by companies is also unethical since they provide food that is unhealthy and addictive. Supermarkets and companies manipulate consumers to maximize their profits but do so in an unethical manner. The government should intervene in the issue as the marketing process food companies go through is unethical.